Not, not Euchre or Bridge or Rummy. I'm tired of the stereotypical, "Let's play the (Socialist/Fascist) card."
I read an editorial in the Courier Journal written by a college student on the SCHIP program. Her opening sentence demonstrated that her first goal was to get at the table and play the Socialist card.
It seems that every 'left leaning' idea which comes down the pike always has to have someone play the Socialism card. I studied political philosophy in college and one of the people we did study was Karl Marx. And no, I'm not an admirer. Marx's world view was way, way, way different from anything closely related to the SCHIP program. To even mention his political philosophy in the same sentence with policies that get bounced around in D.C. is ludicrous.
Conversely, when any 'right leaning' idea comes down the pike some feel a need to play the Fascist or, worse yet, Nazi card. Before one goes down this particular lane one might read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich to see that there are clear differences.
But people still like to play these cards. I believe that the reason people like to play these cards is that they require little to no thought. If ignorance is indeed bliss, there are many happy people running around.
The young woman makes several points. She rightly makes the observation that the SCHIP program is to help fund health benefits and programs for poorer children. Part of her objection (shared by many who opposed this bill) is that it expands the dollar limits of 'poor.' The problem with this argument is that poverty, middle class, and affluence almost always need to be determined by geographic considerations.
I grew up in Bergenfield, New Jersey. Bergenfield is approximately 18 miles from Manhattan. The cost of housing in Bergenfield, right now, in a great depressed housing market in New Jersey, is amazing. A three bedroom house, small, with one bathroom, starts at $329,000.00. Bergenfield, when I grew up, was very much a blue collar type of town, very much working class. The cost of living there is tremendously high. Poverty and affluence rates in Bergenfield are very different from New Albany, Indiana which is very different from rural Ohio where I used to live. She needs to read a bit more about the different economic conditions of people in the country before making blanket statements.
She also makes the statement that the SCHIP program is trying to use an increase in the tax on tobacco to fund this. This is actually Baron Hill's issue with the bill and why he has voted against it. But then she goes on to state that this is illogical because it's mostly lower income people who smoke. She didn't cite any research to back this up.
Then, of course, card players love cliche's and and she goes on to use the slippery slope image. If we do this, it's a slippery slope. The slippery slope is often used by people making ethical arguments. (I use the term argument loosely.) It is based on the premise that if we do this, then we are on a slippery slope towards other things which are worse. Real ethicists do not use this phrase because it's nonsensical. Things often stand by themselves. The big problem with this is that it falls into the same category as "if you read between the lines..." If you read between the lines you can put ANYTHING you want. The slippery slope image is nonsense because you can say that anything is going to be on the other end of the slippery slope.
For example, "If we use the slippery slope image too much then we are on a slippery slope because people will live life by cliche's and become less intelligent and when they become less intelligent they will smoke, drink, and have random sex and we will have a rash of unwanted pregnancies which will force the government to raise taxes to pay for the health care of all these children." Dumb. Right?
My point is simple. It's really a question. Can the people of this country learn to put away the cliches, put their cards back in the drawer, and have serious discussions to solve the many serious issues we have before us?