home
about
archives
|
CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY AND BROKEN BRIDGES
08/03/2007
I have been wondering if my dear conservative friends who watched the footage of the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis, and the twisted wreckage left behind, might have wondered if their incessant calls for smaller government and lower taxes played a role in this disaster.
Apparently, our infrastructure has been crumbling for some time, our bridges and roads badly in need of repair, especially in the East where the age of many structures combined with drastic temperature changes make many of them unsafe. We hear that this particular bridge had been deemed problematic as early as the 1990s and was judged to be "structurally deficient" two years ago, and yet no one in the Bush administration sounded any kind of alarm. It is indeed both amusing and tragic to hear the Transportation Secretary say that the multiple bad safety ratings this bridge got did not mean it was unsafe to drive across, even as she stood next to the twisted steel, shattered concrete, and submerged vehicles with the as yet un-recovered bodies, that proved otherwise.
Obviously, spending on infrastructure is long overdue, and one has to marvel at how this wealthy and technologically savvy nation has apparently rejected that in favor of an ideology that demands small government and low taxes. And this is even more amazing as we now hear that one fourth of all of our bridges are either "structurally deficient" or "functionally obsolete."
Ever since Ronald Reagan gave the conservative movement their famous mantra that "government is the problem," there has been a strong faction in this country ideologically opposed to government spending for just about anything other than the military. This administration would even like to privatize the Social Security system, one of the most successful government programs we've ever instituted as a nation, a program that brought millions of senior citizens out of poverty and provides for the basic needs of each generation of seniors. Ronald Reagan and his conservative cohorts have convinced far too many Americans that "government" is the enemy. This has always amazed me in that government in our nation was "instituted of, by and for the people." So does that mean we are turning against ourselves, that "we, the people" are our own enemy?
This isn't the first time that conservative ideology has led to disaster. It wasn't that long ago that we witnessed the horrors of Hurricane Katrina and a devastating flood that resulted at least in part from a defective levee system. That system could have been rebuilt with sufficient federal funds, but when your highest priority is tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and you decide to wage two wars (one of them clearly unnecessary) in foreign lands, there are no funds available for such trivial matters as protecting the people of a great city. And, of course, by putting cronies in charge of FEMA, because the Bush administration ultimately wanted to end the program, the response to the disaster was abysmal.
Mindful of the inadequate preparation for and response to a major hurricane in New Orleans, and now the evidence of government failure to fund bridge repairs, I offer my objections to conservative ideology and the application of that ideology:
That it goes too far in the direction of individualism, or "pulling oneself up by the bootstraps," which always helps the wealthy and powerful, who have boots, and always leaves behind the poor and vulnerable, who don't have boots.
That it completely ignores the reality that we are a community of people who cannot be safe or prosperous without the infrastructure that only government can provide. That it forgets that fact that good government makes both a safe society and a good economy possible.
That it deems taxes to be evil, even though the only way we can provide the infrastructure and services that keep our community strong is by collecting taxes to pay for such things.
That its leaders simplistically insist government is the problem, and then once in power de-fund government programs or appoint incompetent cronies to run them, thereby making government the problem.
That its leaders get elected and treat government as if it is their own private fiefdom where they can reap the benefits of power even as they ignore problems faced by the people whose welfare they are supposed to promote.
That its hostility to government and refusal to adequately fund programs ensures that government will be inadequate or fail.
Nowhere has the damage from conservative ideals and practices been more apparent than during the Bush administration. From ignoring the warnings of terrorist attacks prior to 9/11, to waging a costly, unnecessary and mismanaged war, to allowing a city to die, to refusing to fund infrastructure repairs, Bush and his associates treat this country like they own it and can do what they want with it, like give tax cuts and government contracts to their friends, and refuse to do what they don't want, like protect the environment because it would inconvenience their corporate supporters, or fund education because it would help the public schools and damage their case for vouchers.
And what, in the end, will be the single biggest "positive" accomplishment of the Bush administration, in terms of conservative goals?
Tax cuts.
Tax cuts that took the country from surplus to the largest deficit in the history of the nation.
Tax cuts that defund government programs and leave millions of children in poverty, hunger and ignorance.
Tax cuts that contributed to the flooding of a city and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of citizens.
Tax cuts that remove environmental protections.
Tax cuts that hurt our security as we incur enormous debt to wage wars.
Tax cuts that led to the collapse of a bridge and the death and injury of many citizens.
With a failed foreign policy, a disastrous war, a bungled response to Katrina, failed reforms in immigration and Social Security, all that Bush can brag about to the conservative ideologues who supported him in two elections are Tax Cuts.
Ideology is an interesting and appropriate starting point for political debate. Certainly the conservative promotion of self-sufficiency balances the more liberal idea of government protection of the vulnerable. Both arguments have validity in some circumstances, but when taken to extremes, each can cause its share of problems. We have, for far too long, been focused on the excessive government spending that can come from the liberal focus, while we have given the conservative focus on de-funding important government programs a pass.
Conservative ideology has the potential, and in the Bush administration the reality, of harming our nation by refusing to fund necessary spending on things that help us all, like infrastructure, health care, job training, and education, and by lowering taxes even when low taxes wound us as a nation.
No one likes taxes. Liberals and progressives dread April 15th just as much as conservatives. But unlike conservatives, liberals and progressives consider taxes to be an investment in ourselves, our children, our economy, our safety, and our future. As such, they are not only the price we pay to live in this great nation, they are the price we pay to preserve its greatness.
And, as we learned two days ago, they may be the price we pay to stay alive as we cross one of the thousands of bridges spanning the rivers of America.
-Ellen Terich
All content © 2005 outragedcitizen.com
|
