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
The writer assumes that without hard work, without productivity, everyone can have vacations in the Bahamas, health care, a living wage, and all the other goodies he is for. But why should anyone else want to give him these things if he has not generated something of value to exchange? The answer, for the writer, is that we use force (through the government) should take from those who have managed to generate enormous value, and distribute it to others. This is where I disagree with him. Such action is immoral, and it discourages the creation of the wealth available at large. Where the writer and I would likely agree is on the subject of people who use force (through the government) to distribute wealth to the well connected. This second forceful redistribution is worse than the first. The solution, however, is not more government, but less. The more government there is the more incentive there is for individuals to use the government to extract value for that individual rather than create value for free exchange.
Sep '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
Blaming "the man" has always been a part of our culture or so it seems. The Kos author offers no details as to how Wall Street as a whole caused a crisis and what Wall Street should do about it. Standing in the street, yelling at buildings may get you on TV, but it does very little to change outcomes. The hard things to do are to get involved and to get informed. I fought and won a suit against my County Government by spending hours at county meetings, reading the bridge inspector's manual (1000+ pages), calling and arranging to meet county officials, obtaining documents via FOIA, etc. It was not fun and I did not get on tv, but I won. My work ethic and grinder mentality that I developed in my teens and early twenties is what gave me the tools to take on and beat "the man." Try it, Kos Dude.
Nov '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
How about something like this...
---------
Hey, Man.
I agree with you. It sure seems to suck out there. But like it or not, believe it or not, the whole reason we are in the spot we are in is because the politicians we elected believed that people were being prevented from buying houses based on who they were, rather than on their financial qualifications. The government sought to remedy this by mandating lower their lending requirements. The government then compounded the problem by assuming the risk. Banks were told to lend and they did.
Like it or not, believe it or not, everything that followed, both the exuberant boom and the devastating bust, can be tied back to that decision. The government interfered with the market, and the market adjusted. When that's what governments do, that's what markets do. We are awash in the unintended consequences.
The actions you call for today would only repeat the cycle.
Whether you like it or not. Whether you believe it or not.
My advice? Invest your extra energy seeking out the opportunity that awaits those willing to look for it.
Happy hunting, brother.
--------
OK, enough time spent on these guys for one day.
Edited on October 15, 2011 at 3:29pmApr '11
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
His premise is incorrect.
There is an assumption that the group can limit individual achievement On the one hand, an individual who is willing to do more should be rewarded for that extra effort. The reward must be accolades from the non-producers, as we take that extra he earned from him and pass it around to the remainder of society who couldn't manage to get out out bed and get in their own 40 hr work week...but what a swell guy.
The American dream has always been mis-named and mis-defined. We tend to think the dream is the reality when what we really mean is that it is the Amercan Goal...something achievable through individual effort, but not always achieved. Another point is that we try to define it in things accumulated--house, car, college, etc.--rather then as the betterment of ourselves so we can create a better life for the children that follow. The goal of the 1950's always was that hard work would create a better life for our children then we had...period. And so people could accept less in one area to achieve the goal in another.
Sep '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
We agree that power concentrated in the wrong hands leads to bad consequences for all citizens. We disagree on the means to deal with it. Broadly speaking, conservatives -- and that is by definition a very big tent -- believe in dispersing political and decision making power to the lowest level in society, the local level, to avoid concentration of power at the Federal level, where it can do the most harm to the most people.
American Exceptionalism is a radically different constitutional model than is found anywhere else in the world. America was created explicitly by its Founding Fathers, through its constitution and other founding documents, to maximize equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome. The 16th and 17th amendments to the constitution tilted the balance too much toward the Federal government in both its powers of taxation and remote legislation, creating the twin problems which you mention: unacceptable levels of taxation and unaccountable elites.
To create prosperity on the levels of the past requires a radical rollback of the federal welfare state which will enable -- as in Tocqueville's America -- a thriving non profit sector to provide civic and social services.
Edited on October 15, 2011 at 3:14pmSep '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
A wise move.
Mar '11
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
You can never step into the same river twice -- Heraclitus
At the end of World War II, there was one major industrial country whose industrial capacity hadn't been bombed into smoking ruin and who hadn't gone into a ruinous public debt We had the equipment, the capital, and the people to rebuild most of the world. Our debt was a mere pittance compared to what we produced.
We aren't there anymore. And the water in the river has changed.
If you try to reestablish the taxation levels that we had back then, we'll never even get back to the neighborhood. The recovery has to come first for it to even become remotely possible. Having the government put on a "green venture capital" hat will produce the same sorry results that one generally sees whenever the government leaves its core competencies.
Not only are you putting the cart before the horse, you are overloading the cart -- and the horse is sick.
Jan '11
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
It's an I want, therefore you should also want argument.
OK, the comment is politely phrased, and I'm all for honoring the civility. But, as has been pointed out already here, the guy just doesn't get it, and it's unlikely he ever will.
Sure, the guy's repartee is atypical for liberal commentary, less ad hominem and apparently more reasonable and more in tune with classical conservative thinking. I think he probably gets it, but threaded throughout are the reflexive admonitions to share to relieve others of their burdens, with shares coerced and regulated by a government.
He sounds like a nice guy, but the material point is - he'd vote reflexively for Obama's kind of fairness in a heartbeat. I'll gladly take him as a friend, but I'll tell him to his face that I think he's wrong. Politely phrased, of course.
Edited on October 15, 2011 at 3:44pmJul '11
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
Am I the only who, after reading the Kos post, does not think it's particularly civil? It drips with condescension (the repeated belittling use of the term "kid") and contempt, very much like that Elizabeth Warren screed from a few weeks ago. And, in terms of a response, it's hard to keep from seeing red when you read this:
"I’m a liberal, so I probably dream bigger than you." The only response this deserves is "I'm a conservative, so I probably think clearer than you" (proper grammar notwithstanding). His arguments have all the sophistication of a five-year old's Christmas wishlist.
I would suggest that directly engaging people with such infantile worldviews is a no-win proposition, even when they sugarcoat their screeds with faux civility. It's sort of like the "wrestling with pigs in the mud" problem.
Sep '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
I'm probably going to sound disrespectful to this effort, but I had a most frustrating day at work yesterday trying to do just this: be civil to someone who thinks like this guy, that is, that there is no objective reality, only one's feelings as to how things should be, and it just gets me nowhere. Three times I've asked for a complete proof. Three times I've presented clear transmittals, attached photocopies for reference, sat through tedious, repetitive meetings, and three times I've gotten about 80%. The proof is scheduled to go to the author for review on Monday, so now that date will likely be missed. All we talk about at work is "the process." It's on paper. It's clear. Maybe people follow it. Maybe they don't. No one really checks. The ones who follow it get more work. The ones who don't follow it are patted on the back (patronized) and given "a win" when there is none. Look at any sports team: this is exactly how not to win. ... Mr. nice liberal: why do you think people should expect more out of strangers than themselves or their kin?
Mar '11
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
Where some of you have seen malice or condescension, I see something more like inexperience and a gentle sort of naivety (these are independent of the author's age).
Where some of you would make an argument from distant, abstract principles you believe logical, I would appeal to mores and attitudes and the everyday in the beginning. You must keep your audience in mind, especially with regard to its limitations. What strikes you as eminently sensibly does not strike the person who wrote this letter as eminently sensible—or they would believe it already. Never forget that politics in a democratic society always includes the element of persuasion (and never forget that not everyone is open to persuasion of the same type).
Where some of you would argue that the writer doesn't see the hard facts of life, I would merely say that this is like preferring Dostoyevsky to Jane Austen. That is, believing that madness and meaningless violence are the only freedoms worth presenting in art because everyone knows that love is merely a fleeting emotion and family is a biological drive signifying nothing.
Sep '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
Love it 1,000 times!
Lance: Hey, Man.
I agree with you. It sure seems to suck out there. But like it or not, believe it or not, the whole reason we are in the spot we are in is because the politicians we elected believed that people were being prevented from buying houses based on who they were, rather than on their financial qualifications. The government sought to remedy this by mandating lower their lending requirements. The government then compounded the problem by assuming the risk. ...
Like it or not, believe it or not, everything that followed, both the exuberant boom and the devastating bust, can be tied back to that decision. The government interfered with the market, and the market adjusted. When that's what governments do, that's what markets do. We are awash in the unintended consequences.
The actions you call for today would only repeat the cycle.
Whether you like it or not. Whether you believe it or not.
My advice? Invest your extra energy seeking out the opportunity that awaits those willing to look for it.
Happy hunting, brother.
--------
· Oct 15 at 6:10am
Edited on Oct 15 at 06:29 am
Jan '11
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
When the ex-Marine describes his circumstances, he's not outlining a macho, self-destructive work week that the peasants should accept and keep the rich appeased.
Instead, he's proving that he's willing to work. He's willing to put in the effort, the time, and the dedication.
Work is an arrangement. It's a deal where both sides trade. The ex-Marine is arguing that he's willing to keep up his end of the deal. He'll put in the effort.
The Occupy Wall Street crowd has a point. The economic collapse didn't come from any failure of workers. They kept up their end of the bargain, and yet jobs flew away, leaving millions in the lurch. Being a worker myself, I certainly understand the frustration.
But you can't generalize that collapse on all rich people, or on all corporations, or on stereotypical boogeymen. The collapse had as much to do with government pressure to extend bad mortgages, or hedge fund managers working on reckless margins, and a host of other stupid risks - risks they took because they just assumed that prosperity will always be there.
(continued ...)
Sep '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
You always have good things to say, Crow's Nest: give us your response.
Crow's Nest: Where some of you have seen malice or condescension, I see something ... inexperience and ... naivety (... independent of the author's age).
Where some of you would make an argument from distant, abstract principles you believe logical, I would appeal to mores and attitudes and the everyday in the beginning. You must keep your audience in mind, especially with regard to its limitations. What strikes you as eminently sensibly does not strike the person who wrote this letter as eminently sensible—or they would believe it already. Never forget that politics in a democratic society always includes the element of persuasion (and never forget that not everyone is open to persuasion of the same type).
Where some of you would argue that the writer doesn't see the hard facts of life, I would merely say that this is like preferring Dostoyevsky to Jane Austen. That is, believing that madness and meaningless violence are the only freedoms worth presenting in art because everyone knows that love is merely a fleeting emotion and family is a biological drive signifying nothing. · Oct 15 at 7:08am
Jan '11
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
The collapse happened because of recklessness and carelessness. That should have taught us a lesson: capitalism isn’t idiot-proof. No economic system runs by itself. But let’s not kid each other here. For every slick-haired, red-suspendered investment snake, there was a credulous young couple who grinned because they could get a mortgage with nothing down and no collateral. Capitalism requires prudence. There is no free lunch, never was, and never will be. That isn’t just for capitalism, that’s for any economic system. It would be easy to blame everything on a few people in Manhattan, but the blame is on just about everyone.
But what do we do now? We still have to work. We still need to come to an arrangement that trades work for wage.
Then we look at the Wall Street protests. End capitalism! Give us free education! Give us vacations! Give us healthcare! They want the wage without the work.
You have to work for those things. You want the American Dream? You have to work for it. Yeah, things screwed us the last couple years. We know that. But you still have to work for them.
Mar '11
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
Folly, thou conquerest, and I must yield!
Against stupidity the very gods
Themselves contend in vain. Exalted reason,
Resplendent daughter of the head divine,
Wise foundress of the system of the world,
Guide of the stars, who art thou then if thou,
Bound to the tail of folly's uncurbed steed,
Must, vainly shrieking with the drunken crowd,
Eyes open, plunge down headlong in the abyss.
Accursed, who striveth after noble ends,
And with deliberate wisdom forms his plans!
To the fool-king belongs the world.
--Schiller
Translation: I feel ya.
OK. No more Schiller before lunch.
Mar '11
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
Leslie: I began in Post #18....
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
I meet people all the time who have simply never been confronted with a counter-argument. They're surrounded by people who think what they do. Most of the time, a single counter-argument won't serve to change anyone's mind. But sometimes, it suggests to someone that a question may be more complicated than he or she had realized.
It's always worth a shot.
Sep '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
K C Mulville: The Occupy Wall Street crowd has a point. The economic collapse didn't come from any failure of workers. They kept up their end of the bargain, and yet jobs flew away, leaving millions in the lurch. Being a worker myself, I certainly understand the frustration.
I have to say I don't agree with this statement, KC. At least not in government-related offices, which universities are. I think there are way too many people who expect quite a nice lifestyle—the OWS demand for $40,000 a year echoing that sentiment—for just showing up. That I think is the quintessential issue, peoples' expectations of others. (My twin sister loves to point a finger at me and say, "Ha, I knew that's how you felt!" indicating I'm just a big meanie.) It's called decadence. Totally natural but destructive. The best thing would be for government to get out of the public welfare business and return it to charity, where people can be dealt with forthrightly, as individuals, and not as a static statistic. But, hey, we can't do that: it would hurt peoples' feelings.
Sep '10
Re: Let's Talk to This Person Just as Respectfully
Doh! Sorry.