Another intelligent leftist...

John wrote a letter to the editor refuting last month's column. His letter is first, my response is below it:

"I was extremely disappointed to read Rich's maiden column (Oct. 28). His writing reveals the same non-thought processes as those of Tamara Hall. Two examples: 'Only individuals can be compassionate; government can't.'

"Why not? Government is a reflection of the people (at least in my democracy), and if I am compassionate, then why cannot my representative government pass compassionate laws, for example those regarding handicapped individuals or the victims crimes or disasters?

"Hey, wait a minute. We’ve done that. Anyone who can use the public library (another government social program or access the Internet could discover these “compassionate” acts of government.

"'No social program has ever succeeded in solving, the problem for which it was created." Like the Food and Drug Administration? Which did not get rid of the sale of diseased meat, poisons posing as medicines, and misleading labeling? Like the GI bill, designed originally to provide educational opportunities for WW II veterans and reduce post-war unemployment. It didn’t work?

"Get out your history book. Like the Marshall Plan, to rebuild war-torn Europe and keep it from the communists? History book time again. Social Security, compassionately designed to provide retirement saving accounts for those without the resources to buy stocks and bonds. Hasn’t worked? Talk to your grandmother. Voting Rights Act.

"Do you know anything about the history of racial discrimination in our nation, and how effective this 1965 legislation was, and is, in providing social justice for people of color in the nation?

"Editor, are you not embarassed to provide a showplace for such ignorance in your publication? Please provide us with an intelligent and educated local conservative to share his or her opinons in the Chronicle."

-----------------
My response to John:

Dear John,

I read your recent letter with interest. I suppose it would easy for me to respond to you in a similar tone, but instead I choose to extend to you a higher degree of dignity and respect than you did to me.

I will give you credit for actually attempting a refutation of some of the things I wrote. It a rare event indeed when someone of your political persuasion actually addresses an issue raised by a conservative. Nevertheless, it didn’t take long for you to lapse into name-calling by questioning my intelligence, education, and calling me ignorant. Maybe such vitriol is common in your circle of friends, but I’ve been raised differently. It used to be that gentleman could disagree without personal attacks and character assassination (“ad hominem” I believe is the applicable phrase).

May I remind you of what I actually wrote regarding compassion? “Only individuals can be compassionate. Government can’t.” And the part you left out: “Compassion is a human virtue.” Now, these are not particularly controversial statements, your histrionics aside. I note the irony of the situation in that you insist on government compassion but extend no compassion to me. I am also surprised to note that you find my opinion on this matter to be a definitive indicator of my intelligence, or the lack thereof. May I make the obvious observation that you disagreeing with me does not make me ignorant?

You proceed to list some government activities you deem compassionate. And what is your standard of compassion? Surprise, it is a manifestation of humanity, instigated by individuals acting on their morality to pass laws and create programs. I guess you should feel free to anthropomorphize the resulting inanimate objects, i.e. the laws and programs passed by government, all you like. But sorry, that doesn’t impute human traits to them.

Your usage of the word “compassion” gradually morphs from intentions to results. Your equations: 1) If a program is intended to help people, that makes it compassionate; or 2) If a program ends up helping some people, then that is compassionate.

So I wonder, if a program intended to help people actually helps no one, is it still compassionate? Or if a program helps some but not others, perhaps you can tell me the percentage threshold that needs to be crossed before the program can be called compassionate and not damaging?

It seems to me that if anyone is hurt it fails the compassion test. For how could it be compassionate to hurt someone, unless you are willing to accept some amount of collateral damage in pursuit of an acceptable statistical outcome? I would pay real money to hear your rationalization of this.

The “compassion” of a government program is not simply that some people are helped, or that the program was intended to help people. If you accept that some people are helped, you are also required to accept that some people are simultaneously hurt. If a government social program gets the credit for the resulting good, it also must receive the blame for bad outcomes as well.

And before your definitions shift further to suit your aims, perhaps I could pin you down as to how it might be compassionate to force some Americans to pay for the needs of others? Could you explain where the compassion is in that equation? Or even constitutional? Stated clearly, for a stupid person like me?

I am distressed to observe the goal posts meandering even farther away as you provide your next rebuttal. It seems like a simple request. All I want is an example of a government social program that solved the problem. SOLVED the problem. One will do.

The FDA: It did not “get rid” of the sale of diseased meat or poisons or anything else. One tiny example among many is from http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/fs/food-disease/news/sep1604fda.html: “A nationwide survey by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggests that risk factors for foodborne disease, such as inadequate handwashing by workers and keeping food at unsafe temperatures, are very common in the nation's restaurants, retail stores, and institutional food services.” Well, I guess that sorta means that the problem is solved?

The GI bill: Once again some people were helped. Aside from the fact that the program was conceived as a sort of quid pro quo for sacrificial services rendered to the country, are there other effects we can observe? Well, yes. Government unbalanced the cost-of-college equation by providing free college to some of its citizens. College, being the elite institution it is, has always been fairly expensive. But the GI bill gave access to a group of people who may not have attended college otherwise, which increased demand.

When demand increases and supply doesn’t, prices increase. This law of supply and demand may be a new idea for you. In addition, we taxpayers pay for GIs to go to college, but some taxpayers (i.e., those who go to college without the GI bill) pay twice, once through their taxes, and again for the increased cost of their education.

So it is possible to claim that it worked in some fashion. We might even go so far as to consider it successful on some level. But that wasn’t my criteria. I wonder if I can wrestle the goal posts back into position. The GI bill was not a social program created to solve a problem.

The Marshall Plan: Maybe you could explain how rebuilding Europe after WWII might be considered a social program? I thought people on the Left didn't like imperialist actions like this. And you are in favor of fighting communism? Shh. Better not let your leftist friends know. And by the way, what problem in society did it solve again?

Social Security: What social problem has it solved? Our seniors are now living the lifestyles they deserve? They don’t have to choose between food and medicine? Never mind that it’s going bankrupt. Pay no attention that the Social Security Trust Fund empty. It’s working!

Oh, I should mention that SS didn’t create savings accounts for anyone. SS is a Ponzi scheme. It is a tax levied on workers’ income, the proceeds of which are used to pay benefits to retirees and disabled folks. Any money not used is put in the Trust Fund, after which the government puts bonds (IOUs) in and spends the proceeds. SS is a wealth transfer program, a pyramid that can last only as long as those paying in money don’t starting wanting some of it back in too large of numbers.

Voting Rights Act: Where, exactly, is the social program? Who is getting money from it? What line item in the budget is it? The Voting Rights Act is legislation, not a social program. I think you knew that. Regardless, I will note for the record that you won’t find me opposing sensible legislation that rights a wrong.

Racial Discrimination: Indeed, racism was and is a problem. Tell me what social program was created to solve it, and tell me also when discrimination was solved. Jesse Jackson might be surprised to know this.

In conclusion, part of the reason I am writing is to establish dialogue with you so that we might understand each other, for clearly you do not understand my position. I am also extending the opportunity for you to try and name for me a government social program which solved the problem for which it was created.

If you want, you can try to re-argue your case for the compassion of inanimate objects as well (“wow, that stop sign saved my life. I’m glad it was so compassionate!”). You probably won’t change my untutored mind.

I am a reasonable man. I am expecting that you are too. Your response, should you write one, will tell me for sure.