The "Grievance Industry"

[paft.livejournal.com]

Many years ago, just after the end of Reagan’s first term, I was listening to a local Talk Radio host, Ronn Owens, doing a sort of “summing up” of the Reagan administration so far. He brought up Reagan’s question, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” and he said, “I gotta tell ya. Yes, I am. And everyone I know is better off too.”

Ronn invited his mostly white, middle-class listeners to weigh in. One after another they lined up to chirp about how well they were doing in Reagan’s America.

Then, he got a black caller, who informed the host, “I’m not better off. I’m not better off at all. In fact, things have gotten worse. And I don’t know one single black American who’s not doing worse.”

“Oh now sir,” Ronn said, with the air of someone calming down a hysteric. “don’t you feel you’re being a little myopic?”

I guess the farsighted, non-myopic approach would have been for the caller and all those other black Americans to think happy thoughts about how well Ronn Owens and the other white folks were doing, rather than focusing on their own petty concerns.



There has long been in the United States mainstream the unspoken assumption that a poor, female, gay, non-Christian or non-white person voting in his or her own interest is a form of whining rather than common sense, even though the stakes for these voters tend to be higher than the concerns of wealthy folks who don’t want to pay those extra taxes that could price them out of that second house in the Hamptons. The rule of thumb is, apparently – if you have a real grievance influencing your vote, like “I could lose my healthcare if the Republicans have their way” or “I could end up unable to afford birth control or unable to get access to an abortion” or “As a black American, I don’t want a guy who’s taking advice from Charles Murray deciding policy that’s going to affect my kids” or “My family could go hungry” or “I could end up in jail for having consensual sex with another adult” or “this guy wants to pass legislation that would endanger my right to vote” you are part of the “Grievance Industry.” And that’s a bad thing.

This attitude has recently been kicked into overdrive by the passing of ACA. The right wing is now in full panic mode over the horrifying discovery that people like being able to afford healthcare and are not going to like having that access taken away. Worse, these same people will actually vote in favor of their own physical and civic well-being. The right seems to think this is awfully unfair, and they believe it’s even more unfair for Democratic politicians to point out to these voters how much is at stake.

Joan Walsh at Salon puts it beautifully:

So let me make sure I understand. Telling your voters, accurately, that Republicans are trying to make it harder for them to vote, and are blocking action on pay equity, the minimum wage and immigration reform is unfair “grievance politics”? Likewise, any effort to deal with the scandal of $1 trillion in student loan debt? Oliphant compares it to the grievance politics practiced by Republicans under Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. But that form of grievance politics mainly relied on inflaming white voters’ fears of cultural and racial change with false or highly exaggerated claims about Democrats. (emphasis added.)

The difference between accusations that are accurate and accusations that are highly exaggerated or quite simply untrue is apparently unimportant, as far as some in the media are concerned.

I mean really, it’s all about whether or not they make people get all emotional. All that arm-waving and emoting about “I want to cast a ballot” or “I want my heart medication” or “I don’t want to end up homeless after my unemployment benefits run out” is JUST like those Republicans who said that black people were going to take over and John Kerry didn’t deserve his medals and gay people were going to kidnap your little boy and marry him. So vulgar!

Why can’t people directly affected by these policies stop horning into conversations that should really be conducted as abstract conundrums over cocktails at a DC reception?

*

Comments

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Citation of actual fraud can be debated indefinitely. I do not have to cite some magical number of bank robberies in order to justify the observation that forbidding banks from hiring guards or placing a locking secure door on their vaults is nothing more than making such crime more feasible.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

So actually demonstrating that there is a problem before finding solutions is irrelevant to you.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

You're telling me that I should agree to remove the locks on the doors to my house. When I tell you that would make the house more susceptible to being entered and pillaged you want to argue over crime statistics with me. I want to know why you want the locks removed and if you think they have no deterrent effect at all.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

No, I'm telling you that the locks on your door are sufficient to keep people out, statistically.

If we need to install another layer of security to every door, you need to demonstrate that break-ins are a problem, and the cause is locks not being good enough.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

People actually rob banks.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

...and voter fraud doesn't happen, even when if it is facilitated by making it virtually undetectable. I see.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Also:

Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews. Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.

In swing states, including Ohio and Wisconsin, [ Republican ] party leaders conducted inquiries to find people who may have voted improperly and prodded officials to act on their findings. But the party officials and lawmakers were often disappointed. The accusations led to relatively few cases, and a significant number resulted in acquittals.

In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

[paft.livejournal.com]

Should only property owners vote?

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

If only property owners, or at least net tax payers, or at least those not receiving government welfare, grants, subsidies, payments, etc. it would prevent such self-servers from looting those who are doing all of the paying. That said, it would not prevent many of those selfsame "payers" and property owners from looting those who could not vote in self-defense. One need look no further than the Federal Reserve Bank to see the latter despicable practice in action.

So, to answer your question, no, it solves very little restricting the vote only to property owners. What needs to be done is to disperse the government's power entirely and forbid it from "picking winners and losers" in the market and from interfering in private contract and from engaging in any kind of welfare, corporate or individual, or any kind of mercantilism or protectionism etc. When the government cannot rob Peter to pay Paul, or vice versa, both sleep better and keep more of their own money.

[paft.livejournal.com]

IOW, you want society to be your Mad Max-inspired fantasyland.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The unelected market with no oversight should be the ones picking the winners and losers. The pure, unfiltered, uncompromising market will make all the correct choices with regards to human happiness. Leave people to their own devices, and they'll create the ideal society.

Never mind the fact that at their base, unchecked human greed has, throughout history, caused the mass enslavement of other humans.

It's little wonder that anarcho-capitalism has never been attempted in history. It's a complete contradiction. The logical result of any attempt is feudalism.