Yesterday, I pointed out that fiscal conservatism seems to be on the ropes, and that it’s difficult to find a region of the country that still embraces down-the-line Friedmanism. Indeed, the sort of formula that is being embraced by Rudy Giuliani at the presidential level (Ayn Rand fiscally, Christopher Hitchens socially) cannot be found in any of the blue states that Rudy supporters, including myself, hope that Rudy can win in a general election. Most blue states now embrace fiscally moderate, socially liberal politicians. And the libertarian west, which gave birth to Goldwaterism and Reaganism, is now the test-case for Bill Richardson’s Blairite formula. All of this brings me back to a notion that I floated a few days ago: could the goalposts on economics have moved to an extent that the New Democrat is the fiscal conservative of the future?
This brings me to a piece referred to me by our own LJ, penned by Michael Lind of The Financial Times. Money quote:
What formerly was the left – welfare-state liberalism – is once again the centre. To its left (in economic, not social, terms) is protectionist populism; to its right, neoliberalism.
This comes as a disorienting shock to Clinton-Blair third-way neoliberals. Having positioned themselves as the reasonable mean between the welfare-state left and the economic libertarian right, they have awakened to find that they are now the extreme right. The clever ones are inching their way, ever more carefully, towards today’s new centre.
You can hear the change in what prominent would-be centrists are saying. In the 1990s, when neoliberalism was the centre, the line was: we must slash middle-class entitlements in order to be more competitive in the global free market. Now the line is: in order to save free-market globalism from populists preying on middle-class economic anxieties, we must expand the middle-class welfare state. [Doesn't that describe Hillary Clinton's current policy to a tee? Universal health care, universal 401(k), re-evaluating free trade deals, etc.]
The winners – at least for now – are welfare state liberals such as old-fashioned New Dealers in the US and their equivalents in other countries. The position of the original “third way” of 1932-68 always made sense. Middle-class social insurance programmes, by guaranteeing economic security, reduce the appeal of populism, socialism and other kinds of radical statism, and make possible broad political support for open and competitive national and global markets. You will hear much more of this line as politicians rush to occupy the new centre in the years ahead.
While all of this is fascinating in itself, what strikes me as most interesting is the way this is playing out in the American domestic theater. As Lind notes, virtually gone are the Goldwaterites arguing for the abolition of middle-class entitlements. What we seem to have now are two camps. One is a center-right camp on economics that wants to hold down middle-class entitlements to a reasonable level, streamline government to make things run more efficiently (and thus reduce spending), and keep taxes low and budgets balanced. The other is a center-left, populist camp that initially slashes taxes, increases spending, creates new entitlements, pays for it all with more debt, eventually hikes taxes to keep up with its own compassion, and opposes immigration. What seems to be interesting is that neither major political party easily fits within either camp, and on some days, today’s GOP seems to be headed more towards the center-left camp on economics, while today’s Democratic Party is often more in the center-right camp.
While the polarized Boomer generation will have to be displaced for a realignment to truly occur, all of this begs the question as to whether, say, a decade or two down the road, we’ll have a Democratic Party in this country that is center-right on economics and a GOP that is center-left on economics. In other words, a Blairite Democratic Party that follows the model being adopted by Western Democrats like Bill Richardson — low tax, fiscally prudent, keep entitlements as market-friendly as possible — and a Huckabee-style Republican Party that spends, spends, spends for the common good and eventually has to pay for it all by favoring the same sorts of tax hikes that Huckabee backed in Arkansas. We’re already seeing a primer to this in the credible reports coming out of Arkansas that Bill Clinton was the fiscal conservative in relation to Huckabee. Keep in mind that Huckabee raised taxes and increased spending in Arkansas because, in his view, Clinton levels on both were too low.
A realignment such as the one described above would, of course, leave Goldwaterites without a home. But they’d have to go somewhere. And in a world where one major party was socially liberal and fiscally more conservative than the other major party, and where the other major party was fiscally populist and socially collectivist, it wouldn’t be long before some clever strategist or other came up with a new fusionism to create a center-left majority between liberals and libertarians. Granted, this marriage of convenience would be just as tenuous as the Reagan Coalition has been for the past thirty years. But that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t succeed politically. I suspect a Richardson/Blair/DLC Democratic Party would do quite well in the Northeast, Midwest, West Coast, and Mountain West. And that would make the Democratic Party virtually identical to the GOP of Teddy Roosevelt just a century ago, while the GOP embraces Bryanism with its full populist jacket.
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
You know, I remember thinking, earlier in the year, that the Republican part would become more socially liberal and fiscally conservative, thus becoming a conservative libertarian party, and that the Democrats would, in electing someone like Bayh or Edwards, move to the populist side of things. I guess that prediction looks to be accurate, but the other way around.
I can’t agree with you more, DaveG — your articles are always worth a read.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
I think your focus on disputes about domestic issues within the parties is misguided. The story of the Democrats’ wins in the 2006 election was their gains among voters who had more traditional social and economic values, but who were against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who were suspicious of the PATRIOT act and certain forms of surveillance. The rise of a politician like Obama (who may actually be winning in Iowa) supports this; while he is very liberal, he speaks in the language of traditionalists, which has contributed greatly to his broad support. Others like Tester and Webb fit this mold as well. Overall, the Democratic party has sacrificed some of its urban, coastal progressivism in order to make inroads among the anti-war, isolationist movement. On the other hand, we have a fiscally conservative, yet socially moderate Hawk (not to mention the symbol of resilience on 9/11) taking the place of front-runner on the Republican side. He’s attracting significant support among otherwise socially conservative and traditionalist factions, even ins spite of bis many flaws. This suggests a realignment in the Republican party similar (yet opposite) to that occurring among Democrats. My interpretation is that the two parties have drawn the line on issues of defense, homeland security, and foreign policy (especially in the Middle East), and are currently wrestling over how to keep their old coalitions of culture warriors somewhat intact. This has pushed much of the early discussion to domestic issues such as immigration, health care, abortion, and taxes. Don’t be fooled, foreign policy is primary, and is the ground on which the general election will be fought.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
I’d take TR over Bryan every day and twice on Saturday’s. But, I think you’re missing a rather crucial difference between TR and Bryan. TR was an imperialist. An actual imperialist. He labeled himself that. Hillary Clinton is a tough Democrat as far as it goes. But, I have a hard time imagining her basically co-opting the Navy as an undersecretary, thereby strategically maneuvering us into the Spanish/American War, and then quitting in a flurry so that she can go charging up San Juan Hill. If you take the TR and Bryan, and switch their foreign policy views, you wind up with radically different sorts of parties.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
A Conservative/Liberal divide morphing into a Libertarian/Populist divide? No, I wouldn’t want that at all. I would be voting for the lesser evil every time and splitting my ballot would be a first.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:23 pm
DaveG – well put, as always-
Your conclusion would be very troubling for Republicans, nationally:
“I suspect a Richardson/Blair/DLC Democratic Party would do quite well in the Northeast, Midwest, West Coast, and Mountain West. And that would make the Democratic Party virtually identical to the GOP of Teddy Roosevelt just a century ago, while the GOP embraces Bryanism with its full populist jacket.”
That doesn’t leave much else on the map. In fact, that looks a lot like the electoral maps in the two elections in the 1990s: win the Plains states, plus most of the South and most of the Mountain West. That’s all the first President Bush held. Bob Dole did about the same, although with different states (he won three states that Clinton had won in 1992), but it basically ended up being the same.
I should note too, that another bolster for your argument comes from the Democrats’ sharp gains in upscale suburban areas in the Frost Belt. Nearly every seat in the suburbs of those metropolitan areas is in danger, and Democrats took many of them in 2006 (it was the largest single factor in their retaking control of the House). It stands to reason that if the main growth in your political base is in affluent Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, etc.), that center-right on economics would be the way to drift. Those voters are turning to Democrats on cultural issues as well as war and peace…
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
[...] Original post by DaveG [...]
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Dave, you make it sound like its the SoCons who are into deficit spending and the FiCons would balance the budget. I guess I don’t really see that in Rudy Guiliani. I don’t think he balanced the budget in NY, and he seems to believe in the myth that tax – cuts mean more revenue. Which there is some revenue feedback that caueses you to have more revenue than what static anaylsis would show, but still with the current level of taxes the consensus among ecconomists seem to be that tax – cuts lower revenue. So my point is I don’t necessarily see that Rudy would not be a deficit spender. I think the best person in that regard would be John McCain, who actually seem to recognize that a tax should have accompanying spending cuts.
Also the way you describe the more fiscally conservatives in your scenario I think I would probably be one of them. I am not for the country starting a bunch of Socialistic programs. I am very pro capitalistic, I just don’t fit in with those who think we should end all assistance to the poor. I am in favor of some kind of kind safety net to help the poor. But I am in favor of cutting down waste, privatizing Social Security, the post office and the School system – well the last two our pretty much pipe dreams but we could have vouchers. So it seems like I would probably fit in better with your fiscal moderates than with your fiscal populists. I suppose its the Randian FiCons I can’t stand. So in your coalitions I would have nowhere to go, but I would probably go with the Fiscally liberal party, just because I’m of a SoCon than a FiCon. A lot of SoCons are FiCons are at least Fiscal moderates so Fiscal Conservatives would be losing alot of those SoCons in the coalition you describe. If there are more Ficons in the Socially Conservative circle than in Social liberal circle the above coalition than seem to lose more Fiscal Cons than it would gain.
Finally one final observation. Your observation requires the Dems to actually go with the Bill Richardsons of the Dem party. Which they don’t seem to be doing at a national level.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
A significant share of the voting public holds populist views. Populists favor an active role by government in regulating the marketplace and providing a safety net while holding traditionalist views on social issues. Both parties have overlooked the populist voter that is often working class to lower middle class in favor of more upscale social liberal-economic conservative types.
A growing disconnect exists between elites and the grassroots in both parties. For example, many rank and file Democrats differ with their party leaders on social issues like illegal immigration, gay marriage and abortion rights. A recent poll showed that most Republican voters think that the “free trade” is bad for America although the party leadership continues to support such trade agreements.
The party that can best appeal to these look ignored populist voters (who might be described as TR Democrats, Bryan Republicans or Lou Dobbs Independents) will win in ‘08.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I don’t understand all this panic. One or two election does not a realignment make. On the republican side there is way too much consternation about the popularity of Giuliani and whether it represents an end to a winning coalition. The truth is Giuliani is a statistical outlier. He happened to be a republican mayor on 9-11. If a dem had been mayor there would be no candidate Giuliani. If there had been no 9-11 there would be no candidate Giuliani. And surveying the field of up and comers, there are no Giuliani heirs.
OTOH, there will be Huckabee heirs because economic populism is growing in popularity. If you watch CNBC as I do you will hear CEO’s and investment bankers talking about the needs of the middle class. Bill Seidman says the government must do something to keep people from losing their homes. The alarm bells are being rung and the message is that a little middle class welfare right now could prevent an outright war on wealth.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
On #7 “he seems to believe in the myth that tax – cuts mean more revenue”.
The problem with politics is in its simplicity sometimes. That statement is neither true nor false. It depends on the tax rate. Cutting taxes from 100% to 99% would increase revenue, but cutting them from 1% to 0% would decrease revenue. Given the recent evidence I’ve seen I would think as of now broad-based marginal tax cuts would probably reduce revenue. On the other hand, converting to a more efficient tax (i.e. flat tax) could depending on the rate increase revenue.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Whatever may happen, in the larger historical context, two things are clear:
1. Capitalism has proved its triumph over socialism, globally. The entire world has moved in that direction. There will be no backwards movement, at least in the long-term. Especially with the rise of the tech sector, the Internet, and the free flow of information.
2. Cultural views will move left, as they always have throughout our history. As one example, the latest generation is for gay unions/marriages — even most of its Republicans.
Ultimately a party will embrace these two movements, because they are inexorable. We may have to regress toward populism for awhile to satisfy the small-minded reactionairies until they see the light, and/or die off, as they always do.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Metro, you sound like a (Bill) Clinton Democrat!
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:59 pm
What’s interesting is that the successes of Reagan and Thatcher combined with a changing world economy have robbed the Goldwaterites of their base. The states that once voted for pols like Goldwater and Reagan are now the base of the American Blairites. And the GOP, in trying to recapture what was the economic center in the 1990s, attempted to out-Clinton Bill Clinton with market-friendly entitlements and by helping people help themselves. While well intended, Republicans actually ended up moving to the LEFT of Clinton Democrats on fiscal issues when trying to put all of this into practice. The GOP ended up creating new entitlements (the Medicare bill) while Bill Clinton cut entitlements (welfare reform). The GOP brought back the deficit that Clinton erased. The GOP base is now on the opposite side of the Chamber of Commerce w/r/t immigration. The GOP was unable to copy Clinton’s middle-class-oriented soft fiscal conservatism because the GOP base is no longer comprised of the educated suburban and white collar voters who respond to such a message. Increasingly working class, religious, and rural, the GOP base fears endless immigration which drives down wages, views fiscal prudence as lacking compassion, and prefers one-size-fits-all programs like the Medicare bill instead of programs that allow you greater ownership over your economic life. You know, like Clinton did. Bush at least had the corporatist, Northeastern Republican instincts to try and reform Social Security and to try and bring things back to the concept of an ownership society. But Huckabee is what the base really wants. It will be interesting to see whether Democrats respond to an increasingly populist GOP by producing more Richardsons and fewer Pelosis. It seems unlikely now, but trends usually move from west to east, and Richardson-style Democrats seem to be the wave of the future out there.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Metro: “1. Capitalism has proved its triumph over socialism, globally. The entire world has moved in that direction.”
Obviously that’s an exaggeration since some nations have moved left economically. So which from of capitalism do you think is “triumphing”?
There are several forms and laissez faire capitalism has actually been in decline on the world stage especially in the third world were it had been practiced most.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Since this is as good an open thread as any, I’ll say that Rudy needs to start getting his act in gear.
He’s allowed himself to get dragged down by Romney for the past 2+ months to the point where it seems like all he’s doing is campaigning against Mitt and not for the Presidency.
He’s all but forgotten about his 12 commitments or any policy to the point where Fred has blown past him on that front.
His ads and events lately are all about his record in NYC that no one cares about. He’s not not running for mayor or for Governor or any office where local accomplishments matter. He’s running for President/ He needs to start saying what he’ll do as President, not regurgitate worn out facts about cutting taxes or welfare over 10 years ago; no one care.
With Romney falling off in IA to Huckabee, he has an opening to make his leads in FL more valuable, and potentially to move up in NH.
He should focus on policy, what he’ll do as President. Ignore Romney’s mudslinging and attempts to drag him down.
I have to say I’m disappointed in his campaign since the Petraeus ad thing ended in late September. He really hasn’t done anything and has just been engaged in petty snipes with a 1 term governor who’d be the least experienced candidate in the post-war era. Pathetic.
He needs a wake up call.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I hate labels. Most europeans states are capitalist and socialist, right? The european welfare states are more expansive and more generous than the american. That has come at a cost of growth and many have reformed or trying to reform their systems, but europeans still want their welfare. America has its own brand of socialism. Our schools are state run, we have social security and medicare, both socialist in nature. It seems to be the question is not which do we choose, but how much of each.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
“that would make the Democratic Party virtually identical to the GOP of Teddy Roosevelt just a century ago,”
except for the virulent imperialism.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
10 got a love you simplistic view of the world man.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
An interesting thing for you Secular libertarians to ponder: The more secular or atheistic nations have been the more Socialistic ones.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
econ grad stud, when I say “the entire world has moved in that direction [toward capitalism]” I mean the bulk of nations. Of course there are exceptions. Should’ve been more precise.
John, yes, the more secular nations have been more socialistic. A giant, unfortunate contradiction, just like liberalism and conservatism are both contradictions. What of it?
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:46 pm
It is almost meaningless to speak of “captialism” or even more so, “socialism” in the context of modern America, since the terms have become almost meaningless.
A pure laizze-faire capitalism was demonstrated, in the real world, to be disastrous, well over a century ago. The entire history of the 20th century could be viewed as one long painful, bloody bout of trying out alternatives to pure capitalism, all motivated by the universal sense that pure capitalism doesnt work.
We were fortunate here in America to have an FDR, whose administration was able to forge a modified capitalism that addressed many of the major flaws and allowed the capitalist spirit to remain at the heart of our economic system.
Pure socialism refers to state ownership of the means of production, something that is not present anywhere in the modern West. Government run insurance programs, like Social Security, or even government welfare programs are not in any sense socialism – they are fixes to the inherint problems of capitalism.
IT seems many people toss around the word “socialism” to refer to any concern about real people, and any attempt to relieve the damage to people that captialism can sometimes cause. Its pure rhetoric, not political philosophy.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Sorry John, not true. Even under communism many eastern bloc countries retained their religious attachments. The catholic church is given credit for helping Poland become free. Italy is very catholic and has been very socialist in its past. All of the left-leaning South American regimes were catholic.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Sorry Tano “Government run insurance programs, like Social Security, or even government welfare programs are not in any sense socialism” is just flat wrong. While a neo-classical definition might suit your needs, I believe the modern understanding of socialism is state ownership or control of any property or income.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Dave,
You are off on so many of your premises, it’s hard to know where to begin, but let’s start with two…..
“Rudy Giuliani at the presidential level (Ayn Rand fiscally…”
Really?? What part of the Government is going to burn under a Guiliani presidency?
“Huckabee-style Republican Party that spends, spends, spends”
The hysteric caricature of Huckabee in the fevered imaginations of his opponents is getting almost comical. Please tell me what major spending programs Huckabee has proposed in this campaign. And for the record, Huckabee wants market centered reforms of Social Security and health care. I wouldn’t expect you to mention that, as it deviates from your comic book story of this election.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Feltcher, I didn’t say that there weren’t exceptions. But if you take a look at Communism it is millitantly Atheistic. Sure the eastern blocs retained some of their religion, but it was in spite of intense persecution. It seems you can take a look at pretty much anywhere in the Western world and find that they are more secular than we are and that they are more Socialistic than we are. As for Italy and Latin America I think you probably have a lot of nominal Catholics in those countries. Also that brings up another interesting point, it seems protestantism is more friendly to ecconomic freedom than Catholicism. It seems to me that the most ecconomically free country in the western world is also the most protestant country in the western world. If you have examples of a country that more protestant or significantly more free economically speaking than please point it out.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Feltcher,
So how is a state run insurance program an example of state ownership of property or income?
And your “modern understanding” represents nothing more than the point I was making.
That the terms have become effectivly meaningless as they are bandied about by politicos trying to up the rhetorical ante against their opponents.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:15 pm
A pure laizze-faire capitalism was demonstrated, in the real world, to be disastrous, well over a century ago. The entire history of the 20th century could be viewed as one long painful, bloody bout of trying out alternatives to pure capitalism, all motivated by the universal sense that pure capitalism doesnt work.
We have never had pure laissez-faire capitalism in this country. You are buying into an absolute myth — there were government subsidies and favors being handed out, yes, even then.
We were fortunate here in America to have an FDR, whose administration was able to forge a modified capitalism that addressed many of the major flaws and allowed the capitalist spirit to remain at the heart of our economic system.
Rhetoric. I think you might want to take a look at the year-to-year unemployment numbers under Roosevelt’s rule. (At least Roosevelt wanted to protect America from threats abroad, though, unlike most of today’s Democrats.)
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
The hysteric caricature of Huckabee in the fevered imaginations of his opponents is getting almost comical. Please tell me what major spending programs Huckabee has proposed in this campaign.
Huckabee hasn’t proposed anything. All we have to look at is his record. That’s one of the reasons why people love him — he doles out tons of rhetoric and can be many things to many people. However, compared to people like Giuliani, Thompson, and, yes, even Romney, Huckabee’s actual policy proposals have been nonexistent sans the FairTax, which he only picked up on for political reasons in the first place.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Feltcher, “I believe the modern understanding of socialism is state ownership or control of any property or income.” If that were the case than I guess pretty much every elected oficial is a Socialist. As far as I know they all support some form of tax and some form of welfare.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Yes, TLG, there were government favors handed out. There was corruption. But it was 99% of the way to a laizze-faire capitalism, relative to what we have today.
I am not sure what your point is regarding unemployment number during FDR’s term. I was referring to all the many government programs put into place to modify the effects of the failures of capitalsim. Like SS, just to take the most obvious.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Feltch,
If it would help you to understand, consider this.
Cuba is a socialist country. The means of production are owned by the government. Private industry is forbidden, except for a few restaurants and things like that.
There is nothing remotely comparable in the modern West.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:29 pm
20, I tend to agree with your basic pont. The system the country has been under since Rooevelt – that of capitalism with a little welfare to keep people from falling through the cracks- has worked pretty well. In the last seventy years we have not seen the starvation seen in many parts of the world, most poor people are taken care of, and we have maintained free enterprise in this country. Its not a perfect system, but since its worked relatively well for us I tend to favor fixing the boat instead of jumping off into some obscure life boat. I think the fact that we have some welfare has probably kept us from jumping to other extremes and having complete Socialism. One thing history seems to show is that one extreme leads to the other. It seems best to drive in the middle. I would like to see the private sector get more choice in the case of Social Security and in education, but I still maintain support for some kind of welfare program, though I want to limit it to those who trully need the help.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Yes, TLG, there were government favors handed out. There was corruption. But it was 99% of the way to a laizze-faire capitalism, relative to what we have today.
No…it really wasn’t!
I am not sure what your point is regarding unemployment number during FDR’s term. I was referring to all the many government programs put into place to modify the effects of the failures of capitalsim. Like SS, just to take the most obvious.
I thought that you were trying to imply that his programs helped the economy, rather than hurt it.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:31 pm
20, I tend to agree with your basic pont. The system the country has been under since Rooevelt – that of capitalism with a little welfare to keep people from falling through the cracks- has worked pretty well. In the last seventy years we have not seen the starvation seen in many parts of the world, most poor people are taken care of, and we have maintained free enterprise in this country.
Non-sequitur! This is due to economic expansion, not to any welfare state.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
An interesting thing for you Secular libertarians to ponder: The more secular or atheistic nations have been the more Socialistic ones.
I have considered this. It stems from the want for people to have a paternal figure looking over them. I’m just hoping that we can cross this bridge when we come to it. I want to aim for an ideal world. If we fail trying, so be it. But I’d rather try to make this country freer than before — and we may still have a chance — than to give up right out of the gate.
Of course, it’s not going to happen by promoting people like Huckabee or Obama. Rudy’s our best hope for a freer society this time around.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:35 pm
33, You can’t prove what its due to, only that whatever system we have had seemed to not be working to bad. Now, it might work better with pure capitalism, but I tend to doubt it, and why should we jump from something that working relatively well to something that as you admit has never been tried, just because the untried method might work a little better?
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:36 pm
John,
I would agree with you that communism is anti-religion. But socialism is not necessarily anti-religion. Catholicism is virulently anti-communism but seems to cozy up to fascists easily. The catholic church was an ally to Pinochet and Franco, for example. And actually, I think it would be fair to call some of our pols socialists.
Tano,
Welfare programs by definition are socialist. Americans never adopted the terminology for fear of angering the electorate. That a state such as Cuba goes further and nationalizes industries does not mean that states that don’t go that far are not socialist. For example, do you think Chavez is a capitalist? What about the guy in Bolivia? They are both socialists even though they currently allow private industry to exist while nationalizing other industries.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
34, Well I admire that you have considered the point before. It seems like maybe it should give you second thoughts in your desire to eradicate religion from the face of the planet. I think maybe it has to do with the tendency of atheistic people to be more dogmatic in thinking – they have found the one logical answer to all of the worlds problems. Having this kind of dogmatism leads people to dictatorships and totalarian governments because they think they are the people who are somehow way smarter than all of those dumb religous people. I have certainly seen this condescending attitude from some of you Secularists on this site. You seem to think that every political belief you have is provable in the same way mathematics can be proved. This type of dogmatism can easily lead one to believe that they are so intelectually superior to everyone else that it would be best if they started a ruling dictatorship, so that the smart would be in charge. I’m not saying you guys are supporting dictatorship, but the way you think seem to think those who disagree with you are dumb ( and Dave G. sometimes seems to be making it out to be the dumb, poor, religous masses, against the enlightened secular moneyed class) you are heading down the road that has justified totaltarianism.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Our economy is hardly socialist. I can think of only a handful of industries that are owned or operated by the government.
We have government directed redistribution of income but that’s hardly socialist. Redistribution of income is as old as Rome and probably older.
Mild redistribution in itself is not particularly troublesome if it’s not too distorting. What economic theory shows is really crippling is government control or micromanaging of markets.
Vast majority of Economists are fairly moderate on economic issues outside of market regulation and free trade.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Feltcher if you’re going to say that all welfare is socialism than can you name me one elected representive ( besides Paul) who is not a socialist, is there one of them who has not in some way supported some form of welfare? I think when you use socialism so broadly it loses its meaning. To some people I suppose it means what you say it does, but to most people I think its closer to what Tano says, its government ownership of business. By your definition the vast majority of our country is Socialist, and if that the case we don’t really have a word for those people who want to actually want to move us toward what we see in places like Cuba or even for people who just want to move in the direction of Canada and Europe.
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Feltcher,
Sorry, but I think you are entirely wrong. Socialism is an identifiable political philosphy, with a very long history and many attempts to implement it, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalist-welfare-statism.
Cuba did not “go further” than a captialist welfare state. It adopted an entirely different perspective.
I agree that Chavez is a socialist. He is trying to move Venezuela toward socialism. The government already owns the oil industry (a pre-Chavez move), and no doubt he wants to take things more in the Cuba direction,
I dont understand your point. People who advocate for welfare, or social security, in western economies are not trying to take over industries. It is not a question of them not wanting to go too far, it is rather something that is not on their radar whatsoever.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
“Pure socialism refers to state ownership of the means of production”
hmm… another a-historical argument from poor tano…
answer: actually pure socialism doesn’t mean that…rather that is but one definition of socialism, albeit the sort of high school level history class one…despite my hatred of socialst thought, i will concede that the history of socialist thought is actually quite a rich tapestry of ideas, simple state ownership of the means of production being the most well known because of its marxist origins, but, nevertheless, just one line of thought…socialists range across the 19th century from early french socialists, to fabians, to those who worked with Bismark, to GB Shaw types that understood that power over the individual is what matters, to new dealers….many socialists, and not even less radical ones, thought marx completely off base with any state ownership even if a means to an end..rather the issue was control over individual action…nevertheless the point is that socialist thought is not simply state ownership…with that being said welfare statism definitely fits onto the socialist spectrum….
…too many of you actually bought into tano’s definition…he defined it like that in order to win debate points…never simply concede that… you play right into his hands…
second point: “socialism’ was actually a term coined by 19th century socialists as a valid name for a certain philosphical school of thought, namely, socialism, as understood by those who considered themselves socialist at the time……”capitalism” was also coined by 19th century socialists as a perjorative term for the free market economy of the time…they needed a term to get people fired up about the system at the time and came up with that…
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
hmmm, as i said, so vague as to be meaningless.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:15 pm
34, Well I admire that you have considered the point before. It seems like maybe it should give you second thoughts in your desire to eradicate religion from the face of the planet. I think maybe it has to do with the tendency of atheistic people to be more dogmatic in thinking – they have found the one logical answer to all of the worlds problems.
Atheism doesn’t entail anything except not believing in God. There’s no dogma attached to it — that’s all it is. My other beliefs have nothing to do with my lack of belief in God. There’s no “answer to the world’s problems” found in atheism. It is what it is.
Having this kind of dogmatism leads people to dictatorships and totalarian governments because they think they are the people who are somehow way smarter than all of those dumb religous people. I have certainly seen this condescending attitude from some of you Secularists on this site. You seem to think that every political belief you have is provable in the same way mathematics can be proved.
No, I just want people like you to leave people like me alone. Get out of my bedroom, get out of the Constitution, and keep your religious beliefs in your own home, not in the government. Go be irrational somewhere else; don’t drag me into it.
This type of dogmatism can easily lead one to believe that they are so intelectually superior to everyone else that it would be best if they started a ruling dictatorship, so that the smart would be in charge. I’m not saying you guys are supporting dictatorship, but the way you think seem to think those who disagree with you are dumb ( and Dave G. sometimes seems to be making it out to be the dumb, poor, religous masses, against the enlightened secular moneyed class) you are heading down the road that has justified totaltarianism.
I am a libertarian, which is the opposite of totalitarianism. You have a bizarre desire to be humbled and humiliated by an all-powerful god, but just because I don’t want to join in with that, I’m a “totalitarian”? I want the government out of peoples’ bedrooms and out of peoples’ wallets. If that’s “totalitarian,” sign me up for the totalitarian movement. I do think that many other people are dumb. But I don’t want to rule them. I just want them to leave me alone.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:20 pm
hmmm..unfortunately, you based your understanding of meaningless to your defintion of socialism…your measure of meaningless was tied to your state ownership definition….sorry, man you lose
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Thank you Au standard.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:28 pm
As,
Pay attention.
As I said in #20
“It is almost meaningless to speak of “captialism†or even more so, “socialism†in the context of modern America, since the terms have become almost meaningless.”
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:34 pm
““socialism’ was actually a term coined by 19th century socialists as a valid name for a certain philosphical school of thought, namely, socialism, as understood by those who considered themselves socialist at the time……—
What a stunningly insightful point!
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Guys if Socialism is taken to have a broader meaning like Au, and Feltcher seem to think it should than you no longer have a word to distinguish the difference of the American system vs. the European system where much of business is owned by the governemnt, let alone between America and Cuba. By your definition I think pretty much every single country in the world ( at least in the western world) would have to be defined as being socialist. Of course it doesn’t matter how we define the term it matter what it means to to people in general – and the meaning now I don’t think is so broad as you describe it. When people use the word Socialists they are not generally talking about anybody who favors some form of welfare.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:50 pm
“No, I just want people like you to leave people like me alone. Get out of my bedroom, get out of the Constitution, and keep your religious beliefs in your own home, not in the government. Go be irrational somewhere else; don’t drag me into it.”
Okay TLG please cite one time where I have proposed the government doing that something that would mean they were getting into your bedroom. Thats a nice liberal talking point, but I don’t know of hardly any current policy proposal that would involve the government going into your bedroom. The thing is the GWOT probably poses more of a threat to your privacy than what SoCons, it wasn’t part of the SoCons movement to wiretap phones.
“I am a libertarian, which is the opposite of totalitarianism. You have a bizarre desire to be humbled and humiliated by an all-powerful god, but just because I don’t want to join in with that, I’m a “totalitarianâ€? I want the government out of peoples’ bedrooms and out of peoples’ wallets. If that’s “totalitarian,†sign me up for the totalitarian movement. I do think that many other people are dumb. But I don’t want to rule them. I just want them to leave me alone.”
My point isn’t just that you being Atheist makes you more totalitarian, my point is that the arrogance which you have tends to lead towards that. I you would have read my whole post you would have known I wasn’t saying you were totalitarian, just that your attitude has lead to that. Many of the most oppressive regimes in the world were formed by people who thought that by pure human reasoning they had found the answer to the world’s problems and that everyone else was dumb. This seems to pretty much be your attitude.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
What a stunningly insightful point! – Tano
Hey! Don’t copy me!
From “Huckabee Widening Lead in Iowa”:
# ThatLibertarianGuy Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:15 am
“Sampso you seem like you need a hug. Why don’t you put down your stones that you like to cast at Mitt, Mittbots, Mormons or whatever. Sounds like you were picked on as a child and the internet has made you feel big. Whatever the case is, take the chip off your should[er] and come back to reality.”
What an insightful post!
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:55 pm
be back latter to continue the conversation unfortunately things to do….but in the meantime i’ll consider tano’s retort to #44…oh wait there is none!…because he is trapped
secondly,
“Guys if Socialism is taken to have a broader meaning ”
..it really isn’t a matter of being taken as having a broader meaning…numerous thinkers have defined it numerous ways with different points of emphasis, etc….you are arguing against the history of the school of thought
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Okay TLG please cite one time where I have proposed the government doing that something that would mean they were getting into your bedroom. Thats a nice liberal talking point, but I don’t know of hardly any current policy proposal that would involve the government going into your bedroom. The thing is the GWOT probably poses more of a threat to your privacy than what SoCons, it wasn’t part of the SoCons movement to wiretap phones.
Let’s see. “Government invading the bedroom” meaning — invading peoples’ personal lives, getting involved in moral issues. Let’s start here: Do you support the Federal Marriage Amendment?
My point isn’t just that you being Atheist makes you more totalitarian, my point is that the arrogance which you have tends to lead towards that. I you would have read my whole post you would have known I wasn’t saying you were totalitarian, just that your attitude has lead to that. Many of the most oppressive regimes in the world were formed by people who thought that by pure human reasoning they had found the answer to the world’s problems and that everyone else was dumb. This seems to pretty much be your attitude.
I would refer you to what I said before — “You have a bizarre desire to be humbled and humiliated by an all-powerful god, but just because I don’t want to join in with that, I’m a “totalitarianâ€? I want the government out of peoples’ bedrooms and out of peoples’ wallets. If that’s “totalitarian,†sign me up for the totalitarian movement. I do think that many other people are dumb. But I don’t want to rule them. I just want them to leave me alone.”
If you can’t live with the fact that humans are the most intelligent life forms that there are, fine. Have fun with your delusion. But don’t drag me into it or put me down because I refuse to play your game of submission.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:57 pm
John,
“the European system where much of business is owned by the governemnt”
huh? Where did you get that?
May I suggest a little reserach into the nature of European business?
Prepare to be shocked.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Let’s see. “Government invading the bedroom†meaning — invading peoples’ personal lives, getting involved in moral issues.”
Most of that is all very vague. Invading people’s personal lives getting involved in moral issues – come on man get specific. Most issues have a moral application to them and certainly all issues have some personal issue involved in them. But you specifically said I wanted to get into people’s bedrooms so give me an issue position I have espoused where the governement get into people’s bedroom, or is that just a cute metaphor you picked up from the liberals.
“Let’s start here: Do you support the Federal Marriage Amendment?”
Haven’t really given it alot of though. Guess the issue isn’t one that motivates me a whole lot. But come to think of it – no I don’t support it. I don’t support gay marriage either, but its not an issue that the constitution should deal with, its an issue for the our elected representives to decide. But so what if it I was for FMA. How would that involve the government peaking into your bedroom. I’m still looking for evidence that SoCons are trying to peak into your bedroom. I think the idea is nothing more than Liberal/libertarian talking point with no basis in reality.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:28 pm
53, You rather Contrarian aren’t you Tano? I agree with you for the most part and you’re only interested in pointing out what you disagree with. I’m in college and will be getting a history major so yes I will doing research. And if I find out that the European system is less Socialistic than ours I will indeed be suprised.
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:40 pm
sorry for jumping on you like that John.
I can get a little raw sometimes when dealing with some of the folks here, and it sometimes carries over.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:16 pm
John
The “peeking into the bedroom” line is an old characterization of the religous / rightwing attitude that gained currency in the disputes of the sixties. There is a reason why it might actually have some relevance today.
The Roe decision drew heavily, for its judicial logic, on an earlier SC decision from the late sixties, Griswold v. CT, which struck down a law against the use of contraception. The SC invalidated that law based on a right to privacy. That was then used as an important concept in Roe.
I think you can imagine how a law against using contraception could be characterized as having the governmnet policing your bedroom.
There are other, more recent cases, ie Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 that struck down a law against homosexual sex. That too seems pretty obviously to be a case of the government in the bedroom.
Although the Texas law was pretty widely viewed as archaic, it certainly arose from a case where the law was enforced. And if you listen to conservatives, some groups of them are very upset at this decision. In fact three justices ruled in favor of the law (the ususal suspects – Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist).
So the notion that socons, and their allies on the court are still interested in policing our bedrooms has a lot of currency.
Furthermore, a major focus of the attacks on Roe are attacks on the right of privacy – one of those “imaginary” rights that the conservatives dont think we should have. So the attack is as much against Griswold as it is agaisnt Roe.
We can only conclude that if socons had their way, the type of sex you practice in your bedroom, and any contraceptive measures you take, are fully within the purview of the government to regulate, or ban.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Get your point Tano, but I don’t think there are hardly any current SoCons advocating bringing back the Sodomy laws or outlawing contraceptions. That said I think I would still oppose Lawrence V. Texas, if you want a constitutional right to privacy you ought to write it into the constitution, there’s a pretty good chance you might it get it to pass if you don’t include such things as Abortion. Roe V. Wade would have never got into the constitution, and it should be overturned. The situation you have now, you actually may have privacy rights in a more precarious position than if you didn’t rule Lawrence V. Texas and Griswold. If the court didn’t make those decisions than there’s a good chance that you actually could have gotten enough support to make a constitutional ammendment that would given some right to privacy in the bedroom. That might have had the right to privacy a lot more protected than what it is now. Now it may just be an originalist court decision away from being obliterated.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Haven’t really given it alot of though. Guess the issue isn’t one that motivates me a whole lot. But come to think of it – no I don’t support it. I don’t support gay marriage either, but its not an issue that the constitution should deal with, its an issue for the our elected representives to decide. But so what if it I was for FMA. How would that involve the government peaking into your bedroom. I’m still looking for evidence that SoCons are trying to peak into your bedroom. I think the idea is nothing more than Liberal/libertarian talking point with no basis in reality.
Again — peek into the bedroom means “getting involved in moral issues.” People that support an FMA just want to write discrimination against homosexuals into the Constitution based upon their religious beliefs.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:29 pm
As I said I don’t support FMA, did you miss that part. I see getting involved in the bedroom is nothing more than a methaphor for you. I would think that the government getting into the bedroom would mean the government interferring with what people do in the privacy of their homes, but apparently it means moral issues now. What do you consider a moral issue. I consider Murder to be a moral issue, and I certainly think the government should be involved in Murder. Saying that you don’t think the govermnent shouldn’t be involve in ” moral issues” is very vague. Pretty much anything can be defined as a moral issue. I seem to recall Fred Thompson the other night mentioned that he thought some fiscal issue ( I think it was something along the lines of the growing debt) was a moral issue. Give me some evidence that “Moral issue” means something more to you than ” anything which I don’t think the government should be involved in” because if thats the case than you’re doing circular reasoning.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
John,
It seems to me that you take an opposite view of freedom than I do.
You talk of passing a Constitutional amendment to guarantee a right of privacy, as if we should have no privacy rights unless such an amendment were to pass.
How about a right to travel? Thats not in the Constitution. Is it therefore something that a state could regulate?
How about a right to pick your nose?
You catch my drift here? Your approach seems to be that we have no rights, except those laid out explicitly in the Constitution or its amendments.
The opposite view is that we have have almost limitless rights – constrained only by those instances where the Constitution grants the government explicit or implied powers to regulate.
I think this latter is a better understanding of what freedom meant to our founders, and what it means to most people.
Part of the confusion is that the first ten amendments are labeled the “bill of rights”. There is a very interesting discussion of this in the Federalist papers – James Madison, principal author of the Constitution, was originally opposed to having a bill of rights. The reasons he gave were very pertinent to this discussion. He held the viewof freedom that I do, and he claimed that if a bill of rights were passed, then future generations might make the mistaken assumption that the rights of the people were limited only to those enumerated. His opponents in this argument, those who favored a bill of rights, understood his point but wanted some explicit assurances nonetheless that some of the most important rights be given explicit recognition – as an extra insurance against the government ever violating them.
The compromise reached was to have a bill of rights (originally 8 amendments), but to add two more to the bill – the ninth and the tenth. The ninth is especially relevant here:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
We have rights – our endowment from the “creator”. They do not come from the Constitution, nor are they limited to what the bill of rights specifies. What should take the extra effort, what should require a constituional amendment is for the government to have the power to restrict some right of ours. That is what the court has basically ruled in these cases – it would take a constitutional amendment for a state to have the right to police your bedroom.
Thank goodness for the liberal supreme court!
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:09 pm
No, I’m not saying rights are created by the Governemnt, I just don’t see the court as being any better at discovering those rights than what the democratically enacted Constitution is. As far as the Tenth Ammendment it said that nothing in the Bill of Rights should be construed to to mean we don’t have rights – thus the court couldn’t strike down legislation recognizing more rights on the basis that the bill of rights meant that all of our rights had been discovered and were in that document. The 9th ammendment doesn’t say that the court has the authority to determine what these rights were. The constitution only gives the court the authority to make rulings based off of the text of the Constitution, not on the basis of what a judge thinks is a right.
To give you a demonstration of why your policy is dangerous consider the following. We all believe a man has a right to his property. A conservative court that was only activist consevative and not Originalist could decide that having too high an income tax violates that principal. They could therefore decide that any tax above 15% was unconstitutional, unless someone is making x amount of money. I imagine that you would find this inapropiate ( I sure hope so anyway) yet the Court would be using the same logic your’re using, they could say its a right even if it doesn’t follow withing the original intent of the Constitution. I really don’t see where there is any limit to the courts power in your system.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
John,
When the court recognizes a right, it is merely saying that there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the government the power to constrain a certain behavior. That is certainly a “ruling based off the text of the Constitution”.
There is a 230 year history of the government enacting taxes, excises, tarriffs etc. The government has that right under the Constitution. Is there anything in the Constitution to prevent the government from imposing 100% tax rates – from imposing socialism by simple majority vote? I would think you would hope that there was – but if there was it would come from some “discovered” right, or some interpretation of Constitutional principles that would allow the court to “invent” some restriction on government behavior, to “invent” some right.
A 100% tax rate might violate wording to the effect that the people should be “secure in thier persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”, but what the hell does unreasonable mean?
Does it mean 15%? There is no way around this issue – the court must make such determinations, and the explicit text is not a very good guide – it just lays down principles, like “reasonable”. Under your approach, the courts have no say in what reasonable means – it would mean whatever a legislature thought at the moment. The court, by comparison, finds justifications in legal precedent – what these terms have traditionally meant – and thus represents a conservative force, constraining the whims of the moment by the accumulated legal tradition of the nation. I am really not sure why you object to this.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Before Reagan the highest tax rate was 70% Any argument against a 100% rate would seemingly be good against 70%. That said, 100% could violate the takings clause.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:12 am
“There is a 230 year history of the government enacting taxes, excises, tarriffs etc. The government has that right under the Constitution.” There’s also a good history of state regulation against abortion. Your system has on limit on government controll. By the way I am not against all unenumerated rights but I think the Court went to far with Roe. But a right should fall under either Life, liberty or property or the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States. I don’t always agree with how conservatives interpret the constitution, but I my problem with liberals is alot of them don’t even claim to root their decisions in the history of the Constitutions.
BTW its not only Conservatives who are Originalists. One of my favorite writers on the subject is Akhil Amer, who as far as I know is a liberal democrat.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:14 am
Amer may even be pro – some kind of a Roe decision, but he’s a great writer on the virtue on the virtue of Originalism. If a Democrat was to nominate someone to the court I would be pretty happy if he was picked.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:20 am
Have you ever read the Roe decision?
Seems to me to be a very serious effort to ground the decision in Constitutional law and tradition.
Thanks for the tip re. Amer.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:59 am
I’ve read some of it. I don’t really see where you can say it was a
serious attempt at grouding it in the Constitution. It was a serious atempt to
look like it was Constitutional. Even among liberal legal scholars they
don’t think it was that great of a decision. You ought to read Michael
McConnell’s article in the Wall Street journal on the topic. I think he
probably lays out a pretty good case against Roe.
Also please do look up some of Amer’s work ( I’d give a link but I’ve got
to get too work on a paper, you look up on Yales website) he bacically makes
the point that constitutional law that is originalist can be interpreted broadly
and that it can be good for liberals too. He thinks that Conservatives have
tended to hijack the term, which I think is probably true. I once wrote a blog
over on Redstate about how Conservatives Oversimplify the Constitution. I think
is more Conservative pundits though than the actual conservative legal scholars.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
DaveG’s “Mountain West” is as imaginary as Shangri-La. I live out here, I know.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
DaveG’s “Mountain West” is as imaginary as Shangri-La. I live out here, I know.