is that it tends to be directed from above.
Ask a "dittohead" a question to which they haven't been told the answer by Rush Limbaugh and they have little to say for themselves.
Ask a right-winger to explain their philosophy as it applies to real world examples with which they are not familiar and they tend to disappear.
They know that the answer must be out there. They just haven't been told what it is yet.
For instance, the theory that charity provided by individuals can replace the welfare state clearly fails. Why? Because charities clearly lose income during times of economic hardship. This isn't just blindingly obvious. You can observe it easily in the numbers. When you need it most, it fails as a solution.
Okay. So this isn't something you see addressed in the right wing media. Or the left wing media for that matter. But it is a gaping hole in the argument that private charity is a more efficient system of welfare than public administration. It isn't. It's a useless system.
And this fact means that the Republican philosophy is simply brutalist in the nastiest possible way. You fail, you die. You get unlucky, you die. Bad luck, chum.
What happens when right wingers encounter this kind of argument. The stupid ones stick around and say those kinds of idiots deserve what happens to them. They were probably lazy anyway. The clever ones. Why, they vanish, of course.
| 