« Why Maureen Dowd Finds George W. Bush Not Sexy And David Brooks Very Sexy | Main | As American As Apple Pie »

October 13, 2009

Comments

Fear and Loathing in Georgetown

Why are they clapping during Reich's speech? It's odd that people are clapping that people will simply have to die because end of life care is too expensive. Odd to clap at the idea that innovation will be stifled.

Maybe it's for the honesty of his comments? Weird nevertheless.

George Pal

Love the video at the end. Well, not so much the video but the coup de grâce.

Crackie

Mrs. P: Well, it's a mess ain't it Crackie?
Crackie: If it ain't it'll do till the mess gets here.

Mrs. Peperium

FLG, why do they clap? Why did David Letterman's audience clap?

George, thanks.

Crackie, a little more than a year ago Obama said the evening he clinched his nomination, "I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick … this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal …"

The Weather Channel should be forecasting for and Las Vegas ought to be making book on tidal waves to be hitting the prime waterfront real estate up and down the East Coast midway through the 3rd year of Obama 'cuz that will be when the mess gets here...

Of course it goes without saying that we provided for our sick long before Obama's mental illness had set so firmly in his brain. Heck, his ancestors that came across on the Mayflower learned new tricks on how to care for their sick from the Indians.

Mrs. Peperium

FLG, this oddly -if you think about it- might be an answer to your question as to why did they clap? Clapping for one form of compassion. Read on to understand.


The Mind Of A Socialist, The Heart Of Compassion
By: Melissa Clouthier

There are two kinds of socialists: The one who believes he can't make it on his own and the one who agrees that most people can't make it on their own. Both have a pernicious lack of faith in mankind. Both believe the only way to deal with a failed nature is to try to control it by someone who has a better nature.

Leaders like Barack Obama are imbued with god-like magnificence because so much power is being ceded to a statist leader. The socialist must believe that the leader has power, intellect, skills, and general wonderfulness that either reflects his own character. Or, more likely, those traits are what they believe they'll never be capable of themselves. The good people who run the government will make up for all they lack.

This last week I met a very out and very proud socialist. I responded to him simply, "You're a socialist because you've never made money and had to give it away to the government." He couldn't argue.

Upon reflection, I'm not sure that making money will change him much. He could make money. He could then lose it. It could all be taken away. Then what? Fundamentally, he worried about taking care of himself. He wanted a security blanket. It seemed barbaric that people don't have a sure thing in case the economy falls apart, someone gets sick, etc.

Socialism is compassionate.

If socialism is state-sponsored compassion, what is conservatism? In the binary political world, the default is that a small-government mindset is cruel. This political duality was turned on its ear by George W. Bush's campaigning and governing as a "compassionate conservative." A compassionate conservative, it turns out, buys into the liberal's criticism. Compassion meant the government "helping". Compassion meant giving the American taxpayer's money to the needy all over the world. Compassion meant going into debt in order to feel good.

The premise stinks to high heaven.

Let's examine the beliefs for a minute.

1. Smart people will save us. | After years of watching the government mess up nearly everything it touches, it seems absurd to even have this discussion yet liberals will tell you with childlike sincerity that government programs are the answer. Logical responses like "what about public housing?", "what about the DMV?", "what about the post office" receive doe-eyed defenses of said programs. Smart people might have good ideas, but the practical application tends to stink. Liberals don't look at the results, they glory in the ideas. They also believe that the problem was that the smart ideas just need to be implemented better next time.

2. People won't receive help if there is no government help. | As governments become the major charitable institution, community is broken down. Let's use natural disasters as an example. In every case, neighbor helps neighbor. During the hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, the churches, the big ones, had the structure, staff (lots of unpaid volunteers) and mission in place to reach the community. Better yet, the volunteer workers cost the taxpayer nothing. Better yet, the workers weren't drones punching a clock. They were loving, care-taking helpers. Here's something compassionate about the free market, too. With all the trees down, men with stump grinders and saws descended on the area giving incredibly competitive bids. Costs were driven down because there were so many workers. The best part? Everyone benefited. The workers rolled in plentiful jobs. The consumers could be choosy about contractors. Word spreads quickly. Bad workers got a reputation and lost business. Now, when people rely on the government for help, there is little motive to "do good". The government worker gets paid no matter what. Also, when they do work, it's for the pay check, not the love of mission, not the love of self.

3. Government help is compassion. | Three generations of dependents later, government help looks a lot like state-sponsored slavery. People are trapped by a life that's livable but not great. Wasted potential and a life defined by fear--of crime, of not making it, of perpetual failure--makes for pent up anger or utter depression. None of these results seem compassionate, even if the motive is to help.

A friend from Denmark expressed horror that there were poor people in America. Some city streets are dirty! How can this be? You're a super power. Meanwhile, he complained about the gentle sentencing of hardened criminals and the taxation and impotence in Denmark. Well, these things go together.

When people choose, they can choose poorly. They can also choose incredibly well. A life hemmed in by guarantees of survival is a life deprived of the potential for success. Too often, government compassion ends up being a noose. When charities get involved there is a personal stake in the success or failure of an individual. A shriveled soul, a wasted life that is fed and housed is not enough.

The government will never, is simply not equipped to, be the way a person is freed from the shackles of a dysfunctional life. The government can only function in the defensive. That is, a government program can help a person to not starve or to not be exposed to the elements. Soul-feeding, the only proven method of freeing the human spirit cannot be engineered by the government. Conservatives understand this.

Compassion extends from heart to heart. There is no other way. Government has many purposes, but the care and comfort of the soul is not one of them. Let people choose their own destinies. By making the connection between their own choice and their own results they demonstrate their power.

It's time to give back power to the people. That's compassion.

Old Dominion Tory

They clapped because they agree with the "bog standard" communitarian approach that Reich espouses--in the abstract, of course. As soon as it comes down to cases, when a parent or child is denied a treatment that could improve his or life or, indeed, save it, then, they'll begin to wonder just who it was that imposed this cruel system on them and demand it be changed.

Mrs. Peperium

The worse bit ODT, is that no one seems to understand or has conveniently forgotten, when an insurance company messes up you can seek real redress in the courts.

When the government messes up -like it almost always does- you can't sue it as IT'S AGAINST THE LAW.

Old Dominion Tory

More than that, Mrs. Peperium; if you become too bothersome to the government, the law will be used against you.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

It Goes Without Saying

  • All original material published here is the property of the writer who penned it. Stealing is not only frowned upon but will be dealt with by strong-armed men trained in the art of legal jujitsu. The views put forth here are not the views of any employer we know which is most unfortunate.
Blog powered by Typepad