Last night I made a comment on Jane Galt's discussion board regarding a post that mentioned Hillary Clinton is planning to run for president (like we didn't already see that one coming). In that comment I complained that there are a number of groups nationwide that could come together to make it more likely that she could be elected. The groups that I mentioned were "Soccer Moms", (urban) professional women, and the media. Let me state for the record that my comment was not very coherent, as it was late and I was tired.
The interesting thing that came out of this was the vehemence of the response from a "Kate", who accused me of being misogynistic and xenophobic. While she didn't really have much of substance to say, she was very upset (so upset that she couldn't even do me the courtesy of getting my name right).
Her first objection was that at a time like this, when there's more important evil in the world, how could I conceive of Hillary Clinton as evil? I consider her evil because she is a socialist. I don't care what she calls herself, but her world outlook is socialist (remember "Hillary Care" anyone?). As a libertarian, I find the concept of socialism evil in all its forms. And I don't have any qualms about saying so. It's exactly at a time like this, when we're confronted by evil in the rest of the world, that we need to be aware of it at home. We're so wrapped up in trying to be "nice" and politically correct that people won't make judgements anymore (lest they be accused of misogyny or xenophobia :) ). Well, I'm making one now and I mean it. I will not be dissuaded from this course.
Perhaps I sometimes come off as a bit arrogant or superior, but that may be a function of my background and temperament. I am an I/T Architect and I started as a programmer. In my line of work if you blind yourself to reality in the interest of ideology you will fail at your job. Like many in the engineering professions, I have come to my political philosophy through observation and study of the alternatives (I know, that pesky empirical evidence thing again, which is anathema for a liberal--I guess that makes me an arrogant jerk, too :) ). It is through this that I arrived at libertarianism (note the small "l"). To me, the only way for us to achieve success as a society is to promote the success of the individual (for ultimately there is no society, only the individual). This means equality of opportunity and personal responsibility, which is in direct opposition to the philosophy of those who would expand government further into our lives.
It was late when I made the post, and I was tired, so I probably didn't express myself very well (as another poster pointed out later). However, I brought up the example of the "soccer mom" as someone who might vote for Hillary. This made me a misogynist in Kate's view, because I would dare single out a group based on gender (or so she assumed). In actuality I would include some men in this group, which to me is a catch-all term for a group of people who want the government to protect everyone from everything and make the world safe. I do have quite a bit of disdain for this group, because in making everything safe, they also remove personal responsibility from the equation, which actually makes the problem worse. This group favors a national health care plan (ask Canada or Britain how they like theirs), gun control (Million Mom March--argh!), mandatory helmet laws, mandatory seat-belt laws (complete with jail time), welfare, etc, ad-infinitum. Every one of these is an expansion of the state into the realm of the individual and every one of these destroys personal responsibility, which brings demands for further government interference (a vicious cycle).
As for Kate's swipe at me for a perception of xenophobia in regards to a friend of mine who was recently naturalized, I find that attack particularly noxious. I trust this coworker as a competent programmer and as an individual. Of course I didn't clarify the situation very well, but in this case, my coworker did not know much about Hillary Clinton's scandals or about her political beliefs. Why didn't she know about them? Because she was influenced by what she saw in the media. At this point, it is simply not possible to deny the bias of the media (I am certainly not going to entertain any further argument on the matter).
I was mistaken in naming (urban) "professional women" as a group. It certainly sounds inflammatory now that I think about it. Besides, the people to which I am referring can be put into the soccer mom slot without much pounding.
There is a group of people who think that we must be protected from ourselves and from others. If you think I'm arrogant, think about their position for a minute. These are people who think the rest of us are too stupid or inept to take care of ourselves (and keep from hurting other people).
I live by a small set of fundamental rules. People are free to do as they choose, provided they are not hurting another person. People are responsible for their own actions (in many ways, this is a corollary of the first rule). Government has a legitimate role in the common defense and in providing a framework for addressing injuries done by one individual against another. Anything beyond that is not legitimate. Further, it is in violation of our constitution (which is a topic for another day).
To me, the "soccer mom" group (which has the meaning noted above--maybe I need a new term) represents the nanny state, which I find abhorrent. It is not misogynistic to point this out and to speak out against it. I will not be intimidated by namecalling into silence on this issue. The road to a police state is paved with good intentions. But if we speak out now, we may have a chance of saving ourselves.
Posted by Aubrey at September 17, 2002 04:00 PM