Republicans have been primarily the corporate party.  You might think that someone who represents big business would understand the premise that when hiring someone to run a business, you try to hire an individual who will work toward success of that business rather than working to see it fail.  With this in mind, why do Republicans/Conservatives apply exactly the opposite approach when electing governmental representatives?  They elect people who are opposed to government to supposedly make government succeed.

I was discussing political differences with a co-worker a couple nights ago, who denies being “a Republican” and instead claims to be, at various times, either “a Conservative” or “an Independent” depending on which classification he thinks will strengthen his argument at that moment (I’ve noticed that many Republican supporters are refusing to call themselves Republicans these days).  He articulated the old, worn-out Republican-Conservative propaganda line that “Government can’t manage ANYTHING efficiently”. 

Of course, any such supposition requires an explanation of how one defines “efficiency” within the circumstantial context it is used, based on objectives and goals, but knowing such refinement of crucial points would be beyond his capability, I opted to forego that distinction.  In retrospect, raising that distinction might have led to less frustration, but …

I, instead, told him there are plenty of examples of efficient government management.  In response, as an example to support his position he presented, among other things like the equally worn-out examples of the U.S. Postal Service and Social Security, the Environmental Protection Agency.  He posed the question, “What does the EPA do, anyway?”  He then followed immediately with, “Why do we need it?  It doesn’t do anything.”  

I offered the quick answer, “They protect us from environmentally destructive practices that poison us or harm us in other ways.”  He argued that they fail to protect us.  I acknowledged that they have had failures, but pointed out that those failures were not the result of any inherent agency problems but rather a result of corporate lobbyists’ and his right-wing Republican friends’ efforts to gut the agency’s authority.  He took that as an admission on my part that the agency does not do what it is supposed to do, and said, “If it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do, we should get rid of it.”  (Hopefully, the irrationality of his conclusion need not be explained.) 

At that point a particular question became too obvious to avoid asking, so I asked, “Do you want to drink poisoned water and breathe toxic air?”  I followed with, “If you do, just go buy a tank of poisoned water to drink and a tank of toxic air to breathe so I don’t have to be poisoned with you?” 

He said he didn’t want to be poisoned either, but reiterated his view that we don’t need the EPA.  I asked him if he believed that corporations don’t poison the environment and he admitted he did not disbelieve they do.  I asked him why, then, did he think we don’t need the EPA.  He said, “Because it doesn’t do anything.” 

So I asked him what we should do to protect ourselves from a polluted, toxic environment.  His answer was, “Replace the EPA with something that works.”  I asked him what we might replace it with that would not also be neutralized by the same forces that currently neutralize the EPA.  He said, “I don’t know, but we don’t need the EPA.” 

His argument follows this construct: 

1. We need to get rid of the EPA because it fails in protecting us.
2. It fails because the entities engaging in environmentally destructive practices that poison us succeed in neutralizing the EPA by lobbying the representatives he supports in government.
3. We need protection from environmentally destructive practices that poison us.
4. We can protect ourselves from environmentally destructive practices that poison us by replacing the EPA with something that works.
5. He doesn’t know of another agency format with which we could replace the EPA that would not suffer the same neutralizing effects from opposing forces as does the EPA.
6. We need to get rid of the EPA because it fails in protecting us.

His conclusion is a non sequitur and is typical right-wing circular reasoning; “It is true because I say it.”  He has no supporting premise for his argument, he is introduced to logical and factual evidence refuting his position, but is incapable of changing his opinion.

During the same conversation, expressing his view that the nature of the left-wing is dictatorial, he raised a more recent controversy making the rounds on right-wing talk shows; the banning of incandescent light bulbs.  I had heard this talking point one night on one of the right-wing radio talk shows I listen to at work on nights when I have the mental and emotional strength to tolerate their consistent misrepresentations of the truth and the frustration I feel when listening to them. 

My co-worker said, “The government is telling us what kind of light bulbs we can buy, now.”  I explained this was not true; the legislation to which he referred merely outlines lumens per watt of energy consumption and I can go to the store and buy any kind of light bulb I want, including incandescent.  He said, “No, you can’t; they aren’t being made anymore.  It’s against the law to make them.”  I told him he was wrong and our conversation ended shortly thereafter. 

Later, I sent him an email including quotes directly from the legislation supporting my argument that we can still buy incandescent bulbs, but that they are now more energy-efficient.  Because I used a Web page from the Media Matters Web site, he wrote back (I cut-and-pasted his email response): 

“Oh yea, media matters, one of the most leftist liberal miss-information organizations you could find. But my talking point is/was that the manufactures can’t produce incandescent lights, not that we can’t buy them. Which is true. They are forced by the Gestapo federal government to meet certain regulations.”

He presents yet another fine example of the typical Republican-leaning right-wing mentality.  He argued explicitly that we can’t “buy” incandescent bulbs, but then denies it.  He then continues to wrongly argue that manufacturers can’t produce them, despite direct evidence from the wording of the legislation that refutes his position. 

It is truly fascinating to engage with human beings who are so completely incapable of anything remotely resembling logical arguments or conclusions.  Sometimes it is entertaining and other times it is just plainly depressing; it is always frustrating.  But when you realize that people who think like this are actually making decisions in government, decisions that affect all of us and the overall well-being of the nation, it becomes much more; it is a menace, a peril that seemingly has no remedy.