View Full Version : The Story of an Angry Voter
Something well worth pondering during this election cycle...
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
The Story of an Angry Voter
David Brooks, NYT, 20 May 2010
Let’s imagine a character named Ben. A couple of decades ago, Ben went to high school.
It wasn’t easy. His parents were splitting up. His friends would cut class to smoke weed. His sister got pregnant. But Ben worked hard and graduated with decent grades and then studied at East Stroudsburg University and the University of Phoenix.
That wasn’t easy either. Ben would like to have majored in history, but he needed a skill so he studied hotel management. Others spent their college years partying, but Ben worked hard. After graduation, he got a job with a hotel chain. A few years later, he got a different job and then a different one.
He didn’t have lifetime security or a fabulous salary, but Ben worked. He filled in for the night manager, hired staff and cleaned up the breakfast area when that needed doing.
In other words, in school, he labored when others didn’t. At work, he sacrificed when others didn’t. He bought a house he could afford when others didn’t.
This wasn’t a robotic suburban life. It was a satisfying, moral way of living. Ben lived according to an ethos of what you might call “earned success.” Arthur Brooks has a good description of this ethos in his new book “The Battle.” As Brooks (no relation) observes, the key to happiness is not being rich; it’s doing something arduous and creating something of value and then being able to reflect on the fruits of your labor.
For Ben, right and wrong is contained in the relationship between effort and reward. If people do not work but get rewarded, that’s wrong. If people work and do not get rewarded, that’s wrong. But Ben believed that America is fundamentally a just society. He loved his country because people who work hard can usually overcome whatever unfairness is thrust in their way.
But when Ben looked at Washington, he saw a political system that undermined the relationship between effort and reward. People in Washington spent money they didn’t have. They just borrowed it from the Chinese. People in Washington taxed those with responsible homes to bail out people who’d bought homes they couldn’t afford.
People in Congress were caught up in a spoils system in which money was taken from those who worked and given to those with connections. Money was taken from those who produced and used to bail out the reckless, who were supposedly too big to fail.
This was an affront to the core values of Ben’s life.
Once there was a group in the political center that would have understood Ben’s outrage. Moderates like Abraham Lincoln believed in the free labor ideology. Their entire governing system was built around encouraging labor and rewarding labor.
But these days, the political center is a feckless shell. It has no governing philosophy. Its paragons seem from the outside opportunistic, like Arlen Specter, or caught in some wishy-washy middle, like Blanche Lincoln. The right and left have organized, but the center hasn’t bothered to. The right and left have media outlets and think tanks, but the centrists are content to complain about polarization and go home. By their genteel passivity, moderates have ceded power to the extremes.
So when Ben looked around for leaders who might understand his outrage, he only found them among the ideological hard-liners. In Arkansas, he saw a MoveOn candidate, Bill Halter, crusading against the bailouts and the spoils culture. On the right, he saw the Tea Party candidate Rand Paul crusading against runaway spending and debt.
Ben wasn’t naturally an extremist sort of guy. He didn’t live his life for politics or go in for the over-the-top stuff he heard on talk radio. But he did have some sense that the American work ethic was being threatened by debt and decadence.
It was going to take spit and vinegar to turn things around. So he voted for one of the outsiders. This is not time for a tinkerer, he figured. It’s time for a demolition man.
In a few years’ time, Ben is going to be disappointed again. He’s going to find that the outsiders he sent to Washington just screamed at each other at ever higher decibels. He’s going to find that he and voters like him unwittingly created a political culture in which compromise is impermissible, in which institutions are decimated by lone-wolf narcissists who have no interest in or talent for crafting legislation. Nothing will get done.
In a few years’ time, Ben is going to look for something else. It will be interesting to see if, by that time, any moderates have had the foresight and energy to revive and define the free labor tradition — a tradition that uses government to encourage work, to reward work, and to uphold the values at the core of Ben’s life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/opinion/21brooks.html?src=me&ref=general
Good read sir, thanks for posting it.
....... This is he and voters like him unwittingly created a political culture in which compromise is impermissible,.....
I completely disagree with the story based on the one above line.
Compromise on a sack of crap bill is getting 1/2 sack of crap.
Time to stop loading your crap into the sack and giving us a full sack of crap just so you can say you compromised.
Thanks Richard..
I fear the intended target audience for Mr Brooks (does his wife teach) will not read nor be enlightened by his prose.
They will become disenchanted, disillusioned, and disenfranchised.
They will slowly and inevitably sink into the morass along with those that are feverishly entrenched in the Faith of the Rite-Now Rite-Here I-Want-Mine Entitlement Church...
The Left-Honorable Reverend for Life,, BHO in the pulpit, with assorted and back-up TelePrompTers..
My $00.0002,, and not in the basket,, yet...
Peregrino
05-22-2010, 14:22
Nice that the NYT which has worked so dilligently to create the current conditions should now bitch about the inevitable results. And no - I'm not interested in compromise either.
greenberetTFS
05-22-2010, 14:50
WTF, Compromise is not a word in my vocabulary.............:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
Historically - this democratic Republic was formed and has flourished beyond expectation through compromise, and I think Mr Brooks offers a valid bit of insight into the potential dangers of a willingness to haphazardly abandon that important concept in a short-sighted pique of anger.
Personally, however, I also feel a compromise can be wrong when it means sacrificing a principle - something Mr Brooks' OpEd piece doesn't address and something I think many of us perceive has been happening with our elected representatives and political leadership all too frequently of late.
As for those who staunchly proclaim their disinterest in or unwillingness to compromise - are you married? Ever raised children? :confused: Because if you are - or just happen to live on this planet - compromise is a definite part of your vocabulary. :p
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Peregrino
05-22-2010, 15:57
Personally, however, I also feel a compromise can be wrong when it means sacrificing a principle - something Mr Brooks' OpEd piece doesn't address and something I think many of us perceive has been happening with our elected representatives and political leadership all too frequently of late.
We agree on the point of principle. Unfortunately (for the NYT OPED), most of MY principles are grounded on the Republic and its Ideals, a position diametrically opposed to the Liberal/Progressive agenda. I will not compromise them.
And if more parents had "line in the sand" principles they were willing to instill in their children, most of the Lib/Prog BS agenda would be irrelevant and ignored for the drivel it is.
My .02
And if more parents had "line in the sand" principles they were willing to instill in their children, most of the Lib/Prog BS agenda would be irrelevant and ignored for the drivel it is.
You mean like Jerry Kane who instilled his 'parental principles' in his son and claims his son has never attended school in his life? :confused:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgASUudIblA
Richard
Historically - this democratic Republic was formed and has flourished beyond expectation through compromise, ............
And that "compromise" is going to get us over 300 tag-ons to the Senate Finance Reform Bill. Almost all having nothing to do with Finance - but hey, a little compromise and some more pork is oinked out.
Just say "NO".
Well - there's compromise and then there is pork - all pork is compromise but not all compromise is pork...nor should it be.
The bath water is dirty and needs to be thrown out - but, personally, I do not advocate throwing the baby out with it.
However...YMMV...
Richard's $.02
Well - there's compromise and then there is pork -............................
Where does compromise on 100 guns bills get you? No guns.
Compromise is a death of a thousand cuts.
A bad bill does not get better through compromise.
Time to just say "NO"
Congress is so wrapped up in screwing us with compromises they seem to be failing on their job of producing a budget.
So the massive "wrap it up all in one bill" will have something for all politicians and plenty of red ink for the tax payer to try and cover.
Let us consider the health care bill.
Was this an example of compromise? It seemed to me that one side jammed it down the throats of those that didn't want it - and then dared them to try to repeal it.
Were the contents examples of compromise? The bill, among so many things, has a new requirement for businesses that changes filing requirements with the IRS. It's a big issue - and no one seems willing to say who put it in the bill. LINK (http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/21/smallbusiness/1099_deluge/index.htm).
And then there's the Salami Technique. LINK (http://ezinearticles.com/?Negotiation-Skills----The-Salami-Technique&id=96668). One gets the other side to give a little on many points, over time, and thus wins big.
We see this with gun laws. With privacy. With taxation. With fundamental issues of life and liberty. Each small increment is accepted in the spirit of getting along, of letting everyone win a little - of compromise. We continue to compromise until we are undone.
Good as the original post is, the author of the editorial fails to see what Ben will experience, what the wages of his reasonable behavior and compromise might be. His savings and earnings have already been devastated by inflation. The current profligate spending will extract its costs from those who generate wage-based income, but lack the legal and accounting help to mitigate the the costs - in other words, Ben gets the bill. Ben can expect the Social Security payment he was promised to be sliced. The Medicare he was promised will be diced. And his retirement savings that he invested - whether in stocks, bonds, or rental properties - will be both sliced and diced. Ben will have worked his entire life and he will wind up with nothing. There are lots of Bens out there.
Does Ben even get any thanks? No. Look carefully at Ben and his kind as they are depicted in literature, film, and on television. They are buffoons mostly, villains sometimes, ignorant bunglers generally. Ben's values are anathema to the social elite, who regard Ben with a contempt that can scarcely be verbalized.
Ben is patient. He is forgiving. He wants to be liked and to be a nice fellow. Will he, in the end, react with anger? Or will he simply fade away - along with his contribution to the society? I don't know. It should be interesting to observe.
GratefulCitizen
05-22-2010, 19:23
A poor liberal and a poor conservative are walking down the street.
They both see a rich businessman riding in the back of a limo.
The poor conservative says: "One day, I'm going to be rich and ride in a limo like that guy."
The poor liberal says: "One day, that rich guy is going to walk like me."
A rich conservative businessman hires two workers.
One of the workers is more productive; he gets promoted, gets paid more, and has better benefits.
The less productive worker is still getting paid fairly.
A rich liberal gets elected to political office.
He sees the pay inequity and offers a compromise:
Some of the businessman's and higher paid worker's money is taken in taxes, the liberal politician takes his cut and gives the rest to the lower paid worker in the form of direct payment and mandated benefits.
The businessman changes his operations to increase efficiency.
The less productive worker no longer has a job.
The more productive worker works even more to take up the slack.
The businessman now has more money.
The more productive worker now has more money.
The liberal politician now has more money.
The less productive worker is now broke and jobless.
Should the less productive worker vote for more of the same in the next election?
I think - naively, perhaps - that good government is dependent upon a balance of the quality of the office-holders and the quantity of the freeloaders - more of the one and fewer of the other. Although it appears as if that trend has been reversed of late, I am personally thankful that we don't seem to get as much government as we pay for...which may change, but - based on its past performance - I don't think so. However, whatever direction our government goes and whatever its faults - of which there have always been many - we seem unable to grasp the concept that we are primarily to blame, if blame is to be affixed, because it is our government.
In that light, I think Mr Brooks has presented a valid concern to think about - the potential consequences backlash voting could bring if such voting is based purely on emotion and the potential to throw the baby out with the bathwater if such a course is fed to the voters in a bland buffet of public discontent - but is not seasoned with a pinch of reason and a dash of caution.
I found his piece to be of particular interest and relevance to the times and the upcoming mid-term elections, but that is MOO and YMMV.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
..........In that light, I think Mr Brooks has presented a valid concern to think about - the potential consequences backlash voting could bring if such voting is based purely on emotion and the potential to throw the baby out with the bathwater ................
No emotion here.
I'm just fed up with the "lets all just get along and compromise" issue.
Richard you continue to default back to your "group hug" feelings.
A bad bill is a bad bill is a bad bill is a bad bill. Compromise on a bad bill only makes a bad bill bigger.
You know it's a pile of crap when a politician says 90% of a bill is bad but because he got to stick something in that covers his pet project he'll vote for the bill. He compromised and gave us crap so he could get a little action.
So now in this Finance Reform Bill we have over 300 items added by both the Ds and the Rs - most of which have nothing to do with finance.
I'm getting fed up with politicians that say "Well, we have to do something." Maybe the right thing to do is do nothing.
The primaries are over around here - except for a few run-offs. Time to start looking at who's who and where they stand on issues. Get active and vote. Get the yard signs and bumper stickers out, pass the word.
I think - naively, perhaps - that good government is dependent upon a balance of the quality of the office-holders and the quantity of the freeloaders - more of the one and fewer of the other.
<...snip...>
In that light, I think Mr Brooks has presented a valid concern to think about - the potential consequences backlash voting could bring if such voting is based purely on emotion and the potential to throw the baby out with the bathwater if such a course is fed to the voters in a bland buffet of public discontent - but is not seasoned with a pinch of reason and a dash of caution.
Perhaps a necessary precursor is consensus on what we want, and where we want to go. My inclination is to say we don't have it, and are going further away from it by the day.
As an example, there is the issue of the quality of the office-holder. What, exactly is a "good" politician? (Now there's a question! :D ) Conversely, what is a "bad" politician? Was Reagan "good" or "bad"? The answer depends on who one asks. While I recognize that there has never been complete agreement on the subject, I'm under the impression that we're further from it than we were.
This leads to the next issue - where does the baby begin, and the bathwater end? The national disagreement goes to the heart of how we live. One side seems to emphasize greater control by the central authorities, albeit with some benefits and entitlements. The other side regards such control as anathema. One side seems to want "social justice", however defined; the other prefers the freedom to succeed or fail.
If we, as a society, bail out people who cannot afford their mortgages, does this mark us as a compassionate society - or one that punishes success while rewarding the foolish? One side gains at the other side's expense. And how does one compromise on such fundamental matters?
And then there is the issue of reason. I'm not sure the voters are prepared for such a test, nor am I prepared to assume that the politicians or bureaucrats have enough understanding to choose wisely.
While our fiscal house burned, the specialists at the SEC rallied to the cause - by watching porn on their government computers. LINK (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/11/federal-lawsuit-pressures-sec-to-id-porn-snoopers/)
Governments everywhere seem to love Keynesian economics, with its emphasis on deficit spending to stimulate the economy. But they forget to build surpluses during the good times.
Governments delight in creating various programs. But none of us - not one - has the deep, gut understanding of exponential growth that is required to prevent disaster. And disaster there will be, as nations default on their promises.
I'll be the first to concede that I do not have any elegant solution to the problem - but at least, I don't make that claim. Before I can accept compromise, before I can agree to trust the decisions of the various leaders, I want some honesty. I want the facts. No spin, no little verbal flourishes, no subtle little statistical tricks, no hiding behind phrases like "mistakes were made" or "misspoke". I want the pure truth. And I strongly suspect that all of those angry voters, wherever they might be on the spectrum, would agree.
But until we get the truth, the discontent will, I think, increase. In my opinion, we ain't seen nothin' yet.
dr. mabuse
05-23-2010, 11:25
*
Peregrino
05-23-2010, 11:46
12-Step programs usually start after a "Significant Emotional Event", i.e. when the addict is at rock bottom and has pretty much lost everything. Recovery is not guaranteed and everybody the addict touches is "along for the ride". The upcoming "ride" isn't going to be easy or pleasant - and did I mention "no guarantees"?
Personally, I'm starting to wonder if the baby in the bathwater didn't drown a while ago and nobody noticed amongst the mutual recriminations.
I'll be the first to concede that I do not have any elegant solution to the problem - but at least, I don't make that claim. Before I can accept compromise, before I can agree to trust the decisions of the various leaders, I want some honesty. I want the facts. No spin, no little verbal flourishes, no subtle little statistical tricks, no hiding behind phrases like "mistakes were made" or "misspoke". I want the pure truth. And I strongly suspect that all of those angry voters, wherever they might be on the spectrum, would agree.
Nmap, well said here. IMHO All it takes is one leader, good or bad to make a difference, and America needs one to step up. One of my personal heroes Admiral James Stockdale, wrote he doesn't care about a man's politics, all he looks for in a candidate is character, a high character individual will know when to stick to principle and when to compromise, either stand alone is a slippery slope. Finally I recall something Col. Boyd wrote saying in life you have the choice to be someone, or do something. Folks who chose the former often get promoted/elected over doing the right thing.
FWIW I too feel principles should be adhered to, but to use the analogy of an attorney, young lawyers know the law, experienced lawyers know the exceptions?
dr. mabuse
05-23-2010, 13:31
*
GratefulCitizen
05-23-2010, 14:51
This leads to the next issue - where does the baby begin, and the bathwater end? The national disagreement goes to the heart of how we live. One side seems to emphasize greater control by the central authorities, albeit with some benefits and entitlements. The other side regards such control as anathema. One side seems to want "social justice", however defined; the other prefers the freedom to succeed or fail.
If we, as a society, bail out people who cannot afford their mortgages, does this mark us as a compassionate society - or one that punishes success while rewarding the foolish? One side gains at the other side's expense. And how does one compromise on such fundamental matters?
Governments everywhere seem to love Keynesian economics, with its emphasis on deficit spending to stimulate the economy. But they forget to build surpluses during the good times.
Governments delight in creating various programs. But none of us - not one - has the deep, gut understanding of exponential growth that is required to prevent disaster. And disaster there will be, as nations default on their promises.
There are economic forces at work which are much larger than the tools of government influence.
The '70s saw a massive oversupply in the civilian labor force due to the boomers and more women entering the workforce.
Labor unions and government responded with all sorts of tools to "fix" the inevitable result of supply exceeding demand.
This just delayed the natural adjustments a capitalistic system will make.
For several decades, things have worked.
The entry of generation "Y" into the workforce, the retention of the boomers in the workforce, and loose monetary/fiscal policy have resulted in another oversupply of labor.
Government efforts to drive up the cost of labor are not helping employment levels.
In time, the economy will shake out excess capacity, government efforts notwithstanding.
Once the economy re-settles, there will still be unequal outcomes.
Some politicians will take credit for the recovery, others will decry the inequities; most will do both.
Government doesn't have as much influence over the long-term economy as they would have you believe.
At the federal level, I'll vote for the politician who is primarily interested in keeping foreign threats at bay.
The economy will tend to itself.
It's time for both parties to come to the aid of their country.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
greenberetTFS
05-24-2010, 20:27
It's time for both parties to come to the aid of their country.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Agree...............;)
Big Teddy :munchin
Dozer523
05-24-2010, 21:59
It's time for both parties to come to the aid of their country.Richard's $.02 :munchin Nope.
Because neither party really believes the country is in need, no matter what they say. Both parties are just using the problems of the current 10 years to further their agendas. And the same goes for the 16 years of the Bush Sr and Clinton administrations.
Has there ever been a time "coming to the aid of the country" was necessary or even perceived as necessary? Yup. For a few months following 9-11. But that was only because we were scared spitless from the outside. For a brief few months we were re-loading and the weapons was pointed somewhere other then at ourselves.
Ahh the good ol days. that and Dec 7.
Our politicians come to the aid of the country?
Like the man said, "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
...politicians come to the aid of the country: ha, monkeys will fly out of my butt before that happens.
ZonieDiver
05-27-2010, 10:31
Republicans: Fiscal stimulus has a history of not working and will just be a waste of money. If anything, it could crowd out prviate sector investment that really would help the economy. Any stimulus should instead be tax cuts.
Republicans (many anyway), continued: "But that <insert company name> aircraft plant producing the <insert aircraft that the military really doesn't want> is vital to our nation's defense, and MUST be included in the budget."