Zydeco
11-17-2007, 05:13 PM
Places screen for certain kinds of personality, temperament, and skill set. Miami attracts the beautiful people, San Francisco the free spirits, Las Vegas the high rollers, LA the glamorous, NY the intellectuals, and so on.
I'm generalizing, of course -- naturally you can find all types in any city, but in a broad way, a city develops its own dominant personality type which becomes self-reinforcing as it gains a reputation for that personality type -- and begins to attract more of the same, especially as our society becomes ever more mobile.
So what does DC screen for? People who love the state and want to be a part of it. People who want to "make a difference" and whose mental wiring is prone to view government as the most logical way to achieve that -- and note that the vast majority of these people are well-intentioned when they come here, especially at first. But it's in the air here -- government is this town's business, and Democrat, Republican, or other, that the federal government should be big and growing is not questioned. Sure there's a small layer of libertarians, but even they tend to absorb some affection for the state if they stick around long enough, just by osmosis. But generally, if you don't like a strong, centralized government, there are lots of other cities you can gravitate towards; DC is for big government lovers.
Which brings me to Mona Charen. This isn't even about her; there are hundreds of thousands, almost millions like her in and around Washington. She recently wrote a negative article about Ron Paul that was juvenile, factually-challenged, and overall weak -- but most of all, it betrayed fear.
Take a look at her wikipedia entry, her bio is standard for DC literati -- Barnard undergrad, law degree in DC, became a speechwriter for Nancy Reagan in her 20s and later for Jack Kemp. Wrote for National Review, then started her syndicated column a year later, now appears regularly on a couple of pundit shows.
Simply put, government is this woman's life. You can disagree with her on how the feds should spend the people's money -- big war, big welfare, big regulations, etc. -- and you can even groan a little about whether this or that program is too extravagant. But call into question the general concept that small numbers of people in Washington should control details large and small of 300 million Americans' lives -- and 6.7 billion non-Americans' lives, increasingly -- and the psychological reaction from the Mona Charen crowd is that there is something wrong with you -- something "kooky," as Charen childishly puts it in her piece. Because, after all, you are challenging the thesis of her entire career, and indeed, the careers of virtually all her friends and colleagues.
Which is what Ron Paul is doing, and why he elicits such a visceral reaction from people who have built their lives, careers, and worldview around the benevolence and morality of a large and expanding federal government.
I'm moving from DC in a couple of weeks, and I'm glad about it. Ron Paul is going to win, and the people here -- many of whom are my friends -- have a major psychological paradigm shift coming. It's going to hurt, depress, and anger them, and challenge the core of the values they've built their lives around. On a human level I feel sorry for them -- I think they're starting to sense what's coming -- but on a rational level I know it has to happen. At any rate, I'll be happier to watch these wrenching psychological consequences happen to DC bureaucrats from a comfortable distance.
It won't be pretty, and they won't go down without a fight, which will make it even uglier.
I'm generalizing, of course -- naturally you can find all types in any city, but in a broad way, a city develops its own dominant personality type which becomes self-reinforcing as it gains a reputation for that personality type -- and begins to attract more of the same, especially as our society becomes ever more mobile.
So what does DC screen for? People who love the state and want to be a part of it. People who want to "make a difference" and whose mental wiring is prone to view government as the most logical way to achieve that -- and note that the vast majority of these people are well-intentioned when they come here, especially at first. But it's in the air here -- government is this town's business, and Democrat, Republican, or other, that the federal government should be big and growing is not questioned. Sure there's a small layer of libertarians, but even they tend to absorb some affection for the state if they stick around long enough, just by osmosis. But generally, if you don't like a strong, centralized government, there are lots of other cities you can gravitate towards; DC is for big government lovers.
Which brings me to Mona Charen. This isn't even about her; there are hundreds of thousands, almost millions like her in and around Washington. She recently wrote a negative article about Ron Paul that was juvenile, factually-challenged, and overall weak -- but most of all, it betrayed fear.
Take a look at her wikipedia entry, her bio is standard for DC literati -- Barnard undergrad, law degree in DC, became a speechwriter for Nancy Reagan in her 20s and later for Jack Kemp. Wrote for National Review, then started her syndicated column a year later, now appears regularly on a couple of pundit shows.
Simply put, government is this woman's life. You can disagree with her on how the feds should spend the people's money -- big war, big welfare, big regulations, etc. -- and you can even groan a little about whether this or that program is too extravagant. But call into question the general concept that small numbers of people in Washington should control details large and small of 300 million Americans' lives -- and 6.7 billion non-Americans' lives, increasingly -- and the psychological reaction from the Mona Charen crowd is that there is something wrong with you -- something "kooky," as Charen childishly puts it in her piece. Because, after all, you are challenging the thesis of her entire career, and indeed, the careers of virtually all her friends and colleagues.
Which is what Ron Paul is doing, and why he elicits such a visceral reaction from people who have built their lives, careers, and worldview around the benevolence and morality of a large and expanding federal government.
I'm moving from DC in a couple of weeks, and I'm glad about it. Ron Paul is going to win, and the people here -- many of whom are my friends -- have a major psychological paradigm shift coming. It's going to hurt, depress, and anger them, and challenge the core of the values they've built their lives around. On a human level I feel sorry for them -- I think they're starting to sense what's coming -- but on a rational level I know it has to happen. At any rate, I'll be happier to watch these wrenching psychological consequences happen to DC bureaucrats from a comfortable distance.
It won't be pretty, and they won't go down without a fight, which will make it even uglier.