Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
Daily Kos has posted an Open Letter to that 53 Percent Guy.
I wanted to respond to you as a liberal. Because, although I think you’ve made yourself clear and I think I understand you, you don’t seem to understand me at all. I hope you will read this and understand me better, and maybe understand the Occupy Wall Street movement better.
First, let me say that I think it’s great that you have such a strong work ethic and I agree with you that you have much to be proud of. You seem like a good, hard-working, strong kid. I admire your dedication and determination. I worked my way through college too, mostly working graveyard shifts at hotels as a “night auditor.” For a time I worked at two hotels at once, but I don’t think I ever worked 60 hours in a week, and certainly not 70. I think I maxed out at 56. And that wasn’t something I could sustain for long, not while going to school. The problem was that I never got much sleep, and sleep deprivation would take its toll. I can’t imagine putting in 70 hours in a week while going to college at the same time. That’s impressive. ...
I think anyone who makes his argument in a fashion this civil deserves an absolutely sincere and civil response. Would Ricochet care to lead the way? I'll forward your responses to the author and I'll ask if he'd like to consider them. I don't know who he really is--it's the Internet, after all--but I'm certain there are many decent people who feel this way, whether or not they're typical of the Occupy Wall Street protesters.
- Comment (57)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (8)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
You truly are my favorite.
Even though you post at 3 a.m. :-)
Well, if this thread is still active on Sunday I will probably weigh in. And if not, I appreciate your approach: civility.
Oct '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
This is frightening. I'm not sure if anyone over the age of 30 will really understand, but when I read things like "people shouldn't have to work long hours" and "we can solve our ills by redistribution", two words pop into my head:
Structural unemployment.
I hate the lies embedded in the attitude of this kind of liberal. The promise to young people that a 35-hour workday is a "choice of leisure over productivity by society," that "worker's rights" benefit all workers (only in Sweden), that labor movements are good for employment and wages (not for young people), and that, in general, the government should tax younger, temporary workers to pay for the job security of older, overprivileged ones.
Oct '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
But in the interest of civility, I suppose I'd say something like this:
I agree that Wall Street is rapacious and immoral. The left and right historically tend to agree on this sort of thing. That isn't the issue. This is part of the cultural wars, just as the Tea Party protests were. The "official" messages of the Tea Party movement and Occupy Wall Street are not too different. Both yearn for a world free of corporatism, of corruption, of the modern-day spoils system. Yet, both groups hate each others guts.
Political conflict is far more about cultural and ideological differences than reasoned debate and enlightened public demonstrations. The Wall Street protests could be shouting the virtues of Reaganomics at the top of their lungs, and the right would still probably distrust them (for good reason!).
Edited on October 15, 2011 at 12:45pmSep '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
The first thing that jumped out at me is that the person commenting thinks that because the "kid" currently works long hours and has no health insurance that he always will be in that condition. The thought seems never to have occurred to him that the kid might be working hard now when he's young so that he won't have to later. One of the great achievements of our society, especially in comparison to more sclerotic, socialistic societies in Europe, is that we have social mobility and while everyone is not rewarded equally, hard work does pay off and in some cases it pays off a great deal. This does not happen as often when equality of outcome is the ultimate goal. Not only that but the more government gets involved the greater is the reward to rent seeking behavior such as the crony capitalism that, I thought, they were protesting.
Edited on October 15, 2011 at 12:51pmRe: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
I was thinking of a response at a simpler level--something kids (as these two seem to be) would understand. Leaving the culture war issue aside, let's treat what he's actually saying and assume his complete sincerity.
Mar '11
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
Yes- please follow up on this. I'd be most anxious to hear the thoughtful words.
Oct '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
Ah. Sorry about that. It's hard to simplify. In the so-called "capital/labor war", capital both should (in an economic sense, not a moral one) be winning and is winning. As a nation, we have been borrowing abroad and spending more than we produce for a long time--there is no going back. Real wage declines are ultimately unavoidable. There isn't anything the government (or anyone) can do about that.
It's a hard argument to swallow. If it were easy to understand, the IMF would be the most popular institution in the world. A few liberals do understand this (Jeffrey Sachs comes to mind); their main goal seems to be preventing inequality from increasing further, since reversing it is impossible at this time. While that may be a laudable goal in a purely abstract sense, I disagree with their populist tactics.
Edited on October 15, 2011 at 1:18pmOct '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
Well. I'm not sure that was any better. I'm too much of a wonkish sort of guy. [edit: and since the post above is so depressing, I thought I'd point out that Germany has been through this, and after spending the early 2000s with a bad economy they've been rewarded recently with higher employment and wage growth. So, as bad as it is, it does get better; and besides, the worst is behind us, I think.]
Edited on October 15, 2011 at 1:23pmRe: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
I think the core of his argument is that it's possible and desirable to return to the 1950s. Shall we focus on that?
Oct '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
Thanks, I tend to get caught up in technical economic details. Here's something better:
Haven't we all been wanting a return to the 50s on both the left and the right? What do we really want from it? Why do we all seem to agree on this one point? What made the 50s so desirable? Was it the high levels of social and human capital, the higher taxes, the lower rates of single motherhood, the lower levels of social breakdown, or just the way people still trusted the federal government? Was it all of these things, or none of them?
Sep '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
There is quite a lot of misguided stuff in the letter so l will focus on this fact; do you believe that when tax rates were 70 to 90% as you say they were in the 50s that people with high incomes actually paid 90% of their incomes to the government? When marginal rates are high the code was full of loopholes for various rent seekers and those with high incomes had a big incentive to seek out those projects that gave them tax benefits.
Aug '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
I'll take on this quote.
"I’m a liberal, so I probably dream bigger than you. For instance, I want everybody to have healthcare. I want lazy people to have healthcare. I want stupid people to have healthcare. I want drug addicts to have healthcare. I want bums who refuse to work even when given the opportunity to have healthcare. I’m willing to pay for that with my taxes, because I want to live in a society where it doesn’t matter how much of a loser you are, if you need medical care you can get it."
Everybody already has medical care if you need it - show up at the ER and they are required to treat you. There are charities and programs in place already that give treatment to drug addicts. I don't know who you refer to by the epithet "stupid people" but if that includes the mentally disabled it is already taken care of as well. Why do we need more?
If your urge to help the 'lazy people' and 'bums' is so great then volunteer, but I do not see why I should pay to satisfy one of your "want's."
Aug '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
Because it is your want and not theirs that we are talking about here. If they wanted health insurance in any meaningful way they would work for it and then not meet whatever definition of "lazy people" or "bums who refuse to work" you might care to name. They would be working.
May '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
Sir,
I agree with many of your sentiments. I believe a well functioning society ought to take care of those within it that are less fortunate. I believe those with the means should provide for their neighbors in need. We live in a broken world, and this is only solved by reaching out to care for the sick, elderly, and less fortunate. However, my experience is that government does not effectively or efficiently deliver goods and services.
People respond to incentives built into whatever system in which they exist. In this world, there are consequences for one's actions. Talent and ambition are not distributed evenly, and those with more talent and ambition should reap the rewards of employing these. Likewise, those who work less should get less. Additionally, those who make poor decisions or break the law ought to pay the price.
"Wall Street" bears great responsibility for the crash in 2008. So too, do a large number of politicians, and a significant number of those are liberals. Everyone responsible should have lost their job and been forced to pay restitution, even to the point they were out on the street. They all should pay.
Mar '11
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
The guy in the picture is probably close to 30 (former Marine and 8 years of work to put himself through school). The open-letter writer should not be referring to him as a "kid"
Mar '11
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
Claire,
I like your approach here. It isn’t about civility for civility’s sake. I, like you, I suspect, have detected the level of earnestness in this (young) person’s letter. And that is evidence of someone who is open-minded enough to consider what the other side has to say. That’s not the sort of person we want to alienate right out of the gate.
I’ll make a beginning the following post.
May '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
(cannot do this in 200 words)
My issue with the Occupy Wall Street movement is the fundamental lack of honesty. First, the 1% argument is not based in fact. Second, while there is no central unifying demand, the lists that are publicized generally call for destroying your American dream. The demands I have seen call for massive wealth redistribution and for consequences for all of a certain class of industry. Why punish all bankers for the evil of some bankers? Why accuse all Wall Street executives for the evil of some? Why not identify those in government from both parties who enabled, and in fact mandated, high risk loans to those who could not afford them? The OWS movement I see in print and on television does not represent the ideals presented in your letter.
Your letter essentially boils down to two goals I think. First, reduce misery in our society, and second, provide maximum opportunity to do well. I share those goals. I do not think giving government more power or more responsibility will result in achieving these. No government healthcare system in the world provides excellent care.
Mar '11
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
Anonymous,
I was struck by your heartfelt response to a 53%er and wanted to offer you something from our point of view that is longer than what can be tweeted.
I want to begin with where we agree—and it might surprise you how much we agree. I share your sense of outrage that big Wall Street bankers and corporations seem to operate outside the law sometimes. I can’t stand the sense of entitlement they demonstrated in 2008, thinking that they could insulate themselves from their own bad choices by demanding that their more honest fellow citizens bail them out.
I am sickened that the same people who played the largest role in creating this mess —in Washington and in New York—are carrying on as though nothing happened, that nothing’s in need of repair or rethinking. I fear also that many of our fellow citizens are ignorant of the role they themselves played in this crises through their neglect of their duties.
So, saving our neighbors’ life savings and retirement funds was necessary in 2008 but this sort of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t economics is not how we want to live.
Mar '11
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
I'll leave it to someone else, since I haven't the time at the moment, to pick up the argument and describe the areas in which we disagree strongly....
May '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
(or 400 words)
Confiscatory tax rates for "the rich" reduces productivity, and provides massive incentive to avoid taxes. This also provides government massive incentive to coddle your "captains of industry".
The best misery reduction and opportunity provision policy we can employ is to reduce the scope of government. Get them out of the loan business and health care business. Reduce onerous regulation on business, and let the free market work. This will return America to prosperity. I am not saying the government should support business or any economic class of people. The government should get out of the way and allow business to create wealth. A reduced scope of government will require less money to run, allowing for lower corporate and individual tax rates. Corporations paying less to government can invest in infrastructure and employees. Individuals paying less taxes to the government have more to aid the sick, elderly, and less fortunate, as well as take those nice vacations in your letter. Reward those who work hard and make good decisions. Punish those who are foolish or evil. Enable individuals to help the less fortunate. This is the path to less misery and more opportunity.