Consider that Bachmann was even a contender in the race, in the first place. We may laugh now, but her short-lived support from parts of the Republican Party was not insignificant. Maybe if the US continues to lurch toward oligarchy, the ruling elite might see as useful puppets charismatic figures who pander to ignorance and intolerance ? Opposition to government funded sexual and reproductive healthcare for low-income women might indicate a lack of perspective. Consider the billions of dollars unaccounted for in a Pentagon budget where defense contractors reap huge profits, amid allegations of war profiteering. Bear with with me. There’s a connection here. This involve some US companies working in Iraq being accused of maximizing their profits by way of unnecessarily risking or causing death and injury to US soldiers and foreign civilians. Perhaps the government money being spent on low income women is a drop in the bucket by comparison and a wiser investment? I suggest it’s a wiser investment in terms of healthier women raising healthier children who do better in school and do less crime and become tax paying workers instead of prisoners, thereby improving US domestic stability and economic competitiveness. By contrast, I humbly suggest war profiteering is making some people rich at the expense of US national interests. Similarly, it’s odd how some or many common folk are mad about government money for sexual and reproductive care, yet know and care little about government subsidies to huge corporations in sectors of the economy beyond the war profiteering in Iraq. If one is concerned about wasteful government spending, how about focusing on corporate tax evasion? But, sadly, should the focus on low income women surprise us ? It wouldn’t have surprised robber baron Jay Guild who said during the Gilded Age, a similar time of gross inequality: “I can hire half of the working class to kill the other half.” It’s an old trick. Throughout history, ruling elites have looted treasuries of their countries while allowing or promoting conflicts that divide the common people, deflecting popular revolt against them as the masses take their frustrations out on each other, or perversely find unity by persecuting scapegoats. I suggest low-income women, as well as undocumented immigrants, are currently part of this process of scapegoating. This calls to mind Ronald Reagan’s talk about welfare queens driving Cadillacs. He was wrong about that. But was he wrong when he said “government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem” ? Not sure what my anarchist friends would say about this question, but here it is. Maybe the problem is not government per se, but instead the problem exists when government neglects the common people while taking away their civil liberties and imposing phony austerity so as to further enrich corporations and individuals who fund their political campaigns and buy legislation thru lobbying ? Whether you think of yourself as an anarchist or liberal or progressive or conservative, I suggest at least part of what motivates the conservative opposition to government is the goal of distracting and disempowering ordinary folk. Public apathy about politics creates a vacuum those abusing power will very likely fill. An equally undesirable possibility is a populist movement based on xenophobia and other forms of intolerance. One might ask of a conservative complaining about the evils of government, “Who funds all those power hungry people in government you’re warning us about?” ———————————————————– How would cracking down on war profiteering count as something concrete ? If I’m not mistaken, there has been a contingent of folk who’ve not been against imperialism, per se. Actually, some of them believe imperialism can be good, if done right. But they say US leaders have botched that by allowing or promoting crony capitalism among defense contractors in Iraq and in terms of other conflicts. But, again, as you say, the devil is in the details. Only relatively recently have I improved my freelance scholarship by writing notes to reference, long term, who said what, where. (As an aside, I suspect a person can’t be a serious reader, without writing or using some other form of self-expression to process.) But anyway, other posters here can chime with their own views. Ideally, we’d collaborate to flesh out the details with an open mind. Maybe to you this is a big if. But if it’s the case defense contractors have, with government help, abused the system in order to make huge profits, what then does that tell us about how excessive corporate power might affect US national interests? How much do we think , for example, what is good for Bechtel, Custer Battles, or General Dynamics is good for our country? —————————————————————- This calls to mind how many years ago, I forced myself to wear a helmet, despite that I somehow believed that other people were judging me to be nerdy because of it. I may have been paranoid or irrational about that back then. But there’s at least some connection between not wanting to wear a helmet Also, this reminds me of how about 3 years ago as I resumed cycling my exercise of caution seemed to take the joy out of riding. I’m not bragging or blaming Sean, but I’ve crossed paths with cyclists who somehow believe that wearing a helmet and otherwise exercising caution is an unacceptable comprise to the free-spiritedness of riding. Again, no offense to fellow cyclists nor insensitivity to Sean’s challenges, but I noticed quite a few cyclists, particularly young men, who seem to think every foot of their ride should be full-throttle. I don’t know the circumstances of Sean’s crash, but it’s simply not safe to cycle as an intense sport while riding city streets or even, much of the time, our multi-use trails.