Those people have their hands out again.
You’d think by now they’d learn to plan ahead. But no, they’re just taking, taking, taking, expecting the American taxpayer to bail them out, to pay for their mistakes, to reward them for their lackadaisical attitudes.
I looked around for local reaction. It’s strange that the Taxpayer’s League hasn’t started complaining. Usually they’re all over government decisions like this. Also strangely silent have been members of Minnesota’s conservative blogosphere. But conservatives have been relatively silent about the millions and millions of taxpayer dollars that the federal government is handing over to those people.
more insideOf course, there’s a good reason for that. This time, “those people” are us. It was our own lack of foresight that led to disaster. It is our own poor planning that has led the federal government to funnel a quarter-billion dollars to us, to help us rebuild a bridge that, had we had a better process in place, may never have fallen in the first place.
Oh, I can already hear the conservatives howling in protest that this is “different.” When a poor family’s sole breadwinner gets cancer and can’t afford health care, that’s his own lack of planning and saving, but when one of the most affluent states in the union has a bridge inspection process that misses a bridge literally so damaged that it falls into the Mississippi, not because of weather or earthquake, but gravity, that’s a disaster that we couldn’t foresee. When New Orleans is all but destroyed in a hurricane, it’s the city’s fault that they only got 95 percent of the people out, and who are those people to expect the federal government to get aid there quickly? When it’s our bridge that falls, we hope for government action within three days, to allow us to rebuild as quickly as possible. When a middle-class family loses its home due to a predatory mortgage, or a factory worker loses his job because it’s been shipped overseas, or an average family can’t afford to send a child to college because of skyrocketing tuition, these people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
When our bridge falls, we’ve got our hand out. Immediately.
Now, I don’t think it’s a bad thing that the federal government decided to help us rebuild the 35W Mississippi River Bridge. Indeed, that’s part of what the federal government is there for — to help when states need help, when they deal with emergencies, even with ones that with more state spending and focus might have been prevented. And I’d say the same thing if a bridge collapsed in Birmingham or Los Angeles or Salt Lake City or Providence.
But if it was another state facing disaster, or worse, just a family, those on the right side of the aisle here would be singing quite a different tune then they are now. They’d be explaining why we’re just encouraging risk, why we’re rewarding bad behavior, why we’re having to support those people again and again and again, and why we shouldn’t anymore.
It’s the difference in attitude. My fellow liberals and I believe that there are times when the government should help people who can’t help themselves, whether that aid is to help dig out from a disaster on the scale of New Orleans or a disaster on the scale of a woman losing her job and wondering how she and her husband are going to feed their three kids. We believe that those people are us, and that we need to help each other.
Conservatives, contra wise, believe that people should be able to do for themselves, and if those people fail, that’s just their tough luck. Unless those people happen to be us. Then, we’re owed help. After all, we’re different than they are. The conservatives believe that we deserve it, even when those people don’t.













10 Comments »
Comment posted August 6, 2007 @ 10:55 am
“or a factory worker loses his job because it’s been shipped overseas” Who passed NAFTA again?
Comment posted August 6, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
You’re operating under a caricatured understanding of conservatives Which means you’re making these weighty moral pronouncements about a caricature, not reality. I’m sure it feels good, in a way. But withering prose targeted against a non-existent target is not destined to live down through the ages.
You’re don’t actually believe, do you, that conservatives were and are opposed to helping New Orleans, in any way whatsoever? Or more mundanely, that conservatives oppose any help for anyone in any unfortunate circumstance?
If you really do believe those things, you have some reading to do.
Comment posted August 7, 2007 @ 7:57 am
Balderdash When a particular catastrophe strikes, I’d agree that all people rise to the occasion and want to help. But on a larger policy scale, conservative ideology is exactly as Jeff has stated it.
The point is that we shouldn’t wait for the “unfortunate circumstance” to befall individuals and states. The fallout is greater and the cost higher.
Comment posted August 7, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
Here’s what I mean by “caricature” Jeff Fecke:
“Conservatives, contra wise, believe that people should be able to do for themselves, and if those people fail, that’s just their tough luck.”
That’s not what conservatives believe.
On an individual level, they do believe that society works best when people are expected and expect themselves to do “do for themselves.” They believe, as one way of perceiving it, that freedom is about responsibilities as well as about rights. Or a slight alternate – freedom is a responsibility, and not just a right.
But conservatives do not remotely believe that any person failing should get no help – which is my interpretation of “tough luck,” as Jeff puts it.
They believe there can be too much help. They believe that help should be directed at helping someone no longer to need it. They believe that a startling amount of personal misfortune is actually, when traced back, a result of bad decisions; but by and large that doesn’t mean those people don’t deserve help, although it does underscore conservative reasons for being somewhat parsimonious about it. And, they most definitely do not believe that government is inherently the best or most legitimate way to respond, for a host of reasons having to do with the soul aspects of generosity and the difficult-to-deny eagerness of government to perpetuate itself.
That line is the point at which Jeff becomes (I’d assume) unable to actually debate conservatives, if he really believes what he says. If I agreed that conservatives were literally that heartless, I too would be consumed by a desire to reveal their darkness – which seems to be the main motivation lurking behind so many liberals’ language and arguments on these matters.
Addressing points is a charade, so often, and it must be because of this lurking idea about the moral hollowness of the conservative view of human relationships.
JF:
“Unless those people happen to be us. Then, we’re owed help. After all, we’re different than they are. The conservatives believe that we deserve it, even when those people don’t.”
His argument jumps topics, mid-paragraph, from what seems to be about the individual level, to this point that seems to be about a collective kind of misfortune, like the bridge.
Assuming that’s what he’s talking about, the idea that conservatives in Minnesota or anywhere are nearly all opposed to a formal kind of collective aid response to New Orleans or other such disasters is simply bizarre.
The most you can say is that conservatives are more willing to ask hard questions (as they see it) regarding whether the money will actually do any good, or may end up simply rebuilding something that is just waiting to once again be destroyed. To me, it’s not an inherently ignoble endeavor to ask such questions – far from it. But to a liberal who believes as Jeff reveals he does above, those questions would be received – along with everything else they say – as disguise for heartlessness.
Comment posted August 8, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
conservative ideology “conservatives do not remotely believe that any person failing should get no help”
As long as that help is from the private sector.
Conservatives indulge in their own liberal caricatures. Liberals are just “bleeding hearts” willing to give anybody money without expecting them to do anything for themselves. Liberals want to keep giving people money even when they no longer need it. Liberals believe government should do everything.
Liberals do not look for simplistic answers to complex problems. And Liberals do believe that government has a role. We can debate what that role is but there are just as many conservatives who will dismiss that view without giving it fair consideration. Reagan helped formulate that conservative ideology with his view that government is the problem.
“The most you can say is that conservatives are more willing to ask hard questions (as they see it)”
And that is your own caricature at work.– liberals aren’t willing to ask hard questions. Balderdash again.
Comment posted August 6, 2007 @ 5:55 am
“or a factory worker loses his job because it's been shipped overseas” Who passed NAFTA again?
Comment posted August 6, 2007 @ 11:07 am
You're operating under a caricatured understanding of conservatives Which means you're making these weighty moral pronouncements about a caricature, not reality. I'm sure it feels good, in a way. But withering prose targeted against a non-existent target is not destined to live down through the ages.
You're don't actually believe, do you, that conservatives were and are opposed to helping New Orleans, in any way whatsoever? Or more mundanely, that conservatives oppose any help for anyone in any unfortunate circumstance?
If you really do believe those things, you have some reading to do.
Comment posted August 7, 2007 @ 2:57 am
Balderdash When a particular catastrophe strikes, I'd agree that all people rise to the occasion and want to help. But on a larger policy scale, conservative ideology is exactly as Jeff has stated it.
The point is that we shouldn't wait for the “unfortunate circumstance” to befall individuals and states. The fallout is greater and the cost higher.
Comment posted August 7, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Here's what I mean by “caricature” Jeff Fecke:
“Conservatives, contra wise, believe that people should be able to do for themselves, and if those people fail, that's just their tough luck.”
That's not what conservatives believe.
On an individual level, they do believe that society works best when people are expected and expect themselves to do “do for themselves.” They believe, as one way of perceiving it, that freedom is about responsibilities as well as about rights. Or a slight alternate – freedom is a responsibility, and not just a right.
But conservatives do not remotely believe that any person failing should get no help – which is my interpretation of “tough luck,” as Jeff puts it.
They believe there can be too much help. They believe that help should be directed at helping someone no longer to need it. They believe that a startling amount of personal misfortune is actually, when traced back, a result of bad decisions; but by and large that doesn't mean those people don't deserve help, although it does underscore conservative reasons for being somewhat parsimonious about it. And, they most definitely do not believe that government is inherently the best or most legitimate way to respond, for a host of reasons having to do with the soul aspects of generosity and the difficult-to-deny eagerness of government to perpetuate itself.
That line is the point at which Jeff becomes (I'd assume) unable to actually debate conservatives, if he really believes what he says. If I agreed that conservatives were literally that heartless, I too would be consumed by a desire to reveal their darkness – which seems to be the main motivation lurking behind so many liberals' language and arguments on these matters.
Addressing points is a charade, so often, and it must be because of this lurking idea about the moral hollowness of the conservative view of human relationships.
JF:
“Unless those people happen to be us. Then, we're owed help. After all, we're different than they are. The conservatives believe that we deserve it, even when those people don't.”
His argument jumps topics, mid-paragraph, from what seems to be about the individual level, to this point that seems to be about a collective kind of misfortune, like the bridge.
Assuming that's what he's talking about, the idea that conservatives in Minnesota or anywhere are nearly all opposed to a formal kind of collective aid response to New Orleans or other such disasters is simply bizarre.
The most you can say is that conservatives are more willing to ask hard questions (as they see it) regarding whether the money will actually do any good, or may end up simply rebuilding something that is just waiting to once again be destroyed. To me, it's not an inherently ignoble endeavor to ask such questions – far from it. But to a liberal who believes as Jeff reveals he does above, those questions would be received – along with everything else they say – as disguise for heartlessness.
Comment posted August 8, 2007 @ 11:39 am
conservative ideology “conservatives do not remotely believe that any person failing should get no help”
As long as that help is from the private sector.
Conservatives indulge in their own liberal caricatures. Liberals are just “bleeding hearts” willing to give anybody money without expecting them to do anything for themselves. Liberals want to keep giving people money even when they no longer need it. Liberals believe government should do everything.
Liberals do not look for simplistic answers to complex problems. And Liberals do believe that government has a role. We can debate what that role is but there are just as many conservatives who will dismiss that view without giving it fair consideration. Reagan helped formulate that conservative ideology with his view that government is the problem.
“The most you can say is that conservatives are more willing to ask hard questions (as they see it)”
And that is your own caricature at work.– liberals aren't willing to ask hard questions. Balderdash again.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment