What We're Fighting, Part II

Illustrations of just how far in the depths the neo-theo-corpo con world view can take you.

First, from Megan McArdle, libertarian supreme, this choice piece:

Moreover, as a class, the old and sick have some culpability in their ill health. They didn't eat right or excercise; they smoked; they didn't go to the doctor as often as they ought; they drank to much, or took drugs, or sped, or engaged in dangerous sports. Again, in individual cases this will not be true; but as a class, the old and sick bear some of the responsibility for their own ill health, while younger, healthier people have almost no causal role in the ill-health of others.

Perhaps they deserve it by virtue of suffering? But again, most of them are suffering because they have gotten old, often in high style. The young of today have two possible outcomes:

1) They will be old and sick too, in which case they are no less deserving of our concern than today's old and sick

2) They won't ever get to be old and sick, which is even worse than being old and sick.

As a class, the old and sick are already luckier than the young and healthy. Again, for individuals within that class--those with desperate congenital conditions, for example--this is not the case. But I'm not sure it's terribly compelling to argue that we should massively disadvantage a large group of people in order to massively advantage another, equally large group of people, all to help out the few who are needy, or deserving, or unlucky.

There is so much that she leaves out of her argument that I don't even know where to begin" birth defects, genetically based disabilities, accidents, diseases caused by unsafe working conditions, and on and on and on, are not the exclusive province of the "old and sick." Nor are the old necessarily sick. (And half of those who are, I think, are so because their doctors told them they were.)

Quite aside from the callous, blame-the-victim stance, this is, when all is said and done, horribly slanted drivel. Obviously the result of the kind of research that went into the rationale(s) for the Iraq invasion.

(Footnote: As a youth, I read and was impressed by Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. I grew older, wiser, more compassionate, and gained a more solid understanding of what human society is about as I ran up against one hard fact: we are social animals. We are hard-wired for it, as are our closest relatives. Sociality is an adaptive trait, obviously, and once you acknowledge that, you begin to understand some of the subtleties. In the case of the "old and sick," elders play a key role in transmission of culture. It could even be argued that now, when we do our best to shunt our elders away where we don't really have to deal with them, they are still tremendously influential in shaping our attitudes, as they have been throughout our lives. We owe them. Hence I consider libertarianism and its allies not only morally impoverished, but maladaptive, and comments like McArdle's contemptible.)

It gets worse. Here's an article by Philip Atkinson, one of the luminaries of a group calling itself "The Family Security Foundations," via Digby. The title, "Conqering the Drawbacks of Democracy," is bad enough, but the text is unbelievable:

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As we know, the moral base of any group with "Family" in the name is questionable. This goes beyond that:

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

When I was learning about America and how it works, calling for the overthrow of the government was treason. Now, apparently, on the far fringes of the right, it is a valid proposal for "saving" America.

Dave Neiwert has a lot more information about Atkinson and the FSM. I suspect this group has the same value to the core NTC cons as Fred Phelps has to the Dobson Gang: he makes them look reasonable.

(Digby notes that the group has been busily scrubbing articles from the Internet. Hence, the link she provides to the Google cache is no longer good. Gee, I wonder why they'd want to do that?)