RWCG


Government is the national pimp
November 7, 2012, 8:51 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

Let’s stipulate these to have been (as I understand) some of the strongest voting axes:

Men R – Women D
Married R – Single D
Rural R – Cities D
Older R – Young D

From a 10,000-foot view, then, it seems that what our government is largely about, and destined to be more and more about, is ensuring that wealth is extracted from estate-dwelling, married (mostly) men so as to securely house young, unattached women in city apartments. Their poster child is that person ‘Lena Dunham’, who stated quite clearly her rationale for what she wanted in a ‘government’, most of which had to do with taking care of her, maintaining her health, and so forth.

But I am realizing that this is, in fact, a very old arrangement – older than government – and it even has a name. So despite all the lefty talk of ‘transformative’ and the righty talk of apocalpyse, in the grand scheme ultimately nothing has changed, not really. This sort of arrangement, this dynamic of cash flowing from married/older men to young unattached women has always existed. All that we’ve done, really, is to aggregate and centralize the whole function, and hide its nature a little so as to shelter tender sensibilities.

About these ads

16 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Brilliant.

Comment by eddie

In which case, by the same logic, what R’s want to do is take money away from single women and give it to married couples, particularly to men.

Of course, by your method, subsidizing contraception and legalizing abortions is an intrinsic part of the deal D’s offer.

Comment by Anon.

No because (broadly speaking of course) Rs generally don’t try to raise taxes and use them for goodie handouts for their constituents, nor is this what R voters want. The dynamic is one-way; to first-approximation, D voters’ motivation is that they are trying to siphon things from R voters.

Comment by Sonic Charmer

Of course, the D position contraception/abortions fits perfectly in with what I’m saying.

Comment by Sonic Charmer

I suppose if it includes breast-augmentation subsidies as well as short-skirt subsidies, there’s a definite silver lining there.

In any case, the question isn”t whether R’s try to raise taxes but what change they wish to elicit. By your method, they want to create change that would leave single women with less money in order to benefit married couples. They also want to make it difficult for women to engage in sex outside of marriage. Actually, you have a point. There are obviously many who do very much want that.

Comment by Anon.

You are right, and this is an interesting thread, so let me try to follow it more carefully.

I guess if what I’m saying/BSing has any validity, then the 10,000-foot view of R policies/desires is that they want to render the lifestyle of being a young, apartment-dwelling, unattached woman living in the city siphoning off some of the wealth of estate-dwelling married men less sustainable or attractive. More such women should either attach themselves, or (at least) if they wish to live that way, have independent means. And (as you say), along the way they would have less non-marital sex and so forth.

And so actually yes, that’s a fair description.

But not quite. Because part of my half-BS point is that the D approach merely formalizes arrangements that *already existed* and would have existed anyway. For example, that estate-dwelling married guy would ‘keep’ a young women in the city, as a ‘kept woman’. Under R policies this would be a private arrangement; under D policies he doesn’t have to ‘keep’ anyone, because this arrangement has been socialized and instead of some particular ‘kept woman’ there is just a communal harem out there.

Comment by Sonic Charmer

I’d qualify that most R’s don’t really want to penalize the unattached woman living in an apartment, they just don’t want to subsidize her independence. This has the effect of making it less sustainable, but only because the subsidies are removed and it goes back to its natural state of realisticness rather than the unrealistic subsidized level which the single women in apartments have become accustomed to.

Comment by Matt

Or, when their (so-called, let’s note) ‘independence’ *is* subsidized, it will be via private arrangement, with the actual guy getting the favors (if only on a nightly basis, per agreement hastily-arranged on a street corner), rather than in a diffuse laundered way through the government.

Comment by Sonic Charmer

It”s a fetching theory. I like it.
It’s also funny and feels like it might not be %100 bs.

But I’m not actually sure that Obama’s policies really do much to help sustain single women as opposed to single men. I suppose they’re meant to help sustain everyone. The question really is why women found Obama more appealing than men. At what point in the debates, for example, did women’s opinions diverge from men’s? Of course, beyond that there’s branding. Historically, I suppose D’s have done more for feminist issues/empowering of women.

I don’t really know if R’s have a policy regarding women, though we do know plenty want to put them back in the kitchen, when their proper place is in the bedroom or the boardroom imho. Today a growing number of apartments haven’t even got a proper kitchen as-such. Although I suppose it could be argued that R’s see that as a consequence of mistaken policies regarding women.

Comment by Anon.

If D policies aren’t such a big help to young single city women after all then perhaps someone ought to explain that to the Lena Dunham crowd, since they seem awfully convinced otherwise. You ask when in ‘the debates’ they were convinced but if you take my theory to heart, none of this came from explicit debates or arguments; Ds-good-for-young-single-women is something that is instinctively recognized/intuited on a primordial or at least emotional level.

Young single men are actually the most hurt by *some* D policies. For example they are (more likely) healthy, unattached, no kids, few assets, yet Obamacare garnishes their (scant) paychecks to pay other peoples’ gigantic hospital & druggist bills. However, they do get the free-floating city harem out of the whole deal, so it’s kind of a wash, which is maybe why they stay D-loyal (though not nearly so much as young single women).

Comment by Sonic Charmer

[...] Sonic Charmer shares an insight. [...]

Pingback by DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Government as the National Pimp

Huh. So Julia is a political prostitute? Actually, it kind of makes sense.

Comment by Borepatch

Fun fact: The Sonic Charmer always makes sense!

Comment by Sonic Charmer

[...] Government is a pimp. [...]

Pingback by Lightning Round – 2012/11/14 « Free Northerner

[...] Government Is the National Pimp, by Sonic Charmer [...]

Pingback by A victory for mendacity, greed, and stupidity « bluebird of bitterness

[…] The point being made in this Yglesias post appears to be the same basic point I made here. […]

Pingback by National pimp, seconded | Rhymes With Cars & Girls




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 455 other followers

%d bloggers like this: