INHERENT HATE

This weekend was a terribly frustrating one for me.  The arguments advanced by my conservative guests were that all government is bad: therefore, any government is too much government. Their evidence that government is bad is that big money has bought all politicians, who are greedy and not disciplined; hence, those we consider our leaders are crooks. It does no good to point out that the politicians the rich buy do their bidding. They claim big money is good; it is a reward for hard work and solid discipline. In fact, it is a way of dividing society. Thos with the big money in society are all at the top. In contrast, they argue that half the people do not pay taxes, hence, are living on government handouts. These folks are the bottom of society.

They distort this into a more comprehensive but even more nonsensical argument; conservatives have spent millions of dollars buying politicians to control a government they hate. Therefore, conservatism seems to be a form of self-hatred. The obvious paradox is finding conservative haughtiness and such low self-esteem in one person.  

They seem to pine for reestablishment of “moral order” but seem unable to define what that means. I reminded them that they live in 2013 not 250,000 years ago. The universal “moral” order is the strongest is the leader. Order is hierarchy dominance a universal trait held my both man and beast. Perhaps “moral” means realizing dominance of one person over another is not moral. Having all the money at the top is a throw back to bestial strength. In our society, the richest is the strongest. That politicians are bought by the richest simply means the richest have political bestial strength.  If we fall back to a peck order level of society, there still is governance. If there are leaders and followers, not all men are equal. They want the family defined as one husband, a subservient wife(s), and obedient children. The husband earns the money (livelihood) or if the wife or children earn money, they turn it over to the husband. Hence, their wives and children are not rich enough to pay taxes because the husband wants it that way. He, of course, does not pay taxes to anyone.

The children must be obedient. No one tells the father what to do but he can tell the wife and children what to do. Once detected, the father uses his strength to punish miss behavior. The greater the transgression the greater is the punishment. If a child is born handicapped and cannot compete, it dies.  Fairness, equalitarianism, empathy, sympathy are all part of our humanization, yet they are not part, or are only a very small part, of a bestial father’s behavior. Even in the most primitive society, a mother or nanny taking care of children has some of these traits.

In a society of seven billion people, the primitive condition is ridiculous. In a society with househusbands, care and concern for the weak and infirm, as well as outside agencies to do the discipline, the father role has changed. What conservatives seem to be saying is that they want an authoritarian government that does not tell anyone—especially them—what to do. They do not want a nanny government doing what they seem to perceive a father should do such as caring for them or punishing their wrongdoings. The principle premise of government is that “it” should do for us what we cannot do for ourselves, which is an untenable position for people who feel they are the government. The strange thing is that the inherent conflict in that statement goes right over their heads. It is something that is impossible to explain to them. It is like trying to convince a young woman she is a young man. It would be like John Wayne riding sidesaddle. It just would not fit their Marlboro Icon self image. 

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated