Good grief. Who says that low-information voters are undecided? Bernard P. Giroux (October 15th) ticks off a number of reasons voters should reject Elizabeth Warren. Most of them rest on hysterical fact-twisting.
Giroux states that Warren’s political principles will require a “re-write of the Constitution.” As he should know, the last change to the Constitution was in 1971, to give 18-year-olds the right to vote. Almost all 27 amendments improved upon our civil liberties or closed electoral loopholes. The usual method of amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in each house of congress and approval by three-fourths of all states. So what’s the point of his nonsense? Hysterical fear-mongering.
Mr. Giroux questions why an accomplished, tenured professor would give up a five-digit salary in academe for a five-digit salary as a Senator. He seizes on the first notion that pops into his head: “One reason comes to mind: power,” he writes. I seem to recall, from the same citizenship class Mr. Giroux apparently skipped, that our political system is based on a consensus-conflict model, in which political parties are in perpetual political arm-wrestling matches with one another. So – yes – power is the reason both candidates are competing, vying, running, fighting – all power verbs, you’ll notice.
I don’t know what Giroux has been reading, but he uses the word “statism” too broadly and as if it were a filthy word. Statism, in its simplest and most obvious meaning, indicates that a country is not left to anarchy or mob rule but its day-to-day functions are managed by – a state. The current crop of Republicans may prefer that we all live in the unpaved boonies, home-schooling our kids, and receiving faith-based services. But the “Somalian option” – letting states fail their own people – is still fortunately not very popular.
There were criticisms from both the Right and Left on how the TARP program was implemented. But Giroux chooses to ignore the millions of jobs and homes preserved by government interventions and modest US economic growth in the face of serious economic downturns in the EU, Japan, and even softening of the Chinese economy. Many believe more domestic progress would have been made if the Republicans had not made demonizing a Black, Muslim, Kenyan, Indonesian, Communist president their only priority.
Giroux writes, “living under statist rules means that you are not free to be an American. The statist will control everything you do in life and make you subservient.” As Joe Biden would say, “Stuff!”. Mr. Giroux’s political buddies are more than happy to tell women what they may or may not do with their bodies. These buddies are not averse to increasing the size of the Department of Defense by a couple trillion dollars here or rolling out more domestic Homeland Security surveillance programs there – or starting unfunded wars of choice. Republicans love Big Government – especially when energy, defense and aerospace contractors are doing so well.
But the fact is: the choice Massachusetts voters have between Elizabeth Warren and her Indjun-bashing opponent is not about the size of the state, but about priorities.
And here Mr. Giroux and I agree. He asks “Would it not be better to be in a country where the government flows from the people?” Absolutely. That’s precisely what Senatorial elections are for – voters weighing in on national priorities. And early polls show that the priorities Elizabeth Warren is campaigning for are the ones voters like.
This was published in the Standard Times on October 17, 2012
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20121017/opinion/210170312
Comments are closed.