Of Errors, Good and Bad

Friday, December 10, 2004


Meet the "Democarats"


A reader pointed out to me that I'd misspelled "Democrat" in my longer post yesterday and wrote "Democarat" instead! Have I inadvertently manufactured a term for Democrats the next economic stratum up from Volvo Democrat? (I do recall "Limousine liberal," though.) As Raymund says, "This misspelling immediately made me think of Barbra Streisand and Theresa Heinz Kerry comparing ring sizes." Kudos to him for saving that one from mere correction! That's two glorious typos in one week! (The other, "Mictosoft" can be considered a portmanteau word.)

I'd love to see a South Park rendition of the ensuing melee between Mecha-Streisand and John Kerry's wallet....

To Agree with an Elephant is not to be the Elephant

Captain Ed blogs a story that brought to mind a column I encountered in the Sunday Houston Chronicle recently. Apparently, the Human Rights Campaign's consideration of support for Bush's privatization of social security has been construed in knee-jerk fashion as somehow selling out. Captain Ed rightly points out that:

If anything, privatization -- as HRC points out -- would allow Social Security recipients to name their own beneficiaries, an elegant work-around for the lack of domestic partnership recognition. Beyond that, it would appear that the LGBT activists in question put much more effort into knee-jerk reactions against Republicans and the Bush administration than in pursuing policy positions specific to their cause.

This parallels the way Canada's unhealthy anti-Americanism sometimes plays out. Nora Jacobson, who admits to having grown up wishing she were Canadian, is living the blue-stater's north-of-the-border dream and has been doing so since 2000 (though not because of that year's Presidential result). She makes this very interesting observation:

Part of what's irksome about Canadian anti-Americanism and the obsession with the United States is that it seems so corrosive to Canada. Any country that defines itself through a negative ("Canada: We're not the United States") is doomed to an endless and repetitive cycle of hand-wringing and angst. For example, Canadians often point to their system of universal health care as the best example of what it means to be Canadian (because the United States doesn't provide it), but this means that any effort to adjust or reform that system (which is not perfect) precipitates a national identity crisis: To wit, instituting co-payments or private MRI clinics will make Canada too much like the United States.

In both stories, we see adults behaving much like rebellious adolescents who may know, deep down, that Daddy's right, but mistakenly act on the premise that to admit he's right or to act like him is to forfeit their sovereignty as individuals. It is a truism that children of celebrities grow up with something of an identity problem. In a magnification of the problem we all have as we strive for independence, the grow up needing to escape the shadow of their famous parent in some way to prove themselves as individuals. This can cause profound psychological stresses and it can be difficult, I am sure, to act constructively.

At some point, all individuals must break free of what Ayn Rand called "social metaphysics:" the placement of concern for what others think above the verdict of one's own mind. If they do not, they do not fully become adults. I think that in any child this is a complex process and at stages can lead to confusions like the two rebellions alluded to above. At some point, a young adult has to learn to understand the maxim "Screw what he says. What do I think?" well enough that agreement with someone else is not seen, in and of itself, as a forfeiture of independence. How is this done? By ruthlessly considering facts independently of what others think.

This is not to belittle our neighbors to the North or my gay countrymen, but to assure them that it's OK to reach the same conclusions from time to time as the elephants, be they the big one you Canucks sleep with or the party that runs Washington these days.

Or ignore me. Either way, it's your funeral.

-- CAV


No comments: