"I'm sorry that they will lose some money that they'll have to contribute, and I'm sorry for what they might lose through the loss of collective bargaining, but I doubt that any of these government employees will not be able to make the mortgage, not be able to buy groceries, not be able to put fuel in the car or clothes on their backs, and our family has had to face those things," she went on, her voice rising. "So I find it hard to be sympathetic, and to continue to pay for people who are the haves when the rest of us are the have-nots."
The political arguments in Wisconsin pit people like this woman against government employees who are one step closer to becoming like this woman. We see that no resolution will come from taking one side versus the other, the political right vs. the political left, insofar as such positions will only protect narrow constituencies within the social whole. Even if there is good reason to reject her analysis, there is no reason not to take her side as someone whose objective requirements for living are under assault -- and, by doing so, advance our own.
2 comments:
She's right that teachers in the union are the haves. Teachers out of the union are the have nots. The question is why do we want the haves to be the have nots. I keep going back to your post on parliamentary positions of left and right. It really is brilliant.
Nice blog thanks ffor posting
Post a Comment