|
ok, last try. in what follows, i use the word conservative consistently. it refers to the dominant political frame of reference, which is dominated by conservative discourse. it encompasses right political positions and those of moderate democrats who agree with this frame of reference while quibbling about tactics and implications.
on the welfare system: if you understand it historically--that is in the context of the situations that gave rise to it, what its functions and effects were--you find that you have nothing to say about the ways conservative ideology tries to frame the issue. in historical terms, the welfare state is linked to several factors: fear of the left first of all--it was a compromise forced onto the states because the state felt a threat from a possible revolutionary mobilization of the poor. that this was rooted in a very narrow understanding of marxism is beside the point. it is also a result of two or three other recognitions:
1. that market capitalism does not and cannot provide the basis for social stability
2. that the continued existence of the political framework that operates around capitalism requires that social stability be assured
3. that this stability is a public function.
4. that the previous models of "charity"--what would now be called "faith-based initiatives"---were hopelessly inadequate.
but the americans in particular never were able to break with the illusion that poverty is the fault of the poor, so you get a largely punitive welfare system.
the conservative line on this is wholly without context.
it departs from treating taxation as if it was an end in itself designed to punish those who accumulate wealth. this "logic" seems to me obscene. it seperates the fact of wealth extraction from the fact of the social system that enables it. from this viewpoint, the position is incoherent.
it refuses to acknowledge a meaningful role for instruments of public power in redressing social problems--of course infrastrcture for corporate activities is split away from this, and understood as part of creating a "business-friendly environment"
from this split, you can see following arguments that business activity need not take account of social consequences. i do not accept this split.
this position blames the poor for the dysfunctional effects of a system that from the outset was designed to be punitive.
what i think is going on behind the facade here is that the american state--particularly the right--understands that it has no idea how to deal with teh social consequences of integrating the american economy into a more global context. so it is looking to cut its political losses by looking to dismantle state action in problematic areas. the calculation is based on a notion of how to cut political losses for the state in a context of great uncertainty.
i think that conservative views of the welfare state are not adequately thought out in terms of consequences. i think they are not concerned with social stability. i see them as short-term, short-sighted, cynical and misinformed attempts to reduce the political risks for the american state of navigating a transition that will effect working people in particular in very serious ways.
does this mean that i imagine the existing system to be without problems?--no but i think the conservative line on this question is so wrong, so misinformed that it courts disaster if it were to actually be implemented.
see, i live here too.
i do not want to see this kind of damage be done on the basis of such fucked up suppositions.
i do not relish living through the period where the implications of this ideology become obvious to everyone, the right admits gradually that it screwed up or returns to living under an political rock for 30 years, leaving the mess to be cleaned up by others.
i do not see why you would look forward to this either.
that is what i think is up with conservative discourse about welfare. i find the whole of it both disengenuous (in that it does not make its motivations obvious) and false logically and historically.
is there common ground to be found here?
on the matter of the market--it is conventional wisdom in the conservative-dominated american political mainstream to treat markets as quasi-natural formations, ones that float about in an abstract space apart from, say, the legal frames that create them and shape activity within them. from this it follows that this ideology sees nothing specific about capitalist markets--instead it prefers to treat markets as transcendent. i do not see how anyone outside the bizarre world of econ 101 classes can manage to seperate markets, their nature and effects, from history and from politics. conservative ideology is keyed around performing precisely these seperations.
is there common ground here?
does the fact that one might see these basic issues in a fundamentally different way than you do mean that saying so is "not constructive"?
on abortion: the questions raised by opponents of abortion on demand are not compelling to me at all. i think that women should be able to control the disposition of their bodies. period.
i do not accept the conserative suspicion of organization in forms like unions--when they themselves are highly highly organized, when the business interests who are the real constituency of the republican party are highly highly organized--when everyone knows that without organization you have no power--no power at all--in this system. conservative ideology on this is a recipe for wholesale self-disempowerment.
this does not mean that i like the afl-cio model fo thinking about union activity--i think it was a mistake for the americans to opt for sector monopoly models for thinking about trade union activity--this was a result of a particularly american fear of politics--this has a history--you should read about it.
at every point, nothing that i say fits within the terms of debate you woudl prefer to see here. but the question i keep trying to raise is: why are you so unwilling to consider problems with your terms of debate, your frame of reference?
you could have an interesting conversation here if you would open it up.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|