A few years ago, Al Franken wrote a “satire on the breakdown of civility in public discourse.” He called it, Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot. Franken’s point was that Limbaugh became popular by polarizing people. Franken made that point by writing as polarizing a book as possible.
We see this polarization in the current presidential campaign. Obama has become popular because he promises a way out of the polarization. Hillary’s response is to polarize Democratic voters against Obama, and it seems to have worked: two weeks ago, polls showed that Hillary supporters would vote for Obama if he became the nominee; after the Texas-Ohio primaries, polls showed her supporters to be more hostile of him.
Where Al Franken got it wrong is in assuming that civil discourse has broken down in recent years. In fact, polarization has always been a part of American politics. Go back to 1884, when one candidate called the other “the continental liar from the state of Maine,” while the other labeled the first the father of a bastard child (“Ma, ma, where’s my pa? Gone to the White House, ha ha ha”).
Or go back to 1860, where some people were so unhappy with the election result that they tried to secede from the union. Now that’s polarization!
When we don’t have big issues, like slavery or war, to polarize about, we polarize about small issues, like should there be a national bank (1824) or should a Catholic be president (1928). No matter how important the issue, the debate was just as shrill because polarization is a key organizing tool in politics: you persuade potential followers to coalesce behind you by demonizing your opposition.
Basically aimed at making men fertile, it also has a buy cialis article canadian pharmacy for viagra role in hiking libido, upon which the person gets aroused for performing intimate acts. You can simply go with viagra generico 5mg any of the choice to take the right pharmaceutical is exceptionally vital. You have to refill them every month for the coming 4 to 6 months which will eventually cost more than a pump. viagra prices canada However, sometime later on these unwanted effects stop showing up. discount levitra http://davidfraymusic.com/david-frays-concert-at-municipal-theater-of-santiago-receives-praise/
It is often said that Republicans hope Hillary wins the Democratic nomination because she will be easier to demonize than Obama. And I’ve sometimes said I would rather have Hillary as president because, on the issues I work on, she will be easier to demonize than George Bush — whose initial appointments in charge of the EPA and US DOT both supported smart growth.
While I am willing to use polarization, my goal is to depolarize as many issues as possible, and the only way to do that is to depoliticize them. Socialists are fond of saying that everything is political, but that’s only because they try to make them political.
To a large degree, you get to make many personal choices in your life, such as the food you eat, the clothes you wear, and the type and location of the home you live in. You have freedom to make these choices because we have decided to leave these types of choices to the marketplace.
Though some people are trying to politicize some of these choices — eating foie gras, wearing fur, living in single-family homes — we are better off when such choices are left to individuals rather than the government. This is partly because politics reduces the civility of public discourse, but also because when the political process makes a mistake — which is often — the consequences are both greater and harder to fix than when individuals make mistakes in their day-to-day lives.
This all helps explain why I am an antiplanner. Government planning invariably becomes political, which means it invariably becomes polarized. Planners may not agree, but on most issues I think we are better off if debate remains civil and if decisions remain with the individual.
bennett said: “It’s a good theory but (unfortunately) fails in practice, because many might not be involved in more productive tasks, but more destructive ones.â€Â
Of all the countries that I’ve lived and worked in, I find the US to be the most libertarian. That does not correlate well with failure; and I’m myself sure that it is also not a coincidence.
To Europeans, mainstream Americans would seem libertarian extremists.
My suggestion, once again, for collectivist and regulation happy individuals would be to seriously look into the possibility of living in another country. For their own sake that is; because the US offers them the poorest environment when it comes to collectivism.
I must confess, that when I hear collectivist comments from Americans, I feel disappointed. I guess to regulation junkies the American constitution must be quite utopian.
But there’s a sugar (sorry golden) coating to it. Having lived in Europe, I’m well prepared to take advantage of regulation (as I have mentioned before I have already made many speculative investments in the housing market with very good results). So, even though ideologically I’d rather see regulation retreat, in practical terms, I also benefit from America’s reinvigorated march towards collectivism. I’m several steps ahead of most Americans in that front.
P.S. Perhaps, one day, when the opportunity arises, I will tell you how I got California taxpayers to pay me the entire cost of a photovoltaic system installation (I’m not making it up) and then moved out of state and sold the system (at market price) to somebody else, thus pocketing the entire subsidy. Productivity galore.
On March 14th, 2008, Ettinger said:
“I must confess, that when I hear collectivist comments from Americans, I feel disappointed. I guess to regulation junkies the American constitution must be quite utopian.”
Well the whole highway system that the A.P. has wet dreams over is a collectivist/social engineering product it self.
“But there’s a sugar (sorry golden) coating to it. Having lived in Europe, I’m well prepared to take advantage of regulation (as I have mentioned before I have already made many speculative investments in the housing market with very good results). So, even though ideologically I’d rather see regulation retreat, in practical terms, I also benefit from America’s reinvigorated march towards collectivism. I’m several steps ahead of most Americans in that front.”
Regulation can be a double edge sword. Some is good and some is bad, though often the A.P. pushes the bad stuff.
“P.S. Perhaps, one day, when the opportunity arises, I will tell you how I got California taxpayers to pay me the entire cost of a photovoltaic system installation (I’m not making it up) and then moved out of state and sold the system (at market price) to somebody else, thus pocketing the entire subsidy. Productivity galore.”
Well good for you, I’m glad to hear about your entrepreneurial spirit.
In the interest of expediency, when I say collectivism, I always mean mandatory collectivism. The contention is over the compulsory aspect of the cooperation.
I have never been to Houston but will be there in May to see how a great city can get by with out zoning. How bad can it be. http://americandreamcoalition.org/pad08.html
This song says a lot.
“Barrett’s Privateers”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnaaRcJcQns&feature=related
msetty: One can have as much evidence pointing toward something as possible, but if the very foundation of the theory is flawed or unobservable, it is still accepted on faith.
Kind of like how ROT get paid to produce bullshit.