It's Their Money

Yesterday in a Comment, contributor Ken W. wrote,

Collecting signatures for Washington State's counter to Citizens United, our own initiative, I-1329, I met a young man, I'd guess about 23, who wanted to set me straight. He described himself as a libertarian, told me that everyone had the right to spend his money the way he wished, that the word liberal was purloined from the good, right-thinking people of his own persuasion and said that the current Democrats were in fact Communists. Signature gathering is not a time to engage.

While I agree that a signature-gatherer doesn't have time to argue with every loon who disagrees with his purpose, there are often short, nonconfrontational answers to the usual right-wing bullshit.

So let's address the young man's main objection to Ken's effort: that "everyone has the right to spend his money the way he wishes."

Short response:

(1). To get the little fucker on your side, you agree with him. Up to a point. "Well, yes, you're right. At least for most people."

(2) Appeal to his self-interest & vanity. "But don't you think the government should treat you as well as it treats super-rich people? In a democracy, you're as good as they are. But you sure as hell are not getting equal treatment today."

(3) Wrap up. "That isn't fair. It violates the bedrock principles of American democracy. And it violates your rights as an American." (Whip out tiny American flag & wave it vigorously.)

Longer response:

Explain that the rich are not just buying access to politicians with their campaign contributions.  They're buying the politicians themselves. They're buying the people who write the laws that govern us all. The politicians who get big contributions from the rich are passing the laws those rich contributors want them to pass. They're passing laws that specifically benefit the rich -- at the expense of the rest of us. The rich are making themselves richer -- and they're making you poorer.

"Think about it," you say. "Suppose you write a check to your favorite candidate -- for whatever you can afford -- say, $100. Do you think your $100 would buy you a law that specifically profited you? Of course not. But that's what happens when rich people get to corrupt the system by financing politicians. They get special favors -- big favors that hurt the rest of us. That's why I'm supporting this initiative -- that's why everyone who believes he too should get a fair shake will want to support it. This initiative isn't Democratic with a big 'D.' It's Democratic with a small 'd.' It's American." (Flag.)

If he gives you the line about how we're not really "created equal," again you can agree. Up to a point. "Sure, you & I might not be able to buy all the Rolls & Rolexes the rich can. And that's all right. Maybe we didn't inherit as much as they did. We didn't make as much money as they did, however they made it. But there's a big difference between some people having more to spend & some people getting a better shake from the government. We expect people to have unequal wealth. That's cool. But we all deserve equal protection under the law. It's in the Constitution. And we won't get it as long as the rich are writing the laws, as they can & do today. It's not fair. It's anti-American. (Flag.)

This is all pretty simplistic, but not any more simplistic than that stupid kid's stupid "political philosophy." I find that most people who preach the stock right-wing talking points '-- i. e., "it's their money" -- have never thought past the Fox-supplied talking points.

A few days ago a young man told me that he thought everyone who "gets welfare" should have to pass a drug test. I said that "sounded sensible," but it wasn't always that easy. "Are you going to deny food or medical care to the children of a mother who flunks the pee test?" Uh, well, no. Sometimes that's all it takes. I have these little Setting Strangers Straight sessions quite often without noticeably pissing off the other party.

Comments

[Akhilleus]

More bumper sticker polticking. Just as Marie's stranger, he of the "deny government assistance if they don't pass my arbitrary standards" mentality has never clearly thought through the consequences of his would-be diktat, neither has the self-proclaimed libertarian of Ken's acquaintance, he of the "free to spend their own money" persuasion, which is no more instructive or enlightening than someone proclaiming that "it's good to be alive" or "Chocolate is great, isn't it?"

Because (and I'm not even getting into the whole Citizens United cluster here yet) if by saying that everyone is free to spend their own money, including any that might be redistributed via taxes to things like public works, education, good roads, the FDA, the National Weather Service, and national defense, I would be inclined to ask that young chap just how he would get along without all of those things. Oh, it's a very nice sentiment. A bit juvenile and seriously underthought, but wonderful. Until you think about it.

But if, in fact, you reduced the government to the minimal "night watchman state" beloved by so many libertarian theorists (you see, theory is all they have; there has never been a full blown libertarian country in the history of the world, and there's a good reason for that) who then would pay for the reduced police force necessary to maintain some order? Would there be any roads? Any streetlights? Who would pay for those things? A coalition of local "libertarians"? Well then, I guess you aren't able to spend ALL your own money after all, are you?

That small police force certainly would never be well enough supplied to move against any well organized, funded, and armed groups who might want to take advantage of the fact that the minimal laws and rules and government capabilities of a true libertarian state are an invitation to rule by warlord (see: Somalia). The answer, for the true believers, of course, is to run back to the logical fallacy known as "No true Scotsman". In other words, that couldn't be "libertarianism" because no true libertarian would act that way. So, what, you're saying that libertarians aren't human? That there would never, ever, ever, be an impulse by one of them to take advantage of the situation and lord it over everyone else? How's the weather up there in the clouds?

You see, the whole thing falls apart much faster than you think. It really only takes a couple of quick swipes of logic and basic hypotheticals to send the whole thing keeling over like a tinker-toy tower in a stiff breeze.

So the larger point here, and the one both Ken and Marie are pointing toward, is the nurturing of a political savvy and philosophical consistency on the part of many of these activists that goes beyond the slick slogans of bumper sticker politicking.

Unfortunately, we are not blessed with a media that sees minimally educating the public as one of its goals. They have no problem regurgitating the most asinine, puerile, misleading political tinker toys and solipsistic social tropes and letting the sticks fall where they may.

Rather, it's up to us, I suppose, either surreptitiously, as in Marie's case, or trying to give straight facts a go. I'm guessing the former will outperform the latter.

[Ken Winkes]

Oh yes, there is so much I could have, maybe should have, said...the perfect rejoinder, the apposite fact, that would have prompted a miraculous on-the-spot conversion of the young man from ignorant "libertarian" to wise and thoughtful "liberal," but once he said Democrats were Communists, I detected more than a hint of Bircherism (attenuated but alive in the crevices of libertarian "thought") so desisted, gave it up as a bad job, shook his hand, wished him luck (thinking he'd need some luck if he couldn't think any better than that) and turned to my next victim...

But there's still a wistfulness in the old teacher, the sense that I might have done a better job, taught a little more, said something more clearly or memorably, somehow made more of a difference in one more life. Yes, there's ego in it, that and idealism, and part of what I was feeling and trying to convey yesterday was the sense I had of communication's difficulties and hazards and that this time around I hadn't quite measured up.

Nothing new here. I've had that feeling many times before. Prompting people to care enough to learn something new or talking people out of their preconceptions is hard. But As Marie says, it can be done.

As the morning passed I did have one memorably good moment. When one man said corporations were not different from unions, that they both contributed to political campaigns, I said that aside from the amount contributed (in recent campaigns unions outspent at least three to one) was the way businesses and unions are organized. Most unions are far more democratic than corporations. In most unions members have a say in how to spend the money. Shareholders do not. The man had not thought of that and thanked me for pointing it out...I could see the wheels turning, and the woman he was with said, "That's true." I don't remember if both of them signed but at least one of them did.

There are small victories. Just not enough of them.

[JJG]

Re: Short answer; "What do you know about Commies?" Long answer; "Got me, I'm a Commie, and I'm here for your children."