Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Sympathizing: Must Loving Fishtown Equal Hating Belmont?
We have plenty of folks on Ricochet who inhabit Belmont, more or less, but identify with Fishtown. It seems the easiest way to signal this sympathy is to be a self-hating Belmontonian. But what if you don’t hate everything about Belmont? Is it possible to sympathize with Fishtown even then? I would say yes. Though I would not, at this point, expect to be believed.
I recently reviewed Dreamland, a reporter’s magnum opus on the opiate addiction epidemic. My interest in its devastation isn’t academic. After all, I, too, have known chronic pain, death-wish despair, and repeated exposure to opioids through injury and surgery. Nor am I the only one in my family to have had these problems. Yet we’ve been spared from narcotics addiction, and the buffer of Belmont customs is at least partly to thank for this. Growing up, I hadn’t thought of myself as “Belmont.” My parents’ one sacrifice to dwarf all others was buying us a precarious perch in a Belmont neighborhood so we could attend its famed Belmont schools. It meant money was always tight. We dressed in the kind of secondhand clothes that made other kids point and laugh. In Belmont, we were at the bottom of the food chain, and that, plus my family’s right-leaning distaste for Belmont smugness, left us thinking of ourselves as outsiders, crypto-Fishtowners. It took leaving Belmont to find out how Belmont we’d become.
Being Belmont isn’t such a bad thing. There’s much more to Belmont than smugly looking down on the rubes. We rely on Belmont to support much of the finest flower of Western civilization – the arts, the sciences. As Charles Murray noted, Belmont neglects to preach the morals it still practices, while Fishtown struggles to practice what it preaches. But practice is not nothing, especially for youngsters who get to grow up surrounded by the practice. In my teens, I began attending about the Belmontiest church you could imagine – folks way richer than us, socialites on the “in” when I was “out,” with everybody reluctant to preach what they practiced. But among the things they practiced was traditional worship music (it’s why I went) and, as Lutherans like to say, music is its own sermon. You can get a pretty good Christian formation in one of those churches by ignoring what’s spoken and taking to heart what’s sung. And oh, the music!
Whenever I’m around other classical-music lovers, I can pretty much guarantee that I’ll be in the political minority. Loving classical music seems very Belmont, and my family never did adopt Belmont’s progressive politics. It can grate to hear other musicians and music-lovers toss off progressive opinions like they’re sure everyone agrees. It can grate that the arts aren’t “owned” by the faction whose stated political project, after all, is preserving the best of Western tradition from whatever threatens it. It can grate, but what does not grate is listening to and making music – participating in the perpetuation of that tradition – with these progressives. We decry progressive attacks on aesthetics when Belmontonians support modern works that don’t deserve to be included among works of historic greatness – but that only happens because works of historic greatness are still being performed, largely thanks to Belmont’s support. Music, at least, is something traditional conservatives do with Belmont. Not without it.
From music, and the tacit-but-powerful pressure to stay on the straight and narrow, to all the other social resources and little customs which can fortify a family in the face of pain and despair, my family owes Belmont too much gratitude to really hate it. If proof of loving Fishtown is denouncing Belmont, I’m in trouble. Should it be?
According to some, perhaps:
If the poor have vicious habits, whose fault is it — theirs or the people who made fortunes encouraging and refining these habits with the help of international consulting firms?
Supposing the indictment against international consulting firms were true, not every Belmontonian makes money with the direct help of such a firm. But just being part of the Belmont class – or even getting along ok with the Belmont class – might seem like tacit approval of those who do. As @jon just observed,
Elitism is Belmont hating Fishtown. Populism is Fishtown hating Belmont. Either is just Americans wanting to hurt their fellow Americans, which is where our politics has been for at least a decade.
Is it still possible to be neither an elitist nor a populist? To have sympathy for those who are hurting without hating the better-off?
Published in Culture
After the last election, I am surprised that you still put faith in polls. I have no polls to cite, only election results :)
You asked me very many questions: How about this? If you answer this one question, I will try to answer some of yours. Do republicans bear any responsibility for their losses, or are their failures totally the fault of Americans who fail to realize how great republicans are?
Where did I say Republicans are great? Do you have any evidence that I have? Or are you reading too far into my statements? Was open borders vs not open borders the two candidates on the ballots? Last I checked there were several candidates on the ballot and none of them had those names.
As to Republicans losing, it could in theory be possible that Republicans have made mistakes. But as you and I both know a Republic has representatives (and in our case we have two houses for them) and those representatives are elected to representative the will of their constituents. As I pointed out in the historical chart of congressional majorities over the last 100 years Republicans have never gotten 60 or more senate seats (and they have only just received majorities in the House starting in the mid 1990s).
Democrats on the other hand have repeatedly ran on a larger and larger state and the American people have overwhelming voted them into office over those past 100 years in the law making branch. So yes it is the American people picking Democratic policy (left wing) over Republican policy (center right) in law making.
Could Republicans perhaps improve their messaging? Yes, but one could say the exact same for Democrats. Not even the Great Communicator Reagan could get super majorities of Americans to vote for Republicans in the legislature. So messaging is not the issue, its the will of many Americans.
That is not a happy message. Indeed in many cases the truth sucks. But its true.
1 ) I was raised in a Fishtown (as Murray states that Fishtown is “flyover” country”. You cannot get more flyover country (aside from a few states north of my mine) than my area in my state. My home county has roughly 5,000 souls. I attended public school, competed in sports (both academic and physical) while also being a member of the band, chorus, and numerous clubs. I also did considerable philanthropy, giving blood, helping with the salvation army, and in my church.
2 ) In regards to politics and getting along I was elected Vice President of Student Council my junior year of high school and President my senior year of high school and in my elections we had to give speeches to the student body and we had poster contests (tons of memes). I know how to gain public favor from my peers. It isn’t that hard.
3 ) I was raised on a farm by Fishtown and my parents are divorced. I know what the value of hard work is and I have seen what divorce does to a family. I also had the experience of witnessing my parents file for divorce multiple times and they fought plenty before the divorce was first filed. That is not mentioning the things my father did to my brothers, mother, and me.
4 ) My parents on both sides are not from long standing wealthy families that stretch back hundreds of years. My maternal grandfather was a cattleman and served in WWII. My paternal great grandfather came to my home town with nothing to his name. When my parents married my father had a bachelors in agriculture (as he was slated to inherit the family farm), my mother (who was the last of 13 and did unskilled work till she was in her late 30s) had no college education. My father would belittle my mother for this, I witnessed it repeatedly and my father is, more or less, well thought of by many men in my Fishtown.
5 ) Even Murray states it in his essay that I linked that Fishtown is only representative (his failing small towns and cities) of roughly a third of the nation. Certain regions (and the blue collar towns and cities of said regions) are not suffering (although my town has seen decline) as others are and other regions are increasing in prosperity. Your continued statements which you believe are representative of fishtown miss much and speak to a lack of knowledge and point towards arrogance in assuming that you “understand” all fishtowns. I would advise you do not do such.
6 ) I probably don’t strike you as loving “fishtown” (your version) because I don’t believe in class consciousness. I am not arrogant enough to assume that any person who succeeds wishes me harm, intentionally or not. I am not arrogant enough to assume that there is class warfare between blue collar and white collar individuals. I am not arrogant enough to charge a man guilty of a crime he did not commit based on his income. I believe that individuals should be tried on their own merits and decisions and that relates nothing to their jobs or where they came from.
To assume otherwise would be to throw individual agency aside and to think like a leftist, which is to assume the world is filled with only conflicting collectives and that all individuals are merely representatives of said collectives. Such a philosophy is degrading to the dignity of my humanity and thus degrades the work of he who created humans with said dignity.
@couldbeanyone: I am sorry that your experience of Fishtown was so negative. I certainly do not claim to understand or speak for all working class people everywhere, but if what you say is correct and Fishtown makes up a third of the country, it would seem like political suicide to write them off. The last two republican nominees wrote them off and lost; the last democratic nominee wrote them off, and she lost too.
I am white, but one of the things I liked about Trump is that he at least attempted to address the concerns of African Americans; it could be argued that he was clumsy about it, but at least he tried, which is more than most republicans do. And he received more votes from African Americans than either McCain or Romney: if you are a politician, writing off huge groups of people is never a good idea. I would argue that a big problem with republicans isn’t that they mess up their message to most Americans; it’s that they don’t even try to communicate in the first place. People will forgive a great deal if they know that you are at least trying, but if it seems like you are writing them off, it’s the kiss of death.
I think I have stated pretty clearly that there is a great deal of dysfunction in Fishtown; what bothers me is the total unwillingness to acknowledge the dysfunction in Belmont. Whatever their faults are, the people of Fishtown are not trying to take away your right to free speech, and they aren’t trying to take away your guns either. I just don’t understand the Belmont can do no wrong point of view.
Ok, so I can’t keep track of all of your questions, but in general, you seem to think that I look favorably on the democratic policies of the past, to which I answer, kind of, maybe, it depends which ones you are talking about. I don’t believe that the success of democrats since FDR is totally the fault of immoral Americans who don’t care about freedom; I think a great deal of it has to do with the fact that doctors don’t accept chickens as payment anymore, and people live far longer than they used to, and they have far fewer kids to take care of them when they grow old. Large numbers of people living into old age is a new thing; we haven’t quite figured out how to deal with it, but the democrats offered a way. It may not be have been a good way, but it was a way.
In my entire life, I have never once voted democrat. I am pro-life, hence republican. The advent of legalized abortion is another way in which medical technology changed things forever; relatively safe abortion is also a new thing, and we are still trying to figure out how to deal with it. In the past, society could take a very harsh view of single motherhood and be fairly confident that very few unwed mothers would attempt abortion: we can’t do that anymore. So, a lot of people look the other way with welfare, because they don’t want to encourage abortion.
I think most Americans really are trying their best. I don’t believe that most Americans like big government. I don’t believe that Americans today are necessarily less moral than we were 100 years ago; we are just trying to figure out some very new things.
I definitely thought we were only referring to people on the Right. This is why the “ignoring rioting” thing made no sense to me. Conservative people in Belmont are very much distressed by such things and have not been quiet about that distress.
I think that’s true.
I also think @couldbeanyone makes some good points about “collectives.”
I’ve really enjoyed reading this discussion.
How does it equal political suicide when a man like obama can make comments about people clinging to guns and their bibles, being racist, or who explicitly attacks coal and yet gets elected by a 5 million vote margin in 2012? Your assertion that it is political suicide does not seem to be accurate. After all John McCain still has his senate seat. He didn’t campaign solely on your “fishtown” values and he still has political sway. Fishtown is not all of America. To mistake as being all of America would be inaccurate.
As to trump winning an election by only 50,000 votes that is not much. Switch 25,0001 votes and cankles is president. That is statistically insignificant in a presidential race. trump was not riding a wave to victory. 8 Republicans lost seats in their congressional elections and the vast majority of Republican national politicians outperformed trump in their districts compared to him. That points to negative coat tails from trump.
To give a few examples John McCain received 106,866 more votes than trump did in Arizona. In Florida Marco Rubio received 217,305 more votes than trump. In Iowa Chuck Grassley received 125,025 more votes than trump. In Ohio Rob Portman received 277,562 more votes than trump. In Wisconsin Ron Johnson received 74,187 more votes than trump. In North Carolina Richard Burr received 32,745 more votes than trump. In Kansas Jerry Moran received 61,358 more votes than trump.
trump was not making waves as obama did in 2008 with a 10 million vote lead over his opponent. trump barely won. That is not to deny that he won, just to place it in context.
Are black Americans somehow different from white Americans? I don’t think they are so proposing something that works for Americans should work for any American. To assume it somehow only works for some Americans and not others is unfounded unless the candidate explicitly states his policies are intended to benefit some vs others. As to trump’s attempts at gaining black votes his rewards were minimal. An increase of 2-3% is statistically insignificant (its within the margin of error), especially given the fact that the Democrats were not running a black candidate. If trump had increased the Republican share of black votes by 10% that would have been real evidence of trump getting their votes.
As to Republicans trying to communicate with Americans how is this failing to communicate?
No one seemed to believe in either of them. Marco Rubio was decried as a traitor to the party for what he believed in and Ronald Reagan never got a Republican congress. Sorry but the evidence is quite clear that Americans are to blame. They have the free will to elect who they want and they elect leftists into positions of power.
The people of fishtown have voted to take away my freedom of speech. The Radio Act of 1927 established license regulations for speaking on the radio. Obviously such was used to regulate who could speak on radio. That is restraining one of the avenues of speech. Elected representatives passed that law and they reflected the will of the American people. That is not counting the other countless laws passed which have hindered my rights. From minimum wage restricting my right to associate through work to social security forcing me to spend my money. The people of Fishtown have voted to take away rights. So have Belmontonians, but that doesn’t make either worse than the other. And there is more evidence that the Fishtowners have worked to harm Americans through their desire for entitlements.
People’s standard of living and life expectancy was increasing 100 years ago. Its not relatively speaking new and Social Security was passed at a time when people were having more children than now (roughly 2 and half). How to deal with old people does not necessitate state action. If you do believe it does then you are believing that the state ought to work on behalf a collective at the expense of other collectives of people (old retiring people should be benefiting from the work of younger working people). Just because I can shave my head bald does not mean I must shave my head bald.
As to “figuring out how to do it” how about you let them live with their families. That has been the norm for the vast majority of human history. Families exist because of people caring for one another. Besides is there any evidence that Social Security has expanded the life expectancy of Americans? If so I am sure you can find studies finding such. Otherwise I fail to see why there is any compelling evidence to have started Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.. It certainly is not a moral option to the problem because it annihilates an individual agency in the matter.
Could you explain the relationship between welfare and abortion? I don’t see how having “safe” abortions makes welfare necessary?
They think they are, but that is just their perception. That does not truly mean they are trying their best. Maybe some are, but to argue most are seems too broad of a generalization.
If such was true then what I have laid out would not exist. They would have voted in representatives and senators to eliminate said big government. But they have not. Sorry but a majority of Americans want big government and it speaks to their moral philosophies. They believe having the state force others to pay for the goods of others is just (and that certain groups of people are entitled to goods from other people; which relates to slavery). To me that is blatantly morally wrong. There is nothing moral about forcing people to help other people. When you do it freely of your own will with your own resources then it is just.
People can be conscious of class in a non-Marxian sense – that is, aware that people tend to feel part of a certain socioeconomic group, and see others as members of various socioeconomic groups. That old commercial, “Whether you like it or not, people judge you by the words you use,” was a staple of conservative talk radio for that reason. Class should not be über alles, but we can’t stop people from noticing what’s there to notice about how humans tend to group themselves (whether we like the grouping or not).
It’s not this black and white, I think. Would you deny that some environments make it harder to practice virtue than others, and babies don’t get to choose which environment they’re born into? People are not always wrong to sense that the deck is stacked against them in some way.
That doesn’t mean they should give up hope, or give up trying. But it is easier to give up hope when you’re living a reality others tell you shouldn’t even exist. I have personally experienced this – time and again I was told, growing up, that nothing important could be wrong with my joints: if the problem was as bad as I said it was, my range of motion would be restricted, and since it wasn’t, I must be crazy / lying / a wimp… I even tried, very hard, to believe the reality I was told to believe rather than the one that was, um, really real. This did not end well – and could have ended much worse (as in, in suicide). Just because humans shouldn’t give up hope doesn’t change the fact that some experiences do tend to make it easier to give up hope than others.
When it comes to suffering, sometimes the sufferer’s “betters” are right: the sufferer is suffering not from anything external, but from warped moral perception, and won’t make headway in her life till she listens to those telling her to straighten out. Other times, the person experiencing the suffering really does know better than her “betters”. And we don’t know for sure, a priori (even sometimes a posteriori), which is which (or which is more important, since suffering is often some mix of the two), especially with suffering strangers. So we should be able to sympathize with Fishtowners who tell us, “I’m not a Marxist for noticing class is a thing, even in America, and maybe I should be listened to when I say it’s not just bad morals that leave me and mine suffering.”
Even when the sufferer wrongly attributes her suffering to outside causes, is she likely to listen to the well-meaning folks with technically correct advice who signal to her (and yes, her suffering might leave her extra touchy and paranoid) that she doesn’t deserve to perceive her suffering the way she does? No. Persuading her is likely to require kindness and patience toward the perceptions she really does have, even if, in a morally ideal world, she wouldn’t have them.
We are all Americans, but how often do republicans visit Black churches? There a few who are trying to reach out, but historically, republicans haven’t, and they have suffered for it.
Obama made a huge mistake when he accused a large swath of Americans of clinging to guns and religion; the fact that he seemed to get away with it (we can’t quantify the damage he did to himself) doesn’t mean it’s ok to say stuff like that. Joe Biden said some things about Obama that were racist, and he apparently got away with it, but if he decides to run in 2020, he will be hammered with those statements, or at least, he should be.
If this is what you believe, then why do you bother? I am not trying to be snarky here, it’s an honest question. Politics-even if your just sounding off on the internet, really involves a great deal of strife. I would rather lay on a beach, and if I believed as you do, I wouldn’t ever bother with politics.
I didn’t say it wasn’t, but in the years since then, life expectancy has increased even far more. At the time this nation was founded, retirement income just wasn’t something most people had to think about, at least not that much. Although, when I made this comment I was thinking more about medicare than social security; I agree with you that intergenerational living (who says I won’t “let” parents live with their children?) could go a long way towards addressing this, but even the best adult children probably won’t be able to pay Mom’s medical bills all on their own, no matter how much they might want to. Maybe there is some way to privatize Medicare? I don’t know, but saying “work harder” over and over again doesn’t address the issue.
Indeed they can. I never typed it couldn’t. Adolf Hilter looked at classes by the ethnic history of people. BLM does it by looking at skin color. Many feminists do it by looking at sex/gender. Its still very, very wrong. It completely ignores the individual and by doing such becomes immoral and inaccurate. I also never typed that I intend to force people to stop perceiving class. They have free will. But that does not mean their freely chosen decision is right or accurate.
People are free to associate with whatever groups they want, so long as it does not impinge on the life or liberty of another.
Environment can have an affect on a person. But it sure as hell is not the overriding factor in the matter, your free will is. If such were not true then why did slaves (and later citizens of the Roman Empire) convert to Christianity? Why adopt a faith that is getting people eaten by lions, burnt alive, crucified, and worse? Why adopt a moral system that puts truth over opportunistic gain? Why pick something that is politically incorrect?
The environment which the Church grew in was horrendous and overtly hostile to it (hard to think of a worse scenario). Yet Christians didn’t necessitate massacres of Pagans. Christians did not use force or call upon some collective notion to triumph over their opponents. They did what was right. They fed the hungry, clothed the naked, gave shelter to the homeless (pagan or not).
And Christianity eventually won. There is always hope. Giving up hope is the worst thing anyone can do.
As I have stated before government policy hurts many people in Fishtown. It encourages entitlement, lazy work ethic, and other maladies. The issue as I have typed before is that those government policies were instituted by politicians with a majority of Fishtown votes. They got what they wanted. If they truly want such gone then they should act to eliminate the source of their woes rather than complain about someone doing better than themselves.
Many wounds are self inflicted and generally the sufferer of said wounds wants to place blame on another for the simple fact that no one wants to be a loser. No one takes pride in losing. No one says “what great job the Atlanta Falcons did in blowing their lead over the New England Patrios in the SuperBowl”. No one says “what great job the Cavaliers did in losing to the Warriors for 3 straight games in the NBA Finals”.
As to persuading those who suffer said wounds it is probably a mix of means (some critical, some kind). But the ultimate cause of their change and their perceptiveness will not come from those trying to aid them but from themselves. They are the masters of their own fate. Ultimately the healing of their wounds will have to originate with themselves and not those trying to help them.
After Dylan Roof attacked the parish of Emanuel AME church in Charleston, South Carolina Rubio did visit. I guess the issue is that he didn’t try to publicize it, he went there in private. As to obama my point still stands, Fishtown does not decide political victory (or suicide), if it did then obama would not have been reelected.
Why do you bother opposing abortion? Do tell? Oh wait, I know why because you believe its wrong. Likewise I believe the welfare state is grossly immoral (in a different way compared to abortion, which is also morally wrong) and wish to eliminate it.
Again this relates to further state intervention. Medical payments used to not require a third party (insurance provider) till the 1930s with FDR forcing employers to provide employee’s health insurance. Given the continuous growth of regulations and inflation of demand for medical care the cost has gone up drastically. Again politicians elected by the fishtowners ruining fishtowners’ lives. You get what you want.
I also didn’t type work harder (again reading into my statements). I have stated that if you get the state out of all the industries that many fishtowners have repeatedly elected them to meddle with then the lives of fishtowners would improve.
If welfare was truly such an empowering and helpful policy then as Reagan once said its proponents would be pointing to ever decreasing numbers of welfare recipients. Instead all we have seen is its growth. Its an ineffective and immoral public policy to take. Increasing life expectancy does not logically require Medicare or Social Security. If you want to believe such then provide an argument for why it is necessary (it has to be taken).
Just believing that abortion is wrong is not in itself enough for me to publicly oppose it, at least not on a regular basis. I also know that a large percentage of the country agrees with me, and on top of that, many people are ambivalent about it. So, I believe that there is hope that I can make things better.
You say that most Americans have, in a deliberate way (?) rejected your ideas. If I believed that, I would shake the dust off my feet and move on to the next town. Even Jesus realized that not all people can be reached, and he instructed us on how to deal with people who couldn’t be reached. The fact that something is wrong is not in itself a good enough reason to constantly point out that it is wrong; sometimes, you just have to move on to greener pastures.
It may not logically require Social Security, but it does logically require very expensive medical care (usually) and that medical care has to paid for. And there are lots of very hard working people who have never been unemployed a day in their lives who cannot begin to afford the medical care that most people need, if they live long enough.
I never said that welfare was empowering or helpful. What I did say is that lots of people who would otherwise object to welfare and single motherhood generally, don’t, or if they do, their objections are rather muted, because they don’t want to do anything that might pressure women into abortion. It is very possible to believe that both welfare and abortion are wrong, but that one is far worse than the other. And lots of people who believe that abortion is far worse than welfare are willing to tolerate welfare because they suspect that it may reduce the number of abortions.
I am not celebrating any government program. What I am saying is that there are reasons for supporting government programs that don’t necessarily have anything to do with loving big government.
Greater life expectancy does not require tons of medical care. Show me the study that found the positive correlation between the two and you will start to have an argument.
Most Americans believe abortion should be outlawed according to you. Do you have any polls to support this assertion? Last I checked from Gallup in 2016 47% of Americans call themselves pro-choice to 46% who call themselves pro life. That is not a majority supporting you. Abortion (and contraceptives) has been made legal in every state for half a century. It sounds as if supporters of abortion have the upper hand if one is judging the possibility of their policy success on public perception and current context of the law.
Strikes me as if you are in no different position than mine in regards to the welfare state.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that welfare prevents abortions? Last I checked the welfare state preceded the legalization of abortion by several decades If so then welfare did not in fact prevent public policy from changing to legalize abortion. Your claim has little evidence to support it.
This.
I never said that. I said that a large percentage of Americans want abortion outlawed, and on top of that, many Americans are ambivalent about it, meaning, they may sort of kind of support legalized abortion, but they aren’t committed to it. Add to that the women who have actually had abortions and regret it, and the ex abortionists who have become pro-life, and there is good reason for hope.
Greater life expectancy does not require tons of medical care. I guess it depends on what you mean by “tons”. Even people who do not require “tons” of medical care do require care that they cannot afford. I am not going to look for a study showing the positive correlation between medical care and longevity because I am pretty sure it doesn’t exist; you are the first person I have ever encountered who has suggested that most people can make it to 80 or 90 without incurring significant medical costs. If that is your argument against medicare, good luck.
It’s perfectly within the rules of the CoC. It’s just that it makes you sound somewhat bitter, and the idea that that lowercasing somebody’s name causes anything but bemused questioning of your mental state is laughable. It is a step up from calling him Donald Drump though!
@judithanncampbell seems to be suggesting that some Americans worry the price of reducing the welfare state is killing more people, either through abortion or denying the elderly care.
Now, it’s true that permitting the elderly to die is different from abortion. One is something done, the other is something left undone. Americans do expect medicine to save lives, though, rather than just ameliorate quality of life. I’d rather give up sooner when the end is coming anyhow, but a lot of Americans see the struggle to remain undead as noble and worth rooting for.
“Your painful and preventable death will not even show up as a blip in our death statistics” is not going to be much of a winning argument with anybody.
Perhaps it is your contrarian nature.
Myself, I’m surrounded by the best and the brightest. People who are the leaders of the current generation, and the upcoming leaders of the next.
And most of them firmly believe that according to the constitution, “hate speech is not protected speech,” and that people who speak out in favor of the President in Berkeley get what they deserve when people beat them up.
I fear that by the time you are alarmed it may be too late to protect these brave souls.
Economists have studied the issue closely, and Medicare has had an impact on quality and quantity of life. Medicaid, on the other hand, has had much less impact. I don’t have charts handy, but I remember this from graduate school.
Judithann Campbell (View Comment):
Could Be Anyone (View Comment):
Most Americans believe abortion should be outlawed according to you.
I never said that. I said that a large percentage of Americans want abortion outlawed, and on top of that, many Americans are ambivalent about it, meaning, they may sort of kind of support legalized abortion, but they aren’t committed to it. Add to that the women who have actually had abortions and regret it, and the ex abortionists who have become pro-life, and there is good reason for hope.
But I want to repeat: I never said that most Americans believe abortion should be outlawed, and I don’t appreciate you attributing words to me that I never said.
According to Gallup only 19% of Americans want abortion totally illegal. Are you trying to tell me that is a significant percentage of people? Cause if you are then you are going to have a hard sell. How many women and ex abortionists have repented? What are the numbers. Your assertions are not enough on their own. As to a large percentage that usually means close to or north of 50% unless you are going to argue that 20% is a large percentage.
What are you statistics on those who cannot afford medical care? Why should that even matter as a term of morals? But if you cannot or are unwilling to find a study to support your argument for government funded health insurance that speaks to a whole in your argument or unwillingness to make your argument. As to me being the first person to advocate most people can make it to 80 or 90 I did not type that (you are reading into my statements again). A person can, Augustus Ceasar lived to the age of 83 when he died and that is roughly 2,000 years from the present day. One does not need modern medicine to live a long life.
Does medical care help? In preventing cancer or other diseases, yes. But not in ensuring you eat the right diet and exercise, which probably has more to do with you living longer. As I stated before medical care skyrocketed in cost after medical insurance was mandated to employers by FDR to compensate for wage growth. 3rd parties always impinge costs and if the government is subsidizing payments the provider and purchaser of said healthcare has incentive to raise prices (especially when there is an oligopoly on those providing it). This all points to state intervention being the source of skyrocketing healthcare costs.
Hmm, at least here in San Francisco, the condemnation is reserved mainly for those who speak out hatefully. Antifa is considered déclassé, but they’re giving people what they deserve.
If you’re stupid enough to speak out in favor of the president, or against sex change operations for children in Berkeley, you deserve any beating you get.