Zane's World
Waging War
By: Zane Fischer 11/04/2009
I get a lot of hell from my friends—even the crazy, gun-toting ones—about my respect for Adam Kokesh’s message. Kokesh is running for Congress in New Mexico’s 3rd District, looking to unseat Democratic Rep. Ben Ray Luján. Kokesh has about an Afghan’s chance in Guantanamo of actually winning—and his Libertarian sensibilities (even though he’s vexingly running as a Republican) likely wouldn’t make much progress in Congress—but he brings a decent message to the race.
I mean, what’s not to like about a guy who wants to quit dicking around and unconditionally withdraw US troops from two wars that were unjustified to begin with? What’s not to like about a guy with the classic Libertarian stance of “you can do what you want as long as you don’t pee on me”? After all, a mind-set like that doesn’t end up with tangled compromises like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell or get mired in pointless wars on drugs or attempts to legislate morality, something with which our nation is still obsessed despite the obvious evidence that it’s a useless waste of energy and resources.
But there are definitely some areas of government in which I’d end up siding with Luján, the primary being those in support of human services. If you ask Google “what is the purpose of government?” the only search query that handily tops it is “what is the purpose of life?” In other words, people have become almost as confused about our system of elected bobbleheads as they are about the very nature of existence.
If there is any point at all to government, I’m going to say it’s to help people. So it’s strange that when the situation is tough, people stand by with little fuss while the government helps out wealthy corporations, but raise their arms in resistance against funding that just plain helps people.
On the way to get a cup of coffee down the street from the SFR office last week, when temperatures had suddenly dropped, I overheard a homeless dude say, “Man, I am going to freeze tonight.” That’s a situation that’s more pressingly real than any bank bailout in history. And yet we persist in ignoring reality and placing our faith in abstract notions (Dow Jones, anyone?) and fairy tale endings.
The idea that the New Mexico Legislature is going to solve its budget problems in an intelligent way isn’t the only fairy tale in the state right now. A recent report from Kiplinger’s Personal Finance, titled “Should You Move? Salary Growth Across the Country,” cited Santa Fe as No. 11 in the nation for positive salary increases, with a 14.5 percent increase between 2008 and 2009.
The notion that people might move to Santa Fe to make more money would be funny, of course, if it weren’t so painful. The City Different’s Kiplinger’s prestige is obviously related in part to the Living Wage Ordinance, although no such thing is acknowledged by the report. It’s a tiny bit of unreal idiocy fabricated by the national mainstream media. Or, in other words, par for the course.
Meanwhile, living wage defenders are up in arms lately because Santa Fe mayoral candidate Asenath Kepler stated, at an Oct. 22 town hall, “the jury was still out” on the law’s effectiveness. In response to a request from SFR for clarification on her position, Kepler stated she has no opposition to the living wage, but she thinks it should be judged on the results of sound economic reports, and that there are no current reports. Also, she forwarded an Albuquerque Journal article that notes Santa Fe’s unemployment has nearly doubled since this time last year. Not that such an action implies a position, mind you.
I’ll tell you what. It’s time for people to quit picking on Santa Fe’s Living Wage Ordinance. It’s a decent, genuine thing that this city has managed to do in the face of ever-growing corporate greed. For every business owner I’ve met, heard about or read about who claims to have been somehow crippled by the living wage, I know half a dozen who are doing just fine. Of course most of those businesses would be paying a living wage even without an ordinance (hmm, maybe it could work the Kokesh way?). When one person fails and cites the Living Wage Ordinance while many others thrive under the same conditions, my guess is that living wage isn’t the actual problem with the failed business.
When times are tough, you don’t tell someone making the minimum that they’re making too much. You don’t tell someone they can’t have health care. You don’t tell someone the government services they’ve been relying on are going to disappear because some nebulous something is “too big to fail.”
Here’s how you can tell the truth: No one who is against the living wage would ever agree to work for a rate as low as the living wage. They’ll say it’s economics. But we can go ahead and call it hypocrisy.
Comments (2)
Good points, good article.
However, I would take issue with calling libertarian-minded conservatives running as Republicans "vexing." It was the libertarian aspects of Ron Paul's platform that gave him so much youth support in 2008, and the lack thereof that made the McCain/Palin ticket go down in flames.
I'd also add that most libertarians believe social welfare programs are the last things we need to get rid of, and that we can't throw people out on the street who have been taught to rely on the government.
Finally, you go from talking about siding with Lujan on social welfare to talking about the Living Wage issue, which is a local issue that US Congressmen can't do anything about. When it comes to the debates that would actually go on in Congress, considering that such local programs aren't in its purview, would you rather have Kokesh, who would speak vociferously against the wars and bailouts you agree are unjust? Or Lujan, who is a cheerleader for whatever foreign or economic policy has the most support at the moment (at least when no one's looking)?
Preach it, brother.
Just one not so small point, though: the different between what you/we/I think SHOULD be and what IS.
This is actually a very important issue that many people in this country miss, and it has far-reaching consequences when it comes to what we do (vote, say) or not do (let the government continue as-is without actually representing a majority of the population in any meaningful way). What am I speaking to? Your statement: "If there is any point at all to government, I’m going to say it’s to help people."
Now, I in no way disagree with you. In fact, I think that's exactly the way it should be. BUT. It is important to see reality; otherwise we render ourselves powerless to change it. The ACTUAL point to government is, and always has been (again, in reality), to protect the interests of those with the most money and "power." Other than a social-anarchist government (one meaning power coming from the bottom up as opposed to the top down--i.e., REAL democracy), I cannot see any government in history that has not played this role perfectly. In other words, our government is functioning exactly as it should, according to the actual functioning definition of government. And trust me, they don't care, even a little, what we think. Other than to con themselves into power, they never have.
Instead of complaining that something is not functioning properly, it seems to me that it would be wise to first question the assumptions that we're bringing to the table.
Example: people are (rightly) outraged that Obama has taken money from the poor/working class and given it to the rich (the bailouts). The thing is, THAT'S HIS JOB. If you don't like it, then work on changing the job/system itself.