So how is it that the Left simultaneously believes the US Government is the root of All Bad Things (or at least in on the conspiracy), but wants them in charge of our auto industry, banks, and health care? I think it boils down to a (wholly unearned) presumption of competence.
Liberals think government is presumptively competent. Therefore, when they do something that looks stupid like, say, the Katrina response or mistakes made in Iraq, they must be doing it on purpose in order to achieve some nefarious motives (racism/war profiteering). But if we put those same people in charge of something that we want, like health care, those God-like powers will be harnessed for Good instead of Evil (aka Haliburton). It’s also why Big Government and the liberty it steals from us is worth the price to liberals so long as we have the “right” people in charge.
Conservatives, on the other hand, find government presumptively INcompetent, and therefore don’t want them involved in anything they don’t absolutely need to be involved in. That’s true even when the guys we voted for are in charge. In fact, we hope when we vote for them that they’ll protect us from all the other parts of government that would otherwise worm its way into our daily lives.
—
What inspired this thought is a liberal friend of mine and I agreeing on the futility of the proposed auto industry bailout, as well as the big $700 Billion one, but disagreeing as to the reasons behind our conclusions. He viewed it as a scam – a way to fund corruption and/or consolidate power for its own sake, which incidentally also explained the Iraq War and the PATRIOT Act. And the way they get us to buy into the scam is to “use the fear of calamity” to push it through in a hurry.
Of course, that would assume that the public supported the bailout, which it overwhelmingly did not.
But this just isn’t the reality. The bailout was “pushed through” so quickly because none of the fools who voted for it stopped to actually think. The only “fear of calamity” was on the part of the Congress and President Bush. (Well not the only fear. People are legitimately scared as their 401(k)s are cleaved in half. But it was the government, not the people, which let fear rule its actions to the exclusion of common sense.)
None of them had a philosophical, principled underpinning understanding of what government is, should be, or even can be. I’m not an economist, but I know that if you incentivize failure, you’ll get it. No one who opposed the bailout is surprised at the fact that the economy is far worse post-bailout than it was before. It’s really not rocket science. And as for the currently proposed Big Three bailout? A failure of an American car company (Studebaker, anyone?) wouldn’t be any big deal to the greater economy if the unholy and corrupt marriage of the unions and Democrats hadn’t spread the “more pay for less work” disease throughout the rest of the economy via unaccountable and now virtually unchangeable administrative labor regulation.
—
It is for times such as these that having a core principles anchoring your political philosophy is critical.
A common phrase in the military is “The more you sweat in training, the less you’ll bleed in combat.” The idea is that, when faced with an overwhelmingly stressful and dangerous situation, and not enough time to think about what you’re doing before you deal with it, the correct reactions have already been programed in as a pre-planned response.
Considering, forming, and refining governing First Principles long before crises ever occur is the only sure way of effectively dealing with them when we’re in the middle of them. Getting back to basics isn’t just about winning future elections to conservatives – it’s about being able to govern effectively once we win them.
A slight mischaracterization of my argument.
Here is my response:
I agree with you, and I think everyone I know who is a moderate progressive, does as well. It is an American value to distrust your government and to take nothing our politicians say at face value. When we stop doing that, hubris emerges. After 9/11 we didn’t question Bush’s policies, and he grew reckless. If we develop the same blind faith in Obama, he will fail too.
The reason why I believe the American political system is successful is because we are moderate to the core. We don’t believe in going to far left….nor too far right. In the Great Depression, when many other countries would have been tempted by communism, we were not. Yes, FDR started government-run social programs, but they were largely temporary and even then they were treated with distrust. And considering the difficulty of the time, and that is far left as we are willing to go, we remain moderate.
But it cuts both ways. We are also not interested in swinging far to the right. Bush ran in 2000 on “compassionate conservatism” a nod to progressive politics. He didn’t shut down medicaid or medicare, he expanded the programs. And when he tried to fiddle with social security, the American people balked. In some ways, it was his social security privatization campaign that signaled his decline in popularity. When he didn’t live up to his promise of moderation, he became unpopular and ineffectual.
This is why Obama will stick to moderate programs – because he has to and he knows it. If he were to swing too far left, he and the Democratic congress will be booted out. Not as fast as some would like, because American democracy is not an agile beast, but booted and booed nonetheless. Just as Bush was when he swung to far to the right.
As for the bailouts, I am glad they are going to stop spending my money for a couple of months and take a breather. I hope they consider Chapter 11 for the auto industry. But the American people also do not have the stomach to accept the full consequences of letting the market work itself out. We are not willing to have millions lose their homes, health insurance, and livelihoods – our sense of compassion and decency will require us to. And while the government is a leaky, rusty boat, it is also the best vehicle for delivering aid to those in need. So we will have some progressive programs to ameliorate the more severe effects of the financial crisis we are all responsible for.
But market capitalism is still the best system, and libertarian values will always be the basic values of America. I like to call myself a Progressive Libertarian, which I think captures the heart of American moderation.
In order to define Bush as “hard right,” you need to re-define “right” such that the term has no meaning. That is especially true WRT economic policy, where he’s been the most socialistic Republican since Hoover. With a hard left Democratic Congress, it only got worse, with predictable results.
Why is the government the “best vehicle for delivering aid to those in need”? What evidence is there of that? The Great Society? The New Deal? Obama’s Annenberg Challenge? The Democratic governments in nearly every major city? Total, abject failures. Again, I understand and appreciate that you don’t want to have “blind faith” in Obama. But you still grant him and his government the presumption of competence. This is THE fundamental difference between our world views.
“Progressive programs” will not ameliorate the effects of the financial cirsis, they will exacerbate them. And I reject entirely that “we are all responsible for” the crisis.
Moderation is no virtue if it is incoherent as a philosophy and thus unuseful as a guide to developing working policies. Then it becomes merely a “one problem at a time” approach that ignores unintended consequences farther down the road. WHY we do things is critical to making sure the HOW of it doesn’t make our problems worse – or create new ones down the road.
One correction, “Liberal Friend”. President Bush did not “swing too far right.” As you stated previously, President Bush’s policies arose out of “‘compassionate conservative’ a nod to progressive politics,” not conservatism in then classic sense. His expansion of government was decidedly leftist. His policies on immigration, also decidely leftist. Half of Pres. Bush’s dismal approval ratings is conservative frustration with Pres. Bush not being conservative enough. The other half is liberals hating him. As Orrin likes to say, if Pres. Bush had a “D” by his name, liberals would love him.
Also, liberals have to believe that government is competent (and maybe you don’t–good for you!), or they wouldn’t support things like government run health care or the massive government bailout of private industry.
It is an overstatement that millions will lose their jobs, healthcare, and livelihood if the auto industry goes bankrupt. Bankruptcy does not mean you go out of business. People who get laid off as a result of bankruptcy will find other means of employment.
I resent that liberals think “we” the public are responsible for this finanical crisis and therefore “we” the public have to pay for it. “We” are not responsible. People who over bought are responsible. The government that pushed banks to make untenable loans, which then encouraged builders to over-build, because hey, everyone can get financing, is responsible. But I personally have paid my bills, purchased within my means. Why should I have to pay for my mortgage plus the mortgages of all those people who didn’t pay?
Finally, “Progressive Libertarian” is an oxymoron. How do you reconcile that?
This is a great discussion, and I find Orrin’s distinction on the L/R view of government competency profound. I also appreciate your Liberal Friend’s endeavor to occupy center field, without being labeled unprincipled. He is just the sort of Lefty that we need to peel away from the Marxist camp, if we are to retake America. Perhaps I can assist you in “saving” him from the clutches of the Progressives, which I’ll admit that I consider a pejorative, and merely an euphemism for Marxist. 🙂
I hope he is trying to say he is basically libertarian, but leans to the Left. I have been accused of being a libertarian who leans to the Right. I would be interested in what he thinks of my Political Circle chart, and where he would place himself on it.
Alas, although it is already rather “busy,” I now find it incomplete; but I have not had the time to update it. Recent economic discussions elsewhere have given me a whole new perspective on why I reluctantly accepted the accusation of leaning Right, and have jerked me back to top-dead-center. I need to add an economic dimension to the chart.
Heretofore, economically, in my mind I have placed socialism on the Left and capitalism on the Right. This is incorrect. On the Right, I would now place “corporatism,” which entails government assistance and preferences for big corporations. They willingly buy politicians of any stripe to achieve these aims; but it is the Progressives who most vilify them publicly (while eagerly spending their campaign contributions), and traditionally (in my lifetime at least), they have counted on the Right to defend them.
As an entrepreneur, I have owned several incorporated small businesses and have used the title “CEO,” so I thought I had an affinity for these characters. Upon reflection now, not so much. All I ever asked government to do for my businesses was to get out of my way and let me satisfy the customers, not bureaucrats.
At the top, I would place free market economics or laissez faire capitalism. This permits me a completely principled occupancy of center field, without the need of knee-jerk defense of all corporations because they represent capitalism. I may still find corporatism the lessor of two evils Vis-à-vis socialism, but they are both statist and evil in my current view.
So, with that new piece in mind, I would ask your Liberal Friend how much he is invested in the Robin Hood syndrome, and how far he would place himself on the Leftward downhill slope away from individual responsibility, sovereignty, and Liberty? ?Dave?
One correction on my comment–Chapter 11 bankrputcy does not mean you go out of business. However, if GM, Ford, or Chrysler file Chapter 7, liquidation bankruptcy, I agree it could be really bad. But I just can’t believe this is their only other option outside a $25 billion dollar bailout from the government. They just want Congress to think so.
I wish “capitalism” was on the right side of Dave’s circle, but it does seem that corporatism is ruling the day as of late, particularly when the first bailout had lots of Republican support. However, it should be noted that Republicans are resisting the auto industry bailout, and it is the Democrats who are supporting the bill. Further, Pres. Bush, “the most socialist republican since Hoover” –to quote Orrin–encouraged support for the first bailout. Government involvment with private industry is still a leftist notion. As a result, I think you can make the argument that the governing of this country has shifted left, not by the results of this election, but by the “compassionate conservatism” of the Bush years.
I agree with Orrin that conservatives need to go “back to basics” and scrap the idea that progressivism can somehow be incorporated into conservatism. We have liberals to drive progressive programs and policies in this country. We don’t need conservatives doing it too.
Agreed. Please!
That is because it is really an endeavor to save labor unions, unproductive jobs, and pensions, not corporations. Chapter 11 reorganization – the correct solution- would open the possibility of renegotiating labor contracts to make American automakers more competitive with non-union Japanese plants in the South. This is anathema to the Progressives.
Rather than wishing for a different status quo, why not just join the Liberal Friend and me in center field, and start thinking “UP” and “DOWN” instead of Left and Right? Then, all we would have to do is hijack one of the two major Parties to represent the majority of Americans in the middle, and it wouldn’t matter which.
The Republican Party seems like the more likely candidate for the “UP” Party; but I have more in common with a Reagan/Truman Democrat than a “Moral Majority” Republican, and vehemently reject the notion that I am somehow “immoral” for not agreeing with their litmus tests.
Let the altruists from both wings join forces in the “DOWN” Party, since Marxism and Christianity are both organized on that principle. We more independent sorts, who just wish to be left alone to provide for ourselves and live our lives as we choose to live them, without being harassed by busybodies who think they know best how we should live them, must certainly outnumber the “do-gooders.” Don’t you think? ?Dave?
I gots ta reject the circle chart, Dave. I think it is both simpler and more complicated than that is adequate to show.
The first problem is that it assumes “Democrats” and “Republicans” are at fixed places to the left and right – they are not. They are simply names for two groups of people who organize to a) get people elected and b) get policies they prefer implemented. They can be moved left, right, or wherever. They are mobile vessels.
I define “left/right” almost precisely along your “up/down” axis. Conservatism is about maximizing individual liberty to the fullest extent possible, while Progressivism is about an “orderly” and “fair” society, and that individual liberty must be subsumed to this order. It is Equality of Life vs Equality of Opportunity.
Religious conservatives understand that the church is a great way to minimize bad behavior and magnify good behavior of a society without requiring the coercive power of the state. A church can pressure you, but not control you.
Religious liberals think that the role of government is to implement principles of religiosity, a la the government FORCING us to be “our brothers’ keeper.” To the extent the self-proclaimed “religious right” seeks to do this, I reject them as having anything to do with conservatism. But I have come to realize over the years that this alleged control of the religious right is a phantom, especially when compared to the daily-life intrusions of a Big Government.
Different flavors of conservatives will disagree with the methods of maximizing individual liberty, but we agree on the fundamental goal. Our argument with the left is their disregard for individual liberty as an inalienable, fundamental principle to which all other considerations must take a back seat.
Well said, Orrin. The religious liberals include the people pushing the environment as an agenda. Mother earth is the new god to worship. Global warming policy is more an affront to everyone’s individual liberty than anything the “religous right” or even just regular Christians have ever pushed.
If you take at face value that Christianity and Marxism are based on “altruistic” endeavors, the BIG difference between the two is that one is a form of government and the other is a religion, which is much more of a private affair than anything else. I reject that you can lump the two together for any reason.
That is interesting, Orrin. On one level, I hear you saying we differ only semantically, with an inconsequential 90° phase shift. You are calling conservative what I call libertarian. I applaud your position on religion, and have no grief with them myself, as long as they do not try to proselytize or coerce me. Then, you confuse me with the R/D bit.
All I did was bend the traditional L/R spectrum line into a circle, to show that if one goes too far in either direction, one finds oneself in a tyrannical government. I made provision for the RINO Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats, so I acknowledged the Parties’ ability to change sides for pragmatic purposes, and I used a large vertical font for the Parties to indicate that they each covered a large swath of the spectrum, which they would on the traditional straight L/R line. Yes, they are not ideologies in and of themselves; but my purpose was to get people to think about these matters. I agree that they could be eliminated for the purpose of trying to chart ideologies.
If you are interested in indulging me, I would ask several questions:
Do you also reject the traditional straight L/R line?If not, would you then place tyranny at the far Left, and Anarchy at the far Right?If you would, then we are saying the same thing, with only the semantic phase shift. This is good; but then a few other questions arise:
Where would you place yourself on that line?Where would you place a libertarian on your line?Would he be to the right or left of you?Where would you place your Liberal Friend?Where would you place a fundamentalist who demands gay, abortion, and/or evolution issue litmus tests and advocacy for politicians?
Where would you place a European Socialist Democracy?How about Communist China or North Korea?Do you consider a theocracy such as the Taliban or Iran a tyranny?How about a religious commune such as the Branch Dravidian’s?
Where would you place these on your line?Would they be to the Left or Right of European style socialism?Where in relation to the purer outright communist states?Finally, where would you put the three economic systems I mentioned? I think they are important, because one so often hears another say they are “economically conservative” and “socially progressive.” Generally, I consider that a plea to be considered a “moderate.”
Are you starting to see why I allowed for two paths to get to tyranny? I now understand why The Wife referred to The Liberal Friend’s attempt to label himself as a “Progressive Libertarian” as an oxymoron. I am guessing you would not choke on “Conservative Libertarian,” because they are very close to the same thing for you.
Yet, in my (and I suspect his) view of the spectrum, we are probably close and only differ on the margins as moderates in the middle between Radical Progressives on the far Left, and Radical Conservatives on the far Right. I hope he returns to confirm or reject this assumption. In any case, this is a very useful discussion. I far prefer clarity to agreement, and knowing how each other defines their terms, is essential to intelligent discussion. ?Dave?
Oops… I see that you blog does not resolve HTML bullet point lists, so I apologize for the mess in the third paragraph of the last post.
The Wife,
I completely concur with your assessment of environmentalism and AGW. I have often called them the new religion of the secular Left. I also concur that there is a big difference between the coercive altruism of Marx and the voluntary altruism of Christianity, and recall making that very point somewhere in just the past few days. I was not meaning to lump them together arbitrarily, only suggesting that to the extent that any fundamentalist wishes to empower government to regulate my behavior on moral grounds, they are welcome to make common cause with the Marxists who wish to empower government to regulate my economic life. As a libertarian, I reject the notion that government should be empowered to interfere in how I choose to live my life period – as long as I am not harming or coercing anyone else. ?Dave?
Well now… That’s quite the list to chew on. I do note that I apologize for my weak HTML comments block… 🙂
First: The line/circle, and the useless word “moderate”:
Yes, to the extent that there is a uni-dimensional line, anarchy is at the most extreme right, and total slavery to a single ruler being the most extreme left. Both are obviously bad, but only one is tyranny, and that’s to the left. The idea that you can go so far right that you’re left is (I believe) simply incorrect. It is not a loop. On one extreme is total, restricting, suffocating order. On the other is dangerous, insecure, and debilitating chaos.
What makes both of those things “bad” is not that both lead to tyranny, it’s that both anarchy and tyranny limit individual freedom, the maximization of which is the core foundational principle I think we both share.
You could say that maximizing individual liberty is moderate, as you do. But the problem with a loop is that you could conceivably place a “moderate” ANYWHERE on a loop. Indeed, if you think, as many liberals do, that people can’t be trusted with their own lives and need “help”, but that we need to maintain a nominally free society to keep this Nanny State benevolent, then that could easily be considered “moderate.” Why not? It’s half way between total libertarianism and out-and-out socialism. Isn’t meeting half-way “moderate”? But you and I both know that this move to the center will always slide farther left if left unchecked.
I have a better idea for a “line chart” that I think I’ll try to draw and post. Stand by for that.
Second: Where am I/you/various people on the line?
Individuals tend to be all over the place on the line, all at the same time. Most people don’t attempt to define their political philosophies coherently, which includes most politicians. They think of things issue by issue, taking a problem-solving approach (often to the surface of the problem only) without thinking about principles underlying their decisions or the potential long-term, unintended consequences that could occur later down the road. See Bailout, $700 Billion. This leads to bad policy and bad governance, which is why I bristle when people try to divorce philosophy from efficacy.
That’s the point of this blog. It’s to try to bring coherence to all of that, drilling down to a core set of principles that guides policy decisions and votes.
I’m going to pause here to draw my own “line.” I just now thought of it while drafting this response, and now I find myself wanting to explain things in terms of it. Stand by for a new post in a little bit.
But as an aside, have you read Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism”?
I have read about half of it so far and it is still in my “current reading” pile. I have a bad habit of buying most such books and reading several at once. It is an excellent treatment of the subject; but since I had recently read a 700 page tome by John Taylor Gatto entitled, “The Underground History of American Education” which is mostly a history of the Progressive Movement, and Amity Shlaes’ “The Forgotten Man,” there was not a lot of new material in it for me, so other books got more attention. I’ll let you know when I finish it.
OK, I am seeing here more clearly where you are coming from. One of the reasons I first came up with the circle a couple of years ago, before Goldberg effectively settled the issue, was the argument over whether Fascism was a far Right or a far Left ideology. I already knew its socialist roots and thought Left; but most seemed to think it was a Right wing phenomenon, and my circle was intended to show that it didn’t make any difference.
Most also consider a theocracy to be a Right wing ideology, and personally I consider the Taliban or Iran to be examples of a tyranny. Most also buy the notion that it is possible to go too far in either direction, and speak of the pendulum swinging back and forth between Left and Right. My circle allows one to place himself on it, and see his relationship to other ideologies. It also provides a home for those of us who say a pox on both houses, just go away and leave us alone. Independents, swing voters, libertarians, et al have a principled home on it, and can tell the Partisans eternally locked in their struggle for control, who call us wishy-washy or unprincipled for refusing to choose sides in their duopoly, to stuff it.
If you eschew the very notion of a moderate in the middle somewhere between them, I better understand your thinking. However, I don’t give your quest for a unified theory of conservatism much hope of attracting a majority of Americans to your cause then; if for no other reason than that the word “conservative” has a negative connotation to a majority of Americans already. Then, if you essentially define your ideological spectrum like a switch, where one is either a conservative or a progressive, you leave no option for nuance.
Not that I blame you; I am not a Pragmatist and I prefer folks have solid principles, I just think it will be a tough sell to convince enough people that they should be on the far right. I fear you have lost me already, and I am probably very close to you in basic philosophy; but I will wait to see where you place the religious activists on your line before making that decision. I take your earlier point on their historical ineffectiveness; but frankly, while I am quite willing to make common cause with them to defeat Marxism or Islam, they could easily be as dangerous, if they were allowed to get their hands on the levers of government. If you place them on the Progressive side, then we continue to concur, because they are below my equator; but if you try to shoehorn them in on the Right, then our thinking diverges, and that is probably a deal killer.
Besides, the more I get to know your mind, the more I think you are really a libertarian (by my definition) or an objectivist, and just don’t know it. 🙂
I look forward to your drawing. -Dave-
[…] Most of my blog activity today has been in an interesting discussion in the comment section of Orrin’s “First Principles” blog, in a post entitled, “Principles, Presumptions, and Bailouts.” […]
Well, now you’ve got it. Check it out above.
Religion is a topic for a careful post when I have time to really sit down with it. But in the meantime, it can be boiled down to this.
If I implement a welfare state, it doesn’t matter why I did it, it’s still a welfare state with all the negatives that go along with that. Once it’s coercive in terms of enforcing religion at the point of a gun, it’s not conservative and not even particularly religious in the Judeo-Christian sense.
Western religion requires free will – there is no such thing as coerced faith. This is the foundation of classical liberalism – it would not exist without Jesus.
This is where libertarians and I part ways. For example, I think adultery is wrong. I think it is destructive to society as a whole (especially where it is widespread), not just the couple engaging in it and their cheated upon spouse. I think it should be discouraged.
But making it illegal costs a LOT of personal liberty. It’s better to have religion and religious organizations a powerful part of our culture and society in that there is strong incentive to not do this bad thing, but if you do, you aren’t going to jail, either. You must be able to opt out, which is something you can’t do with government. Nobody should be able to enforce fidelity at the point of a gun. But I still want incentive not to go down that road.
Libertarians think we can live in our own bubbles – simply going Galt, as it were, doing whatever we please as long as we don’t think we’re impacting anyone else. I don’t think that – the reality is that we are too many, and we are imperfect beings, and we are social beings. Strong societal mores, traditions, cultures, and shared faith are the alternatives to government coercion which bind us together so we can achieve together what we cannot achieve as individuals – without having to sacrifice individual liberty along the way to do it.