"All seems infected that th'infected spy,
As all looks yellow to the jaundic'd eye." – Alexander Pope, Essay on Criticism I, l. 557-8.
I could subtitle this, "Further explorations of my brother's pathology." My version of The Brother is not to be mistaken
for Myles na gCopaleen's, who is charmingly retrograde. Mine listens to rage radio, owns a construction firm, employs anecdotal evidence, and uses his ample intelligence to rationalize from irrational premises. The last time I wrote about My Brother, I was appalled by his vision of self-reliance.
I have since heard from him on the subject of banks.
"Never write a check for money you don't have," he said. "It's that simple." I pointed out the infamous order-of-payments scam, and he said, "You have to expect that." Then I pointed out the hidden fees, where banks can deduct fees directly from account holders without permission or notice, and, again, "They're going to make a profit." I said that what they were doing was wrong, and he said, as a total explanation:
"People are flawed, evil. You need to expect them to be that way and not look for Government to bail you out."
I answered, "Flawed doesn't mean evil, and, even if it did, wouldn't it be compulsory for us to then structure laws to mitigate that evil?" He said he needed to go. That's ok. I don't want to hold a one-sided argument or triumph over anyone, but I do want to show the consequences of metaphors and how a seed planted in 1981 has grown into a mighty Triffid.
In 1981, at his first inaugural, Ronald Reagan said, "In this present crisis, government isn't the solution to our problem; it is the problem." It was hardly the first time he said something with the same meaning, although his earlier formulations had been more scatalogical. From Eisenhower's belief in government as the provider of infrastructure -- the interstates, bridge programs, low-income housing, to Reagan's belief that government of any sort (in his speeches), short of the executive (in practice), had taken no time at all, and the press reported it as a triumph, and gladly said that it was "a revolution."
And now we enter a world of strange colors, flashing lights, and Neil Borscht on the radio
We are now two
generations into the post-Reagan America, where the contrast is between an ill-defined Democratic Party and Republicans who claim all guns, all Bibles, and blithely swear against all taxes and "government." We missed, for twenty years, the chance to do what Barack Obama did in 2008, and that is remind the American people that the Democratic Party stands for the idea that
we are the government.
Against Reagan's "the government" as an alien thing imposed upon the individual in his castle, we can offer democracy, whereby "the government" is us, and it exists for us, and it is changed by us. It cannot become the enemy or "the problem," except when democracy fails.
Reagan's hatred of the income tax appealed to every man and a few women because he could argue that the income tax was responsible for whatever action the man or woman disliked about recent history, whether it was federal interest rates or busing in Boston or the guilt he or she felt about not turning down the thermostat. "The Government" became an externalized nag, and instead of being "nanny state," it was "all forms of nanny values." Reagan offered a nation of 230,000,000 states, each without any obligation to the others.
In 2012, the President reclaimed his voice about how government is "us," and I think we were all cheered by it. When the "you didn't build that" emerged, it was a winner for our side, because the American people in general know what's what. Those still angry, still passionately against being part of a country with a Black president (or a progressive tax) thought it was a ludicrous sentiment, and they jumped on it as a winning message, since it was self-evident to them that America is all individuals. They misjudged.
Unfortunately, our President has maintained the executive power that is not answerable to the people. That is a topic for another time, though.
My brother's world view is fascinating to me, because it married the idea that "government" is an opaque and external force with a belief that all individuals are bastards. Because all are bastards, it's no wonder that no one works government except the lazy and corrupt people and that girl he talked to on the phone he couldn't understand. (Remember what I said about anecdotal evidence? If he calls fifteen agencies and talks to fourteen people without dialect markers who are more eloquent than he is, he will not remember the conversation, but if one call to a low wage worker entails a dialect either from a foreign language or a region or ethnicity, then he will remember that as the voice of "government workers.") He argues, as well, about "The Government" being set up by lazy people for other lazy people to exploit, and he argues this from anecdotal evidence as well. He always "knows a guy" who told him that his baby mamma was going to have three kids, because that's where the money's at, or that going through probate was just a way to get lawyers rich, or whatever else he wants to have heard. ("Government" doesn't require passing bills in his world. Rather, "government workers" "design it" so that "their people" can balk "us.")
Before you blend My Brother in with every stereotype, think what it means to do so. First, he is not exalting a race or class. Rather, he is excusing himself, and everyone else, by painting all of humanity with the darkest hues he has.
The Pew Research study of partisan polarization suggests that there is less and less conversation between the "sides." You heard about this study a while back, I'm sure, but you probably heard it as "both sides retreat to their corners." The problem with this narrative is that we don't have a corner. "We" are women, gays, the poor, a majority of African Americans, a majority of Latinos, a majority of first generation immigrants, and intellectuals. In short, "we" are impossible to isolate, and our news sources are all over the place.
Is it remarkable that 'we' do not go to websites or radio shows that are built upon hatred of us? Would you expect immigrants to listen to Neal Boortz? The real news is that twenty to forty percent of the U.S. is now not communicating with sixty to eighty percent of it and is boycotting mainline newspapers, radio, and television news in favor of an alternate reality.
If My Brother has bought into the insane view that banking regulations are The Government, but the NSA isn't, that "The Government" makes sure low cost housing is available, but does not stockpile missiles, build littoral navies, nor joint strikeforce fighters, and if he's a stereotype in that way, then what does that say about the success of this delusion? What else does it say about the view of ethics?
To encompass his view that you are all alone and that the Government can't help, My Brother has resorted to a radical view of human nature. He reasons that each person is viciously attempting to get a profit off of every other person and that nothing can limit this. Think about it. There is no appeal to God, nor hope in law, nor belief in community -- nothing at all that can mitigate the savagery of man (if we can call this beast he imagines "man" instead of Yahoo). It is, to quote a Herzog film title, "Every man for himself, and God against all."
With such a person, there is no argument, because the foundational belief is that every man is a trickster, that love is a cheat or folly, and laws are obstacles to be overcome.
Forewarned is forearmed?
As a Democrat, I maintain that:
1. Government is made up of citizens, and it must be kept responsive to all of the citizens by the judiciary.
2. Federalism checks state excess by means of the constitution, and states allow for individual formulations of taxation and closer administration of revenues to projects.
3. It is
less expensive to have waste in a government project than it is to have a
profit margin in a private project.
4. When government is wasteful, the people may rectify it, but when companies are wasteful, only other companies or courts may rectify the situation.
5. Man is imperfect, and he thus needs laws and executive power to exhort and coerce at times.
6. Because man is imperfect, we must communally foster education.
7. Because man is imperfect, we must communally work to encourage social behavior and discourage anti-social behavior.
As a Democrat, I have a great deal that I can believe
in. I do not merely need to laugh at the cartoonish rhetorical violence of Republicans and the hilarity of Louie Gohmert's casting asparagus. I can formulate a rational philosophy on corporations based upon the above principles (that they should be carefully circumscribed, as they carry profit margin and operate without national fealty). I even own a few Bibles, go to church, say my prayers, and really like how the nation is tanning.
Remember: if My Brother sounds like people you know, then that means that the point of view, and its incipient nihilism, is lurking in the soil.
We can, should, and must triumph, as belief beats fear, community beats siege-works every day.