I read through the essay linked in the OP, and was struck by a polemical style including intense reality distortion. Here's an example that's worth spending some time with--in the fourth paragraph, the essay decries an Obama campaign piece, the 'Life of Julia' slideshow, as follows:
Quote:
Each cartoon image demonstrated, and celebrated, her utter dependence on government. Atomized, defenseless individuals sustained by the enfolding embrace of the state: Such, it would seem, is the Obama vision of Americans' appropriate relation to their government.
|
A basic Republican principle seems to be that any public benefit for anyone creates not just dependency, but "utter dependency." How awful! But how polemical, unfair, distorted, and fundamentally dishonest. Apparently the 'Life of Julia' lives on as what conservative propaganda sought to make it, a meme for the individual somehow 'crushed' by the state. Well, let's look at it and see if that's true.
The only way now to see the true original 'Life of Julia' is on Wayback. Here's a link:
http://web.archive.org/web/201205090...-02-signup-HQB
What I'm going to do now is list the events in 'Julia's' life shown in the slideshow, and then see if the Republican description quoted above fits. In particular, I'm going to highlight what I call 'conservative atomization.' One Republican criticism, recall, is that the liberal 'Life of Julia' vision results in 'atomized' individuals, defenseless against the overwhelming 'embrace' of the sate.
Life of Julia Events:
1. Age 3: benefits from Head Start.
This is the first of several education benefits mentioned. Assuming the Republicans aren't against education, I guess the problem is 'tax-funded' education. Are private-schools and home schools all that passes conservative muster?
Or is it just the usual conservative resentment of public funding that tries to even out the advantages of the upper class by funding benefits for poorer people? They'll pay for their schools, sure, but the hell with yours?
2. Age 17: gets good college prep at well-funded high school that meets Federal standards.
See comment for #1.
3. Age 18: gets tax credits and grants to go to college.
See comment for #1. But also, here, since full public finding of higher education is not the norm, we start to see 'conservative atomization' in action. Conservatives are against communitarian programs that come between individuals and big bills (or small paychecks) from large imipersonal institutions. So the iindividual is atomized, left to fend for themselves, in this case to somehow earn or borrow the high cost of higher education.
4. Age 22: still on parent's insurance so needed surgery is covered.
"Conservative atomization' would leave the 22-year-old on their own to cover this surgery. If the atom doesn't have a way to do that, 'let them die.'
5. Age 23: Benefits from legislation enforcing equal pay for women in first job.
So it is 'utter dependence' to expect fair treatment when being paid for one's work? The conservative desire that each individual compete against all other individuals for wages is 'atomization deluxe.'
6. Age 25: bebefits from subsidized student loan repayment
Again, any communitarian cost-sharing is decried. It's every atom for themself!
7. Age 27: benefits from health insurance that covers BC and preventative care with no cost differential between women and men.
Again, any communitarian cost-sharing is decried. It's every atom for themself!
8. Age 31: benefits from health insurance that covers prenatal care free at point of use.
Again, any communitarian cost-sharing is decried. It's every atom for themself!
9. Age 37: Enrolls son is schools that are better for federal funding and standards.
Back to denial of the benefit of socially-funded education. I don't see how any public education at all can fit under this ideology. The Republicans want to go back to
before the days of the 'one-room public schools.'
10. Age 42: starts business, benefits from SBA loan and tax cuts.
Ah, so if Julia gets help starting a business, that's bad, but if a large corporation gets loan subsidizes and tax-cuts, that's good?
11. Age 65: enrolls in Medicare health insurance.
As ever, communitarian cost sharing equals 'utter dependency' in Republican eyes. The atom must fend for itself or die.
12. Age 67: begins receiving Social Security benefits of amount comparable to current.
Social Security has the word 'social' in it, so it's bad too. The atom must face old age by itself.
So let's see. Julia is supposed to do without preschool, do the best she can if her high school is sub-standard and under-funded, forget going to college, fund all her own medical care or make do with emergency care only, educate her kid herself, continue funding her own medical care even in retirement, and somehow, despite all this, be able to save enough to avoid dependency in her old age. Julia must live or die 100% on her own. And they have the
gall to say 'atomization' is a problem with communitarian solutions.
But alternatively, she might be "utterly dependent" on a rich family to make sure all her needs are fully met. That's would be just fine, of course.