The New Republic

Although not an Evangelical, it's difficult to not be offened on their hehalf by Kirn's arrogant slander of them as bigots, because they consider Mormonisn a non-Christian sect. Will Kirn refer to Benedict XVI & the College of Cardinals as bigots also? After all, they too reject Mormonisn as Christian, because Mormonism rejects the Nicene Creed and belief in the Holy Trinity. If indeed Kirn labels Catholics as well as Evangelicals as bigots, he must also so label the world's Christian Orothodox churches, which subscribe to both the Nicene Creed and belief in the Holy Trinity. As do most mainline Protestant churches. So who's left in Christendom whom he'd not label bigots? Who then are the real bigots--those who falsely claim to be Christian, the Mormons.

- LoachDrive

September 3, 2012 at 3:23pm

The post is eloquent, perceptive, brilliant. The best I've read at TNR in many a day. LoachDrive, let me cut the Gordian knot. All religious belief is nonsense. Christianity has been polishing and gilding for thousands of years. Mormonism is so new, all the scaffolding and stuffing is showing. The only difference between a cult and a religion is that the latter has better veneer. We're on our own. There's no dues ex machina. The sooner we take responsibilty for ourselves, the better chance we have of surviving this century. (It's not good at the moment.)

- skahn

September 4, 2012 at 12:26am

Yes, good article, but this section stumbles a bit: "When the president tried, with figurative rhetoric and multidimensional moral reasoning, to demonstrate that building a business requires a sturdy social platform, legions of linear thinkers took offense. When Romney asserted, flatly and reflexively, that “corporations are people” because, presumably, they’re composed of people, his insufficiently nuanced metaphor caused sophisticates to snicker. " Businesses have been built and have flourished long before governments tamed anything. A successful business simple requires a willing seller and willing buyer. If we didn't have roads and government, then you can be sure businesses would be selling roads and organization. While msnbc "sophisticates" might have snickered, true sophisticates understand the question of whether or not corporations were people was answered at the beginning of the 1800's and that laws since then have all bit by bit affirmed that. From the ability to sue a corporation, just as if they were a person, to allowing a corporation (whether for profit or not) to contribute to politically advocacy, it's all been fairly consistent in the minds of sophisticates. Skahn, the founding fathers weren't that religious, but they did understand the study of religion had many benefits to society, ranging from civility to honesty to diligence to generosity. All wonderful traits to cultivate, and religion provides as good a framework as any to pursue these goals. These traits are not exclusive to the US, but they are indeed present in ways in the US that aren't quite there in other places.

- seattleeng

September 4, 2012 at 3:01am

This article is charmingly written. I enjoyed both the substance and the lovely style. Cheers

- jerrol

September 4, 2012 at 7:38am

That paragraph referring to Kennedy and Nixon, it's difficult to tell whether the comparisons that are made in the paragraph are between Obama and Romney or between Kennedy and Nixon. Further complicating matters is that Obama in some ways reminds me of Kennedy and in others he reminds me of Nixon. The same is true of Romney. You can't identify the candidates without a good psychologist. Have we always had presidents and presidential candidates that needed some time in therapy?

- rayward

September 4, 2012 at 8:16am

"Businesses have been built and have flourished long before governments tamed anything." You do know that this is absolute fiction, right? From the outset of humanity, tens of thousands of years before a single business was ever built there has been government, however rudimentary. Family clans with tribal chiefs were the standard going back to our ape days. And while corporations might be composed of people, they are necessarily Americans. Mitt Romney is willing to accord equal rights to Hugo Chavez and his government run corporation Citgo to plow as much money into our election process as he wants. I ask you, why do you love tyrants so much?

- blackton

September 4, 2012 at 9:15am

they are NOT necessarily Americans. I do wish TNR had an edit button.

- blackton

September 4, 2012 at 9:15am

The trivialization of the election continues. Mitt likes red ties, BHO likes blue. Mitt parts his hair on the right, BHO parts...wait he doesn't part it at all! Yes, there are differences of style, background and personality...so what? In spite of the blithering pundits and confused electorate, the significance of this election is policy. The profound difference is ideology. Another cute article for Parade magazine. I'm still waiting for the debut of TNR's style section.

- Vogelfam

September 4, 2012 at 9:55am

Agree with above comments re: excellent and insightful piece of writing. On "corporate personhood", it's been recognized by the courts since at least 1819 (see "Dartmouth v Woodward of that year; also "Santa Clara v Southern Pacific Railroad" of 1886; "Pembina Consolodated Silver Mining Co v Pennsylvania of 1888). The doctrine has been reaffirmed many times since. So, Romney was simply correct, not "insufficiently nuanced". The Fourteeth Amendment guarantees such "people" the right of free speech, especially political speech. It does NOT guarantee them anonymity as current Republicans wish. It used to be standard conservative logic that "campaign finance reform" was always unconstitutional, but that fully transparent disclosure was the answer to problems with that. To his credit, Justice Scalia has made this point in a number of recent (i.e. post "Citizen's United") interviews.

- Robert Powell

September 4, 2012 at 9:56am

Blackton writes: "You do know that this is absolute fiction, right? From the outset of humanity, tens of thousands of years before a single business was ever built there has been government, however rudimentary. Family clans with tribal chiefs were the standard going back to our ape days." Blackton, government has indeed always been around, but it was an entity that you might have contact with once per year, not daily. And so, yes, while we had a government the in early days of the US, for example, those pushing westward never saw it, and never used it. Instead they dealt the their neighbors, buying and selling whatever they wished. You can argue government had a big impact here, but in reality the population was so sparse and oversight so lax they just did whatever they wished. Businesses need very little from government to thrive. Primarily they need safety in the form of force, to ensure the order. That dems keep digging on the his ridiculous assertion from the president is laughable.

- seattleeng

September 4, 2012 at 11:17am

Blackton writes: " Mitt Romney is willing to accord equal rights to Hugo Chavez and his government run corporation Citgo to plow as much money into our election process as he wants. I ask you, why do you love tyrants so much?" It's not because I like the tyrants. It's because I understand it's hard to separate the tyrants from the legitimate actors. You do understand that without Citizens United affirmation, shows such as the Daily Show (and Maddow, and Hannity) would be corporate political speech, and thus not permitted. You do understand that Planned Parenthood funded political ads would also be corporate political speech and thus not permitted. You do understand that Union ads would be political speech and thus not permitted. These are all important voices in the debate. Be happy they were preserved. The downside is that GE, for example, can donate money to the din. But how do you separate a GE telling you how to vote from the Viacom telling you how to vote via the Daily Show? You cannot. Thus, either they all stay, or they all go.

- seattleeng

September 4, 2012 at 11:25am

Seattle: "If we didn't have roads and government, then you can be sure businesses would be selling roads and organization. " Who will buy these wonderous, and very expensive roads, and with what wealth? Do you have some examples of when this has occurred anywhere on more than the most trivial scale? Or has the government managed to take the monopoly on this throughout recorded history, with all of the variations on economic models therein?

- Nari224

September 4, 2012 at 11:53am

Ditto to the "excellent piece" comments. I never thought of the face-off between Obama and Romney in these terms before. Now I see Romney as a horse with blinders on--as linear as one can get. I didn't like the quoting of Peggy Noonan, though. She's the biggest windbag in the media. Her artificial, self-important delivery style on TV is so grating that I don't even hear what she's saying. Not that I miss anything substantial. seattle, If government is so intrusive and oppressive, why might one have contact with it only once a year? And America is not the Wild West anymore, where business was done without a lot of government involvement (it still needed lawmen to keep outlaws from robbing and/or burning down businesses). In America today, without getting huge sweetheart deals and uncounted billions of free taxpayer subsidy money and low-interest government loans and government bailouts, business would collapse literally overnight. What we have in America today is massive corporate welfare. I support it, if not taken too far (which it always is, given human nature). I want business to thrive and produce employees who pay taxes. But right now, the business community in America wants corporate welfare without having to create jobs. They're like the very welfare "bums" that the Republican base despises.

- magboy47.

September 4, 2012 at 12:14pm

Magboy, your last graf is the proof you seek. You acknowledge that many businesses (and fortunes) were made without a lot of government involvement, and that the government involvement was primarily that of ensuring safety during our westward expansion. Which is exactly what I have argued. What was particularly unique about that time? Nothing. The country flourished with very minimum intervention from the government. At this time (1900), the government (all up: fed, state, local) was about 6% of GDP. Post WWII how much of a role did the government play? The world (except for the US) was in ruins and demand kept our factories running 24x7 to rebuild their cities. The government had no idea where anyone lived. They kept minimal information because it was all on paper. They just decided where to buidl roads, and paid private companies to build the roads. At this time, the government (fed state local) was about 22% of GDP. Fast forward to today, where we're north of 40% of GDP. And the government has evolved to the point they tell us a big coke is not OK, but a fat joint is. They know everything about our health history. And they see my life as really a joint partnership with them on my life journey. Now, do you think 40% is where this stops? Not a chance. At what % do you think "oh man, this is getting a bit too big..." or is that figure 100%???

- seattleeng

September 4, 2012 at 1:00pm

But magboy, what if the "lawmen" were the outlaws, robbing and burning with the cover of "government"? Believe me, this is a wide-spread phenom. Granted the Wild West is a tricky analogy, but I've described a well-documented contempory global reality. And with respect you overstate the extent to which corporate interest depends upon, rather than just promiscuously harvests, government welfare.

- Robert Powell

September 4, 2012 at 1:01pm

seattle-- I think your 40% of GDP is off by about 15%. Disturbing trend line though. We can fix this without wrecking the economy if we reach some basic agreements that combine sensible revenue increases with tax and entitlements reforms, a cut-back in our frankly neurotic security fetish at home and abroad, and a serious attempt to build on the ACA to bend the curve on medical costs. Platitudes about Rugged Individualism should not be confused with an ideology. It's more like a kind of blind faith, and it won't pass the pragmatism test.

- Robert Powell

September 4, 2012 at 1:16pm

Only Vogel gets it.

- drofnats1

September 4, 2012 at 1:19pm

Seriously? I read the article, then read the comments. The comments did not appear to me to be talking about the same article, so I read it again. Still confused. Half-way through the article, I read the byline to make sure it was not Wieseltier. Check. Then scrolled down to figure out whether the author was a psych assistant prof, or theatre coach, at an Upstate NY liberal arts college - not clear, but that would be my bet. In each paragraph, I can pick out a line or two that is not just wrong - we are all wrong at some point or another - but simply daft. The article manages to be both reductive - the contest is not about two men and their parents, but about at least two massive social and political trends - and overy analytical - there is nothing "precise" about Romney's flip-flops: they are dictated by two overriding and inherently imprecise considerations, the Republican Party's incoherence about Guvmint and whatever it is that Obama does. And so on. Even the comment on the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage is off. And then you hit this sentence, and you think whether the author himself has any clue about law, politics or basic economics: "His base has marked euphoric tendencies and a proven tolerance for paradox. The idea of 'soft power' makes sense to them, as does the notion that going into debt can sometimes help lift a sinking economy." Er. Duh. Yet again I am reminded of the great Montoya, "I do not think that word [paradox] means what you think it means." Just on the debt issue, what Kirn finds "paradoxical" is the very essence of sound management, either of business or government: debt, private and public, has existed since at least Hammurabi wrote laws regulating them, and they exist not only for successful businesses or economies, but for struggling ones. I don't get it.

- icarus-r

September 4, 2012 at 1:59pm

Seattle "Businesses have been built and have flourished long before governments tamed anything. A successful business simple requires a willing seller and willing buyer." You know, on another thread people are discussing whether Clint's speech was a parody or Performance Art or something along those lines. I read your stuff, and I wonder the same. Honestly - not even an engineer could write those two sentences with a straight face. Or, write them and expect anything other than derision and shaming in anything more literate than a circle of semi-sentient apes. But, I will indulge you. I will give you one example in an area that I am very familiar with, commercial arbitartio,n that should, in principle, end your persistent silliness on the "business don't need no stinkin' guvmint none" line of, ugh, "analysis." In some ways, commercial arbitration is a libertarian's wet dream. Each side hires "judges" that are supposed to be good and, naturally, predisposed to the selecting side. Then they jointly select the third one, a chair, who is supposed to be more or less indepedent. The judges all get paid very well, and by the hour. They love procedural motions because it just increases their fees. They are restricted to the matter referred to them by the parties, and only the law stipulated by the parties. Ooops, did I say law, that pesky little "government" thing? Sorry about that - but just wanted to say that it is not the state, the government, that takes jurisdiction, but the parties. They decide which set of rules applies to them. In most cases, arbitration awards are final - not subject to further "government" interference. And of course considerations such as fairness, equity and other silly things like that are not allowed into the discussion. Would that guvmint courts were like that, eh? Well, arbirtation can take place anywhere. There is no reason, in principle, why they would not take place in the Bahamas or Barbados or Tahiti, with the judges and the lawyers drinking piña coladas and efficiently disposing of the matter before them. There are three wrinkles, however, to this libertarian dream. The first one is, guess what, need for supervision; and the second, gues what, enforcement. Looks like even when given wide latitude to do what they want, business actually like "government" involvement in the process. First, they select jurisdictions where there is a highly developed commercial court system that understands commercial arbitration: to supervise process but not be too interfering. And second, they go for jurisdictions where neither supervision nor enforcement is susceptible to private sector influence, that is, bribery. And finally, the "law" they choose to apply in every instance, is not just the most lawless or the most beneficial to private business, but rather, the most developed. Business, it would seem, in their day to day operation, in writing contracts and arbitration clauses, have internalised the most basic rules of Rawls' veil of ignorance: you don't want too much interference, but a sounds regulatory environment is essential for proper business conduct. As for the historical illiteracy of your point - only to say that our very notion of civilised community and settled civilisation comes not from the time Og and Mog traded a side of Wildebeeste in 1 million BC. It is when in the Nile and Euphrates valleys, a centralised authority imposed irrigation rules on unruly "businesses".

- icarus-r

September 4, 2012 at 2:23pm

All well and good icarus. But they only did the irrigation rules because you can't effectively hunt and gather while making beer and wine.

- Robert Powell

September 4, 2012 at 2:31pm

"And with respect you overstate the extent to which corporate interest depends upon, rather than just promiscuously harvests, government welfare." Robert Powell, I was looking at the big picture and assuming that all businesses in America would be getting out of bed with government completely and abruptly--not a realistic scenario. But if that were ever the case, business would, indeed, collapse overnight, all of it. And then something would happen that would be inevitable. The businesses with the most resources left would begin eating other businesses as fast as Pac-Man, and monopolies would mushroom up all over the place. Soon there might be a single, monopoly-eating business left, OneCo, and that would be the end of competition. And OneCo would use its own private army to try to keep control of its slave-employees. It's been done on a local level in the U.S. before, e.g., in the coal mines and in the auto factories. The end result of removing or even weakening government regulations substantially is not a free-market economy, but monopoly and slave labor. And there are examples of that world-wide, throughout history. You're right about the "lawmen" in the Wild West. Sometimes citizens didn't know which side the sheriff or the marshal was on, that of the citizens or the outlaws, until the shooting started. The Earp brothers are probably the best known example of that, but there are many others.

- magboy47.

September 4, 2012 at 3:39pm

I dunno. Doesn't this essay miss the point of the election in the same or at least a similar way to the kinds of "theater" criticism highlighted in the first paragraph? The difference between Kirn's take and those of Brooks and Noonan is one of quality, not of kind, rather like the difference between a movie review in USA Today and a critical essay in New York Review of Books. I mean to say, this sort of writing certainly has its place and its value. Norman Mailer made true art out this kind of novelistic, impressionistic political nonfiction--see Armies of the Night--but at this stage of such a crucial election, I'm not sure how useful it is to understand it in terms of Jungian archetypes. David Brooks and Peggy Noonan are both GOP stooges who characterize the campaign as "boring" for the practical reason that it is in the Republicans' interest for the public to lose interest in the election and fail to turn out to vote, and while Kirn's piece has neither that intention nor that effect, I worry that it does tend to obscure what is practically at stake in this vote and why every American aged 18 or older should get down to the polls in November come hell or high water.

- AaronW

September 4, 2012 at 3:43pm

I think it can't hurt, Aaron. In the end anything that broadens the discussion tends to enhance turnout, which I agree is crucial. Also share your respect for "Armies of the Night". Along with "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail", it's priceless history now. magboy--seems a tad apocalyptic to me. But you're dead on about the tendency towards monopoly. It's a little-known fact, but Hayek was just as hard on "private" monopolies as government ones. That they tend to go together is one of his most salient points.

- Robert Powell

September 4, 2012 at 4:11pm

I wonder where Kirn finds Mitt Romney's "overdeveloped sense of duty" hiding out.

- ironyroad

September 4, 2012 at 4:12pm

"The trivialization of the election continues. Mitt likes red ties, BHO likes blue. Mitt parts his hair on the right, BHO parts...wait he doesn't part it at all! Yes, there are differences of style, background and personality...so what? In spite of the blithering pundits and confused electorate, the significance of this election is policy. The profound difference is ideology. Another cute article for Parade magazine. I'm still waiting for the debut of TNR's style section." Vogel, A very perceptive comment, but in the end it's wishful thinking. Policy is not made by computers (thank God), and you can't separate human personality from policy. And, since I want Obama to get re-elected, I'm happy about that. He's winning the likability race in this election by a good margin. The fact that personality can be a big factor in an election is not the way it should be; it's just the way it is. Public policy comes out of the personalities who propose and make the policy. If that weren't so, Romney might strongly support business one minute and government the next. I'd rather have personalities make policy than computers. It wouldn't be much fun criticizing the policies of a computer in a TNR thread. Personality and even physical appearance can be strong factors in an election, especially a presidential one. In the early Sixties I asked my mother why she voted for JFK. "I like his hair," she said. My mother, God bless her, was more of a typical voter than we like to admit.

- magboy47.

September 4, 2012 at 4:12pm

I don't see a clash of archetypes. I see the Romney bogus idea that if you cut top rates or cut capital gains rates, investors will create jobs as opposed to taking their tax savings overseas (where labor markets are cheaper) or just trade money with other investors in the stock market. Low taxed Capital gains makes small business (with a top rate of 35%) less attractive than the stock market top rate of 15%. When Reagan got rid of the capital gains in 1986, job growth went up. When Clinton reinstated it in 1997, job growth went down. After Bush tied cap gains to 15%, job growth was anemic. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

- Nusholtz

September 4, 2012 at 4:25pm

RP writes: "seattle--I think your 40% of GDP is off by about 15%. Disturbing trend line though. We can fix this without wrecking the economy if we reach some basic agreements that combine sensible revenue increases with tax and entitlements reforms, a cut-back in our frankly neurotic security fetish at home and abroad, and a serious attempt to build on the ACA to bend the curve on medical costs. Platitudes about Rugged Individualism should not be confused with an ideology. It's more like a kind of blind faith, and it won't pass the pragmatism test." RP, this figure is correct...remember it is federal, state and local. Our federal alone right now is ~25% which I think is what you are thinking about. See usgovernmentspending.com/total and you'll see we're at $3.8T federal, $1.4T state, and $1.7T, with -0.6T intergovernmental. That is $6.3T all up. Agree with your todo list. Icarus writes: "But, I will indulge you. I will give you one example in an area that I am very familiar with, commercial arbitartio,n that should, in principle, end your persistent silliness on the "business don't need no stinkin' guvmint none" line of, ugh, "analysis."" You confuse me with someone else. I've not said we don't need any government. I've stated that this fantasy that everything wonderful would never have happened without the government is just that: a fantasy. The government provides a very valid service in infrastructure, regulation, safety and standards. But they set the bare minimums. It is industry that decides they will surpass these minimums in the interest of serving their customers. I made this point the other day when I noted that most car companies are shipping cars that have far less emissions that required by government. In some cases just 15 or 20%. Why? Why does a private company ship a car that has just 80% less pollutant that the government allows? Why are food safety standards from Big Companies much higher than what the government requires? Why do we have bottled water safety limits that far exceed government standards? Why do cars not just meet safety standards, but they exceed them by leaps and bounds in every category possible? And why does Boeing build airplanes that exceed federal standards? Because they are meeting customer demand. We'd have safe cars, safe water, safe food without any threat from the government. The government is there to ensure the sleaziest water bottler follows the rule. But nobody really buys water from the sleazy bottlers, do they? The government is there to ensure the crappiest car can survive a crash. But nobody really buys the crappy cars. Ergo, the role of government as an enforcer and/or enabler for all that is good is laughable. Yes, their role is valid, but it's very, very small. And certainly doesn't warrant eternal expansion as some here dream about.

- seattleeng

September 4, 2012 at 7:42pm

Seattle, I have not seen anywhere in the comments above the assertion that "government [is] an enforcer and/or enabler for all that is good". Your comment is a pretty good example of what is called setting up a straw man. I do, however, remember that when the federal government first mandated seat belts in cars (which were, from a safety standpoint pretty crappy back then, what with chest-puncturing cones facing the driver from the center of the steering wheel, & hard, all metal dashboards, for instance), the unanimous howl from the American auto industry was that such a mandate would result in profit-killing price increases, & hurt sales. Pretty soon, when it sank in that all manufacturers would be facing the same "penalty", the car makers adapted, & business carried on just fine, with as much profit as ever. You do make a good point that manufacturers sometimes exceed the bare government minimum in safety & health standards. This is because once the government-mandated minimum has been established, the manufacturers see that they can use a higher, more enhanced level as a selling point. Good for them, & good for us, the consumers. But that initial standard is often fierecely resisted, as it is seen as an imposition that forces manufacturers outside their comfort zone.

- Haole45

September 4, 2012 at 8:25pm

President Obama threw his support behind a controversial proposal to build an Islamic center and mosque near New York's ground zero, saying Friday that "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country." CNN 8/14/10 Leaders of the Roman Catholic Church were up in arms last fall over a proposal to require employers to provide health insurance that covered birth control. But caving in to the church’s demands for a broad exemption in the name of religious liberty would pit the president against a crucial constituency, women’s groups, who saw the coverage as basic preventive care. NYT 9/1/12 It's obvious by now. The President will support the Muslims in what ever they want and will oppose the Catholics in every way. I tried to tell TNR and it's readers that election day was coming and that these decisions would doom the President. There are less than 80 days and they are desperate. If I was in the administration I would update my resume.

- CRS9TNR

September 4, 2012 at 10:33pm

Haole writes: "Seattle, I have not seen anywhere in the comments above the assertion that "government [is] an enforcer and/or enabler for all that is good". Haole, buddy, you need to get out a bit more. The meme that the government is protecting kids from evil corporations is as old as sand. Below is Pelosi telling the press that if republicans had their way in shrinking the government, kids would die from dirty air and water and ecoli. Are you telling me that Pelosi does not view the government as the only thing standing between your kids safety and Big Corp Inc? This is no straw man. Many here have stated similar: If we shrink government, very bad things will happen. People will get sick. People will die. Big corps will screw them. And I ask you: Why do Big Corps already make endless products that exceed government regulations? Why do they do this when they don't have to? Pelosi's words in August: "I say to them: Do you have children who breathe the air? Do you have grandchildren who drink water? I'm a mom, I have five kids," continued Pelosi, who now has several grandkids. "As a mom, I was vigilant about food safety, right moms? If you could depend on the government for one thing, it was that you had to trust the water that they drank and the food they ate. But this is the E. coli club. They do not want to spend money to do that," said Pelosi.

- seattleeng

September 4, 2012 at 11:33pm

OK seattle, I'll accept your figure, and your concern about its size and trajectory. But with all due respect I direct your attention to the fact that the post under discussion and virtually all of the comments on it are about the presidential election and the Federal government. State and local governments are even more clearly than in the Federal case the ones we deserve as a democracy, because they are the most accessible to the average voter. Republicans, as the new confederate party, are usually the first to assert that. By all means, make yours smaller and more efficient. And don't blame Nancy Pelosi on me. In terms of Federal policy, which is what we're talking about here, we need to move away from the mirror image neurosis in which Republicans imagine that ACORN caused the crash while stealing the last presidential election, and that we're being sold down the Road to Serfdom because more people can get access to health insurance; and that Democrats imagine that forcing people with profound moral objections to pay for a thirty year old law student's contraception has something to do with access to contraception; and that requiring voters to have the same kind of i.d. to vote as they need to cash a social security check is "voter suppression" of the sort that entailed poll taxes, bogus literacy tests, jailings, beatings, and murders in the past. This kind of craziness is what's screwing up the political system at a time we really need it to be at least marginally functional.

- Robert Powell

September 5, 2012 at 3:44pm

Seattle, You need a logic check: While it may be true that some people say government may prevent many bad things from happening (which I happen to believe is often the case), that is far from saying that all good things result from government, as you mis-characterize the statements of those folks. I repeat, you are using the old, tired rhetorical device of setting up a straw man, through half-clever use of hyperbole. BTW, I live in a part of the country where water and air issues are critical. We have underground plumes of water carrying toxic chemicals from old industrial (& some military) sites, which threaten the supply of drinking water. The incidence of childhood asthma is way above the national average in our valley. Without the aggressive monitoring of water and air quality by government agencies (and NGO's, who in turn can lean on the government, when it appears to not be acting aggressively enough) there would be no hope of ameliorating these conditions. After all, there is no competitive pressure for private businesses in our area to reduce emissions and pollution, as it does nothing for their bottom line. Only government can intercede to actually enforce standards to prevent disease and threats to health. No one else is going to do it. I accept that a good reason I pay taxes is for government to enforce standards of air and water quality. Maybe you think asthma is a joke. If your kid had it, you'd think otherwise - unless you are truly an unfeeling individual.

- Haole45

September 5, 2012 at 4:24pm

Robert: you had me, until you again raised the old canard, "forcing people with profound moral objections to pay for a thirty year old law student's contraception". Oy. I have legions of friends who vociferously object, and that as a matter of moral and religious belief, to bombarding innocent civilians, torturing inmates and launching illegal wars. No one asked what they thought about "paying" for any of the above. And these are taxes we are talking about. And, personally, as someone who pays into two different sorts of insurance pools - one public and the other private - I strenuously object to quite a few things my insurance pays for, some of which on moral, ethical or religious grounds. And no one gives a rat's ass what I object to. Because that is the whole point of an insurance scheme. Pooled risk. I would, perhaps, on a sunny day in May while sitting on a balcony in a Tuscan villa sipping a glass of Barolo with my Italian lover doing laps in the pool, right after a plate of spaghetti vongole and a tub of freshly-made (by same lover) tiramisu, concede that the whole "religious objection to contraception" might possibly make sense in respect of Obama's direction IF - here it comes - 26 states did not impose the same rule, the Supreme Court had not ruled those objections irrelevant already, and Catholic institutions was not ALREADY abiding by same state rules. IF. Oh, and IF Cardinal Dolan, the flag-bearer against Obama's War On Relgion, God, Christmas and America, were not a Republican hack. I will not bring up Dolan's despicable hush-money history in Minnesota.

- icarus-r

September 5, 2012 at 4:25pm

RP writes: "..I direct your attention to the fact that the post under discussion and virtually all of the comments on it are about the presidential election and the Federal government. " Yes, but the lines are increasingly getting blurred, are they not? The fed government is holding more and more state money hostage based on how states do things. States dare not ignore a federal government edict these days, lest they lose educational and highway funding and countless other programs that help states stay afloat. RP writes: "This kind of craziness is what's screwing up the political system at a time we really need it to be at least marginally functional." I increasingly am coming to the conclusion this craziness has always been with us, though my dad swears it hasn't. Remember it was 50 years ago that Nixon/Kennedy almost got health care passed, only to be lost due to pettiness on both sides. Maybe it only seems worse today... ;)

- seattleeng

September 5, 2012 at 4:36pm

Seattle: "I've stated that this fantasy that everything wonderful would never have happened without the government is just that: a fantasy." In a democratic state, the government is the agent of collective will. Some things are best arrived at through collective efforts, some through individual initiative. No individual intiative anywhere succeeds and lasts, however, without a functioning system of laws - laws that govern the offeror and buyer, the latter from theft and the former from fraud. No individual iniaitive would be worth the taking if a system did not exist for the protection of the fruits of that initiative - that is why we have police forces and property laws. These are all "government"; without it, in Somalia, for example, trade still happens, but roads don't get built. That is objectively the case. And without it, rich people have to spend increasingly greater sums for private protection, and hope that their protectors would not turn on them in turn. And so on. So yes - at a very basic level, without a centralised authority, the first irrigation canals in the Nile valley and in Mesopotamia would not have been built, for urban civilisation to give rise to you five thousand years later. Without "the government", there would not have been a United States of America in 1783, or in 1865; without the US government being able to mobilise the nation, WWII would not have been fought and, more to the point, won. And these are just some of the small wonderful things - fantasies, as you call them - that come about because of our collective efforts, in a democratic polity, through our government.

- icarus-r

September 5, 2012 at 4:37pm

icarus--Tuscany sounds like a much better place for this discussion, but here we are..... Your point about already having to pay for things we have moral objections to is of course philosophically sound. But with respect, this is politics. It makes no, zero, sense to dis the Catholic church on the eve of what will probably be a close election for no, zero, political advantage. In the first place, no one is even remotely discussing restricting access to contraception. In the second, virtually every one of the voters reassured by the Sibelius diktat are going to vote for O no matter what, while a lot of ethnic Northern Catholics are on the fence. This doesn't help. In terms of the states with "the same rule", prior to the HHS rule change Catholic institutions were eligible for, and granted, waivers. And since most of these institutions self-insure, the dodge about making the insurers pay won't fly, hence the lawsuit currently underway. I'm no fan of Dolan, but I'd like to win those Northern Ethnic votes.

- Robert Powell

September 6, 2012 at 3:43am