Here’s a delicious addition to the political plate of crap we’re being served of late: Stephen King has voiced his opinion, a snippet of which is flying all over Facebook. Get a glass of milk before you start reading the full article: it’s spicier than anything Bill O’Reilly could ever hope to cook up. Though King is certainly no political ideologue or expert on American tax policy, he’s an American citizen. He is free to express his thoughts, and since he has done so in the public arena, we are free to challenge, analyze, agree, disagree with, or ignore completely. I would always recommend one read the entirety of someone’s comments before voicing an opinion on them, but since it’s probable many won’t click the link, here’s the Short Version:
Clik here to view.
The severely-edited Facebook-Appropriate inspiration for this irritating political post.
As is typical of King’s writing, his thoughts are honest (complete with a refusal to replace honest speech with appropriate speech) and peppered with vivid comparisons. King is one of those weird liberals that conservatives approach with the same fear reserved for tornados, tofu, environmentalism, and those weirdos at Whole Foods. As a general rule, conservatives approach such oddities with this Prime Directive: observe carefully, but do not engage. King is A Dangerous Liberal, like Natalie Maine of the Dixie Chicks, because he wields the sword of Influence Over Significant Portions of Pop Culture. Because of this, many believe such people should just “shut up and sing/write/act/whatever.” However, conservatives would do well to read things from a different perspective every now and then, and King’s thoughts are a good place to start. (If the bowling words are difficult for you to stomach, print the article, cover one eye, and run a sharpie through it.)
It is written in King’s best-selling style, and what strikes me the most about the piece is the level of assumption each side of the spectrum has regarding the positions of the other side, and this weird fact: each side actually wants pretty much the same things.
He wonders, astonishingly, why he as a one-percenter isn’t paying 50% of his income in taxes. He seems to think this would actually be fair, I guess because he can afford to exist on the leftovers (?). I don’t get why the rich liberals don’t apply that same logic to those of us on this side of the poverty line so they can see the idiocy of it: the government does not deserve fifty percent of anyone’s earnings. Period. A government that needs half of the wealth of its citizenry is woefully mismanaged, and gluttonous in the extreme. Wait. Aww, shoot…
That being said, a fair distribution of percentages with regard to the tax burden is in order. All of us at this great table should pay something in the neighborhood of an equal percentage of our earnings as they enjoy the buffet of infrastructure, protection, services, and freedoms this nation provides. It is not unreasonable to expect everyone eating at the table to contribute something to the bill. Additionally, it is silly to think that everyone who needs something to eat will be capable of paying for it. This is a very attractive table; the hungry are going to be drawn to the bounty, and they need something to eat. Evaluating the most human, most American way, to divvy up the bill while ensuring everyone is getting what they need is not easy.
Clik here to view.
“Heeeere’s Stevie!”
King hits on a very important point about charitable contributions: they will never be enough, no matter how much we all give, to make a dent in the costs of sailing the Ship of State. This is because charitable contributions come as a result of our freedom of choice: people choose to give (or not) to causes of their own choosing, and these causes are largely private in nature. While our charitable giving can help relieve some of the burden on portions of the government’s burden, particularly in areas of caring for the poor and ailing, funding arts, and the education of the nation’s children, the job of government has a much broader scope, and ever-increasing costs. No one ever complains that private charities are rendering government programs obsolete; there are far too many people who need help.
King shows the futility of the extreme positions of “You didn’t build that” and “Rugged Individualism.” In our country, one has to admit there’s a mixture of both: individuals can and do achieve the American Dream, but they don’t do it in a plastic Conservative bubble.
King also bursts a frequently touted Conservative bubble: “the rich use their extra cash to provide jobs.” Hogwash. A few might, but by and large, the rich, just like the poor, are going to keep any extra nickels and dimes in their own mattresses. For example, Brad and Angelina, for all of their charitable work, are going to take care of all of those cute punkins first, as they should, and if their taxes are suddenly cut, they probably aren’t gonna use that newly freed bank to go out and hire another personal assistant when they don’t need one. They actually are more likely to build another new house in Louisiana or adopt two or three more kids.
Jobs, by and large, are not created by the super rich; they are created by the entrepreneurial middle class. The guy who owns the dry cleaner on the corner and the thousands of other small business owners like him, are more apt to collectively impact the job market than are the Evil One Percent. This is because small businessmen actually need the help to make their enterprises succeed. Employing people isn’t something one does because the can; it’s something one does because one must.
King’s obvious assumptions about what he believes to be The Typical Conservative Mindset should give conservatives pause. Because it’s wrong. And if that is true, then our own assumptions regarding The Typical Liberal Nut Job Mindset might benefit from some thoughtful examination. After reading his article and seeing the speed with which liberals have shared it, one can see that both sides deeply believe in the ideal of American Opportunity. Both sides admire personal achievement. Both sides are patriotic and understand the responsibility of being a citizen of this great country. Both sides want our country to succeed, and to be a force for good in this world. But, both sides have wildly differing views on how this should be accomplished, and what exactly that looks like.
What both sides need to understand is that this is a land of many “You and I’s”, and together, that makes us a land of “We”. And We have to preserve the individual freedom of You and I while working together to move our country in the right direction.