The Only Republican in San Francisco

No no, the other guy is the bigot

Zogby has a new poll up which is fascinating in that it asks not "what do you think about this", but "what do you think your neighbor thinks about this". In particular, it asks about bigotry against various groups, based on race, political affiliation, etc. It's cleverly titled A Racist Lives Next Door.

For example:

While 67% of respondents claimed to have no preference themselves between a white, black or Arab clerk in a convenience store, 71% said, “most Americans” would seek out the white clerk.

Translated, most Americans imagine themselves clear-minded and progressive, and most everyone else to be bigoted. I think it says less about racism and more about the power of self-image.

But, being the local political minority that I am, I found this to be credible:

When asked which political party most Americans believe to be responsible for many of the gravest problems facing the world:

• War: 62% blamed Republicans vs. 14% Democrats
• Global Warming: 56% blamed Republicans vs. 10% Democrats
• Prejudice: 52% blamed Republicans vs. 22% for Democrats
• Poverty: 49% held Republicans accountable; 29% Democrats
• Corruption: 47% blamed Republicans vs. 31% Democrats
• Crime: On this issue, respondents reversed the trend, with 42% blaming Democrats vs. 23% Republicans

Now, I would have voted with these majorities. I do think that people blame "Republicans" for just about anything. When I hear this kind of talk (which is pretty much every day 'round here), the first thing I think is that the person talking has trouble forming their own opinions. (I also think "swap 'Republican' with 'Jew' to see how progressive your ideas really are".)

But the more hopeful thing I think is that there is a seed of a libertarian in this person.

See, the problems above are overwhelmingly caused by governments, not so much by the parties in charge. I don't think Republicans in power are substantially different than Democrats in power -- they have essentially the same incentives, the same information, the same problems, and the same unaccountability. The fact that our Democratic Congress has an approval rating about 1/2 of Bush's should make this clear.

At the end of the day, their behavior in office is just not that different. Activists on both sides find this dispiriting. The way I put it to a friend of mine is that Dems and 'Pubs are just different species of roach. And they are all statists. As a successful politician, one must be, by definition.

The solution, as you might expect from me, is to make governments less powerful. For righties, this means letting go of government-empowering ideas like the War on Drugs and constitutional amendments on social issues. For lefties, this means letting go of high taxes and "protected classes" and cartels unions and price regulation and gov't healthcare and Social Security and...well, you get the picture.

(hat-tip Memeorandum)

Dems demand free health care for the rich

McQ over at Q and O adroitly points out that the Dems are trying to socialize health care in bits and drabs, using under-the-radar programs and "for the children" arguments:

As usual, that's not the whole truth. In fact, according to Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) the bill includes an provision which would provide health insurance for children of parents at 400% of the poverty threshold.

What does that mean in terms of household income?

$80,000 for a family of four. So this particular bill and those particular taxes are aimed at a completely new demographic which anyone, even some who hang out here, would have difficulty defining as poor (although they'll try ... just sit back and observe).

A program that provides health care for families earning $80k is simply welfare for the rich (and not unlike Social Security, btw).

The median household income in this country is a bit over $40k. A family earning $80k is in (approximately) the top 30% of incomes -- meaning they are wealthier than 70% of US households. So why are Democrats suggesting we need to be transferring money from other taxpayers to them?

Now that the Republicans are in opposition, we are seeing Bush start to act like, well, a Republican. He is making the case clearly and publicly.

"Members of Congress have decided, however, to expand the program to include, in some cases, up to families earning $80,000 a year — which would cause people to drop their private insurance in order to be involved with a government insurance plan," Bush said in a speech in suburban Maryland.

"If Congress continues to insist upon expanding health care through the SCHIP program — which, by the way, would entail a huge tax increase for the American people — I'll veto the bill," he said.

Better late than never. Maybe keeping Republicans in a slim minority is the best way forward...

Because the Arabs can't help it

Libby Spencer over at a site called Newshoggers offers a race-based excuse for violence:

It's not surprising that one of the Glasgow doctors who was arrested for the basically failed bombing attempt is a Sunni who is upset by the Iraq occupation. It's also no surprise that Protein Wisdom's resident genius fails to make the connection between the unnecessary invasion and toppling of a secular regime there and the incitement to violence in a man who otherwise would have peacefully practiced medicine.

Apparently, people can be "incited" to violence against innocent third parties who pose no threat to them. See, this person couldn't help participating in an act of violence, due to his outrage over events in his homeland. It's "not surprising", in Libby's words, because he is a Sunni.

This also would form an excellent explanation for lynchings and honor killings. To claim that such violence is the fault of, say, the perpetrator, would be to miss the "connection".

How about this: the (attempted) acts of violence in Britain are the responsibility of those who committed them. Call me crazy. Libby can't even be bothered to use the person's name. He's just a Sunni, after all. And remember, if he weren't committing violence, he would be living peacefully.

As a person of Arab descent, I do hope Ms. Spencer will find my peaceful demeanor, um, unsurprising.

The seed of such a "progressive" argument is a conviction that we must think of people in groups, and explain their behaviors thus. It is presumably not what Ms. Spencer intended to say, but the implication is undeniable.

(h/t protein wisdom)

(updated 9 July to correct gender)