Letters to the Editor
DCLaw1
Published Letters: 839 Editor's Choice: 2
-
WT:
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As for the lobbyists, I heard Terry McAuliffe speak to a gathering of admiring Democrats back in June. My impression: God, what a scumbag.
Oh yes. There is a very real and striking smarminess in all too many people in high places that rivals fiction. "Drunk on power" is not an abstraction someone just dreamed up. It captures the reality of the syndrome perfectly.
I regularly deal with "power players" of varying levels, and the most common attribute among them is stunning arrogance. That and elitist parochialism, fixation on one's place in the hierarchy. These traits impair judgment like no chemical intoxicant can.
One of these types of people once called me to take issue with a position I took. He very tellingly began by asking about my background and current station, and then availed me of his. He was clearly older, and I clearly younger. When I stood my ground and further explained my reasons, he threatened to go "above" me. Only when I impressed on him that I had the full backing of all "above" me did he back down. It was never about the actual issues. From start to finish, it was all about hierarchy.
And that's literally, and simply, how the entire works works.
-
ignorance
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Libertarians don't assume that politicians are incompetent. The point is that when politicians and bureaucrats run things, they make decisions FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, not on the basis of what is best for their alleged customers....
Usually true for politicians, but I know firsthand that 90% of "bureaucrats" genuinely care about the work they do and the roles they play in public service. This is why there has historically been some tension -- never so much as recently -- between the career folks and the politicals.
Many, many career government people could be making much more money for what they do if they moved to the private sector. What often keeps them in the public sector is the feeling that they are doing something meaningful for the country, instead of selling out to some firm.
Perfectly fine for people to criticize government for whatever reason -- just don't speak out of ignorance or to parrot what some blowhard with as little knowledge said on the radio or TV.
-
I want to add...
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...when politicians and bureaucrats run things, they make decisions FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, not on the basis of what is best for their alleged customers....
Even more obvious, isn't doing something for "political purposes," in the context of popularly elected politicians, in fact doing something "on the basis of what is best for their alleged customers," in this case the voters?
-
Margalis
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Government does not stand up for the little guy - there's no money in it. Corporate lobbyists literally write our bills.
If there is no money in standing up for the little guy, one wonders where, other than government or charity, the little guy can find anyone to stand up for him. Certainly not the profit-driven private sector, there's "no money in it!"
Government does in fact stand up for the little guy when it operates the way it should, not as a patronage machine for the wealthy. In fact, other than thinly stretched charity, government is often the only entity to stand up for the little guy. Standing up for the little guy, actually, is what so many conservatives despise about government. They say, "Survival of the fittest, everyone deserves what they get, greed is good!" and then they have the temerity to say that the underprivileged should be helped only by voluntary generosity, which will suddenly explode if we just get rid of the government assistance? I wonder just where that spirit of voluntary giving fits in their magnanimous worldview. Hmmm.
It reminds me of a recent article I read in Reason magazine, and an argument I hear from libertarians on a regular basis. They argue that the solution to rampant lobbying is to eliminate the government programs that draw the lobbyists to the government trough. This is precisely like saying that if you have a reckless teenager driving the family car dangerously, you should blow up the car. "How will we keep these thieves from stealing our food? I know, let's throw out the food!" This is supposed to make sense?
Interesting how libertarians attempt to diguise their less palatable goal (eliminate government programs) as a means to a more attractive goal (eliminate corruption and lobbying). I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the libertarian miracle solution to lobbying is... wait for it... getting rid of government programs!
-
hee
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How has America's students fared since that time?
Indeed. Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning?
-
oops
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]meant to put the first line in quotes.