Long, pointless, linguistic/philosophical post ahead! And involving politics too, so I don't expect anybody to reply to this. But I'd appreciate it if you did, especially for anybody who wants to point out holes (or percieved holes) in my logic.
Dichotomies is the best word, but it's not the simples. But I assume you all know what it means, if not, click
here for Dictionary.com's definition. But I'll paste the relevant bit, because it gives me something to start riffing off.
di·chot·o·my Audio pronunciation of "dichotomy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-kt-m)
n. pl. di·chot·o·mies
1. Division into two usually contradictory parts or opinions: “the dichotomy of the one and the many” (Louis Auchincloss).
The other definitions aren't relevant. So a dicohotmy's two contradictory things. The most famous of course, is Tea and No Tea. Which, as any video game veteran knows, is also a false dichotomy, but that's neither here nor there.
Dichotomies show up a lot. They're seductive, and feed people's need to categorize the universe and make sense of it. In some ways, our brains seem to be set up to divide things up into categories, then we lump them together, and build our perspectives that way. And a lot of the time, it works. Even if it's not perfectly accurate, it works well enough to get by. Things like north and south, positive and negative, etc. Which aren't really dichotomies, on one level I guess. Which is kinda the point this whole thing is leading up to. Ideas are slippery things, and multifaceted, and usually can't be boiled down with any accuracy to a simplistic pair of opposites. Such as "liberal" versus "conservative". Not even including the massive bending, folding, and mutilating both words have taken lately, they encompass so many positions and ideas that they're not simple opposites. If you want better labels, you probably need new words, because both Liberal and Conservative have been so polluted. The core in that case is PROBABLY liberals = for change, conservatives = for tradition, but even that, it's more complicated.
And that's completely off what I was talking about, except as illustration. But the case I want to talk about is nice and simply false. It's, as the title says, Security versus Opportunity. There is no dichotomy. They're not opposites. In fact, most of the time, they work together. I'd say they have synergy, but that's another word that's been so polluted, especially by marketoids, that it's really hard to use well.
Okay, so who's presenting security and opportunity as opposites? Usually, Republicans. Especially George Bush right now. As part of the Assault on Social Security, they're saying that we need to make Social Security less secure (a linguistic feat) so that it allows more opportunity for people to invest.
This is, frankly, utter bollocks, as our British friends would say. They're using "opportunity" as a code for "risk". They're not the same thing. The only opportunity most people would get from Bush's Social Security "plan" is the opportunity to retire poor. People aren't going to magically become entrepreneur, or Republicans, because Social Security's a toss of the dice. They're going to take even LESS risks, really, with retirement, because they don't KNOW what might happen, and there's good chances that if the stock market went down, they'd lose it all.
But that's how the bullshit the Busies spew goes. If people are secure, it makes them "complacent" and "dependent" and morally weak, and probably communist. Or gay. And saps America's Will To Innovate. And that's why we have to destroy the dreaded Welfare State.
They have it, as usual, completely wrong. If you want people to have opportunities, and be able to take advantage of them, you need people to be secure. Most people aren't gonna risk everything they have on something. Freedom's not another word for nothing left to lose. How many people, that you directly know, are stuck in jobs they hate, but can't leave because of the benefits? Maybe fewer among us, 'cause we're young and convinced we're immortal, and also the economy sucks and most of us don't have jobs with benefits anyways. People aren't willing to quit and go start their own business, when a broken leg, or a sudden illness or something could bankrupt them. And I'm veering into health insurance now, but see, that's the thing. It's the SAME THING. Social Security gives people a minimum retirement they know they're not going to fall under, a minimum level of security. And Medicare, too. So you see more people starting business after they retire, because they have social security (and saving and investment and training from a lifetime) to fall back on.
Being more secure doesn't get rid of opportunities, except opportunities to starve on the streets. It lets you manage risk. It gives people a measure of control. If people really wanted to foster opportunity, they'd be pushing for things that give MORE security, things like national health insurance, expanded unemployment, expanded job training, etc, things that let people take opportunities, and be more likely to succeed. If people didn't have to keep their crappy job to have health insurance, more people would be doing interesting, important, valuable things that make them excited and they can put themselves into. More people would start small businesses, pursue inventions, and so on, because they could do so and NOT have to worry about going completely bankrupt and losing everything.
That's why security versus opportunity is a false dichotomy. Because security can (and should) enhance opportunity. Because without some level of security, you can't take advantage of any opportunities. And an opportunity that you can't take advantage of is nothing.
So, if you want to encourage risk-taking, the spread of opportunity, and entrepreneurship throughout the US? The best way to do that is to make people more secure, and give them the knowledge that they won't fall completely through the cracks. You think it's coincidence that the kids of the rich tend to be, y'know, rich?
Tags: Politics, Mindscribbles, Language, Economics![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
