Debt ceiling debate reframed: Chic 'brown' people take on the old 'gray' burdens
With a news cycle saturated in headlines about the "debt ceiling debate," it's important to remember: the bickering between Democrats and Republicans is nothing more than bread and circuses. As Spike Cohen judiciously noted:
Imagine that you maxed out your credit cards, and instead of cutting your over-spending, you're arguing with your spouse over whether to increase your credit limit to $52 thousand or $47 thousand.— Spike Cohen (@RealSpikeCohen) May 3, 2023
Now, change "thousand" to "trillion".
That's the debt ceiling "debate".
The charade prompted Ronald Brownstein, a political analyst for CNN and an editor for The Atlantic, to pen an essay on the spat; he calls it "the collision between the brown and the gray." What, or who are the "brown" and "gray" of which Brownstein writes?
Well, given that this is a leftist with whom we are dealing, if one were to assume that he's made a derogatory remark, one that implies a person's value and humanity is based upon his physical appearances or attributes, one would be correct; in Brownstein's own words, the clash between the trendy "brown" people and the bland hordes of "preponderantly white senior[s]," or the "gray," is culminating in an epic battle — the debt ceiling "debate" — and it's time for a new era. From the text:
The GOP's deficit agenda opens a new front in what I've called the collision between the brown and the gray — the struggle for control of the nation's direction between kaleidoscopically diverse younger generations that are becoming the cornerstone of the modern Democratic electoral coalition and older cohorts that remain predominantly white and anchor the Republican base.
Furthermore, Brownstein writes:
The budget fight, in many ways, represents the fiscal equivalent to the battle over cultural issues raging through Republican-controlled states across the country. In those red states, GOP governors and legislators are using statewide power rooted in their dominance of mostly white and Christian nonurban areas to pass laws imposing the conservative social values and grievances of their base on issues including abortion, LGBTQ rights, classroom censorship, book bans, and even the reintroduction of religious instruction into public schools. On all those fronts, red-state Republicans are institutionalizing policies that generally conflict not only with the preferences but even the identity of younger generations who are much more racially diverse, more likely to identify as LGBTQ, and less likely to identify with any organized religion.
First of all: The battle in government is a battle of imposition, and as someone who acknowledges that morality is absolute and subject to an authority higher than man, I have no qualms about imposing "my" (God's) values upon others. I mean, am I supposed to feel bad that I vehemently oppose allowing hypersexualized and mentally ill men to exploit precious children? Because I don't.
Additionally, Brownstein alleges that the younger generations are "more likely to identify as LGBTQ" and "less likely to identify with any organized religion." Call me crazy, but if this "younger generation" really is largely suffering from identity crises and lacks the social pressure to conform to the Judeo-Christian ethic set (the same one upon which our nation and government is founded), should I really cede to their judgment on policy direction? If they can't discern that biological sex is not a social construct, how can anyone make the argument that they know what's good and true?
Based on objective reality, a government exists for the sole purpose of protecting an individual's inalienable rights — it is not tyranny of the majority — and it's amazing that men like Brownstein would expect me to feel embarrassed to stand by such an obviously true and accurate statement.
The obvious parallel that comes to mind is the German regime of the 1930s with its propaganda posters depicting an infirm man atop the shoulders of an industrious worker with words that read, "Hier trägst du mit" (roughly "you also carry the burden"), and a smiling and youthful family juxtaposed with an older man with the same state "price tag" on both images — the "burdensome" financial cost of the "undesirables." Sounds a little like Brownstein, does it not?
Lastly, how in the world can Brownstein feel justified in dividing people based on physicality? Seems rather bigoted to assume that "brown" people are largely debauched leftists just because of their skin color if you ask me... Within the singular human race, every individual is undoubtedly unique. Where's the arbitrary line between "white" and "racially diverse"?
Remember the Gestapo with their measuring devices "determining" who was a Jew and who wasn't? Someone needs to remind Brownstein that the solemn oath was "never again," because he's doing it...again.
Image: Public Domain.