Well, it seems that a few people have taken exception to my post "Here comes the ONE campaign again…and there’s Rich Ashooh", again" fairly personally. No, I have not heard from Mr. Ashooh, nor Shaun Doherty or Cliff Hurst. But I did get this from a friend whom I though was as conservative as I was:
I’m part of the ONE Campaign. So are a bunch of people with ideas I dislike. But your post today is a little paranoid. You’re arguing that I’m a leftist because I’d like to help the poorest people on Earth emerge from crushing poverty.
In effect, what I thought might happen (although I did not have this person in mind when I wrote it). The premise is wrong because it assumes (there’s that word again) that I believe only Lefties want to help the poor – how absurd! What this person did was to validate, however, the common liberal notion that only those who drift Leftward care about the unfortunate (that conservatives are MEAN and SELFISH); something that Dr. Arthur Brooks of Syracuse disproved with his precedent setting research ("Who really cares") [listen here, for the Meet The New Press’s podcast for the week of 12/2/06, Hour 2] which showed that Conservatives out give Progressives in both time and money (which is KEY here, as it makes sense given that most Conservatives feel an individual responsibility to help where Progressives maintain it is a function of government).
Not wishing to let it go, I sent back this response (slightly edited here):
I have no problem with INDIVIDUALS acting in concert in a cause. In fact, that is what I was trying to portray in the post – as well as showing that ONE, with an emphasis on governmental action, is the antithesis of that de Tocqueville ideal.
I have a BIG problem with a GROUP that has decided to bend the ear of politicians so as to gain access to tax monies, my tax money, for their charitable purposes by convincing politicians of their cause. After all, it’s always for the children, the poor, the disadvantaged – isn’t that always a good cause? It happens in multiple places and in a multitude of venues; here’s a another good example of the further professionalization / governmentalization of charity: Not Mine to Give
<Name redacted>, when I say that I am FOR limited Government, it means that I, if staying true to that principle, must maintain an active process of trying to deny any attempt to enlarge government. In a case like this, it is yet another attempt to involuntary socialize what should be an individual voluntary act of charity. I’m not saying that you are a Leftist but consider this: if ONE does persuade local, country, state, or Federal level politicians to spend tax monies on this, aren’t you then aiding the Left by necessarily increasing the tax burden and the size of Government? After all, more people / committees / bureaus will be needed to oversee / regulate / disburse the monies, right?
Where am I wrong? Obama already tried to get Federal legislation for this, and another person (whose name escapes me) is resubmitting a work alike bill, when all I hear at the State level is that "we are failing the needy, so we need to spend more"?
I SEE the words – I HEAR the words in that very direction of Government engulfing more and more – how does that make me paranoid? IN THEIR OWN POST, they lauded have Political Leaders amongst them – what then am I supposed to believe? When the NH Education Secretary wants ONE curriculum put into the schools, what then am I supposed to believe?
I asked the question and will ask it again – Where am I so wrong?
-Skip
Well, that did set so with with my emailer; as Yoda might have stated: Defensive, he got. His words (my emphasis):
You’re wrong to impute the words and motives of some members of a group onto all members of that group. I want to eliminate poverty through free markets and democracy. ONE is not and should not be a government enterprise, and I don’t support giving it taxpayer money.
Every time a conservative wants to sit down with a liberal to find common ground, you freak out and decide that he’s not real conservative. You can certainly make up your own mind about candidates, but stuff like this ruins your credibility.
Notice that my question "Where am I so wrong?" went unanswered. Instead, MY motives were attacked – and if you really read the original post, I used pretty much the words from the ONE site and contrasted it against the principle of limited government. The key phrases:
- ONE is not and should not be a government enterprise,
- I don’t support giving it taxpayer money.
- but stuff like this ruins your credibility
Well, in all cases, it showed, like it many things, the devil is in the details. My response is this:
- No, ONE is not a governmental entity, but it certainly is trying to influence the direction of government to support its charitable activities by getting politicians on board – and very few people have bankbooks larger than the taxpayer Treasuries.
- Do do #1, it has to use tax payer money
- Credibility – I freaking read their own site! Their words, their actions, their declarations – and not mine.
SOoooo, my response:
>> ONE is not and should not be a government enterprise, and I don’t support giving it taxpayer money.
Alright, assume I’m wrong. From that post was this:
Proud to be an American today, proud to be ONE Vote ‘08!
Set me straight – what was the purpose of ONE Vote ’08?
If ONE is, as you say, a free market and individual activity, what the heck does VOTING have to do with it? Vote WHAT, if not money (and remember, actions take money to happen)? <Name redacted>, I AM TAKING THEM AT THEIR OWN WORDS – I didn’t write it, but the implication is clear – "politicians, vote to spend money on what we want or our votes will go to someone else". How else do I take that post where they put politicians and voting onto the center stage?
Alright, assume I’m wrong; ‘splain it to me because I believe when people utter words, a lot of times they should be taken for face value. What else can they be intimating if not voting to have Government do something? Tell me where and why I’m off base here….
-Skip
Nothing back as of yet. So, being a blogger, and having a wee bit of time (I’m only a citizen journalist, you see), I did a wee bit of digging to back up my words. It’s wasn’t hard or difficult to find the spots on the ONE site that talked directly to my premise – that ONE actively is working to have politicians spend tax payer money for their charitable purposes (e.g, as Obama told Joe the Plumber "spreading the wealth around" and what political science / economics calls "redistribution of wealth").
Sidebar: Many may bristle at me calling using the phrase "redistribution of wealth" as they only want to help people. Sorry, but words have meanings no matter your purposes. If you are taking money (
not soliciting of their free will, but taking) from one set of people to give to another, that is redistribution of wealth. When government starts to do that, you are well on the road to socialism, or as Hayek said "The road to Serfdom". Go ahead, get mad; but if you truly are honest about this, at least have the intellectual temerity to call it by the real definitions and not wrapped up in emotional angst.
First up
<!– @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>
- No, ONE is not a governmental entity, but it certainly is trying to influence the direction of government to support its charitable activities by getting politicians on board – and very few people have bankbooks larger than the taxpayer Treasuries.
- Do do #1, it has to use tax payer money
- Credibility – I freaking read their own site! Their words, their actions, their declarations – and not mine.
SOoooo, my response:
>> ONE is not and should not be a government enterprise, and I don’t support giving it taxpayer money.
Alright, assume I’m wrong. From that post was this:
Proud to be an American today, proud to be ONE Vote ‘08!
Set me straight – what was the purpose of ONE Vote ’08?
If ONE is, as you say, a free market and individual activity, what the heck does VOTING have to do with it? Vote WHAT, if not money (and remember, actions take money to happen)? <Name redacted>, I AM TAKING THEM AT THEIR OWN WORDS – I didn’t write it, but the implication is clear – "politicians, vote to spend money on what we want or our votes will go to someone else". How else do I take that post where they put politicians and voting onto the center stage?
Alright, assume I’m wrong; ‘splain it to me because I believe when people utter words, a lot of times they should be taken for face value. What else can they be intimating if not voting to have Government do something? Tell me where and why I’m off base here….
-Skip
Nothing back as of yet. So, being a blogger, and having a wee bit of time (I’m only a citizen journalist, you see), I did a wee bit of digging to back up my words. It’s wasn’t hard or difficult to find the spots on the ONE site that talked directly to my premise – that ONE actively is working to have politicians spend tax payer money for their charitable purposes (e.g, as Obama told Joe the Plumber "spreading the wealth around" and what political science / economics calls "redistribution of wealth").
Sidebar: Many may bristle at me calling using the phrase "redistribution of wealth" as they only want to help people. Sorry, but words have meanings no matter your purposes. If you are taking money (not soliciting of their free will, but taking) from one set of people to give to another, that is redistribution of wealth. When government starts to do that, you are well on the road to socialism, or as Hayek said "The road to Serfdom". Go ahead, get mad; but if you truly are honest about this, at least have the intellectual temerity to call it by the real definitions and not wrapped up in emotional angst.
First up: not elected yet, but there is Mike Castaldo, Congressional candidate, in the white shirt on the ONE home page (screen scrapes done today):
My response back to <Name Redacted>:
Here’s a screen: if ONE is not involved with Legislation (e.g., votes and tax money), why are they analyzing the Federal Budget?
Let me go further….clicking on ABOUT, I get this: Look at the WHAT WE DO…..then start clicking…..here ONE is basically saying "we are going to influence Government spending for what we want it to".
[the center, labeled WHAT WE DO, has the following top three bullet points:
-
Past Campains
-
Policy Analysis
-
US Legislative Agenda
kinda make it clear, doesn’t it?]
Clicking on PAST CAMPAIGNS gives this:
<Name redated>, now do you see why I am believing that ONE is doing what I said in my post??? I am only believing what their own words state.
-Skip
I would tell you, reader, go back to the original post, follow the link to the ONE site, and read for yourself.
Sure, it can very easy to get caught up in a cause. However, one should KNOW exactly what an organization is doing within its purpose for that cause – really be knowledgeable about the HOWs and WHATFORS and how they relate (or don’t) to your personal philosophy. As we all know, not everything is what it seems at the surface level or even a couple of levels down.
Me? I’ve done enough that even as the peoples’ hearts may be in the right place, as a fiscal conservative / limited government espousing kind of guy, ONE is not a charity that I can support. I cannot work for one thing politicially and then turn around and give money or time to a charity, not matter how good a mission a group may have, if it is working cross-wise to the political philosophy I espouse….especially core ones.
