Here's an Obama spam making its rounds among us neocons. It reminds me of A lesson in economics using beer. These allegories are always a bit oversimplified, but they are important in that they:
- Communicate the essence of the proposed plans in a simple to understand analogy
- Communicate the clear and simple problems of the proposed plans
- Communicate the real concerns, fears, and anger of the opposition
- Involve ridicule from the minority, which should be viewed as a warning that failing to heed the concerns will lead to the next step – public defiance (can you say "Town Hall meetings"?)
What such allegories lack in sophistication they easily make up for in clarity, something most political plans, including Obama's, lack.
THE CLASS THAT FAILED
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. This is the story of that class.
——————————————
The class had insisted that Obama's socialist economics worked, and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich – great equalizer and instrument of justice.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".
"All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade, so no one will fail – and no one would receive an A (an acceptable downside in order to save the failing).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied very little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.
————–
MY EPILOGUE: Who is missing from this tale? Quite a few important archetypes:
- The Hard Worker. Where is the student who had enough character to realize that, even if his reward was diminished by the system, it was his duty to do what was right and work hard? Does removing reward totally demoralize everyone? Looking at Soviet Russia, the answer is, it demoralizes enough people that the few that might have enough character to continue to work hard, be they liberal ideologues or those devoted to personal excellence, make no difference, and the system fails.
- The Conservative Contrarian. Where is the person who objects to the plan from the beginning as misbegotten? Surely not all students were raised to be daft enough to believe that economic socialism and liberalism are worth pursuing? The steadfast Conservative is the missing hero from this story, holding the course on timeless principles that honor humanity, virtue, and God.
- The Neo-Conservative Contrarian. Where is the person who wakes up midway and realizes that the plan is foolish? You know, the 'liberal mugged by reality' turned Conservative? Surely not all social liberals are lemmings that can't switch at least to an Independent position – there are many in the current real world situation, I am sure. Such people are the moderating voices of the NEXT administration, which tends to be at the opposite end of the pendulum swing when the power shifts away from socialistic catastrophe.
- The Die Hard Socialist. Where is the student who says "it failed because we did not implement it correctly! There is still merit in socialism!" They claim that they deserve an A, even if they failed to study because the problem wasn't with THEM, it was with the SYSTEM.
- The Suicidal Disillusioned Socialist. Where is the poor person whose hopes are dashed by the failure of the experiment, who, having lost everything in such a social experiment, becomes depressed, a substance abuser, and suicidal? This is the real cost of socialistic experiments – they offer hope, and when they inevitably fail, they take with them the hopes of thousands or millions, and leave them destitute.
Regarding the inevitable depressing outcomes of socialism, not only do they take people's hope away after getting it so high, it offers no hope after it comes crashing down. It reminds me of D'Souza's question, "Where is atheism when bad things happen?" (Answer: Absent). Since it can offer no hope beyond the material world, it leaves people worse off than before, demoralized, beaten, and without answers.
Involve ridicule from the minority, which should be viewed as a warning that failing to heed the concerns will lead to the next step – public defiance (can you say "Town Hall meetings"?)
And what will happen when this demand that the rest of us (ie, the "majority") doesn't heed the "concerns" of the radical right for an oversimplified version of America? See here for one example: guns and implicit threats of violence.
>> LOUIS: And what will happen when this demand that the rest of us (ie, the "majority") doesn't heed the "concerns" of the radical right for an oversimplified version of America?
What do gay rights advocates do?
Hi Daniel:
An equivalent capitalist allegory: the professor offers to SELL grades for whatever the market will bear! Dumb allegories cut both ways, my friend.
your friend
Keith
What do gay rights advocates do?
1. There are no "gay rights advocates" understood as a group mind. Gay rights advocates advocate for gay equality under the law. Sometimes they get out of hand and I condemn that. Non-violent, peaceful protest is perfectly legitimate (as long as one is ready to accept the consequences). The only parallel I can think of would be if gays organized on a national level to pack evangelical and fundamentalist (and RC) churches and scream and yell for the entire service to halt the free exercise of religion. They would raise signs depicting the Pope or Jesus as Hitler, with graphics depicting the cross as a swastika. They would imply violence as a necessary step. Beyond a few isolated instances here and there, I have not seen this happen on a mass, organized level. Can you provide evidence that it has?
2. I'm not aware of gay rights protesters carrying weapons openly along with signs implying violence. Usually it's the other way around. Violence, or the threat of violence, is a constant presence in our lives. This is one way we are intimidated into silence.
3. The protesters we have been seeing at Democratic functions aren't there for communication but to disrupt and destroy the political process. They aren't amenable to reason. Their tactics are anti-democratic and un-American. They may be frustrated and angry, but they have no right to do what they are doing. btw: they make great advertisements against their cause. Maybe we should thank them!
No analogy is perfect, but this one applies in as far as the relevant criticism – that socialism removes the reward for hard work, and serves as a dis-incentive for the virtues of hard work and honesty. The problems with the Obama solution is precisely the same problem as with a purely capitalistic one – it does not compensate for it's weaknesses.
I think that you are right about a PURELY market driven health care system in one sense, and that is, the person with the most money could buy the best 'grades' – but that's not really entirely correct.
We are not arguing for a purely capitalistic market-driven health care system, but rather, a lightly REGULATED system. The advantages of this are that it gives us the best of both worlds, i.e.
– regulation prevents the abuses of a purely capitalistic venture
– free markets allow for choice and competition to drive down cost and drive up quality
What we ARE saying is that the Obama plan, while it pretends to just come alongside the existing market plans, it structured in such a way that it will REPLACE the free-market system, and will end in an ENTIRELY GOVERNMENT run health system, which, lacking free market competition, will
– be fraught with waste and fraud
– encourage employers to dump their employees into the public system, thereby essentially eliminating private options (I know that libs argue against this, but I think they are being totally naive, if not blind and disingenuous)
– seriously reduce our choices and freedom (see the CNN article I posted yesterday)
– lack competition, thereby driving UP costs (to the taxpayer) and DOWN quality. To dispute this is almost beyond belief, since that is the common experience worldwide (again, oil-rich Netherlands programs are an anomaly, not the rule), and anyone familiar with Canada or Britain's systems can see this in spades.
I listened to Obama's highly controlled Town Hall meeting yesterday, and his answer to the 'Republican' was the same old weaseled answer he always give – he doesn't DENY that we are heading towards a single-payer system, he just says 'such a rapid transition would be too difficult.'
Louis said:
" I'm not aware of gay rights protesters carrying weapons openly along with signs implying violence"
Is this close enough?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=…
I'm glad you also said:
"Sometimes they get out of hand and I condemn that"
But I'm wondering, how does one nutty A-hole, who has been widely condemned by conservative pundits and gun rights activist reflect suddenly on that whole group?
You say that people are at Democratic functions… not the first time you've said that… I didn't realized they were checking for party affiliation at the door. Are (D) Representatives only supposed to represent (D) people, or are they supposed to be available and accountable to every constituent in their district?
Tactics are undemocratic and unAmerican? I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism. It was under Bush. Just ask Keith Olbermann. UnAmerican, like what Nancy Pelosi said about people drowning out opposing voices? What about when the SEIU says that's their exact intent in attending townhalls?
They have no right to do what they are doing? Re: 1st Amendment.
Facing violence? I wonder what Kenneth Gladney has to say about that. The Obamacare supporters certainly had something to say.
As for your final closing thoughts, you're clearly not the first to think about it. In fact, it seems like some aren't satisfied with real Obamacare opponents anger, and are trying to invent some. Enjoy:
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/08/busted-ob…
The link you posted quoted a few bloggers and commenters, but did not show any gays carrying weapons and signs threatening violence (my quote). Why are you distorting what I said? And how does your commentary address my points about the threat and reality of violence gays live under every single day.
You say that people are at Democratic functions… not the first time you've said that… I didn't realized they were checking for party affiliation at the door.
They aren't at Republican forums. Duh.
I was careful to discuss dissent I think is fine. I suppose you think it's okay to disrupt and intimidate and stop the democratic process as legitimate dissent. I don't. "Peaceably assemble to petition the government" this isn't.
Whatever. I don't expect conservatives to be fair.
daniel likes to post comix here. Since I don't have access, here and here are links to funny examples.
>> LOUIS: I suppose you think it's okay to disrupt and intimidate and stop the democratic process as legitimate dissent. I don't. "Peaceably assemble to petition the government" this isn't.
I agree Louis, shouting and chanting is not really 'civil discourse' – but the real problem is that people need a legitimate forum at which they can air their disapproval and grievances. I think that they blew their chance when they started getting out of hand at the initial Town Halls.
However, people ARE reasonably scared and concerned, and not just because of the 'scare tactics' of right wing organizations. There are plenty of reasons to be alarmed at the rate of spending, the unread ramrodded porkulous bills, and this healthcare bill is being ramrodded too – thousands of pages that Obama wanted to push through in a week?
And the problems with this legislation, now that we have time to vet it, are myriad, from abortion funding to race quotas for medical schools ("no doctor, i don't care if you weren't the best qualified, as long as you are a minority").
Obama doesn't seem interested in a national conversation on this matter that might lengthen the time it gets for him to accomplish HIS goals. There is plenty of opposition to this bill, and not just from uncaring capitalists. People are pushing back against his heavy-handed legislative and spending style. Liberals are giddy with power right now, and seem to think that this is their opportunity to ram their ideological ideas through Congress without discussion. That's BS.
And please don't say 'that's what the republicans did' because (1) that wasn't true, and (2)two wrongs don't make a right.
Nice. Here's some from the other side.
http://townhall.com/cartoons/2009/08/12/10
http://townhall.com/cartoons/2009/08/11/
http://townhall.com/cartoons/2009/08/11/3
http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/MichaelRa…
http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/MichaelRa…
http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/MichaelRa…
http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/ScottStan…
http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/ScottStan…
http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/JerryHolb…
http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/JerryHolb…
http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/JerryHolb…
http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/JerryHolb…
http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/EricAllie…
http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/EricAllie…
http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/EricAllie…
http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/EricAllie…
http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/EricAllie…
http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/EricAllie…
http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/EricAllie…
Whatever. Everything you say reminds me of how I felt under Bush.
Louis said:
"Why are you distorting what I said?"
Did I misquote you? Or do you fail to understand that "close enough" (my words) are a tacit recognition that it's not a complete one to one, and the "?" following it is asking you whether you think it's a fair comparison. You accuse me of something I did not do. Will you both withdraw the accusation and address what I actually did say? (Based on history, I suspect not.)
"the threat and reality of violence gays live under every single day"
Can you provide sourcing for this? You claim victim status a lot, but I'm not sure it exists outside your head. Our culture on the whole venerates gay culture. Are there recent stories of gay hate violence I'm unaware of? Please substantiate.
"They aren't at Republican forums. Duh."
OH RLY?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/0…
"I suppose you think it's okay to disrupt and intimidate and stop the democratic process as legitimate dissent. I don't. "Peaceably assemble to petition the government" this isn't. "
And there's the money shot. Can you read? You certainly have felt free to correct other's spelling before, so I assume so. Not only have I repeatedly stated on this blog that I think drowning people out is unhelpful and unproductive, but I also gave no indication that I think it's okay to be disruptive.
What I did point out and what you ignored and failed to address, is that you have a "they" are doing this stance, but it's "your" people who are at least participating, if not driving this behavior.
So, care to be fair, since you're not a conservative, and address what I have actually said, instead of distorting and ignoring? (again, I doubt it based on past experience, but I'd be happy to be wrong about that).
Okay, so one Republican congressman got booed by the same crowd of brown shirt nutjobs – and for suggesting turning off brown shirt nutjob Glen Beck! Good for him! But, naturally, it was the brown shirt nutjobs doing the dirty work all around. F*ck 'em!
And it's not "playing the victim" to recognize that gays live under a threat of violence straights never even consider. If you can't understand or recognize this, you're either stupid or crazy or a conservative christianist (same thing). Even if I link to examples, you'll just brush them off like daniel and Aaron and the rest of your ilk as isolated examples, so what's the use. Look it up for yourself.
Okay, no, it's not close enough. And if "my" people are participating, it's in reaction to the right wing brown shirts trying to shut down the debate and intimidate the rest of us. "We" are fighting back. So, shove it.
I said, "Will you both withdraw the accusation and address what I actually did say? (Based on history, I suspect not.)"
And I thank you for supporting my points, yet again.
You're swell!