A Moral March opponent makes his case
Published February 16, 2014
by Ned Barnett, News and Observer, February 15, 2014.
Last weekend, an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 protesters filled Fayetteville Street in downtown Raleigh in a show of opposition to laws passed and signed by the state’s Republican leadership.
Such a show gives the impression of a populace in revolt against a conservative agenda. And, indeed, polls show that the governor and state lawmakers are held in favor by less than half of North Carolina’s voters. But beyond the signs and chants and the powerful speech by the Rev. William Barber, the state’s NAACP president, there are people on the other side who feel misunderstood and miscast.
They are not the politicians – they can handle opposition, and some even revel in it – but the people who voted for them, who see their views reflected in this legislature and who resent the attention paid to protesters who have claimed for themselves the moral high ground.
Our editorial last Sunday praised the Moral March in Raleigh as an effort by engaged citizens to show that there is broad and deep discontent. That brought a letter from a reader that is distinctive for its sweep and its summary of the raw conservative grievances against those protesting. Republican lawmakers have great power, but their supporters have been on the defensive and relatively silent. So it is worth giving their sentiment here. (I was unable to reach the writer to discuss using his letter here, so the writer will remain anonymous.)
The letter:
Your view on the so called Moral Monday protesters makes me wonder. You do know that over 70 percent of the people in N.C. favor voter ID.
You do know that the Democrat machine that ran N.C. for decades put state government in a terrible financial shape.
Gay rights? I personally don’t condone homosexuality, I guess due to my Baptist upbringing. I do oppose same-sex marriage. I think the decline in morals will be the downfall of our country.
I am entitled to my belief as much as all these protesters. What [annoys] people like me is that these protesters act as though I have to like and condone their views. I can’t be entitled to my view anymore.
The Reverend Barber is the biggest racist in N.C. He sees racism in everything. Get over it. The Civil War was over 100 years ago.
He is typical of Democrats who want the government to provide everything for everybody. Get out and work for it. I worked 3 and 4 jobs to get through college. Got a job as did my wife. Raised 2 kids. Put them through school. Built and paid for my home. My kids worked also while they were in school.
No one gave me a damn thing.
We can’t afford to keep borrowing money for government programs.
The problem now is every minority or special interest group is telling the majority that we have to do things their way. We don’t have any rights.
It is great that the Rev. Barber is bringing in protesters from other states to tell the people of N.C. how we are suppose to live.
Why don’t you ever have an opinion looking at the other side of issues?
The letter-writer is angry, clearly, but also embittered. He’s God-fearing, he’s worked hard, educated himself, raised and educated two children. It sounds like he’s not wealthy, but no one gave him “a damn thing.” Now he feels his government is besieged by minorities seeking something for nothing while those who sacrificed and contributed are without rights.
That progressives have not been able to reach people like this letter-writer is a great failure and a great riddle. The writer – presumably a working or retired person of modest means – should see himself in the crowd on Fayetteville Street seeking better wages and help with education and civil rights. Instead, he feels himself the outcast and the enemy. So he identifies with and votes for people whose thinking seems closer to his, even if their policies tend to favor people much wealthier.
One issue here, as always, is race. It’s the subtext to much of our current polarization. The writer would have blacks “get over it.” But it’s not over. The Civil War was the start of the civil rights struggle, not the end. No one wants to be called racist, and people are almost universally sensitized to the wrongness of prejudice, but most people nonetheless do make prejudgments based on race. It may be a condition only time and exposure can change, but it would help if progressives also showed an awareness of white, working-class complaints about unfairness. It turns out that white guys in pickup trucks are subject to prejudgments, too.
The same goes for tolerance. That also means tolerating those who find the shift toward accepting gay marriage hard to reconcile with their experience and their religious views.
The same goes for government programs. Some are wasteful, exploited or outmoded. Progressives should talk more about fixing them instead of blindly protecting them.
But the truth is, the letter-writer, like everyone else, does enjoy government aid. His mortgage interest is deducted. His kids likely went to public schools. He enjoys and uses government services and infrastructure we all pay for.
He’s been given – and he still gets – a lot more than a damn thing.
Odds are, the letter-writer is never going to see himself in the Moral March. But those who lead such political movements should do a better job of explaining why he belongs there.
February 16, 2014 at 11:39 am
Norm Kelly says:
What's the difference between Ned, the Progressives, and the original letter writer quoted here? The progressive plan actually, truthfully is asking for people who don't try to get something for nothing. The progressive plan is that people shouldn't have to try, the government will take care of these people. Like the White House recently said about socialized medicine, I mean Obamascare, it gives people a choice of whether they work for a living or not. The original letter writer is saying that people need to rely on themselves. People should NOT be relying on the forced kindness of those of us who do work for a living.
And to use the argument that the original letter writer does 'get a damn thing' from the government because roads, bridges, and schools are provided is the typical lib straw man argument. What's the difference between the progressive agenda and the original letter writer? EVERYBODY gets roads, bridges, schools, various other government programs. Only the working stiffs, the tax payers, pay for these services. The progressives not only want everyone to receive these benefits of government but they want people who don't contribute to get MORE, OTHER benefits as well. Benefits provided at no cost to themselves extracted (at gunpoint!) from those of us who work for a living.
The original letter writer definitely SHOULD NOT see himself at the Moral-less Monday protests. The original letter writer wants to be able to negotiate a living wage directly with his employer, not through some government agent who has no vested interest in the negotiation. The original letter writer shouldn't be seeking help from some government agency with paying for school. It's the libs that run higher education. It's the libs who continue to raise the cost of education. It's the libs who control 'free speech' on college campuses (campi?) who insist on preventing opposing speech, and free speech. It's the progressives who perpetuate racism. It's the progressives who see people based on their skin color first, and anything else is a distant second; in most cases for libs there is no second to skin color - the lib philosophy starts and ends with skin color.
The left, what Ned calls progressives, have done an excellent job of explaining their wishes, their plans. Those who don't contribute should get. Those who don't want to afford a cell phone should get a free phone. Those who 'can't afford' someplace to live should have a place provided for them. Those who 'can't afford' food should have food provided for them. Those who live more than 3 miles from a local grocery store should have the state own & operate a grocery store. (look back in your state history and you will find that it wasn't that long ago that the 'progressives'/libs/Demons in Raleigh proposed doing exactly this.) It's the libs who believe that those who 'can't afford' health insurance MUST have it provided for them. So you see, Ned, the left actually has done an excellent job of explaining their agenda. ALL of their agenda involves stealing/taking at gunpoint if necessary from those who produce and giving it to those who don't produce.
As far as racism is concerned, it's people like Mr. Barber who live and die by seeing racism in EVERY PART of life. Try to find one area, Ned, where Mr. Barber hasn't declared the Republicans are racist. Show us one example where Mr. Barber didn't claim some government action/policy wasn't specifically directed at suppressing black people. Show us any example of where Mr. Barber and other race-baiters have shown that they believe black people are capable of standing on their own 2 feet. Who are the proponents of racism everywhere? Those who 'make their living' seeing racism everywhere. Who is it that claims black people who believe they can stand on their own 2 feet are stupid puppets and racists? The kind-hearted, friendly, out-for-the-little-guy progressives.
The original letter writer is actually right. He proves that Ned looks at the world through rose colored glasses. Ned sees only what he wants to see. And most of what he wants to see is that government is the answer to every question. Ned sees that everyone should be petitioning their government for redress from something. Even if it's just a 'fair wage' from their employer, Ned expects that the government should be the middle-man in this process. And it appears every other process of life as well.
I get nothing more from my government than I contribute. Even when my tax dollars are used to build highways & bridges now, I must pay a toll also. What's the difference between me paying the toll and some of the government-subsidized people who also pay the tolls? I paid for the road to start with, now I'm paying for the roads a second time. Those on government subsistence programs didn't pay for the road the first time.
What about socialism is to be celebrated? That everyone is as broke as everyone else? That those who contribute financially to society are to be vilified? That money should be stolen from producers when they exceed a certain level of success?
Who is John Galt? If you don't know, then I understand why your are a socialist. Oops. I mean, I understand why you are a progressive. What's the difference between Ned's progressives and socialists? There is no difference, just a title change so it sounds better. But it's still socialism.
