Quentin Tarantino Films
15 years ago
Friday, January 9, 2009
All hail paterfamilias Obama!
Masquerading as eudemonistic soothsayers, the soon to be Obama administration strike me of late as condescending autocrats with noble intentions yet a dismal view of the citizens they aim to save. America voted for a president, yet unwittingly appointed a pontifex maximus. President elect Barack Obama has a demonstrated a chilling predilection towards paternalism. And of all the varieties, his seems to be the worst brand; not the comparatively benign demonstrative variety that most politicians trend towards, but rather the dangerous and miasmic type predicated on disimpassioned utilitarian calculations. He believes He is helping the plebeian masses, because only He - The Chosen One - can comprehend the complex world that swirls around and confounds us hoi polloi. He must protect us from ourselves, because left to our own machinations we will surely flounder. Cigarettes are terrible (it's OK for dad to smoke, but best not let the kids), so He will help us all quit by raising the already sizable taxes. (Am I the only one whose first inclination was to draw parallels between this and Kim Jung Il’s dictate that when he quit smoking, everyone in North Korea must also quit?) Trillion dollar deficits? No worries, who better to spend future generation’s monies than His team of the best and the brightest, all under the patria potestas of paterfamilias Obama. He has crunched the numbers – He used focus groups and survey data to pitch his stimulus plan to congress. Mark Twain once opined “there are three types of lies: lies, dirty lies, and statistics.” The governance of the next four years will be strikingly different from that of the last eight, if for no other reason through a shift in tactics from the first two varieties of obfuscation to the third type. Get ready to witness the world when a team of self-anointed Cassandra’s (this time with statistics!) takes charge. Perhaps if we are lucky, they can spare Troy from destruction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
But what if these so-called "paternalist" policies actually turn out to be good policies?
Example: You talk about the future generation's monies as if they already exist, but they're not guaranteed. Economic apocalypse could obviate that term. So taking steps to mitigate a recession and prevent a depression could be essential for their survival. In that event, a "paternalistic" decision is the only option because "future generations" do not yet exist (obviously). And as proxies for societal decision-making, that is Obama's and the Congress's decision to make. They were voted into office with that agenda; I don't see how a large recovery program rises to the level of paternalism.
Isn't the defense for all paternalistic policies that they are in our best interest? It was this logic that engendered anti-suffrage movements against women and minorities and justified colonialism, to name a few examples. Governments are NOT charged with managing our lives, be it our health, finances, et cetera. Governments are meant to provide security and guarantee rights.
As for the notion that it is OK to leave unprecedented debt for other generations to repay just smacks of unwarranted recklessness. Beyond questions of effectiveness, a real debate of ethical validity should be had before pursuing these policies. Spending tomorrows money today seems more or less equipollent to taxation without representation. Do we really want to leave our grandchildren in perpetual penury? We are still a nation of immense wealth. If the current economic situation is so precarious, then we should buckle down and fix it as a generation. Maybe people would need to sell there second or third TV. Maybe we should call for donations. I haven't given much thought to this idea, but it seems to be morally superior to bankrupting the future.
Post a Comment