I'VE BEEN GETTING A LOT of feedback about a post I made in the middle of January.
It was about a propaganda email, I had received—a quote from Adrian Rogers. I explicated the quote, line by line, commenting on the convergence it represented between liberal and conservative views.
"That means that if the wealth, which we all work for, were distributed evenly, 80% of us would be ten times as rich as we are now."
Since then, I have heard from both conservatives and liberals about what I said. The liberals, some conservatives, and some in the middle enjoyed my analysis. But a handful of conservatives keep writing me—both to complain about my rhetoric and to ask questions: mostly of the "do you really mean..." variety.
If you are one of that handful, or if you agree with them, this post is for you. (It's also for anyone else who wants to listen in.)
Your questions, and objections:
- "You completely misunderstood the quote."
No. I didn't.
You completely misunderstood my post.
I'm more and more convinced that one of the great differences between most liberals and a certain segment of conservatives has nothing to do with politics. We simply have completely different senses of humor.
I noticed that the quote, like much cleverly written propaganda, left its real message in the subtext. This made it possible to read it with a different subtext. I, and many of my readers, found this idea amusing.
I intentionally "explained" the quote with a meaning that fit the words, but was the complete opposite of the writer's intention. That was the joke. Of course, I also had a serious point to make, but I'll get to that later.
Most of my readers got the humor, knew that I was intentionally pretending to misunderstand, and didn't take that part seriously. Some conservatives didn't. As I said above, I put this down to differences in styles of humor.
Sorry if I misled you. - "Isn't it a little inflammatory, and unfair, to call the wealthy 'parasites'?"
It would be inflammatory, if I had said it seriously, but I didn't.
The subtext of Roger's quote is partially an attack on the poor and middle-class. The implication of lines like "what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving," is that the recipients of government programs—social security, welfare, Medicare, education grants, etc.—are parasites on the wealthy. He doesn't use the word, but the meaning is clear enough.
My point was that the vast majority of those who benefit from such programs spend most of their lives working very hard to make someone else rich. So it's really a bit unfair to imply that they are the parasites.
I don't, of course, really believe that you can make a case that the wealthy are simply parasites, either.
But if you insist on seeing things through Rogers' lens—that is, believing that someone is getting something they didn't put in the long hard back breaking work for—then who is the likely candidate? The guy who spends most of his life toiling on the factory floor? Or the guy who spent five minutes—or had his broker spend five minutes—investing some inherited wealth in the business?
The guy on the factory floor, under our present system, is very likely to end up, after all those years of daily wealth creating, without a decent retirement or decent health care for his family. The guy who made the big investment probably gets the best medical care available, and can retire anytime he feels like it.
I wasn't seriously implying that anyone is a parasite. I was just pointing out that if you want to play that game, the obvious candidate isn't the person who actually does the work.
To be continued...
