Wherein I Disagree with MoveOn.org
MoveOn.org (which I belong to and usually pretty much agree with) just sent me an email calling for the resignation of Alan Simpson, Deficit Commission Co-Chair, because he made a comment in which he called those who rely Social Security for income "lesser people."
I followed a link graciously provided by MoveOn.org to Mediaite.com, where I watched the interview in question, and I have to say, I like this guy.
Now, I have not followed the Social Security debate. Considering that we're on different side of the political aisle, I probably disagree with this gentleman's plans for how to manage SS insofar as I would understand them (though I do actually agree in a general, long-term way that the retirement age must rise as/if life expectancy rises; I've long assumed I'll have to work till I'm over 65, and if I'm in sound health, that doesn't seem too horrifying).
But as for the interview itself, yes, a lot of it was tone deaf. Calling working class people "lesser" certainly was, as was the chorus of "crap" and "bullshit," etc. But it was honest. Here was a guy who appears to have been taken aside in a hallway and asked, with no prep whatever, to talk about his views on SS. He could have walked out with a "no comment." But he didn't. He spoke to this fellow who clearly disagreed with him for quite some time in quite some detail about serious aspects of the issue. He sounded annoyed and put out and stressed, as I don't doubt he is. He said a lot of unpolished things, but I like that they were unpolished and that he was willing to say them. I would take this any day over ultra-rehearsed Newspeak drafted by professional speech writers. I came away from this interview feeling this guy had actually thought about the issue he was working on and had real feelings about it. I might disagree with him, but if he is called on resign, it should be because his ideas for fixing the system are bogus, not because he said the wrong word in the act of agreeing to talk to someone in a honest, unrehearsed way about issues that seem genuinely important to him.
I followed a link graciously provided by MoveOn.org to Mediaite.com, where I watched the interview in question, and I have to say, I like this guy.
Now, I have not followed the Social Security debate. Considering that we're on different side of the political aisle, I probably disagree with this gentleman's plans for how to manage SS insofar as I would understand them (though I do actually agree in a general, long-term way that the retirement age must rise as/if life expectancy rises; I've long assumed I'll have to work till I'm over 65, and if I'm in sound health, that doesn't seem too horrifying).
But as for the interview itself, yes, a lot of it was tone deaf. Calling working class people "lesser" certainly was, as was the chorus of "crap" and "bullshit," etc. But it was honest. Here was a guy who appears to have been taken aside in a hallway and asked, with no prep whatever, to talk about his views on SS. He could have walked out with a "no comment." But he didn't. He spoke to this fellow who clearly disagreed with him for quite some time in quite some detail about serious aspects of the issue. He sounded annoyed and put out and stressed, as I don't doubt he is. He said a lot of unpolished things, but I like that they were unpolished and that he was willing to say them. I would take this any day over ultra-rehearsed Newspeak drafted by professional speech writers. I came away from this interview feeling this guy had actually thought about the issue he was working on and had real feelings about it. I might disagree with him, but if he is called on resign, it should be because his ideas for fixing the system are bogus, not because he said the wrong word in the act of agreeing to talk to someone in a honest, unrehearsed way about issues that seem genuinely important to him.