Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

CARROLL: Fear-driven 'consensus'

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published February 19, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  
Wayne Allard

Wayne Allard

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

or it may be a depressing commentary on our political leadership - but the only two members of the Colorado delegation to vote against the recent economic "stimulus" package are also the only two not on the ballot this fall.

Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Tom Tancredo, both Republicans, were among the small band of principled lawmakers in each chamber to reject the fantasy that $168 billion in deficit spending over the next two years will provide a discernable boost to a $14 trillion economy. Only 16 senators (none of the three still running for president, unfortunately) and 34 representatives voted against this extravaganza.

It so happens that Allard and Tancredo have compiled long records of opposition to reckless government spending, so it's possible they'd have voted the same way even if they were running for re-election. But when Colorado Reps. Marilyn Musgrave and Doug Lamborn, two Republicans who like to tout their fiscal conservatism, join the congressional lemmings in support of this feel-good measure, you really have to wonder.

It would be one thing if the stimulus package addressed long-term obstacles to savings and investment. For the most part, though, it simply sends checks to taxpayers in the hope they'll buy something. Yet as George Mason economics professor Russell Roberts points out, "The money has to come from somewhere. If you raise taxes to fund the plan, the people who are taxed are poorer and they'll spend less. If you borrow money to fund the plan, the people who buy the government bonds have less money to spend and that offsets the stimulus. It's like taking a bucket of water from the deep end of a pool and dumping it into the shallow end. Funny thing - the water in the shallow end doesn't get any deeper."

After the stimulus package passed, congressional leaders patted themselves on the backs for their newfound bipartisanship. In such moments of phony, fear-driven "consensus," it's well to remember the example of great politicians who never worried about being outnumbered when a principle was at stake. Upon finding herself isolated once at a commonwealth gathering in Asia, for example, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher coolly quipped, "If it's one against 48, I'm very sorry for the 48."

In Congress, the vote was 50 against 461. We should be very sorry for the 461.

Bravery suspect?

What's wrong with this advice?

"If danger presents itself, flee the area, if at all possible, or seek sanctuary in a locked classroom, restroom. Do not be a hero. Be a good witness. Report what you have seen as soon as you can notify the campus police."

This counsel was sent to staff and students "at metro campuses of the University of Colorado," according to The Denver Post, after the shootings at Northern Illinois University. Most of the message is sensible, of course, if superfluous. People don't need exhortations to flee danger. That's what they will do almost every time without a prod.

But why the explicit warning against heroism?

Of course a university shouldn't encourage reckless behavior in a crisis, or try to shame people into taking chances they would otherwise avoid. Most of us aren't cut out for heroics anyway.

But do we really want to insist that people avoid heroics, as if there were something faintly disreputable about those who spontaneously risk their lives on behalf of others?

Was Virginia Tech Professor Liviu Librescu, murdered while blocking the door of his classroom as students fled through the windows, a chump for not joining the rush?

If we celebrate his bravery, as we do, why on Earth should we warn others not to emulate it?

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • February 18, 2008

    10 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jackwoehr writes:

    The answer to your question about bravery, Vince, is the same it always has been. Heroism has to be a spontaneous choice, an inspired action weighed in the immediated context.

    The last thing you need in a shooter crisis is a roomful of average people who are convinced that, Hollywood-like, all you have to do is be brave and things will turn out all right.

    Yes, the authorities should warn against heroism. Yes, people should spontaneously be heroic anyway in the right circumstances. There's no contradiction there, just the dialectic of human existence.

  • February 19, 2008

    6:31 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    freethinker07 writes:

    What are they supposed to write? If they told people that the sane thing to do is have the entire class mob the gunman, they'd get sued.

    The intelligent thing for them to have written is that making colleges gun-free zones is like drawing a target on each classroom. Outlawing guns on campus is like outlawing vaccines because we have too many bugs around.

  • February 19, 2008

    10:14 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    I may be a little slow today, but just what is the "fear-driven" consensus a reference to? Fear of an economic recession? (seems pretty real as far as I can tell). Fear of voting the wrong way? (on a theory that voters would hold it against you if you voted against the "stimulus").

    On a side note, when has the present Congress and Excecutive ever opposed any measure that would take public funds and put them in the pockets of big business (bombs, prisons, and credit card debt are all growth industries)? There may be some, but they don't readily come to mind.

  • February 19, 2008

    11:02 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    Vinnie wrote, "It so happens that Allard and Tancredo have compiled long records of opposition to reckless government spending"

    REALLY??!!??

    So they voted against all of the outrageous deficit spending seen under republican reign over the last 7 years?

  • February 19, 2008

    12:53 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    JohnWr writes:

    When confronted by Evil, all organisms will choose between fight or flight. When our educators, legislators, litigators and media celebrate and advocate 'flight' instead of 'fight' we will become more adapted to the former and forget the skills needed for the latter, and Evil is not diminished by running away from it.

  • February 19, 2008

    2:17 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    nor is "Evil" diminished by attacking the wrong country

  • February 19, 2008

    7:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Darwin writes:

    Yes it does Jay. Saddam, and his two "evil" sons are worm food. Pity the worms.

  • February 20, 2008

    6:22 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    alcambell_9 writes:

    Who, in their wildest dreams, thinks giving people $600 or even $1200 will stimulate the economy. Most haven't the money for for food and gas, never mind health care, and spending that money on those things is an attempt to put a band aid on a broken arm. Give a man a fish, he eats for one day, teach him to fish and he eats for the rest of his life. Have we forgotten that? This is nothing more than a continuing smoke and mirror scam by politicians; give the people pocket change and satisfy them for a while, then repeat the process again and again and, by the way, don't let them know you are giving yourself a raise every year or two, so you can raise taxes that wipe out any money they might possibly manage to save. Politicians think we're idiots, and if we think this latest fiasco is anything other than a lying con job, their right, we are idiots.

  • February 20, 2008

    12:51 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Achilles writes:

    The heroism question is good one. Our culture has been programmed for public and plangent lachrymosity, not selfless heroism. We know how to mourn, especially when the camera is on. Candlelight vigils are organized immiediately following a tragic event. Grievance counseling is also available almost instantly.

    The problem is that males are taught to be sensitive men instead of Stoic men.

    Women have worked hard to bring about this change in men. But, the irony is that women are also the victims of the very change they helped bring about.

    When there are no longer any brave men, who will protect the women?

    Of course, there are plenty of brave men in military, fire and police departments. But, what about common bravery that can be counted on in any event at any time in any place in America? If a bank is being robbed, is it safe to assume that there is at least one brave man among the frightened who will risk his life for others? It seems that the probability for heroism has been decreasing quickly.

    As we can see in the picture, males now react like females when danger is present. See how the males are huddled with the women? Also, notice how the only hero in the Virgina Tech shooting was an older gentleman, Professor Liviu Librescu. What was he taught that today's males are not taught?

    http://newpersuasion.typepad.com/new_...

  • February 20, 2008

    2:42 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Spencer writes:

    Allard has been a worthless Senator. Talk about a guy that just cashed his checks.

  • February 24, 2008

    2:31 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    "Talk about a guy who just cashed his checks"

    Makes me laugh everytime I read it.

    Actually, it appears Allard brought home some Defense spending in Colorado, although I'm not sure that supports the claim that he has long stood against "reckless" spending. See the earmark to the Partnership for...(PIPES) and try to figure out what that is for and who will get the money.

    http://community.seattletimes.nwsourc...

  • February 24, 2008

    2:33 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    Oops, that was Tancredo. Here's Allard:

    http://community.seattletimes.nwsourc...

  • February 25, 2008

    9:43 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    rjnova writes:

    I appreciate Mr Carroll that you have the nerve to point out the silliness of the govt stimulus rebates. While too many of the rest of the country, especially our brave legislators, are so fearful of being called insensative they are all ready to use the Federal Treasury to make themselves look like they are doing something. Indeed they are buying votes.

    My question is why did they take so much taxes from people in the first place? All people spend their money wiser than the government, with this as a good example of how lacking Congress is in judicious spending, which I guess is an oxymoron to begin with.

    I see no reason the govt should bail out either the lenders or the borrowers in the first place. Altho I have great sympathy for anyone who loses their house, and could agree to some fair delay in foreclosure, the system is set up to take care of itself. Rewards go to the conservative lender and punishes the reckless lender by eliminating him, putting him out of business. Now the govt moves in and rewards both the reckless borrower and lender.

    The financial markets have lost a huge measure of discipline and the stimulus will be too little too late to have any effective impact. The best thing the govt can do is cut taxes on people and business and this country will experience a boom in economic growth that will benefit all.