:: blame the extended gestation.... ::

:: Monday, December 29, 2003 ::

The Decembrist is on the ball again:

"Ah, rage. That's really what this is all about. Conservatives used to be threatened by the rage of poor people; now apparently they'd like to see more of it, as long as it can be directed exclusively toward government. Without the rage, poor and middle-income voters might continue to see government as providing economic security, a modicum of justice, and essential services that the private sector can't. They will support entitlements, without feeling any of the burden that those entitlements pose to those able to pay."

Kind of hits on something I've been thinking about lately. How can the left get voters to see social spending the way they view military spending. For as much as Democrats (and some consistent fiscally conservative republicans) huff and puff about military spending; military spending goes through pretty clean with those against outrageous levels nit-picking at the inefficiencies and failures. Why, because its easy to say "look at those marauding hordes just beyond your border." And people, right or wrong, flinch. The state has a monopoly on violence and they use neighboring monopolies as the vote getter: everyone is willing to do whatever it takes to have the biggest monopoly around. Well for the average voter, their health and well being are MORE threatened by the failures in social spending. Invading hordes or not, who cares when you have no (or can barely afford mediocre) health care. Invading hordes or not, who cares when you can't afford to go to school to be trained to function efficiently in the society you oh so dearly wanted to be protected for. Hell we might as well want Europeans to come trouncing in--maybe they could teach us a thing or two about social spending.

:: Jim Nichols 12/29/2003 03:26:00 AM [+] ::
...