CSotD: No time for logic
Skip to comments
A critical juxtaposition today, with two good cartoonists getting it right from slightly different perspectives.
I give Zyglis an edge in term of persuasion, but that comes with a lot of footnotes.
Kal is correct in that the net effect of the Republican reforms is to drain resources from the poor (and middleclass) in order to provide a windfall to the wealthy.
For those with a progressive sense of Social Contract, that's extremely persuasive. And it ought to inspire not just those who have read Locke and Rousseau and the other Enlightenment writers who inspired our founders, but also Christians who focus on the clear, main message of the synoptic gospels rather than cherrypicking judgmental passages from the Old Testament and the Epistles.
However, let us not forget the quip attributed to Adlai Stevenson, who, when a woman assured him he had the vote of every thinking American, responded "That's not enough, madam. We need a majority."
The quote appears to be a legend; the fact that he lost is very real.
Kal's cartoon does a terrific job of reassuring thoughtful readers that they are correct in their thinking, but it won't reach those who believe in a harsh, paternalist system wherein the rich deserve their wealth and the poor are victims of their own failures.
Zyglis has the advantage of dwelling more on the impact than the intent of the legislation: People will die.
The hardcore rightwing believes that the poor have only themselves to blame and, while they chip in to support charities, they honestly see the overall misery as the inevitable order of things.
A friend steered me to this depressing but clear-headed page, in which a linguist argues that Trump & Co. are marketers, not philosophers, and that people respond to marketing far more than to philosophy.
He suggests that progressives talk not about "regulations" but about "protections," and not about "taxes" but about "investments in public resources," to frame things not in terms of what they restrict or what they cost but in terms that emphasize the promises they offer.
Mostly, however, he outlines the difference in worldview that makes it impossible to persuade conservatives by appealing to altruism:
Conservatives believe in what Lakoff calls the “strict father family,” while progressives believe in a “nurturant parent family.” In the strict father family, father knows best and he has the moral authority. The children and spouse have to defer to him, and when they disobey, he has the right to punish them so they will learn to do the right thing.
“The basic idea is that authority is justified by morality, and that, in a well-ordered world, there should be a moral hierarchy in which those who have traditionally dominated should dominate,” Lakoff said.
You can rail all you want against the Protestant ethic, but it's hardwired into our system, and, moreover, it's not ours alone. The world is full of people who do not simply accept but actively embrace authoritarian figures.
Some are religious, some are atheists, but all are accepting of the notion that those in power deserve to be in power and those in the gutter have moral failings that put them there.
You can't argue them out of such a fundamental belief.
Ebenezer Scrooge, after all, had no problem rejecting the logical, decent arguments of his nephew Fred and of the charitable men who dropped by his office.
It was only when forcibly dragged from his bed and shown his own personal losses and the impact on others of his lack of compassion that Scrooge changed.
So set-and-match to Zyglis, and a suggestion that we keep the stories coming and the lectures to a minimum.
But first …
Dan Piraro does a weekly wrap-up of Bizarro, and his rant over last Wednesday's panel is worth a read, even though it is an exercise in logic.
Piraro asks why we don't question the idea that firefighters put out anyone's burning home and that police do not demand proof of insurance before responding to a break-in at your home, but illness or injury are treated only if you have paid up front for the privilege of medical care?
Meanwhile, Heidi MacDonald picks up on Derf Backderf's prediction of disaster for cartoonists if the Affordable Care Act is replaced, and he gets a bit more into those persuasive stories of disaster, so the two pieces together make a good juxtaposition of their own.
I echo both:
When my last paper shut down and my COBRA ran out, I shopped around for disaster coverage in the private market.
Not preventive coverage, but simply coverage that would kick in if, for instance, I came down with cancer.
That level of coverage would have cost more than my freelance income, before taxes, before rent, before groceries.
"Give it all to us," the least expensive provider said, "and borrow some more and give us that, too, and then, after you come up with a $5,000 deductible, we'll talk about what percentage of your medical expenses we'll cover, if any."
So I went uninsured until the ACA, and, while I wasn't diagnosed with cancer until after I was on Medicare, I credit the casual relationship I developed with my primary care physician under ACA for the fact that I mentioned the odd, passing symptom that led to that diagnosis.
Meanwhile, when I did have coverage through my job, it also had a four-digit deductible, and, while it would cover you once you had advanced cancer or an actual heart attack, it would not pay to test for those things before they became crises.
Then, when someone in your small company had a health crisis, the insurer would simply charge back the costs to your employer through increased premiums.
I'm not theorizing: I sat in the board meetings where these outrageous increases in healthcare premiums were explained by our accountant.
So the fact that only X-percent seek insurance through private policies does not tell the whole story; many others are given crappy, expensive coverage through their employers, and not because the employers are cruel but because the insurance companies offer no better deals.
But that's a Kal explanation.
Only an Adam Zyglis appeal to sentiment will persuade the True Believers.
And the GOP has cleverly set up timelines in their legislation to make sure people don't start dying until after the 2020 elections.
Preach it, Rev …
Comments 4
Comments are closed.