On the radio this morning, there was a story about a Republican US Congressman whose district includes Joplin, Missouri.. He reportedly aligns himself with the "Tea Party." The story was about what amounts to hypocrisy. Joplin was heavily damaged by tornados this year, and the Congressman eagerly accepted, in fact sought, whatever help FEMA could give. There were even reportedly supportive and heartfelt appearances in the area by Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Some people in Joplin didn't want the help. They are far right-wingers, and they reportedly wanted only to help themselves, with no contribution from the Federal government, for which they apparently have disdain. But the Congressman was more than happy to accept help from FEMA, even though his usual public statements were in the direction of limiting the Federal government and FEMA.
I remember a TV show Michael Moore did about 15 years ago. It was called "TV Nation," and it was a somewhat provocative investigation show, more or less like his movies. In one episode, he tracked down Newt Gingrich, to ask him about a sizable Federal expenditure in Gingrich's district. The expenditure was to construct a large pond or lake, to enhance a private high end housing development. Gingrich essentially ran away and refused to talk to Moore.
For years, Joe Lieberman called himself a Democrat. I could never figure out why. Eventually, he gave it up, and he now calls himself a Republican. Makes complete sense to me. Every one of his policies was, as I recall, in line with Republicans. He really was one. Now, he admits it. It's better that way.
So every once in a while, you find someone like that. Someone who declares him or herself a member of one party, but whose heart is very clearly with the other party. For example, you might find someone who will, at any moment of any day, say he is a Democrat, and support and vote for Democrats, but who has allergy-level, and certainly Republican-level, mistrust of and disdain for government, and who will react even to the mention of taxes as if they were someone's attempt to swindle him out of his money. Or as if taxation was more or less like the government's commission of armed robbery. Such people are sometimes preoccupied with crime and "aliens," and they seem to want to live in a fortress.
As I say, it's a curious thing. Tip O'Neill was prophetically right. All politics really are local. The guy from Missouri and Newt Gingrich can complain all they want about Federal expenditures and even waste, but when it's for their own enrichment, they get much more flexible. They get "generous with other people's money." And others can say what they want about the importance of the role of government in supporting the public and infrastructure, but when it's their money that has to pay for it, they're not so sure it's necessary, or at least that there must be some other way to pay for it. Or some "grant" or other source that will pay, because they want to keep their money. It seems they're generous, too, but only if the money is someone else's.
The fact is, of course, that most people who call themselves adherents of one party or another are essentially honest about it. They declare a party affiliation, because they agree with the philosophies and positions of that party. But some people are either confused or hypocrites. For whatever reasons, they claim affiliation with one major party, but their real personal instincts and ethics are much better aligned with the other party. Too bad they either don't get it, or they're not honest enough to call themselves what they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment