> Arianna Huffington has consistently touted replacing
> government programs with charity. If Cooper, had known
> more (which he admits he does not, then he could have
> asked her why was it then that her own attempt in Santa
> Barbara to provide charity to needy children failed. It
> did not outlive her husbands campaign. This is the
> fallacy of right wing politicos like Huffington's. They
> think they can do better than government and when they have
> millions of dollars which she had to be "effective" they
> don't come through. That is a lousy substation for an
> entitlement which guarantees a qualified individual assistance.
>
> ...<SNIP>...
>
>
> > Marc: Arianna was asked why she is still a Republican and
> > she said it is because she doesn't like big government programs.
> > Ok So let's shoot her. She did say, however, that this objection
> > was no longer one of principle. It was merely because she doesn;t
> > think they are very efficient. I did make a joke after that.. but
> > perhaps Ms Russell's ears were too inflamed to have heard
> > what I said: "So, Arianna," I said with a laugh. "Does that
> > mean that w e on the left can still win you over to a very
> > expensive, very government-intensive program as long as it
> > works?" So? Let's shoot me, I suppose.
>
> Here is where Cooper could have asked her about her own charity that
> failed as she accuses government programs of failing. But Cooper
> did not know about her attack on SSI, or her charity in Santa Barbara
> that failed. It was a perfect opportunity to bust right wing people
> who arrogantly assume that they can do more for the "poor" than
> government can. I am sick of conservatives thinking that they
> have all the answers to how to "help" because they have a fat
> bank account. A charity is a euphemism for economic oppression.
> It keeps those at the bottom on the bottom. To get "help" from a
> charity is one of the most groveling, dehumanizing experiences one
> can be put through. And when a charity sets itself up to do
> something charitable and then goes out of business because it
> cannot do the job, what happens to all those people it was
> supposedly helping?
I've just finished reading "In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America" by Michael B. Katz. While he barely touches on disability per se, he makes it quite clear that private charity has NEVER provided a majority of relief.
Huffington is one of the leading advocates -- certainly THE most visible advocate -- of abandoning entitlements and government responsibility in favor of a "return" to a mythical era of "effective" "private" "compassion" that in fact never existed.
Over the years, Huffington has abandoned just about everything else that could distinguish her as rightwing, for motives anyone is free to question (sheer opportunism is high on my own list, just as becoming a rightwinger in the first place was an act of opportunism [she was stalking Jerry Brown before she turned her attention to Michael Huffington--she seems to have a thing for sexually confused (if not terrified) men]). This leaves her hatred of the welfare state and her touting of a delusional private alternative as her sole claim to speak from the right -- perhaps two feet to the right of Clinton, no make that 18 inches.
This is why Marta's point is anything but special interest blindness to the "big picture", as Cooper's response might lead one to believe. To the contrary, Marta's point goes right to the heart of the matter in two ways: (1) it goes to the heart of Huffington's agenda, as just outlined, AND (2) it goes to the heart of Cooper's own hypocrisy.
Cooper has become so monomaniacally obsessed with getting rid of Clinton that he would invite the devil himself onto his show as a political ally in his crusade. He (along with his sudekick Pat Cadell) has repeated hundreds of attacks on progressives who don't agree with him, calling them morally bankrupt for defending Clinton, REGARDLESS of the reasoning they offer, claiming that he & he alone is capable of some political sophistication in his position.
By defending Clinton IN ANY WAY, Cooper claims, people are letting him off the hook IN EVERY WAY. He denies the very possibility that someone could say that Clinton should be impeached for just about anything BUT Monica-gate, when in fact many progressives DO say exactly that.
Then he invites Arianna Huffington onto his show, and demonstrates that he's guilty of EXACTLY what he accuses any progressive who opposes impeachment of. And who does he put at risk in doing this? Who does HE give a free pass to?
Cooper would have been on much firmer ground if he was willing to treat Huffington with half the rigor he demands that the rest of us direct toward Clinton.
It's hard to think of a sleazier person in public life than Bill Clinton. But Newt Gingrich and Arianna Huffington are the two who spring immediately to mind.
Oh, how I wish he'd go back to his guests with moral rectitude. Pat Buchanan, for instance.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"