Provocation

“Maybe it’s time to have some provocative language in this country,” said Mr. Perry. This is from the "debate" among Republican presidential contenders that took place last night, Sept. 7th, 2011.

When I read this, I wondered what constitutes "provocative language in this country today." For example, when Perry was asked whether he "lost sleep" about overseeing the execution of 234 people while he has been governor, he said that he had not, not at all. Is this "provocative" in the United States today? Not so much, I think, as most Americans assume that when it comes to executing people our governments never make mistakes. And, besides, even they did and a few innocent people were put to death, where is the harm? Deterrence works much better when people think punishment is a crap shoot!

But then Perry and Romney traded jabs about job creation, both of them taking credit for their ability to create jobs. Well, this is a bit odd coming from alleged "conservatives" who are suppose to think that government has little to do with a healthy economy or with promoting such an economy, except of course "getting out of the way." So this might be "provocative language" today but it passed without comment. And this is as it should be because we all know that the alleged "conservative" agenda of limiting the power of the government is more fiction than fact. As Ron Paul pointed out, at one time, Perry was supporting mandatory vaccinations of young women to prevent certain sexually transmitted disease and if this isn't "Big Government" - to say nothing of stupid public policy - then I don't know what is.

Finally, the candidates sparred over social security and we all know this is a joke and the joke is on us. Why? Because we all know that each one of these candidates does not need social security when they retire! I would prefer that those who are put in charge of "reforming" social security need it, if not now then in the future. That is my money - it is not an entitlement that I am about to receive - and I don't want those controlling it who don't have a similar stake in it.

And, of course, this is one thing that makes the entire event less than interesting to most Americans. We know that those who were debating are not in the same boat as the rest of us. Mitt Romney does not have a job and does not need one! The others on the podium also don't need a job like you and I do in order to survive or remain "out of the poor house." Just as I prefer those who need social security to control it, so too I prefer to have candidates and officials who, like me, need a job in order to survive. As I have said too often, when a politician tells you that "I feel your pain," run away as fast as you can. You know s/he doesn't. And insofar as s/he doesn't, s/he cannot represent me. It just doesn't work that way.

Perhaps this constitutes "provocative language," perhaps not. But this I can guarantee: It is not language you will hear from any candidate or incumbent running for office in the United States today. And you may judge from that whether it is "provocative."