February 23, 2005
An earlier form of liberalism
Ronald Reagan started out as a Democrat and admired FDR. When asked why he left the party, Reagan said that the party left him. Worthy causes often overshoot their goals and committed people rarely know when they succeed and its time to stop pushing. It is also hard for them to recognize when they have been running down blind alleys or when conditions have changed such that the solution they were after is no longer appropriate, or that every solution creates a problem. Successful revolutionaries turn reactionary almost as sure as night follows day, but they cannot see it in their self-imposed darkness
This blindness is a danger for the now ascendant conservatives and there is evidence that the vision is failing already; it has been a liberal myopia since the 1960s. Reactionary liberals who speak the language of liberalism but in practice follow illiberal policies, run many of the great causes such as civil rights, feminism, environmentalism, diversity and the war on poverty. Civil rights descended from striving for equality to bean counting quotas. Feminism morphed into something like a female separatist movement focused on the Holy Grail of abortion. Environmentalism developed into a religion for those who reject what they heard at church. To hear some of the extremists talk, the earth is some kind of pagan deity and every tree, rock and stream has its own animistic sprit. Diversity moved from inclusiveness to the claiming of exclusive turf such that nobody not from the particular group is thought competent to speak about its issues. We declared war on poverty in the 1960s. Poverty won and demanded reparations. But we were slow to recognize that many of the pathologies of poverty came not in spite of our best efforts but BECAUSE of them.
Conservatives do not oppose the worthy causes I mentioned above. The nasty conservative is a caricature, a straw man set up only to knock down. We just don't agree that the methods deployed to reach these goals are working any more. Many of us agree that big government interventions were necessary. Kick ass environmental legislation was needed in 1970, when you couldn't draw a comfortable breath in a big city. Without the civil rights laws of the 1960s, we would not enjoy the progress we have today. Some of us were in the liberal camp back then, but one morning we woke up to find the big tent had moved too far to the left. It is no coincidence that the Ronald Reagan juggernaut gained speed and converts.
Solutions appropriate for one situation and time may not apply in another and the solutions of the past have changed the current situations. Liberals need to recognize success and take the next steps. (I assume we can all agree that many things have improved. If they have not after a half-century of effort, it would be a real indictment of liberal programs.)
Nothing lasts forever and no resolution, no matter how elegant and proper, survives the generation that produced it. Liberal special interests are entrenched and fighting to defend the achievements of the past. Let's stop defending the past and move on to the future. We have a great legacy, but sometimes an overhaul is in order. Franklin Roosevelt was a great man and a great president - for the times when he was in office. Respect the achievements of great men and women, but don't let their dead hands rest too heavily on the future.
“Nothing lasts forever and no resolution, no matter how elegant and proper, survives the generation that produced it. Liberal special interests are entrenched and fighting to defend the achievements of the past. Let’s stop defending the past and move on to the future. We have a great legacy, but sometimes an overhaul is in order.”
Good to have you back Jack.
While it is well and good to move forward, and not be bogged down with acomplishments of the past, we don’t need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
There are some things that we don’t need to roll back. The environment is one of them. To undo legislation that put in place environmental standards, only because they caused corporate hardship is ridiculous. Sorry guys, it is now part of the cost of doing business. The days of anything and everything for a profit should be long past. Funny how, as corporate ceo’s salaries rose, the call to roll back environmental standards grew louder, because it was too expensive to do business.
Go figure.
Posted by: Rocky at February 23, 2005 12:52 PMJack — Excellent post. I feel like you have shown me something that on some level I knew, but that I truly learned today. I see why they apprciate you so much.
The stage has been set … let the solutions come forth.
Posted by: mike at February 23, 2005 01:05 PMJack:
“Franklin Roosevelt was a great man and a great president - for the times when he was in office. Respect the achievements of great men and women, but don’t let their dead hands rest too heavily on the future.”
I believe that Roosevelt, like Abraham Lincoln, was and is an American president for All time. His wisdom and words will never cease to be useful, and (aside from what he did to Japanese-American’s during WWII) his brand of decision making will never go out of style.
Being a woman who collects quotes as other people collect trinkets, I’d like to share what I consider the very best of FDR’s political wisdom. Words as relevant to us today as they were during his era:
”The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”
“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we now know that it is bad economics.”
“True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”
“A nation that destroys it’s soils destroys itself. Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people.”
“Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.”
“Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.”
“I think we consider too much the good luck of the early bird and not enough the bad luck of the early worm.”
“If civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships - the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together, in the same world at peace.”
“When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on.”
“More than an end to war, we want an end to the beginning of all wars - yes, an end to this brutal, inhuman and thoroughly impractical method of settling the differences between governments.”
“I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people.”
“In our seeking for economic and political progress, we all go up - or else we all go down.”
“Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are.”
“Selfishness is the only real atheism; aspiration, unselfishness, the only real religion.”
“Take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly, and try another. But by all means, try something.”
“To reach a port, we must sail - sail, not tie at anchor - sail, not drift.
“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.”
“The virtues are lost in self-interest as rivers are lost in the sea.”
“There are many ways of going forward, but only one way of standing still.”
“It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.”
“We continue to recognize the greater ability of some to earn more than others. But we do assert that the ambition of the individual to obtain for him a proper security is an ambition to be preferred to the appetite for great wealth and great power.”
“A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.”
“The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the goverment.”
“The point in history at which we stand is full of promise and danger. The world will either move forward toward unity and widely shared prosperity - or it will move apart.”
“The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today.”
“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
Adrienne
I do love Franklin Roosevelt and I agree that his wisdom can still inspire. I think that we should take the time to commit some of his cadences to memory. Lincoln’s too. But the details of their solutions fit their time and place, not ours. Remember them and honor their memories not by doing as they said but by doing as they did: experimenting and innovating, making mistakes and recovering from them.
Rocky
Rolling back environmental rules is not something I advocate. I want the environment to become cleaner every year, but the command and control method of achieving this goal has reached the end of its road. The problem is no longer the big concentrated polluters of yore. When last have you seen black smoke pouring from the smokestacks of a big factory? Our problems are now diverse and diffuse – gas from the end of the cow not end of the pipe. Pollution is no longer something we can easily see or trace. To solve this set of problems, we need to empower human ingenuity, and this means incentives and market forces rather than specific regulations. Pollution, after all, is literally waste. As an engineer, you appreciate that systems can be reengineered to minimize waste, but that will happen only if waste can be identified as a controllable variable cost. This requires government regulation of a different and more flexible kind and the use of carrots as well as sticks. Yes, you will be rewarding polluters at first. But over time pollution will diminish as these greedy capitalists figure out ways to cut costs. The alternative is trying to set specific standards in areas where government bureaucrats know little. The incentive then is not to cut cost, but merely to cheat of shift your share of the blame. That is precisely what happened with the laws concerning power plant emissions. Firms don’t build new, more efficient plants. Instead they have incentives to “repair” existing ones that are not controlled. Managers are showing a lot of creativity. Let’s harness this creativity to do something useful. If you can’t beat them, let them join you.
“When last have you seen black smoke pouring from the smokestacks of a big factory?”
Jack, when was the last time you saw a factory? ;}
Posted by: Rocky at February 23, 2005 04:04 PMI agree with most of what has been posted. I think it’s a little early to wax rhapsodic about the end of big polluters, though. In Salt Lake City, the smoke from the gigantic oil refinery clouds the entire valley, and during the winter, it is unsafe to go outside for very long because the air is so polluted from the refinery, factories, and car emmisions. I’m sure that many places are similar.
I think Jack has the right tack, though with incentives. Weren’t the incentives to buy hybrid cars in Arizona so popular they threatened to bankrupt the state? I would just redirect the incentives from cleaner ways of using oil to non-oil based methods. With oil, either the pollution or the political cost will get us eventually.
About the original point of the post; I’m kind of backwards from the situation Jack has described. I used to be very conservative, but conservatism has now swung from the ideals of small government, strong defense and no intrusion into people’s lives to big government, the patriot act, the rise of the religious right, disdain for our allies, fanatical preference for the wealthy, massive deficits, and wars of choice. I long for an “earlier form of Conservatism”
Posted by: brian at February 23, 2005 04:04 PMBrian,
I live in Arizona. Those were alternative fuel (natural gas or propane) vehicles, that you are thinking of. The problem was that the vehicles, mostly trucks and SUVs and their modification were so expensive that only those with a great deal of cash benefited. You had to be able to purchase the vehicle AND have it modified, before you could file for the program.
Jack -
Great post. However, I have to classify your comment about the new face of environmental problems as a red herring.
(1) “Command and control” is a great-sounding, negative phrase. But does it actually have any substantive meaning in the context of EPA et al?
(2) We do know the major sources of pollution now, but we’re unwilling to take the obvious steps to address it. SUV’s are a huge new pollution problem, but they’re just too popular for lawmakers to mess with.
(3) If cows are a source of pollution, there’s an easy solution: eat them!
Fancy language sounds great, but the reality is that we’ve gone as far as it was expedient to go in protecting the environment. We’ve reached the place where diminishing marginal returns make the political cost/benefit ratio too high a price for politicians to pay.’
The one good sign for progress I’ve seen recently is Bush’s mention of renewed “nucular” power efforts. Now there’s a place we could really use some command & control to overcome the NIMBY inertia!
Posted by: Chops at February 23, 2005 04:22 PMJack-
I think it is right to criticize reactionary political thought. But be careful about how you generalize about what’s reactionary. The point of opposing reactionaries is the fact that they will not create policy or negotiate with one from fact, but rather from what is convenient to supporting their view. If you generalize their characteristics over everybody, then you are nothing but a reactionary yourself. I have at times found myself in the uncomfortable position of having to justify something in reaction, and I don’t really like it all that much. It feels like the floors missing beneath me when I argue from ignorance.
The biggest environmental challenge is transportation. Chops, you correctly indicate that this is hard to go after for political reasons. It is easy for people to rally against a big power plant because they (mistakenly) think that there is no cost to them in doing so. Almost everyone has a car (light truck or SUV) and knows immediately and personally the pain of pollution reduction.
That is why you have to go at this problem obliquely - with a market perspective. A regulation that drives up the cost of driving all at once will create anger all at once. Better to give tax or regulatory incentives for desirable behavior. Consumption taxes are essentially a zero sum game in the short run, so giving someone a break means taking from someone else, but the causes and effects are separated in time and space. By the time the fecal matter approaches the cooling device, you have built a constituency that benefits from and supports reform. What’s more, you have provided everyone with the freedom to choose. You can still hold to your retrograde behavior if you are willing to pay the price. Beyond that, if the goal is valid, the short-term cost will become a long-term gain. The key to successful change is giving people attractive options.
We have clearly reached the point of diminishing returns in the environmental movement, but that means we have to change tactics, not abandon goals. Extreme environmentalism is the enemy of the environment. Humans have to live in this world and that inevitably means some types of plants and animals won’t. Maybe you can’t protect every snail darter and spotted owl, but you can have a very pleasant and sustainable environment and heavy human intervention.
The environment needs more market force. Too many things are cheap, free or common, so that nobody has responsibly to care for them. A good example is water in the Southwest. Leaving aside the current floods of near Biblical proportions, water is usually in short supply. Why? It is too cheap and an efficient market for it doesn’t exist. Those with access to federally subsidized water have little real incentive to conserve. Everybody else is out of luck. Charge a market rate to everyone and the shortage would disappear. You wouldn’t have to impose any sprinkler bans. The old cowboys used to say that whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over. How is it that nobody ever ran out of whiskey, which is a good deal scarcer than water?
Posted by: jack at February 23, 2005 04:58 PMOne fact being ignored is maintenance. When you have a great program like Soc.Sec. which needs adjustments to continue, those adjustments should be made. But, what is happening under Bush is not maintenance, his plan bankrupts the insurance program and replaces it with privatization of personal wealth schemes for those who can afford them. For those who can’t, tough luck.
There is an agenda for the GOP and it is privatization, regardless of whether it is good for most, all, or only a few Americans. Their agenda supercedes what Americans respect and love about our system. Privatization of schools, privatization of retirement programs and ending pension plans, privatization of the military as far as possible, privatization of health care. An ownership society is precisely what we have enjoyed these last 59 years in America with the ever increasing rise of homeownership, vehicles, 401K’s. And that ownership society has been supported by programs like Social Security, public education, and the Interstate Highway system, etc.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 23, 2005 07:00 PMHi everyone. I’ve been a lurker for a while now and I really like the constructive comments I hear on this board (with a few exceptions of outright instigation). Speaking on pollution and the greenhouse effect, has anyone heard of the finds in the Andes? It seems as the snow and ice has receded from a stretch of mountain side, a patch of long dead undergrowth was uncovered. Measurements taken suggest the patch at some 10,000 years old. Most people might see this as a sign of our continued destruction of the environment, however I pose this question; How is it the grass was growing on the mountain side 10,000 years ago if global warming is truly a man-made effect? It would seem that perhaps Global warming is not as man-made as we may think. This isn’t to say we don’t pollute or even that we have no effect on global warming; only that perhaps we only hasten a natural process, something that without our involvement would have happened anyway. I will try and find the related articles and post them for everyone to see. It may be somewhat OT but with all the talk of the environment I thought it would be a good bit of information for you guys. Keep up the constructive discussions.
Posted by: Casey at February 23, 2005 07:19 PMCasey:
No one disputes that an Ice Age is coming. What is in dispute is that it is coming too fast. What would take hundreds of years is happening in decades. How many animals do you think can adjust that fast? How will the Human Race live if all the cows are dead? What is happening is not natural.
Posted by: Aldous at February 23, 2005 07:40 PMI like a lot of what’s being said here, which makes me wonder. Why do I seem to like what conservatives say so much more than what they do? Maybe because what they say doesn’t really line up with what they do.
For instance, Jack, there are lots and lots of Republicans that are good conservationalists. But the Repubs of today are very much Bush’s party, and every main-stream environmental organization endorsed Kerry, and most of them worked very actively against Bush. Is it really because they’ve all turned into paganists? Why isn’t congress pushing back on W’s flat-out denial of global warming? ok, maybe they don’t like Kyoto - what are they doing instead? and civil rights - well, don’t get me started.
It’s nice to see you guys starting to talk the talk, let’s see you walk the walk. What new and innovative things have the Republicans done for these “liberal” causes?
BTW, you and Eric need to get on the same page, Jack. He says liberals are fascists, and you say Republicans are the new liberals. Collectively, I’m not sure it’s the right message :-)
Posted by: William Cohen at February 23, 2005 09:02 PMSometimes government invervention helps spur inovation. NASA has invented technology (years ago) that is in common use in every-day life now. Night vision is being used in automobiles, cell phones have taken off, the internet…you know, the one Gore invented…the military and other government agencies began that progress. One of the best ways to rid ourselves of airborne pollution is to give incentive to the companies responsible. You know, the oil industry and the automotive industry.
That’s where a good tax cut could be targeted! The first couple of companies to get the infrastructure in place for a fuel cell enenergy plan could get a tax break for, say, 5 years on all profits. That’s incentive…and payback on investment…and a cleaner environment! Not to mention the fact that we could reduce our independence on the Middle East and OPEC.
Instead we target the largest tax cuts to individuals with the largets incomes with a hope that maybe…just maybe…they will re-invest some of their cash by either hiring someone or speding wildy or invesing in corporate America. A company can get taxed much less by moving its headquarters overseas. How does that benifit us?
Target the tax cuts at corporate America for reducing pollution and keeping America employed!
‘Nuff said!
Posted by: Tom at February 23, 2005 09:34 PMWhat is amazing about the libs is the utter lack of imagination. No one buys an SUV because it burns lots of gas. People buy them for all kinds of reasons, figure out what those are and give them a viable alternative that you don’t think is harmful to your precious mama earth. Build a better mouse trap. Pretty basic economics.
And stop collecting taxes for products you don’t want us to buy. Governments makes more money from cigarettes and big cars than any corporation. Say there was a renewable clean fuel source found and we all started using it by next week. You people would have a tax on that clean fuel source the next day. How are we going to pay for all of those people at the EPA?
Posted by: Peter at February 23, 2005 10:02 PMWilliam
Eric speaks for himself, as do I. I don’t think liberals are fascists or that conservatives are the new liberals. I don’t see the world in left to right terms. I have lately been gazing at attitude clusters plotted in multiple dimensions. The clusters are interesting. Some could be classified in traditional liberal and conservative terms, but most don’t fit the pattern. There just is no longer (and maybe never was) an ideological spectrum that stretches from left to right. That is why the two ostensible extremes, fascists and communists, behave very much the same way.
My own ideology has more and more become the quest not to be bothered. I like most people, but there are also those who annoy me. I don’t bother them, but I see no reason to be tolerant or accepting of everyone and every behavior, and I don’t want to give carte blanche support though a coercive tax system.
All of us know that government is part of everything and nobody seriously advocates anarchy, but there are variables. Liberals equate success with more government action. Conservatives know that not every problem has a governmental solution. According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States the percent of population doing volunteer work (2000) was 44.0%. If charitable gifts were added to the value of volunteer work, the total value of private U.S. charitable giving would amount to $507.12 billion.
The IRS doesn’t gather statistics by ideology, but they do gather by state. The most generous states in the Union are all Bush states. Utah, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Arkansas are the most generous as a percentage of income. The least generous are all blue states: Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. You can draw your own conclusions.
Peter,
Pay for it the GOP pay way…
CHARGE IT!
Borrow money from foreign governments that our children will have to pay back…
THAT is the GOP way.
Spend a lot and cut taxes for the most abundant…then spend MORE.
Tax and spend is better than Tax cut and spend MORE…MORE…MORE
Can you spell D-e-f-i-c-i-t…..
If you are GOP you better learn…or at least teach your children to.
Posted by: tom at February 23, 2005 10:22 PMJack-
The problem is, the market can become an excuse for being risk averse.
It also has certain blind spots.
If a bad habit develops in a business, but it’s cheaper than reform, the bad habit can become imbedded in the practices, unremediated until it causes serious problems.
The market can only discourage dishonesty and fraud after the fact. Enron and WorldCom were doing gangbusters business right up to the point where people lost their shirts.
The market, especially in today’s speculative, short-term oriented investment environment, has trouble distinguishing gains wrought by increases in real productivity, and those gained by dishonest means and miserly human resource practices.
Also, like any system of human logic, it can be self-consistent in theory, but not consistent with the real world. Unfortunately, many free market advocates do not account for this, and often present the market as a panacea for society. Economic theories are not perfect. People do not behave strictly according to market sensibilities. Other aspects of human behavior must be accounted for than just what they buy and don’t buy.
As for consumption taxes, you might want to ask Bush about his Value Added Tax.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 23, 2005 10:27 PMJack,
I live in Tennessee…thanks for the compliment.
Did you also know that the tenth most poluted city in the nation to live in is Knoxville, Tennessee…A BUSH state. Did you know that you also mentioned the 50th, 47th, and 39th worst states when it comes to education?
Maybe we give because we are too stupid to know better?
Don’t play with statistics…they can come back and bite!!!!!!
Posted by: Tom at February 23, 2005 10:27 PMJack,
I know you consider yourself a conservative, but I have been hearing from you is usually a very middle-of-the-road, nonideological approach. I have noticed other readers over the the past few months commenting that you have made them rethink conservatism, but I don’t think that that is actually what you are selling.
Let’s consider your own words:
Many of us agree that big government interventions were necessary. Kick ass environmental legislation was needed in 1970…
Conservatives believe in the free market, not government bureaucrats telling people what to do with their property.
Without the civil rights laws of the 1960s, we would not enjoy the progress we have today.
The modern conservative movement is a reaction against the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. Without the civil rights laws there is no Southern strategy, no President Nixon, no Republican Party as we currently know it.
Rolling back environmental rules is not something I advocate…
Again, this is a centrist position.
Better to give tax or regulatory incentives for desirable behavior. Consumption taxes are essentially a zero sum game in the short run… What?s more, you have provided everyone with the freedom to choose. You can still hold to your retrograde behavior if you are willing to pay the price.
If I understand you correctly, you are defending consumption taxes as a means of behavioral modification. Using taxes to punish people for undesirable behavior is a classic liberal tactic (and one of the more effective ones, I might add).
If this isn’t enough evidence that you are a centrist rather than a conservative, you did vote for Clinton, didn’t you?
William,
BTW, you and Eric need to get on the same page, Jack. He says liberals are fascists, and you say Republicans are the new liberals. Collectively, I’m not sure it’s the right message :-)
Now William, if you read my last post carefully I said that liberal ideology is more closely related to fascism than is present day conservatism.
I happen to enjoy Jack’s viewpoint, most of the time. I’m slightly embarrassed to admit that I didn’t realize J. Anthony Matel and Jack were the same person though.
By the way, you’re not THE William Cohen are you?
Posted by: ericsimonson at February 23, 2005 11:42 PMJust a question. You said:
To hear some of the extremists talk, the earth is some kind of pagan deity and every tree, rock and stream has its own animistic sprit.
What’s wrong with that belief? Is it really all that much less valid than your belief, which is (I would assume, demographically and from the nuance of your writing) mainly predicated upon the idea that roughly 2,000 years ago, some guy in Israel got back up?
Posted by: Nick Mason at February 23, 2005 11:51 PMPollution is no longer something we can easily see or trace. To solve this set of problems, we need to empower human ingenuity, and this means incentives and market forces rather than specific regulations.
Jack, I don’t see the connection between the problem and your solution. Many of the solutions are already available, but the market isn’t interested in implementing them.
You mention using incentives rather than regulations. Fine. Republicans have been in charge of the federal government and most state governments for years now. Where are the effective incentives?
I totally believe that you personally are committed to conservationism. Your party is not. In particular, the Bush administration and the GOP leadership are not.
Posted by: American Pundit at February 24, 2005 03:20 AMThe most generous states in the Union are all Bush states. Utah, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Arkansas are the most generous as a percentage of income. The least generous are all blue states: Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. You can draw your own conclusions.
Here’s my conclusion: The key words are “as a percentage of income”. The first group of states aren’t exceptionally generous; they’re exceptionally poor. Here are their rankings for personal income per capita:
Utah - 47
Alabama - 40
Mississippi - 50
TN - 36
AR (“Thank God for Mississippi!”) - 49
Moreover I would bet that a lot of that money is from a few wealthy individuals. In Arkansas I could name them: Win Rockefeller, Jennings Bryan, Jackson Stephens.
Now look at those blue states:
Maine - 34
Rhode Island - 17
Vermont - 22
MA - 3
NH - 6
Not all rich, but overall a lot more income to go in the denominator. Maine is an exception, but isn’t all that “blue” either. They have two Republican Senators.
Moreover, if you think the government should encourage charity, Bush’s policies are largely counterproductive. By eliminating the estate tax, Bush cut off a massive inducement for giving.
Posted by: Woody Mena at February 24, 2005 08:29 AMSo many comments. One at time.
Woody
Nobody has ever accused me of being a moderate before. Let me assure you that I am indeed an extremist and that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. I think the source of confusion is that I have never been able to follow any party line. I usually come to conservative conclusions, but not always. It is also clear that all Americans (conservative, liberal and others) contributed to the greatness of our country. One would have to be blind not to recognize this. Then there is simple tradition. I love Franklin Roosevelt because my father did so much. It is the same way I will always revere George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee, no matter what “new” revelations I hear.
I disagree that conservatism is a reaction to civil rights. In the partisan political sense you are right that the movement stripped white southerners from the Democratic Party. But the roots of modern conservatism go back before that time to the crowd around the National Review and Berry Goldwater.
I am a neo conservative. For all the talk about that recently (mostly negative) what it means to me is that I am a convert from the 1970s to a more muscular type of conservatism, just like former left wing radicals like David Horowitz or Irving Kristol. I recognize the downside of the free market, but considering the alternatives it is the best we can do. There are times of “market failure” when government needs to step in hard, but government failure is a more serious problem because the government can apply coercive force that no private firm can muster.
I did support Clinton and don’t apologize for it. At the time it was a good decision and I don’t think Dole would have done as well. I really don’t care about his sex drive, although I didn’t appreciate him doing it in the Oval Office. The tragedy of Clinton was that he was elected four or eight years too soon. He was a good president. With a little more seasoning, he could have been a great one. As a Democrat, Clinton was able to achieve things like welfare reform and NAFTA that no Republican could have done. It is the same principle that only Nixon could go to China.
Nick
I believe in one God the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth. Beyond that I can’t go into details. Logic tells me that there is more to heaven and earth than is dreamed of by our science, but logic also tells me I can’t know what that is by logical means. So I leave faith, the essence of that hoped for the evidence of that unseen. I can’t test it.
The pagan earth hypothesis is easier to test because we have something tangible. The earth behaves according to knowable rules. We don’t always understand all rules and their consequences, but we have yet to encounter anything to indicate that the earth doesn’t follow the rules of physics or life the rules of biology. When the actions of something can be perfectly predicted (at least in theory) it does not have a will of its own. So if the earth is a deity, it is a pretty impotent one. I would even bother with the little demigod rocks etc. that anyone with a sledge hammer can destroy with impunity.
AP
The most successful market incentive was sulfur trading, which reduced acid rain. Not a Bush initiative, but the market based type program we need. The Bush Administration proposed cap and cut mercury trading along similar lines. I haven’t followed up so, I don’t know where that is. One I do recall is the Bush Administration support for methane to markets program. This partnership could profitably recover up to 500 billion cubic feet of natural gas (50 million metric tons of carbon equivalent) annually by 2015. (Methane traps 21 times more heat per molecule than does carbon dioxide). Bush’s hydrogen initiative is promising and the time may soon be right to return to clean nuclear power.
…but government failure is a more serious problem because the government can apply coercive force that no private firm can muster.
So you’re saying it’s better to err on the side of the market, rather than private citizens?
I think you’ve got it backwards, Jack. Often, the government’s coercive force is the only thing that stands between the free market and the rights of US citizens. It’s better that Americans can count on the US government to, if not grant us victory, at least give us the leverage to exact a just settlement in any conflict with a market force.
Misha’s article in the middle column is a great example.
Jack,
The main reason that I don’t think that you are a true conservative is from how you state your political philosophy. The fact that you voted for Clinton only reinforces my assertion. Don’t get me wrong; I applaud your open-mindedness. But a lot of (most?) conservatives would look at that vote and say you are not one of them.
In the partisan political sense you are right that the movement stripped white southerners from the Democratic Party. But the roots of modern conservatism go back before that time to the crowd around the National Review and Berry Goldwater.
Huh? Brown v. Board of Education was in 1954. Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, running in opposition to civil rights laws. Johnson won and passed more civil rights laws, paving the way for the Southern strategy in 1968. In terms of civil rights, AuH20 was right in the thick of the action.
Posted by: Woody Mena at February 24, 2005 09:56 AMThe most successful market incentive was sulfur trading, which reduced acid rain. Not a Bush initiative, but the market based type program we need.
Sure. But where are the Bush programs? The GOP has had a majority in Congress for quite a while.
Let me give you a hint. The Republican leadership usually hitches some wacko proposal to ‘em that even moderate Republicans won’t vote for.
And there’s no way you can describe Bush’s mercury proposal as anything other than crap (merely google Bush and mercury to find out why). In fact, most environmental initiatives Bush proposed would allow polluters to spew more waste than current laws allow (if Bush’s EPA enforced them).
I am a little behind on my comments, since as I write, new ones come in. Below is for the earlier AP note.
Woody - as long as I give them money and work on the campaigns, they let me in the club.
It is a big tent. In fact in my little circle, I have carved out a kind of a niche as a person who can articulate opposition to particular policies or proposals. People come from far away to provoke me. If I can’t tear them apart, they figure they are pretty robust. It is a tough job, but somebody has to do it.
AP
Government plays a big role in our society and I don’t minimize the importance of good governance. As I have been writing in this post, the problem is I feel it has sometimes overstepped its bounds. Government’s role should be to enforce contracts and keep markets open and functioning. It serves the people well when it acts impartially. I don’t think we disagree on this so far.
Poison depends on the dosage. You can ingest a certain amount of arsenic for the next fifty years without it causing you any harm, but if you get too much at any one time, you die. Vitamin D is necessary for your heath. If you don’t get a regular supply your body will decline, but if you get too much it will kill you. Government is like that. You need some, but not too much. Should government enforce basic food safety? Yes. Should government tell you what to buy? No. Should courts punish fast food sellers because fat guys can’t control their appetites? Certainly no.
Some things are just problems. They don’t require government justice. Each time we see a problem we are temped to demand a new regulation or call a lawyer. In each particular case it makes sense, but when you add it all together it is poisonous to freedom.
A while back there was a bill in Congress to force pet shop owners to pay the medical bills for “defective” pets they sold. They were already required to refund the money, but once little Jimmy got his sick dog home, he didn’t want to give him up and get his money back. Vet bills can be very high. It is understandable and a real problem. The visuals of a cute sick puppy and a crying child are devastating. But it is not a government problem and it especially isn’t a federal case. Fortunately the bill didn’t pass – this time. But we need constantly to be on guard against good causes. The bigger the government gets, the harder this task becomes.
We have a great legacy, but sometimes an overhaul is in order. Franklin Roosevelt was a great man and a great president - for the times when he was in office. Respect the achievements of great men and women, but don’t let their dead hands rest too heavily on the future.
I do agree nothing lasts forever, take social security for example, one of Franklin’s ‘greatest achievements.
The program was unsustainable when proposed and everyone knew it. A Ponzi scheme.
Most of the chatter over Kyoto is just that, chatter.
Rocky would have you believe that all the cost can just be paid for out of corporate profits or by the CEO.
Those who say, “We must reduce emissions.” Still drive, consume all manner of plastic and use electricity. I’m not sure they ever think about where it all comes from. An aside remark is how Kerry and Kennedy fought the proposed wind / electric farm off the coast of Mass, yet are all for Kyoto. This summer most will harangue about the cost of gasoline, but would not have a refinery in their county. No refinery has been built in the U.S. in the last 20 years. One reason is the permitting process takes 15 years and a CEO may not be around that long.
All that aside, unless we are able convince the Chinese to let their currency float, and China and India to pay into Kyoto this administration is not interested. Both are growing by leaps and are competing for all manner of commodities. Both have been eating our lunch for the last few years in job creation. China will overtake the U.S. as the largest economy in the world shortly.
We have all the social program costs of the last 80 years heaped on us workers shoulders and with the increased competition Kyoto would break our back. In fact we must look to reduce the cost of our social programs or we will end up like old Europe, Irrelevant.
George
I think Kyoto is fatally flawed and won’t perform the intended task. Worse, it will not perform the task and cost a lot. We do, however, have to come up with some alternative that seems to work better.
Social Security is a ponzi scheme. But all of life is essentially a ponzi scheme. We all depend on the next generation. That is why old people and those without children should pay for schools. In fact, childless people should pay a little more because they have failed to contribute workers to the generation that will support them in their retirements.
Franklin Roosevelt understood the nature of the beast. He cleverly sold it as something it was not. It was expedient and solved the problem for seventy years. I don’t think we can call it a failure. It is just that now the conditions have changed and SS has to change to adapt.
Jack:
“Utah, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Arkansas are the most generous as a percentage of income.” Utah’s Mormons are obligated to donate 10% to the church, which I assume counts as charity, not a tax. Alabama, Miss … Bush states, sure, but hey, aren’t these the poorest states in the union, with the most problems?
“Liberals equate success with more government action. Conservatives know that not every problem has a governmental solution.”
C’mon, Jack. I thought that since liberals were dinosaurs, and Republicans are really so clever and compassionate, you were going to explain how Team Red was going to fight for civil rights, diversity, and the environment in new and better ways. Let’s have some details, surely there’s a newer, less myopic idea than just cutting all the social programs and assuming the guys from Alabama will pick up the slack.
Repubs today are not, not, not about small-government, new-thinking, effective “solutions” to social problems. They are about squeezing the poor and giveaways to corporations, and the handful of the richest Americans that swept them to power. They might quote FDR, but the devil can quote scripture, I hear.
And if you really want that kind of government, Jack, the Republicans have left you way behind. Why do you support an administration that grew government quickly over four years - after years of declines in the size of government - embraced deficit spending, including massive new entitlement programs, and introduced a huge social program characterized by a bipartisan commision as “as a convoluted and unconstitutional education reform initiative that has usurped state and local control of public schools” [NYT, via google news]
I don’t really think the president SHOULD have a plan to help the poor, except as a part of plans that furthers other worthy goals. Most poverty results from local conditions and very often the character, habits and culture of those afflicted. We don’t need to “blame the victim” to know that he/she most responsible for the outcome. The problem is local and personal and requires local and personal solutions.
What governments (state, local and federal) can do to help the poor is to increase the provision of public goods: good infrastructure, safe streets, decent schools and nice public parks, for example. These things are not aimed specifically at the poor, but the poor benefit disproportionally, since they disproportionally use public goods.
The provision of these things is usually a local responsibility and money alone is not the answer. I have looked at figures for money spent per pupil in schools versus achievement, for example, and there is no correlation pattern. In my own metro region, Fairfax Co VA spends less per pupil and produces the best results. The District of Columbia spends the most (I think the most in the whole U.S.) with abysmal returns. Similar patterns (or lack) exist with policing and public parks. In any case, when these things have improved, it has been local initiative.
Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something.
According to Gary Becker, a Nobel Prize winning economist at the U of Chicago, “Outside pollution control, it is hard to see where federal regulations have been the driving force in recent social improvements.” In fact, deregulation, started under Jimmy Carter and accelerated under Ronald Reagan seems to have played a greater role.
So what should be the plan for the poor? A perfectly honest president would say “Nuthin’, that is a local matter”. Of course that position is untenable politically, so all presidents do an ineffective rain dance to propitiate the power elite and those who make their good living advocating for the poor. Presidents, like Lyndon Johnson, who actually try to do something sweeping, cause the most damage to those they are trying to help.
Jack:
“But the details of their solutions fit their time and place, not ours.”
Some details, not all, I’d say. Just for the hell of it, lets compare some of those FDR quotes to our current situation…
1. ”The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”
Today, the far-right wing of the GOP wants to privitize everything, and protects corporations rather than the people.
2. “We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we now know that it is bad economics.”
Today, heedless self-interest has given permanent tax cuts to the wealthy. We know that trickle-down ecconomics doesn’t flush - didn’t work for Reagan, didn’t work now. Our ecconomy is currently in very serious trouble - as American Pundit’s latest post in the Blue Column indicates.
3. “True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”
Today, many people are already out of a job, or are in the process of losing their jobs. American manufacturing jobs have disappeared because corporations left to do business overseas. Now white collar jobs are being lost through outsourcing overseas.
Our country is bleeding jobs, yet this administration has not tried to stanch that flow at all, nor have they been supporters of new technological innovations or advancements in science that could and would create new jobs.
4. “A nation that destroys it’s soils destroys itself. Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people.”
This administration has already rolled back many environmental protection standards to the pre-Nixon era. They are firmly and obviously wedded to oil, rather than alternative energy. They turned their back on Kyoto (so too, did Clinton), rather than take part in the discussions surrounding the formation of that treaty. In my opinion, we didn’t necessarily have to sign on to all of it, but we should have been there simply for the sake of diplomacy and to show that we understood the importance of the topic.
5. “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.”
Today we have an administration that has sanctioned torture.
6. “Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay.”
Today the middle class pays a heavier price than the rich in taxes.
7. “If civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships - the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together, in the same world at peace.”
With this administration, we’ve seen very little useful diplomacy.
They rushed to war on flimsy evidence - either knowingly (which seems likely), or because they were duped by people in the intelligence community. This means they are either liars or fools, and that they don’t consider war to be a measure of last resort.
8. “More than an end to war, we want an end to the beginning of all wars - yes, an end to this brutal, inhuman and thoroughly impractical method of settling the differences between governments.”
Today we hear the administration telling us that America will likely face war indefinitely.
9. “I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people.”
Today, we see that the administration wants an end to the New Deal - not surprising really, since the GOP has been trying to kill it off since its inception, despite the fact that is the most sucessful and sovent of all social programs EVER. Their alternative to the New Deal is No Deal at all - in fact it only adds to the (entirely solvable) problem of the boomers. The president himself has admitted his scheme won’t solve any of the problems.
Purely and simply, his “No Deal” is just a way for his “pioneers” to get richer.
10. “In our seeking for economic and political progress, we all go up - or else we all go down.”
Today the gap between rich and poor has never been wider, and America is declining in numerous ways.
11. “Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are.”
In my opinion, this administration has very few principles I can adhere to. Instead, I see great deal of self-interest and ideolgies that approximately half of this country does not share going heedlessly forward with no governmental checks and balances to slow the process.
I hear much talk of Moral Values, but word moral now means the imposition of certain religious morals, and the disparagement of gay people. I see no morality or value in either view. To me, it is only divisiveness - a way not to “Form A More Perfect Union”.
12. “Selfishness is the only real atheism; aspiration, unselfishness, the only real religion.”
As a agnostic who piously believes in the divinity of human kindness and generousity, this is one of my favorite quotes of all time.
The president’s new budget makes deep cuts in charitable programs.
13. “Take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly, and try another. But by all means, try something.”
This administration doesn’t like to admit to any failures or mistakes.
14. “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.”
This administration talks about an “ownership society” and wants to do away with Social Security. They are trying to convince people that the only way to gain wealth and security is in the stock market - which is absolutely the worst way for people with little money to gain either. The middle class and the poor always do better by investing in real estate, rather than by entrusting their cash, or their emergency old age pensions, to the untrustworthy, unscrupulous, uncaring fatcats on Wall Street.
15. “There are many ways of going forward, but only one way of standing still.”
This president wants only to “stay the course”, despite failure, despite everything.
16. “It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.”
Today we have lobbyists galore representing those full pocketbooks, few representing those with empty stomachs. The president only concerns himself with the interests of the groaningly wealthy.
17. “We continue to recognize the greater ability of some to earn more than others. But we do assert that the ambition of the individual to obtain for him a proper security is an ambition to be preferred to the appetite for great wealth and great power.”
The insane budget just proposed cuts deeply into education programs. Education has always been the only way the middle class and the poor could hope to get ahead in life.
18. “A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.”
Well, aint that the truth. The Republican’s have traditionally been about making things stay exactly the same, so that the rich may control all the wealth. Not much has changed since Roosevelt’s time in that regard.
According to many on the Far Right, Progressive thought is to be disparaged and/or ignored as nothing but lunacy - meanwhile it has always been us that has moved the country forward with creative solutions designed to help the less than rich achieve and prosper.
19. “The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people,”
This adminstration has demonstrated a complete disregard for the interests of the people. They’re in favor of protecting the interests of big business. Tort reform, for example.
“and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the goverment.”
Today, we are losing our control over the government, because the president doesn’t like having to answer to Congress and the Senate. Immediately following 9/11 they abridged our constitutional rights, giving law enforcement and the govt. more control over us than ever before in our countries history.
And people are not well enough informed because the major media which the majority of people watch and/ or read has to a large degree, ceased to do their job. We also find that our tax dollars are now paying for propaganda designed to mislead and fool us into accepting the administrations ideologies.
20. “The point in history at which we stand is full of promise and danger. The world will either move forward toward unity and widely shared prosperity - or it will move apart.”
With this president “Your either with us or against us”. He has alienated our allies. He has made us more enemies with his arrogance and his pre-emptive war. When it comes to diplomacy he is a complete moron.
21. “The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today.”
Many find ourselves wondering if there will be a tomorrow.
22. “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
This administration is USING FEAR to try to change our constitution and our government - all in order to remake it in their Authoritarian image.
Posted by: Adrienne at February 24, 2005 08:47 PMJack,
Good post, but I have to take issue with feminism being considered a “great cause.”
In my opinion, while women should definitely have the right to vote and to be valued equal to men, the “feminist” cause has sought to dissappear the distinction between men and women and has resulted in the popular destruction of Motherhood, and replaced it with day care. It has atrophied a woman’s ability to appreciate how incredible and “different” they are from men. My wife gets infuriated every time feminists strike another blow for women everywhere, because they are cutting off their nose to spite their face and all in a bid to continue a charge that was once important and is now destructive.
Posted by: Jake at February 24, 2005 10:10 PMAP,
So you’re saying it’s better to err on the side of the market, rather than private citizens?I think you’ve got it backwards, Jack. Often, the government’s coercive force is the only thing that stands between the free market and the rights of US citizens. It’s better that Americans can count on the US government to, if not grant us victory, at least give us the leverage to exact a just settlement in any conflict with a market force.
Misha’s article in the middle column is a great example.
I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion in reference to eminent domain.
William,
Let’s have some details, surely there’s a newer, less myopic idea than just cutting all the social programs and assuming the guys from Alabama will pick up the slack.Repubs today are not, not, not about small-government, new-thinking, effective “solutions” to social problems. They are about squeezing the poor and giveaways to corporations, and the handful of the richest Americans that swept them to power. They might quote FDR, but the devil can quote scripture, I hear.
Yeah, I’m sure we can tax our way into prosperity.
Adrienne,
Seems to me that it is the left who is trying very hard to instill fear of Bush in order to advance their cause. Your long list here just demonstrates that.
”The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”
For instance, the above quote is eloquent in it’s demogogery, but can you or anyone give me an example of private power becoming stronger than it’s democratic state? Of private interests growing so powerful that they own the government? Controlling private power?
It’s never happened. And if it’s never happened, how can we take the implied threat so seriously as to make it the center of our political ideology?
George and Jack,
Far from being “chatter”, the Kyoto treaty is in effect. The only fatal flaw, from our warped, solipsistic perspective, is that we don’t have the political will to join it. We are the Neville Chamberlains of climate change.
The argument that Kyoto would harm our economy gets a little silly would you consider that we are spending hundreds of billions of dollar keeping the bulk of our armed forces in Iraq. That is a lot of potential productivity locked up there, when you consider that the Reserves and National Guard have civilian jobs. We are willing to go to war on the foggiest evidence of WMD, but no amount of evidence for climate change can stir us to modestly reduce carbon emissions.
Adrienne
Roosevelt was speaking during the Great Depression when about a quarter of the population was unemployed. The unemployment rate is now just over 5%. This is about as low as it can go except when the economy is overheated in a bubble. What is more, unemployment during Roosevelt’s time was much harsher, since America as a whole was only about a third as wealthy as it is today and most families had only one breadwinner. There is just no comparison.
Bush’s environmental policy is not a roll back. It is an attempt to use incentives and market forces to make the environment better. The command and control methods that worked well against big source polluters are less effective against dispersed sources. The only way to move forward is to improve our tactics. By the way, the air is cleaner now than at any time in our lives. We just have short memories about how bad it used to be. Environmental problems these days include an overabundance of deer, bears and wild turkeys. In the suburban area where I live, I saw two bald eagles a month ago. My local paper stopped running the air quality chart because it was always excellent or very good. I have been reading that section since 1984 and have seen the steady improvement. If you want to see pollution as we had in the 1960s, you have to leave the country.
One thing I have noticed is that people expect too much from presidents. Presidents play along to get elected. Politicians can spoil things, but the best thing they can do for things like job creation, technological improvement and innovation is to supply infrastructure and stay away from direct management. I am sure you would agree that George Bush is not qualified to judge science and technology. Lawyer John Kerry would have been no better. The best leader is the one who knows what he doesn’t know and one that governs with a light hand. We the people make it hard to be such a leader.
Anyway, the age of oil is almost over. A president can’t do much about that. The best thing that can happen is a big price rise and the worst thing a president could do would be to try to keep the price low. The tradeoff price between renewables and oil is approaching. My guess is that it is about $65 a barrel. The price of oil will probably settle down, but the trend is up because of the demand from China and India. We will never “run out” of oil, but we will move to other sources of energy.
Woody, Leave Iraq alone.
Like the President said, “We liberated Iraq. It’s done.”
Let it go. Move on.
We have spent more on each, the war on poverty, and the war on drugs,
We’ve been in Korea 50 years. Why arn’t you bitching at Truman?
George,
I think you mean “Shut up, and stop embarrassing Bush.”
I realize that we can’t un-invade Iraq. The war is far from “over”, however. There are a lot of decisions yet to be made and lives to be expended.
At any rate, I was making an analogy about hair-trigger drive to go to war and our no-trigger reaction to climate change, with the hope of prompting action about climate change. Hitler has been in the ground for 60 years, and people still make analogies about him, no?
Posted by: Woody Mena at February 25, 2005 10:01 AMJack:
“The unemployment rate is now just over 5%. This is about as low as it can go except when the economy is overheated in a bubble.”
That bubble burst in 2000.
Here is a look at GWB’s Recession since January 2001 - it shows that the number of unemployed and underemployed persons
has jumped by 32 percent since January 2001.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
January 2001:
Officially unemployed: 5,951,000
Marginally attached *: 1,295,000
Part-time for ecconomic reasons: 3,366,000
Total: 10.6 million
November 2004:
Offically unemployed: 8,047,000
Marginally attached *: 1,463,000
Partime for ecconomic reasons: 4,474,000
Total: 13.9 million
(* Marginally attached persons wanted and were available for work and had looked for work sometime in the past 12 months but are not counted as jobless and in the labor force because they have not searched recently.)
“What is more, unemployment during Roosevelt’s time was much harsher, since America as a whole was only about a third as wealthy as it is today and most families had only one breadwinner. There is just no comparison.”
I was not comparing our current situtation with the Great Depression. In your previous reply to me you said that the details of our time and place are different, and I agree that indeed they are.
Still, poverty is definitely on the rise in America. Right now, 35.9 million of our fellow citizens are living in poverty - one out of every eight Americans. That is 1.3 million more than last year, and 3 million more than two years ago.
I recently heard someone cite a statistic on the radio that claimed that one in six American kids are living in poverty and that there are more impoverished children today than 30 or 35 years ago, and more than in any other wealthy industrialized nation.
I find that completely unacceptable. I hope you’ll agree?
“I am sure you would agree that George Bush is not qualified to judge science and technology. Lawyer John Kerry would have been no better. The best leader is the one who knows what he doesn’t know and one that governs with a light hand.”
Sorry, but this calls for a few more Roosevelt quotes:
“I’m not the smartest fellow in the world, but I can sure pick smart colleagues.”
“One thing is sure. We have to do something. We have to do the best we know how at the moment… ; If it doesn’t turn out right, we can modify it as we go along.”
“It isn’t sufficient just to want - you’ve got to ask yourself what you are going to do to get the things you want.”
That is exactly the kind of thinking I expect from our leaders.
I’m not down with all this GWB love stuff. I mean, any half-way intelligent person can see the guy has trouble spontaneously articulating an even slightly complex thought, so we know all his pronouncements and judgements are second hand. I don’t expect our leaders to be Einstein, but this guy is doesn’t pass muster to lead. Do you really think this guy’s making carefully weighed decisions based deep rumination about the pros and cons? No, you just like him because he gives lip service to your favorite causes. What he actually does, though, is:
1. Looks out for the wealthy (his buddies).
2. Shows the world how tough we are.
3. Talks big about freedom and religion, but shows little actual concern for life or health.
4. Shows no regard for fiscal responsibility, truth in accounting, or financial security for average Americans.
He’s wearing your colors, so you support him, simple as that. It won’t last folks.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at February 25, 2005 07:29 PMRidiculing George W. Bush is getting old and pointless. He cannot run for president again. You don’t need to kick him. Whether you like him or not, he will be your president until January 2009. It is fine to disagree with his policies and his proposals, but personal insults at this stage of the game are inappropriate. It is like telling the same joke with no punch line.
Posted by: jack at February 25, 2005 08:45 PMJack
It’s not about GWB personally, it’s about the huge gap between the rhetoric of the right and what administrations it supports actually do. The rhetoric: fiscally sound government, careful foreign policy, ethical integrity, etc. When the admin is fiscally unsound, reckless in foreign policy, and shows lack of ethics (buying reporters, “losing” billions in Iraq, etc.) the right still backs ‘em and gives ‘em love. What’s up with that?
Posted by: Mental Wimp at February 25, 2005 08:54 PMWhat governments (state, local and federal) can do to help the poor is to increase the provision of public goods: good infrastructure, safe streets, decent schools and nice public parks, for example. These things are not aimed specifically at the poor…
Think about it Jack, those things are aimed at at the poor. I remember the growing number of poor under the Reagan administration complaining about the dirty parks they slept in and the unsafe streets they pushed their shopping carts along.
Ridiculing George W. Bush is getting old and pointless. He cannot run for president again…
Did GWB suddenly become a more competent president because he can’t get re-elected?
All the Bush bashing aside, this version of the Republican Party is not conservative. There really is a huge disconnect between traditional Republican ideals and the ideology of the current GOP leadership and Bush administration.
I want my Republocrats back!
AP
You are right about some disconnect in the Republican Party. As a party gets bigger and governs longer, it because more of a federation of varied groups and has less coherence.
Republicans are on their way to becoming the dominant party for the next generation. The governing Republican Party has to develop a stance different from the insurgent Republican Party that broke the Democratic hold on power.
My hope and belief is that the Party will develop into a party of good (and limited) governance and greater reliance on ownership. It is hard for many Republicans to see government in positive terms. The Democrats emphasis on using government for social engineering left a bad taste in our mouths and we will be cleaning up the mess left by the Great Society programs for years to come. During the last period of Republican dominance (now more than 70 years in the past) Republicans used government constructively, but kept it limited. Things have changed and our times call for different details, but I hope the spirit can prevail.
