~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Do you ever read a blog post or a comment that really gets to you? One that gets you thinking and thinking, and the more you think, the more
Let me preface this by saying that the post/comment in question is from a blogger that I highly respect and read diligently; Jay over at Cynical Bastard. Jay and I have very different political leanings, although I do think we have some shared positions - no, not those kinds of positions - political positions. His recent I'm a Political Pundit ... post really struck a nerve, and not so much from his perspectives on Vice Presidential considerations, but specifically from a comment he left in response to mine:
Dana said...There was one word (besides spanking) that resonated in Jay's response - REDISTRIBUTIONIST.
Obama?? Who cares *wink* Well, unless socialism appeals to you (which, unfortunately, it seems this country is embracing these days).
I'm bummed that you gave so much attention to your political preference - a good political analyst would do a far better job of addressing each candidate equally.
That deserves a spanking Jay!
Jay said...
Dana: There really is no doubt that Obama is a redistributionist. But, nobody seems to really care. I think that's a testament to how pissed off people are at the last 8 years.
Also, I started to break down each of the top candidates for McCain, but as I said there really was no need to. My description of his choices stands for each and every one of them. Each is an authoritarian and a Christianist. There is no diversity of positions and ideas among his choices.
Among the Dems there is. Some are more moderate, some are long-time Washington insiders, some are left-wing liberals, some are "post-partisan" meaning they were once republicans and are more independent that others.
But, among McCain's choices, all are basically people who are 95% in agreement with Bush. So I didn't bother naming them all.
I almost named Mike Huckabee so I could mention his tendency as governor of Arkansas to let rapists and murderers out of jail, but I thought I would offend somebody with that. God knows I don't want to offend.
So anyway, you were talking about "spanking?" ;-)
Anyone know who is credited with penning this slogan?
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
It sounds like it could be an Obama campaign slogan, doesn't it? In fact, it summarizes redistribution of wealth quite succinctly. This slogan was popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. The entire paragraph that contains his slogan reads:
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
Now, I'm not one who cringes at seeing the word communism - it doesn't make me want to run and hide in a bomb shelter or anything. In reality, it's no different than the word democracy - it's a form of government, nothing more - but it's not the form of government that has been successful (and like it or not, we have been successful) in this country for the past 250 (almost) years.
You may not be happy with your current financial status. You may be highly disappointed with the political administration that has been "in power" the last eight years. You may want more for your own children than you have. I feel the very same way!
Where I differ in thought is that I don't feel it is the government's position to determine who has "too much" and who "deserves" more. This country was founded on the concept of working hard to succeed - a concept many have realized. That concept is being compromised by those who feel that they "deserve" what those who work hard have, even if they don't contribute equally. That is what I find so disturbing about redistributionism. What is the incentive to work hard? To try harder? There isn't one, because the harder you work - the more you earn - the more the government will redistribute to those who work/earn less.
I respect Jay's opinion on politics - it is one based on much research and careful thought - but this idea of redistribution is a slippery slope, and one that I believe this country has no business even considering ... unless we really are embracing what Matt-Man so eloquently calls the "NINNY" state.
You may not be happy with your current financial status. You may be highly disappointed with the political administration that has been "in power" the last eight years. You may want more for your own children than you have. I feel the very same way!
Where I differ in thought is that I don't feel it is the government's position to determine who has "too much" and who "deserves" more. This country was founded on the concept of working hard to succeed - a concept many have realized. That concept is being compromised by those who feel that they "deserve" what those who work hard have, even if they don't contribute equally. That is what I find so disturbing about redistributionism. What is the incentive to work hard? To try harder? There isn't one, because the harder you work - the more you earn - the more the government will redistribute to those who work/earn less.
I respect Jay's opinion on politics - it is one based on much research and careful thought - but this idea of redistribution is a slippery slope, and one that I believe this country has no business even considering ... unless we really are embracing what Matt-Man so eloquently calls the "NINNY" state.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
16 comments:
Socialism DOES make me want to run into a bomb shelter...as does Redistributionism.
I just don't get what people are thinking. I know I'm the rare lesbian Republican, but damn people, catch a clue.
I do work hard. And frankly, I'm not much for sharing.
You want what I have? Work for it.
I don't really get into the political thing. There's not enough "up skirt" or cleavage shots...but this spanking that you talk of could turn more people on to this whole political thing. Just sayin'...
:D
I have to say that 8 years ago I would have voted for McCain in a heartbeat. I still may do so. But after listening to Obama's book (listening to books keeps me from road rage killing people) I agree with him on a lot of issues. He is about balance, and about changing 150 years of indifference. He is for the people, not just those who live in the burbs, who's children attend well funded schools, not just those who have, but all people. He has great insights on poverty, not looking at just one person, or one family's situation, but looking at the overall situation. He understands that people need to be responsible for their lives, but he also understands that the gov't needs to be responsible to us. Having said all of that, any one that thinks that John McCain is four more years of Bush has not looked at what the man has done during his Senate career. He is about building coalitions, of purple people (red+blue) and I believe his brand of Republican is a little closer to Lincoln's than Bush's. I would actually love to see both cantidates go back to the old days on this one and just run against each other with the loser being V.P. My biggest hang-up on voting for McCain is his age. If he picks Pawlenty from MN it will help ease my mind. I have a lot of respect for Pawlenty.
Don't forget your clorox as you head to the bomb shelter. ;)
Here's my follow up response to your second comment which you didn't include in this post:
"Redistributionist isn't exactly a socialist. He doesn't believe in doing away with the free-market system. His health care plan isn't a single-payer government plan. So, calling him a socialist is a bit much.
He does want to raise taxes on the upper tax brackets and use those funds for social programs though. But, what the hell, Bush uses taxpayer funds as corporate welfare, and just runs up the deficit, so which is worse? And McCain has basically endorsed this same economic plan. It's not like Bush's corporate welfare program has resulted in big-time job growth.
That's why I say people don't seem to care. You may call Obama a socialist, but most people call McCain an authoritarian (or even a fascist who believes in unchecked presidential powers). Guess which one people are more scared of?"
The point I was making was that nobody seems to care because they are so pissed off about the last eight years. I never said that I supported this type of income redistribution. There are tons of reasons to vote for and against both Obama and McCain. Each of us just prioritize what we think is most important to us and go with the candidate we think best fits what we want and most of what we believe in.
Furthermore, anyone who says that republicans aren't redistributionists also haven't been paying attention. As I mentioned in my second response, they simply take taxpayer funds and instead of using them for social programs they use them as giveaways to corporations. Not only that, did social programs get cut dramatically by the repubs in congress and Bush? No they didn't.
Also, I think that most people are comparing Clinton's 8 years to Bush's 8 years on the economy and I think people are saying that Clinton's 8 years were better. So, Obama gets the benefit of that too.
As for McCain, lets all remember that he voted against the Bush tax cuts and called them irresponsible and said it was a matter of principal. Of course now that he's running for Pres. he thinks those tax cuts are teh awesome and we should keep them forever. But has yet to propose any real cuts in any programs to make up for the continued budget shortfalls.
This argument can go on and on and on and as long as somebody is trying to argue that one side is actually "right" or "better" than the other it will continue. I've said over and over again, for each finger you or anyone can point to Obama and use a label like "Socialist" I can point back to McCain and say the same thing.
As I have grown older, my political thought has, to me, become a melange of ideas and ideologies.
I am very much a Socialist in the sense that in this country that has so much wealth, that no one should go hungry, no one should want for good medical care, no one should live in squalor.
More importantly, no one should even think that that could be a possibility.
As true Communism or Socialism speaks in a sense, the State works for the people, not the other way around.
People in America, break bread together, fight wars together, work together, make this a great country in which to live, together...
There has got be some kind of way to share the abundance and wealth of this nation together.
I'm done now...so kiss me.
Cheers Dana!!
RLL, it scares the bejezzes out of me - I'll admit that! I think one of the big assumptions is that not all people have the opportunity to work hard and succeed, and I don't believe that is true.
RD, so the way to get your attention on politics is to show you the red hand print Jay leaves on my ass??
AppleHubby, I will say that what concerns me more than Obama's politics is that people (not necessarily you) seem to be following him thinking this is some new concept. It is for this country, but it is one that has never worked well in other countries - at least not as well as democracy has worked for us!
Tali, I never go anywhere without my Clorox!
Jay, I hope you don't think I was trying to misrepresent your position in this post - in all honesty, it was the word redistribution that disturbed me, NOT your political position!
I respect and appreciate your political views, even though I give you crap on YOUR blog *wink* Thank you for taking the time to explain them further in this post!
Matt-Man, There has got be some kind of way to share the abundance and wealth of this nation together. On this we agree, I'm just not sure how we do that without it being a handout.
Dana,
I must say I enjoyed reading Jay's take on things for the very reason that he got under my skin as well. Redistributionist is a euphemism for communism, socialism and marxism in one form or another. As for his calling Bush a fascist, a quick read of Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Facism" will show him how the word facism is misunderstood and how, at it's roots, facism is a construct of "progressivism". But I digress. The congress is filled with crooks from both sides of the aisle and certainly the pork loaded into virtually every bill and the various bailouts and proposed bailouts that have occurred are huge wastes of our tax dollars. I simply believe that taxes cannot be raised before these other issues are addressed. As for how we share our abundance and wealth: Charity! The people of this nation give more per capita to individual charities and faith based charity groups than many countries spend on their own people. Taking my money and giving it away should never be the answer. I'm happy to give to the charity/charities of my choice and much more satisfied with how THAT money is spent. The surest way to screw something up is to leave it to a beaurcrat!
By the way, Jay, Michelle Malkin is a great American and has more class in her little finger than Ariana Huffington has on her whole blog staff.
FMD
I'm trying again:
http://opinionsandmustaches.blogspot.com/
FMD, thank you for your perspective! I am a HUGE fan of charity and feel that is the way we should take care of our own. Although people (said generally) are quick to point out how the wealthy have so much, they seldom do the legwork to see how much they give and/or dismiss it with "It's a tax write-off." The bottom line? They *do* give!
I've linked you again - welcome back!
I'm with Real Live Lesbian....."You want what I have, then work for it!"
I'm so tired of the "Pansy Ass's" crying about everything under the sun and then when election time comes, they aren't even registered to vote.
Either be a part of something or stand aside and let the rest of us move along, because we are moving in a new direction in this country....you have too. It's like anything else in life.....If you stand still too long and make "No Changes" progression can never be achieved....and isn't life really about "Changes".
I for one, never really liked "change" I have always had a hard time with it.....but as I have gotten older I realise that change is a evident part of life and sometimes for the better.
Well this just depressed the hell out of me. Not that I really learned anything new but still.
I keep erasing my comments because I have not had the coffee that allows me to be understandable... I don't even think that made sense.
Screw it. I'm sure this will come up again.
I think you summed it when you said that redistributionism takes away our incentive to work hard and better ourselves and our society.
I don't think that people are willing to accept redistribution because of what has happened in the last 8 years. I think people really don't understand how dangerous it is.
damn am I glad that HNT came after this post b/c my head was just gonna burst from all this... I am so not a political junkie...I've got a few views (i.e. our nations homeless yet we sent money to OTHER countries for THEIR homeless, Gay/Lesbian issues...I'm for totally equal rights...,) and well, I guess that might be just about it... anything deeper and my stomach churns and my brain starts thinking about sparkly boobies...
Hooray for boobies
Good lord you two are deep! It makes me feel like I haven't been paying attention. I was going to ask how deep you go...as in your brain..then I thought about it and...said "uh-huh...that'll go the wrong way**winkie**...so I'm not. Kepp squishing that grape of yours...you've got alot going on up there sister.
I think people look at a term like redistributionism and immediately go to the the "purest" meaning of the term. There is no "pure" form of democracy or capitalism practiced in our country and there never has been. I think whats needed is redistribution of access to certain opportunities, not money or assets. The idea of "working hard for everything we get" sounds great, but it has to be tempered with the knowledge that not everyone has access to the same opportunities.
Post a Comment