I was reminded of Freud’s paradox by a poignant article in The Times a few months back, which described a Republican leaning district in Minnesota, and its constituents’ conflicted desire to be self-reliant (“Even Critics of the Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It,” Feb. 11). The article cited a study from Dartmouth political science professor Dean Lacy, which revealed that, though Republicans call for deep cuts to the safety net, their districts rely more on government support than their Democratic counterparts.
The people of these districts aren't deluded, they are racist, and expect their subsidies to be maintained, ag, medicare, defense, etc. They want the money to go from being handed out by bureaucrats interested in levelling inequality, to churches, corporations and corrupt local governments interested in aggravating it. In fact the more the misery of the cities grows, the more prisons will be located in rural America. So why does a philosopher decry others for missing facts, when he does so himself? Because he sees the rural people as stupid. And yet, rural America gets more subsidies, has lower unemployment in the Republican Belt, and so on. They block the other party when in power, and work on the barest majority when in power. 40 votes for me, 60 for thee.
The inability to see the economic utility of racism for those that practice means that it will continue.
"The inability to see the economic utility of racism for those that practice means that it will continue."
ReplyDeleteNo. "Racism" will continue because it is based on biological reality.
"So why does a Sorcerer's Apprentice decry others for missing facts, when he does so himself?"
Indeed.
Now that is a man who looks spiffy in a sheet.
ReplyDeletePredictable
DeleteMaybe you should reconsider the virtues of having a troll personna on the internet.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post, very smart.
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of this:
Delete"Most strikingly, asked about the idea that 'rugged individualism' was the key to America's success, he snapped back, 'It's nothing but a political banner to cover up greed.'" -- George Romney, former HUD Secretary and noted anti-segregationist. Father of Mitt.
The apple sometimes falls far from the tree.
DeleteGreat post Stirling, wish you would share you're thoughts more often.
I will be honest, I've written off the present until the current cresting of demographic determinism passes, which is coming rapidly.
ReplyDeleteYes, I'm grimly seeing this in action, as my father who voted for George Wallace (on his segregation for ever platform) slowly succumbs to cancer. His great union health plan has helped him last far longer that we ever hoped (yes, I still love the man), but he's very ill. (He's hanging on by sheer willpower because Mom will have to live on less than half his pension, and God knows I won't be able to support her and my own family on my salary.) He's planning to vote for Romney, of course, even though he considers him far too liberal. He tells me, "I just pray God lets me live long enough to cast a vote against that..."
DeleteOne blind spot on the left is the idea that socialism is "left." In fact, the right also has its versions of socialism, however the requirement being that there is "self-help" for those who are identifiably members of a particular "people." This "National Socialism" isn't a contradiction in terms, but instead an ideology that the state exists to protect a particular race and nationality.
ReplyDeleteUnder this theory, there's no perceived contradiction between aid for members of the people, and enslavement or suppression of those that are not, or even gradations of membership. Right wing socialism is a recurring feature of the modern, small "m," states. The defeat of the most famous states to practice it has not ended either as a theory, or as a practice, and not merely among the usual suspects. The modern Republican Party is not really a party of free markets, but a party of right wing socialism.