FRN Columnists" Corner - "Lieberman, Prince of Thieves?" By Jonathan David Morris

Free Republic Network ^ | 10-28-03 | Jonathan David Morris

[Bob J]

FRN Columnists' Corner

"Lieberman, Prince of Thieves?"

By Jonathan David Morris

You may recall that Joe Lieberman was one of three Democratic candidates -- along with Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich -- seen begging for forgiveness after skipping an NAACP forum this past July. Having been told by NAACP Pres. Kweisi Mfume, "Your political capital is the equivalent of Confederate dollars," Lieberman attended a later session that week and said, "Anyone aspiring to leadership... must believe that the causes he or she fights for... are right. But leadership also means being able to admit when you are wrong. And by not coming [to the forum], I was wrong."

Groveling, much? Wait. There's more: Lieberman was also heard to say that "we need [Mfume] on the Supreme Court," which, when translated, means we need Lieberman in the White House like we need a good kick in the groin. Why? Well, the fact that Mfume never went to law school -- unlike, say, Clarence Thomas -- is a good place to start.

But such is the sort of lip service we can expect from people who talk from both sides of their mouth -- who, when pressed, "Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds" them, as Samuel Adams suggested they do. Not that Lieberman's alone in taking his constituents for granted. He's a politician, after all. That's what politicians do.

Just as Republicans switch-hit between the NRA and gun laws, so, too, are "race relations" a matter of convenience for many Democrats. When Trent Lott strokes Strom Thurmond's ego, for example, it's like one big scavenger hunt for racial insinuations, like Six Degrees of Segregation -- Kevin Bacon be damned. But when Robert Byrd says "white nigger" on a national broadcast, we get the occasional "Oh, no, I condemned that, too, but it was out of context" from his colleagues.

This is in keeping with "fairness," as defined by Lieberman's crowd.

Last week, for instance, the Connecticut senator revealed his plans to raise taxes on the wealthy should he win the White House. "The idea is simple," he told a New Hampshire crowd. "Make those who are well off and corporations pay their fair share." Oh, it's simple, all right. It's simply wrong to call this "fair." Maybe I grew up with a different definition, I don't know, but Merriam-Webster defines "fair" as "marked by impartiality," and it would seem to me that taxing one group a larger percentage than another falls short of that description.

And I'll tell you what's really scary: Lieberman's choice of words. He wants to "make" them pay more taxes? "Make"? Would this be at gunpoint or something? Isn't this guy supposed to be working for, not against, us?

"But he wants to tax the rich," you say, "and they can afford it."

Maybe so, but isn't that a bit like saying it's okay to make fun of fat people because they haven't got feelings?

Time and again, we're told that stereotypes are now passé. But the death of misinformed prejudice is greatly exaggerated. It's still quite fashionable to slander some groups in this country, and the rich are a fine example.

After all, they deserve it, don't they? Sure they do. They've got it better than you. They've certainly got it better than me, at least. Am I making a living? Yeah, sure, but have I got my own basketball court, beachfront property, an H2, or any of the other neat things you see on MTV's Cribs? No. I've got a slow-burning toaster and an electric beard clipper. You know what, though? There are whole countries that wish they had it so bad.

So I don't have a plane in my garage like Dean Kamen. So I don't own India like Bill Gates. So what? I didn't invent a portable dialysis kit or a stair-climbing wheelchair, and I haven't contributed millions to the treatment and prevention of AIDS, either. Kamen and Gates have. These two are so rich it's almost stupid, but they're two of the most important philanthropists around. Even if you remove the benefit of the doubt and say they do what they do for the sake of PR, they still do it -- and, on that note, they've done a lot of good.

That people like Kamen and Gates have more money than you is immaterial. It doesn't affect you. Complaining about it, or demanding they pay a larger percentage of taxes in the interest of "fairness," is sort of like telling your mom you're not the only kid who gets in trouble at school. "I don't care about the other kids," she'll say. "I only care about you."

So now the question is, does Lieberman plan to tax the wealthy because he cares about the lower and middle classes? Could be. I don't know. I've never met the guy. But taking from the rich to give to the poor is a dubious strategy, anyway. The Founders didn't promise Happiness, but instead its Pursuit. Why? Because people will never be a hundred percent happy, and we ought to be wary of government programs which promise otherwise.

And as for the upper class, Lieberman's got a funny way of showing his love for them. He's campaigning on the idea that he'll seize their money and give it to somebody else. My, how inclusive. Just imagine if he was pledging to "take from the blacks and give to the whites," or vice versa. We'd run him out of town on principle alone. But because his plans are to take from the rich and give to the poor, we applaud him.

It's funny what passes for fairness in our country. In an alternate realm, we'd call Lieberman's plan robbery.

And that's not to say that we shouldn't be helping the poor in some way, but I shouldn't have to make this clarification. Supporting a person's right to be rich has no necessary connection to wanting everyone else to stay poor. But that's what the modern definition of fairness has done to rational discourse.

Take socialized medicine, for example. We've got to have it, they say, because not having it wouldn't be fair. This idea was dead on arrival when it belonged to Hillary Clinton a decade ago, but folks kept pounding the fairness drum, redefining the debate, and resetting its parameters till it became a threat to political power to step out of bounds. Now socialized medicine is considered a "victory" for the so-called rightwing extremist in the White House.

Same goes for immigration. Illegals aren't even illegal now. They're "undocumented." And taxpayers pay for their college scholarships because anything less -- like capitalism -- wouldn't be fair. Don't question it, either. If you question it, it means you hate Mexicans. You don't hate Mexicans, do you? Of course you don't. You're a good person. So now let's roll out the red carpet and welcome them to America, where opinions, personal achievement, and property rights are beaten like dogs and destroyed.

When Lieberman campaigned with Al Gore back in 2000, we heard all about how George Bush's tax cuts would benefit the wealthiest one percent of the country. Given the aforementioned NAACP incident, I'm tempted to note, for the sake of comparison, that African-Americans make up thirteen percent of the population. That's one percent versus thirteen percent. Not that it's a natural comparison, but it just goes to show that there are many groups out there with different wants and goals. Legislation which caters selectively is bad policy, because it necessarily spites anyone who hasn't got their hands in the cookie jar.

If we take Lieberman's comments at the NAACP forum at face value, and if we assume, then, that equal opportunity is one of the "causes" he fights for, shouldn't he be looking to treat everyone equally under the law? If so, he suggests no such thing. Instead, he supports a system in which the haves subsidize the have-nots -- not because they care but because their government will throw them in jail if they don't.

As if the rich exploit the poor by their nature, Lieberman suggests we use the latter to plunder the former, in effect exploiting them both. Maybe that's his conscious intention. Maybe it isn't. It doesn't really matter either way. What matters is that social engineering didn't work in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, and it can't work here. Whether it's black and white, rich and poor, or whatever, the aligning of factions with politicians creates favoritism, clumsy programs, and higher taxes, rendering State-owned slaves of us all.

Mfume said the political capital of Lieberman, Gephardt, and Kucinich is the equivalent of Confederate dollars. By that standard, the modern definition of fairness is like Geoffrey money at Toys R Us. It's what lets the politicians treat people like pawns and play things. It's what stamps a dollar sign on our souls.

© 2003 Jonathan David Morris

Jonathan David Morris is a political satirist based in New Jersey. A strong believer in small government, JDM often takes aim at oppressive taxes, entitlements, and laws, writing about incompetence at the highest levels of culture and government. Headstrong, stubborn, and fearful of tyranny, you can catch more of JDM’s ramblings at readjdm.com.

[SwinneySwitch]

...Merriam-Webster defines "fair" as "marked by impartiality,"

When it's about conservatves, liberals prefer this definition:

Lawful to hunt or attack: fair game.