November 23, 2004
"What in the World Ever Became of Sweet Jane?"
Andrew linked to a piece that seems to be going around in liberal circles:
The Life of Joe RepublicanJoe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance -- now Joe gets it too.
He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained...
There's lots more, and it's pretty funny. And some of it is even valid.
But I couldn't resist fudging-up my own version:
A Day in the Life of Jane Democrat, in the year 2010Jane wakes up, and brews a fragrant pot of Sulawesi. She gives nary a thought to the world's sea lanes kept open by the US and those allies who still think civilization is worth fighting for. The hard-fought battle that re-opened the Straits of Malacca she dismisses as "neocon warmongering."
She takes her medications, unaware that almost all cutting-edge pharmaceutical research happens in the US, where drug companies are still allowed to be seriously profitable.
Jane drives past a neighborhood that used to be a slum, but is not so bad these days. She makes no connection with Welfare Reform (forced on Bill Clinton by a Republican Congress). Or with the Faith Based Initiatives that have enlisted the strength of local churches to fight poverty and drug addiction, with an effectiveness that bureaucracies can't equal.
Jane arrives work, at a high-tech start-up. There she is treated like a valued team member—the entrepreneur who founded the company knows well the crushing burden of sullenness, inefficiency and disruption that unionization would place on them.
Jane is unaware that her company is prospering partly because a majority-Republican Congress is starting to carve away choking thickets of burdensome government regulations. And also because new free-trade breakthroughs, and NAFTA (invented by Republicans, but signed, most admirably, by Bill Clinton) are behind it's export-led growth.
Jane IS however, aware of big possibilities in the stock-options and profit-sharing that come with her job. She and her co-workers put in long hours and give of their best to make the company a success. Her trendy "whole-learning" education has left her without the mental tools to understand that Capitalism is not some plot by evil corporations, but is in fact the very thing she is doing right now. But the incentives still work, and she has a good chance of becoming very prosperous.
Jane looks at her pay stub. She fails to ponder that one portion of her Social Security tax is going into a Vanguard Index Fund, and is expanding like yeasty dough. While the other portion, that goes into the traditional government program, earns nothing. But the light-bulb will go on eventually.
She considers calling her doctor for an appointment because she is feeling run-down. But these non-catastrophic medical problems are now paid out of her own HSA. It's her own (pre-tax) money, and the account's been growing and growing. She can appreciate that, and decides it's time to get serious about a healthier life-style, and to get more exercise.
She starts to climb a ladder. She notices the 14 safety-warning labels on the ladder, and has a vague thought that the depredations of the Trial Lawyers might have gone a bit too far. Little does she know that everything she buys is cheaper these days, because Republicans have enacted tort-reform legislation.
Jane is feeling good about life, and stops after work at Nordstrom's, and splurges on a couple of pairs of Feragamos. Not thinking, of course, about the latest tax-cut that has left the money in her own pocketbook, and put new energy in the economy.
She picks up her daughter Jeanette at school. Jane had considered having an abortion, but she is sensitive to the climate of opinion around her. And somehow, even among Democrats, the casual destruction of life just doesn't seem so acceptable anymore. She doesn't speculate on why opinion has changed.
She's delighted that Jeanette is learning to read much more easily than she did. Perhaps there's something in this Phonics stuff after all. As a parent she appreciates how the schools are being held to tougher standards now. She knows people who have exercised their new right under NCLB to demand a different school if their current one is failing. She doesn't think that will be necessary for her—the mere threat of such possibilities has produced huge improvements in the local district.
She walks along a dark street, and suddenly, there is a rag-head terrorist standing right in front of her! But no, it's just a movie poster...There WAS a terrorist who was going to saw Jane's pretty-but-empty head off. But the Coalition's recent invasion of Jihadistan forced Achmed to change his plans. The establishment of yet another democracy in the Middle East would be a calamity for his movement, and must be stopped. So, instead of Jane, he's going to encounter an 18-year old kid from Modesto with an M-16. A young man who understands that Freedom's Wall must be defended by patriots, so fluff-brains like Jane can live in peace. The odds do not favor Achmed...
Posted by John Weidner at November 23, 2004 09:41 PM | TrackBackIt is interesting that many of the benefits that are laid claim to by modern liberals date back over a century.
Thus, safer food standards are much more attributable to Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" than to the activities of, say, PETA or "Supersize This."
As for medical benefits, attribute that where it belongs: FDR, World War II, and wage and price controls, when firms used paid medical benefits as a means of attracting additional workers (when they couldn't give more in the form of pay hikes).
So, to begin with, these folks who talk about "Joe Republican" are laying claim to benefits that they had nothing (or at least very little to do w/).
As for more recent advances (e.g., clean air and water), the question isn't whether corporations pollute. The question is whether the current system of laws is the best approach towards the same end desired by other people as well.
Consider that the idea of pollution credits (which enviro groups can remove by buying them up) would've been utterly dismissed in 1970---yet many agree that it is a far more effective means than simply applying one-size-fits-all laws.
Posted by: Dean at November 24, 2004 07:02 AMI started this post as a bit of a lark, but it turned out to be quite fascinating. How different the two views are. Your point, about how dems are crediting themselves for things done long ago (and in most instances now part of the program of BOTH parties) is glaring.
Also, Joe Republican is portrayed in a world obsessed with security and safety to an appalling degree. And one that doesn't realize that accepting a deegree of risk can be the safest path in the long run. Think of investments put in a bank acct, vs put in the stock market. The market always wins big in the long run.
Joe is given no vision for the future. And no religious or spiritual side to his existence. He has no children, and no hope of accomplishing anything special. His dream is just to retire safely and comfortably. In fact, he is suffering from exactly the same ailment of the Western European countries, facing economic decline and demographic crisis.
Joe should, in truth, be called Joe DEMOCRAT. He has not a shred of conservative culture, or Republican ideas. (except the caricature right at the end. which mostly show that the author hasn't a clue what's said on conservative talk-radio.)
The piece is a good example of how utterly clueless the left is about Republicans.
I'm reminded of an old "Reader's Digest" cartoon that showed two hippies, w/ the dialogue box of one saying to the other:
Okay, I'm gonna find out if my Pell grant money's come in and check on my disability check. You should go see if the welfare and unemployment benefits have arrived yet, and I'll meet you downtown to protest the Establishment.
The comparison with the Europeans is interesting. I think that the Left's preferred view of the world is European, and thus the benefits that Joe Republican is enjoying are presumably those of Europe. Yet, among the Americans who have "fled" to Europe and come back, it is striking how many found social constrictions, sexism, etc., to be as prevalent if not more so there than here.
I would venture many of these are more "man [and women] without a country," pining for a world that never was.
Posted by: Dean at November 24, 2004 12:12 PMHey, John, sealanes pass through straits, not straights. Don't start me punning now. I can barely resist...
But I enjoyed the post anyway.
Posted by: Alan Sullivan at November 30, 2004 11:06 AMOuch. Fixed. Stephen Maturin would call you a "pragmatical wretch." But thanks...
