Mine, Mine

Originally posted in late October 1994 at usenet newsgroup ne.politics.

Mine, Mine

"Mine, mine, mine, me, me, me, get, get, get... What can you do for me today?" was a common distortion of Lucy, from the comic strip Peanuts, done by John Taylor when we stood watch together onboard the USS Kentucky. John, as far as I can tell, has been the only person I know to have successfully combined cyncism and sarcasm with a healthly sense of humor.

[rant mode on]

Some of the recent postings on ne.politics have made me sick, or maybe sickness has caused me to take a jaundiced view. Whatever...

It is amazing to me how liberalism in this country has evolved from JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country" to ridicule of Bush's 'thousand points of light'.

During the sixties, although not clear at that time, there came a divergence between those who had faith in the Federal Government to solve problems and those who didn't. The liberals had a clear voice until the 1968 Democratic convention when there was a sharp left turn which was not felt until the next convention.

Although a previous poster suggested that the roots of long term incumbancy are in the 1930s, IMHO the selfishness did not reach the American popular conscience until the 1970s. Some could point to baby bloomers, benefitting from a long period of peace, security and posperity, grew up spoiled. I think it's more complex than that. President Johnson with sincerity promised more than he could handle with the Great Society and the Vietnam War. Of course, many baby boomers felt a disillusionment with government.

Ironically, as George Will put it, Ronald Reagan who championed those who had less faith in government actually restored faith in government. Furthermore, he was successful in getting taxes reduced (which was popular) he was cowed from reducing tranfer payments (read entitlements) which by the way dwarfs military spending. The only serious attempt was social security (which was not popular), and he refrained from trying any further. Of course, politicians who had any desire to hold their seats may have mouthed desire to cut spending, never really cut the pork.

My personal belief, is that social security is a broke system. I have made contributions for nine years, and I am convinced that I will not see one cent of that money (unless I recieve disability payments) and will not see any of the money I contribute when start I work again in May (hopefully). And if I do, I expect it to be worthless money from a bankrupt country. Even my dad who believes in many of these social programs acknowledges that he will not see all of his money when he retires in about a decade. The actions of most intelligent people confirm this by making their own retirement plans. I don't believe that we should cut off social security immediately, but I do think we should start acknowledging that people like myself will not see a social security paycheck, and should take steps toward ending this program.

Beyond money, people are expecting more from society, even so far as to invent rights. From very few are heard that there comes individual responsibilities toward society for these rights. Ask those who have been in the military, and those who have been properly taught will tell you that with authority (read as rights) comes responsiblity for that authority (read as rights). Even though the Supreme Court has trouble defining when free speach applies, it has common sense enough to know that you should not be allowed to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater.

In expanding egalitarianism, we have decided that pursuit of happiness actually means happiness. That everyone deserves a fair piece of the pie instead of an equal opportunity to earn a piece of the pie.

We provide excuses for those who do wrong instead of punishment. And now we question our values and wonder whether we should punish at all.

In previous posts, I've seen the 'right to privacy' extended toward the legalization of prostitution and drugs. Have we really thought this one out? If your child freely buys drugs (even if you deem this to be illegal), won't you say that maybe there is a flaw in allowing drugs to be freely distributed. Even now, with stiffer penalties, cigerettes and alcohol are available to minors who want it. There is a reason for these laws that extend beyond morality. There is a high social cost in allowing cocaine to become legal, as witnessed by two periods in the history of this country when laws became lax. So I conclude that the 'right to privacy' is not an absolute right any more than 'freedom of speech' is an absolute right. To me, common sense dictates that these rights must be viewed against a greater good. I know that right now some must be ready to pounce that I am against free speech, and I think it is important to say that I value the first amendment almost as much as my life. I think it is just as important to be watchful against those who abuse this right - by ignoring them or using your right to gather a voice to socially oppose them - as it is to keep a vigil against the tyranny of our government.

There are those who think that the right of the voter is more important than the social damage caused. Liberal politicians see nothing wrong with the pork lining their voters pockets. However there is some dispute on whether conservative politicians see it as wrong. I've heard it both ways from many liberal mouths, that conservatives want to cut social security and take food from the mouths of babes and that they line their voters pockets with pork. I tend to not to listen to that type of liberal. In any case, our voting rights are restricted... we can't elect a president, senator, or congressman below a certain age, so I find such arguments disingenous, and it's my belief that those individuals are more concerned with the money and power that come to them from their senior representative. As a previous poster quoted from Tocqueville, our great experiment ends when we realize the power that we can take from one pocket and place it in our own. We have many checks of power in our government, and we have added them when we felt necessary. Witness the 22nd Amendment. George Will in Restoration has argued that Congress has been incredibly responsive to the American people in giving their states things so that these politicians can maintain their careers. The only item they've consistently failed to be responsive with is term limits.

I agree with Senator Kennedy's words of long ago (and probably forgotten by the senator himself), that a representative secure in his seat can bring much to constituents, and bring much damage to the country.

In his book, George Will makes an eloquent point that from Bristol to Cobb County, it is not the responsibility of our representatives to be responsive to us, but it is the responsibility of our representatives to take the right action in a deliberative manner and in accordance to their conscience.

[rant mode off]
Regards,
-Bob 'who is sick of "mine, mine" attitudes'