Mission Impossible: Having a Substantive Debate with Conservatives (by Daniel Brook at HuffPost)

[marmar]

Daniel Brook
Mission Impossible: Having a Substantive Debate with Conservatives
Posted August 2, 2007 | 10:50 AM (EST)



I wrote my book, The Trap: Selling Out to Stay Afloat in Winner-Take-All America in the hope of starting a serious debate with conservatives. But since it came out, I've learned some hard lessons in how the right-wing noise machine operates.

My book lays out how Reaganomics transformed America into a nation of rising economic inequality and declining social mobility. Not merely an issue for CEOs at the top and Wal-Mart workers at the bottom, I argue, rising inequality affects us all--and it is destroying the promise of America.

A generation ago, most professional jobs paid similar salaries. The starting salary for big city corporate lawyers was just $2,000 more than for big city teachers. But now those gaps are enormous -- $100,000 in the lawyer-teacher case. And because of the explosion of wealth at the top, anyone who's not keeping up -- teachers and social workers and public defenders -- can't live the kind of comfortable life with homeownership, good healthcare, and affordable higher education for the kids that was once widely availably. As a result, more and more idealistic young professionals sell out -- not to enjoy a life of luxury but simply to stay afloat.

The statistics in the book make people's jaws drop. But they're all fully documented in the endnotes. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. So I was hoping we could have a debate about those jaw-dropping facts.

I expected conservatives would rise up to defend the new inequality. I imagined they would say that the market can do no wrong. The libertarians, I figured, would suggest that maybe teaching and social work just aren't as important to society as advertising and management consulting. And I thought the social conservatives would argue for a return to old-fashioned social norms where husbands take high-paying breadwinner careers and wives do more meaningful, less remunerative work. .......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-brook/mission-impossible-havin_b_58868.html

[FormerDittoHead]

1. At Huff - read the comments - looks like a feedback loop... n/t

[silverweb]

2. How well I know!

Very recently, I was emailed an editorial by Walter Williams, entitled, "Socialized Medicine? Take Another Look."

Dr. Williams is well known in conservative/libertarian circles and publishes a syndicated column that appears in the likes of _WorldNetDaily_, _Capitalism Magazine_, and _Townhall.com_.

Yet the opinion piece that was sent to me was published only at _The Atlasphere_, where you have to be a member to get past the log-in page. The person who sent the article left out the link, but it didn't take long to find the source.

In any case, the sender and I have gone several rounds in past years until I said (several times) that we just should not discuss political-economic issues again if we hoped to have any level of cordial relationship.

The following most recent exchange demonstrates very clearly just why this is so. I've eliminated names and a couple of sentences completely unrelated to this matter. Otherwise, everything is copied and pasted (sic), typos and all:

Him: Good article.
Socialized Medicine? Take Another Look
Opinion Editorial by Walter Williams - Aug 1, 2007
Sometimes the advocates of socialized medicine claim that health care is too important to be left to the market. That’s why some politicians are calling for us to adopt health care systems such as those in Canada, the United Kingdom and other European nations. ... <entire article from the email followed>

Me: I'm sure Williams' column makes for some fascinating conversation in "The Atlasphere." I prefer the real world, thanks.

Him: that is the real world. the camelot world of make believe is still in cuba and north korea. just becasue the name is a play off of "atlas shrugged" you think you can dodge the facts stated therein ?

Me: Save it, __. I do not share your ideology and have no intention of discussing it with you. There's absolutely no point.

Him: "save it __" ihave no intentiopn of discussing "ideology" why atre you such a wise ass ? you know what, if I paid you you could not articulate an "ideology". but you will sit therewityh __ and those who are lessor informed and mojuth your free loader pablum wont you. I would bitch slap you if you said that to my face.

Me: You make absolutely no sense -- especially the reference to __, which is completely off the wall.
Any you should know that I no longer ever forgive or forget physical violence or threats of same.

I haven't heard anything back, nor do I expect to for quite some time -- and I do know there's seething anger at the other end.

My point is that I completely understand where Brook is coming from in his post and could have warned him about expecting an immediate flurry of personal attacks.

The first comment in Huffpost by Cranbot also accurately echoes my own experiences: "It was too much to expect. These people all operate the same way. Fear of humiliation keeps them from ever admitting they are (or even might be wrong). As long as they are getting theirs - they really don't care about everyone else. Even if they got theirs by their family or school connections and not by their brains or talent."

Cranbot has described my email adversary very accurately, who even told me once that his worst nightmare was being humiliated. That's a hell of a pickle to be in for this personality type, who constantly needs to grandstand and receive flattering adulation to feel validated. Ain't gonna happen on my time or in my space.