I have a new definition for tea party members. One who uses this title: “is a selective social democrat who believes the individual and the family are paramount to society as a whole unless a certain public policy or program benefits them or their family.” Under this definition, ethanol subsidies are wrong unless the tea party member is an Iowa farmer. Support for higher education is an affront unless there is a student who needs it. Universal health care is an abomination unless the bread winner is out of work and without health care. Medicaid is socialism for the poor unless a close relative suffers from a severe handicap. We can do without the Post Office unless the family’s small business needs 6 days of postal service. Extended benefits for veterans are a governmental handout, unless a son or daughter is returning from Afghanistan.
Of course, it is laughable to believe that an individual can cherry pick their political and moral beliefs. But it is also human nature. Unless confronted with a threat to their security and well being, people chose the easier and softer way. Nancy Regan was a strong opponent to stem cell research until her husband suffered from Alzheimer’s. Dick Cheney had no kind words for homosexuals until his daughter announced her sexual preference. Many an NRA member renounced their membership, only after a senseless act of gun violence close to home.
Our country faces many tough decisions in the coming months. The budget debate and the fate of our less fortunate citizens should not be a “show down at high noon”, but rather a rational discussion about priorities. We must let our political leaders know that we reject the nihilistic individualism of the far right, which in the final analysis, very few citizens actually want or believe in.
No comments:
Post a Comment