Conservatives have historically argued against progressive policies on a variety of fronts: the unintended consequences of change, the primacy of the individual over government, the dangers of a growing bureaucracy (or more generically, "big government"), the importance of traditional values and local control, the worry of people growing too dependent on government, etc. With increasing vehemence, though, conservatives have begun to argue that kind-heartedness, compassion, and a sense of community are actually evil: that they lead inevitably to Nazism and death camps.
Political debate has always been hot and heavy in this country, with conservatives swinging hard and heavy and making some pretty wild claims: the pro-British Tories in the 1770s decried the "rats of democracy"; the pro-slavery Southern planters in the first half of the 1800s said that slaves were better off than if they were free; the Social Darwinists said society would be better off if the poor were allowed to starve to death, because their death would improve the gene pool. But the compassion-equals-evil argument didn't really get laid out in detail until Ayn Rand's writings, where she actually did argue that people with compassion and concern for others were leeches who drained society of its competitive life blood.
Just as Ayn Rand took the Social Darwinist argument and made it more virulent, the conservative author Jonah Goldberg brought a new, more extreme twist to the argument, literally saying that progressives like FDR were ideological soul mates of Hitler and Mussolini's brand of fascism. This easily debunked book has become the right's excuse for accusing everyone arguing for progressive causes of being a Nazi.
Glenn Beck is, of course, the present day leader of the pack when it comes to this kind of invective. Here's his latest insight on the subject:
This follows an earlier episode (that I wrote about here) where he essentially said that because Nazis and Communists used the words social justice, any churches that use those words are also Nazis and Communists.
The kind of people that Rand, Goldberg, and Beck are attacking -- progressives -- believe that our economy works better from the bottom-up, that making investments in jobs and education for poor and middle class folks is better for the economy than giving more tax breaks to the wealthy. Progressives believe that giving people some economic security and a hand up in tough times is what a decent society ought to do for its citizens. They believe that paying everyone a living wage, making sure everyone has a good education and decent health care coverage, builds a better, more productive society. Suggesting that these kinds of views lead inexorably toward Nazi death camps isn't just offensive: it goes against the fundamental cornerstone values of our culture and history. Declaring people who work for kindness and compassion as "leeches" on society twists morality into a pretzel.
This kind of distorted thinking is not only mind-bendingly wrong; it also leads conservatives into truly bizarre policy directions. For example, check out this quote from conservative economist and former Bush administration official Robert Stein:
"Once a country adopts an old-age pension system, it creates an implicit bias against having children. One of the natural reasons for raising children is not just because you like kids, but to take care of yourself in old-age. Once a country gives everybody access to everyone else's kid's money, it undermines the natural economic incentive to raise kids"
Only in Ayn Rand's selfishness-is-everything fantasy world would someone decide not to have kids because of that $400 a month Social Security check they will be getting someday. Can you imagine a couple sitting around having this conversation?
"Well, honey, I don't like kids very well, but we'll need someone to take care of us when we're old"
"But, darling, we don't have to worry about that because we'll be sponging off the government teat with all that Social Security cash rolling in"
"Great, dear, I guess I won't be throwing away those prophylactics after all"
So let me reassure my conservative friends: the fact that I care about keeping you from starving, freezing to death, and dying due to lack of good medical care does not mean that I eventually want to send you to a death camp. Although I do worry about your sanity a little.
Cross-posted at my home blog, OpenLeft.com, where you can read all of my writing.
Very well said Mike - great piece.
Nope. Conservatives argue that the disengenuous, hypocritical use of emotional appeals to kind-heartedness that Liberals use to acquire power (what happened to the anti-war protests? The only people left opposing Afganistan are Libertarians) lead to those things.
And I hate talking in generalities, but since you started it.... It was the disengenuous, hypcritical use emotional appeals to GOD and JESUS and PATIROTISM and RESPECT for our PRESIDENT Republicans used to hoodwink the nation and acquire power for 8 years of disaster and death. Look, I'll grant that some conservatives may be Christians, patiotic and actually respectiful and may have some good ideas, if y'all will admit that some Liberals may be genuinely caring, altruistic and may have some good ideas.
Republicans donate more of THEIR OWN money to charity than Democrats by far.
http://blog.fortiusone.com/2009/01/07/dataset-of-the-day-who-is-more-generous-republicans-or-democrats/
http://conservative-thinker.com/blog/images/charitable_donations.jpg
Susan Pease Banitt, LCSW
Good for you. I am a libertarian--far from a "progessive"--and I would agree generally with that statement. I have different political opinions, but agree on a moral one.
The problem is not with the decency or support, it is that for libertarians it is never acceptable to use the government to enact moral positions. One can say that it is preferable to help those who are without (for whatever reason they come to that conclusion). The issue would only be if that position can be enforced by law in a way that does not affect the rights of another person.
It is hard to respect rights when the government begins to make moral positions. Even good ones. I am not referring to Talibanist oppressive morality. I mean things that people would generally agree with. Healthcare services (not access) and education. Even I would generally say that those are good things and people should have them. Would it be sustainable? Hells no. Social security is a short time away from wanting its money. The government is already in debt without providing the other services. So it would need to take in more to do it. But even that does not happen. Instead there is borrowing with no real plan to repayment, besides having kids and hoping that they can sort it out.
In other words, if a restaurant owner wants to install whites-only drinking fountains and lunch counters, it is never acceptable for the government to step in and stop them from doing so, right?
Correct. That would be an example of "positive law". Positive law attempts to force people to do the right thing with their own lives and property. Negative law attempts to force people to not do the wrong thing with other people's lives and liberty. Negative law attempts to negate a wrong. Positive law only "works" by some freak flukechance, i.e. the drug addict who actually gets better after some prison time, and the side affects and unintended consequences are monstrous. Negative law works to a much greater extent, the exact limit determined by the character of those enforcing it.
It sort of works. Though it went the opposite way. Instead of people not have kids due to a lack of support, children have left their parents to the dole after taking what they could from the estate. Now children see government support as a way of not dealing with an ageing parent.
I know of many a people, including relatives, that are working diligently now to get as much as they can out before they drop off mom or dad on medicaid's door. No one wants the burden of an old person to fall upon them or their potential inheritance.
There is selfishness, only it went the other way. People do not consider their own support in their final years when it comes to having childrens. The children do not concern themselves with the support either as there is a system that is set up to take care of that and they are not on the hook for the bill.
It's impossible for us to remember the horrors of the world before Social Security, but it was horrible.
People are still being driven to be broke or bankrupt for that same reason - with the "help" of SS. It makes us all dependent upon the politicians and bureaucrats in our helpless years.
"It's impossible for us to remember the horrors of the world before Social Security, but it was horrible. "
The program was originally conceived of by a person who saw old people eating from the garbage. The same sight can still be witnessed. SS is a failure.
Govt. must steal from someone who produced wealth, in order to provide any services to anyone. This prevents capital from pooling for use in productive endeavors, and inhibits job creation. Jobs represent opportunities for those who are down on their luck.
Sweeping those in need under the rug of government anesthetizes society as to their plight. Individuals are far better suited to the task of compassion, and can effect longer term benefits than some govt program. Many educational, and arts institutions would not exist without their efforts.
Unfortunately the author fails at the math. Beyond Ayn Rand, whose characters often displayed compassion when acting in their own self-interests, there is a math problem. Math is...and it is, dispassionately.
Just think, a wonderful cut throat society that poisons it's citizens, exploits adult and child labor, executes more citizens for petty crime and political protest than any other nation. Yes, yes, we need more of this so we can compete in the new economy.
Just think, a wonderful cut throat society that poisons it's citizens, exploits adult and child labor, executes more citizens for petty crime and political protest than any other nation. ... "
Interesting theory since Ayn Rand said
"In a fully free society, taxation\u2014or, to be exact, payment for governmental services\u2014would be voluntary. ...
The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing\u2014how to determine the best means of applying it in practice\u2014is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today\u2014since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions.
\u201cGovernment Financing in a Free Society,\u201d The Virtue of Selfishness, 116."
China doesn't have a fully free society, it has non-voluntary taxation and quite a bit of it, they don't have voluntary government financing, and the government is most certainly not reduced to its proper, basic functions, as witnessed by your statements reflecting the situation there today.
Why would Ayn Rand praise the antithesis of her philosophy?
But as an independent, moderate, swing-voting, veteran, I respect your post.
I offer some observations.
The conservatives have been taken over by extremism. Extremism clouds pragmatic judgment. I believe that the extreme left can sometimes be out of control, but there is truly no proof offered by conservatives that their ideology inherently flawed and self-serving.
Compassion is human and those who lack compassion laughable at best and despised at worst and that's despite all efforts at compassion to those without.
Don't you think it's about time for conservatives to grow up?
Stop listening to beck, limbaugh and palin. There just in it for themselves.
There will be many reasons to limit healthcare for the very sick. Government will be under enormous pressure to save costs. America has squandered it's social security funds and the link between health care for the elderly and the cost of social security is obvious. You don't need to have "death camps' all you have to do is stop funding cancer research and many of the elderly die faster.
Progressives can have all the high minded ideals they want, but the government bureacrats will take the control you have given them and destroy this country.
At least we know what lax government regulations in off-shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
Disaster.
In the case of health care I would have preferred more regulation of the existing structure, opening up insurance competition across state lines and forcing insurance companies to act in good faith.
Look at Pemex.
Too bad the views of your bosses don't correspond with yours.
"Just because we want to keep the bullies on the playground from grabbing the smaller kid's lunch money doesn't mean we want to determine what game everyone is playing or make up all the rules other than don't take other's lunch money and don't hurt others just because you can."
The government is the biggest bully around, on the whole planet...and is the biggest bully in all of history. I'm one of the little kids.
"And as far as destroying the country, it isn't our Federal power grid that broke the Gulf now is it?"
The corporation and government involved there have a long history of being in bed together. I read in one article that the government was there that day to rubber stamp inspect the rig.
No, it was government distorting the market that broke the Gulf.
So does every person who donates to charity, progressive or conservative. Progressives do not say that people should give people a hand up, rather the say government should give people a hand up.
“They believe that paying everyone a living wage, …â€
Who should pay? The labor cost of every good and service is directly incorporated into the price of that good or service. Putting a floor on labor costs decreases total employment and increases the black market for labor.
“… making sure everyone has a good education …â€
Why isn’t the focus on creating a better model for primary education? Link me one progressive solution that does not include public employee unions.
“… and decent health care coverage …â€
Then why the bill that was passed that does nothing to improve the quality or cost of health care. The bill is about building a bigger bureaucracy and more government involvement in the process so that future blunt tools like price controls (see Mass.) can be used.
Saying every conservative is extreme but every progressive is moderate makes your arguments unbelievable. How about we agree that the progressives who want 90% tax rates are as loony as conservatives who think we each stand alone.
Wait, you are opposed to a minimum wage? So slave labor, I suppose, is okay? I mean, people already don't get paid enough to survive as it is. The top 100 CEO's make ~1500x more than their average employee. That isn't right. They shouldn't be making that much more. Oh, and it was 47x what their average employee made 40 years ago. They can afford to pay their employees more. The problem isn't the cost of labor, the problem is the people at the top riding on the backs of wage slaves and taking all the profit for themselves.
I'm opposed to the minimum wage. Keeps me from hiring people who want a job. Slave labor is not okay as it's a crime.
"I mean, people already don't get paid enough to survive as it is."
People in the richest country in the history of civilization who have more necessities, luxuries, and toys, and crap, than anyone else ever, don't get paid enough to survive?
"The top 100 CEO's make ~1500x more than their average employee. That isn't right. They shouldn't be making that much more. Oh, and it was 47x what their average employee made 40 years ago."
During the last 40 years there has been a huge growth in government. There's been a huge increase in taxation. There's been a huge growth in CEO salaries. Hmmm. Any relation? I sure think so.
"They can afford to pay their employees more. The problem isn't the cost of labor, the problem is the people at the top riding on the backs of wage slaves and taking all the profit for themselves."
That's what happens in government created, designed, and managed corporations.