It occurs to me that the largest misconception surrounding HR3200, the health reform bill, is one of nomenclature.
Much of the American citizenry stupidly believes that the legislation will socialize medicine. Why? In part, because people occasionally hear about an ill-defined "public option," which sounds ominous. They think that "public option" means "single-payer," which means "all doctors and hospitals will now work for the state," which means "Come comrades, come rally...this last fight let us face..."
Are people really that ill-informed? Yes.
They are too lazy to research the matter and too arrogant to admit that their initial misconceptions might be wrong. And the propagandists know how to capitalize on their nescience.
By the way... Bill Clinton's excellent speech to the netroots, most of which is visible below, didn't always sit well with me. He talks about a fundamental shift in the political atmosphere. He insists that we are now entering a decades-long progressive era. But the person who ended that dream is Barack Obama.
Clinton says that the public attitude shifted left-ward during his own successful second term. But the 2000-2004 period was the most reactionary this country has ever known, and not just as a result of 9/11.
The problem with Clinton's analysis is that he frames much of it in terms of race and religion: As America becomes more multicultural and tolerant, the Republicans' ability to manipulate those hot-button issues fade. But the most important division in America is neither race nor religion but class.
Historians have long noted (while failing to explain) the singular fact that the peasantry tends toward ultra-conservatism. Peasants will often support a militarist thug who works against their own best interests. The Reagan revolution shrank the middle classes and ruined education, thereby enlarging what we might call the American peasantry. That sweet, ditsy girl named Tiffany who works for near-minimum wage at the Gap is no hater -- but politically, she'll always be a sucker for any gun-totin' flag-waver warning her about the menace of bolshevism.
There's no hope for Tiffany. She can't even read this blog post.
26 comments:
Being one of those undereducated peasants I probably didn't understand your insult correctly. I, undereducated though I may be, have been a Democrat most of my life. Indie now.
Flag waver? My dad was in the Military and I was raised on army bases from Texas to Missouri, so yeah, I'm a flag waver from way back. Patriotic even.
Insults seem a poor way to convince people of the rightiousness of your ideas on the issues but "elites" and the "well-educated" have always done that.
Perhaps that's why the Tiffanys of this world listen to those bloviating conservatives. They may be many evil things, but they aren't dumb enough to insult the people they need for a majority.
There is always hope for people. Under-educated or not. People listened to Bill Clinton because he didn't speak down to them. There is hope for the Tiffanys of the world. But not by telling them that they're hopeless.
I thought the regression was in my imagination, guess not. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum. Time to think about leaving the U S of A to the crazies and/or O'bots and move elsewhere.
But the most important division in America is neither race nor religion but class.
You got that right... and the upper crust is fully aware of it and as been wailing away on the peons for decades now.
The Tiffany's often identify with with gun-totin' flag-waver( and I'm using your terms ) because she IS working minimum wage at the Gap
On the Left side, you to have to have money to even pretend to belong. On the gun-totin' flag-waver side, you get to belong to something greater than working at the Gap, if you just believe with all your heart. How many militia colonels turn out to be janitors? Being a militia colonel is a mental/ emotional relief from that reality.
Dems have no little people myth to spin as they steal from one, like the GOP does. If they want to remain the Upper Crust# 1enforcer, they had better craft one.
But they love beingabove the peasantry too much to even pretend to include them as a peer. ( the GOP is very good at pretending ) They must always be on top, their benevolence raining from above and meanwhile, the peasantry is trying to escape an embrace that reinforces their lower status.
The "peasantry" as you say, responds to the Clintons because the Clinton's actully talk to them person to person and treat them as peers. Which imo, is one of the reason's their fellow Dems elites dislike the Clintons so much.
I know Tiffany. If she could actually read and understand this blog, she would go stomping off into the sunset in a mighty tiff, complaining that she was being discriminated against, her typical knee-jerk reaction. She might even accidently spit out her chewing gum during her loud and pointless tirade.
That makes no sense, but neither does Tiffany.
But - believe it or not - she is about to become a part of a new American privleged class, enforced and guaranteed by our very own federal government.
Life is about to become much better... At least for a few of us.
kenoshamarge, meet Annie.
My original intent was to bring in Homer Simpson to illustrate the point. But then I thought I'd use a distaff example.
By the way, kenoshamarge, I don't think you were ever a Tiffany. But try this experiment. Go to the nearest Gap and ask the Tiffany there if she thinks it is a good idea to keep the government out of medicare.
I find I often agree with kenoshamarge! lol!
I challenge people to live Tiffany's life before judging her.
I guarantee most would ran away before lunch. however Tiffany isn't allowed that luxury
Who do you think is emptying the bed pans
as we debate how much money to give away to the insurance/ drug complex? It's Tiffany...or her AA co-worker, Rochell.
They are usually too busy or tired to read blogs.
I'm not saying that Tiffany doesn't work hard. I've known some Tiffanys.
But the fact is, her vote counts as much as that of an informed person. And there are more of her.
At least uneducated people have an excuse. They can also blame the government for not providing the adequate schools, quality education, and funding needed to get that education and college degree.
What are the Obots' excuse? Many have ivy league degrees, make six or seven figures, are a member of Whole Foods Nation: http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDiary.do;jsessionid=33B3BF413549658AFA2AB3F01272C06C?diaryId=3508
Half of them still willingly chose to remain uninformed about Obama's record and history in Chicago politics. They were still ignorant enough to go along with sexism and race baiting. And they are still dumb enough to vilify working class Americans.
BTW, my mother never went to college and she was smart enough to see through Obama for what he was in December 2007. She supported Hillary. She believes in a single payer health care system and knew Obama wouldn't deliver. And she supports the teabaggers because at least they have more guts than progressives to stand up for what they believe in even if they are wrong. Meanwhile progressives like Michael Moore beat around the bush and hope for a miracle from their Obamessiah. Who are the real idiots?
Joseph, I have news for you. Tiffany(Katie) was at a town hall meeting this week. She is 35 and a mother. She admited she never found any use for politics before and didn't even watch the news till a couple of years ago, but she(the sleeping giant) is awake now to make sure this country does not become Russia(classless in theory). After allshe has a health savings account and her husand still has a good income and she overheard him telling his friends that the damn liberals are ruining the country(Gov regulating how far up corps can stick their hands up poor Joe,s ass). Ofcoarse in ten or so years when she finds out her husband has been keeping a younger Tiffany on the side and end up a divorced mother with no job prospects and no health insurannce and maybe no SS, She will still blame the liberals for ruining the country.
Beeta
Well I think Tiffany is informed...but in a boarder sense. I don't see much help for Tiffany from either side, but the GOP knows enough not to look down on her, at least publicly, and one can't help being drawn to that.
The Kennedy/Obama wing Dems, on the other hand, don't like Tiffany much and in thier arrogance, make it obvious. They will shed a tear about her AA co-worker and then openly laugh about Tiffiany's make up and yes, gum chewing, like that's important. Their class disdain parading as" caring" is repellent.
I think if the Tiffany's were offered a real chance , they would make better choices for their actual lives. In fact we saw that, Hillary's 18 million votes had one hell of alot of Tiffanys.
This frighten the elite of Hillary's party to the bone. So it's not just a matter of Tiffany rejecting them , they are vigorously rejecting Tiffany. I believe Donna Brazile told her to stay home, she were no longer needed. Now it seems she is ...oops .
My point is, it's not Tiffanys job to follow and obey people( Dem party) who don't like her, just cause they keeping saying they give a damn...I've seen less and less evidence to support that over the years.
"We don't put a limit on the amount the NHS can spend on an individual. The basis of NICE's system of appraising drugs and other treatment is simple: something will be recommended for use if the benefits to patients are worth what the NHS is being asked to pay."
Maybe Tiff could get a job writing for the Daily Telegraph? Not sure about the pay and benefits. (DT, 14 August)
So what's the point? Have an I.Q test at the pollng places and only allow the smart folks to make decisions for all of us? No more voting while stupid? That let's out half the House of Representatives and at least 1/2 of the Senate.
I agree that the biggest problem in this country is not race or cultural but class. And one of the problems with class distinctions is when the Upper class looks down it's lofty nose at the lower class.
Excuse me and others, such as Annie, if we object to that.
I read you every day and usually agree. Today I didn't.
"So what's the point? Have an I.Q test at the pollng places and only allow the smart folks to make decisions for all of us? No more voting while stupid? That let's out half the House of Representatives and at least 1/2 of the Senate."
Sounds good to me. And yes, I am serious about proposing rules of this sort, although I would not be as draconian as you suggest. See here:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/11/serious-proposal-we-must-disenfranchise.html
I don't need a Tiffany at the GAP Joseph. I have my very own airhead who I have know for over 50 years. She was a dimbulb back then and she's a dimbulb today.
She rails about "kids and drugs" while her doctor has her so hopped up she doesn't know what day it is. She also forgets that I rode around with her in the back of her boyfriends 1959 Chevy Impala with a beer in one hand and a joint in the other. Guess her memory ain't all that good either.
Sandy is outraged over all those rude people that are not sitting quietly and listening to what their representatives have to say. Sandy thinks that they are all Nazi's bused in by those evil Republicans.
Sandy couldn't tell you one thing about the health bill in the congress at this time. Like most of the Representatives.
But she's "fer" it just the same. Because "our" party is out to help people and those evil Republicans only want to do harm.
She never misses an election, primary,local or otherwise. And she has voted a straight Democratic Ticket in every general election for as long as she's been old enough to vote. Because "Daddy" was a Democrat, so of course so is she. She married one too but he had about all he could stand and up and died on her, her words, he up and died on her and left her all alone.
I know from stupid. And I don't find much hope for Sandy either. She a dedicated dimwit. And she, balances your Tiffany quite nicely. Her and all the dedicated Democratic Dimwits that will vote for anything with a "D" after it's name. Man, woman or cretin.
I was a Tiffany/Sandy at one time. I didn't take the time to learn all I could about issues and just voted a straight Democratic ticket most of the time.
Now I'm an Independent and I vote for whoever I damn well feel will do the best job. I don't care what letter follow it's name.
My point, and yes I do have one, is that giving up on people may make you miss a few here and there that actually are capable of learning and growing.
It would be wonderful if the discussion of health care consisted of well-reasoned discourse based on factual data. It doesn't, and it's not Tiffany's fault. Rather than the open and transparent process promised by President God (h/t to Violet) during his campaign, we've had a secretive, closed door process. None of the proposed bills have been discussed publicly, virtually no factual information about them has been discussed in the media (you know, those folks whose job it supposedly is to inform the citizenry). Instead, we've been treated to a bizarre mishmash of sloganeering and invective from both sides, along with a fanciful collection of myths about how health care works (or doesn't) in other countries. No, Tiffany hasn't read all the way through any of the bills before Congress - not because she's stupid, but because she's to goddamned busy working three jobs in order to keep her head above water to plow through a few thousand pages of legalese. Unfortunately, her elected representatives haven't bothered to read the bills either, and because they haven't read them they're not prepared to conduct a rational discussion, either.
So, Tiffany doesn't know exactly what's on the table and nobody - not the press, not her elected representatives, not her President, not the union she might belong to nor her insurance company - will enlighten her. Tiffany, however, is wise enough to realize that when folks conspire in secret and reflexively attack anyone who questions their intentions, they're usually up to no good. Tiffany, you see, has just been swindled out of a couple of trillion dollars by the bonus class under very similar circumstances and she's not willing to let it happen again.
Smart girl, that Tiffany.
So, Joseph, I assume you've read all the bills currently before Congress. Since you have, why don't you educate Tiffany instead of insulting her?
"He insists that we are now entering a decades-long progressive era. But the person who ended that dream is Barack Obama."
===
The person who ended that dream was Ralph Nader and the original Obot morons, the Naderites.
Later the Naderites praised Gore, without ever crawling on their knees till they bled, screaming and BEGGING for forgiveness.
I spit on them. Their spirit lives in the bonehead Obots.
Peasants have tended towards conservatism 1) because they live their lives in 'cyclical time', and 2) because of religion.
In Europe and the Americas, requirement 1) tends to mean that requirement 2) takes Catholic or Orthodox Christian forms rather than Protestant forms.
In a country like America today, compare a) television and the way the 'week' and 'day' work, and b) religion and marketing. America is culturally very backward.
There have also been times when peasants have launched very radical and large-scale movements, notably several times in the history of Russia (17thC - Stenka Razin, 18thC - Pugachev, and then a couple of times early in the 20thC), in Spain (20thC civil war, in which of course there were also large numbers who were conservative), England (14thC and 17thC), Mexico (early 20thC and now), etc.
The ideas of peasant radical movements have tended to be 'millenarian', or as we might also call them, 'revolutionary' and 'communist'.
The stuff you're talking about applies to all petty sellers of goods... The peasantry in that sense tends to be conservative in the same way as the urban petty bourgeoisie does. They want food prices high. Proletarians want them low. If a kilo of potatoes costs twice as much from a smallholder as from a supermarket, I'll buy them from a supermarket. Both lots will probably be sprayed with shit. Both smallholder and supermarket want more from me than they paid for them anyway. Fucking parasites.
The greatest period of the French Revolution was precisely when the government felt it had to control food prices. Yikes! Condemned for two centuries as 'the reign of terror'.
Crap about 'the little man' plays very well in America where he is constructed in mystified terms of being a petty market operator rather than in the sense of 'worker' or 'proletarian'. 75% of people in America are proletarians. The position isn't that they are 'little' whereas the Rockefellers are 'big'. That's stupid if anything is. They're a class. Even if they're not told so on the television. Rejection of the idea that centralisation of power in extremely few hands is a necessary tendency under capitalism is idiotic. The idea of a kind of 'people's capitalism' is cretinous.
As for guns, the average person in America sees someone fire a gun, how many times a day on television?? How many times a day do they watch a simulated murder? By any human standards, that's completely sick. Personally I'd be pleased if the government banned guns. I'd also be pleased if they set up a nationalised free-at-the-point-of-access healthcare system. Only an arsehole (US: asshole) wouldn't.
The thing is, a big proportion of the vigorish sucked up by finance capital in America is mediated through 'health' policies. In Britain that accounts for maybe a third or a half as much, with far more sucked up in ways mediated by money-lending cons, typically sold in terms of 'own your own house', but spread far beyond that since what remained of the workers' movement was smashed in the mid-1980s.
"Fuck you, I'm all right Jack" is about the most anti-human attitude there is, and when it's widespread it sends the whole of 'society' down the toilet.
b, I was intrigued by the "cyclical time" notion. I'm not entirely sure about the religious angle, although it certainly plays a role. Many a Catholic peasant supported Bismarck, despite the Kulturkampf. And many a Protestant worker supported the (nominally) Catholic Hitler.
You also have to keep separate the urban and the rural working poor. Your own country's history bears that out.
Clinton is playing to his audience. Notice how no one even clapped when he mentioned peace and prosperity. He concentrated on gender / homosexual stuff, a staple of the ‘prog’ agenda, each time got YAYs, (when in favor of non discrimination, etc.) for the rest the audience is bored...
He made some appeals for energy efficiency, that was not the meaty part, the audience just sorta put up with it. So he tries to make a mix, get ppl moving.
So the left has only one agenda, and it ain’t even anti-racist. It’s all about the progs getting the upper hand on totally trivial issues, gays in the military, fringe considerations, etc.
And there they all sit in designer clothes, clap when their in group is mentioned, or frown deeply - so serious - when another in-group or international issue is mentioned. Pathetic.
Billy C is the best of the lot, meaning he thought it out and did the best he could...he was struggling there.
Ana
Useful stuff on cyclical time (and pseudo-cyclical time in the television epoch) by Guy Debord is here (chapters 5-6) (unfortunately very stylistically polished). Keith Thomas's Religion and the Decline of Magic also very good, but a long time since I've read it.
"You also have to keep separate the urban and the rural working poor."
...True. Very different histories. Irreversible time and cyclical time. But effort by the rulers to keep them properly separate sometimes has to be made. Which was one of the things they managed to achieve with partition in Ireland. (Thanks religion too, before I get accused of reductionism!)
Ah. Actually, I have the Keith Thomas book -- it survived the catastrophe which robbed me of my library and files. I've read bits but only bits. One of these days...
Not being willing to let go of any argument without having the last word, I reccomend the following column.
If you don't want to read the entire column just scroll down to the last few paragraphs or just the last line. It says what I am not educated enough or articulate enough to express.
Liberal Rapture has a post in much the same tone on Katy Abram and what's wrong with the left.
http://liberalrapture.com/
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rodriguez17-2009aug17,0,2050132.column
"Sounds good to me. And yes, I am serious about proposing rules of this sort, although I would not be as draconian as you suggest. See here:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/11/serious-proposal-we-must-disenfranchise.html"
The inconvenient thing about universal suffrage is that it extends the franchise to folks who don't necessarily agree with us, even if we think they disagree because they're too stupid to appreciate the wisdom of our position. There are two ways to deal with this:
1) restrict the franchise to those who will use it in a way you approve of (as the Founding Fathers did when they envisioned only [white] [mostly Protestant] men of property like themselves being entrusted with it), or
2) polish your persuasive skills and realize that in a representative system everyone gets a voice, no matter what you think of him or her. Learning how to talk to folks without talking *down* to them would be a good first step.
Having grown up in the South, where for a century so-called literacy tests were used to prevent non-whites from voting, the whole notion of competency testing for voters leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. It's too damned easy to rig.
I should also point out that we're now suffering through the second of two Ivy League incompetents in the White House - so I wouldn't be too hard on the Tiffanies of the world. I'd stack a savvy small-town waitress against George Bush, Barack Obama, or Timmy Geithner any day of the week.
Post a Comment