Jon Chait actually wrote a great piece about this in 2005 where he goes into a lot more detail, but comes to the same conclusion. I think this explains a lot about our current political culture, and how we're always talking past each other. Sadly, I think both sides misunderstand this.
Conservatarians: Liberals do not want big government for its own sake. Not a single one does. Get that straight. We mostly don't care one way or another about the "evils" of big government - we just want to help people and combat some of the inherent unfairness of life.
Liberals: It's not that conservatives/libertarians hate poor and black people. They just don't care one way or another whether people die from lack of health care or can't get jobs or political power because of their being born poor or black, as long as government is small enough for us to be free.
Yeah, I think I'm on the right side of this one.
Oh, and a quote from Jon Chait's piece (in 2005, remember) might explain why so many conservatives today actually believe liberals are socialist:
If liberalism is not the mirror image of conservatism, what is? The more apt parallel is probably socialism. True socialists believe that allowing capitalists to keep some of the fruits of workers' labor is inherently immoral. They also tend to believe that free enterprise does not work very well. But, like the conservative belief that big government doesn't work well, this empirical belief merely sits atop a deeper normative belief. For committed socialists, doing away with 'exploitation' is an end in itself.If they believe we want big government for its own sake, they actually believe we're socialist. Believe it or not, it's totally logically consistent!
14 comments:
Hah! I can post on Chrome! Success.
I thought this was going to be more 'why don't we try to understand each other' hand-holdy 'Let's all be friends', but it turned out to be just more snarky comments toward republicans.
Andrew, you are certainly not qualified to tell Liberals what Conservatives mights say ;-) So here goes:
Liberals: It's not that Conservatives *hate* poor people (let's leave black out, because rich blacks probably don't have healthcare problems and hey! what happened to the hispanics and everyone else?), they just have noticed that the government screws up everything it puts its hands on due to mountains or bureaucracy, over-regulation where there shouldn't be any, under-regulation where there should, and more often than not someone pushing something too far/hard because he's running for re-election next year and wants to appear the such and such candidate. So we say, instead of forcing me to give 1/3 of my pay to the broken system, how about you let me say fuck on television (actually, that's just me) and let me give my money to local charities and people who can actually get stuff done instead?
Personally, I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle, but I just lean more this way.
Yes, "government screws up everything it puts its hands on" as long as you ignore all the successful government programs and policies:
The G.I. Bill brought homeownership and college affordability to millions of Americans after WWII. The FHA was also instrumental in creating the middle class we know today.
Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, TANF, SNAP, and other safety net programs have kept millions of people from starvation and destitution. This recession has been a reminder of just how crucial these programs are.
And in terms of "actually get[ting] stuff done" there's plenty that would not exist were it not for massive government investment: the Internet, derivatives of most military technology (radar, jet engines, microchips, etc.), our entire transportation infrastructure, etc.
Sure, it's never perfect, but to point to flaws and say it's not possible to have effective government investment in people and communities is simply false.
Kendall, quite aside from my belief that current Republicans are well deserving of snark, I was actually trying to make a particular point about the misunderstandings.
Often, conservatives rail against big government in and of itself, and liberals just don't care. So, the right way to engage liberals, as you do, is to argue that the programs don't work, not that they're inherently evil. Now of course, that's a discussion we can have, and I would need to see a lot of data to prove that they don't, but my whole point is that often conservatives talk about big government as an evil unto itself and try to argue against a position that's pro-big government per se, which we're not.
Mostly I was objecting to Andrew's projecting Conservatives' stance as 'we don't care whether people die as long as we're free,' which is, in no way true, even though all my asshat senators and representatives probably deserve the snarking.
Of course that is the right way to engage liberals, because that is the actual argument instead of the punch line they use to oversimplify things on TV so that idiots can yell it at events making mockery of actual political rallies.
Jacob, don't worry about the GIs and the internet. For some reason Republicans have no problems with defense spending (maybe it's because they actually get things done?). But I do find it humorous that you use Social Security, which is nearing bankruptcy, and Medicare, which loses 30 billion a year due to fraud and abuse, as 'successful programs.' What bothers most Republicans about unemployment and welfare is that they have no idea who is abusing the system and who really truly needs these things.
I believe the thought is that a huge government agency that spans 50 states and has strict rules and guidelines to make sure that everyone is treated the same can't have much insight as to what individual might be abusing the system and who really needs the help. Whereas a smaller local institution might be more familiar with every individual's situation and would be less vulnerable to fraud (at least as compared to the whole).
How's MI, Andrew? Is it pretty up there?
The jab at medicare is only fair if you ignore all the waste, fraud, and abuse of private insurance options, which significantly outweigh medicare. Medicare's also much better at controlling costs than private insurance, which is unbelievable considering it covers the sickest segment of the country.
Similarly, the cries about Social Security's insolvency are waaaaay overblown (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3104). Sure, there needs to be some restructuring of revenue generation, but to say it's nearing bankruptcy is simply a lie.
I didn't say it wasn't better than Insurance companies. I said it wasted 30 billion a year, which, since we are dealing with public funds, makes it understandable why so many people are upset.
"To avoid large and ultimately unsustainable budget deficits, the nation will ultimately have to choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above," Bernanke said in a speech to the Dallas Regional Chamber.
If Ben Bernanke is worried about Social Security and Medicare, then so am I.
When I say medicare is successful, I chose the alternatives to enrolling as benchmarks of success. The alternatives to medicare: no insurance or private insurance.
No insurance is simply not an option for anyone of medicare age. Private insurance runs worse than medicare. So, while far from perfect, medicare is still quite successful.
Sure, we should care about how we are going to pay for entitlement programs, but again, the math simply shows your claim that social security is close to bankruptcy is just hyperbole. Since I assume you didn't read the article I posted earlier, here it is again: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3104
(Oh hell, I've been sucked into commenting on a blog. What's next for Kartik? A facebook account?)
I mostly agree with Kendall on this comment thread. Here's what I would tell liberals:
Liberals: It's not that conservatives/libertarians *hate* poor people. It's just that we think that in general (not always) private industry does a better job of providing a higher value good/service than the government. I'm sure we can all think of examples on both sides of this issue, and I'd be happy to debate specific examples.
Here's one: Transit Systems. I recently heard a commercial on the radio urging people to fill out their census forms. Now, I generally support the census and think it serves a useful purpose. (After all, without a census, how would Jake know where all the poor black people live?... kidding) The commercial said something like, "If you don't fill out your census, how will we know how many buses to run in your town?" And I thought, you know, if the local buses were run by a private company, they wouldn't need to wait for the results of a decennial survey to figure this out. A private transit system would be able to respond to changes in ridership on a dynamic basis. And multiple local transit companies would provide an appropriate number of buses at a competitive, market-determined cost.
Oh, and Bernanke is a hack.
One major problem with privatizing crucial services, like transit, is that private companies have no incentive to help poor people. If profit is the only driver, then a private provider would not build lines in poor neighborhoods or not provide the same quality service to these neighborhoods.
Kartik,
Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think you're disagreeing with my central tenet of my post too much. Here you're not arguing that big government is bad for its own sake, you're saying it's ineffective. That is again a fine argument (unless, of course, you resort to the other if/when proven wrong). However, many conservatives and libertarians I speak with argue against big government regardless of effectiveness, and even more weirdly, assume many of Obama's desires are secretly to grow the size of government to take over more of the country.
My post was more to the point that there neither is nor can ever be a secret plot, because no liberal ever thinks that big government is a good unto itself, whereas conservatives and libertarians (including you, judging by the small-gov't default position you take) do. My post is also responding to the genuine puzzlement by some conservatives as to why liberals hated Bush, since he expanded the gov't so much, and clearly we must love that. That's all I was saying, despite the snark.
Jacob- of course I read your very convincing article. Why do you think I threw up some ridiculous Bernanke quote? I suppose he is worried about the budget as a whole and just sees the big chunk that is SS. I realize now the media needs to learn the difference between 'bankruptcy' and 'spending interest.'
You can compare Medicare to private insurance, and that's a completely valid analysis, but what I think most Conservatives I know would compare it to a charity. (I'm curious-Does one have to pay in to get Medicare?) And even more extreme than that, a lot of Republicans right now are just bent on wasting as little money as possible.
It seems, they figure that a locally or even state run program would be more successful simply because they have a better idea of the needs of the local population, and don't have to wait, as Kartik says, for the census to come around.
Plus many conservatives I know have a very self-reliant attitude, as in, they'd rather their community take care of itself, but you are right about the companies probably ignoring poor people. And if everything is done this way, many communities can just get left out. Which is, of course, the draw back.
Andrew, I hate to say it, but it sounds like you're not talking with very smart conservatives. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but that doesn't even sound like a real argument to me. It sounds like something they heard from Beck or some idiot and are regurgitating for you. So I suppose you are right to be annoyed by it. I've met some conservatives who can hold their own, but ... there are more down here. And they're not on TV!!
Bush, since he expanded the gov't so much
This is why I've given up on the Republican party. They don't seem to *really* be a fan of small government anymore. Unless it's terribly convenient.
Sadly, Kendall, I would agree with you, but there are some very smart conservatives who just don't get that - they populate the mainstream Republican Party (and also the most hardcore libertarians) at the moment, which as you said, is why you gave up on it. I know some of them in school, and there are plenty out there who are really quite smart, and either willfully blind, not self-critical, or can somehow reconcile extreme cognitive dissonance. I don't know what else to say, but apparently this post wasn't directed at you. :)
Haha. I'm just here to defend those poor defenseless conservatives you are after.
Post a Comment