I've beaten this drum before, but that's because I think it continues to be relevant, particularly when and where it gives the lie to claims of compassionate conservatism. I've been over it so many times that when I see it reflected here and there on the web, it jumps up and smacks me in the face so hard that I can't believe other people don't see it. And I can't help connecting the dots when I see them.
It happened again yesterday evening when I saw a headline that said the rich and the poor had different views of poverty.
Polling by the Marguerite Casey Foundation also found that both rich and poor are optimistic about future prospects for their children.
Those at the poverty level or the near poor were almost twice as likely to say factors beyond their control are responsible for their impoverished state. Those who make higher incomes were evenly split on whether poverty is caused by external factors or by people not making enough effort. (emphasis added)
..."We're looking more and more like a developing country," said Luz Vega-Marquis, president of the foundation. "We have a concentration of wealth in the top 5 percent, but what is happening to the middle-class and poor people?"
It's what I call a no-brainer, because it's something so basic that it shouldn't need to be spelled out; except that because it drives to much of political thought and policy that it has to be spelled out over and over again. Something like half of those with "higher incomes," mentioned above, fall into a particular category or mindset.
Worldly success is an indicator of sufficient moral strength; lack of success suggests lack of sufficient discipline. Dependency is immoral. The undisciplined will be weak and poor, and deservedly so.
...Since discipline is paramount, social programs "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. Social programs are immoral and are to be eliminated in favor of forcing people to be disciplined and self-reliant. It is immoral to coddle immoral people. (emphasis added)
It's a pillar, if not the foundation, of conservative political thought in a nutshell -- or at least taken to its logical extreme. Admittedly, it's a common tactic in argument or debate to take one's opponents' arguments or theses to their logical extreme. But the history books are also full of examples of ideas taken to their logical extremes. So, it does happen.
And it's the establishment of an idea as "common sense," to be taken for granted that allows it to be taken to the logical extreme, even if only in speech. Take for example the conservative radio host to took "drown the poor" to its logical extreme, if only in the rhetorical sense, concerning national or natural disasters.
BOORTZ: OK, I've got an insensitive thought, folks. There's a news story out there -- there's a news story out there that rich people got some sort of an email notification of the terrorist threat against the New York subway before poor people did. OK? They're making a big deal out of it.
...OK, let's get logical about this, folks. Let's play logic with this. This is as it should be. OK? If we are faced with disaster in this country -- let me ask you this, OK? You just be logical. Get all of the emotion out of this. Get all of the emotion out of this. But if we are faced with a disaster in this country, which group do we want to save? The rich or the poor? Now, if you have time, save as many people as you can. But if you have to set some priorities, where do you go? The rich or the poor? OK? Who is a drag on society? The rich or the poor? Who provide the jobs out there? The rich or the poor? Who fuels -- you know, which group fuels our economy? Drives industry? The rich or the poor?
...I'm serious about that, folks. You see, that's the kind of thing that's going to end up in news stories: "Neal Boortz said that in times of disaster we should save the rich people first." Well, hell, yes, we should save the rich people first. You know, they're the ones that are responsible for this prosperity. (emphasis added)
Remember, "it is immoral to coddle immoral people," and "the undisciplined (read immoral) will be weak and poor,and deservedly so." And of course the poor are "undisciplined" that's why they don't "make enough effort," as the article says above. The poor, in other words, deserve whatever they get because if they were better people they would be better off. I've said it before, in pointing this out as the basis of the brand of conservatism we see today, and now Boortz is pretty much saying the same thing.
From there is isn't a far leap to enacting policy that embraces the same basic principle. So it wasn't a surprise yesterday to find the Daou Report linking to a post at The Fulcrum about House Republicans not just making huge cuts in programs for the poor, but embracing them.
House Republican leaders have moved from balking at big cuts in Medicaid and other programs to embracing them, driven by pent-up anger from fiscal conservatives concerned about runaway spending and the leadership's own weakening hold on power.
Beginning this week, the House GOP lawmakers will take steps to cut as much as $50 billion from the fiscal 2006 budget for health care for the poor, food stamps and farm supports, as well as considering across-the-board cuts in other programs. Only last month, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and other GOP leaders quashed demands within their party for budget cuts to pay for the soaring cost of hurricane relief.
And, as Charles2 says over at The Fulcrum, you can bet those other programs cuts won't touch the interests of those whom Boortz wants to pull out of the floodwaters and save from terrorists first, because wealth signifies worthiness.
It's easy because "the undisciplined will be weak and poor, and deservedly so" and because "it's immoral to coddle immoral people." It's also easy to take your time on relief for hurricane victims, especially if you're a self described "white Republican guy who doesn't get it" and who doesn't "understand how poor people think." But you don't have to get it because you've already "got it" in terms of wealth and well being. Remember, "worldly success is an indicator of sufficient moral strength."
You don't have to get it. You're where you deserve to be. They're where they deserve to be. The rest is easy. Get it? I'm surprised more people don't. That is, until I read something like this.
People of all income groups said they felt optimistic that their own children will be better off in the future. The poorest were most likely to express optimism their children will be better off. (emphasis added)
It's what keeps them in business, and what keeps the poorest of the poor voting Republican in the "red states." Apparently as much as the poor believe that "factors beyond their control" are responsible for their poverty, they also believe either they can change those factors or that those factors will somehow change themselves. They don't believe themselves to be doomed by their own lack of "moral strength" as the legislators they vote for apparently do. But then, that's because they have different ideas.