Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, December 02, 2009 2:11:02 PM
I have noticed, when a government program is subjected to criticism, the first response is usually to portray the critics as either greedy or mean spirited. The supporters of the program don't both dismissing the complaints, instead the take the good intentions justifying the program and turn them about, assuming any criticism shows a lack of those motives on the part of the critics.
For example, criticism of welfare is met by claims that the critics want poor people starving in the streets. Criticism of affirmative action brings charges that critics want only white people to have good jobs or university degrees. Criticism of socialized medicine results in the claim that critics want the poor to be denied hospital treatment. And criticism of public education is turned into allegations that critics want only the rich to have educated children.
Of course these responses are absurd, but unfortunately many conservatives bite, and allow the liberals to set the terms of the debate. Instead of arguing that the government is not the proper means for delivering these services, or, even better, that these services are not part of the proper function of government, conservatives flinch at charges of being heartless, and the debate center son whether or not conservatives care enough about others. And so we end up with "compassionate conservatives" or conservatives pundits explaining that we need "our own health care reform", along with complaints that "tax cuts aren't enough" and we "can't be the party of no". (See "
Conservatives and the "Big Picture"", "
The Party of 'No'?", "
Activism As The Only Acceptable Position?
")
The true argument should be whether or not the government should be doing such things. The motives of thsoe criticizing are irrelevant, as are the motives of those supporting them. Motives are irrelevant. If someone wants to murder you out of good motives, does that mean you would let him? Or would you refuse a million dollars because the giver thought he was somehow harming you? No, the motives are unimportant, the point is that the government does a bad job at doing many things that it should not be doing.
As I said in many other posts:
If ever we manage to destroy this nation it will probably not be due to
war or dictatorship or revolution, more likely it will be due to one
too many governmental good deeds.
And that should be the bottom line whenever our motives are questions. Who cares about our intentions? The motives of everyone involved do not change the fact that the government fails to do an adequate job when asked to solve problems outside of its proper scope.
Then again, having been reared in a culture where motive is everything, where political debates are settled by claims of greater virtue, or greater victimhood, I don't know if such arguments will reach a lot of voters.Then again, until we start making such arguments, the voters will continue to believe that motives matter more than anything else. Until we begin to point out the irrelevancy of motives, there will be no reason for them to change their minds.