Wow, should it be so bad that people can get affordable housing in a city like Madison when rents are ridiculously high already? Or that they can make enough money on a living wage to support their families and maybe get themselves off welfare and your tax dollars? That’s not progressive, it is just common sense.

well I guess if you don’t like it here, and hate our freedoms, you can move to Arkansas.

Darryn,

My God, first of all, you make no sense. I don’t even know where to start. But your bizarre column just shows that you are the one living in “unreality.” What exactly is it about living in one of the healthiest, most prosperous, cleanest cities in America that bothers you so much? The places that have implemented the policies you and Mr. Bush so desire (think Alabama, for example) are precisely the ones that require the very government assistance you claim to hate. Red states receive vastly more money per capita in federal assistance than blue states, even after controlling for defense spending and retiree populations. This is because their “ownership societies” can’t even provide for their own needs. Indeed, a recent Ohio State study shows that “for each additional 10 cents per dollar of non-defense federal spending in a state, Bush's margin in the 2000 election increased by 2.9 percentage points.”* Your people are the ones getting the handouts, Darryn, so would you please just stop? Seriously, just stop. You are an embarrassment to your department, your university, and yourself.

*Prof. Dean Lacy, “A Curious Paradox of the Red States and Blue States: Federal Spending and Electoral Votes in the 2000 Election,” March 2002.

The 9/11 victims and their families got a number of “handouts” from the federal government too. I guess this is OK since the recipients were largely white and middle class.

One of the most exciting parts of the “ownership” society is that I now “own” part of the almost 2 trillion dollars Bush and the Republican Congress have added to the defecit since 2000. Thanks, guys!

Question for you, Darryn: I have no money to put into my health care savings accout, and my job does not offer health care. What is the solution to this problem. Does “individual responsibility” just require that I go bankrupt? Or not go to the doctor?

Calling progressives in Madison and elsewhere “socialists in progressive clothing” makes it sound like the former is evil, and the latter is something good, which the evil can use to decieve people. Yet your column staunchly attacks progressives and all that they stand for—things as crazy as equality, open government, clean environment, and sound public policy. Whoa, call the regime, this political sanity is choking selfish, false-choice loving elitists! The way you argue AGAINST affordable housing, especially in property-value inflated Madison approaching a cold winter makes you sound heartless. The last time I checked, a fair wage producing a decent standard of living for all was not the product of senseless, commie government handouts, it’s a solution to a serious problem in our super-power nation. Maybe the plight of the poor wouldn’t bother you so much if they weren’t so visible—aka NOT POOR. Your lack of insensitivity and touch with reality is really disturbing, but not surprising considering the party you represent. For a doctoral student, it sure is taking a long time for you to get a clue. Wealth disparity and the like is 101 stuff. If this was the Civil War South, you’d be a slave owner. If this was the 1960s, you’d oppose minority voting rights and equal protection. But it’s 2005, and instead you’re calling for the impoverished to pull themselves up by the proverbial bootstraps by branding progressivism a societal evil. Should the harsh world ever put you out on the street for whatever reason, left to fend for yourself, I’d give you a dollar and tell you to spend it on a clue. Wake up, and for the sake of all of us, please never run for public office.

OK, folks, let’s see how Darryn did:

Ad hominem attack? “Some call it progressivism. I prefer to identify it as socialism. Whatever the label, its seemingly apparent progressives are far more left than Jerry Falwell is right.” CHECK

Begging the question? “And there is a solution to the problem facing this city: the creation of an ownership society.” CHECK

Appeal to belief? “These issues have one thing in common: non-morally reprehensible choice.” CHECK

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc? “Government handouts and entitlement programs have always been the progressive's steadfast answer to our society's problems. With the recent tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, though, it became outwardly apparent such responses don't work. Those who suffered most were not necessarily the economically disadvantaged, but those who relied on the government for their basic necessities — housing, food and health care to name a few.” CHECK

Strawman? “Instead of worrying about the machinery needed to garner the "Most Progressive City" title he so desperately desires, Mr. Cieslewicz should be concerned with the problems both within and beyond this city's 76 square miles of unreality. If he did, he would see many of the troubles caused by a progressive society.” CHECK

Grade on quality of argument: D-minus Grade on obnoxious partisanship: B-plus

“I recently attended an academic conference in Milwaukee where the panels discussed the role of government in society. The meeting, unsurprisingly, exposed one of the glaring weaknesses of the progressive movement — an overly intrusive government.

Given this finding, it's easy to view Madison as the poster child for this faction.”

Given what exactly? You attended a conference. Who spoke? What was the finding? How did they expose this finding? What evidence was offered, or what evidence can you offer, to support that?

Much like your last column, where you belly-ached about the “infringement” of your rights because of a mandatory diversity discussion; you have failed to identify what it is that you are complaining about. Actually, failed is the wrong word…you never attempt to identify the source of your concern…save for this vague progressive-socialist-over burdening-government-thing.

Somewhere Darryn, I am sure there is an actual, tangible, substantive argument you can make as a conservative that would engage your leftist adversaries and even your fellow Republicans in a thoughtful discussion. But so far, all your columns are buzz words and political jargon, without any heft whatsoever.

welcome to the censorship forum

I find it odd that your definition of “overly intrusive” does not include, for example, government intrusion into what I do with my uterus; who I can love, live with, marry, and raise my children with; what substances I can choose to use or not use, such as marijuana; and my ability, if i were terminally ill, to chose to end my life in a comfortable, peaceful, painless way. Not allowing any of those things is, apparently, NOT “overly intrusive”. It’s probably the “will of the people” that some of the people not be allowed to do as they wish - experience, as it were, “liberty” in a “free society”. Which is apparently unacceptable in the case of smoking bans but acceptable in the cases of restricting all of the things listed above.

Michael Malcolm: Maybe because they actually lost something then of significant monetary value. To give handouts to someone who had nothing to begin with is different then to give someone a small amount when they have lost everything they had due to something they had zero control over. Because yes, people who live in poverty do in fact have some control over what becomes of them.

First of all, I must wonder how in the world you got into graduate school when you can not seem to form a coherent argument. Might I suggest you seek out the services of the campus writing center? Or perhaps take an intro to logic class?

Second, Are you actually implying that hurricane victims suffered so much because they “relied” on government assistance!? Or that Wisconsin’s welfare system is really effective in bringing people out of poverty? Here’s a tip for you: The Heritage Foundation is probably not the most reliable place to research your columns.

“Those who suffered most were not necessarily the economically disadvantaged, but those who relied on the government for their basic necessities.” - BECAUSE THAT’S RIGHT, ALL OF THE ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE WHO WEREN’T RECEIVING GOVERNMENT AID HAD ENOUGH MONEY TO AFFORD GAS TO LEAVE BEFORE THE HURRICANE GOT THERE. ARE YOU SERIOUS??

“Given this reliance, it should have been anticipated many would have cried foul when the federal government did not immediately provide the handouts and assistance they were accustomed to in the days after the hurricane made landfall.” OR PERHAPS ITS BECAUSE THERE WERE DEAD BODIES ON THE STREET, HOUSES WERE FILLED WITH SEWAGE, PEOPLE HAD NO FOOD, NO MEDICINE, NO CLEAN DRINKING WATER, NO ELECTRICTY, NO COMMUNICATIONS, OH YEAH, AND NO WAY OUT. BUT I GUESS IN THE CONSERVATIVE UNREALITY THAT YOU LIVE IN, THOSE ARE NO REASONS TO CRY FOUL…

Individual responsibility requires that you get a job that provides healthcare, or save money to put into a health savings account. Why should people expect the government to take care of them when they should be perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. We are adults, aren’t we? One would think adults could handle a little bit of personal responsibility…

What is scary to me is that this girl is a doctoral student in political science… I thought educated people were always liberals? How can you be educated and still believe that republican crap? Also- maybe if you are a poli sci doctoral student you should understand the difference between socialism and a social democracy.

Darryn -

Great column. Gets right down to first principles and refuses to kowtow to Progressive Dane. Well done. Thanks for giving us all a shot of intellectual diversity.

Why do so-called ‘conservatives,’ who supposedly oppose ‘bi government’ when it comes to reguations in the interest of people’s health and well-being (smoking bans, environmental regulations, social security, welfare, health care, a living minimum wage) LOVE an intrusive governmen when it comes to issues of personal choice (gay marriage, reproductive rights, recreational drug use)? Progressives more left than Falwell is right? True enough, Falwell isn’t right about much at all.

Setting aside the politics of this article, where did you learn to write? And more importantly, how are you a PhD/MPA student? Let’s follow this article: we want an ownership society, which means no smoking bans, no national flood insurance, personal responsibility, and more restrictive welfare. Afterall, those things are the equivalent of socialism. If you want to be the next Ann Coulter, you have to at least be able to write a coherent article.

So, please shine some sunlight on our problems. From the article, I guess they are:

Problem 1: Public Health is too good. Bring back secondhand smoke.

Problem 2: Housing is too affordable in new housing developments. Let’s gouge people more!

Problem 3: We pay workers too much. Living Wage is for sissys.

Is that all you’ve got? People who want to smoke in bars now can’t? THAT’S the big problem of grandiose proportions?

I bet there’s more, and I’d like to hear them. That would be a column I’d look forward to reading, whoever writes it.

gosh all your premises are based on falsities. r u a dr. candidate?

So again, you are not posting comments?

Why is the Badger Herald allowing this girl to represent their paper. Get rid of her and hire someone who can at least represent the right without random garble.

The Badger Herald keeps letting her write because it is actually bringing them great publicity. I’d never read the paper, except now I check it everyday just to see what ridiculuous thing Darryn will do next. It’s like a train wreck, it’s horrendous, but I just can’t look away…

Wouldn’t affordable housing actually PROMOTE an ownership society?

I guess that’s not in the talking points.

This the most poorly written article I have ever read.

Perhaps if you had ever had to work for money in order to own something rather than just having everything handed to you, you might have a different perspective…