The Case for Conservatism
Filed under: Conservatism — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on May 31, 2007 @ 10:58 am CEST
George Will wrote a great column for the Washington Post:
Conservatism’s recovery of its intellectual equilibrium requires a confident explanation of why America has two parties and why the conservative one is preferable. Today’s political argument involves perennial themes that give it more seriousness than many participants understand. The argument, like Western political philosophy generally, is about the meaning of, and the proper adjustment of the tension between, two important political goals — freedom and equality.
Today conservatives tend to favor freedom, and consequently are inclined to be somewhat sanguine about inequalities of outcomes. Liberals are more concerned with equality, understood, they insist, primarily as equality of opportunity, not of outcome.
Liberals tend, however, to infer unequal opportunities from the fact of unequal outcomes. Hence liberalism’s goal of achieving greater equality of condition leads to a larger scope for interventionist government to circumscribe the market’s role in allocating wealth and opportunity. Liberalism increasingly seeks to deliver equality in the form of equal dependence of more and more people for more and more things on government.
Hence liberals’ hostility to school choice programs that challenge public education’s semimonopoly. Hence hostility to private accounts funded by a portion of each individual’s Social Security taxes…
Steadily enlarging dependence on government accords with liberalism’s ethic of common provision, and with the liberal party’s interest in pleasing its most powerful faction — public employees and their unions. Conservatism’s rejoinder should be that the argument about whether there ought to be a welfare state is over. Today’s proper debate is about the modalities by which entitlements are delivered. Modalities matter, because some encourage and others discourage attributes and attitudes — a future orientation, self-reliance, individual responsibility for healthy living — that are essential for dignified living in an economically vibrant society that a welfare state, ravenous for revenue in an aging society, requires.
Go over to the WaPo to read the rest.
I agree for the most part with Will’s column.
I believe that conservatives should try to make the government smaller. Conservatives should not just be in the defense, they should also be in the offense. Being in the defense all the time, means that one will lose, at least every now and then. Being in the offense means that one might actually win sometimes.
Anyway, Will’s column is, as I said, a great one. American conservatives need to refocus on what defines them. What is ‘true’ conservatism?
1 kritter
May 31, 2007 @ 4:59 pm CESTIs it really possible to make the government smaller when we are dealing with the threat of terrorism at home and abroad, as well as the consequences of our inaction with regard to global warming? Look at the enormous Homeland Security and intelligence agency conglomerates. And haven’t we suffered a humiliating failure because of Rumsfeld’s decisions to switch to a leaner, meaner military? Our military experts have told us that we cannot stay in Iraq at full-force and respond anywhere else. The National Guard in particular is now expected to respond in Iraq and Afghanistan, help with border security and respond to domestic disasters.
What in particular would you cut?
2 C Stanley
May 31, 2007 @ 5:08 pm CESTKim,
Will’s article focused almost entirely on domestic policies; your post actually helps bolster the argument that there are pressing needs in areas where the federal government SHOULD be involved which preclude the ability to, for example, administer our health care system or become more involved in education (that’s not, of course, saying that those aren’t important issues, but they shouldn’t be handled by our federal government- and private sector solutions should be sought first because as you point out, the government bureaucracies have a tendency to become dysfunctional).
3 Andy
May 31, 2007 @ 7:06 pm CEST“the government bureaucracies have a tendency to become dysfunctional”
Particularly when run by conservatives.
4 kritter
May 31, 2007 @ 7:17 pm CESTWell, I am a big critic of No Child Left Behind, because it is punitive and inflexible, but I honestly think the government cant’ abandon its domestic agenda to deal exclusively with foreign policy.
Taxpayers should be the ones to determine the priorities that they want their money used for, but certain standards should be maintained at the federal level. I think one of the reasons conservatism hasn’t succeeded recently is because the idea of small government doesn’t work well when its actually implemented.
Once Republicans gained power they saw the value of enacting earmarks, the ones they had been railing against for a very long time.
5 Interested
May 31, 2007 @ 7:22 pm CESTThat’s quite a statement - considering the implimentation of small government has not been attempted.
6 kritter
May 31, 2007 @ 7:25 pm CESTWhat about the “Contract With America”? That was the attempt, but its proponents ended up voting for some big government programs a few years later and loading bills with pork a few years later.
7 Interested
May 31, 2007 @ 7:27 pm CESTIncorrect
A correct statement would be that Conservative politicians campaigned on smaller governement.
But conservative voters never got what they voted for.
8 Interested
May 31, 2007 @ 7:39 pm CESTI realize that earlier you’ve minimized the Dem’s involvement in earmarks and you also fail to condemn the Dem’s for it. For while the Dem’s pointed fingers at the Repubs for their outrageous earmarking - they pointed fingers all the way while voting yes for their own pork.
Heck this time the name tags were barely installed on their new office doors before loading up with pork already.
It’s a 2 sided street - a realistic and honest opinion would have noted both sides were earmark happy during the big spending sprees. And while the Repubs hold a greater amount of responsibility due to they were the Majority - the Dem’s need to take responsibility for their own sizeable share.
9 mvdg
May 31, 2007 @ 7:40 pm CESTIn other words, small government wasn’t implemented.
10 joebloe
May 31, 2007 @ 7:58 pm CESTre. your section “Praise for this Blog”
Its a very pretty picture in your header.
And you can quote me on that.
11 C Stanley
May 31, 2007 @ 7:59 pm CESTAh, Andy, can you point to a bureaucracy that has functioned well under a Democratic administration/Congress then? For any period of time?
12 mvdg
May 31, 2007 @ 8:05 pm CESTlol thank you Joe. I now have
- I do like the blog
- you da man, and
- It’s a very pretty picture in your header
13 kritter
May 31, 2007 @ 8:21 pm CESTBut if it wasn’t implemented don’t you have to ask yourself the question why not? And answer it this way?
That people campaign on small government, but often find that cutting programs runs into all kinds of resistance from various interest groups that benefit from it, translating into opposition at election time in the form of voting campaigns against them and decreased funding.
whereas garnering earmarks for their district make them a local hero. Easier to talk about in principle than to actually carry out. The icon of conservatives, Ronald Reagan, actually made the government larger, and this president has been conservative in name only-he’s outspent the “tax and spend” liberals. The man who stayed true to his prinicipals on small government, Barry Goldwater, lost in a landslide.
14 mvdg
May 31, 2007 @ 8:29 pm CESTYes I agree, but, again, that does not mean that small government failed when implemented. You actually support my case (and of Interested) that it has never been implemented (well not for the last, say, 70 years, 100 years, w/e).
Is it difficult to get people to support small govenrment? Sure. But it has been done, even recently in the Netherlands when our government, in the last four years, cut spending, cut programs and, doing so, improved our economy.
15 C Stanley
May 31, 2007 @ 8:35 pm CESTIt’s also been done a bit here in state governments: It seems that the laws of inertia apply to government as well, because it’s easier to turn back a smaller system than the larger federal one.
16 C Stanley
May 31, 2007 @ 8:36 pm CESTAnd Kim, the point is that those special interest groups who protest cuts are thinking in terms of narrow self interests, while we need leaders who are sometimes able to see past that to the broader interests of society. Unfortunately we rarely get those kinds of leaders.
17 Interested
May 31, 2007 @ 8:47 pm CESTNo,
That would be from the opposing candidate’s side - hardly uncommon in any political aspect. Often it is the promise of smaller government that counts at election time - yet disappears after election and the individual wants to tackle a pet project they have thought about for decades.
18 kritter
May 31, 2007 @ 9:01 pm CESTCS- Those leaders are elected by pandering to those special interests, or other interests. They aren’t going to bite the hand that feeds them, even if they campaign as small government reformers. Its easy for Will to talk he doesn’t have to raise campaign cash constantly, which all who return to Washington do. Look at how we are paying defense contractors to develop expensive weapons systems that either are useless in a war of counterinsurgency or have already been developed overseas.
mvdG- it hasn’t been implemented because it works in theory, but not in the greasy palms reality of the world of politics. Its also why we hear high-minded talk of ethics reform that’s usually gutted by the time it manages to pass both houses.
When politicians campaign they always point out projects that have been funded through their efforts by the federal govt. Even small govt conservatives like DeLay, Gingrich and Armey had to campaign that way. In Delay’s case he was so generous with his district that they were willing to overlook his ethical lapses.
19 Interested
May 31, 2007 @ 9:11 pm CESTSo which part is your actual point Kim?
Is it that small government hasn’t worked like you first were indicating and earmarks bad or is it now that the campaigning part is a fallacy and that earmarks are okay again
20 C Stanley
May 31, 2007 @ 9:13 pm CESTBut Kim, that’s why it’s even more important for people like Will to talk about it. He can do so and should, because the voters need to think about it and better understand what is going on so that they can hold the leaders accountable.
21 C Stanley
May 31, 2007 @ 9:14 pm CESTHeheh, yes, Interested, it seems that earmarks are in this season.
22 kritter
May 31, 2007 @ 11:05 pm CESTWhat I’m saying is that small government is a myth, that conservatives have run on for years but that is very difficult to put into practice. It doesn’t take into account how business is done in the nation’s capital. That’s the reason its never been successfully tried, because its not a serious form of government.
It might have worked at one point in the early 1900’s- before Medicare ,Social Security and other entitlements, and when we were still staunchly isolationist. But in reality it won’t work when we are trying to keep our borders intact, facing the Boomers’ retirement, have millions uninsured, have a huge immigration problem, etc etc. Since our political system is built on special interest money it is not conducive to closing down all of these programs that require government funding. Chimpy only made things worse when he promised the drug benefit to Seniors.
Small government is a pipedream, and George Will knows as much about the way government works in the real world as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Bill Kristol knew about making democratic government thrive in the inhospitable environment of Iraq.
23 Interested
May 31, 2007 @ 11:10 pm CESTWho’s Chimpy?
24 kritter
May 31, 2007 @ 11:21 pm CEST“Who’s Chimpy?”
W.
Its funny because every few years Conservatives realize that they have to get back to their small-govt roots and rally around this ideology. But don’t you think that if it was a realistic goal that somebody would have been able to put it into practice by now???
25 Interested
May 31, 2007 @ 11:30 pm CESTReally,
So all it took was a Chimpy type Republican who’s dumb to beat the best Democrat there was?
Can’t you Libby’s possibly come up with a way to slam Bush that doesn’t make your own party worse by comparision?
26 C Stanley
June 1, 2007 @ 2:25 am CESTKim,
The thing is that even you seem to sense that it’s not good that special interest groups push big spending, that our entitlement philosophy has become irreversible, etc.
Even if you don’t think pure conservatism will ever succeed in the real world, have you ever stopped to think how bad these things would be by now if there wasn’t a force pushing back on the growth of government?
If you still keep at least half of what you earn, thank a conservative.
27 kritter
June 1, 2007 @ 3:21 am CESTinterested-I’m not THAT liberal- I didn’t favor the prescription plan- its an entitlement that we could ill-afford. If you think social security is going to run out, you don’t start an expensive new program. Bush really wanted to win Florida, and I guess that promise helped him over the hump. But that’s my point- he was supposed to be a conservative but backed down for political expediency. I think he should have shored up Medicare and Social Security and skipped the drug plan altogether.
CS- I favor balanced budgets and supported reforming welfare, but I don’t think a small government is in our future. I’m a Clinton Democrat. Since small govt’s not realistic, isn’t it just a great sounding talking point so that conservatives can feel good about themselves again??
28 jpe
June 1, 2007 @ 3:34 am CESTWill’s conservatives sound like leprachauns: I’d be happy to see one, but I doubt they exist.
29 C Stanley
June 1, 2007 @ 10:38 am CESTWell, I guess my last comment didn’t register with you. My point is that even if conservatives haven’t acheived small government in DC (and don’t get me wrong- I’m not happy about that), at least keeping the pressure on can help prevent the government from growing even larger than it already has. So no, it is not a ‘great sounding talking point’, it’s keeping the pressure on. We may not get the small government we ask for but by making this an issue at least we don’t let the politicians ’supersize’ us.
30 kritter
June 1, 2007 @ 12:34 pm CESTCSBut where has that been successfully achieved recently? We have deficits through the roof? What are your concrete examples where conservatives held federal spending down, instead of ok’ing an expensive fence for the border, voting for the Medicare D plan, authorizing spending for this war which is going through the roof, not holding hearings when 8 billion was lost over in Iraq during Bremer’s tenure, ratifying bills which included record earmarks in the 109th Congress, etc , etc.
The truth is that once conservatives were in a position of power they used their ability to provide access to power as a tool to hold onto their seats by meeting with lobbyists, just like Democrats. In fact the access often ended up being illegal or unethical which is why they lost seats due to Cunningham and Abramoff scandals.
Oil companies received generous tax breaks, loopholes which allowed them to avoid paying royalties for drilling on federal lands were maintained. Come on, this is a joke! It makes conservatives feel like they still have principles, which is why they haul out these rusty canards every 4 years or so!
31 C Stanley
June 1, 2007 @ 12:58 pm CESTKim,
For the most part Republican voters want their elected representatives to hold the line on domestic spending/entitlements and we tend to not look as harshly on defense spending because we believe that is one of the central functions that the federal government SHOULD be performing.
You are correct when you point out that recently our officials have NOT held the line on domestic spending (which is why many of us are often pointing out that the recent GOP majority and the Bush administration aren’t examples of conservatism in action). They’ve also neglected fiscal conservatism principles when they’ve failed to provide oversight into the defense spending (again, we don’t argue with the need for high defense spending but we do ask for the money to be spent efficiently and without fraud and corruption).
But the problem isn’t that the underlying philosophy of fiscal conservatism isn’t correct, it’s that the system allows for too much corruption of it. I can’t understand why you choose to argue that the system is corrupt and thus we have to accept that and arrange our expectations around that, rather than examining the theory behind fiscal conservatism and either agreeing or disagreeing with it. If you disagree with the theory, state why; if you agree with it, then why not try to help figure out how we can fix the corrupt system that has prevented us from implementing good governance?
32 kritter
June 1, 2007 @ 1:34 pm CESTThere’s nothing wrong with the theory, but it just doesn’t work in the real world- I don’t foresee a time when it will, because you would have to radically change the way we elect our officials. Most efforts in reforming that have failed- the most recent being McCain-Feingold. Conservatives want to maintain that campaign contributions are free speech- so that lets in a lot of unwanted side effects.
I am not going to try to fix it because I think we need a balance between domestic and foreign programs. Some examples of needed domestic spending would be investing in our crumbling infrastructure, improving our response to domestic disasters, developing better alternative energy and conservation efforts and building off shore barriers in areas vulnerable to hurricanes. We also need to work towards a balanced budget, and try to eliminate the debt. I have no problem with a strong defense but there has to be much better oversight for those contractors. Why are we paying so much ordering weapons systems that aren’t going to help us in our current conflict?
Where has the movement been in objecting to the problems of the last 7 years? I’ve heard of some dissatisfaction, but then the corollary always seems to be that the Democrats would be much worse. I agree that the system is broken, but what would you do to fix it?
33 Featured Commenter « Michael P.F. van der Galiën
June 1, 2007 @ 2:13 pm CEST[…] 1st, 2007 by mvdg Interested: Who’s […]
34 C Stanley
June 1, 2007 @ 2:44 pm CESTKim,
A lot of conservative pundits (Buckley, Will, etc) have expressed dissatisfaction with the fiscal irresponsibility for years.
And on the domestic spending, it’s mainly entitlements that conservatives object to. Safety nets are one thing, welfare for those who can work but choose not to is another. Although I know you give credit to Clinton for welfare reform, the GOP Congress had to send the bill to him three times before he’d sign it. I give him credit for having the political courage to finally do so, but it was the pressure from the conservative side that made it happen, and that’s the type of thing I’m talking about (while you just seem to feel that we conservative voters are just quoting platitudes, it’s our actual belief in small government that at least SOMETIMES gets results like that).
On the type of domestic spending you are talking about, a variety of incentives and some federal spending makes sense. Throwing more money at a problem is often not the answer; spending it wisely and encouraging private sector solutions to complement the government ones often makes more sense. But in our sound bite rhetoric, voters hear that one party wants to increase funding for something (they care!) while the other wants to cut (evil greedy b*$tards!) It’s mostly BS on both sides, and we need to stop falling for it. If we are going to get serious about decreasing the deficit, we need to be willing to look at inefficiencies in all programs, to stop federalizing every problem, and hold people accountable for the fraud and waste of pork legislation.
35 kritter
June 1, 2007 @ 3:09 pm CESTCS- Well its true the final bill was a compromise, but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t support the concept himself. He believed in it, had instituted it in Arkansas as governor, and had spoken to African-American communities about the importance of self-sufficiency. As you noted, he faced a lot of heat from his own party for passing it- much as Bush is now taking flak for his immigration bill. So, imo, he deserves the credit. He was much more of a fiscal conservative than what we have now.
In any case, the bill worked and welfare rolls have greatly declined. The work requirements have been increased, and the payout is nothing to write home about. Food stamps are not enough to eat a healthy diet on. So, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I think programs for the poor have already been cut to the bone- medicaid payments are so low that hospitals that have a high level of poor patients have to get state subsidies or go bankrupt. Programs for the poor do not have a lot of fat to cut-they are down to the bone already.
Eliminate the drug benefit that was so irresponsibly enacted and get the fat out of corporate welfare. Medicare and social security are vital to the financial health and security of our elderly, plus they have worked for those benefits and paid payroll taxes.
The thing is its one thing to talk about what you consider good government, another to expect it to work in the swamp that is Washington. The system works with special interest lobbying, and you haven’t said how to eliminate that.
36 C Stanley
June 1, 2007 @ 3:42 pm CESTI don’t have the answers to how to eliminate the lobbying- reform is definitely needed but neither party will do anything more than pay lip service to doing so. So I don’t know how to solve it, but I do know that if we as voters give up, it’ll never happen while if we keep the pressure on both parties, maybe some good can come of it.
And you mentioned McCain Feingold- the problem there is that again, it was only a facade of doing something about the problem and in effect it’s made things worse. By putting some restrictions on campaign donations, you only push the money in other directions where there is less accountability. I’d rather the money go directly to the candidate so that then he has to take responsibility for the content of the ads, instead of having 529 money which produces the shady ads for which the candidates can deny responsibility.
So on campaign finance, my opinion is like yours is about corruption and lobbying I guess: I do think that special interest money going to candidates is going to happen regardless of what we do, so trying to limit it only makes it worse. But if we were to seriously tackle lobbying reform and earmarks, then there might be less incentive for special interest groups to try to buy legislation, and that would at least help the problem of the influence of money.
And on Clinton and welfare- you’re right, he was acting as a fiscal conservative when he agreed to the reforms. See, it works! LOL
And I’m not really proposing further cuts in social spending (though I’m quite sure there is waste and fraud that could be cut- not reducing benefits for those who truly need them but cutting the bureaucracy and ensuring that those who shouldn’t get benefits aren’t able to do so). But my main point about social spending is that it would have continued to spiral out of control without conservative pressure. If they would continue to do that while also cutting waste on defense spending, pork, etc, then I would fully support them.
37 Interested
June 1, 2007 @ 8:20 pm CESTYou are aware of the 45 Senators that accepted money from Abramoff in the same Scandal right? Your condemnation of them must have gotten lost somewhere.
Here you go again - and again - It has not been attempted - it is impossible to say it doesn’t work in the real world when it has not been implimented.
Pretty mute given that the 04 election didn’t come down to a money factor.
Very true - and Clinton’s presidency was struggling hard - he needed the Republicans more than he needed Democrats at that moment.
Credit where it’s really due - He had the political courage to sign it, but he also knew what he had to do to save his office. And he did it.
38 kritter
June 1, 2007 @ 9:44 pm CESTThe fact that no one’s been able to implement it, despite generations of Conservatives who swear to it as one of their inviolable principles, leads me to that conclusion. If you can change human nature, you can change the system. Until then, its just a theory.
Plus, if you look back one of my posts deals with the changing demographics that would make small government particularly difficult to enact.
As far as Abramoff goes, he did give money to both sides, but I am only concerned with those who are under investigation by the FBI for abuse. Just taking money from a lobbyist isn’t a crime- its if the money affects your vote. There was a big deal about Harry Reid taking boxing tickets ,when he was voting on the commission. Rush and Sean typically went nuts- trying to make him look like the Democrats’ Duke Cunningham. But, it turned out he voted against the commission (of course the truth didn’t shut the wingers up)
39 Interested
June 1, 2007 @ 10:13 pm CESTLOL - in this post alone you shifted what your point is, we’re supposed to go back and find more?
There’s plenty that was shoved under the rug that the Dem’s did. Ried had more than one. If you actually think the Dem’s have any type of moral high ground - we really ought to talk about that land I’ve got for sale. You’d love it.
btw - the Scandel didn’t settle around if it affected the vote - the scandel settled around which Repubs got what for money.
40 kritter
June 1, 2007 @ 10:47 pm CESTNey was removed for putting something Abramoff wanted on the agenda. And if you have specific information about someone acting on legislation after receiving a gift- Dem Or Rep, I urge you to go straight to Gonzales with it- I’m sure hes da man! The pugs got caught with their pants down- with Foley , Abramoff and Cunningham. They were in the majority, and so they were the ones with the influence.
And no, I’m not shifting gears I’m describing factors that make it harder now to try to make the government smaller. CS gets it -sorry that you seem to be having a much harder time.But, like I said at least several times- I think that this comes up every time Conservatives realize that they’ve strayed from their core principles- every few years, lol. Guess they’ve done a lot of straying, judging from the 109th Congress.
41 Interested
June 1, 2007 @ 11:27 pm CESTAnd your still okay with Dem’s side getting brushed under the rug. Write that one down - for it will haunt you in the future.
Nah, your not very difficult at all.
42 kritter
June 2, 2007 @ 2:43 am CESTYou know what, interested? If someone goes to Congress and takes a bribe or gift for their vote, I don’t care if they’re from my “side” or not. They belong in jail, not on Capitol Hill. Nobody should be above the law. The fact that any of them get treated with kid gloves by the law really irks me. But then again look at our fine, upstanding Dept of Justice, and our man of integrity AG Gonzales. That should tell you why most of the investigations are dragging out for years.
43 Interested
June 2, 2007 @ 3:22 am CESTAs demonstrated by your total silence.
44 domajot
June 2, 2007 @ 8:06 pm CESTI would be more optimistic about the promise of small governemtn if recent developments weren’t so troubling.
The way conservatives have sought to cut the size is to privatize. I don;t see that this really cuts the size, it only shifts the employees to the business sector. This, in turn, creates the necessity for a bureucracy for management and oversight of the private companies doing government work.
It also marries business interests to governement. Basically, it is just replacing the effect of bureucaratic government employees with the effect of business interests on national policy. One problem is replaced with another.
The theory for small government, like the theory for free markets, runs into serious problems when it hits the real world.
A major prolem with privatization is the corrupting influence of those lucrative government contracts. I don’t remember all the details, but one report was quite an eye-opener about the friends and family benefiting from contracts from the Education and Homeland Security Departments. Bureaucratic waste was replaced by the waste of money alloteed to unqualified private businesses.
Leaving more for states to do, also is a double edged sword. The efficiency of state governemtnts varies widely, and the citizenry in the worst cases is left defenseless without the protection of fedral intervention. Minority opinion is more likely to be trampled on at the state than at the federal level.
This is admitedly a one-sided critique, because the subject is the promise of conservatism.
If the subject were liberalism,. I would posit a different set of crticisms.
Basically, the argument seems to be that true conservatism hasn’t been implemented, but it would be great if if were. I find that argument wanting, because even to the extent that it has been implemented, a new set of problems rise to replace the old.
45 kritter
June 2, 2007 @ 9:02 pm CESTThat’s why its best to be a moderate. Pure liberalism hasn’t worked because it creates entitlements and dependencies that we can ill-afford, conservatism hasn’t worked because those it power don’t believe in good government, so they accumulate power for its own sake. Moderation is the key- so that everyone gets a fair shot, but we don’t end up with a permanent welfare nightmare either.
46 kritter
June 2, 2007 @ 9:03 pm CEST‘As demonstrated by your total silence.’
I have no earthly idea what you are talking about.
47 mvdg
June 2, 2007 @ 9:09 pm CESTKim, now I see where you misunderstand conservatism. Conservatives do not ‘not believe in good government,’ we do. We believe, however, that the government can only be effective in a limited amount of areas.
48 domajot
June 2, 2007 @ 9:38 pm CESTMVDG said:
“We believe, however, that the government can only be effective in a limited amount of areas.”
————-
That’s a principle of conservatism that I guess I;ll nver understand.
Again, it’s one of those ideas that sound good, but when you dig into the deatails, from my perspective, it just disintegrates into dust.
What about the other areas? Should people just fight it out to see who wins and who loses?
A concept not addressed, but of primary importance to me, is the answer to the question: what makes a country a nation?
A primary role for government, is to keep alive the ‘one nation” principle. To expect patriotism to arise in times of war, without building up the feeling that we are all in it together beforehand, amounts to relying on miracles, IMO. Why should anyone care about the nation, when the nation only remembers me when it needs me to fight for it?
49 mvdg
June 2, 2007 @ 9:41 pm CESTBrits were far more patriotic when they had a smaller government, who intervened less in economical affairs.
Sometimes, that works best, yes.
50 domajot
June 2, 2007 @ 10:08 pm CESTMVDG-
So, now I know why I can never be a true conxervative.
I could never be that blase about fighting-it-out. I don’t like the powerful crushing the weak just because they can.
The correlation between smaller government and patiotism may or may not be true. Two conditions happening at the same time do not prove cause and effect. It would have to be a much more detailed analysis of other prevailing factors.
I know what you believe, and I won’t belabor you anymore about why I don’t. [I’ll just swallow the other 100 arguments I have to back my case.:)]
I don’t think either one of us is capable of convincing the other.
51 kritter
June 2, 2007 @ 10:13 pm CESTWhat usually happens is the part of the govt that supports a certain party- ie Republicans supporting the military thrives during that party’s tenure. Conservatives in this country use fox-in-the-henhouse style govt- ie the secretary of the interior leasing oil rights to oil companies from our federal lands, instead of protecting them, or putting an industry lobbyist in charge of dealing with consumer accidents. If the other party gets in, their programs flourish- ie social programs get funded while the military might get its funding reduced. So neither party actually reduces the size of govt in the end.
BTW, I don’t like the fighting it out to see who wins scenario, because the poor and disadvantaged need their champions.
52 Michael van der Galien
June 3, 2007 @ 9:11 am CESTKim: but conservatives would argue that if the government interferes, it creates a thousand other problems, which it than has to solve, which will create another 1000 other problems and so on.
53 lthomas
June 3, 2007 @ 11:56 am CESTConservatives in this country use fox-in-the-henhouse style govt
Oh pahlease…………Kritter.
Please go re read your history books. Others wrote the book on cronyism and your fox in the henhouse style of government.
Teapot dome scandal anyone?
54 C Stanley
June 3, 2007 @ 12:13 pm CESTPeople are always ‘fighting it out’ whether the fight takes place in the political sphere or the private one. Groups whose interests conflict or who want to lay claim to limited resources will always have to fight for their interests. Putting it in the political sphere just means that there’s opportunity for politicians to exploit that interest, to say that they ‘care’ about one group’s needs or another’s.
And that’s where I see fault in the “we’re all in this together” meme, Kim. The fact is that elected officials who promise government solutions are actually dividing more than they’re uniting because they’re creating resentments of one group of society against another.
55 C Stanley
June 3, 2007 @ 12:18 pm CESTChampions to do what though, Kim? To give handouts so that the destitute are able to rise to the level of being merely poor (and dependent on government) or to remove barriers to their potential rise to middle class? The latter is a legitimate use of government (and much of that needs to take place at the local level anyway in terms of creation of strong local economies and zoning laws that don’t foster inner city ghetto formation). The former is only the legitimate goal of a socialist government, and it’s neither sustainable nor desirable for the people that it’s supposed to help.
56 mvdg
June 3, 2007 @ 12:33 pm CEST“The fact is that elected officials who promise government solutions are actually dividing more than they’re uniting because they’re creating resentments of one group of society against another.”
That’s very true and, of course, at the core of socialism, labor and American liberalism: the belief that, in fact, the underclass cannot take care of itself and is ruthlessly exploited by the upperclass if the government does not interfere.
57 C Stanley
June 3, 2007 @ 12:45 pm CESTYes, heh, they will be exploited by the upperclass and corporations unless the government can exploit them first.
The best role for government would thus be to oppose exploitation of all kinds, which means encouraging personal responsibility and then intervening whenever there is a barrier to a person’s ability to ‘pursue happiness’.
58 mvdg
June 3, 2007 @ 12:57 pm CESTTrue. Don’t have much to add to that. I would only like to point out that one has to be careful before deciding that the point on which the government should intervene has been reached. I think that conservatives should also understand that, in the end, barriers will always exist and that, sometimes, destroying one barrier might cause many other unintended consequences / problems. The government should not intervene whenever there is a barrier, life is full of barriers. It seems to me that one could better say that the government should intervene when a barrier is unovercomable, unjust and hurting society.
59 domajot
June 3, 2007 @ 3:58 pm CESTThere is an intellectually dishonest side to the conservatives’ arguments here.
You list all the negatives of governement interference without once considering the effects of non-interference, except to present them in the rosy light of theory.
Conservatives correctly claim that government interference creates new problems. However, government interference occurs when problems remain unsolved without interference. Often, unsolved problems themselves create new problems just as easily, if not more so than government interference. It’s not really a case of problems vs no problems, but one set of problems vs another set.
Basically, you list all the problems with government as it is and imply that removing the hand of governemtn would remove all the problems. Well, that’s a blind assertion of faith, not even a proper argument.
For example, we ‘’solve’ our crime problem by incarcerating at an alarming rate.
Recidivism is very high, and the whole process of building more prisons, staffing them, and caring for the prisoners is very costly, especially when you factor in the cost of crimes committed between incarcerations.
In California, government has interfered with a pilot program providing drug rehab and counseling in prison and continuing it for many months after the release of the prisoner. The recidivism rate is down, crimes commiteed by the excons is down, their employment rate is up and the overall costs are down, especially if you factor in the safety of the people in their neithborhoods. Bad, bad government, what with tax money invested, social services handouts for free and all. huh?
Creating dependency is not the only effect of handouts. Conservatives call handouts a barrier against upward mobility. but in the case of California’s prisoners, it’s turning out to be a gateway to upward mobility. At an another point, you could call handouts a barrier against starvation and disease, or a barrier against greater costs to society down the road as a result of poor nutrition and ill health.
If conservatives prefer the problems that exist under their own throretical vision, that’s a personal choice, and personal choice is just fine as an argument.
But it’s not just fine to present a scenario with all prolbms on one side, the positives all being erased, vs a theoretical bliss on the other side, with the negatives erased.
60 Interested
June 12, 2007 @ 3:59 am CESTNot very surprising.
Actually no - the Republic was founded and the Constitution repeatedly stresses States rights first over Federal Rights.
Pretty dead on.
That’s a rosy view without actually understanding (or not attempting to understand) what Conservatism is about.