Stories about oldsters eating pet food go back to the late 1970s. This little wonder is from a 1978 National Lampoon, back when PJ O'Rourke ran the joint.
Posted on 03/04/2009 6:39:43 AM PST by seatrout
“but how do they help the old lady down the street who really is trying to find some way to pay for her prescriptions?”
Well you just made my point. The Medicare Drug issue like the universal health care issue was lost long before the bill was written. The left started with the grandma eating dog food stories back in the 90’s. It became a throw away comment on many TV shows, dramas and comedies. Oprah and her ilk made sure that at least a couple of times a year they had a sob story on to humanize the issue. By the time it came to vote it was no longer a question of whether it was a good idea to offer the program, or whether there was better ways to address the issue than another huge expensive government handout, but rather how big a program we were going to be saddled with and who was going to be taxed to pay for it.
By your argument every liberal agenda item makes sense and should be passed. We can always find someone who is hurting that a government program could help. Lord they included $90M in the stimulus program to provide one-on-one education to people having trouble dealing with the digital TV change, because after all everyone deserves to have good TV reception. I am sure my friend is elated that Obama won. She will soon see all her liberal concerned addressed at the expense of the “evil” rich.
“I think I’m like most people, in that I tend to be more favorably disposed toward the person who offers to help me solve my current problem”
Well then you should be very comfortable with OBama and Nancy because as long as you are not “wealthy” they are going to help you solve all your problems, of course at someone else’s expense. Oops there I go again with another one of those nasty little conservative theories, personal responsibility.
I didn't come close to saying that. You're presenting a strawman.
What I said was that old folks really are having trouble meeting their medical expenses, and that's a fact. And that fact has serious political implications.
That brings to mind one of Saul Alinksy's central insights, which was that real problems, if left unaddressed by "the establishment," can be exploited for one's own political ends.
The left knows that, but we conservatives tend to address such real issues with some lofty theory or other -- the correctness of which does nothing to help the old lady who's having money trouble today. She doesn't give a damn about your theories, and neither do her family and friends. What they do care about, is that gramma gets the medical attention they think she needs.
As a matter of politics -- not to mention moral responsibility -- conservatives need to find some way to address that kind of dynamic without sacrificing the essential principles of conservatism (whatever they may be). Unfortunately, we haven't figured out a way to do that.... It's a tremendously thorny problem.
That leaves the field open for liberals who promise to "help." (And for "conservatives" who try to fix things by acting the same way.)
That doesn't mean that their "help" will actually solve the underlying problem, and you're quite correct that it almost certainly leads worse problems than the original.
But to the old lady down the street, and her friends and relatives, there is still that present problem of how to afford (say) her prescription. Those issues, not your conservative theories, are what define how a lot of folks vote.
For conservatives to be successful -- as Reagan was -- the old lady's problem has to be addressed by something other than theoretical pronouncements. We've so far failed to do so, and your friend knows it. She sees a problem in need of a solution; you see a theory that ought to be implemented. What you call her "emotional" argument is actually something more than that: it's a recognition of a real problem that you (we) are inclined to gloss over.
Conservatism had had successes in the eighties and fell into a slump in the GHW Bush years. Talk radio was also in a rut, so there was plenty of room for growth for both conservative politics and radio.
At some point in the new millenium that potential was exhausted. Conservatism's back in a slump, and talk radio's pretty well saturated the market and begun to produce diminishing or negative returns.
You can also look at it in McLuhan's terms. The Internet is a "cooler" medium, not as intense as talk radio. The web's dominance affects the style of public discourse, so we may see a turn to less intense media for a while.
Of course if the politics start getting heated up, talk radio will be there, if the Democrats don't change the rules.
The bill for Obama hasn't come due yet. So it's like the early 1960s. Liberalism will start to sour soon enough.
He's more Reaganite than they are, and less given to cultural gloom-and-doom.
That's all well and good. But the celebratory or congratulatory vein in his speeches can be a little too much some times.
Some people like a bright and sunny pallette. Others are into more somber shades. Most of us fall somewhere in between.
Stories about oldsters eating pet food go back to the late 1970s. This little wonder is from a 1978 National Lampoon, back when PJ O'Rourke ran the joint.
Well then you tell me how would you have solved my friends problem without instituting a new expensive government program? You are good at talking around the point, but in fact you are saying exactly what my friend was saying. Grandma can’t afford her drugs and you are a mean, cruel person for not wanting to tax the “rich” to pay for it. After all it is a problem that has to be solved, not a theory to be discussed. I think it is interesting that for 160 years this country was able to deal with these types of issues without big new expansive government programs, then all of a sudden we had the New Deal followed by the War on Poverty and Medicare and government became the solution. And since then the Left has found one new problem after another that only government spending other people’s money can solve.
I hate to drag something as dirty as money into the discussion, but do you realize the legacy of these compassionate programs is a looming $45T bill coming due soon that doesn’t even include the cost of the new drug program. Whose going to pay for that. That is not conservative theory that is reality. It is easy to come up with answer for all the worlds problems when money is no object as is the case for the Left. Are there a conservative answers to these problems that does not involve expensive, expansive new programs, not unless we are willing to go back to the days when families and communities took care of grandma and that is not likely to happen. If everyone is entitled to top notch health care then someone is going to have to pay for it. Since you seem to have all the answer how do you propose that we as conservatives tackle this “new” problem identified by the Left? Since conservatives espouse personal and fiscal responsibility how do we make people pay for what they say they can’t afford, but liberals say they are entitled to? I’m open to suggestions. You talk about conservative theory versus liberal reality, well give me some conservative reality that tackles this problem without taking from those that have and giving to those that don’t, because the Left’s emotional appeal to an Oprahized America to save grandma will always trump the conservative call for less government spending, lower taxes, smaller government and individual freedom.
In my family we all chip in to take care of my mother and aunt. We take care of any medical needs not covered by medicare and trust me there are many, pay for our own health care on top of what we pay to take care of others parents and grandparents through our taxes. We also maintain their homes, provide them with hired transportation and help them with other day to day expenses. Because of careful planning we can afford to do this and we feel it is the right thing to do. This is not a government program, this is how people used to handle the issues involving the elderly. My mom and aunt’s church also help out with daily getting to church and to the store needs since we all live 70+ miles away. This isn’t conservative theory this is real world reality and the reality is not many people are willing or able to offer this type of assistance to family members. In a perfect world there would be no need for money, everything would be free and provided for all, but again that is not reality. So if we are to accept the liberal argument that everyone is entitled to everything whether they can personally afford it themselves, then how do you suggest that big, mean, cold-hearted conservatives like me who are only interested in theory, provide that without going the route of big government? This is not a strawman, again this is reality because the Left can and has made that argument for everything from health care, to retirement benefits, to free lunches for poor children, to free college education, even to free basic cable as they do in the projects here in Indianapolis. Where does it end, and how much are you willing to spend to get conservatives out of their theoretical comfort zone and make them as compassionate as liberals?
Listen, Friend -- perhaps your real problem is that you have a tendency make things up. The extract above is a case in point. Did I say that? Nope. Not even close. But you're so busy justifying your theory to yourself that you apparently don't bother to pay attention to what others are actually saying. (I cannot claim superiority here, as I tend to do the same thing.)
To review, I was merely pointing out a rather obvious political fact: that folks who have problems are more likely to vote for those who appear to be interested in helping them, than for those who aren't. Shout all you like, but it's true.
And another political fact is this: a lot of those problems are real. In our example, the inability of an old lady to pay for her medical expenses is a real problem. To point out a problem is not to suggest a solution -- but you seem to have a tendency to fly off the handle at the mere mention of the problem. Again, your response to me is a case in point.
All of your talk is fine; I even agree with most of what you say. Unfortunately, most of what you say does not address the more important political aspects of the situation.
In particular, you're probably not going to get anywhere with words, when your opponent is offering tangible help (even if it's not "help" in a big-picture sense). All you're going to get, is the stuffings beat out of you at the polls. The last 45 years of US political history tend to prove the point.
The question is, then, what are some conservative alternatives to the liberal status quo?
You actually hit upon a few of them -- if only to say "they'd never work." For example, families and churches and charities and private foundations can do a lot to make up the difference -- but in order for them to be viable, the government equivalents need to be severely scaled back at the same time. In a political sense, some significant success in an effort to build the former, is a necessary precondition to scale back the current government programs.
It would be death to the conservative efforts if the government programs were killed without anything standing ready to take up the slack.
Another conservative approach is to adjust people's expectations for what government can and should provide. That's a very long-term project, of course, but a crucial one. At the same time, something must be done about people's expectations for things like medical care, and such. Those are cultural things that must be addressed by cultural means -- entertainment media, for example.
” Mr. Hannity’s tendency to get trounced by his liberal guests.)”
Hannity’s no brain surgeon. But his heart is in the right place.
“the Democrats’ perception of his irresponsibility”
Of course I understand that distinction. Now that you’ve made it.
” a good tactician could parlay that into something “in the lion’s den.”
Agreed. To be blunt...... who dat?
“it doesn’t do much to bring in new recruits. “
I don’t think Rush views himself a “recruiter”
“What conservatives need, is something that offers a “middlebrow” outlet for conservative thought”
Again...agreed. I just don’t think it’ll play on commercial radio.
There is plenty of thoughtful conservatism in print, but we’ve got a tough row to hoe bringing it to the mass media.
It would be something if one of our illustrious conservative congressmen stepped up to the plate and articulated a principled conservative message on a regular basis.......... Not sure if I should hold my breath.
Sorry about the delay in response. Had to work. Gotta write Uncle Sam a big check in a few weeks.
He’s right........and that’s frickin sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.