Lottery Tickets
Mar. 31st, 2012 02:50 amWatching a Clinton Global Initiative event, it occurred to me that every month, there's at least one story about Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter doing something amazing, something that saves lives, gives dignity, creates opportunity. More stuff that I can keep track of. Hero stuff. And if Obama were to lose in November - which I don't think he will - I don't think anyone believes he'll disappear; he will be out there, knee deep in the mud, fighting the good fight from a thousand places at once.
In contrast, the Bushes aren't doing squat. (Clinton roped Bush Jr. into helping with Haiti briefly, but he faded into the woodwork again.) I don't remember ex-Pres Reagan doing much, or Ford. Democratic presidents, it seems, remain engaged in public life when they retire. Republican presidents retire.
It puts the lie to the idea that Republicans are compassionate people who believe in charity, but think it needs to come from private citizens instead of the government. The most prominent Republicans, once they're out of government, with wealth and time and influence, do not help. The Democrats do.
I think it's not about where help comes from. I think the Democrats believe it is possible to help people, and the Republicans do not. The Republicans are fatalists. It might even be accurate to say the Republicans believe you should not help people, because helping fucks with God's plan.
American Christianity was perhaps irredeemably perverted by the Cold War, which set up a dualism between Christian Democracy and the Godless Communists. By the book, Christianity follows the notion that the strongest are called on to work the hardest, and that we are obligated to look after the poor, weak, or outcast, and indeed liberation theology has taken firm root in South America. In the U.S., since Communists are Godless, it follows that the God-fearing among us must be the opposite of Communist, and must oppose any kind of social program or redistribution of wealth. Tithing should go to the church, not the needy. People are poor because God is punishing or testing them, and if they haven't gotten themselves out, it's because they are sinners.
This line of thinking takes us back to Divine Right of Kings. Government of and for the 1% indeed.
In contrast, the Bushes aren't doing squat. (Clinton roped Bush Jr. into helping with Haiti briefly, but he faded into the woodwork again.) I don't remember ex-Pres Reagan doing much, or Ford. Democratic presidents, it seems, remain engaged in public life when they retire. Republican presidents retire.
It puts the lie to the idea that Republicans are compassionate people who believe in charity, but think it needs to come from private citizens instead of the government. The most prominent Republicans, once they're out of government, with wealth and time and influence, do not help. The Democrats do.
I think it's not about where help comes from. I think the Democrats believe it is possible to help people, and the Republicans do not. The Republicans are fatalists. It might even be accurate to say the Republicans believe you should not help people, because helping fucks with God's plan.
American Christianity was perhaps irredeemably perverted by the Cold War, which set up a dualism between Christian Democracy and the Godless Communists. By the book, Christianity follows the notion that the strongest are called on to work the hardest, and that we are obligated to look after the poor, weak, or outcast, and indeed liberation theology has taken firm root in South America. In the U.S., since Communists are Godless, it follows that the God-fearing among us must be the opposite of Communist, and must oppose any kind of social program or redistribution of wealth. Tithing should go to the church, not the needy. People are poor because God is punishing or testing them, and if they haven't gotten themselves out, it's because they are sinners.
This line of thinking takes us back to Divine Right of Kings. Government of and for the 1% indeed.
Re: Part 2
Date: 2012-04-02 01:44 am (UTC)Re: Part 2
Date: 2012-04-02 03:08 am (UTC)And you know, because I've said it frequently, that I think dentists are the under-sung heroes of our age.
I think it's not practical for me to go back and retrain for the amount of time it would take, but I've thought often in the last year of going into family medicine or obstetrics. I pretty much think I shouldn't put Ciro through that, since on top of how generally difficult that would make anyone's life, we're collaborators and I'm still paying down student debt. But in general I feel like if I really wanted to make a difference, that's what I'd be doing. I have the aptitude.
On the other hand (and I have to emphasize this so that I don't feel so bad about not being a doctor), I probably wouldn't feel this way if I was having more success as an artist. Probably. And I'm qualified to teach, but you don't see me rushing into that and romanticizing that, since I'd actually have to act on it.
I want to switch and be a doctor, though.
RE: Charity balls, indeed. And charity runs. I don't believe you're doing that run for charity. I believe you feel like doing a run.
Re: Part 2
Date: 2012-04-02 03:21 pm (UTC)Re: Part 2
Date: 2012-04-03 02:44 am (UTC)