Believe it or not
I appreciate Michael Cummins’ explanation of his beliefs (“Why I Believe What I Believe,” 1/26/2017). He expresses concern that government tries to do too much, and often does so inefficiently. What the writer misses is that this inefficiency, under many Republican leaders, is often by design. Conservative P.J. O’Rourke says, “The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.” Under President Trump, we can only expect more of this, as he surrounds himself with people more interested in diminishing federal agencies, or making them more corporate-friendly, than making them work for the common citizen.
I think the real fear among many Republican leaders (and perhaps voters) is that government will do something really effective for the social good (imagine a more intelligent version of Obamacare), prove them wrong, and begin to demand competent public servants who work for all of us. I don’t think this is the writer’s fear, but he is a whole lot more reasonable than the self-serving ideologues currently dominating Washington.
Ben Seigel (via email)
I appreciate that Michael Cummins wants to be understood. He’s correct that in these polarized times we often talk past one another, not listening, not really attempting to find common ground. Still, I find his stance as a “libertarian-leaning conservative” less than compelling.
Cummins states that he is opposed to “most aspects of the welfare state,” making the claim that voluntary associations and charitable giving are more efficient than government in meeting the needs of the poor. He offers no evidence to support his position, and indeed no such evidence exists. The “safety net” that conservatives seek to unravel was enacted because millions fell through the cracks of an unregulated free market, and charity alone could not pick up the pieces.
Why is Cummins so preoccupied with welfare for the poor while mentioning nothing of welfare for the rich? Tax breaks for second homes, yachts and private jets, subsidies for Big Oil, Big Pharma and Wall Street. Cummins apparently doesn’t mind huge handouts to the one percent, but please don’t be taking his tax dollars to help the poor!
Cummins’ ambivalence about businesses discriminating against same-sex couples is also disturbing. To intervene is to undermine the property rights of business owners, says Cummins. Not so long ago similar arguments were used to justify discriminating against interracial couples, but property rights were ruled a flimsy defense in the face of illegal discrimination. The restaurant owner who once refused to serve blacks or the country club that once posted signs saying “No Jews Allowed” can do so no more because the federal government intervened, and that, I’m sure Cummins agrees, is a good thing.
Next time, I hope to hear how Cummins plans to resist President Trump. In the interests of civility and finding common ground, we can put our differences aside and get to work.
Tag Evers (via email)
If conservatives believe in the defense of “property rights,” it’s important to ask, “Whose property rights?” One need only take a cursory look at U.S. history to see that the property rights of only certain populations have been safeguarded for most of this county’s history. Perhaps a gay couple doesn’t have property rights in the purchase of a wedding cake, but what about their property rights in obtaining and retaining a job? Purchasing a house? Obtaining spousal benefits? Conservatives never seem too keen on protecting those property rights.
So while Mr. Cummins may have avoided the R-word because he doesn’t identify as such, many so-called conservatives do and continue to elect their representatives on these conservative values which are not shown in their representatives’ actions. Hillary Clinton’s failed bid for the presidency has been hailed as the death of the Democratic Party; however, I think the election of Trump (and the many Republican members of Congress) should be hailed as the ongoing identity crisis in conservative America.
Rick Stauffacher (via email)
Union Cab to the rescue
I want to thank you for your recent article about the possibility of losing handicap-accessible taxi services through Union Cab (“Left Behind,” 1/19/2017). I use a power wheelchair due to my cerebral palsy. I first began to use their services in 2012. I was working in Madison and commuting from Janesville. When I first decided to move to Madison I relied on their services to help me look for apartments, as I didn’t know very much about Madison’s complex bus system. One of the drivers even gave me advice on where to look for scarce affordable accessible housing.
Union Cab provides a vital service to me. Paratransit is a good option, but it doesn’t offer the spontaneity that life sometimes requires. When I need to get to work after a snowfall that has been heavier than I expected, Union Cab is there. If my power chair needs repairs I’m often forced to use a manual chair, which limits my mobility significantly. Union Cab is there to help me ensure that my life doesn’t have to stop just because my wheelchair did.
Nathan Scafe (via email)
Welcome to Queens
Re: “West Bend Transplant Invites Fellow Badgers to Visit His Diverse Queens Neighborhood” (Isthmus.com, 1/30/2017): I didn’t vote for Trump but would love to come and explore Queens and all of its culture for a weekend.
Mike McCabe (via Facebook)
Oh one of the hipsters driving immigrants out of NYC. How funny! Also plenty of people in Queens voting for Trump.
Ann Marie Hake Hughes (via Facebook)
Why is he not asking for Spotted Cow??? This makes me very suspicious of his backstory. :)
Rachel Romond (via Facebook)