The Times, They are A Changin'

Read another wonderful 200-plus-page chunk out of what has quickly become my favorite political opus, Hendrik Hertzberg's Politics: Observations and Arguments, 1966-2004. Pretty much every other page is now annotated with my thoughts, comments, and notes of gorgeous bits of his prose (my brain was on fire yesterday, it was awesome.) There is a lot to take in, mull over, and ponder, and I really hope that at some point I'll have the time to share some (if not all) of my thoughts about what I've read, but now is not that time. I will share this bit, though:

Pat Robertson, then candidate for the Republican Presidential Nomination debates, 1988:

"The first thing we've got to do in America is get back to basics. And many of these things are not governmental solutions. We can't make through government husbands love their wives, or wives love their husbands, or families bring up their children as law-abiding, God-fearing citizens. That's got to be done in the private sector."

Oh, really? Ahem, excuse me, Pat Robertson said what? (Hypocrite?)

[Hertzberg wittily muses after referencing the above: "The 'private sector' is a curious way to evoke the security of the hearth. It sounds a bit like the plan is to contract out bedroom snooping to the business community. (Moralco, Inc.?)" So perhaps I'm taking it out of context, or conflating P.R.'s position (which I'm too lazy right now to look up his latest thoughts on) with George 43's ideas about legislation and programs that encourage marriage, etc. But essentially Robertson was making the point that the personal and private lives, not to mention the way people choose to raise their children, are none of the government's business. The whole "private sector" concept, is, as H.H. succinctly notes, troubling in a) its implications and/or b) a case of poor wording. But, anyway. Lost my other thought, so put in poor wording.]

Moving on...

Then-Vice-President George H.W. Bush:

"One, I think it's a nutty idea to fool around with the Social Security system and run the risk of [hurting] the people who've been saving all their lives ... It may be a new idea, but it's a dumb one."

Hm. Obviously this was 17 years ago, and numbers were different then, and the rapid speed of scientific progress since that time has altered the ability of people to live through more once-deadly diseases and operations, etc. -- and, not to forget the influx of immigrants -- but this "new idea" -- of altering Social Security -- if it was wacky then, is it still wacky now? Is it still a fringe conservative economic concept, that only seems to have more legitimacy because of the current Administration and its apparatchik drones that keep force feeding the same message into the machines broadcasting on loop, making the public think that this is a commonly accepted idea only because they've heard it repeated so many times?

Interesting.

I want Rick's jobs.

Posted: Monday - December 26, 2005 at 01:00 PM |