Jonathan Chait articulates my own views on the difference between Democrats and Republicans. The same can be said of liberals vs. conservatives in a lot of countries. Modern liberals are pragmatists - they look for policies that work. Modern conservatives seem to want to apply the same simplistic solutions to every problem.
Conservatism and liberalism are not really mirror images of each other.
Conservatives venerate the free market and see smaller government as an end in itself. Liberals do not venerate government in the same way, and we do not see larger government as an end in and of itself. For us, everything works on a case-by-case basis. Should government provide everybody's education? Yes. Should government manufacture everybody's blue jeans? No. And so on.
15 comments:
Funny, I tend to see the problem in reverse. Modern liberals seem to thing the government is the answer to every problem.
Gas prices too high? Get the government to set price controls...
People aren't saving enough to retire on? Set up a government enforced retirement program and force them into it...
The government sponsored retirement program doesn't look like it's going to provide enough money in the near future? Raise tax rates and cut benefits to below poverty level payments....
Don't like the fact that someone wants to build a building on his property instead of renting it to gardeners? Set up a protest demanding that the government prevent him from developing it (even if the property was offered for sale to those protestors and they have the money to buy it)...
Following the latest disaster scenario? (Y2K, nuclear winter, global cooling, global warming...) Demand the government spend 100x the projected damages to prevent the problem before we really know what's going on because "We can't afford to wait and find out for sure!"
And I don't think conservatives want to apply the same solution to every problem. It's just that we have a basic belief that life is better when people are able to solve their own problems in a manner they feel is best rather than have the government impose the "solution" on them. More often than not, the government solution doesn't solve the problem and often causes new problems.
I haven't read the whole article, Ami, but the part you quote is dead on! Government is a tool, to be used as needed. Neither worshipping it (as social conservatives do) nor fearing it (as fiscal conservatives do) makes sense.
Oopx, "fearing" isn't actually the word I want to use there. I think "being terrified of" is more accurate. We should of course all be wary, so some fear is warranted. But the complete deregulation of all things approach obviously doesn't make sense.
"Government is a tool, to be used as needed."
Sure, I'll go along with that. The question is, what do you mean by "needed?" Gov't is a very powerful, and similarly dangerous, tool. I certainly wouldn't want "the complete deregulation of all things," as there are instances (rare as they are) where gov't intervention actually tangibly improves the situation.
Brian: I think your perception comes from the fact that, nowadays, nobody even considers the government as the solution for every problem.
There was a time when some people thought that the government should intervene to provide jeans, tables, windows, etc. for the population. Today everybody accepts that these things are best handled by the market.
What you call "every problem" is actually a very small subset of human problems that some people feel government might be able to help with.
I don't think that very many people, liberal or not, support price controls on gas. But some people have suggested it, and rather than respond with a knee-jerk reaction that anything the government does must be bad, the proper response is to explain why it's not the right answer.
Retirement programs are an example of where governments do a much much better job than private programs. Disaster scenarios as well (despite your rather innaccurate characterizations).
You admit to having a basic belief that people should solve their own problems. This basic belief is in fact the heart of the problem, because it's often simply wrong. If you're not willing to consider the cases where this belief is mistaken, then you're validating the premise of the article.
... Ami.
"Retirement programs are an example of where governments do a much much better job than private programs. Disaster scenarios as well."
I'll mostly agree on disaster scenarios (the main problems tend to be too large for a smaller organization to handle effectively), but the Soc Sec program in the US is a great example of how not to run a retirement program. Private plans have significantly better returns for the investment.
Ami,
One of my home state senators, the very liberal Richard Durbin, was seriously campaigning to implement gas controls and windfall profits taxes. Any suggestion of lowering the gas tax rates or allowing increased production was met with scorn. It really doesn't matter if the majority of liberals believe controls work when the people who represent them are talking about it. It's what their leadership proposes that gives the perceptions.
As for the government doing a better job on retirement programs, I don't consider having 12.4% of my wages taken in return for a potential poverty level income (which is scheduled to be cut) to be doing a much better job. We've had these discussions before an I know you believe a PAYG system works as well as an investment based system, but the numbers just don't support show it.
I noticed you completely ignored my references to property rights. The US liberal's first reaction to someone doing something they don't like with their own property is to call for the government to restrict its use.
Finally, the statement about leaving the government out of problems is more of a first reaction of mine. I'm from an area (or maybe that's era) where "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." is a cause for caution rather than celebration. I understand that there are SOME things that only the government can do better than private agencies (police, fire departments, roads, parks, public schooling, military, etc), but there are many more things the government does that cause problems.
For example: I get the weekend Chicago Tribune. Yesterday there was a front page article about Chigago paying nearly $4/gallon for milk when the rest of the country pays closer to $3/gallon (I'm 100 miles south of Chicago and pay about $2/gallon). The rough version of WHY they pay that much is government regulations that force them to truck the milk to cheese producing plants in Wisconsin first rather than straight to stores in Chicago. These rules are designed to help the cheese producers who might not get enough cheap milk. The effect is that Chicago consumers pay too much for the product. This is what I meant by government attempts to solve problems actually causing more problems that need solving. It happens in nearly every program the government starts.
My reference to disaster scenario's was supposed to point out the liberal penchant towards "The government must DO something now! It doesn't matter if we know all the facts or not. We can't afford to wait for all the facts!" Which I've heard on every suggestion of disasters. Y2K was greatly exaggerated (we wasted billions on that). Nuclear Winter was a scare tactic. I nearly forgot "We'll all cook alive if we don't ban freon!" (Remember the ozone holes?) Global cooling was just wrong. Human induced Global Warming hasn't been proven yet, but we're urged to take drastic action now to prevent it.
Brian, what makes you think that gov't does a better job schooling kids than the private sector would? As we've increased federal and state spending on education, we've seen a steady decline in the quality.
Hi Richard,
It's not so much that the government does a better job (it doesn't), it's that education is one area that I think should be provided to all people. Only the government can reliably provide the money to educate all children regardless of their parent's ability or willingness to work and pay for it.
(Sounds downright socialist from me doesn't it?)
I actually think our schools would benefit from a more competitive structure and I strongly support vouchers or similar programs that let parents choose the schools that their children attend (assuming the children can meet minimum accademic standards of the better schools). I do think the government should provide basic funding for a basic level of education and would entertain the idea of providing college funding the way Finland does. However, our colleges currently work very well and I'd want to make sure any government funding proposals wouldn't break the system the way they did with many public elementary schools.
Interesting excerpt. I didn’t want to create an account, so I haven’t read the whole article.
Regardless of my ignorance, I still had several reactions to the article, not all of which were related.
The first was that the whole left/right, conservative/liberal, and even Republican/Democrat labels are all very simplistic. There are some non-card-holding Republicans I know that agree in the policies that should be implemented, but disagree in the reasoning. I’m sure the same thing happens with the “D’s.” The Socially / Fiscally prefix gives two more options.
The second is that the premise is a little weighted. One could easily flip the argument from “Modern liberals are pragmatists - they look for policies that work. Modern conservatives seem to want to apply the same simplistic solutions to every problem.” To “Modern conservatives want to apply established laws in a consistant manner to every problem. Modern liberals are pragmatists - they want apply different human judgement in each unique case.”
Thirdly, the quote “There was a time when some people thought that the government should intervene to provide jeans, tables, windows, etc. for the population. Today everybody accepts that these things are best handled by the market.” Is not entirely accurate. There ARE people who believe that the gov’t should provide shelter and clothing for potions of the population who “cannot” provide for themselves. In fact a recent article (sorry no link) was published quoting a study on solutions to the homeless problem. If I remember correctly, the study indicated that it was cheaper to take care of the homeless en-mass than to try to give them the tools to combat the cause(s) of their homelessness. That is, giving windows and jeans was cheaper than anti-drug education (post addiction).
Lastly, I hope you are right about the support for price controls on fuel. I don’t think you are correct, though. I think there are many who feel that there SHOULD be a cap to the amount of money that “big oil” may charge for a gallon of gas. I think you are wrong about the knee-jerk response as well. I would prefer a “one-two punch.” (although a swift kick CAN be pretty effective ;-) ). I would start out with a general “Governments tend to create more trouble than they solve when they expand out of the traditional roles of government.” And then move into the specific case at hand. The discussion then can proceed into the general premise of the original post: should government run according to strict guidelines (Constitution) or react to the policies of individual judges and legislatures.
Stryker,
If you don't want to sign up for newpaper accounts, you might try using http://www.bugmenot.com/ instead.
A couple of thoughts.
1. Modern conservatives have become much more trusting of government, at least in cases of civil liberties. In the Guantanamo debate, for example, the conservatives are statisfied with assurances that there is sufficient evidence to hold the detainees. Liberals are more likely to argue that detailed evidence needs to be presented before some sort of court/tribunal.
2. The Shiavo debacle was another example of conservatives being more comfortable with a government intrusion.
3. Liberals, on the other hand, do seem to care alot about involving government in the manufacture of blue jeans. In particular, if those blue jeans are made in China.
4. In general, I think the "case by case" arguement is a little too strong. For most consumption goods & services, I would argue that liberals would advocate for increased government involvement either through price controls (minimum wage, rent controls), barriers to trade, employment conditions (health and safety), environment, or anti-trust.
5. Brian, I think your example of gas prices is a bad one. I would argue the liberal position is for higher gas prices (based on environmental concerns). Politicians from both parties chose a populist response that deviated from the underlying ideologies. Republicanse were not particularly impressive at arguing the conservative viewpoint, that price spikes convey an important signal about supply and demand and government should not try to dampen fluctionations through selective tweaking with taxes...
6. The conservative ideal "small government" generally excludes discussion of the military, which is a very big part of the US government.
Robert,
I largely agree with you, especially if you substitute Republican for Conservative. On point 1., I would note that Republicans tend to have different standards for non-Americans. In that regard they definitely are definitely willing to give the gov’t. That is also consistent with your sixth point. That is, (neo?) conservatives often support a large military, and its use.
On point 5, I think you accurately show a split that is in both parties. In general, liberals/Dems think the government would be well used to help the poor. They also want to help the environment. In this case there is a conflict. The R’s on the other hand want to have a laisses Faire attitude (no price controls), but allow the possibility of introducing stability by raising or lowering gasoline taxes to suppress wild price swings.
In honor of the 4th, I picked up a copy of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense". On the first page he had a statement that pretty much summed up my beliefs regarding government.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil;..."
I was raised on such literature and I suspect it has much to do with my basic aversion to government programs (and possibly is the basis of many other conservative's similar feelings). These ideas are not new, but perhaps should be renewed.
I know this is a late reply, but when reading the pamphlet, I kept thinking of this thread.
Post a Comment