RSS Feed MenuI was tremendously moved by this email I received from Colorado reader and self-described lifelong Democrat, Karen S. She gave me permission to publish it.
Mr. Frum,
I am a life-long Democrat and activist. More importantly, I try to be “a thinking American”. I nearly always disagreed with your views over the years, sir, but I was so grateful and so pleased to read your CNN column. In your words, “Conservatives have whipped themselves into spasms of outrage and despair that block all strategic thinking.” Thank you.
Mr. Frum, I am dying. I am 52-years-old and have been battling breast cancer since 1990. Once a successful business owner in Manhattan, with an Ivy League education and four years of military service under my belt, I am now broke and broken, trying to keep pace with my medical bills. I lost my health insurance years ago. The battle over health care/insurance reform was important to me. I have mixed feelings about the outcome. Mostly, I am greatly saddened and somewhat anxious about the sorry state of our political discourse. I want to see our political leaders engage, tough it out, deliberate – take responsibility! Until your column and subsequent interviews, no one was standing up and saying, “Hey guys (Republican Party), maybe this isn’t the right strategy! Maybe this is not good for our country! Maybe we need to get back to the table, sans attitude”.
I am indeed aware that what is happening in politics mirrors what is happening in our country as a whole: divisions on morality, ethical behavior, and values; a fascination and preoccupation with violence; immediate, insatiable gratification; elevating greed, and indulgence to dizzying heights… need I go on? But if our political and government leaders, on both sides, don’t demonstrate a different, healthier social model, who will? Education, and religious institutions, parents, families and friends cannot affect change entirely on their own; our society is too complex. Hillary Clinton was right: It takes a village.
I just want to say to you sir: Good for you. And again, thank you for your attempt to reason with your colleagues. Perhaps some heard you. I hope so. What you did took great courage, and strength of character. I am so sorry it may be what cost you your job today. The Republican Party, and conservatives need you…even though they may not realize it right now.
I’m sad I’m leaving my country and my children in such a bad way… but I do have hope. Thinking, I believe, is patriotic. My hope is that all Americans do a lot more thinking in coming days, and a lot less screaming. Bless you.
Amorak // Apr 15, 2010 at 10:20 am
You’re wrong about this commenter, Franco 2, and I suspect you are wrong about most others here. I am a conservative and a businessman but I’m not going to let any political perspective (or label) dictate how I think about issues. The extreme left and right are clubs that demand adherence to their respective dogmas. I don’t want to belong to either of those clubs. I believe that David Frum will be remembered in history for his unwillingness to engage in bad behaviour and dogmatic nonthinking. You, franco 2, seem to define yourself first and then you attack everything that doesn’t fit that definition. You belong to the Great Coffee Shop Club of Head Nodders, (in your case, the Right Wing Chapter), people who nod their heads in solemn agreement with every extremist pronouncement that comes up so that they can keep their club memberships in good standing. So, I think you’d better be a little more inclusive, franco 2. I’m sure it’ll be very lonely out there on the fringe someday.
franco 2 // Apr 15, 2010 at 10:32 am
Dear Mr. Cadell,
As a life-long Republican, I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to hear a reasonable Democrat. When I saw you on Sean Hannity, I was in despair that the Democratic party was moving too far left and distraught over the kind of uncivil banter Americans are subjected to daily on networks like MSNBC.
Even though I disagree 100% with you on policy, if more Democrats were like you and could talk some sense into your colleagues, America would be a much better place.
Sincerely,
Some naive, well-meaning, (but partisan) Republican
sinz54 // Apr 15, 2010 at 10:33 am
franco 2: First sentence of Karen’s missive, in case “Centrist” here skipped that part …
“I am a life-long Democrat and activist. ”
Recall the so-called “Reagan Democrats”?
They were guys who worked on an assembly line, deeply patriotic and socially conservative–but they also had bumper stickers like “Union YES!” and “Proud to be Union!” on their cars and trucks. And they had voted for Dems much of their lives.
Beginning in the late 1970s, they voted for Reagan, and other Republicans, in large numbers–because back then conservatives wanted to reach out to such people. Conservatives didn’t write them off just because they belonged to the UAW or AFL-CIO.
You act like you don’t care what Democrats think–anyone who has a history of voting for Dems should just be written off. But in that case, such Dems won’t ever vote for Republican candidates. Being a registered Dem doesn’t mean you’re always going to vote a straight Dem party ticket.
The GOP base has got to stop this insular attitude where if you don’t agree with them right now, this very minute, then they wash your hands of you and you vote Dem from then on. Republicans have to be willing to take the time and the effort to persuade those who would NOT automatically vote Republican.
franco 2 // Apr 15, 2010 at 10:53 am
Sinz,
You may notice that I often use the term “commited Democrats” You know what that means I’m sure, and their advice for Republicans should be taken with a grain of salt.
Then there are Democrats who aren’t entirely happy with their party, but they seem unable to vote for Republicans unless said Republican is with them 100% on all the social issues. For these Democrats, for whatever reason, social issues trump all else. They would happily live under a Chavez-like tyrant as long as gays can marry and women can get abortions on demand.
I see leftism as the biggest threat, so unless a candidate recognizes that I have little interest in electing him/her. Republicans who don’t recognize the threat are especially dangerous and are often used by the left to advance their cause and give it legitimacy.
And funny I don’t hear any parallel arguments coming from the Democratic Party side, save for Mickey Kaus and a handful of others. Democrats are poised to lose many congressional elections and no one is telling them they should moderate their views to attract independents and Republican moderates….
franco 2 // Apr 15, 2010 at 11:15 am
Sinz,
A lot (not all) moderate Republicans are outright statists. I’m against them. Democrats are high-speed statists and these Republicans are medium-speed statists. It all goes to the same place – tyranny.
It seems a disproportionate number of moderate Republicans are opportunists first and foreemost. Arlen Specter, Michael Bloomberg, John McCain, etc.. They are happy to go along with the Democratic Party agenda in having the government gobble up our lives and control everything in exchange for …election. That’s what it is. I don’t respect this type of politician even if he votes for some of the things I care about or if he’s slightly “better” than a Democrat. They are ultimately untrustworthy and undeserving of the office.
I am not so respectful of the GOP to believe that all of their candidates are automatically deserving of office, and when one of them is too close to leftist Democrat positions, I’d rather an actual Democrat hold the seat so that bad policies are not blamed on “both sides” when they are discovered.
Lastly there is a fiction of those like Chuck Hegal Colin Powell and others who claim they are moderates, who press the party to nominate moderate candidates like John McCain and then they endorse and vote for the socialist Democrat.
Rabiner // Apr 15, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Franco 2:
Define what ’statist’ means to you. It would help me understand where you’re coming from.
Douglas Anthony Cooper // Apr 15, 2010 at 4:06 pm
@ Franco 2….
(Hm. I’m wondering whether I should choose an interesting pseudonym as well. Tojo 2? Pavelić 2? Perón 2?)
Am I going to agree with you on your deathbed? Absolutely not. You repel me now, and you will repel me then. However, this I promise: I won’t barge into your wake and starting foaming about Reaganomics. I won’t sneer at your mourners and call them “benighted Teabaggers.” Not because you don’t deserve it, but because I have quaint ideas about appropriate civilized behavior.
And yes, this is the difference between you, Salazar 2, and the other commenters here: it’s not a matter of ideology, but delivery.
(In my case, yes, I find your stance loathsome, but many others here are — whether you like it or not — pretty much in your camp. It’s just that they were well brought up.)
franco 2 // Apr 15, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Douglas Anthony Cooper,
My pseudonym is not derived from the Generalissimo, nor am I a decedent of the famous pasta magnate FrancoAmerican. It is revealing that you have me pegged as a right-winger and so automatically assume I’m a fan of that Spaniard tyrant. You must have been deeply stewed in leftist propaganda.
No one is “barging in on a wake” here. A woman wrote a letter to Frum that is actually vaguely insulting to Republicans and it is pretty ill-informed about the fundamental nature of politics and political speech and its history. Frum chose to publish it on his site. The only thing I’ve done is simply disagree with her.
“yes, I find your stance loathsome, but many others here are — whether you like it or not — pretty much in your camp. It’s just that they were well brought up.”
This is the internet, pal. I am simply disagreeing with a woman I’ve never met. She’s not a guest in my house and the fact that she’s dying doesn’t immunize her from disagreement. We are NOT at her wake and she has voluntarily chosen to write to Frum and express her political opinions, who has voluntarily chosen to publish it. Get a grip, kid. And judging from your off-the-mark assumptions, I doubt you know my politics well enough to even be sure you “loathe” them. But if you did it wouldn’t bother me in the least. There are plenty of people who disagree with me, and I, them. So what?
CentristNYer // Apr 15, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Douglas Anthony Cooper // Apr 15, 2010 at 4:06 pm
“You repel me now, and you will repel me then. However, this I promise: I won’t barge into your wake and starting foaming about Reaganomics.”
Mr. Cooper, instructing Franco about appropriate civilized behavior is like trying to talk to Sarah Palin about “nucular” policy: well-meaning but fruitless.
franco 2 // Apr 15, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Rabiner // Apr 15, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Franco 2:
Define what ’statist’ means to you. It would help me understand where you’re coming from.”
I am first and foremost for individual freedom secondly I tend toward conservatism. I am very close to being a classical liberal. How can you be a conservative and a classical liberal? Easy you want to CONSERVE the classic liberalism of the past which is practically non-existent today. It is not represented by Democrats of Pelosi and Reid and Obama anymore, that’s for sure. I’m for individual rights and as much freedom as possible. I am also conservative in the sense that, if I was to magically be anointed President, I would be against rapidly overturning all the socialist policies instituted over the last 7 decades because that would be too abrupt and cause misery displacement and unintended consequences.
I am also conservative in that I appreciate religion and the freedom of religion, and even though I don’t personally have strong beliefs, think those that do, have a right to them. I am for a free market. Today’s corporations are a bastardization of a free market. In short, there are so many government regulations and tax loopholes and corrupt politicians that the only way business can succeed in this environment is to be, or be bought up by, a huge corporation with lawyers and lobbyists and actively bribing all levels of government representatives. These monstrosities were created by government and now are acting in symbiosis with government. Many Republicans are simply pawns of these entities. This doesn’t mean Democrats aren’t – they are too, and often quite a bit worse. I am for relaxing of regulations that will allow smaller business to succeed, and for more people to pursue their dreams and goals.
But as bad as corporations are, or can be, they can’t force you to buy their product or raid your home and your bank account. Government does that ALL the time. So corporations still are better than government control.
But what what mostly animates me is I am an anti-leftist. Socialism an communism always lead to tyranny and slavery. It is inevitable, and Republicans who unwittingly abet leftists are, needless to say, not my type.
Here’s a definition I basically accept:
“Statists tend to favor a great deal of government control over individual behavior and over the economy. That’s why WordIQ.com defines “statism” as “any social or political system in which state intervention plays a major role.” The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines it as a “concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government.”
This belief in government power doesn’t necessarily make statists undemocratic. Many statists believe government represents the collective will of the people, and they usually argue that a powerful government is necessary to build a better society. As WordIQ.com noted, “supporters of statism argue that [government power] ultimately benefits the individual himself, since the public good involves the personal good of the maximum number of individuals.”
Statists support far less individual liberty than any other political ideology. Statists tend to distrust the free market, advocate centralized planning of the economy (including high taxes, strict regulation of business, and even government ownership or control of major industries), oppose “alternative” lifestyles that go against the beliefs of a majority of citizens, and downplay the importance of civil liberties. In short, statists consistently doubt that economic liberty and individual freedom are necessary, practical, or workable in today’s world.”
There is a certain elitism that permeates the GOP. Once they get elected or in power, they are quite happy to run and even deepen the socialist state that already exists. Socialism doesn’t affect elites. They often do quite well. Many of these Republicans, like Bloomberg with his billions really think the citizenry need their nannying and somehow enjoy regulating and inserting their idealistic notions by force, others like Frum believe their own brilliant ideas need to be implemented to make our lives better. Not to say that there may not be good ideas Frum has, but they aren’t the answer, not even close, to what our real problems are, any more than the answer to political problems is some dream of civil debate.
franco 2 // Apr 15, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Hey Centrist,
Cooper thinks we are in the same camp!
“…but many others here are — whether you like it or not — pretty much in your camp”
Care to respond to that?
CentristNYer // Apr 15, 2010 at 6:01 pm
franco 2 // Apr 15, 2010 at 5:36 pm
“Cooper thinks we are in the same camp! … Care to respond to that?”
I’ll let Mr. Cooper speak for himself, but I feel fairly safe in interpreting his remarks to mean that others here share your views but aren’t so obnoxious about them.
That’s what he means when he says: “it’s not a matter of ideology, but delivery.”
Rabiner // Apr 15, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Franco 2:
I understand classical liberal concepts since it comes from Adam Smith economic theory. However I believe government intervention through regulations is required for the free market to function properly. Regulations must met a specific goal such as increasing transparency, improving working standards, improving environmental standards. These are all valid and important regulations that government must implement since there is no significant capitalist incentive to have transparency, have minimum working standards, and to care about the environment. Business has one goal which is to create maximum profit. Ambiguity can increase profits, having safety not be a priority can increase profits, and disposing of waste irresponsibly can increase profits. However supporting regulations is not being ’statist’ but rather intelligent.
Business wants to privatize profits while socializing the costs associated with those profits. Unsafe work environments lead to unhealthy workers which can eventually be deemed unable to work. Government needs to respond to this action with regulation. Waste is dumped into water streams and into the ground. Government needs to respond to this action with regulation preventing this and forcing business to pay for the cleanup costs. A lack of transparency leads to dysfunctional markets which can increase profits for some while harming others.
“oppose “alternative” lifestyles that go against the beliefs of a majority of citizens, and downplay the importance of civil liberties”
I take this quote from you because that is exactly what Republicans and Conservative Republicans in particular have been advocating over and over again. The Patriot Act is one such example. Opposing legalization of Marijuana is another. Opposing same-sex marriage is a third. I find that Conservatives are as guilty or more so of downplaying the importance of civil liberties and opposing ‘alternative’ lifestyles.
Douglas Anthony Cooper // Apr 15, 2010 at 9:50 pm
CentristNYer has it right: it’s a question of decency.
Meanwhile, Franco, I agree with much of what you’ve said. It’s mostly straight out of Hayek. As with you, I despise the statist George W. Bush. (I assume that you do, or you’re intellectually inconsistent — his administration saw an unprecedented expansion of government.) As with you, I loathe the Republican “family values” crowd, with their thuggish attempts to use the state as a primitive tool to restrict the rights of citizens who live differently. Together, we are both sickened by the Bush assault on individual freedoms: the denial of habeas corpus, of due process, of the right not to be randomly imprisoned and tortured.
So we’re in the same camp. To an extent.
As for statism: there are areas where we disagree. Not everything should be privatized. The armed forces, for instance. I’m all for keeping them a state monopoly. (Blackwater was a little experiment in military privatization, and — as Machiavelli warned us — mercenaries turned out to be a bad idea.) I’m also for the public ownership of infrastructure: roads, the electrical grid, etc. I like the idea of national parks. Oh, and I’m for the government subsidy of opera. (So was Hayek.) Call me a statist if you like. This hardly makes me Hugo Chavez or George Walker Bush.
Lastly, I’m afraid I don’t believe in privatized healthcare: not if it costs considerably more money per citizen, with considerably less coverage. Just so we can pride ourselves on not being “statists.” Why not? Because it’s morally repugnant, and — this matters — idiotic.
In this thread the real question is moral repugnance. You’re happy to see a fellow citizen on her death bed denied health coverage, all in the name of intellectual consistency. And (in some ways worse) you’re happy to trumpet your grotesque position, loudly.
I’ll leave you with Emerson (not much of a statist): “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
franco 2 // Apr 16, 2010 at 11:27 am
Douglas Anthony Cooper // Apr 15, 2010 at 9:50 pm “You’re happy to see a fellow citizen on her death bed denied health coverage, all in the name of intellectual consistency.” This is completly false. Where do you get that idea? Please cite the words that I wrote. Hey people! It’s NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO CUT AND PASTE!
But Doug here would rather just make stuff up.
The rest of your post isn’t worthy of comment. You seem like you do a lot of projecting dude.
sinz54 // Apr 16, 2010 at 11:31 am
Rabainer: there is no significant capitalist incentive to have transparency, have minimum working standards, and to care about the environment.
I believe regulations are needed when there is a genuine market failure. For example, the pre-existing condition problem is definitely a market failure, since rational choice breaks down–nobody chooses to be born with juvenile diabetes or hemophilia.
But don’t be so dismissive of market forces helping to improve working conditions. Companies bid against each other for better fringe benefits. And if a company runs its workers into the ground, its best workers will quit and go to work elsewhere.
This happens all the time in high-tech, where engineers and scientists are used to being independent and turnover is high, particularly in Silicon Valley. At the other end of the scale, it’s usually not the case where there’s a natural monopoly, like a coal mining company that’s the only sizable employer in town. Regulations are still needed there.
Plus, where regulations are still needed is where workers don’t know they’re being screwed over, like the employees at Enron who were defrauded, or a company that is allowing dangerous chemicals to pollute the work environment without letting the employees know.
franco 2 // Apr 16, 2010 at 11:44 am
Rabiner,
No one is arguing that there should be no rules and regulations and no government oversight. The problem is that there are too many and more each day. At this point it has actually become counter-productive. There are so many laws and regulations that it forced corruption, bribery, and having a bevy of lawyers twisting things for your company. It actually doesn’t protect the little guy and equalize things it give advantage to the biggest baddest entities. The government should be a referee of the game, not a player AND a ref.
And at this point, we are not doing anything more than outsourcing pollution, child labor and unsafe working conditions to other countries.
How much tax is too much? Is there ever a limit with you people as to where government is supposed to stop?
As to gay marriage, it isn’t the kind of issue that I think should dominate the political debate like it does.
Legalizing drugs is problematic -there are a lot of pitfalls. I really don’t want the state to control these things, but I also am very clear that almost anything is better than what we have, a “war on drugs” that causes more problems than drug use and addiction could ever cause.
Lastly, the Patriot Act. When Republicans passed it with the help of Democrats, they had a sunset clause – a time limit and it was to be revisited every year. Obama made the Patriot Act permanent.
OBAMA owns the patriot act now and forever. It says a lot about the leftists who screamed about this under Bush and now are apparently fine with it becoming permanent under Obama.
Rabiner // Apr 16, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Franco 2:
Just because Obama does something doesn’t mean that ‘leftists’ (really you should call us liberals or progressives) agree with him. He’s just not as liberal a President on a range of issues, particularly national security related issues as I had hoped.
How about you tell me when taxes are ‘too much’ because the way I see it, due to a complex tax code they aren’t that high. Effective tax rates for companies and individuals are very competitive with other industrial nations. However I’d prefer lower tax rates and a much more simplistic tax code which would be easier to handle for individuals and companies. Wyden and Gregg have a proposal which I think I will be taking a closer look into and I think that approach should be examined fully.
I disagree with your belief there are ‘too many regulations’ because I find market failures are occurring even with those failures. When there were ‘too many regulations’ I don’t remember the financial markets collapsing. Only after a repeal of those regulations in 1999-2000 and throughout the last decade did we then see that occur. ‘
Sinz54:
With regards to mentioning high skill labor and how that would be negatively impacted by regulations I think that wasn’t what i was attempting to talk about. High skill labor has bargaining power to go from employer to employer if work conditions do not meet particular industry standards. However, low skill labor does not have this luxury as the pool of low skill labor is so vast in comparison to the number of actual jobs there are.
You mentioned natural monopolies being uncommon but I’ve found that major parts of our life are influenced by such monopolies. Any industry that has a difficult entry barrier is a ‘natural monopoly’ which does not need to compete with enough competitors to use competitive pricing mechanisms to determine price. These industries require regulations in my view to maintain some semblance of a market or customers will be abused. TV stations, mass transit, cable companies, natural resource companies (mines) all fit into this category.
I agree with some of what Douglas Anthony Cooper said. I think that the public (government) has an interest in not privatizing particular markets and nationalizing others due to great market inefficiencies that will never be fixed through regulation. He mentioned the military and I agree completely that outsourcing military operations is not only dangerous for us as a nation but also skews the public on the real costs of our foreign policy. Privatization of prisons is wrong in my view as well as it leads to lobbying from such companies for a penal code that focuses on incarceration over rehabilitation and there is a correlation between the privatization of prisons and the number of people behind bars for extended periods of time.
I’m torn on health care but the more I look at the market inefficiencies surrounding having an insurance middle man, the lack of transparency and understanding by consumers of the goods their purchasing it may not be the worst idea. Hong Kong could be a sample of where we should go with Health Care. In addition with health care it isn’t like a person is going to be a typically rational consumer. If they need a life-saving treatment do you think they’d say ‘my life isn’t worth X amount of money so don’t do it?’. It just doesn’t follow the same Supply/Demand principles that other markets do which aren’t essential to living.
Brian’s Awesome Links – April 20, 2010 » WATS-CO // Apr 20, 2010 at 9:59 pm
[...] Note from a Dying Reader [...]