The battle by conservatives and the GOP against liberal approaches to government and policy is waged on multiple fronts. One front that was opened in this election was the conservative appeal to its base that Obama supporters “want free stuff” from the government. Right-Wing Media: Americans Voted For Obama Because They "Want Free Stuff" http://mediamatters.org/...
There is a lot to unpack in the "free stuff" GOP rant.
First, "free stuff" is code for "undeserving people with brown skin" so it feeds the racist part of the GOP message.
"Free stuff" also feeds the Go Galt self-righteous Randian types who see themselves a virtuous value producers and who disrespect the work or value of others--feeding hierarchical and authoritarian aspects of GOP culture (they like a society with social classes, and the right to disrespect a lower class), as well as feeding the GOP victimhood message--"I would be doing so much better if not for the leeches, whah, whah, whah."
Ironically--"free stuff" is the bridge the Dems can use to go after the Southern White Males on financial and business regulation. Wall Street is the one that wants "free stuff"--it wants the right to take big risks and take the profits, but have society pay when they screw up. Business fights regulations because they want "free stuff."
More below squiggle.
Conservative arguments for “free” markets are essentially misdirection, the same as a stage magician uses to surprise the audience. There are a lot of truthful arguments in favor of society using the economic signaling mechanism of markets to make efficient, beneficial choices—but the conservatives are not making them.
The basic truthful argument is that by when the forces of supply and demand to set the price for commodities, or iPads, or consumer goods, or fashion or multiple other goods, sellers can make economically sustainable choices about supplying those items.
However, there are lots of products whose market price does not reflect all of the costs or all of the benefits of those products to society at large. For example, the price of steel bargained for between a willing buyer and the mill owner will not include the health care costs borne by the people downstream from the steel plant affected by pollution from production, unless you use environmental laws to force the producer to capture and include amelioration costs in setting his price.
A “free” market, in that example, shifts one of the costs (clean water) from the producer onto parties who are not part of the transaction to buy and sell steel. The market’s “signal” about the price of steel is not accurate because it does not include the fully-burdened cost.
When Wall Street wants to do highly leveraged deals, it wants to shift the risk if/when those deals collapse onto society at large, as happened in the financial crisis. “Privatizing gains, socializing losses,” as we liberals say. Or, as conservatives would say, “They want free stuff.”
When manufacturers want to reduce workplace safety rules, they want to shift the costs onto the workforce. The manufacturers “want free stuff” by having the law keep the costs off their books.
When companies want to avoid Obamacare, and force sick employees to use publicly supported (and more expensive) emergency rooms, they “want free stuff.”
In fact, the whole business basis for supporting Mitt was to buy a politician who would have the government pay a portion of their costs—they “want free stuff.”
Exhibit A in business’s “war” get “free stuff:” http://heritageaction.com/
Per Diby: “As Molly Ivins famously said, it was better in the original German.”