Gerard Alexander
Obviously, Gerard Alexander just doesn’t get it. Rather than focusing on the fact that there might be actual reasons underlying opposition to a whole host of issues that the government claims to be able to solve, he should should start with the premise that people are dumb and accept that they are intent on voting against their own interests. Of course, this is because they are prone to being lulled by good stories and bored by “the facts”.
Only the densest of people could possibly still believe that when a politician offers to give you something, they will inevitably be back to seek repayment for their gift. Rather than focusing on the gifts that they bring, perhaps our benevolent liberal friends should examine the things their opposition believes they may be forced to give up in return. It, admittedly, requires an almost unthinkable benightedness to wish to give up such benefits for the mere accommodation of being allowed to keep the majority of a hard-earned paycheck, or to maintain the ability to visit a doctor without asking the local politician for permission (or worse yet, the bureaucracy appointed by the politician). But it is possible that the answer to the liberals nagging suspicion that the common-folk just don’t get it may lie in just such an unlikely, unexamined corner of the conservative mind. Of course, it may simply be a matter of these schmucks realizing that when their neighbor is helping to foot the bill, the neighbor may also demand a say in what gets paid for. So free gifts for all, except the fatties, and the smokers, and the drinkers, and, well, you get the idea. Of course, it is almost certain that the fatties, and the smokers, and the drinkers will all still be expected to pay into the system. For the good of society; no less.
If only these dimwits would realize that we’ve no shortage of rich uncles to pay the way, perhaps we could convince them that they won’t eventually be forced to pay their own way or suffer the consequences. Never-mind that rich uncles (and aunts, for surely there are many of those too) often come round less and less once it becomes obvious that their only usefulness is contained within their pockets.
The blue states may claim to want nothing in return for their benevolence, but the red states realize that eventually, “federal fairness” is likely to come round, asking for its money back. And the red states, with all their conservative mumbo jumbo, have no interest in accepting gifts for which they know they cannot pay. These same foolish red states may also believe in figuring out how to pay for their shiny new trinkets before they enact them, lest they be required to cut them at an inopportune time. The fools may even believe that the word “permanent” still means “existing perpetually; everlasting, esp. without significant change.”
Rather than scratching their heads once again, and asking “What’s wrong with those conservative simpletons?”, perhaps the liberals should examine the possibility that there may exist rational reasons for the opposition to their presents. Until this happens, those crazy conservatives will most likely continue to cling to their guns and religion, forsaking the gifts of liberal progress that the politicians try to sell them.