Backgrounder
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/09/karl-rove-speech_n_1656013.html
I have long wondered exactly why people like Sarah Palin and Karl Rove elicit such Pavlovian responses from progressives and denizens of the so-called left-hand side of the political spectrum.
I mean both are just human beings, not particularly good nor evil – at least as far as I can tell. Both are to some extent articulate (to their own audiences) and knowledgeable people who seem to inspire in their opponents this vision that they are totally evil beings. Why is that? Heck, if I know.
And then, I got to thinking about the old political saw: If you want to unify the masses, create a devil for them to hate. Usually, this is used in international politics to justify nationalism, so the “leaders” select some nation and they become the “empire of evil” or something similar.
Now, in Germany in the 1930s, and in Arab Muslim countries today, that devil is the Jews/now Israelis.
In the US today, those devils are Karl Rove, Sarah Palin and now to a lesser extent, George W. Bush.
On the right, of course, they have created the devils of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Barney Franks … and maybe Harry Reid … and most certainly, George Soros
My contention is that none of these “bogey-persons” really is an evil or bad person. I may disagree with them (all of them) politically, but that does not make them bad enough to elicit some Pavlovian response from me.
In the case above, I suspect that Karl Rove’s appearance at the luncheon was vetted by some appropriately high-powered political lawyers and was not, as implied by the author of the article, some illegal, nefarious, disingenuous, circumlocution of his interpretation of what is, or what he feels should be, federal law concerning political campaign activities.
The problem, as I see it, in this country is not that we have too much political debate, but rather not enough. GASP! What am I talking about?
To begin with, political speech begins with and ends with money … individual’s money and how they spend it. Unfortunately, in this country (as pretty much everywhere around the world, given the condition of human nature), all political parties see it as being in their best interest to somehow muzzle their “opponents”. This is why the power of incumbency is so immense. Incumbents get loads of free advertising just by being incumbents.
Still, there are those who would shackle the power of money, which is about as totalitarian as you can get: Using the law to suppress dissident speech.
I would counter those who wish to limit political speech by telling them if you really believe there is a tit-for-tat in between the spenders and politicians then prove it and make stricter laws on bribery … and enforce them with all equal before the bar of justice. But if you are just claiming influences, then that is a red herring. Yes, money does buy influences, so does personality. So do words. So do numbers of people behind your case. That, in case you didn’t realize it, is what politics is all about.
You want to remove the power of money to influence government, I have a simple solution: Eliminate government largess. That is right: Limit what government can spend its money on. Throw away all the tax breaks, subsidies, inducements, supports that, for the most part, are designed either to reward supporters or attempt influence behavior in one direction or another.
Government needs money? It levies a tax, a tax that EVERYONE pays the same into. If it is based on a percentage, then everyone pays the same percentage on everything. If it is a simple fee, then everyone pays the same fee. No favoritism, No helping one side or another. Everybody is equal before the law. Anything else is simple and straightforward discrimination, which in any form needs to be resisted and rejected.
Government spends too much money, or spends it in the wrong place? Then limit the areas that government has a role. Limit where government can spend money. Limit money coming from the government and you will limit the money spent trying to gain government influence. It is simple economics. It is simple human behavior. Remove the reward, remove the incentive, and the behavior will stop, post haste.
But back to my original thesis: Why make devils out essentially non-entities, like Palin, Rove or Soros. These people hold no office. Their influence is only what we consent to give them. But in a sense, they are targets of opportunity. They are people who can be cast into whatever demonological category you want to make and therefore sway large numbers of people with whatever portrait of them you want to paint. As a symbol, they become easier to lie about, easier to distort and much easier to manipulate to further your agenda.
The problem is, or maybe it never was before, that we are unable to debate ideas, concepts, theories, without making it personal.
I can sit here at my keyboard and computer screen, and rant on whatever topic I want, but I doubt very seriously if I will influence those few who read these words, because – in the words of Pappy: Don’t bother me the facts (or ideas, or questions), my mind is made up.
All I am asking is that people open those minds. Listen to what others say. Weigh what they say against what you believe to be true and the values that you hold. Think about what they are saying. Don’t be afraid to listen. Don’t try to shut them down or drown them out.
Don’t make bogeymen (oops, bogey-persons) of those you disagree with. Fight them with ideas. Prove, if you can, that your ideas, concepts better describe the reality of the world than theirs do. Don’t be afraid of money, it is merely an illusion that we give greater credit to than it deserves.
Besides, there is none stashed under my bed, nor are there any bogey-people.
