Reader Question: The Politics Of ‘A Christmas Carol’
Posted by Dirty Harry on Wednesday, December 17th, 2008
From liberal to conservative…
Reader Brandon asks of A Christmas Carol:
[M]y girlfriend despises this movie. She is a hardcore subscriber to Ayn Rand’s philosophy and believes this movie does nothing but guilt and punish someone for being successful. I told her I chose to take it more as being about how their is more to life than work. So with that said is this movie as uber liberal as my girlfriend takes it or is my interpretation more accurate? Opinions?
A Christmas Carol is a conservative story. Does Scrooge complain about taxes? Not much, but he sure complains bitterly about private sector charity. As far as Ebeneezer is concerned the government-run work houses are sufficient to take care of the poor. And like many Leftists, Scrooge doesn’t believe in guilt. His taxes funding the government are a Get Out Of Guilt-Jail Free card. If Scrooge were around today he’d wrist-flick all those private sector do-gooders and leave them in a cloud of self-righteous Prius dust.
The same is true for the real world. Though we all pay the same tax rates, conservatives are much more charitable than liberals:
–Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
– Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
– Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
– Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
– In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
– People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
An even better example is our very own President-elect. Before stepping into the national spotlight, the Obamas were downright scraping and stingy. Less than 1% of a pretty substantial income went to charity. When no one was looking, on $1.2 million in income they contributed less than $11,000.
Remarkably, Vice President-elect Joe Biden is somehow worse. Over ten years, between 1998 and 2007, Biden earned nearly $2.5 million and donated a measly $3700 to charity. Statistically that’s what you call a zero.
This is not hypocrisy on either man’s part, it’s a difference of philosophy. Both believe, like Scrooge, that it’s the government’s duty to confiscate income and take care of the poor. As long as that’s being done everyone’s off the hook.
Scrooge’s transformation is into an individual who, like a true conservative, comes to truly care about the poor, and with that true compassion comes the revelation that the government does more harm than good. The new Scrooge doesn’t run down the street demanding higher tax rates and that the goverment do more. Again, like a true conservative (and unlike Obama and Biden), he reaches deep into his own pocket to invest in private sector solutions.
Scrooge gains more than just compassion from the spirits, he gains wisdom, the wisdom to know that poverty won the War On Poverty and that true compassion can’t be measured with tax rates.
Filed in General |
PerfectTommyon 17 Dec 2008 at 9:34 am 1And “A Christmas Carol” is a Christian story. As a Christian, I believe Rand had so good things to say, but ultimately her God was the individual not Christ.
Here’s an article about Christianity Vs. Rand from Angelfire:
http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/adrianbiblestudents/jesusvsrand.html
Rand thought Christian charity was foolish. If true, than a fool I’d rather be.
elizabetheon 17 Dec 2008 at 9:36 am 2In a later comment Brandon elaborated on his girlfriend’s take:
“Most of this stems from her upbringing as a Budhist who believe strongly in the idea of personal responsibility. This doesn’t mean they are greedy people, quite the contrary, they just believe those who have done well are to be respected and not guilted (I tend to agree).”
But it’s clear that Scrooge doesn’t have any sense of personal responsibility. What would your girlfriend or her culture say about someone who was successful monetarily but had no sense of personal responsibility at all–not to family, or employees or anyone who depended on the person?
As an ex-liberal, to me liberal politics are really rooted in a very extreme belief in individual independence. They don’t want anyone to have to depend on their family or neighbors or other personal relationships (that would make them feel ashamed), so they get the giant faceless umbrella of government to step in and allow even people who need help pretend to be independent — because, hey, it’s the government’s job to protect me.
JohnJon 17 Dec 2008 at 9:36 am 3I’m willing to bet that the combined taxes paid by McCain voters ouweighed the combined taxes paid by Obama voters, since Obama had a disproportionate share of the uneducated vote and the welfare vote.
Splashon 17 Dec 2008 at 9:36 am 4Totally, Harry.
This would be a liberal story if it ended with Scrooge closing shop and/or running down to Parliament to hand over his ill-gotten gains.
Instead it ends with him being “as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew.”
Fezziwig is held up as the ideal employer. And doesn’t one of the ghosts mock Scrooge’s deference to government work houses as taking care of the problem?
Also, Any Rand (and her hardcore devotees) tend to be severe hardassess, bah-humbugging the “weakness” of belief in a spiritual component to human existence and social structure, which this story hinges on.
In fact, this whole Rand-based anecdote demonstrates why we conservatives are often falsely stereotyped as mean old social Darwinists.
Splashon 17 Dec 2008 at 9:38 am 5Ah. I see others beat me to the religion thing.
JohnJon 17 Dec 2008 at 9:40 am 6Elizabethe, that comes from a unwillingness to understand that the government gets its money by forcing people to pay taxes. Liberals, it seems to me, believe that the government has all the money in the world, and it could share it with everyone if people really wanted it to happen.
Splashon 17 Dec 2008 at 9:48 am 7Of course, despite my #4 comment, ‘A Christmas Carol’ can be faulted as a humanist tale of self-salvation, too. Christ doesn’t factor into this Christmas story of redemption — though Scrooge does return to church, so you could argue it’s a symbolic thing.
Still definitely not statist or liberal in the modern sense, tho.
Jake Was Hereon 17 Dec 2008 at 9:51 am 8Elizabethe:What would your girlfriend or her culture say about someone who was successful monetarily but had no sense of personal responsibility at all–not to family, or employees or anyone who depended on the person?
As an ex-liberal, to me liberal politics are really rooted in a very extreme belief in individual independence. They don’t want anyone to have to depend on their family or neighbors or other personal relationships (that would make them feel ashamed), so they get the giant faceless umbrella of government to step in and allow even people who need help pretend to be independent — because, hey, it’s the government’s job to protect me.
Objectivists believe, if anything, more strongly in individual independence. They believe that charity, altruism, whatever you want to call it, is crippling to those who receive it and near-suicidal to those who give it.
As I said in the other thread: What happens when you become skeptical of ALL charity, when you begin to suspect that every heartfelt appeal for help is really just another cynical attempt to shake you down? “All they want is my money! They don’t really need my help. Goddamned greedy little bastards!” And before you know it, you’re sensing the greedy little bastards lurking around every corner, and hoarding your finances very carefully to keep every cent you can out of Their greasy hands. And whenever you even hear charity mentioned you become outright apoplectic: “They don’t need help! They just want money! They’re too damned lazy to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps! ARE THERE NO PRISONS? ARE THERE NO WORKHOUSES?“
Campaspeon 17 Dec 2008 at 10:12 am 9A Christmas Carol is not an attack on government intervention. Some of Marley’s chains are said to be “guilty governments.” Dickens wrote several articles on the workhouse system in which he focused his anger not on the very idea that governments were doing anything for poor people, but that the places were inadequate and intentionally cruel. Dickens’s attack on utilitarianism is of a piece with his loathing for any philosophy that seeks to treat people as mere working cogs in a machine. A Christmas Carol explicitly denounces Social Darwinism, to the point that Dickens has the capitalist Scrooge paraphrase Malthus in Stave One (”If If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population”). Via the Cratchits, who have a thematic importance almost equal to that of Scrooge, Dickens rejects the notion that poverty is rooted in personal failure.
If Dickens were easily shoved into political pigeonholes, whether 19th-century or modern, he would not be a great novelist. He would be an ideologue; indeed, he would be Ayn Rand.
miles archeron 17 Dec 2008 at 10:18 am 10Just when I thought it was impossible to be more ideologically deranged (inspired?) with all the Bush is Batman stuff…?
Well done!
And for the record. While you’re well-versed in G.W. Bush, you don’t know a great deal about Charles Dickens. You know. The guy who wrote the thing in the first place.
And last? Man oh man would I hate to carry an ideological anvil on my back every time I watched a movie. And in this, you are much like Oliver Stone and his ilk. Seething with resentments. Unwilling or unable to just sit back and watch.
HARRY HERE: Lot of chaff, insults and superior protestations but no deconstruction of my argument. Typical Leftist preening.
“You don’t understand Dickens.” I’m not talking about Dickens, I’m talking about this particular story and what it says. Until you enter that arena you’re just a coward in the stands shouting lofty nonsense.
Brandonon 17 Dec 2008 at 10:19 am 11Jake makes an excellent point. My girlfriend loves groups that help people get out of poverty by training them and giving them skills to better themselves but is infuriated by welfare handouts that allow people to remain “comfortably impoverished”. As a bit of perspective she was raised dirt poor in a refugee camp in Thailand and came here with her family in the early 1990s and worked their way from nothing and she is now a pharmacaist so that probably only adds to the irritation with people who won’t do for themselves.
Also the religion factor doesn’t come in with my girlfriend she is very spiritual and her observes many Budhist holidays and celebrations, Christmas is not one of their holidays but she has celebrated it since her and I began dating a few years ago and loves it.
While I see Harry’s points on how this could be viewed as a Conservative movie I think the deployment of guilt as a weapon (the WMD in the Liberal arsenal) makes this a hard sale as a Conservative film. Again by her beliefs not only as an Objectivist but also as a Budhist you should not act out of guilt since your actions ultimately are not as sincere as when they are done in an effort to better yourself.
HARRY HERE: Scrooge isn’t guilted into anything and surely not into deploying the ultimate use of the liberal WMD — the spreading of guilt from a point of smug- self-satisfaction and hypocrisy.
What Scrooge is given is wisdom, and with wisdom comes compassion, and with both comes that thing liberals don’t have and that’s a feeling that THEY PERSONALLY must do more and better — as opposed to preening over others to do more.
Liberals don’t possess wisdom, or if they do, they don’t use it. They feel.
NeoConJedion 17 Dec 2008 at 10:21 am 12The one thing people usually forget (or never knew) when they talk about Ayn Rand is a branch of Objectivism deals with “rational” self interest.
I’m not going to get into Objectivism, but people (especially Americas) who think Scrooge acts in a “rational” way needs to examine themselves.
Rational American business owners make sure their employees are treated with respect and fairness, and are happy. They also do what can be done to help the community in which they do business — it only makes sense.
To me (I’m somewhat of an Objectivist), Rand’s philosophy and Christianity fit well together.
What Obama and his idiotic acolytes who push such endeavors as the Global Poverty Act don’t understand is that Americans are naturally charitable people — and that the free market will provide charity.
What DOESN”T need to be done is the legislating of charity. That could completely dry up people’s ambition and means to give.
miles archeron 17 Dec 2008 at 10:23 am 13Sorry, this is worth another. Let’s take on this lovely sentence:
“Like many Leftists, Scrooge doesn’t believe in guilt?”
Hunh? I thought that was the source of every Affirmative Action program ever created. Remember White Guilt?
C’mon, Dude. Keep your memes straight.
HARRY HERE: His own guilt, self-guilt. Duh.
akatoshon 17 Dec 2008 at 10:26 am 14To piggy back onto Campaspe, there is no real justification to call A Christmas Carol conservative or liberal in the modern sense. Scrooge was very much of the idea that it was no one’s business to take care of anyone else. The knee jerk “Scrooge is a liberal” thing simply doesn’t fit with his character. Indeed, it is a rare thing to call such an unfeeling capitalist a liberal.
Of course, there is no reason to label Scrooge a “conservative” either. His awakening is simply about realizing his humanity. A Christmas Carol isn’t about politics or ideology, but about how important it is to focus on those who truly matter in our lives. It is the ultimate story of redemption, and can be seen as redemption in your belief on God or simply in yourself as a good person. Stories like this are classics because they appeal to everyone. In our hyper-partisan society, maybe that isn’t such a bad thing.
miles archeron 17 Dec 2008 at 10:31 am 15akatosh and Campaspe are exactly right. And yes, in our hyper-partisan times, it seems unfortunate to try to drag everything into the political octagon.
I look forward to the Santa Is A Conservative post.
Jaredon 17 Dec 2008 at 10:35 am 16It’s not. The story is more about realizing that some things are more important then wealth and money, like friends & family. Money is fleeting, but friends are not.
Brandonon 17 Dec 2008 at 10:35 am 17Akatosh,
I agree that it’s not really about Liberal or Conservative since neither had really been “either or” mainstream idealogies as they are now. However I do believe viewing this from the perspective of a true Objectivist is a valid and interesting arguement. Undoubtedly the changes Scrooge had were for the better and undoubtedly Dickens had his beliefs that charity should be the pursuit of all men, this is why there were no representations of the people who were poor do to laziness or criminal behavior (maybe the old woman who stole his belongings but she was not given any real detail as a character). Anyone who has ever written creatively will tell you everything you write has your beliefs and your ideaology attached to it rather intentional or unintentional.
For the record this is the most interesting conversation I’ve ever had about a Christmas movie.
miles archeron 17 Dec 2008 at 10:36 am 18JFTR, it’s self-guilt or ‘own guilt’ that is supposedly the basis for the Liberal embrace of many government programs, Affirmative Action first and foremost. Duh back. The cliche regarding guilt is usually about the rapacious conservative capitalist who is perfectly content to evict poor noble tenants without a second thought. That’s not more accurate than your version. But I’m not sure simply reversing a stereotype counts as adequate argument.
In other words, ‘I Know You Are But What Am I?’ rarely stands as analysis.
HARRY HERE: Self-guilt has nothing to do with Affirmative Action. Those calling for such things aren’t feeling guilty, they’re feeling smugly superior and only interested in guilting the rest of us.
Like Scrooge guilt is washed away with the demanding of others — always through the government whether the program works or not. Obama and Biden, like Scrooge, feel no personal responsibility for the poor because that’s the government’s job. Why should THEY (Obama, Biden, and Scrooge) give more of their own money to charity when the government is taking care of it.
Bluejadeon 17 Dec 2008 at 10:36 am 19DH is right — Christmas Carol is a conservative vision of society, rooted in responsibility for oneself and for others. Because to conservatives, the second is just as important as the first. Conservatives insist on personal charity not just for the sake of others, but for the sake of yourself as well. Compare the reaction to the heat wave in Chicago a few years ago that killed a couple of hundred people in a week or so (doctors and nurses rushing back from vacation to work double and triple shifts, supermarket managers setting out chairs to allow poor folks to sit in the air conditioning without buying) with the reaction to the heat wave in France more recently, that killed 10,000 people over the course of several months (the CEO of France’s largest mortuary chain complained that family members couldn’t be bothered to come back from vacation to get grandmere’s body so he had to keep a lot of folks on ice for a long time). The more you think it’s the state’s job to take care of people, the less you think it’s your job, and DH’s statistics bear that out. This is, incidentally, a feature and not a bug to the Left. The more the state controls things, the more enervated the people become so the more the state controls things, and so on — for that, read, the more the leftist elites control things, without bothersome assertive citizenry insisting on going their own way. That’s why the Left hates tradition, the nuclear family, organized religion — all things which resist control and indoctrination by the state. Scrooge isn’t criticized for being a monetary success — Dickens is full of benevolent rich men, like Mr. Cheeryble (a successful businessman) and Mr. Jarndyce (a landed gentleman) and Oliver Twist’s real grandfather (basically an aristocrat). He’s being critized for lacking personal responsibility, for others AND for the redemption of his own soul — concerns that lie at the heart of conservatism. Scrooge doesn’t practice personal charity, he’s impious (when greeted with Marley’s ghost he makes cracks about it being the effect of indigestion), he rejects his family (in the form of his nephew, his only blood relative), he’s unmarried and childless, he rejects long-standing tradition in the form of ancient English customs surrounding Christmas. All anathema to a good conservative.
Bluejadeon 17 Dec 2008 at 10:41 am 20Incidentally, P.J. O’Rourke would say that God is a conservative, Santa however is a liberal.
misterdon 17 Dec 2008 at 10:43 am 21I don’t think Scrooge is guilted because he’s wealthy. He’s guilted because he’s a mean-spirited bastard, and would be rich or poor. He lives his life unloving and unloved, and only his death brings joy to others. I don’t see how that rubs the wrong way against anyone’s religious or political philosophy.
misterdon 17 Dec 2008 at 10:44 am 22Bluejade,
Until I start paying Santa Tax, the man’s no liberal.
Dirty Harryon 17 Dec 2008 at 10:47 am 23Santa’s not a liberal. If he were he’d demand the government distribute toys through a welfare program paid for by the rest of us.
Santa creates jobs and does the job himself. He found a need and solved the problem all on his own.
A conservative example of compassion is doing on your own.
A liberal example is demanding the government do it thru a handi-capped bureaucracy paid for by confiscatory taxes.
Campaspeon 17 Dec 2008 at 10:49 am 24“He’s being critized for lacking personal responsibility, for others AND for the redemption of his own soul — concerns that lie at the heart of conservatism.”
And there is where you part company with Dickens, for he was far too great an artist to claim that one political philosophy had a monopoly, or even a majority claim, on the redemption of souls. As for personal responsibility, no, that is not what Scrooge lacks. He is entirely self-reliant, indeed excessively so, as was Marley. You cannot elide “personal responsibility” into “concern for others,” because the entire book is endeavoring to show that one is not a substitute for the other. Scrooge lacks compassion and involvement:
“But you were always a good man of business, Jacob,” faltered Scrooge, who now began to apply this to himself.
“Business!” cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. “Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”
Dirty Harryon 17 Dec 2008 at 10:58 am 25Campaspe: The story is not anti-business. When the story’s over Scrooge doesn’t close his business to become a social worker. He stays in business and uses that business to better the lives of others. From the story’s point of view, it’s business that’s doing the ultimate good and a reliance on the government that marks the ultimate in cruel indifference.
The story is pro-wisdom and compassion. Like Scrooge, Leftists pour all of their guilt into letting the government handle the problem. Like a Leftist, once tax rates reach a certain level he’s satisfied with himself. You all might disagree on the appropriate tax rate, but the philosophy is the same.
Through his thriving business, Scrooge helps mankind through the private sector. There’s no epilogue about how he ran for Parliament to raise the top income tax, or how he contributed more to the treasury before turning his business into a commune.
Campaspeon 17 Dec 2008 at 11:11 am 26DH, you are arguing a point I didn’t make. Nowhere did I say it was anti-business. I said it is NOT anti-government intervention. And no, it is not relying on the government that is the ultimate cruel indifference — it is the conception and management of the government institutions themselves. Scrooge inquires about the prisons first, since he sees that as the first destination of the poor, who must be that way because they deserve it. Then he asks after the Poor Law. Dickens railed long and loud against the 1834 act, which specified that no one could get assistance outside of a workhouse, and that the workhouse itself was to be as harsh as possible to discourage–sound familiar?–dependence.
Furthermore, Scrooge’s later conception of his business is markedly less profit-driven. If that is the current conservative take on business I think that’s awesome. What I resent here is the attempt to hijack a monumental work of 19th century literature for a narrow and quite anachronistic political point.
Zsuzsaon 17 Dec 2008 at 11:18 am 27Campaspe,
I agree that Dickens was not a conservative. If he were alive today, he’d probably be an Obama voter. The question, though, is not whether Dickens was conservative, but whether the story A Christmas Carol is. A good artist can often create a work whose philosophy is not his own.
I tend to agree that it doesn’t fall neatly into one or the other. Scrooge isn’t very much like the stereotypical liberal (with the exception of that “My taxes go to pay for the prisons and the workhouses” bit–that’s right out of the liberal mindset), but he is also not the stereotypical capitalist pig either. He’s a miser. His misery comes from his lack of human connection. At the end, he gets that human connection. Not sure if we can call that liberal or conservative.
Matton 17 Dec 2008 at 11:22 am 28I think you are wading into murky waters by imposing modern American definitions of “liberal” and conservative” on a 19th century English book.
England in the 1840s, when “Carol” was published, is a wholly different world from America in 2008–politically, socially, technologically. The major themes of Dickens’ story is social injustice and poverty. If anything, it’s a rather pointed critique of the Industrial Revolution, and the treatment of less-prosperous classes suffering in its wake.
But I suppose as a self-proclaimed “culture warrior” you must place everything into an either/or category of left and right. If it adds to your enjoyment to believe that Scrooge is frock-wearing Palin conservative, then more power to you. But I do wonder how culture warriors can enjoy great works of art by dumping them into over-simplified categories of American ‘08 Left or Right.
To paraphrase old Marley, “The dealings of my [politics] were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business.”
Just let it rest. Enjoy the art of art’s sake.
HARRY HERE: Uhm, if discussing art from a political and cultural point of view is so offensive to you, why in the world would you put yourself through clicking on a site built expressly for that?
What is it with Leftists and personal responsibility? Rather than stop himself from coming here, Matt wants me to stop.
Dirty Harryon 17 Dec 2008 at 11:23 am 29Campaspe you wrote:
That is a conservative philosophy and so, unlike Biden, Obama, and Scrooge, we bolster real solutions, private sector ones. All Scrooge was doing before is what the left does now: letting what the government does for the poor be good enough. And like the Left today, he didn’t have either the compassion or wisdom to see that the government is inadequete to such a thing.
That’s absurd. The lesser the profits, the less good he can do. It’s how Scrooge spends his profits that changes. If he evolved into a Leftie he wouldn’t help Tiny Tim on his own, he would demand the government do it. He wouldn’t become the best friend the town ever had, he would run for city council to raise taxes and make everyone else pay into the same government that wasn’t helping the poor.
As far as profit-drive, what you mean is keeping all your money for yourself. That would be Obama and Biden, no? They were about as scraping and stingy as ole’s Ebeneezer in both hanging onto their own profits and letting the government let them off the guilt-hook.
Bluejadeon 17 Dec 2008 at 11:27 am 30There’s no evidence that Scrooge sees his business as being less profit-driven. He’s become enlightened as to what to do with his money, and impliedly far kinder to his employee. But there’s no reason to think he turned his business into a kind of inefficient distributor of benefits, a la GM. And personal responsibility is, in the view of traditional Burkean conservatism, by definition responsibility for others — you’re just proffering a competing definition that is weak tea and not mainstream conservatism. (It may in fact be Randian, but who knows.)
As for “parting company with Dickens,” Dickens’ own political leanings were confused and emotionally-driven, so there’s simply no point in being guided by that. He had no coherent political philosophy that I’ve ever been able to discern; he was an artist, with all that implies. He had an almost religious devotion to an idealized conception of family (something he wasn’t very good at in real life) and what was arguably an unthinking adherence to the British class system. (The striving lower middle class clerk with ambitions Uriah Heep was evil, Oliver Twist was secretly an aristocrat, you get the picture.) But he had various not-very-well-thought out proto-Fabian ideas about community and compassion and so forth. What I am guided by is the work of art, which often gets away from the artist’s pre-occupations to become a monumental (your word) reflection of a total world view.
If you think that this is a narrow and partisan squabble, instead of a debate over two vast, comprehensive and competing world views that encompass most of human life, then you’re the one who’s doing the hijacking.
akatoshon 17 Dec 2008 at 11:27 am 31Harry,
The biggest problem with this argument is that you are creating a liberal straw man that the source material doesn’t imply exists. Are there liberals who hate business and want the government to do absolutely everything? Of course. Are most liberals that way? Of course not. Most liberals believe in, as you say, compassionate business that treats workers fairly and pays them a decent wage. The other side of the coin would be to say that most conservatives are not like Scrooge, treating their workers like dirt and paying them subsistence wages, though there are some that do.
This is always the issue with injecting politics into something that is apolitical. This is not a story about ideology triumphing, it’s about the human spirit. It’s sad, though, that we reduce everything to a partisan fight. Maybe someday that will change.
HARRY HERE: Your first paragraph is a good argument. Your second one is more of the same from Matt. The mission of this site is to do exactly what your second pargraph asks me not to. If that’s offensive to you, why must I change in order to save you the offense? Take some personal responsibility and stop coming here.
“Maybe someday that will change?” Only if the purpose of the site changes. What an obtuse complaint.
Bluejadeon 17 Dec 2008 at 11:29 am 32My experience with “most liberals” (and living here in Manhattan that’s who I know) is that they indeed dislike business, including very often their own.
Brandonon 17 Dec 2008 at 11:32 am 33I think to view this as either Liberal or Conservative is probably wrong headed since neither was a dominant philosphy in Dickens era. I believe this to be more idealogical than political (splitting hairs I know).
The over arching arguement here to me would be should Scrooge feel guilty for being a jac*ss and by feeling that guilt change his life, or since this is the life he has chosen and worked for he has no need to feel guilt for the circumstances of others. This is the initial arguement and the Objectivist arguement that my girlfriend brings up during this movie, her exact words (or very close to it) I believe were;”he doesn’t have anything to feel guilty about. He bust his *ss working and if he wants to keep what he earns he should not be guilted into believing it is his responsibility to pay for everyone else. It’s his choice and guilt is a form of force or at best coersion.”
Rob Howardon 17 Dec 2008 at 11:38 am 34To those getting mad at Harry for calling this a conservative story:
You guys need to learn something about applicability. No one is claiming that Dickens travelled into the future and read up on William F. Buckley. Nobody is suggesting that Dickens conceived of conservatism in the sense that we understand it today.
However, the ideals and worldview of conservatives are quite well represented here, which include civic duty, private charity, traditional morality, and indeed the championing of the private sector.
A work of art is no respector of persons. In the abscence of direct instruction by Dickens himself, his work is quite open to interpretation.
HARRY HERE: And it’s fun to interpret and to debate that interpretation, which makes the “Stop It” crowd a bunch of wet blankets.
akatoshon 17 Dec 2008 at 11:43 am 35Well, I certainly wasn’t trying to be “obtuse”, I was simply lamenting that our political climate means turning A Christmas Carol into a war of ideology. It doesn’t offend me any more than you voting for McCain offends me. I disagree. The substance of what I was saying was the point of my post anyway.
HARRY HERE: I think coming to a site whose mission is to look at art from a political point of view and then complaining about the site fulfilling that mission is obtuse. Why not email McDonald’s about all that annoying hamburger making they got going on?
Brandonon 17 Dec 2008 at 11:44 am 36Rob is absolutely correct. No one is saying Dickens implicitly sat out to make a political tale but as in all art it is open to interpretation and that is simply what we are all doing. This is no different than a discussion you might have about a book in a college lecture…well except Conservatives are being allowed to speak too. If you aren’t interested in the discussion don’t participate but do not increase your chances of carpal tunnel berating those of us choosing to have the discussion. Again this isn’t “partisan bickering” as many are labeling this is merely a discussion about the idealogical merits of a classic piece of literature / film.
maatkareon 17 Dec 2008 at 11:52 am 37But for all the “conservative” leanings of “A Christmas Carol” (and I do think it’s sort of silly to shoehorn classic tales to modern ideology, but it sure is fun. Next: “The Iliad” as metaphor for the war in Iraq!) how well does that jibe with Scrooge never finding God/Jesus? It’s not angels who visit him, but vaguely pagan “spirits.” It’s a spiritual tale, not a religious one, and since Scrooge essentially redeems himself, it sort of leans to the Buddhist way of thinking, as others above have noted. Dickens in his life, although an excellent example of self-bootstrap-pulling, worked very hard throughout his life for government reform of how the destitute were treated. i.e. the government was harmful because it didn’t do _enough_ for the poor, and treated them harshly with debtor’s prison, etc., not because it did too much and made them dependent. One of these days, though, I’ve got to read Ayn Rand.
USS Benon 17 Dec 2008 at 11:57 am 38Leftism results in collectivism not individual liberty.
Leftists, in effect, attempt to force people, through big government, to be equal.
We have equal rights (liberty) but we are definitely not all equal and it’s impossible to enforce that through government and still remain human with liberty.
Basically, the entire Leftist ideology results in a hive (Borg) type society that discourages individual charity and crushes individual liberty.
Leftist intentions are to help, but they never see the easily proven results of those intentions which is a paved highway to slavery (which is hell to those of us who value individual liberty).
Leftists claim that conservatives/classic liberals try to legislate morality (and a few, unfortunately do; “compassionate conservatism”) but it is the mindless compassion of Leftism that does exactly that on a nationwide scale by taking away individual liberty.
When you take liberty away you take charity away.
The more we spend on public schools the less educated students get. Why? Because govt. bureaurats run it.
Govt. programs (barring the Military) are inefficient, has no creativity or innovations, and discourages motivation and inspiration. Plus, by “giving” through the govt. a large portion of that taz money goes to the bureaurats that run it.
When individuals give there is no middle man. Even private organizations are far more efficient and caring than the govt., for example, look at how efficient the Salvation Army is, and look at how much of each dollar actually gets to folks who need it, upwards of 80-90%.
Compared to govt. programs where 50% or less gets through to the needy and is rife with fraud, waste and abuse.
That’s not to say all private organizations care or are efficient. It’s best to do research if one decides to give through an organization.
Nevertheless, individual charity is the best charity. No middleman, and you don’t hafta be concerned about fraud, waste or abuse or certain “conditions being met,” or piles of paperwork or red tape, because you are the one who directly gives, through money, time
and effort. You care the most because you are directly involved.
So give wisely, humbly, and joyfully.
Something the govt. can never do.
miles archeron 17 Dec 2008 at 12:02 pm 39Brandon, fair enuf. Though it sometimes seems less an exercise in discussing the ideological merits (provenance, more likely) of this piece of literature and more an excuse to find a way to exalt the conservative point of view at the expense of its opposite.
Which is fine, and might even be necessary for some. But it’s a weird way to watch a movie. And a self-limiting way to view the world around you. Che was like that. His world-view was little more than the sum total of his ideology.
Weird how the ideological extremes on either side end up mirroring each other.
Matton 17 Dec 2008 at 12:03 pm 40“Uhm, if discussing art from a political and cultural point of view is so offensive to you, why in the world would you put yourself through clicking on a site built expressly for that?”
Discussing art from a political and cultural point of view is not at all offensive to me. What’s “offensive” is merely picking up a piece of art, deeming it “conservative” for whatever reason, then declaring it a win “for your side,” whatever that means. The offense is that you provide no real context about the literature, the author and the times in which he lived. There is no real appreciate for the man and his work; just another temporary cudgel with which to beat liberals.
HARRY HERE: It’s not “for whatever reason,” I clearly stated my reasons and have also become involved in this thread defending them, but also conceded akatosh’s reasoned argument against mine.
A vigorous debate doesn’t start from a mealy-mouthed statement, Matt, at least not on this site.
And again you’re offended by something I did, and yet again your approach is to ask me to stop offending you. If you want context about the author and times, don’t tell me to provide it, provide it yourself. Make your case. Don’t stand on the sidelines hollering, “Stop it, stop the imperfect debate, shut up, stop talking about it.”
Why such behavior might make one think it’s all a result of the frustration borne of having no argment.
akatoshon 17 Dec 2008 at 12:06 pm 41Harry, I wasn’t complaining about the mission of the site (though it did unfortunately morph into that). I was annoyed at the straw man liberal argument that simply doesn’t carry weight. Liberals don’t feel guilt? We feel guilty all the time. It’s our curse!
I appreciate political discussion or else I wouldn’t keep reading this blog. Attributing political ideology to something that is about more than that, and doing it poorly, was my problem with your original post. If you want to respond to my argument about the substance of your post, please do. Otherwise, I concede your point about my complaining.
Growltigeron 17 Dec 2008 at 12:06 pm 42My favorite Christmas movie? “Lion in Winter”. I’ve watched it every Christmas for more years than I’ll admit to.
Campaspeon 17 Dec 2008 at 12:10 pm 43DH, Scrooge increases Bob’s salary and time off and increases his own overhead by improving the working conditions (i.e., putting more coal on the fire). Indeed that is markedly less profit-driven than the Scrooge of Stave One.
“. All Scrooge was doing before is what the left does now: letting what the government does for the poor be good enough. And like the Left today, he didn’t have either the compassion or wisdom to see that the government is inadequete to such a thing.”
This ignores the fact that Dickens said often and loudly that what the government was doing wasn’t enough–not that it shouldn’t be done at all. It is also a straw-man argument, and quite insupportable. Did or do Warren Buffett, Russell Simpson, the late Paul Newman, Stephen Spielberg, Ted Turner and others let what the government does for the poor be good enough? Are you actually arguing that all private philanthropy is conservative, either in deed or impulse?
I don’t mind the very discussion of the political implications of A Christmas Carol. I mind it being done in a way that automatically assumes any worthwhile ideals in the story must be conservative-based. That’s what I say is unworthy of Dickens.
HARRY HERE: Yes, Scrooge increases his overhead, but that doesn’t mean he’s any less profit driven. His profits may be lower due to his generosity (just as the Obamas and Bidens would have been were they more generous). But who knows, because of a higher overhead, Scrooge may have become more profit-driven. There’s nothing immoral in being profit-driven. What can be immoral is how you go about it.
And I’m not talking about Dickens position on the poor. I’m talking about this particular piece of art. And I’m not saying all philanthropists are conservatives, but you can’t anecdote your way out of my overall point.
What I am saying is that like a typical Leftist (refer to poll in original post and the Obama/Biden contribution rates)Scrooge sees the Government as the solution — as good enough. When Scrooge transforms it is into the ultimate trickle-downer. He doesn’t call for higher taxes or for the government to do more — he stays in business and uses his wealth for the good of others, especially the poor.
The story is quite clear that without the New Scrooge’s and only the government, the poor are doomed.
As far as the discussion, I couldn’t care less if Dickens found it worthy. It’s fun, invigorating, and doing the best thing these kind of discussions do: helping us to see more in a timeless piece of art.
It’s also open for all to make their case, Had I thrown down my gauntlet and closed comments then maybe all the wet blanketing would make sense.
USS Benon 17 Dec 2008 at 12:15 pm 44Matt said:
“But I suppose as a self-proclaimed “culture warrior” you must place everything into an either/or category of left and right.”
If it helps look at it this way:
Leftism = illusion/counterfeit
Conservatism/classical Liberalism = Reality/authentic.
Yes, Harry’s ideology is Reality. That’s why I love this blog.
Sure, illusion can be fun for awhile, but essentially there’s nothin’ there.
I prefer the real thing.
USS Benon 17 Dec 2008 at 12:20 pm 45Campaspe said-
“This ignores the fact that Dickens said often and loudly that what the government was doing wasn’t enough–not that it shouldn’t be done at all.”
Perhaps, but govt. NEVER DOES ENOUGH.
Besides, regardless of Dicken’s ideology, the story doesn’t focus on that, although it’s implied that govt. can’t do enough, and explicite that the cure is individual charity.
Rodon 17 Dec 2008 at 12:24 pm 46Harry,
Kudos for an interesting, well reasoned analysis.
Does the Mr. Magoo version of “A Christmas Carol” run anymore or is it too politically incorrect?
USS Benon 17 Dec 2008 at 12:28 pm 47“Did or do Warren Buffett, Russell Simpson, the late Paul Newman, Stephen Spielberg, Ted Turner and others let what the government does for the poor be good enough?”
No, that’s why they keep demanding more taxes and more gov’t. programs.
“Are you actually arguing that all private philanthropy is conservative, either in deed or impulse?”
Where did he say that? Of course not. It is a fact that conservatves on average give more to charity, but that doesn’t mean that there ain’t Leftists that don’t give large amounts, and Harry praised Newman’s philanthropy and is quick to praise any Leftist/Lib’s who stand out from the status quo and do good works. How long have you been reading here? A very short time if you believe that about Harry.
Campaspeon 17 Dec 2008 at 12:28 pm 48“Besides, regardless of Dicken’s ideology, the story doesn’t focus on that, although it’s implied that govt. can’t do enough, and explicite that the cure is individual charity.”
Yes, I agree. But the assumption that all individual charity is automatically conservative, as in this sentence from DH:
“If he evolved into a Leftie he wouldn’t help Tiny Tim on his own, he would demand the government do it.”
is what sticks in the craw. There are individual liberals and private liberal groups working to help Tiny Tims every day, just as conservative and religious groups like the Catholic Church do the same.
HARRY HERE: Oh, come on, Campaspe, I was in your craw on this thread long before that sentence, and for the love of all that’s holy please turn on your Nuance-light and see the overall point I’m making with that statement.
When Scrooge transforms it is away from government-based solutions for the poor and into a trickle-down believerr living the change he wants: a belief that left to the government the poor are doomed. Which, as we’ve seen in our own War on Poverty, is absolutely true. Unless, of course, the goal was to decimate the family and increase the unwed birth rate — then Bravo! Other than that, it may fluctuate a bit, but TRILLIONS later, the poverty rate has remained stable for generations.
Campaspeon 17 Dec 2008 at 12:34 pm 49“Where did he say that?”
Right here:
…”what the left does now: letting what the government does for the poor be good enough.”
HARRY HERE: But it’s true. Whether it’s health care, hunger, education — all evidence that the government is a social disaster to the contrary — the Left wants …. more governent!
Just like Scrooge, a wrist-flicking of the problem as opposed to market based solutions. And yes, you can anecdote away any argument — you can anecdote away that the sky is blue, but I’m referring to a general philosophy of those on the left who turn to the government (like Old Scrooge) and those on the right who care enough to realize that government’s not the solution, the market is (like New Scrooge).
misterdon 17 Dec 2008 at 12:43 pm 50Harry,
Where I’d disagree is that Scrooge doesn’t believe in the liberal, government based solutions. He isn’t for paying more taxes, or for expanding the government aid programs. He uses the government programs as a dodge to brush off the charity seekers. Most liberals do care about the poor, they just disagree with us on how to best help them. Scrooge is simply a greedy, miserable old bastard who loves money more than people, and I know of no political philosophy that aligns with that.
HARRY HERE: See, now that’s a good argument for who Old Scrooge was. But New Scrooge is not a bigger, more liberal guy. He’s a market-based solution guy.
However …. Conservatives never let themselves off the guilt-hook by saying government’s doing the job because anyone who says that isn’t a conservative. A conservative would say they already gave to charity.
After all, it’s only liberals who would believe touting the government as THE solution is a good response.
And I completely disagree that liberals care as much for the poor. Some do, but too many don’t care enough to change their ideology and voting patterns to do what’s necessary to truly help the poor.
People who care about the poor do not want higher gas prices.
People who care about the poor do not want job killing minimum wage hikes.
People who care about the poor would give them the money currently being wasted down a rat hole of urban public education so poor children could attend private schools.
People who care about the poor would not champion absurd laws which allow criminals right back into poor neghborhoods.
People who care about the poor don’t create tax rates, regulation burdens, unnecessary environmental laws, and other burdens that scare away entrepeneurs from starting a business that will hire the poor.
At best, liberals “think” they care about the poor. Unfortunately, they don’t care enough to do the gut-check and intellectual work necessary to get behind and support what would really do the poor the most good, or at least less harm.
USS Benon 17 Dec 2008 at 12:43 pm 51“If he evolved into a Leftie he wouldn’t help Tiny Tim on his own, he would demand the government do it.”
is what sticks in the craw. There are individual liberals and private liberal groups working to help Tiny Tims every day, just as conservative and religious groups like the Catholic Church do the same.
Harry is speaking in general terms about Leftist ideology not about every individual that happens to be a Leftist (to whatever degree).
In any case, the statistics and actions of Leftists in general and their prevailing ideology concerning charity speaks louder than words.
In this sense Harry is accurate.
It would be as if you said Conservatives are pro life and you won’t find a conservative supporting a pro choice rally.
In general that’s true, and the vast majority of conservatives are pro life, but not every conservative is pro life.
Certainly, there are some on the Left and on the Right who don’t always follow the prevailing ideology and principles of their parties and/or ideology/worldviews.
Again, this is a generality aimed primarily at Leftist ideology.
The posts would be very long if Harry had to explain this every time and in every sense.
akatoshon 17 Dec 2008 at 12:57 pm 52To seize on one line in the whole thing and say that it means Scrooge is some sort of big government leftist is simply being dishonest. Government is not even remotely mentioned at length and, as misterd said, Scrooge just used that to get the charity seekers out of his office. And by extrapolating that, despite raising his worker’s wages and increasing his overhead, that Scrooge is still profit driven is even worse. What gives you any indication that Scrooge even cares about money anymore? That’s the point of the story. That money and profit mean nothing in the grand scheme.
If you don’t want to discuss Dickens, that’s fine (I suppose) but you should at least discuss the story you are speaking about. And, frankly, there is nothing there to justify anything you are saying, DH, apart from one line.
HARRY HERE: Had I once said he was a big government leftist, everything you wrote above might have made sense.
Campaspeon 17 Dec 2008 at 1:04 pm 53DH, you began this post with an anecdote about Obama and Biden. Accusing me of relying too much on anecdote afterward strikes an odd note. As does getting upset with me for objecting to the idea that liberals wouldn’t help Tiny Tim, they’d just hand him the number to Social Services. In the meantime, I’m going to bow out, since misterd just put it perfectly:
“Where I’d disagree is that Scrooge doesn’t believe in the liberal, government based solutions. He isn’t for paying more taxes, or for expanding the government aid programs. He uses the government programs as a dodge to brush off the charity seekers. Most liberals do care about the poor, they just disagree with us on how to best help them. Scrooge is simply a greedy, miserable old bastard who loves money more than people, and I know of no political philosophy that aligns with that.”
Glennon 17 Dec 2008 at 1:07 pm 54As a conservative, I agree that A Christmas Carol is a conservative story. But I believe that two (or more) out of three randomly selected people would disagree with us - they would tell you that Scrooge went from a conservative to a liberal! Even many conservatives would tell you that.
Decades of left-wing propaganda has left a profound mark on public perception. I guarantee you that Scrooge’s selfish, materialistic, cruel, and penny-pinching ways are exactly the way most people view conservatives. Liberals, by contrast, are generous, giving, and love the downtrodden.
Two days before the election, I was listening to NPR and they were asking a Rabbi why Jewish people should vote for Obama. Paraphrasing, the Rabbi answered, “Because helping those less fortunate is a vital component of the Jewish faith, and the democratic party is the party that has always reflected our Jewish values of helping the poor and those not wealthy enough to buy power and influence.”
Democrats = the party of everyday, cash-strapped people.
Republicans = the party of the wealthy, the powerful, the bankers.
You can go into denial and start flaming me: “Shup up Glenn you are so clueless you have no f’ing idea what you are talking about yada yada yada”
So flame away, it won’t change the fact. My point? Conservatives had better get off their butts, drop the denial, and start working toward improving our own image.
Any writers out there? Put away the buddy-cop spec you’ve been working on. Throw out your treatment on the quirky teen comedy - it’s been done. Forget about the rogue CIA agent action thriller you’ve been pounding out. Write a semi-serious comedy about a liberal who, through a sudden change in life circumstances, becomes a conservative. Write it so it does NOT remind people (at first) of A Christmas Carol. Write it! I dare you. Or I will.
Matton 17 Dec 2008 at 1:08 pm 55“Whether it’s health care, hunger, education — all evidence that the government is a social disaster to the contrary — the Left wants …. more government!”
But everybody wants more government, even (or, especially) those who claim to want smaller government. I would not call George W. Bush a leftist, yet he oversaw the biggest expansion of government in 60 years. And he’s leaving office after signing off on unprecedented private sector bailouts. Bush and his predecessors, Democrat and Republican, have swollen defense to more than $700 billion a year, despite powerful evidence that it’s been one string of costly disasters after another. Give me a break with your insistence on small government. You’re hogging the trough just as much as everyone else.
As for the miracle of market-based solutions, well, one only needs to read the daily headlines to see what a fantasy that turned out to be.
In any case, Scrooge was not haunted by the trio of ghosts because he was a big government liberal; he was an uncharitable, souless ass who pissed away the bulk of his life in pursuit of the fruits of capitalism. He dumped his girl, he was estranged from his family, he was a terrible boss, and the only reason he supported government solutions was because the Victorian-era government seemed a great way to kill off poor people. Even money and success made him miserable.
When Scrooge awakes Christmas morning, he says nothing about government. He embraces that which he had so longed ignored: the happiness of companionship, friendship and good cheer.
USS Benon 17 Dec 2008 at 1:11 pm 56Akatosh-
“That’s the point of the story. That money and profit mean nothing in the grand scheme.”
Er, no. The point is that it’s blessed to give. The point is redemption, during Christmas. The point is that individual charity is good and the best kind of charity because it transforms the giver as it helps the needy. The point is that Scrooge helped folks that the govt. cannot ever help.
If Scrooge didn’t have money and profit how would he have helped so many people? So the money and profit do mean something in that context. It’s a means to an end.
Dirty Harryon 17 Dec 2008 at 1:12 pm 57Matt & Campaspe: Now we’re having a debate!
Carolynon 17 Dec 2008 at 1:13 pm 58I love Mankind. It’s people I can’t stand.
That sentence defines leftism. This explains why Che could champion the ‘people’ while killing them like fruit flies. Why Spielberg can make a film about Jews trapped in Warsaw’s ghetto while hooking arms with a leader who turns all of Cuba into one. Why feminists can attack a conservative who hugs women but ignore a liberal who rapes them.
It also explains why ‘Scrooge’ is a conservative film. Scrooge begins as a leftist - removed from the individual, including himself. He ends as a conservative - embracing the individual (his nephew, Cratchit, Tiny Tim, etc.) and himself.
My two cents.
(BTW, go Harry! Someday when I grow up, I’ll learn how to argue like that.)
USS Benon 17 Dec 2008 at 1:15 pm 59“Scrooge is simply a greedy, miserable old bastard who loves money more than people, and I know of no political philosophy that aligns with that.”
Maybe you should tell that to the Illinois Governor and Chicago political machine.
How much did Obama and Biden give again?
I wonder what their ideology is?
akatoshon 17 Dec 2008 at 1:16 pm 60“Had I once said he was a big government leftist, everything you wrote above might have made sense.”
Are you kidding?
“There’s no epilogue about how he ran for Parliament to raise the top income tax, or how he contributed more to the treasury before turning his business into a commune.”
“After all, it’s only liberals who would believe touting the government as THE solution is a good response.”
“As far as Ebeneezer is concerned the government-run work houses are sufficient to take care of the poor.”
To cite a few. Your whole argument is based on the idea that before Scrooge converted, he thought the government was sole keeper of the poor and he had no responsibility. You then argue that, were he still a “liberal”, he would have tried to run for Parliament and raise taxes. Who’s being obtuse now? And if your point wasn’t to say that “Old” Scrooge was a welfare state leftist, what was it?
HARRY HERE: There’s nothing I wrote that said he wanted a bigger government or was a Democrat. I was just making a comparison. Sometimes examples are impure. Don’t be so literal. But everything you quoted there remains true.
Campaspeon 17 Dec 2008 at 1:18 pm 61Yes, Matt’s comment #54 is great, because he takes it back to the text where things belong. Bravo Matt, you win the Campaspe “wish I’d written that” for today.
Ginaon 17 Dec 2008 at 1:20 pm 62Okay, everyone, here’s your assigned reading: “Dickens and the Social Order” by Myron Magnet (ISI, 2004).
USS Benon 17 Dec 2008 at 1:25 pm 63HARRY HERE: There’s nothing I wrote that said he wanted a bigger government or was a Democrat. I was just making a comparison. Sometimes examples are impure. Don’t be so literal.
He can’t help it. Harry. Leftists always try to deconstruct everything until it has no meaning.
Dirty Harryon 17 Dec 2008 at 1:25 pm 64And my award for Wish I’d Said That goes to Carolyn who uses the original text brilliantly:
And abortion, environmental extremism, religious intolerance, the war on the Boy Scouts, and the defense in the face of all evidence of urban public schools, welfare, soft on crime laws, abandoning South Vietnam, and on and on…
Save a tree, kill a baby.
Save the birds but let thousands die of malaria due to a lack of ddt.
And my personal favorite: Screw 25 million Iraqis, George W. Bush cannot be allowed to win this war.
Campaspeon 17 Dec 2008 at 1:36 pm 65Harry, original text of what? Not Dickens. “I love mankind. It’s people I can’t stand” is another Charles, Schultz. Who called himself a Republican. Where did he come from, and why is he (or Linus van Pelt, a gentle soul) being drafted to support Che?
I know I said I was out but the surreal turn this is taking is drawing me back in.
HARRY HERE: Campaspe, you championed Matt for going to the original text when he didn’t quote it, ether. You just believed he had gotten it right. I was just throwing the relativity back because I believe Carolyn got it right (though I thought the quote was her original, I’m not a Peanuts guy), but let’s stop being so hyper-literal, it grinds debate to a stop!
Scrooge believes he loves mankind through the taxation he willingly submits to (’carry, on government,’ is good enough), but in reality, he hates people. I would same the same for the ideology of the left. Love mankind, loathes the individual, especially those who get in the way of the perfect society they desire.
misterdon 17 Dec 2008 at 1:42 pm 66Sorry, Harry, I think you’re confusing “caring” - an emotion- with policies, which is thought. People who care about the poor can endorse all sorts of wrong headed policy solutions because they believe they will work. And I’m sure liberals could pick plenty of conservative positions and write them in such a way as to show we don’t care about the poor either.
You are also trying to take general arguments - conservatives give more to charities - and apply them to a specific individual (and a fictional one) - Mr. Scrooge. This is statisic abuse pure and simple. Perhaps there are fewer generous liberals than conservatives, but that doesn’t mean all those who give are conservative, and all those who are cheap are liberal.
We cannot say whether Scrooge became liberal or conservative, or was before hand, as we only get a glimpse of his actions in a 24 hour window. We know he was a bastard, and, for at least a few hours, he was less of a bastard. Who knows. Maybe after a few days of 19th century Londoners lining up at his door with their hands out, he changed his heart again.
HARRY HERE: Read the poll statistics in my original post. You can’t wish away the fact that conservatives are more generous. And this is when liberals drive me crazy. You just ignore the facts. Conservatives aren’t more generous (yes, they are) and fire won’t melt steel (yes, it does).
My post quotes a statistically responsible poll and your idea of a debate is to say it doesn’t. I would change my ideology before stooping to such an absurd level to argue my own.
You call it a general argument, when it’s a fact. What a way to debate.
And you can say “We don’t know about Scrooge after…” That’s all well and fine, but based on what we do know… what Dickens did tell us, I’m right.
You can say, “We don’t know” to back anything or not back anything. We never know enough on a gajillion things. All you can do is discuss with what you do know.
You ignore facts and your idea of an argument is to grind everything into nothingness. What is that? There are things we DO know. If you can’t make your point based on what we do know, you have no point.
Matton 17 Dec 2008 at 1:42 pm 67USS Ben # 55-
“If Scrooge didn’t have money and profit how would he have helped so many people? So the money and profit do mean something in that context. It’s a means to an end.”
Yes, it does mean something, in a narrow context. But the Dickens’ story clearly notes through the examples of the Cratchit Christmas dinner and Scrooge’s nephew’s party that success is not always, or primarily, weighed in gold. Cratchit was not a rich man, but his devotion to his family made him “rich.” I believe that had Scrooge awoke the next morning and became a true friend to those around him without spending a dime, the ghosts would have been satisfied. Because it’s not about the money. It’s not about a pay-off. It’s about people seeing each other as people; not disposable cogs in an industrial machine.
This is why Scrooge’s forecasted death is so terrifying; he died rich, but he was not really a wealthy man. He was despised and quickly forgotten. Friendless, and, thus, a meaningless life. It hearkens back to the old saying about money: “You can’t take it with you.” It is friendship, charity and goodwill that leaves an everlasting legacy. That is what pained Marley in the after-life: that he now sees the true path and he can never again take it. And this is one of the reasons why he reaches out to his old partner.
So while DH has carefully weighed every last penny in comparing conservative and liberal generosity, it ultimately is an incomplete picture.
misterdon 17 Dec 2008 at 1:46 pm 68Matt,
Don’t use Bush to say everyone wants larger govrnment. One of the reasons his approval rating stayed in the toilet is because he disappointed his conservative base. Not everyone who polled “we’re on the wrong track” the past 8 years were people who thought Bush was too conservative.
Matton 17 Dec 2008 at 1:47 pm 69misterd #65:
“Maybe after a few days of 19th century Londoners lining up at his door with their hands out, he changed his heart again.”
That would make a great short story.
Matton 17 Dec 2008 at 1:56 pm 70misterd #67:
“Don’t use Bush to say everyone wants larger govrnment. One of the reasons his approval rating stayed in the toilet is because he disappointed his conservative base. Not everyone who polled “we’re on the wrong track” the past 8 years were people who thought Bush was too conservative.”
No, one of the reasons his approval rating tanked was because failure is an orphan. I didn’t hear that much protest on the right when Bush not only embarked on nation-building, but region-sculpting, which requires…big government. I agree that Bush is not–and never was–a traditional conservative; but he never tried to hide that and most of the conservative commentariat–our gracious host included–certainly defended those principles as deeply conservative. Sure, they may have quielty groused about domestic spending, but they cheered larger and more aggressive foreign interventions…which means bigger government.
I have always wondered how conservatives reconcile the notions of having a small, modest government at home, but a big one abroad. I mean, if the U.S. government can throw its weight around on every corner of the earth, why would it ignore the homefront? The Beast has only one mouth. Feeding one side of the mouth, does not mean you are starving the other. It all goes to one place.
miles archeron 17 Dec 2008 at 2:08 pm 71Well, if nothing else, I’ll agree that Santa Claus is a compassionate conservative.
In that neither actually exists.
USS Benon 17 Dec 2008 at 2:14 pm 72“Sure, they may have quielty groused about domestic spending, but they cheered larger and more aggressive foreign interventions…which means bigger government.”
No, it means a somewhat bigger military with more spending on the military for unprecedented safety, better and more accurate weapons,
better technology, missile defense, spreading democracy, fighting terrorists, building goodwill.
Defense is always a good investment and that’s what the govt. is supposed to do.
Oh and btw, there have been no attacks since 9/11 on American soil so I reckon President Bush deserves credit for that.
I concur the bailouts were a bad idea, as was McCain/Feingold and No Child Left Behind, half-assed border security, and earmarks and such.
The Democrats will spend more, of course, but that’s no excuse.
Nevertheless, President Bush was a far better President than Gore or Kerry would’ve been and he cut taxes.
And he stood by his principles so although I have disagreements with some of his social policies I can still respect him for that.
Addison DeWitton 17 Dec 2008 at 2:22 pm 73Wow, this has been a lively thread. I find it difficult to call this a “conservative” story. I think the main thrust of the story (and most of what makes Dickensian stories Dickensian) is reform. In that sense, it is liberal in the classic sense of the word (and one that modern conservatives can claim some inheritance. It is not a leftist or marxist story although there does seem to be a celebration of “income re-distribution”. The religious themes, to me at any rate, are incidental to the story and serve only to move the plot along. Does it really matter that the events transpire at Christmas? I don’t think so, not beyond a utilitarian plot device.
Ken Beggon 17 Dec 2008 at 2:26 pm 74“I would not call George W. Bush a leftist…”
Perhaps not, but many of us would, at least on most domestic issues.
Matton 17 Dec 2008 at 2:27 pm 75USS Ben #71-
But more spending on military for anything requires bigger government. And it’s not just soldiers. It’s the technology, the intelligence gathering, the contracts, and the big old bureaucracy that supports it. Kill domestic spending completely, and we still have a massive government, just based on defense. This is why a draft will never work; it’s too fricking expensive.
“Defense is always a good investment and that’s what the govt. is supposed to do.”
I would look at some of our interventions and our numerous intelligence blunders over the decades and really question your use of “always.”
I stick by my original point. You either have a big government or you don’t. You cannot have an ambitious or aggressive foreign policy and have small government.
HARRY HERE: I’m sorry but this is nonsense:
You can’t redefine “smaller government” just to make what sounds like a point. You completely ignore the standrardc definition of “smaller government” and blithely move on as though you’ve said something intelligent, when you’ve said nothing at all.
Watching the Left debate is to engage in the sport of head-shaking. Other than outcome, nothing means anything. Facts, logic, meaning — it’s all up for grabs. Unbelievable.
Stephanieon 17 Dec 2008 at 2:32 pm 76Matt’s silly stupid comments always serve to remind me that yes Leftists are too stupid to be understood. Ben just launched him the carrier’s catapult and the fire ball screaming into space is Matt with his butt on fire.
Matt thinks the world is unsafe. Here is Matt, safely enscounced on his sofa with a bag of cheetos typing away. No one has bombed him, threatened him, made it unsafe to travel on public transport and yet here he is reality hitting him squarly in the face and he is too clueless and ridiculous to see it. I have always wondered what people from the land of DUHHHH were like. Matt is one. Now we know.
Zundfolgeon 17 Dec 2008 at 2:37 pm 77Wow, that’s amazingly convoluted, liberals are such staunch individualists that they must stamp out individualism in order to give all power of the individual to the state so the state can protect all the individuals out there so they can “do their thing”. :p
That’s not quite right. Objectivists believe that FORCED altruism is evil and wrong, but if people freely choose to give to charity then that’s fine.
Stephanieon 17 Dec 2008 at 2:38 pm 78This explains why Che could champion the ‘people’ while killing them like fruit flies.
+++++++++++++++++
That is awesome……….so awesome.
Oh and one more thing. I can argue with Rumsfeld about the way Iraq was handled at first but since the surge its been a text book example of how to get a job done. Matt and his ilk are not results oriented people. I’d bet Matt laughed at the shoe incident. Matt darlin, that shoe was thrown at you and me. All of America. Not just the President. Oh I forget your still pissed about the “stolen” 2000 election aren’t you?
Zundfolgeon 17 Dec 2008 at 2:38 pm 79They also believe those that demand and expect charity are worthless (Rand referred to them as “looters” in Atlas Shrugged)
Zundfolgeon 17 Dec 2008 at 2:41 pm 80Stephanie, I assume you’ve seen the excellent speech given by Evan Sayet to the Heritage Foundation.
He lays out that a key element of modern liberalism is that attempting to be right (as in correct, not conservative) is a form of discrimination and therefore evil.
If you haven’t seen the speech its a must see for anyone that considers themselves something other than liberal.
Zundfolgeon 17 Dec 2008 at 2:43 pm 81Just in case you haven’t seen it (or for others reading this that don’t know what I’m talking about) here it is (its 48 minutes long, but worth every minute).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
USS Benon 17 Dec 2008 at 2:47 pm 82Matt-
I concur that there’s plenty to improve on re: defense, intel, tech., etc., but our military isn’t near the size it was during WW2.
But I don’t equate a larger defense budget to big govt. nanny programs.
Big govt. nanny programs hurt people more than they help. They erode our liberties.
The military doesn’t do that.
I’m all for more efficiency, accountability, and transparency in the spending dept..
One of the reasons it is more expensive is the focus to protect our Troops, and that costs a lot of money.
But we have the technology and I think it’s worth it.
Not to mention anything that helps the Troops protect us from more terrorist attacks is worth it as well.
Most of the problems you mention don’t involve the military, per se.
It’s the bureaucracy surrounding the military and intelligence communities.
When General Patreaus and General Franks were given free reign (for the most part) we were the most successful in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We learned from most of our mistakes (and there’s always mistakes in wars).
It’s not perfect, but those guys are winning regardless. They are achieving their goals.
Nanny state programs never achieve their goals. There’s a huge difference in defense and social programs.
Stephanieon 17 Dec 2008 at 2:50 pm 83Yeah I saw it. It was an amazing speech. I never quite figured out how someone could have reality staring them in the face (no attacks since 9-11, Saddam evil butcher, Taliban buttheads helping Al Queda and victimizing millions of poor Afghans, spending money like a drunk sailor in for gov. crap bankrupting all of us) and yet they refuse to see the folly of their beliefs, the folly of what they believe is right. Its like hvaing a discussion with a religious zealot. You can’t argue with them. Matt honestly thinks Bush is a bad person. He honestly thinks leaving Saddam Hussien in Iraq would have been fine. Now Saddam breaking UN resolutions, violating the no fly zones with attacks on our jets, and basically giving us all the finger, meanwhile lining the pockets of the French and others with cash from the Oil for Food program (money MATTY dearest that should have gone to feed Iraqies not pay for Saddam’s Palaces, his mistresses and buying Dominic DeVillipain Rolls Royces) is OK. Like I said having this discussion as completley brain washed as Matt is like having a religious discussion with Mullah Omar.
Campaspeon 17 Dec 2008 at 2:50 pm 84Harry, going to the text was a lit-analysis reference, that’s all–Matt went back to the book and wasn’t arguing the author’s intent. All I meant was that I had been drawn out into discussing Dickens’ social views and Matt took it back to the book–and I don’t just believe what he said about Scrooge is correct, everything Matt said in his last two graphs is supported by specific passages in the novel. You don’t have to quote to do that, although it helps. When Matt says “the only reason he supported government solutions was because the Victorian-era government seemed a great way to kill off poor people,” he is very well supported by one of the most famous lines in the novel, which I already quoted but what the hell, that was 11,000,000 comments ago: “If If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.” Where at any point in the story does it say the original, miserly Scrooge believes he loves mankind?
I was joking but I seriously couldn’t understand why Linus was suddenly in there.
FWIW I am enjoying the debate too. Ordinarily when I try to talk about Dickens people roll their eyes and complain about their HS English teacher.
HARRY HERE: Probably because in the end, Linus is the wisest of us all.
And I think if someone were to say to Old Scrooge, “You hate people,” he’d be surprised. “What do you mean?” he’d say, “I gave Cratchit the whole day. I pay my taxes. How dare you, sir!” He doesn’t think himself a bad man. He’s rationalized his way through most of his life.
Campaspeon 17 Dec 2008 at 3:06 pm 85I don’t think he thinks of himself as a bad man–every man has his reasons, said Jean Renoir–but neither do I think Scrooge would balk at being told he hates people. Dickens says as much, when he talks of how Scrooge never speaks to anyone in the street: “But what did Scrooge care? It was the very thing he liked. To edge his way along the crowded paths of life, warning all human sympathy to keep its distance, was what the knowing ones call “nuts” to Scrooge.”
HARRY HERE: And to argue against my own point, there is a song in Albert Finney’s musical version where Scrooge sings, “I hate people…” So I may have to back off that point.
JohnLockeon 17 Dec 2008 at 3:17 pm 86I’d just like to say that arguing against modern political interpretation of an old work of art defeats the purpose of art itself, does it not? In fact, one might argue that true art does not need context, that true art must express some kind of universal truth, the meaning of which can be interpreted numerous different ways.
I once read a short story by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. entitled Harrison Bergeron. Now, Vonnegut was notoriously left-wing. But if you look at the story itself, independent of the author, it actually comes across as a harsh criticism of government-mandated equality. Even with the context of the author’s politics, one would be hard-pressed to read the story and then not see this as a legitimate interpretation.
Carolynon 17 Dec 2008 at 3:17 pm 87Matt’s silly stupid comments always serve to remind me that yes Leftists are too stupid to be understood. Ben just launched him the carrier’s catapult and the fire ball screaming into space is Matt with his butt on fire.
For God’s sakes, Stephanie - toot a warning whistle first so I won’t have to clean off my screen again!
Carolynon 17 Dec 2008 at 3:19 pm 88Ahhh, Harry - bless you for the compliment! It’s made my day. It’s usually me saying that about you.
Kiton 17 Dec 2008 at 3:22 pm 89My 2 cents:
Scrooge is, to a certain extent, guilted, not of making money, but treating other people like crap.
Lets look at some things he does:
(1) Throws coal at a kid (or was it a caroler)
(2) Is a jerk to his nephew, the son of his beloved sister Fan.
(3) Treats Bob Cratchit in a demeaning way. Pays him low, too low to help Tim.
(4) And when we are first introduced to him in the book, we get the idea, from Dickens’ description of him, that he was not a pleasant guy to be around.
Now, why I don’t think it is anti-capitalist is because of Fezziwig, who is used as a sort of foil to show how miserable a person Scrooge is:
Fezziwig was no doubt a successful businessman (or Scrooge wouldn’t have admired him like he did) but treated his employers kindly and with RESPECT and is also a great family man. He also greets Christmas with happiness, as a chance to rejoice with each other, holding an office party and celebrating it with his coworkers and family. He is obviously a successful (business-wise) and happy (personal) man.
Now lets look at Ebenezer Scrooge. He treats Bob Cratchit with nothing resembling respect. He treats his nephew, the closest (and maybe only) family he has, coldly, mocking the young man’s recent marriage and refusing to visit him on Christmas. Of course, we all know how he treats the Christmas season, he even lectures Bob Cratchit on the wastefulness of the season (which ties into his treatment of employees). While Ebenezer Scrooge may be financially successful, but he is a lonely, miserable jerk.
What the ghosts do is whack him on the head. The show him his maltreatment of others has consequences for them (Tiny Tim’s future death) and himself. They make him realize how big of a jerk he has been while showing that those he treats miserably (his nephew and Cratchit) still respect him. His nephew loves him because he is, well, family. Cratchit makes sure his family say a prayer for Scrooge and thank him for providing via the salary (however meager) for their food. Scrooge treats Cratchit horribly and Cratchit prays for Scrooge.
This makes Scrooge realize that his miserliness will cause sadness for a man who has not only been a good employee, but has, in fact, been a good person to him, even when he (Scrooge) didn’t deserve it.
Though Fezziwig he realizes that he has not become anything like the man he admired, in fact, he has become the exact opposite.
USS Benon 17 Dec 2008 at 3:23 pm 90Stephanie-
LOLOL! Now that’s funny!
kinlaon 17 Dec 2008 at 3:36 pm 91Miles:
Harry is kicking your childish little ass so badly you must be wearing it for a hat by now.
kinlawon 17 Dec 2008 at 3:39 pm 92Oh wow man, I guess we’re both assholes; I can’t even spell my own damn name.
DOH!
Stephanieon 17 Dec 2008 at 4:01 pm 93Here is a Christmas Carol for Archer, Matt etc….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wskT6YfVB6E
Now this is a Christmas Carol…..
Jake Was Hereon 17 Dec 2008 at 4:17 pm 94Locke: I once read a short story by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. entitled “Harrison Bergeron”. Now, Vonnegut was notoriously left-wing. But if you look at the story itself, independent of the author, it actually comes across as a harsh criticism of government-mandated equality. Even with the context of the author’s politics, one would be hard-pressed to read the story and then not see this as a legitimate interpretation.
From what I understand, though, the story itself is left-wing; it’s almost a parody of the Randian-Bircher schools of thought (schools which Vonnegut would have unhesitatingly lumped together), saying basically: “THIS IS WHAT THE RIGHT WING THINKS WE’RE GOING TO DO TO THE COUNTRY”.
And as much as I hate to defend Vonnegut, I’m not a fan of the death-of-the-author theory (to be perfectly blunt, I find postmodernism repulsive in all its forms); where we can be reasonably certain of the author’s actual intentions, we ought to take them into consideration. This idea, which suggests to me that the creator of a work has no right to explain what he means, seems profoundly disrespectful to the individual artist. I’m writing a few books myself, and I don’t want some intellectual prick going over my work and trying to pull something out of it that I didn’t put in.
Stephanieon 17 Dec 2008 at 4:26 pm 95And as much as I hate to defend Vonnegut, I’m not a fan of the death-of-the-author theory (to be perfectly blunt, I find postmodernism repulsive in all its forms); where we can be reasonably certain of the author’s actual intentions, we ought to take them into consideration. This idea, which suggests to me that the creator of a work has no right to explain what he means, seems profoundly disrespectful to the individual artist. I’m writing a few books myself, and I don’t want some intellectual prick going over my work and trying to pull something out of it that I didn’t put in.
________________________________________
I tend to agree with you. Reason is this: I have sat a lot of times in English Lit classes while Proffs and “students” sat around trying to make a poem written in 1795 relevant to today’s ideals. What did Byron really mean? He meant what he meant: She walks in beauty as the night…I mean really what else could he have possibly added in subtext to that first line?
Or Keats Ode to a Grecian Urn. You sit listening thinking, look you crack smoking dork, the guy saw this ancient artifact and was MOVED to write about the figures he saw frozen forever in time. Thats all it means.
Some authors, like Shakespear can span centuries because Politics never really do change. Also, Homer and Virgil last forever, as the ideals between what is Roman virtue (as strangly portrayed by Homer in his Prince Hector and Anneas as portrayed by Virgil) and what is Greek (Homer’s selfish, rather naricissistic Achilles) is starkly drawn. And its a difference one can see in today’s cultures. There are authors who because of subject manner have crossed time barriers. What they wrote then matters as much now or more so.
But I gotta say when I write something for a character I created, I don’t want some dreadlock wearing neophyte man hating woman’s studies idiot going on about how the character is really gay or something. No, he isn’t. No she isn’t. Get it? The problem is people taping their world views on writing that doesn’t share it.
Helenon 17 Dec 2008 at 4:53 pm 96The truth is, as George Orwell realized in his excellent essay on Dickens, is that the man was a great novelist but had no understanding of anything economic or, for that matter, political. He had no clear perception that people had to do those things that he despised so much: work, create wealth, run the legal system, go into the army, even into politics. The aim for all Dickens’s heroes is to inherit or marry money and then do nothing. The one exception is David Copperfield, largely an autobiographical sketch. While he was horrified by the fact that a nice middle-class boy like David has to do menial work, and he wanted people to be nice to each other, he was not terribly impressed by those who tried to better themselves, whether it is the oleaginous Uriah Heep or the tragic Bradley Headstone we are talking about. So really there is no point in discussing Dickens’s economic or political ideas. They were mostly rather silly and often based on erroneous information. Just sit back and enjoy the novels, though I am not sure “Christmas Carol” deserves quite so many film versions.
Kiton 17 Dec 2008 at 5:36 pm 97“I’m writing a few books myself, and I don’t want some intellectual prick going over my work and trying to pull something out of it that I didn’t put in.”
Someone should have told that to Sigmund Freud before he cursed HAMLET.
J.R.on 17 Dec 2008 at 5:40 pm 98I’m late to the battle, but I see that two commenters have already nailed this one. Kit @ 89 correctly and eloquently points out that the much-loved Fezziwig is portrayed as a successful businessman and a nice guy. Splash @ 4 notes that the reformed Scrooge becomes a hero by simply going back to being a businessman and treating people better. And, although I remember this from the movies and am not sure if it was in the book, the other rich guys at the club hated Scrooge because he was such a cheapskate and a jerk, even though they acknowledged his success in business. Scrooge remains my favorite story ever about redemption and the concept that it is never too late to make yourself a better person. But it isn’t an anti-success or anti-business screed in any way.
miles archeron 17 Dec 2008 at 5:41 pm 99Helen, uhm, perhaps you’re thinking of some other author. I’d suggest Great Expectations touches upon the theme of ‘bettering yourself’, and in truth, A Tale of Two Cities presents two characters who sorta grapple with ‘politics’, not to mention the ultimate sacrifice (Carton for Darnay).
Then there’s Nicholas Nickleby who was well familiar with the importance of work, and…
Oh, never mind. You’re probably better off with Orwell.
Jake Was Hereon 17 Dec 2008 at 5:43 pm 100Kit: Yeah, you see what I mean? That play’s been ruined for generations of college students because Sigmund had to stick his cigar into it. They can’t see it as “just” a play anymore — Hamlet has to be about Shakespeare’s father issues, Alice in Wonderland has to be about Lewis Carroll’s drug use and latent ephebophilia, Hemingway’s best stories have to be about repressed homosexuality, and Dickens’ novels are only valuable for their musings on economics.
Nobody reads anything for the f__king STORY anymore.
JohnLockeon 17 Dec 2008 at 5:45 pm 101From what I understand, though, the story itself is left-wing; it’s almost a parody of the Randian-Bircher schools of thought (schools which Vonnegut would have unhesitatingly lumped together), saying basically: “THIS IS WHAT THE RIGHT WING THINKS WE’RE GOING TO DO TO THE COUNTRY”.
I had never thought of it that way, although I’d never heard it interpreted that way, either. If that was his intent, I don’t recall it being at all evident in the story itself. That’s kind of what I’m getting at: perhaps he did intend it that way, but from the actually work, different people can glean different messages.
And as much as I hate to defend Vonnegut, I’m not a fan of the death-of-the-author theory (to be perfectly blunt, I find postmodernism repulsive in all its forms); where we can be reasonably certain of the author’s actual intentions, we ought to take them into consideration.
That wasn’t what I meant. I certainly believe that context and the author’s intent should be taken into great account from a literary perspective. But in an artistic sense, I think people can interpret and understand the work itself in different ways. Now of course, there’s a difference between perspective and absurdity; if someone were to say that the kids in Red Dawn are Iraqi insurgents, I wouldn’t call that a fair application of the film’s themes to modern politics. I’m just saying that even if Dickens was a supporter of government intervention on behalf of the poor, Harry can still sensibly interpret the themes of A Christmas Carol as conservative.
Carolynon 17 Dec 2008 at 6:16 pm 102People, I recommend “The Rape of the Masters” by Roger Kimball on ‘how political correctness sabotages Art’.
miles archeron 17 Dec 2008 at 6:18 pm 103By the way, I’m being unfair to Orwell, who was a great admirer of Dickens. His point was that it was a mistake to view him as a political or revolutionary writer, but rather a moralist. He also felt that no one wrote better about childhood.
And I can tell you exactly what Orwell would have thought of a sentence like this:
The aim for all Dickens’s heroes is to inherit or marry money and then do nothing.
The referenced essay is a good read, btw. And worth a look if only to see how it was misrepresented here.
http://www.orwell.ru/library/reviews/dickens/english/e_chd
Stosh from da Stickson 17 Dec 2008 at 6:45 pm 104Haven’t read all 100+ posts (but I will!), so pardon me if I’m being repetitive.
The skinny on political philosophy (stated in more words previously): liberals are generous with other people’s money, conservatives are not. That makes Scrooge a conservative. It’s easy to be generous with other’s peoples’ dough, yet for all his faults, Scrooge never sinks to that.
What one does with one’s own money doesn’t determine conservative or liberal - but in my mind, a *good* conservative is generous with his own money. Which means Scrooge starts off as a conservative, and ends up as a *good* conservative. And in the process, ends up happy as well (note that almost all surveys rate right-wingers happier than lefties).
I could easily live in a society of all Scrooges - some pre-conversion, some post. At least they’d leave me the hell alone. Not so libs.
And a final note on Ayn Rand, apparently the instigator of this thread. I once dated a woman who had me read “Atlas Shrugged” (I don’t do a thousand plus pages of sermonizing for just anybody).
I was impressed with how starkly she pointed out the problems with liberal statism, but was largely unimpressed otherwise - the one-dimensional characters (and one dimension is probably stretching it), the wooden dialogue, the interminable sermons, the totally unrealistic view of romance, etc., etc.
But what struck me the most was the absence of children in the book. (They actually kind of show up twice - at the beginning, with a youthful Dagny whoever-the-hell-she-was, Rand’s alter ego - who really isn’t a child at all, just an adult Ayn Rand personality in a child’s body, and near the middle, when a child makes a cameo in the hidden utopia in the Colorado mountains).
But the reason is obvious - children are an insult to the Ayn Rand mindset - raising those darn critters, especially raising them right - is almost pure altruism. Can’t have any of that!
The funny thing is, after reading Rand, I was intrigued by her, and read up on her a bit. One article (I believe it was by Terry Teachout) stated that she was brought to this country by a couple of not-really-close relatives - in an act of essentially pure altruism.
Go figure.
miles archeron 17 Dec 2008 at 6:55 pm 105Yeah, about that ‘conservatives are happier than liberals’ study. Here’s a bit from a science digest:
Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities.
Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found. Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person’s tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.
What price happiness, I guess.
Stosh from da Stickson 17 Dec 2008 at 7:03 pm 106archer:
“Conservatives are happier than liberal-leaners” - that’s a fact, acknowledged (you admit) by both sides.
Conservatives are happier because they rationalize social and economic inequalities - that’s somebody’s opinion, presumably yours as well.
Like any opinion, one is welcome to whichever ones make them feel good.
But it is curious that those who presumably “rationalize away social inequalities” are generally more generous with their goods than those libs who are supposedly so bloody concerned about that stuff (see the data on charitable giving by the big O and Biden, as well as related data, at the top of this thread).
Ginaon 17 Dec 2008 at 7:52 pm 107To each his own rationalization, Miles. I’ve seen an awful lot of liberals try very hard to rationalize sticking scissors in the back of a baby’s head and vacuuming its brain out.
You were saying something about inequalities . . . ?
Zundfolgeon 17 Dec 2008 at 8:02 pm 108Conservatives are better at acknowledging and adapting to things as they really are … liberals are unable to reconcile reality with their own unrealistic and emotion driven ideas about how things should be.
Doesn’t sound like much of a price to me … we [conservatives] get to be happier AND better attuned to reality instead of having to live in a fantasy world that always falls short.
Ginaon 17 Dec 2008 at 8:10 pm 109“The aim for all Dickens’s heroes is to inherit or marry money and then do nothing.”
Which one? Sydney Carton? He’s the LAST person to try to marry or inherit money. Charles Darnay? He left his rich family and worked for a living. Arthur Clennam? He won’t marry Amy until she reveals she has no money! Pip? That’s what he wants originally, but he ends up with a steady job instead. Nicholas Nickleby? He won’t even try to get his dead uncle’s money. Stephen Blackpool? All he wants in the way of money is to try to earn enough to keep himself alive. Richard Carstone? He’s destroyed by his attempts to inherit money.
No offense, Helen, but you may need to brush up on your Dickens. You’re starting to sound like Mr. Bounderby.
Ginaon 17 Dec 2008 at 8:14 pm 110Testing.
Ginaon 17 Dec 2008 at 8:16 pm 111The site is starting to eat my comments. Weird. I was trying to refute Helen’s comment about Dickens heroes, but it won’t go through. Well, I’ll try it tomorrow.
Helenon 18 Dec 2008 at 3:59 am 112Miles Archer,
In Great Expectations the bettering of yourself comes to a very sticky end as you might recall. Nicholas Nickleby works because his father had left the family impoverished. It is not something he wants to do and he has no career. As soon as he manages to marry money he abandons work and settles down to do nothing and breed a large family. They will probably run through the money as well. Have a look at the end of the book. Sydney Carton is hardly an example to anybody as he is a complete failure as a lawyer and his life acquires meaning in his self-sacrifice. (That is an answer to Gina as well.) The point is that none of the heroes see work as an aim or an end - it is something that has to be done in order to achieve that great aim, a house in the country and a large family. The nicest people are basically rentiers. Let’s not forget Hard Times - a blast against all wealth creation.
Campaspeon 18 Dec 2008 at 4:53 am 113“Let’s not forget Hard Times - a blast against all wealth creation.”
That’s what you got out of Hard Times? Gina’s Bounderby comparison begins to seem apt.
Ginaon 18 Dec 2008 at 5:50 am 114Ah, it finally went through. Helen, I’m not at all clear on what you mean by “bettering yourself.” For one thing, you seem to be claiming, as far as I can make out, that Dickens is both for it and against it.
Also, you ignored the majority of my examples, many of which show that Dickens appeared to believe that settling down to a steady job as a far better option than grasping after the life of a “gentleman,” to use Pip’s term.
Matton 18 Dec 2008 at 6:59 am 115Ben-
“…I don’t equate a larger defense budget to big govt. nanny programs.”
Big govt. nanny programs hurt people more than they help. They erode our liberties.
The military doesn’t do that.
I’m all for more efficiency, accountability, and transparency in the spending dept..
One of the reasons it is more expensive is the focus to protect our Troops, and that costs a lot of money.
But we have the technology and I think it’s worth it.
Not to mention anything that helps the Troops protect us from more terrorist attacks is worth it as well.
Most of the problems you mention don’t involve the military, per se.
It’s the bureaucracy surrounding the military and intelligence communities.
When General Patreaus and General Franks were given free reign (for the most part) we were the most successful in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We learned from most of our mistakes (and there’s always mistakes in wars).
It’s not perfect, but those guys are winning regardless. They are achieving their goals.
Nanny state programs never achieve their goals. There’s a huge difference in defense and social programs.
Matton 18 Dec 2008 at 7:12 am 116Ben-
“…I don’t equate a larger defense budget to big govt. nanny programs.”
Neither do I. But big government is big government. Again, my point is that if you give government an inch, it’ll take a mile and it’s exceedingly difficult to take that ground back. If we cut our defense and put all that spare change into domenstic programs, we would still have big government.
“Big govt. nanny programs hurt people more than they help. They erode our liberties. The military doesn’t do that.”
A large and aggressive foreign policy doesn’t erode liberties at home? Tell that to dissidents in WWI; Japanese-Americans in WWII; or American enemy combatants in the War on Terror. Now, I am by no means a peacenik, but when a $700 billion/year defense industry fails to thwart 19 men with box cutters, why is the solution more money and more government? As for hurting people more than helping them, we’ve had a presence in the Middle East for decades with no sign of any progress.
“I’m all for more efficiency, accountability, and transparency in the spending dept.”
Great, but we’re not getting it. Where was this in evidence after 9/11? Where was this in the aftermath of Iraq?
“One of the reasons it is more expensive is the focus to protect our Troops, and that costs a lot of money.
But we have the technology and I think it’s worth it.”
I totally agree, and think it’s worth it.
“Most of the problems you mention don’t involve the military, per se. It’s the bureaucracy surrounding the military and intelligence communities.”
Exactly. Big government. And all those bureaucrats have to do if thei purse is threatened is invoke “the troops,” and the people will fall over themselves to continue handing over a blank check, instead of demanding reform.
Zsuzsaon 18 Dec 2008 at 7:38 am 117I have to disagree with Jake and Stephanie on whether or not we should consider author intent. I too tend to get annoyed by people reading a bunch of stuff into a work that isn’t there, but what is there is often not exactly what the author intended.
Harrison Bergeron is a good example. Yes, Vonnegut intended it as a parody of what we kooky right-wingers thought was going to happen, but it actually gives some insight into how bad things would be in our imaginary distopia, and every now and then something happens to make me think that we are drifting in that direction.
The most conservative book I ever read was Windhaven, a book written by a man I know is not only a liberal, but a radical leftist. I’m sure he didn’t mean a conservative message, but it is in the story none the less.
So in short, Christmas Carol can be conservative whether Dickens meant for it to be or not. A good author creates truth in his works, and that truth doesn’t always have the same politics as the author did.
miles archeron 18 Dec 2008 at 7:42 am 118Stosh, brief correction.
Neither point — re conservative happiness or conservative rationalization — is opinion. Both are results gleaned from the study. You can’t have one without the other. Or at least you can’t if you choose to use the study to support your opinions.
Stosh from da Stickson 18 Dec 2008 at 8:11 am 119archer:
Nice try.
The study tells us (at least) two things, based on survey results. Conservatives are happier (in general) than libs, and conservatives are more accepting of social and economic inequalities. If you accept the study, those are facts.
The study does *not* tell us those points are related - drawing a relation between the two is an inference - an opinion - not a fact.
First rule of stats: correlation does not equal causation.
By the way, your inference is even more flawed than pointed out above, in that you seem to presume (as do most libs) that when conservatives say they accept or rationalize away inequalities, that they are accepting or rationalizing away why others have it *worse* than them.
In fact it works both ways. I don’t have much use for the political views of Warren Buffet or Steven Spielberg, but I’m quite willing to accept that they make more in a good month than I’ll make in my lifetime - they’re good at what they do and they deserve the rewards of their efforts. I just wish they didn’t have their heads up their combined *ss*s when it comes to spending it on their causes.
Most conservatives are small town everyday folks of modest means - the Sarah Palin constituency. They’re not on the high end of the social / economic inequality scale. But they don’t lose a whole lot of sleep over the fact that libs in Winnetka and the Hamptons have more than they’ll ever have a shot at either (no doubt too busy clinging to guns and religion to know any better).
Zundfolgeon 18 Dec 2008 at 9:44 am 120I would push that further.
Liberals see how conservatives are able to “accept or rationalize away inequities” (what we would refer to as acknowledging reality) as not only acceptance of or rationalization that some have it “worse” than they do, but further liberals believe Conservatives REVEL in the fact that “those damn dirty [n-word]s are living in squalor [insert evil laugh]”.
Remember, they see us as not just wrong, but evil.
The simple fact is that Liberals cannot compete with Conservatives in the arena of ideas and are thus forced to spend all their limited intellectual capital on trying to demonize Conservatives in classic ad hominum fashion.
The only reason it works is because they dominate the schools and the media.
Danon 18 Dec 2008 at 10:26 am 121I just need to chip in that A Christmas Carol/Scrooge is NOT about “self-salvation.” It is about a critical component of the Christian faith that seems to have been forgotten, even within the church: repentance.
texacaliroseon 22 Dec 2008 at 11:34 am 122Dan:
You have made a brilliant summation. The discussion is closed.
God bless you.