Hate your Job Much?
[Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, speaking of a "public option" in health-care reform, said,] "every time the government gets involved in something it doesn't work."
[Dave Zirin: Michael Steele: Meet Amanda Duzak, Huffington Post, 2 September 2009.]
Which is worse,
- Politicians who want positions in government while protesting that government is an awful idea; or
- People who keep electing such politicians?
Why is "government is the problem" thought a sensible position for people in government?
Perhaps, to give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps Mr. Steele was thinking of, say, Bush's war in Iraq?
Maybe it's just me, but I think there might be good reasons to elect someone who thinks it's worth doing a good job because what they do matters to people, to people's live, and to America's future.
In: All, Raised Eyebrows Dept., Snake Oil--Cheap!
3 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 22.26
Permalink
I would suspect what he implictly means is "involved in something" where he feels Government's involvement is inappropriate.
I doubt that Mr. Steele would claim that the roles & functions specified for the Government in the Constitution are inappropriate.
So, perhaps he runs for office, as perhaps others do, because they want to fulfill what they believe to be the legitimate funciton of Government, as they see it- or as they believe the Constitution sees it. Similarly, perhaps citizens vote for them because they agree to their views.
However, they object to what they believe is the Government reaching outside those bounds into what they believe to be improper functions- and their feelings on such matters are often backed up by historical examples that they believe demonstrate their point.
So, I'm sure you realize this; but I thought it might be helpful to add as a contrast to your statements above. Perhaps it will help folks avoid somehow connecting the straw man that is constructed in your comments above, IMO, to anything factual about Mr. Steele, or the citizens of America.
on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 22.42
Permalink
Yes, I realize that what you say may be what he'd like us to think; it's conceivable, but it's not what he said, and unless he clearly says what he means, which I have to assume he does, how am I to know what he really means to say? As visible, public professionals whose main tool is rhetoric I think we should hold politicians to a reasonable expectation of actually being able to say what they mean. In return, perhaps we should expect the electorate to listen to what politicians actually say rather than imagining they say what you want hear.
on Thursday, 3 September 2009 at 17.02
Permalink
I usually devote no more than a disgusted head shake or wry chuckle to Michael Steele's nonsense. When it comes to intellect and political savvy, I put him somewhere between Sarah Palin and George W. Bush, which means he's as much to be pitied as condemned.
"Why is 'government is the problem' thought a sensible position for people in government?"
It clearly is not. However, that approach is made possible, and too often politically advantageous, because it's the spiteful, selfish way eternal adolescents respond to the responsibility of choosing leaders.