04-18-01

SOMETHING FOR NOTHING


Every time I see a right-winger put on a mask of self-righteousness and proclaim "The government should give people back their money", my blood pressure rises another notch. It isn't only the deceitfulness inherent in such a statement, though that's certainly part of it (the right-wingers know damn well that most of the people hearing the statement wouldn't really benefit from Bush's tax cut proposal, but they don't hesitate a bit to continue spewing misleading propaganda). A large part of my anger stems from the "something for nothing" attitude which is part and parcel of the Republican mindset.

Right-wingers love to talk about "accountability" and they never miss a chance to sneer at social programs and accuse the government of giving people a sense of "entitlement", but it's not because their delicate sensibilities are offended by the concept of people receiving something they didn't earn - it's because they're terrified that someone other than themselves will receive something they didn't earn. Like a little kid who can't enjoy a piece of cake because he's obsessed with the idea that his sister might have gotten a bigger piece, right-wingers make themselves sick worrying that other people might get "something for nothing" - so sick that they can't even enjoy what they themselves have.

Yeah, yeah, I know - right-wingers say that liberals promote the 'entitlement' syndrome because we'd like to make sure that all children have enough to eat, poor people should be able to get medical treatment, and no one should be discriminated against because of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.; but the truth is that the regressives are the ones who feel that they're entitled to something for nothing.

Bush, of course, is a prime example of this - he's never had to do a day's worth of real work in his life, but instead has had everything handed to him. He was too cowardly to serve in Vietnam - and cowardly is the only way to put it; he certainly wasn't opposed to the war, since he's stated that he doesn't even really remember people debating it (no doubt because he was in a blissful, drug or alcohol-induced fog at the time) - so Daddy procured a cushy spot in the National Guard. Even that was a little too strenuous for someone of Bush's moral fiber, so he decided to skip out on his duties. And why not? He'd been taught that he was entitled to special privileges. He skated through college as a 'legacy' student, allowed to receive good grades because of his family connections. He played businessman for a while, fleeced a bunch of shareholders, and went merrily along his way, knowing that he wouldn't be held to task for failures or crimes because -- well, he was entitled.

No wonder he's held up as a model of virtue by the conservative talking heads. He's the poster child of the 'something for nothing' philosophy.

Republicans have gotten quite good at using clever rhetoric to hide their true philosophy, but when you look closely you find that it influences nearly everything their party stands for.

What's that? You want examples?

So glad you asked.

The right-wingers felt that they were entitled to attack and condemn President Clinton on moral grounds, but weren't willing to hold their own up to the same standard. They attempted to disgrace him publicly because of an extra-marital affair, but didn't feel that THEY should have to be disgraced because of their own sexual indiscretions. I've called this hypocrisy in the past, but it's something more as well - it's a clear example of the fact that Republicans believe they can do whatever they want without offering something in return. As much as I abhor the notion of attacking public figures in the kind of sleazy, prurient manner once reserved for tabloid magazines, I might have been able to stomach it if the attackers had been willing to be fair and even-handed - but of course, they COULDN'T be, because they feel that they're entitled to attack with impunity.

When it comes to religion, the right-wing fundamentalists argue that they should be able to inject prayer into schools, plaster the Ten Commandments all over government buildings, discriminate against people who don't agree with their beliefs, etc. etc. etc. - but god forbid anyone should discriminate against them. They think that "freedom of religion" means they should be free to shove their religion down other people's throats; they want the "freedom" to push their own religion forward, but don't want to give anything in return -- namely, the acceptance of the fact that freedom of religion means that different faiths must compromise in order to ensure that no single religion is presented as having more validity than others. Our government allows people to belong to whatever faith they choose, and the right-wing fundamentalists certainly benefit from this - yet they don't want other faiths, or people of no faith, to receive the same benefit.

Taxes, of course, are one of the clearest examples of the 'something for nothing' philosophy that regressives hold so dear. If they had their way, they wouldn't pay any taxes at all - yet they would still expect to receive all the benefits available to citizens of this country. To those of us who feel that living in the U.S. is a privilege, taxes are viewed as the price we pay for that privilege -- a high price at times, to be sure, and not something we enjoy paying, but since we don't expect to get something for nothing, we don't generally whine about it. But to those who feel that they're entitled to the privilege, taxes are viewed as nothing short of highway robbery. Regressives don't understand why they should have to pay taxes, and never mind where the money's going to come from if they don't.

During the campaign, Bush made wide, sweeping promises about tax cuts while refusing to give details as to how exactly the tax cut would be paid for. That, he said, would be explained once he was in office. And the sheep who followed him saw nothing wrong with this, because they're all part of the something for nothing brigade. Bush wanted their votes, but wasn't willing to give them facts that would justify said votes. And they wanted a big tax cut, but didn't care that there was no explanation of where it would come from, because they didn't care where it would come from. They were entitled to a tax cut, dammit!

The right-wingers feel we should have a more aggressive foreign policy; we should be free to tell other countries what to do and how to do it, and we should have the right to look over their shoulders to make sure they're doing it correctly. But let another country criticize us for, say, rejecting the Kyoto treaty, or our own human-rights abuses, and by god, you can hear the conservative squeals from one end of the country to the other.

And then there's Selection 2000. Need I say more? The attitude of the Bushies during November and December isn't surprising at all in light of their something for nothing philosophy. Of course they were willing to steal the election, and of course they act as if Shrub somehow has a mandate. What do votes matter, they reason? Bush was entitled to the White House.

Until Republicans are willing to take on a little responsibility, and stop feeling as if they should be handed everything simply by virtue of their existence, they're going to have a difficult time earning the respect of ethical people. But I doubt they'll make any attempt to change their ways. As they've proven time and time again, they're not interested in earning our respect if they have to...well, earn it.


~Rose

Opinions expressed in the daily rant are those of the author and may not reflect the opinion of every member of the fringefolk project. The articles posted here are protected by copyright and may not be reproduced in any form without the author's express permission. You do, however, have permission to post a link to this article and include the first few sentences as a lead-in, if you wish.