House of Eratosthenes

Every now and then a so-called “moderate,” or alternatively, a hardcore progressive who’s willing to drop the charade and admit to being a proggie, will pose the following (forceful) question: All fine and good that you, you unsophisticated slope-foreheaded right-winger, don’t like what’s being done, but what would you do instead? I’m pretty sure a review of all the times this has been asked, would reveal that it isn’t being asked honestly; or, if it is, the question would show the proggie hasn’t been paying attention. Because their ideas are so bad, that pointing out how bad they are should be enough. You don’t fight a house fire with gasoline, and if you do, and someone walks up to you and says “stop pouring gasoline on that house fire,” you don’t say “well I get how it’s a bad thing I’m doing over here, but what would you suggest as an alternative?” That would be silly. That’s what this question is. Silly.

I suspect this is a coordinated effort. Somewhere in some boiler room, the advice is given…or maybe it’s printed on a newsletter…”demand that they tell you what they’d do instead.” I’ve noticed the people asking these questions don’t pay much attention to the answers, and this says something since they plow more than the average level of effort and adrenaline into asking the questions. They say “I’m wondering what” when they show by their actions they aren’t really wondering much of anything at all.

Burt Prelutsky has been through the same experience and, for what it’s worth, he has answers.

A while back, one of my readers, whom we’ll call Cosmo, sent me an angry challenge. He wrote: “I watch Fox, I listen to Rush and I read you. I do this because I’m trying to understand conservatives. I see them and you bashing liberal policies, but I don’t see any of you coming up with alternative policies.”

To be totally honest, I never really thought it was my mission to come up with alternative policies. I figured it was enough that I pointed out how awful the policies of this current administration are…Still, I am not one to shirk a challenge. So I sent Cosmo the following message: “I can’t speak for Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, but this would be my platform if I were the Republican candidate running against Obama. First off, I would cut spending drastically. That would mean that we all face up to the fact that Social Security and Medicare cannot continue as they are. If that requires raising retirement age or even reducing payments across the board by, say, 5%, so be it. Either we act like mature adults or we slaughter the goose that lays the golden eggs.
:
“We quit behaving like America is a third world country where people would starve on the streets if 50 million of them weren’t provided with food stamps and if school kids weren’t given tax-subsidized breakfasts, lunches and dinners. If parents couldn’t provide their kids with three meals a day, they would be charged with child abuse, and the kids would be placed in foster homes or up for adoption.

“Single mothers would have to come up with the name of the sperm donor, who, in turn, would be made responsible for child support. Welfare for unwed mothers would be but a vague and unpleasant memory.

“Abortions would be outlawed. If in 2012, with all the birth control pills and devices available, people are still getting pregnant, it should be a criminal offense. Such people would be better off in jail anyway because they are simply too dumb to be allowed to walk around.
:
We do away with the current system of “higher education.” High school graduates would go to the trade school of their choice, be it for plumbing, car repair, architecture, accounting, law, dentistry, carpentry or nursing. No more of these four year vacationlands that force parents to mortgage their homes and youngsters to mortgage their futures just so bureaucrats will have well-landscaped principalities. Moreover, professors who work 10 hours a week will no longer pull down six-figure salaries, and various football and basketball coaches will no longer pull down seven-figure salaries.

“So now, Cosmo, you not only know my policies, but, aside from my reluctance to move to Washington, D.C., because of the weather and having to spend most of my waking hours with politicians, you know why I have never run for president. In order for my master plan to become a reality, I’d have to be a dictator, and not merely the commander-in-chief. Regards, Burt”

I’m afraid I can’t back the one about people getting pregnant being “simply too dumb to be allowed to walk around.” I would have to assume that applies to the guys who are making the pregnancies happen…der…hey. But we certainly do have an Idiocracy problem with the dummies being the ones who breed the most. With some of these households sweating nickels trying to make ends meet, and others making a constant lifestyle out of being pregnant or making someone pregnant, the gene pool is getting thick, smelly and slimy. We’re already at the point where there’s a distinct inversely-proportional relationship between a household’s productivity and the size of its living room television set. And that’s a problem. Maybe this makes me a hardass, but the dependency class shouldn’t be watching bigger televisions than those watched by the ones who pay for their benefits.

Thing I Know #87. In the past few years I notice the people with the largest television sets are the ones we are supposed to call “poor”.

But all of this is really just talking around the real issue, which is: Are the unproductive to be rewarded with encouragement to continue their ways, and the productive to be shown that what they’re doing is not working — or should we be trying for the reverse of this? And you’ll notice something a little spooky: Very few among us break the many complex issues down to that base essential. But the people who answer a certain way, so reliably, with our domestic policies, answer in exactly the same way with our foreign-relations policies. By which I mean, if they want hard productive work to be punished, and dysfunctional, or even criminal, lifestyles to be rewarded here at home; then, as sure as the thunder following the lightning, they will want our allies to be punished and our enemies to be rewarded in our foreign policy.

This is a very clean break. There isn’t much variance to it, if any at all, on either side. And so this all looks to me like it’s off-topic from the real disagreement or disagreements…nevertheless, it’s useful to see the platform all fleshed out here. It’s useful to see how far our current policies have migrated, from something that might actually have worked.

My answer to “Cosmo” would have been much shorter: First, answer me a question if you could be so kind, what exactly is it we’re trying to do? What’s the goal? You answer that, first, then I’ll tell you what the policies should be. I can’t prove it, but I have a notion that the whole exchange would break down right there. One of the more functional definitions of being a lefty, in this day & age, is that you can’t really say what it is you’re trying to do. You have to keep hiding it.

In addition to your first question (or one with a similar strategy to attempt to uncover the “motives” of the proggie), I now have to ask: What are your news sources? I find people that only watch/listen/read Left-leaning media are very, very difficult to reason with. Additionally, if they rail about FoxNews, I know what I’m in for. Reasoned arguments about principles don’t last very long with them because it’s kinda like playing “hit the mole.” When you score, they switch topics and pop up on another one. I do know when the end of the conversation is approaching. They start with the “well what about Bush?” stuff. They can’t defend Obama and they can’t defend their “principles” so they run to that issue. I say “Buh bye” and take a shower.
- BillW. | 05/18/2012 @ 07:27
What’s the goal? You answer that, first, then I’ll tell you what the policies should be.

I agree that this IS the question…. but the mere fact that we’re asking it at all shows how much ground we’ve ceded to the left over the past 60 years.

What is the government supposed to do? Ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and…. well, that’s about it. (I’m pretty sure that’s in the UN charter or the Kyoto Protocols or something). Ideally, the government is the Maytag Repairman — on call if you need them, but otherwise just sitting around with his feet up, waiting for an emergency.

It’s the left who judge a government’s efficacy by the number of things it does, by the “goals” it has. This attitude is fundamentally collectivist — governments don’t have goals, people do. The government’s “job” is to get out of our way, or — at max– to facilitate those goals in the way we, the voters and citizens, tell it to. Because the left anthropomorphizes government in this way, it makes it easy for them to fetishize it in that charming way they do.
- Severian | 05/18/2012 @ 08:19
I also see, at least with our city/county bureaucrats, that they have a “vision” of the area that doesn’t seem to take into consideration what the people that live here actually want. What bureaucrats want are big condos on the waterfront and mass transit leading to trendy little shops. What the locals want is a way to drive from point a to point b without too much traffic. They want to be able to cut down the trees on their property without getting a permit or approval from an “urban forester”. Mostly, they want government to leave them alone. Liberals always have a better idea of how you should live your life. What you want doesn’t factor into it at all. Because, if you could live your life the way you want, they wouldn’t have jobs.
- teripittman | 05/18/2012 @ 18:55
A while back, one of my readers, whom we’ll call Cosmo, sent me an angry challenge. He wrote: “I watch Fox, I listen to Rush and I read you. I do this because I’m trying to understand conservatives. I see them and you bashing liberal policies, but I don’t see any of you coming up with alternative policies.”

This statement positively floors me. FOX news maybe (as their job is to report the news, not suggest policy – unless he’s watching Sean Hannity’s segments or something)…but if the guy has paid a dime’s worth of attention to Rush, you CANNOT sit there and tell me you don’t hear any policy alternatives being proposed. I’m sorry, but anyone who says that is a damn liar. Prelutsky…okay, fine. His job seems to be that of resident curmudgeon, assigned to take potshots at the politicians in DC in general and current crop of losers in particular.

To be totally honest, I never really thought it was my mission to come up with alternative policies.

It may not be Burt’s mission, but it’s certainly mine, along with countless of other conservatives. Rush Limbaugh brought me to understand a long time ago that conservatives win elections when we have IDEAS. Proposals and policy prescriptions – some real alternative to the Left’s constant refrain of “I propose we spend X billion dollars on….(fill in the blank),” and how we’re going to ‘reach out’ to some disaffected minority group. Conservatives win elections – and therefore get into a position of power whereby they can start implementing some of our ideas – when we offer the American people alternatives to the liberal leadership, and I don’t mean just “me too, but a little but less.” We need to be offering middle-of-the roaders in particular some proposals about getting government’s jackboot off their necks, because that’s the key to improving the economy and a whole host of other things that most of us seem to agree are a good thing.

Like any conservative, I’ve got my personal wish list, but mine is actually pretty short:

1. Cut taxes
2. Get rid of the death tax and the capital gains tax altogether
3. Boost military spending, with a special emphasis on development of new and advanced weapons
4. Repeal Obama Care
5. Expanded domestic oil and gas production – or more to the point, removing the artificial restrictions on such.

Burt’s ideas are fine, but we need to start with tax cuts and oil drilling most of all. That’s the cure for your recessionary times right there. We need to get this economy turned around first, and the rest will follow.

That’s pretty much all we need to do right now. Let’s start with those, then we can talk about more measures aimed at cutting the deficit and putting people back to work.
- cylarz | 05/19/2012 @ 23:39
I’ll add one more: Mandatory firearms ownership for everyone over 21, except where found criminally ineligible or mentally deficient. I’d militarize this country by arming its citizens to the teeth. Basically, I’d turn us into the Swiss. In Cylarz Land, the police don’t say, “What’s that you’re carrying, sir? I’m afraid I’m going to have to arrest you.”

No, in my world, they say, “Where’s your weapon, citizen? Oh, unarmed, eh? You have 1 week to acquire a firearm. Come by the station house at the end of that time, show it to me, and demonstrate proficiency with it, or I’m going to arrest you. Have a nice day.”
- cylarz | 05/19/2012 @ 23:51
They don’t want to find out about an alternative plan. The objective is to portray everyone to the political right of Al Gore as a useless complainer. The passionate, agenda driven liberal doesn’t “notice” or “observe” things at all. He seeks to portray things when he says he observes things; it’s all about reciting and re-reciting a narrative. Life is all about acting out narratives for these people.

Even if nobody on the conservative side ever came up with any plans at all, which is not the case, it would still make no sense. If you want to do something nutty, like for example, make the tax rate on investment income the same as or higher than W2 income, and the other side says “let’s not,” you don’t say “Oh yeah, well it’s a fine thing to say not to do something, I don’t see you coming up with a plan of your own.” People who come up with radical ideas should expect to be opposed by reasonable people, even if they think they’re right. They should expect the burden of having to prove it’s the right way to go; they should expect to have to answer skeptical questions. That’s how it works.
- mkfreeberg | 05/20/2012 @ 04:54
They should expect the burden of having to prove it’s the right way to go; they should expect to have to answer skeptical questions.

Yeah…. but as we saw in our 450 post go-round, that’s not science, my friend. 🙂

Since the only “idea” liberalism has is that They are Smart and You are Dumb, they simply cannot tolerate opposing ideas. Which means that you don’t have any. If you do, they simply straw-man them to death, thusly:

Liberal: So what’s your idea to fix the debt problem, wingnut H8r?

Me: Well, I’d start by means-testing Social Security…

Liberal: Uh-huh — throwing poor old people out on the street to starve. Typical conservative.

or…

Me: If you look at the Laffer Curve…

Liberal: Discredited pseudoscience!! Stephen Jay Gould!!! The Bell Curve!!

Me: Uh, no, see, you can look at actual revenue figures from the 80s and 90s…

Liberal: Tax cuts for the rich!!!! Billionaires for Bush!!!

You simply can’t get them to look at evidence. Nor can you get them to agree to incremental changes — we should first try this, then tweak that, then consider the other thing. It’s got to be a totally perfect solution to everything, all at once, plug-n-play straight out of the box.

Because that’s how Smart People do it, you see.
- Severian | 05/20/2012 @ 13:55
People who come up with radical ideas should expect to be opposed by reasonable people, even if they think they’re right. They should expect the burden of having to prove it’s the right way to go; they should expect to have to answer skeptical questions. That’s how it works.

I’ve tried explaining this to gay marriage proponents, and I get…..crickets. Except for some blather about “equality” (no, they already have that) and “they should get to marry the person they love” (no, government isn’t there to guarantee happiness and indulge everyone’s personal whims), I get nothing. They expect me to sit there and explain why NOT. I can’t seem to get across to any of them that that isn’t my responsibility. It’s theirs to make their case.
- cylarz | 05/20/2012 @ 17:33
Yeah, that’s the situation in a nutshell. Every crackpot contrarian idea that manages to gather some critical mass of supporters has to be tried, it seems…”supporters” meaning, anyone who doesn’t passionately oppose it…”tried” means, forced on us, we can’t opt out of it or get away from it…”contrarian” meaning, antithetical to common sense. We have to spend more money to keep from going broke, we make the economy stronger by making it a crime to be rich, this here’s the first country in world history that’s going to improve medical care with a government-run, single-payer scheme. We need to give women more respect, and the way to do that is to force them into the workplace and ridicule them if they choose to home-school their kids.

If you take issue with any of this, there is conditioning that has set in that you’re the one that has to do all the provin’…

I think our school have to take the blame for this. That thing I said up there that you bolded — not only is it just common sense, but I think we’re born understanding it, or at least, with the capability of eventually understanding it. It is not natural for us to believe the opposite, that crackpot ideas should enjoy the benefit of the doubt. We have to have been taught this.
- mkfreeberg | 05/20/2012 @ 18:22

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Burt’s PoliciesFriday, May 18th, 2012

Burt’s Policies
Friday, May 18th, 2012