A third, even less well known, blunder

"You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never to get involved in a land war in Asia. And only slightly less well known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!" -- Vizzini, The Princess Bride

Mike brought up some good points about the people that were getting pissed off about Vonnegut's articles being so leftist.

The people on those forums who posted responses like "WTF, when did Vonnegut become so cynical?" Either A) haven't read any of his books or B) didn't understand any of his books.

That makes these people either A) Totally ignorant of his work or B) retarded.

He calls himself a "lifelong Northern Democrat"--which is to say he is a socialist. He always has been. Read God bless you Mr. Goldwater. Read Galapagos. Re-read Slaughterhouse Five because you obviously didn't understand it in high school and/or college.

When Mike said he was an "unabashed" liberal, I thought of another word, "smashmouth". Both are good.

He hits you over the head with his humanism--He forces you to confront his ideas through his dogged use of plain speech, repetition of themes and sarcasm. He often borders on polemics, but unlike Moore and Limbaugh and Franken and Coulter, he makes his case with insights into human nature, rather than the crude observations of individuals or policies that make those firebrands seem transient and unimportant.

He scolds. He lectures. Most of all though, he resonates. That, I think, is what makes those who disagree with him so violently angry. His work will live on long after their petty complaints die a horrible memetic death.

Which proponents of unfettered capitalism will have that kind of longievity? I can't think of one, other than the lumbering market economy itself. And that can be undone--rather, it's dehumanizing effects can be reversed.

I have no idea why Vonnegut's brand of humanism is seen as a leftist cause. That's not what I mean. I do have an idea why it's seen as a leftist cause, and I think the reasoning is fucking stupid.

Humanism in this case has something to do with wanting Universal Healthcare and the idea that Life, Liberty and Property (or "the pursuit of happiness" depending on the wording) should mean more than just allowing people to make as much money as possible. It should mean letting each human being prosper with dignity and respect.

This rubs a lot of people the wrong way. What bastards these humanists be. Some fucking nerve.

I think there are two--maybe three, I'm undecided--essential problems facing Humanist public relations. First is that they (we) don't think money should be elevated above people. This concept is anathema to the founding principles of American corporate culture. In a legislative machine not just greased but fueled by soft money from big business, that's an daunting ideological hill to climb--a little like a land war in Asia.

Secondly, the humanist ethos is rooted deeply in what is called socialism. Socialism, in the minds of Americans alive during the Cold War, is inextricably linked to Soviet-era Communism. Through that it's linked to genocide, despotism, militarism, pressed cardboard cars, bread lines, thought police, and George Orwell's unimaginative talking barnyard.

That portrayal is at best unfair. Luckily, it's not shared by most of the rest of the world. My friend Rich would agree with me on that. He's from Europe. Before someone calls me an Arrogant Liberal, I'll ammend that: He's British. Not French. He's a charter member of the Coalition of the Willing. He's not a Communist or a member of the Taliban. He has democratically elected leaders and free healthcare. It's not perfect, but it's better than an HMO.

You can have Socialist programs outside a communist framework, and certainly without a totalitarian regime. I don't think a lot of people know that.

There is a third point that I almost hesitate to bring up because I'm not decided about it. I'm ususally pretty indiscriminate with my words anyway though so I'll just dive in. Protestantism. Specifically American Protestantism. Here's how I break it down. Protestantism as discussed here (I'm not advocating the reading of Time Magazine, God no) is a doctrine of personal responsibility and acountability. This is a good thing in the right circumstances, but too often it translates into:

"You can be anything you want to be ... and if you don't make it, you have no one to blame but yourself" -- Berkeley sociologist Robert Bellah (you should also never quote Time Magazine)

This is a problem in a democratic system when people genuinely believe that the Haves have because they work hard and the Havenots lack because they are lazy. The people with power--with money--having grown up in this environment, tend to view programs like welfare and worker's compensation with disdain and as a theft of hard earned money. Then when you have an evangelist like Casey Treat preaching that to be poor is an indication of sin, the problem only gets worse because public perception shifts even farther from the truth. The poor hear these word faith evangelists spew their scorched-earth, smash and grab theology and they become more distraught at the fact that God has shunned them, or that they are unworthy of God. That's not religious consolation, thats a bitter and dangerous pill.

More often than people like to admit, the poor are poor as a function of disenfrancisement and systematic oppression. I'm not talking about racial oppression, though that certainly happens. This is a class based thing. With wages that don't match inflation, the cliche "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer," is completely true. It takes money to make money. If you don't have any, how the hell are you going to get any? People don't see this because it isn't in the best interest of the policy makers to shed light on the subject.

So maybe the biggest problem of all (this makes four I guess) is that our legislators are self-serving morons who line their own pockets and have little desire and even less initiative to exact any kind of social change, because the poor don't vote anyway. Why push for education reform when you can get re-elected without it? Why fight for worker's rights when your slush fund is overflowing with corporate payouts? It's bullshit that, despite the passing of the McCain-Feingold bill, it's still perfectly fine to have one night an election term where all the soft money interests in America can spend as much money on a candidate as they want. They had one at the DNC and they'll definitely throw one for Bush. It's sickening and it's bad for democracy. But it's especially bad in a capitalistic democracy in which only money has any real power.

I think I'm really far off my initial topic so rather than scramble to right this sinking ship, I'll just abandon it--But I'll talk some more first . . .

My point is that Socialism is more or less facing a nasty quadruple-penetration in this country, and a lot needs to change before it even becomes a viable topic of discourse. This is a shame because the humanistic ethos seems like a no-brainer to me frankly. I think if more people knew the facts about it, there would be less resistance to it. At the very least there could be a more open political dialogue. And any kind of dialogue is better than any kind of silence.

Maybe that's naive of me.

But I'm a snot-nosed liberal arts major and I don't care that much about money, so I'm predisposed to bleeding heart syndrome. I think that makes me a threat to national security.

I wonder if Vonnegut hates dashes as much as he hates semicolons . . .