Bill Maher New Rules "The GOP - Cratchit Job"

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Bill Maher's season finale of 'New Rules' ended with a commentary on GOP/Republican values including self-reliance as understood by all of the current Republican candidates. It's interesting to me that when you look at their policies (including far right Libertarian ones as well), the people that espouse them really resent being called out for uncaring, or lacking compassion; A charge that obviously bothered George Bush, who promised a new type of conservatism-- "with compassion." But that was over a decade ago: today's current body of Republican candidates are running a primary race to the right that will leave their eventual nominee in a nearly impossible situation for winning. Mr. Maher captures the essence of several policy proposals of the current slate of Republicans, policy proposals so radical even Ebeneezer Scrooge would blanch; and I have to agree with his assessment.

Comments

Herman Cain...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... has some old fashioned ideas about getting head in life.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

I guess they really are the screw you got mine crowd.

I think this is only half the picture. I think it is that, certainly, but I think the segment of the Tea Party Republican population that's not particularly wealthy - and, indeed, in a completely insecure economic situation - has a different point of view. Not even that they hope to be part of the "screw you I got mine crowd," but that they're infatuated with this bizarre notion of self-reliance (see, e.g., Bachmann's statments) where human dignity is inexorably intertwined with supporting oneself, without handouts or social assistance.

I think this is how we can explain the rhetoric of some of the anti-OWS reactionaries. This rhetoric often includes narratives of self-sacrifice, personal suffering, etc., all through which these anti-OWS individuals have persevered and have managed to survive, even without necessarily achieving economic security. They seem to think that they're better for the adversity, and they seem to infer that, at the very least, society shouldn't impose a social debt upon them to help anyone else avoid that kind of suffering, and ideally, everyone should have to suffer through the same kind of adversity and insecurity that they have. They say that life isn't fair but then resist any perceived "unfairness" imposed by a system that provides for a basic level of social security.

I think this kind of attitude is almost catastrophically stupid, and it makes no sense - I don't know why we ought to prefer a society where everyone scrapes to get by to one where we could collectively reach for more lofty goals if we just provide for one another - but I think it's important, in understanding the wacky Tea Party wing of the Republican party, that this isn't just about selfish I-got-mine-ism but it's also about an essentially moral view of what it means to be a human with dignity.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Yes, this is *exactly* how the argument goes. There really is no controversy at all in low income people voting republican once you understand these simple dynamics.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

It's not exactly a new or revolutionary idea.

See "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."

[the-s3ntinel.livejournal.com]

>I think this kind of attitude is almost catastrophically stupid, and it makes no sense

Here's (http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/83b/a_signaling_theory_of_class_x_politics_interaction/) a simplistic but amusing theory on where it comes from. Or rather, two subtly different variations on such a theory:

1. People have an irrational aversion to being seen to be at the bottom of the heap, and on perceiving that there are just a few people worse off than they are, they object to those people being given any extra help that might erode the difference.

2. The "lower middle class" want to signal to other people that they are not "very poor", and one effective way of doing that is put great emphasis on their 'self-reliance' which the "very poor" don't have. (Because otherwise the meagre differences in their living standards might make people confused.)

[lions-wings.livejournal.com]

an essentially moral view of what it means to be a human with dignity.

To go along with it, I'm suspecting that they buy into the Just World phenomenon, and hard; it's not just that they want to be moral, but that they need to believe people who deserve to get out of poverty will get out of poverty. It's a step beyond hope, though, in that they put effort into sustaining it. And part of that effort is finding ways to blame people who fail.

So you're going to get a more compassionate, shades-of-gray response from the people in your second paragraph than you get the people who, with that, need to feel safer about where they are.

[hikarugenji.livejournal.com]

One of the best articles I've ever read on this topic is "Positive Functions of the Undeserving Poor: Uses of the Underclass in America" (1994); if you can get access to it it's a great read.

(By "positive functions" the author simply means "perceived advantages of believing in the idea of a mass group of "undeserving poor")

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

god..that Bachman quote, I never wanted to hear it again. :(

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Republicans are the crowd that believes all bad things (as long as they don't happen to them) will eventually solve themselves, like the black plague. Once most of Europe died, it ended. See? Solved itself.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a generalization which would possibly not be appreciated by many of our conservative friends.

[medea34.livejournal.com]

Can't we have a middle ground, where individual effort is rewarded and un/underemployment doesn't = death?

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, but that middle ground is at the corner of Love Trail and Empathy Way.

What do you think? Sound realistic?

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

It's interesting to me that when you look at their policies (including far right Libertarian ones as well), the people that espouse them really resent being called out for uncaring, or lacking compassion.

Sure, call them out on it. However, I'd also like to call the left out for saying "Nature! The environment!" at the same time as hypocritically trying to use government to cocoon humans away from the Darwinian population pressures that all other species must face and which are the driving force behind evolution.

God, left and right are so self-contradictory.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

What?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

what's a Darwinian population pressure?

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

the people that espouse them really resent being called out for uncaring, or lacking compassion

Maybe because that's rarely true. Conservatives are against public assistance programs for a whole host of reasons. Reasons I completely disagree with but it does not always come down to a simple lack of empathy. To paint it as such is unfair. Also, in the case of this community is weak arguing. It immediately puts them in a position of having to defend themselves morally instead of defending their actual beliefs. We can do better than that. Their beliefs and positions as they stand give us more than enough to argue against.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

If you're saying "argue the policy" and not against the person, I think we're all aware of that, and that's not news. But to say ending food stamp programs for needy children isn't compassionate isn't exactly untrue either. For what its worth, Maher never said that in his editorial, it's more something I've noticed, it's like a Freudian slip with conservative book writers, or talk show pundits, they'll be talking and then suddenly will say something to the effect of saying how they're not really a bad person because they want to throw people off unemployment benefits, etc. And I will disagree with you specifically in the case of Herman Cain on several crass comments he's made about that subject. I sleep just fine at night saying Mr. Cain strikes me as a person who really says some very UNcompassionate things, and seems to relish in his ignorance and bravado doing it.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Charity is not the same as government assistance, and someone needs to mention that to Bill Maher.

Conservatives are more likely to give than Liberals and give more, even in blood donations. They are also twice as likely to attend religious worship. But still, religious people give more to secular causes than do secular people.

Not to mention the wealthiest 10% (and that includes the 1% being attacked by current protests) account for 25% of ALL charitable giving. [Source] (http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/charity-who-cares/)

Granted, Bachmann is looney toons, but Maher waxing idiotic about how government programs are the same as charity is just plain moronic.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Charity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28practice%29) You're thinking of the purely religious meaning of the word, that's not the only one. Since Bill Maher went to Cornell, I'm pretty sure he's very educated on the historical nuance of the word.

Not to mention the wealthiest 10% (and that includes the 1% being attacked by current protests) account for 25% of ALL charitable giving.

There have been examinations of who gives more to charity. One study conducted in the United States found that as a percentage of income, charitable giving increased as income decreased. The poorest fifth of Americans, for example, gave away 4.3% of their income, while the wealthiest fifth gave away 2.1%. In absolute terms, this was an average of $453 on an average income of $10,531, compared to $3,326 on an income of $158,388.

Some other studies have also shown when you factor out donations to churches, (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009253657_charity23.html) the numbers for who donates more changes significantly (poorer incomes donate a lot more and they do it in smaller increments).

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Ebenezer Scrooge was tight with his personal purse and disdained any charity.

I haven't seen a single Republican candidate ever show disdain or hatred for charity.

So in other words, this is "that thread" again.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Most social programs aren't charities since you pay into them, but what about Medicaid and VA? They pretty much fit the bill.