Bigotry and Economics: Part Three - Intolerance

In "Bigotry and Economics: Part One" I discussed the sense of entitlement and bigotry many people, both rich and poor, frequently display in their behavior. In part two, I discussed misplaced blame and the sometimes non-existence of an actual person to be blamed for various economic issues. In part three, I'll be discussing some of the extreme bigotry and hate (some of which I have personally experienced recently) toward those who express ideas in opposition to those at different extremes of the political spectrum.


It seems that people have a need to over-simplify and label others. I suppose a certain amount of that tendency is inherent in human nature, but I tend to believe that at least part of it lies in an indulgence in mental sloth. We'd rather not think about things that we think we already have figured out, and when someone comes along and challenges ideas which we haven't thought out well enough to make a good argument, the tendency is to pigeon-hole those people into undesirable categories so as to excuse us from having to rethink those ideas to which we have become emotionally attached or which have become ingrained in our psyches.


There were some folks I had gotten to know on a casual level in a social networking group who showed me some disturbing aspects of themselves last week, and I'm still quite shaken by it.


While there are some who believe it is not a good idea to discuss things like politics and religion, I believe that if one can't discuss those issues among the people whom they spend time with either in real life or online, then there is little point in interacting on a superficial level, either. For me, the goal of networking socially online or in person is to learn and grow, and that is not possible when surrounding yourself only with those who agree with you, or when walking on eggshells in fear of "rocking the boat".


Don't get me wrong - I'm not one who goes looking for arguments or even debates everywhere I go. I know how to temper my opinions in certain settings where political and religious debates are inappropriate. I'm not talking about being the most controversial, annoying person possible everywhere I go. I'm talking about among people you consider to be your friends and family, people you went to school with, people who live in your community... in other words, your "real life family", which extends far beyond your blood relatives.


Most people who know me from the real world think of me as a kind, patient, "too-nice" person. I'm often told I need to set clear boundaries so people don't think they can walk all over me. I've been working on that, but I also try not to over-compensate and become one of those bitter, angry cynics who pushes away everyone who approaches out of fear that I won't have the fortitude to put my foot down if I let them into my space.


Nothing good ever washes up from shallow waters but the garbage from the bowels of the ocean. If you want to find treasure, you have to go deep, where the substance of treasure is too solid to be regurgitated onto the shore, and sometimes that means diving into the issues and asking some tough questions. I am always trying to understand where others who do not necessarily share my opinions are coming from, and more than once I have changed an opinion of my own when presented with a well-thought out argument that takes things into consideration which I had not factored in to my decision-making when forming my original opinion.


During the economic debates we were constantly hearing about in the media, it was only natural that people would occasionally express an opinion or two about the issues being discussed. For me, I started to keep a watchful eye on one person's comments in particular when I saw a post with her saying "farewell" to a laundry list of government-provided services which she clearly viewed as dear old friends.


I took a step back and just watched her comments over a few days, because I believe that sometimes people will express thoughts that, while may seem ridiculous taken out of context, will make more sense as you read other thoughts they share. However, it became apparent that this person clearly believed the reason she should love her country was because of all of the many services the government provides her and her friends, freedom and sound fiscal policy be damned. The post went something like this:


"So long Pell Grants, affordable healthcare, sex education, public housing, (and a laundry list of other tax-payer supported services). I'm so sad for my country tonight."


I was trying to understand why anyone would buy into the spoon-feedings administered by the fear-mongering media and engaged her in conversation. My point was that it was more important for our country to be able to remain fiscally solvent than it was to hand out every public service our citizens could possibly want. I commented that some of these services serve to keep people dependent, and do not encourage anyone to pursue happiness, but rather to expect to be served happiness at their doorstep. It was then that things began to get ugly.


With a very passive-aggressive manner, this person began trumpeting her horn about how she was SO glad to be "on the side of compassion", and made it clear that anyone who disagreed with her was, in her mind, a cold-hearted, selfish, uncaring, unkind, cruel sub-human who had no empathy whatsoever for anyone else.


I attempted to explain to her that many of us are not only kind and compassionate to a fault, but that we are willing to (and often do) put our money where our mouth is and go out and actually help people with our own resources when we are able. Furthermore, the fact that one is opposed to the government taking even more of our money (be it from those of us who are "poor" or those who are "rich") are not saying that we don't want to help the poor, we just happen to think that we have better ways to do it than by giving all of our hard-won freedom away to a government that shows more and more disregard for the Bill of Rights every day.


Suddenly, I was accused of being "angry". Keep in mind, I was merely stating facts and countering the things that didn't make sense to me with questions and ideas that I thought a thinking person might want to consider. I was not confrontational at all, but the fact that I dared to share insight that was in the middle of the extremes seemed to annoy this person and her friends more than if I had been a member of the actual extreme to which these folks are so opposed.


That's when I realized where the problem lies in our citizenry: it isn't just the politicians. The politicians often are simply reflecting the e-mails, faxes, and letters sent by their constituents. The fact of the matter is, the citizens themselves are sometimes more interested in making others wrong and aggrandizing themselves than they are in taking practical steps to actually physically go and help the people they claim to be so concerned about.


Some of us quietly volunteer at battered women's shelters, writing resume's to help victims of domestic violence find jobs so they can stay away from their abuser, as opposed to merely going and protesting that others don't want to spend their money to solve the problems we ourselves aren't willing to do anything about other than making signs so we can be on television and display our self-righteousness.


Compassion is as compassion does, folks.


Perhaps if we viewed our government as a non-profit organization (the way most seem to without realizing it) and compared it to other non-profit organizations, we'd understand why so many do not see government collecting more taxes from anyone as the best way to bring aid to those who truly need it. The administration-to-aid expense ratio is so high at the government level one wonders why anyone in their right mind believes that more of this is what we need to make our world a better place.


The attitude that I was a horrible, vile person for daring to suggest that our government is not the best venue for our money when it comes to solving the problems faced by our country's poor didn't come from a logical evaluation of what I was saying, it came from years and years of polarized non-thinking and a knee-jerk reaction to anything that doesn't completely agree with what these people have decided they want and must have at all costs, regardless of how it bankrupts us all.


Read the status updates of any self-professed liberal or any conservative. You won't see blog posts they've made laying out clear-cut insights or ideas on how to solve our problems. In fact, these people rarely have blog posts at all. Most of what you will see are links to media stories that lay out the other side to be ridiculously stupid. These people do not think for themselves, and spend a large percentage of their time regurgitating and reposting links to stories produced by their respective politically polarized media outlets.


Sometimes, the only way I know whether I'm reading the status updates of a liberal or a conservative is if I check their political affiliation, since they will post media regurgitations from both sides, trusting that everyone will know what side they are on. The way it works is: the other side's stories will result in comments about how stupid the story is, and the stories from their own side will all get "liked".


What a waste of time.


Meanwhile, those of us who are trying to open the eyes of our fellow Americans to see that we really do have other choices we can make are mindlessly tossed into the "other side" pile, classified as enemies and thrown away like so much trash.


I was loudly unfriended, with the woman and her friends high-fiving one another in true passive-aggressive fashion: "I'm sure it was hard to do, but it needed to be done." As though I was some out of control lunatic who spoiled an intervention and just couldn't be helped, and these folks needed to be protected from my rational thoughts, lest they find themselves having to put some mental effort into their attitudes and behaviors instead of letting a political party tell them what they should stand for and how they should show their support.


I maintain that we needn't be the subjects of a monarchy masquarading as a democratic republic, but that we truly can be citizens of a free country if we are willing to come up with our own solutions instead of running to our government like spoiled children, demanding constant raises in our allowances and the allowances of our friends, then complaining because our parents want to take away more of our freedoms to decide what we can and can not put in or take out of our own bodies.


You can't have it both ways. The more you demand from your government, the more your government will demand of you, not just in confiscation of money earned to be redistributed, but in the right to live as you so choose.


What I found even more disturbing, and quite possibly what annoyed these people more than anything else, was me pointing out that constant bigoted comments about people who disagree with us is not only unfair, but extremely immature and hateful behavior.


These "love and light" folks, who would like you to believe (as they clearly do) that they are pious, virtuous, loving creatures, are giddy as school girls with crushes on their political science teachers when they are finding new ways to vilify those who disagree with them.


A comment was made that the liberals so often seem to have "open and wide-eyed faces full of compassion", while the conservatives have "angry, mean faces". To support this argument, YouTube videos of conservatives in debate were cited. I countered with the fact that when I looked up liberals engaged in debate, they seemed quite angry as well. It was clearly another attempt to convince themselves that they are right, and everyone else who varies even a little bit from their prescribed, bottled set of opinions is not only wrong, but evil and unevolved.


Recently in the news, there have been junk-science studies suggesting that the wealthy people are "less compassionate" than their poor counterparts. Few people ever question the source, or even the validity, of these studies or the interpretation of the results. Let me provide some insight:


Any study claiming that facial expressions and brain activity of someone who is wealthy are indicative of less compassion than that of someone who is poor is making a huge assumption, which immediately disqualifies the study as being worthy of called a "scientific" study at all, and should be called a "politically-motivated" study.


The truth is, most wealthy people are wealthy not because they are less compassionate, but because they are able to be compassionate in situations that are more appropriate, and less emotional when making business decisions. Being compassionate and feeling compassion is completely different from allowing yourself to be ruled by your emotions, even those emotions of compassion.


To say that the objective, rational, logical, and less emotional mode of behavior sometimes necessary in order to make sound business decisions that benefit the company, its customers and its employees is indicative of a lack of compassion is no different than saying that a physician who can cut open a patient in order to do heart surgery without wincing as they make the cut must somehow be similar to a cold-hearted killer. NONSENSE!


There is a time for compassion, and there is a time for rational thought. Sometimes, the two can go together, but they must both be kept in balance. Those who allow themselves to be ruled by their emotions at all times in all areas of their lives are usually the ones who create the need for others to take care of them, because they are not capable of making good decisions themselves.


A little self-discipline goes a long way, but when we lack balance in our emotional reactions to things that upset us, we sometimes create a worse set of circumstances rather than improved circumstances which promote problem-solving.


Doctors are trained to keep their emotions in check in order to save lives on a physical or mental level. Lawyers are trained to recognize the difference between the law and their own sense of morals in order to protect the rights of their clients, as morals are often quite subjective, and the law is less so. Business people are trained to make sure that their businesses remain solvent in order to protect the money of their investors.


Most people seem to think that being wealthy is a corrupting factor, that people lack compassion because they are wealthy and don't understand the struggles of the poor. I present to you the distinct likelihood that self-control and mental and emotional self-discipline is what allowed someone to become wealthy, and that most of the wealthy have compassion, they just don't wear it on their sleeve.


"If a rich person quietly donates millions to feed the hungry or treat the sick and it doesn't get reported in the media, did it really happen?" - Angie Max


Sadly, the demonization of the rich and the deifying of the poor has resulted in the popular opinion that wealthy people are selfish and do not voluntarily do anything to help anyone less fortunate than them. Unless someone is helping people in Bono-like fashion with lots of publicity and press junkets, they aren't helping at all in the minds of these folks. This perpetuates the ridiculous idea that the only way to help anyone is through the iron-fist of the government, and the fact that the government frequently squanders the money is less important to many than the fact that those evil rich folks are having some of their money taken away from them.


I'm baffled when I hear people talking about how they are victims of capitalism because gas prices are so high. There has recently been an investigation into possible price fixing by the FTC. The findings were that there was no such thing going on. Do you trust your government now? Why is it that some will trust government when it comes to taking other people's money so they can enjoy more benefits, but they don't trust them when they find no wrong-doing on the part of the oil companies they are angry with because they don't want to pay the latest price for gas? This reminds me of the kids who wanted me to give them free candy. Have we forgotten how to car pool? Take the bus? Oh wait... that's too inconvenient. Guess what? Convenience is a luxury, not a necessity. If you are not willing to pay the asking price for luxury, you do not deserve it. Car-pooling and taking the bus will become less inconvenient in the minds of the self-entitled if the demand for gasoline continues to increase, causing prices to rise to the point where no one can justify the expense all because nobody is green enough to put their money where their mouth is and coordinate shared transportation to and from work.


Do I sound angry? If so, I guess I need to redefine my understanding of anger from "having a strong feeling of being annoyed" to "pointing out incongruencies between words and actions".


Seriously folks, when we make it unacceptable to point out things that don't make sense to us, we cut off the dialog between ourselves and those with differing opinions, which only strengthens the tendency toward being used as mindless ping-pong balls in the game between the political extremes. I'm not interested in being a part of that game. This isn't a game to me. It's a life-destroying vice. I want nothing to do with it.


What do I stand for? I stand for life-affirming freedom... freedom to pursue happiness, and freedom for those who refuse to do so to suffer the consequences. I stand for the freedom to help those who genuinely can not help themselves, and the ability to do so without infringing on the rights of others.


Many of the "open-faced, wide-eyed" liberals would consider me to be one of the poor they are claiming to be so concerned about if they knew my circumstances. I don't have health care, I have a chronic illness, and have just recently learned that in all likelihood a heart defect I was born with is going to require surgery within the next couple of years or sooner, depending on how well the valve and my heart muscle continue to perform and for how long. Would I like to live in a fantasy-world where I could have all of my bills paid while recovering so I don't lose everything I've worked to rebuild after losing everything more than once in my life already? (Once to a fire.) Of course I would. But I'm a grown up, and I know that in the real world, things don't work that way.


I do not fancy myself to be more worthy of someone else's money just because I have chronic health problems, and I refuse to advocate taking more money from the rich just because the government promises to provide "affordable health care". Why are the rich less deserving of their right to own private property than the rest of us, simply because they have more of it? Remember: the idea that the rich having much causes others to have little has been proven false, so you'll have to come up with a better answer than that.


Have we forgotten that health care expenses aren't the only problem faced by the chronically ill? What about the recovery time from surgery when self-employed folks aren't able to work and who don't have disability insurance? Do the rich have to pay for that too? Where does it end? I'll tell you: it never will. The "gimme gimme gimme's" will continue demanding more and more until everyone has a very mediocre, status-quo existence and freedom is a word your children have to ask about because it no longer exists.


If I died because I was not able to afford the health care I needed, or lost everything again because I was unable to earn money while recovering from surgery, I would not blame it on the rich. I would blame it on life, or nature, that sometimes very cruel, yet often beautiful force in our world that allows all life to exist in the first place.


We have overcome much of nature's cruelty in our part of the world. That doesn't mean we are magical people able to solve all of the problems created by birth defects, famine, and illness. I would be heartbroken to think that the destruction of freedom and the idea that individuals have the right to own private property had to be destroyed because people were so selfish that they wanted to prolong their own life at all costs. Life is precious, but no one life is more precious than another person's right to freedom. We prove that every time a soldier dies in the name of freedom.


I feel that I have much to contribute to this world, but I do not fancy myself to be so important to this world that others must make sacrifices in order to prolong my life without me making an effort to provide something of equal value to the world. Is it nice when others choose to help us? Of course it is! And it means so much more when it comes from the heart rather than from the cold, iron fist of the government.


Those who speak of compassion and kindness should be motivated to create and nurture organizations that are compassionate and kind, not government agencies that dole out minimal assistance only after the endless red tape and paperwork required to eke out a fraction of the money they took from "the rich". Most of that money goes to provide cushy government jobs to rude folks who are only there so they can receive good pay and great government benefits from their government job which the rest of us must do without, receiving a very watered-down version of what the government employee receives with our money.


Yes, I realize not all folks who work for the government are rude, but speaking from personal experience, those who deal with the public and their often demanding attitudes often are. Perhaps they can't be blamed for that, but my point remains that the "deskside manner" of those who "help" others with their fiscal needs is every bit as important as the "bedside manner" of a physician who helps the sick. I guess my training in non-profit management and grant writing at U.T. is starting to show...


I should mention that I have family members who work for the government. They are quite conscientious in carrying out their duties in a responsible way, even if I don't always agree with them on principle. However, I maintain that if tax money were distributed in a more responsible way to organizations specializing in solving problems, we would have the same people who work for the government working for private non-profits and achieving much, much more. It is the bureaucratic and wasteful nature of government itself that causes so many problems, not the lack of funding. Many of the frustrated government workers I know realize that the reason they don't have enough money to achieve the desired results for their clients is because too much money goes to pay the bureaucrats, and while there are similar complaints about the C.E.O.'s of some non-profits, their salaries don't even begin to hold a candle to the waste that occurs when for every one non-profit C.E.O. there are literally scores of "administrators" in the government who take twice as long to achieve the same result as one "over-paid" non-profit C.E.O.


I've had to utilize government assistance in the past, and I've also utilized the services of private non-profit organizations when necessary. I can tell you from first-hand experience that you'll find far more "open-faced, wide-eyed" people at the non-profits run mostly by volunteers than the hassled, harried, harassed government employees you'll find in government offices.


Wayne Dyer, a psychologist who's books I've read since I was about 13 years old, tells of his childhood: his father left the family one day and never came back. There was no welfare then. His mother, like many others in her time, found herself without means to support her family and facing homelessness. She loved her kids and found a family willing to take in Wayne and his siblings while she worked and made enough money to afford a home for them. Nothing motivates one to action like the certainty of losing one's children if they remain idle. Unfortunately, we have many people in our country who have made a career out of finding more and more ways to be idle at the expense of others, and very few of them are truly unable to do for themselves.


I know this not because I read it in a textbook, or heard it on television, or listened to a lecture in college. I know it because I delivered pizza to the projects at midnight and saw it with my own eyes... the $40,000 S.U.V.'s I mentioned in part two, the sackfuls of junk food unloaded from them between the first and the fifth of the month...


Why is it necessary to give someone the equivalent of a gift card to a grocery store? If they are truly hungry, why can we not give them a card to a food bank and let the funds go to a food bank stocking only the most basic groceries necessary for nutrition and which allow for accommodating special dietary needs? Why must we provide access to filet mignon for everyone? Who is more selfish, the person who uses taxpayer money to purchase junk food and filet mignon, or the taxpayer who resents having to fund not merely the survival of others, but their comfort as well?


If we did the truly compassionate thing, we would provide for the survival of others, but we would not enable them to make a career out of dependence by providing motivation for staying that way. There is a difference between providing basic nutritional needs and carte blanche at a grocery store. There is a difference between providing guaranteed student loans and Pell Grants that provide free education at the expense of the rest of us who are forced to work to pay for our education.


What is it exactly about being poor that means someone is perfectly capable of going to college, but less capable of paying back student loans after they receive their education? Are we saying that the poor are stupid and less able to earn a living with the same education as someone who comes from a wealthy family?


That, my friends, is yet another form of bigotry.


Bigotry comes from a variety of unlikely sources in a variety of disguises. Don't be fooled. The consequences of doing so are real, and the laws of nature don't care whether you are a liberal, a conservative, an independent, or a libertarian. When the illusion of wealth we have created in this country finally collapses to the point where everyone realizes that we really can't afford the extravagance in giving we'd like to provide, we will all be subjected to the equal treatment by nature as it inflicts hunger, famine, and disease on all of us, because we were too busy bickering about what to do with other people's money to notice what was going on in the vaccine industry, the carelessness of the nuclear construction and the possible resulting meltdown that does not care whether you are open-faced and full of light and love or not...


We have some serious issues that are going unaddressed in our country right now, and the idea that we are only ignoring them because we think the rich in America should provide everyone who is poor in our midst with a higher standard of living than the folks starving to death in Somalia could even dream of is disturbing to me.


And no, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. Someone actually has to pay for all of this. But yes, Virginia, there really is a choice between "hang the rich" and "treat the poor like trash and totally ignore there needs". Those who refuse to acknowledge that are not part of the solution, but are contributing to the problem, regardless of how much face time they get on the local news.


A.