Are the “extreme right” running this country? If so, it’s news to me — and probably to them, too. Nevertheless, an old friend declares that the “extreme right” has “manipulated politics so that there is a greater class differential than ever in our history.”
Finding his interpretation diametrically opposed to reality, I respond as follows:
The magnification of class differences and the dwindling of the middle class correlate to the growth in government (i.e., creeping socialism) — which is a leftist phenomenon antithetical to rightwingers, most of whom are middle and lower-middle class.
He insists that the political system is controlled by “the upper class, primarily rightwingers,” and rants on:
Replacing the ridiculously unfair income tax with a sort of unfair flat tax would help but would put tens of thousands of Republican accountants out of work. Tort reform puts quite a few influential attorneys of both parties out of work. When rightwingers can explain how they want spending brought under control and don’t want any change to Medicare or Social Security, that’s when I won’t think they’re morons.
I try again:
I’m not sure what you mean by “rightwing.”
I would agree with you that there’s a self-serving, arrogant elite that runs roughshod over our economy and culture, but they’re not conservative and they’re not advocates for free enterprise. They push for greater government control of the economy, knowing that they in turn can control the government. In essence, they’re monopolists — i.e, socialists. The idea that socialism is a program for the people is a sick charade, perpetrated by the very people intent on protecting their wealth and keeping everyone else down. There is nothing “rightwing” about this.
As for the federal income tax that the Constitution originally prohibited, almost anything would be better. I personally would prefer to see the 16th and 17th Amendments repealed and the federal government obliged to go hat in hand to the states again. Most of the horrors of Big Government in America can be traced to the passage of these two amendments and the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank — all in the same year.
I’m no flack for Republicans, but there are plenty of them who see the need to reinvent or, preferably, privatize “entitlements.” Acknowledging this in public, however, knowing how the leftwing mainstream media will misrepresent their positions, is simply not prudent at this time. In any case, conflating Republicans with rightwingers is laughable, as any rightwinger could tell you.
He counters with the assertion that the definition of rightwing “isn’t worth debating,” but continues to criticize policies he misidentifies as rightwing.
Knowing I’m fighting a losing battle, I make one more attempt to clarify the term:
Having spent three years as the editor of a conservative national news magazine and seven years as a conservative syndicated columnist, I naturally feel a proprietary interest in the term “rightwing.” As I said before, I’m not sure what you mean by it, but what you seem to mean is not even a bad caricature of my viewpoint, much less a faithful representation. I have met a few money-grubbing, selfish conservatives over the years, but for the most part they’re good people. A little square, of course, but squareness is hardly a vice.
By the way, there’s abundant evidence that conservatives — and conservative Christians, in particular — are the most generous segment of the American population. Secular liberals, on the other hand, are at the opposite extreme. This is due, in part, to their belief that the government should take care of everyone, thereby absolving them of personal responsibility. Ironically, however, they also tend to be the most assiduous in minimizing their tax payments. Al Gore is an exemplar, a leftwing multimillionaire who makes almost no donations to charity. (For what it’s worth, Democrats in Congress are far wealthier, on average, than their Republican counterparts.)
These are verifiable facts, not merely my opinion. I would agree that they’re counterintuitive. Part of the problem is that the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have come to mean practically the opposite of what they did originally. The liberal who once promoted limited government to protect the freedom of the individual is now the liberal who restricts the freedom of the individual — for his own good, of course — as he promotes the growth of government. This perversion of terms makes discourse difficult.
I remember the befuddlement I felt years ago — and still do, despite knowing better — trying to understand why so many big businessmen support socialistic programs. I naturally assumed that they were advocates of free enterprise. In fact, they’re not. Their goal is simply to make money; and, if they can use the machinery of government to advantage themselves and disadvantage their competitors (not to mention their customers), they don’t hesitate to do so.
Most small businessmen and entrepreneurs, on the other hand, are staunch believers in, and practitioners of, free enterprise. Not all, of course, but most.
The biggest reason this whole subject is so confusing to so many people is that they’ve been poorly educated, on purpose. Unless someone figures out pretty soon how to teach the majority of Americans the truth about the blessings of free enterprise and limited government, we’re doomed to continue down the road of increasingly larger government until a totalitarian tyranny is imposed on us and the few million resisters are rounded up and imprisoned or executed. (Bill Ayers, Obama’s Weather Underground friend, estimated 30 million Americans would need to be exterminated.)
Something to look forward to.
It provokes more muddled thinking.