SELF-HATING LIBERTARIAN. - The American Prospect
Home Article SELF-HATING LIBERTARIAN.
SELF-HATING LIBERTARIAN.
SELF-HATING LIBERTARIAN. Julian Sanchez poses an interesting question, in response to my earlier post on the nasty comments of Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) to her wheelchair-bound Libertarian opponent Thomas Rankin ("If you weren't sitting in that chair, I'd slap you across the face.") I asserted that Cubin's obnoxious remark was evidence that Republicans have it in for the disabled, as also demonstrated by various policies they promote. Julian responds:
[W]hile I don't know the details of Rankin's views on these topics -- his platform doesn't directly address them -- he sounds like a pretty straight-up, across-the-board libertarian. Which means, presumably, that he also opposes workplace discrimination laws as interference with private rights of association, opposes Social Security, and opposes government funding for medical research....So, in the likely event that Rankin does hold these views... are we supposed to infer that he "has it in for" himself?
I called Mr. Rankin and asked his views on all of these issues. On the question of workplace discrimination, Rankin said he supports laws to outlaw it on any basis, as well as the federal government's right to impose such laws on states (something many Republicans and the judges they've appointed do not). On Social Security and medical research he thinks that in principle the government shouldn't be doing any of that, but given the reality that those programs have become so ingrained in American politics he opposes social security privatization and supports stem cell research. But even if Julian's assumption happens to be wrong in this specific case, one could certainly imagine a disabled Republican or Libertarian candidate who takes those anti-disabled positions so his question is a pertinent one.And my answer is yes, of course, you can be anti-disabled politically while being disabled yourself. Merely belonging to a group does not mean that you get some sort of free pass for taking actions that are hostile to its needs. While based on his views from my interview with him I would say Rankin does not have it for himself, in Julian's hypothetical he certainly would.
SELF-HATING LIBERTARIAN. - The American Prospect
Home Article SELF-HATING LIBERTARIAN.
SELF-HATING LIBERTARIAN.
SELF-HATING LIBERTARIAN. Julian Sanchez poses an interesting question, in response to my earlier post on the nasty comments of Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) to her wheelchair-bound Libertarian opponent Thomas Rankin ("If you weren't sitting in that chair, I'd slap you across the face.") I asserted that Cubin's obnoxious remark was evidence that Republicans have it in for the disabled, as also demonstrated by various policies they promote. Julian responds:
[W]hile I don't know the details of Rankin's views on these topics -- his platform doesn't directly address them -- he sounds like a pretty straight-up, across-the-board libertarian. Which means, presumably, that he also opposes workplace discrimination laws as interference with private rights of association, opposes Social Security, and opposes government funding for medical research....So, in the likely event that Rankin does hold these views... are we supposed to infer that he "has it in for" himself?
I called Mr. Rankin and asked his views on all of th
ese issues. On the question of workplace discrimination, Rankin said he supports laws to outlaw it on any basis, as well as the federal government's right to impose such laws on states (something many Republicans and the judges they've appointed do not). On Social Security and medical research he thinks that in principle the government shouldn't be doing any of that, but given the reality that those programs have become so ingrained in American politics he opposes social security privatization and supports stem cell research. But even if Julian's assumption happens to be wrong in this specific case, one could certainly imagine a disabled Republican or Libertarian candidate who takes those anti-disabled positions so his question is a pertinent one.And my answer is yes, of course, you can be anti-disabled politically while being disabled yourself. Merely belonging to a group does not mean that you get some sort of free pass for taking actions that are hostile to its needs. While based on his views from my interview with him I would say Rankin does not have it for himself, in Julian's hypothetical he certainly would.