Clearly stupid

The Oklahoman loves to run letters that purport to give vast sweeping historical narratives explaining how the US has turned into some quasi-socialist, atheist nation. And while it is true that the country is no longer the homogenous white, Christian nation that it was in the 1950's, it's still largely white, and largely Christian. Nevertheless, this doesn't stop people like Richard Day of Nichols Hills to write in to give us his view of what's wrong with this country:

It seems clear that we’ve been socially, politically and economically divided into two hostile and competing camps — the receivers of government support and the contributors who fuel the process through taxation. Because the receivers outnumber contributors, government’s role as 'the gatherer of wealth' is affirmed. The process is held to be the essence of social justice and creates a class of elitists who function as 'wealth distributors,' always in the name of fairness and equality.

Well, first things first: while it may be true that there are real "hostile and competing camps" trying to describe them into pejorative "makers" and "takers" terms is a bit propagandistic. I mean, why not just say "good guys" and "bad guys" can be done with it?

What he is clearly observing, though, is that the US has seen upward mobility decline along with its income inequality. People are finding that no matter how hard they work, they can't seem to get ahead. Indeed, some are finding that even after having done all the right things-- staying out of trouble, getting an education, and working hard, they are falling behind. This is the opposite of what Americans have been told for generations.

Mr Day also seems to be confused about what the function of government is. For him and those like him-- selfish, wealthy old white men-- there is a lot of anger in the fact that a government actually requites money to operate and so in describing it, he reduces it to what he cares about most: taxes. A more level-headed, less wealth-obsessed individual might have thought of a government as  something that provides things like roads, schools and running water. Its police keep him and his property safe. It's military defends him from invasion. But no. When you're mad because you pay taxes (even though they are at near historic lows), the government is just a "gatherer of wealth" and that's all.

What's vexing, though, is the leap of logic in his next sentence-- that due to the government's role as a money-taker there is a "class of elitists" who distribute it in the name of "fairness and equality"?? What the fuck is he talking about? A "class" is usually some group that is distinguished from others due to (often perceived) social or economic status. So what "class" is out there doling out the cash from rich, white men to poor brown people? Last time I checked, budgets were hammered out by elected officials like members of the US House of Representatives. And while yeah, they're sort of rich, and there isn't always a lot of turn-over, they are elected officials who come from all walks of life and represent a range of political views.

So who does Mr Day think is doling out his money?!?

At this point, a real newspaper would have stopped with this letter. Mr Day is mad about taxes and doesn't want to pay them. Instead of just saying that, he rants on with this crazed narrative wherein mysterious "elitists" are stealing his money and doling it out to undeserving poor people.

Anyhow, what's next in our history lesson?

Perhaps it wouldn’t be so bad if individual wealth was the only thing involved. Then it becomes just another chapter in the insidious history of taxation. But the elitists’ agenda has been expanded into the most personal elements of our lives. Marriage and abortion are prime examples.

Yeah, OK. So the "insidious history of taxation" line tells us almost all we need to know. This guy lives in a world where he somehow achieved success only through his own hard work (perhaps in spite of the government) and now sees that his being taxed is some "insidious" act perpetrated against him.

DELUSIONAL.

And then he goes on-- these "elitists" (who are they again?) are intruding on "our" lives (OUR LIVES!) like marriage. So again, he's mad because two gay guys that he doesn't know and never interacts with want to get married. And even though these things were banned and are now being allowed through normal legal channels, it is still the fault of these mysterious "elitists"?!? This is bordering on paranoia!!

Christianity and the Ten Commandments pose a problem for this brave new order because they present a code for moral behavior that can’t be repositioned, regulated or referred to a committee. The elitists’ response has been to conjure the hoary chant of bigotry, together with the admonition that our personal and religious values would be better served by a newly minted creed: multiculturalism.

"Brave new order"?!? No, no. It's Brave New World, and then just New World Order. Er, New World Order. Don't combine them. And then-- surprise!-- he's mad because some people aren't Christian. But, since he can't possibly imagine how anyone wouldn't be Christian, he blames the phantom elitists and gets a bureaucracy jab thrown in for good measure. And please stop with crying about the "multiculturalism" thing. Just say: I like white Christians and don't want to see non-white, non-Christians anywhere in my life. Unless they are cleaning my corner office, or entertaining me on TV.

But then get this:

The problem is that nobody believes in everything and everyone’s religious conviction is no one’s religious conviction. The result is to systematically create a divisive social and political vacuum that elevates the elitist to a deity, always in the name of tolerance.

Truly try to make sense of this paragraph. For Mr Day, it's a "problem" is that "nobody believes in everything" and thus "religious conviction" doesn't exist. Or something. So is he upset that we should all believe in everything? That can't be right-- one can't support X and not-X at the same time. So what does this mean?!? Is this just a stupidly-phrased way of lamenting that not everybody is a white fundamentalist Christian? And then WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS CONCLUSION-- that the "elitist" (WHO IS THIS?!?) is a "deity"?? Now, while Americans have elevated some beings to god-like status in the past, I don't think that is happening now. Is it?

I mean, perhaps this is all code for Obama? Is he the mysterious "elitist" who is now a god? A god with a 48% approval rating? If so, it's an even dumber letter than I gave it credit for.

In any event, no real newspaper would bother with this rambling manifesto talking about mysterious "elitists" who dole out money to the poor, let gay people get married, and try to minimize bigotry against non-whites. It's an ineloquent letter with a non-sensical conclusion written by a some old white fundamentalist Christian who is bitter about how other people are upset at the gradual fading of the American Dream.