A New Way for Democrats
By Jack G. Gilbert
I want to say a useful word to the Democrats. Will they listen to me if I come to Washington with my 95-year-old mother? She suffers from congestive heart failure, from being nearly 96 and from having a son who is pretty old himself, 72. We are the kind of people the Democrats like to help, but it would help most if they listened to me for a minute.
The Democrats present the fullest development of political pity, or making people feel sorry for themselves in order to get their votes.
The Democrat suffering group my mother and I belong to is old people, supposed to be living with endless miseries like bills and inadequate medical care. Consider the delicious pleasure of telling a group of “seniors” about the injustices they suffer. Then assuring them that though God and their children may have left the scene, the Democrat party loves them. Relish the thought: elder care and the four seasons by a Democrat Congress.
Implicit in this pity is that we old people cannot think of anything but ourselves.
We would never consider the public good, the commonweal.
We would never be grateful for the comforts of our age, such comforts that never existed before: wonder drugs, pain killers, tight warm houses, tight cool houses, blissfully comfortable shoes, ultra-light eyeglasses, quiet cars, movies, telephone, internet, cheap flights--in general, the bonuses of living in a time of inventiveness and plenty.
Is there a cure for the partisan addiction to helping victims--whether they need it or not, whether the help really helps, whether it makes anyone happy at all? Reality sometimes intrudes. The supply of big groups of victims is running out.
In desperate times a new idea may not hurt, a program of Democratic Mega-Pity. The goods of this world are poorly distributed, and too much is had by too few. The goods include money, health, intelligence, good looks. The evils of this world are likewise poorly distributed. These include poverty, disease, disabilities, lack of intelligence, ugliness. Too much is had by too few.
So the next liberal social policy must move past “victimization.” Invariably divisive, it annoys the advantaged and teaches the disadvantaged to feel aggrieved. The goal is an Equalization of Good and Evil by means of a Calculus of Mega-Pity.
This would work on the national level as follows: an annual census
evaluates each person in terms of (a) income, (b) general health (c) other personal advantages (good looks, talents in painting, music, writing,
dexterity, cunning). The government assigns a number (0-100, expressive
of his or her relative advantages) to each person, who will be
taxed on the basis of his or her position above 50 on the scale. Those highest will pay most.
The fluidity of money makes it the easiest factor to adjust; anyway “it is written” that the poor are not healthy and not talented because they do not have enough money. Ways of reducing one’s position in health and talents will predictably show up, like smoking, overeating, reckless sex and disfigurement of person (as in tattooing). There will be a dynamic social movement, up and down the scale from year to year, as individuals seek the relative position most satisfactory to themselves.
Those below 50 will receive compensation based on their relative lowness, the lowest receiving most. Thus 1’s would be recompensed roughly as much as 100’s are taxed. (I say “roughly” because all transfers would be reduced by the cost of the government doing business both ways, up and down.) 51’s would give to 49’s. 50’s would make do with what they have.
And the US would push to have this replicated on a Universal Basis by the UN for all countries, each likewise assigned its place, annually, on a scale of income, general health, and other personal advantages. Fortunate nations would contribute according to their rank above 50; unfortunates would receive according to their rank below 50. Disasters like floods, tidal waves, monsoons, hurricanes would of course be factored in, so that there would be an even painting across the globe of good things and miseries.
Emigration would not disrupt the scheme. An influx of rich into poor changes the relative position of the country. Likewise an influx of poor into a rich. Every country would perceive that an advantage lies in losing position on the scale. Eventually the result would be that the spread formerly expressed as 0-100 would become 49.999999 to 50.000001.
Who would then be an aggressor? The lions would not lie down with the lambs, rather lamblike lions would lie down with leonine lambs. The first would be nearly last, the last would be nearly first.
Back to summary...
