I Don’t Know How to Explain to You That You’re Completely Misguided

Kayla Chadwick, a contributor over at the Huffington Post, has written what may be the worst op-ed I have ever seen.

I know, I know. Fisking a HuffPo article is like peeling off one’s skin with a tuning fork, but less fun. Still, this one really deserves a fisking. I just can’t let this sit out there, unopposed, infecting people’s minds. A glance at the comments section for the article indicates it’s managed to strike that sweet spot of the HuffPo audience that’s truly, utterly, whole-heartedly deceived into a worldview that smugly denies all truth and reality.

The overall message? Lack of compassion = selfishness = evil = anyone opposed to letting the government run everything. Get that? You’re evil.

The article is titled, “I Don’t Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People,” and the only valid line in the whole article is the subtitle: “Our disagreement is not merely political, but a fundamental divide on what it means to live in a society.” Yep, that’s actually true. You nailed it, there, Kayla. But the rest of the article is 600 words of sheer, unabashed, close-minded, myopic, arrogant LUNACY…and here’s why:

Let’s start with her opening remark, which, cleverly, is also her title:

I don’t know how to explain to someone why they should care about other people.

This, of course, is immediately insulting, as it presupposes that her opposition (you know, the EEEEEEVIL conservatives) are heartless, selfish, nasty barely-human individuals who DO NOT CARE(!) about other people. Think about that for a moment. I mean, why should she even bother to argue at all, when her opponent is purely evil?

The problem is that her entire argument is based on either willful ignorance or a bald-faced lie. Never mind that 9 of the top 10 states for charitable giving vote Republican, as reported by (who?) the Huffington Post in 2013. (I’m sure conservatives donate because they’re religious rubes, not because they actually CARE about people, right, Kayla?) The same article shows Republicans giving money to charity at a rate of 54-45 over Democrats, and volunteering time for a cause 33-24 over Democrats. But, who cares about facts, when you have FEEEEEELINGS?

Let’s move on, now, to her first bit of specific moral preening:

Personally, I’m happy to pay an extra 4.3 percent for my fast food burger if it means the person making it for me can afford to feed their own family. If you aren’t willing to fork over an extra 17 cents for a Big Mac, you’re a fundamentally different person than I am.

I’m willing to pay whatever the fair market value of a burger is, with fluctuations for quality, of course. I’m not willing to pay what some government bureaucrat dictates I pay because of some warped sense of “social justice” or “collective compassion” or “forced charity” or other redistributive nonsense that ignores the real economic world. Forget the fact that entry-level fast food jobs are just that: entry level. They’re designed for young, first-time workers to learn how to function in the real world. They’re there as a part-time supplement. They were never intended as a way to “feed a family,” and, indeed, the statistics indicate that most minimum wage earners are kids and part-timers. Moreover, the misguided push to raise the minimum wage only hurts those workers in the long run, just as ANY minimum wage law does.

Yes, Kayla, I’m a fundamentally different person than you are, because as much as I like feelings, I find that facts are a better way to define policy. Since I actually do care about the poor, minorities, and teenagers, I oppose government meddling in voluntary private transactions such as wage levels. As is usually the case, the only law that applies is the law of unintended consequences, and such meddling invariably results in harm to the very people these do-gooders are trying to help.

She goes on:

I’m perfectly content to pay taxes that go toward public schools, even though I’m childless and intend to stay that way, because all children deserve a quality, free education. If this seems unfair or unreasonable to you, we are never going to see eye to eye.

First off: thank you. Thank you for not procreating. As for taxes going toward public schools and “quality, free” education…it’s true, we’ll never see eye to eye on that one, because, once again: facts. Nearly two trillion dollars of Americans’ hard-earned money has been thrown at “free” public education since the creation of the federal Department of Education, with virtually zero measurable improvement in education outcomes. So, the answer, of course, is more cowbell, right? No.

In fact, the best thing we can do for children in America is to completely dismantle the federal behemoth. Trying to fix public education is like trying to climb a ladder that’s leaning on the wrong wall, anyway. “Free public education” is an indoctrination tool for Marxists (it’s right there in chapter two of the manifesto). Because I do in fact care about children, I do indeed believe that taking people’s money to feed a feckless, evil, tool is unreasonable. Far better to voluntarily put our money toward education that can show truly positive results by allowing people’s money to follow their children to the best education the market can provide. As with everything, the most expensive, corrupt, wasteful, inefficient and ineffective way to get anything done is via a government mandate.

Eschewing the government monopoly and offering choice in education is morally right; so, no, we’ll never see eye to eye, Kayla.

Here comes perhaps her biggest whopper:

If I have to pay a little more with each paycheck to ensure my fellow Americans can access health care? SIGN ME UP. Poverty should not be a death sentence in the richest country in the world. If you’re okay with thousands of people dying of treatable diseases just so the wealthiest among us can hoard still more wealth, there is a divide between our worldviews that can never be bridged.

Quite a lot of steaming manure to parse, there. First, government-run healthcare schemes don’t involve “a little more with each paycheck,” because they are fund-sucking monsters that always have huge impacts on the income of everyday Americans. Guess what, Kayla? You are more than welcome to donate your own morally-superior money to any public or private program you think is effective. But, as previously noted, government is the most corrupt, least efficient way to “invest” in helping others, so forcing others to follow your folly would be indecent. Further, such programs are not merely about taking peoples’ money —they’re about reducing peoples’ options, disrupting the free market, stifling innovation, reducing quality, and decreasing access as supplies are subverted.

I won’t litigate the plethora of reasons why government-run healthcare is an abomination — the evidence is abundant and the arguments are numerous. But I will address the foolish hyperbole above. First, nobody dies in the street because they can’t afford health care. It’s a myth. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that the care patients receive is not affected by whether they are insured or uninsured or by the type of insurance they have. So, knock it off. “Thousands of people” are not dying so that the wealthy can “hoard still more wealth.” It’s simply poppycock. Never mind the fact that those EEEEVIL wealthy people disproportionately pay the lion’s share of taxes in the U.S. Again, those pesky facts!

Just imagine the horror! Imagine if we have to go back to stepping over all the dead people in the streets like we did in 2008!

Yes, there is a divide between our worldviews that can never be bridged, at least not as long as you’re willing to believe statist propaganda, Kayla.

I don’t know how to convince someone how to experience the basic human emotion of empathy.

Good, because you don’t have to. Your ideological opponents don’t need such lessons from the likes of you, since you really don’t understand empathy yourself. What you believe in is forcing your ideas on everyone else, without regard for their rights to their own property, with not a care for their liberty, without the least concern for their self-determination. None of those things — the most fundamental freedoms and characteristics of being a human individual — factor into your steamroller attempts to make the world fit your perverse conception of “fair.”

I cannot have one more conversation with someone who is content to see millions of people suffer needlessly in exchange for a tax cut that statistically they’ll never see (do you make anywhere close to the median American salary? Less? Congrats, this tax break is not for you).

Yes, please don’t have one more conversation. We don’t need any more nonsensical conversations. Again, you build quite a straw man, there. As it turns out, there really are no cigar-smoking, diamond-nose-ring-wearing, moustache-twirling fat cats sitting around contentedly as “millions of people suffer needlessly” in the absence of government-run healthcare. They don’t exist.

As for tax breaks, and whether or not I personally see them…any and all tax cuts are good. All of them. Every single one. Each one represents a restoration of liberty. It lets people keep what’s theirs. And that benefits all of society. The idea that I should only favor a tax cut if it directly affects my paycheck is selfish and unseemly. You should be ashamed of yourself, Kayla.

I cannot have political debates with these people. Our disagreement is not merely political, but a fundamental divide on what it means to live in a society, how to be a good person, and why any of that matters.

This is the part where I agree. We definitely shouldn’t bother to argue about this, because you’ve got everything completely backward, and are unwilling to even entertain another point of view. In reality, good people don’t take each other’s stuff by force. They leave each other alone. They voluntarily help each other. They respect free agency. They trust in the kindness and goodness of private people over faceless, unaccountable bureaucracies. Good people believe in human individuals, not the inhuman leviathan.

There are all kinds of practical, self-serving reasons to raise the minimum wage (fairly compensated workers typically do better work), fund public schools (everyone’s safer when the general public can read and use critical thinking), and make sure every American can access health care (outbreaks of preventable diseases being generally undesirable).

Nope, nope, and…nope. I’ve already addressed the folly of minimum wage, the utter waste of public schools, and the downright tyranny of socialized medicine (though I chose not to delve into the latter here, because it’s a huge topic and the evidence against government-run healthcare is so readily available). The “critical thinking” bit in there is particularly ironic, given the way public schools teach, and the societal results that speak for themselves...not to mention the fact that experts agree that critical thinking and public schools don’t mix.

But if making sure your fellow citizens can afford to eat, get an education, and go to the doctor isn’t enough of a reason to fund those things, I have nothing left to say to you.

In an egalitarian society where rights and responsibilities are respected, people don’t force other people to pay for stuff. That doesn’t mean we don’t want that stuff. It’s really very, very simple. Kayla, you fall into the massive collectivist fallacy that’s brilliantly debunked here by Frederic Bastiat:

“Socialism… confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

I can’t debate someone into caring about what happens to their fellow human beings. The fact that such detached cruelty is so normalized in a certain party’s political discourse is at once infuriating and terrifying.

Having debated with pro-abortion people, I actually agree with this.

The “I’ve got mine, so screw you,” attitude has been oozing from the American right wing for decades, but this gleeful exuberance in pushing legislation that will immediately hurt the most vulnerable among us is chilling.

I’m guessing Kayla lives in such a bubble that she doesn’t actually have any “right-wing” friends. I mean, how could she? They’re evil! Never mind that her opposition is actually quite generous, according to the New York Times. Chilling, indeed.

Perhaps it was always like this. I’m (relatively) young, so maybe I’m just waking up to this unimaginable callousness. Maybe the emergence of social media has just made this heinous tendency more visible; seeing hundreds of accounts spring to the defense of policies that will almost certainly make their lives more difficult is incredible to behold.

Unimaginable callousness! The sky is falling! Everyone who disagrees that government should run everything is mean!

Has it not occurred to you that those who defend policies that you believe will “make their lives more difficult” are actually behaving on principle? Unselfish principles that you cannot, in your cloistered youth, fathom? Can you not even entertain the idea that maybe — just maybe — they realize that your preferred policies are worse for everyone? No…of course not. They’re just evil and stupid, right?

I don’t know if [sic] what’s changed ― or indeed, if anything has ― and I don’t have any easy answers. But I do know I’m done trying to convince these hordes of selfish, cruel people to look beyond themselves.

“Hordes of selfish, cruel people.” Your fellow Americans who value liberty, who recognize the illegitimacy and unconstitutionality of the government tyranny you support, who happen to believe in the fundamental goodness of people, who understand how markets work…they’re just selfish, cruel people, and you and your irritating hyperbole are just enlightening us all as to the clear divide between the good and the evil, right? Hint: I don’t think it’s working.

Futility can’t be good for my blood pressure, and the way things are going, I won’t have health insurance for long.

What might be good for your health is a little honest introspection. A little humility. A little giving others the benefit of the doubt. A little open-mindedness. A little — dare I say — critical thinking.

Look, if you really do have such a big heart, Kayla, why not go help people, instead of writing a bunch of brainless propaganda at the HuffPo? Volunteerism and charity are also good for your health.

Okay, to be fair, I can understand why you have such muddled thinking. Using your God-given intellect is hard when you’re too busy thinking yourself morally superior because that’s what you’ve been told to believe. It tends to cloud judgment and make you impervious to reason.

The real tragedy here is two-fold. First, whether Kayla’s article is widely read or not, this ridiculous screed and ones similar to it are being taken seriously by a huge swath of people —yes, some of them are even your friends and neighbors. To quote the president: “Sad!”

The second issue is this: there is no way to get through to these people once they’ve positioned themselves as “the good” and everyone else as “the evil.” By assuming their own conclusion, they shut down debate and feel entitled to ignore facts and reason. Opposing points are not valid —not because they are in disagreement with their worldview, but on the simple basis that those points come from the “other side” and are therefore evil and not worthy of honest consideration.

But the truly scary thing about this is not that we have no hope of appealing to these people’s better natures, but that they’ve consciously decided that they’re the only people with a better nature, and that kind of dehumanizing thinking is what leads, inevitably, to reeducation camps and gulags and concentration camps and mass graves. Just ask history.

Through articles like this, and, more importantly, through the expertly-woven narratives that permeate and saturate our popular culture’s entertainment (you know, where people like Kayla’s worldview are formed, nurtured, fed, and solidified over the decades), you have been deemed not just wrong, but evil.

Watch your backs, folks.