I was going to try and head to bed a little early tonight, but after being accused of assailing both traditional values and economic policy, I felt compelled to respond. (I would like to note that I, too, work full time) Actually, I first felt compelled to look up the word "assailed" and confirm that it's some derivative of "assault". Then I felt compelled to respond.
Let me begin (continue?) by saying that I generally try to avoid assailing anything. I have no problem with traditional values- the first post in question had more to do with brainwashing than anything else (to catch up, the post in question is here). If a person believes that students should be responsible at an early age, great. My issue was that the questionnaire went so much further than that. I doubt that a person who fell anyplace left of "far right" on the political spectrum (yes, including someone who happened to lie in the center) and answered the questionnaire honestly would be able to get a job at the school. If every single person in a position of authority is far-right, then how are students supposed to have an intelligent discussion or develop their own opinions?
More interesting, though, is the assertion that things are rarely as simple as they seem on the surface. I couldn't agree with that more. Even if none of you fools who happen to read this ever click on a damn ad, I will consider this blog a success if we can at least stimulate a deeper level of thinking and dialog.
The trouble is, I don't really know how to do that. The trouble with trying to have a discussion about politics is that it's so damn hard to know what is accurate, and what isn't. I know this has gotten cliche (shoot, even Starcraft II makes fun of it), but Fox News' level of bias is roughly equivalent to that of a beat sports writer. Excuse the contrived example, but imagine that the grim reaper showed up at your house and offered to spare your life if you could choose the story with less spin- then he handed you a printout from raiders.com and a printout from Foxnews.com (or any of Murdoch's other properties, including the WSJ). I might eventually choose the Fox article, but the fact that a person would have to actually look at the article and think about it hopefully illustrates my point.*
*In all fairness, I don't really watch any other news stations, and I only watch Fox when my father-in-law is over. It's entirely possible that I'm a hippie who is less sensitive to liberal propaganda, and they're all equally guilty of this. Actually, it's likely.
The reason for that rant wasn't to just complain about cable news, it was to illustrate how hard it can be to figure out what the truth is. With football, at least, the Raiders are 5 weeks away from watching Chris Johnson run through their improved defense for 300+ yards, and we can start to really appraise their playoff hopes. When they're mathematically eliminated in week 13, we can look back at the stuff posted on raiders.com this summer and know what was totally inaccurate. On the other hand, with Obama, there never will be a stat sheet. Even if Obamacare eventually materializes and it's the key to utopia, Fox will run a story on how little progress the pharmaceutical companies have made in the past few years because their incentives have been destroyed.
Frankly, I don't know if we can have a deeper discussion, because I don't know how practical getting to that point might be. I do know what we shouldn't do: we shouldn't link articles to make our arguments for us. I think we should realize that the news stations exist not because they're doing the work of god, but for some other reason. If the person pulling the strings is motivated by profit, then there's always going to be that incentive to run stories that his audience wants to hear. Therefore, I guess that the first step in having a deeper discussion would be to unplug from the cable news. If we want to debate something, the easy way out is to click over to our propaganda machine of choice and print out an article written by someone who decided to whore out his intellect and/or reputation in his old age. I think the better debate, though, comes from taking 5 or 6 steps back and figuring out what, exactly Keynesian means or what the Laffer Curve is, rather than saying that the Laffer Curve predicts X. If we understand things on that level, we can intelligently talk about whether a tax cut for the rich might actually yield more tax revenue.
Maybe it's not practical to have that level of discussion on this blog; that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be awesome.
Showing posts with label Populism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Populism. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
The Danger of Populism
Seeing as I work full time, I really do not have time to adequately contribute to this forum. However, after two posts within five days assailing topics ranging from traditional values, to economic policy and tax reform (common theme: populism), I felt compelled to pick up the virtual pen.
Populism is not so much an ideology as it is a tactic, wherein the interests of "common people" (the populace) are contrasted with those of the supposed "elite" in the context of (1) painting a picture of society's alleged problems, and /or (2) proposing various political, social and /or economic solutions. What makes it interesting is that it is not limited strictly to the left or the right. What makes it dangerous is that it is more often than not divorced from a considered approach toward solving anything.
On the left, the recent debate over nationalized health care ("Obamacare") provides a great example. Literally for the past century, the great "progressive" dream has been to socialize medicine, thereby enacting "universal" coverage whereby every American might, in theory, have access to low/no-cost health care. And so it was, literally from the moment he took office, President Obama (along with the Democrat controlled Congress) set out to make that great promise a reality, preaching the virtues of "expanded coverage" and "lower costs." However, simple questions [such as "How do you increase coverage (40 million "uninsured") and lower costs without either (1) increasing the number of doctors or (2) rationing treatment?"] went unanswered.
On the right, the debate over "term limits" for representatives at all levels of government provides another great example. Due to the inherently conservative principle of limited government, those on the right (more often than those on the left) often find themselves exasperated at the seeming incompetence / lethargy / corruption of their representatives. This often leads to calls for term limits. A great idea in theory? Surely. "Citizen legislators," they say. "The way it should be," they proclaim. However, legitimate questions [such as "What about the invaluable experience Senator X gains from his years engaged in the legislative process?" and "What if (insert legislative body) has no problem doing the people's business in its current configuration?"] remain unanswered. See the San Diego County Board of Supervisors for an ongoing battle over term limits. See the California Legislature for an example of how term limits have failed.
The bottom line is that most issues are rarely as simple as they seem on the surface, and without a mature discussion on the merits, bad things happen. Reasonable people can - and should - disagree, but rash decisions based on anger and /or emotion are how bad policy is made.
Populism is not so much an ideology as it is a tactic, wherein the interests of "common people" (the populace) are contrasted with those of the supposed "elite" in the context of (1) painting a picture of society's alleged problems, and /or (2) proposing various political, social and /or economic solutions. What makes it interesting is that it is not limited strictly to the left or the right. What makes it dangerous is that it is more often than not divorced from a considered approach toward solving anything.
On the left, the recent debate over nationalized health care ("Obamacare") provides a great example. Literally for the past century, the great "progressive" dream has been to socialize medicine, thereby enacting "universal" coverage whereby every American might, in theory, have access to low/no-cost health care. And so it was, literally from the moment he took office, President Obama (along with the Democrat controlled Congress) set out to make that great promise a reality, preaching the virtues of "expanded coverage" and "lower costs." However, simple questions [such as "How do you increase coverage (40 million "uninsured") and lower costs without either (1) increasing the number of doctors or (2) rationing treatment?"] went unanswered.
On the right, the debate over "term limits" for representatives at all levels of government provides another great example. Due to the inherently conservative principle of limited government, those on the right (more often than those on the left) often find themselves exasperated at the seeming incompetence / lethargy / corruption of their representatives. This often leads to calls for term limits. A great idea in theory? Surely. "Citizen legislators," they say. "The way it should be," they proclaim. However, legitimate questions [such as "What about the invaluable experience Senator X gains from his years engaged in the legislative process?" and "What if (insert legislative body) has no problem doing the people's business in its current configuration?"] remain unanswered. See the San Diego County Board of Supervisors for an ongoing battle over term limits. See the California Legislature for an example of how term limits have failed.
The bottom line is that most issues are rarely as simple as they seem on the surface, and without a mature discussion on the merits, bad things happen. Reasonable people can - and should - disagree, but rash decisions based on anger and /or emotion are how bad policy is made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)