Shots Across The Bow

Debate, Rd 3

I just spent the last several hours in the company of the gracious and lovely Katie Granju, who invited me to her debate watching party. I was a little hesitant about going since I haven't exactly endeared myself to the left side of the political spectrum over the last few weeks, and I knew I would be outnumbered, but in the end I decided that if I was going to watch the debate anyway, I might as well watch it with other passionate politicos, even if they were on the other side.

I arrived to a warm welcome as Katie introduced me to the seven folks who preceded me, and I sat back a bit to just listen and take in the general mood. It was very obvious that I was in pro-Kerry territory, but it was refreshingly different from most internet discussions as none of the folks there were moonbats, either of the barking or the shrieking varieties.

And I was the only wingnut.

It was actually a welcome reminder that unlike the blogosphere, which naturally attracts the most extreme/passionate partisans, there are folks out there who can disagree with each other, often strenuously, without assuming that anyone who disagrees with them is a drooling idiot or a raving lunatic. There were occasional whiffs of a little condescension as the debate went on, as one youthful observer commented that most people didn't want the truth, preferring to hear that everything was going well instead, but that kind of thing was the exception, rather than the rule.

One of the guests was a reporter for one of the local television stations, and I introduced myself to her as "one of those pajama-clad ankle-biters. Unfortunately, she didn't see the humor in the reference, which I guess I should have anticipated since it was probably still a sore spot. But I believe that was my only social gaffe of the evening, and it did give me an opening to let everyone know that I was a conservative.

As for the debate itself, both candidates came in for their share of ribbing, as they dodged and evaded the difficult questions, and worked like mad to score points off of each other. When either candidate came out with an exceptionally bad diversion (trial lawyers are to blame for the lack of flue vaccine? Give me a break!), the groaning was truly bipartisan.

The debate was so engrossing and entertaining that I took a short break at about hour 47 of one of Kerry's responses and chatted with the baby sitter about brands and flavors of hummus. She showed an excellent command of the subject, and recommended an eggplant flavored version that I will have to look into, although she said it was very difficult to find. So it's off to the Fresh Market tomorrow.

As the debate went on, it was very clear that there were major differences in the philosophies of both candidates, a pleasant change from 2000. John Kerry obviously believes that it is the government's job to fix people's problems. George Bush believes that the government's role is to help people fix their own problems. One clear example of this difference in approach was their discussion of outsourcing. John Kerry favors legislation to make outsourcing a less attractive option, a solution which will lead directly to inflationary pressure as the cost of manufacturing and services increase. George Bush's plan is to help retrain workers for new jobs, a solution that works to improve the workforce without introducing legislation that disrupts normal market forces or introducing inflation. This dichotomy dovetails rather neatly with a pre-debate conversation I listened in on, where one individual said, regarding recycling, that if people wouldn’t voluntarily do what’s good for them, then legislation was a viable alternative.

Incidentally, this is why the President addressed the jobs issue in the context of education, a swerve that caused some groaning among the debate watchers. Rather than making work, a function the government has very little to do with, and can accomplish best by staying out of the way of the entrepreneur, Bush’s philosophy is to make better workers. Where government can play a productive role is in making sure that an educated, trainable workforce is available to fill those jobs as they are created.

A couple of things that bothered me about the debate;

1. How can you discuss domestic issues and never talk about the Patriot Act? To me anyway, that piece of legislation is one of the most dangerous aspects of the Bush Administration simply because of the power it gives the government, and the liberties it takes with our liberties. I would have liked to hear a discussion about it, especially since the only defense the administration has advanced regarding potential abuses of the sweeping powers contained in the Act is "Trust us. We wouldn't do that."

   Trust me; if they have the power, sooner or later, they will use it, then abuse it.
   

2. In a related question, did anyone else note Sen. Kerry saying that he'd like to use the Reserves and National Guard in Homeland Defense? I mentioned this, and one watcher immediately answered, "They're the militia; that's the militia's job, to guard the Homeland." The problem is that Homeland defense goes much further than that.

   With the Homeland Defense Department and the Patriot Act, these Guardsmen and Reserves could quickly come to constitute the worst parts of a national police force and domestic spy agency combined.

   And that, friends and neighbors, is a bad thing indeed.

Now, before you start showering me with tin foil top hats, I'm not suggesting an Illuminati-like conspiracy where Bush and Kerry (who, cue the ominous music, are both members of the same secret society) are actually working together to put all the elements in place for a tyrannical takeover of our government. What I am suggesting is that through the well intentioned efforts of both men, the pieces are being put into position, and I'm not going to be the only one who notices.

After the debate, I had an interesting conversation with one of the folks there that I thought shed an interesting light on the difficulties inherent in the liberal philosophy, albeit completely inadvertently. This man had tried to help his brother-in-law out of what he presumed was a tight financial spot by cutting his lawn for him. Sure, it only saved $50 bucks or so, but sometimes that's all we need to get through one of those squeezes we all seem to go through from time to time.

The problem was he soon saw his brother-in-law driving around in a brand new minivan. He was understandably irritated at this, since he was working for free to try and help out, and here the brother-in-law was going out and buying a new car. What I found interesting in the story is it points out a nearly universal flaw in the human character, one that makes the liberal philosophy tenuous at best.

When we are given the things we need, we come to expect that it will always be that way, and then progress on to the idea that we are entitled to these things by right. Instead of seeing them as a temporary gift to help out, we come to see them as permanent, and take that help for granted. I'll even take it a step further and suggest that charity can be corrosive to the human spirit. Give a man a handout, and you start to create a dependency. My problem with liberalism is not just that it is very expensive, but that, as currently practiced, it creates a cycle of dependency that is very difficult to break.

As I listened to the folks talking about the debate last night, it struck me how they all felt like they had the right to expect certain basic needs, and some not so basic ones, to be met by the government. One was concerned about the increase in tuition. Another, the cost of healthcare. Both took it as axiomatic that it was a function of the government to supply those things cheaply. Somehow, we’ve lost perspective. These things are not rights; they are the privileges of living in a wealthy society.

Unfortunately, it appears that I’ve already lost this argument, since even the Republican Party has bought into the notion that the government must insure that each citizen has his basic needs met, rather than insuring that each citizen is capable of meeting his own needs. The battle now consists of trying to lessen the deleterious effects of entitlements by requiring some sort of payment, whether in dollars or service. If a man feels he’s done something to earn what he’s given, it goes a long way towards maintaining his pride, enabling him to strive towards self sufficiency. If he puts back into the system more than he takes out, even if it’s at a much later date, then the system will thrive. It’s when people routinely take more than they give that we have a problem.

As we were leaving, Katie asked who we thought won the debate. As I said after the last one, I don’t think that’s the point. It isn’t, or shouldn’t be, a competition to see who crafts the better soundbite, or scores the most points off the other. It should be a forum for each candidate to express his plan for the next four years, and convince the electorate to vote for them. I think this debate worked well in that regard, as we heard several clear differences between the candidates, who did make several clear stands tonight. But if I have to pick someone for the best performance during the debate, my vote goes to the babysitter. She had a much better command of her material than did the President, and was more engaging than Sen. Kerry in her presentation.

Posted by Rich at October 14, 2004 10:32 AM | TrackBack