This Isn't Hard
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | The Philosophy Of Small-Government — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Markos Moulitsas's first issuance for Newsweek reads like the DNC press release it is likely meant to be. And there is at least one glaring mistake in it:
In his first Inaugural Address, Ronald Reagan remarked that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." While the quip has provided Republicans with a cheap slogan for two decades, the philosophy behind it is beginning to box them in. If they govern effectively, they invalidate their own antigovernment ideology. And when you elect people who believe that government won't work, you shouldn't be surprised when government stops working.
Sillier comments have rarely been written. If Republicans govern effectively, they shrink the size of government and make it more efficient and less wasteful, while at the same time increasing the size of the private sector and allowing the free market to thrive and prosper, thus allowing Americans to enjoy greater prosperity than they would under Moulitsas's government-mandated solutions. Indeed, it was the perceived failure of the Bush Administration to shrink the size of government that helped lead to the transfer of power to Democrats in Congress.
Moulitsas and others similarly situated on the ideological spectrum are used to trying this head fake on the American public. They repeatedly argue that if Republicans don't like government, they shouldn't be allowed to run it. But just because one likes a particular task, that does not mean one is necessarily good at it. Moulitsas's critique of the small-government position is woefully misinformed. Maybe if he decided at some point to become better read, he would understand that.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | On The Bus With McCain: Recent News — Comments (19) »
This Isn't Hard 34 Comments (0 topical, 34 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I have to disagree that conservatism is not about ideology. In my opinion, modern conservatism is ALL about ideology.
Conservatism is based on the belief that God is the source of our fundamental human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Conservative principles of non-secular morality and individual liberty both stem from this basic belief. Classical economic theory of free-markets supports the core belief of conservatism.
On the other hand, liberalism rejects the notion that there are inalienable rights. Instead, it is based on the opinion that governments, not God, are the source of human rights. Individual liberty is subrogated to governments that have the moral authority to take away your freedom, usually under auspices of "promoting the common good" or "increasing the general welfare."
I would actually argue that liberalism is based more on practicality than conservatism. It's very practical and easy to change your position on an issue when you have no solid moral basis for your beliefs. Our biggest problem today is that many of our so-called conservative leaders have forgotten (or never really understood) what conservatism is all about.
"I have to disagree that conservatism is not about ideology. In my opinion, modern conservatism is ALL about ideology."
Please use the word philosophy instead of ideology. Marx conceived the concept of ideology as a mechanism for one class to unintentionally hold down another.
"I would actually argue that liberalism is based more on practicality than conservatism. It's very practical and easy to change your position on an issue when you have no solid moral basis for your beliefs. ."
Liberalism is based upon idealism, which is intrinsically divorced from practicality. Conservatives on the other hand are usually "common sense" realists.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Pick your spot, track the wave, embrace the meme - and you too can get a gig writing self-congratulatory epistles in a glossy weekly news magazine.
You know, if there's anything that bugs me, it was in the way I was carefully given the impression that there was something that was going to be genuinely new about this. I would have liked to have seen some sort of Kos / Rove head-to-head going on: it would have been at least entertaining, no matter which side you were rooting for. But there's going to be no true interactivity here: no direct clash of philosophies; Hell's bells, neither of them have any obligation whatsoever to even acknowledge the other's existence.
Umpteen billion dollars and countless man-hours to create the Internet, and they use it to reinvent newspaper columnists. It's embarrassing.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
they use it to recreate bad liberal newspaper columnists.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
This is an Establishment thing. I'm disappointed that it was tarted up as something genuinely innovative, too; guess it was deemed too risky to try anything that wasn't strictly vanilla.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Moe, what would you expect. Markos couldn't use his usually profane way when he was caught saying inaccurate things against Rove's superior knowledge on, well, EVERYTHING.
Why does Moulitsas needs reminding "That government is best which governs least."
if you get people addicted to government programs, they'll ALWAYS vote for the party that wants continually add more programs.
Look at EVERY urban area in America.
Or after the Army. Or before. Or when he was in the Gulf War. Or when he served in the Army (non-combat) during the Gulf War. Or whatever.
Guys, we're talking about a minimally intelligent, highly canny huckster who's managed to figure out how to bilk aging lefties of a [expletive]load of money. We should admire his ability to play three-card monte to the rubes and his ability to get them to ask to play again -- and nothing more. Asking for logic and rational thought out of a man who, for example, doesn't even know the word "theologian" is a bit much.
Put differently: He probably knows which foot each shoe goes on. Asking more of him is per se unreasonable.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Or an I.Q. score?
Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."
It's a similar talking point to the new TV ad out from the Center for American Progress. They probably focus-grouped it.
The only thing we know for sure from this first column is that Markos is not going to wear well as a real columnist. He doesn't have the attention span.
"If Republicans govern effectively, they shrink the size of government and make it more efficient and less wasteful...."
Beginning with Richard Nixon, which Republican presidents met this standard? And how did Congress fare under Republican leadership from 1994 to 2007?
By your own standard there hasn't been a single recent effective Republican president. While your standard may be a good one, it is one that every Republican president since Nixon has failed to meet. Thus, your statement is at least as silly as Moulitsas's. Philosophy is important, but the real world has to count for something, and with no model Republican president to point to and say this is how it's done, the argument for a Republican over a Democrat suffers.
As for Moulitsas, surely Newsweek could have done better, but the MSM doesn't have a very good record in choosing pundits from either side. The MSM has earned its vapidity.
or think about how big government would have been without the Republican President reigning in the Democratic Congress.
And I know, you'll throw in George W. Bush. And you'll also fail to acknowledge an increase in government to fight the War on Terror.
If you want to look at government from 1994 to 2001, you'll note that government didn't get bigger, and you know why... because there was Republican leadership in Congress.
But be honest with us and yourself, how big would you think government would be if 1994 hadn't happened? Or if we had had President Gore? Seriously... it would stagger the mind.
The Department of Peace... probably. The Department of Climate Change... definitely. Department of HillaryCare... you bet. Department of Moving Blue State Liberals to Red States and Driving up Taxes There... yep.
Come on bud, we know the score.
" Yet you failed to also examine or think about how big government would have been without the Republican President reigning in the Democratic Congress."
Sorry, but I didn't forget; I've already done it. Back in the early nineties I checked and President Reagan's budget proposals, had they been adopted, would have resulted in a cumulative debt that was not significantly different from that which resulted from the actual budgets.
"If you want to look at government from 1994 to 2001, you'll note that government didn't get bigger, and you know why... because there was Republican leadership in Congress."
This is one of the reasons today's Republican Party is in so much trouble: call it denial, hypocrisy, wishful thinking, revisionist history -- whatever. Somehow, when something good happens it can only be because of (in your example) a Republican Congress. So, in the eighties the problem was the Democratic Congress. Except, as I already pointed out, examining Reagan's budget proposals reveals huge deficits and accumulating debt. But when something bad happens, it is because of the Democrats.
So, we elect a Republican president and a Republican Congress -- experience explosive growth in government -- and the villain is the GWOT. Unfortunately, the truth is, I believe, simpler. Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility (and a few, a very few, really act accordingly), but they haven't governed that way for a long, long time.
There have been a fair number of threads on RedState about the need for Republicans to get their own house in order. Both parties need to stop pointing at the other party and explaining away their own failures by saying over and over "They're worse than we are. They're worse than we are. They're worse than we are."
The era of George W. Bush has put the lie to the claim that when a Republican president is in office governmental growth is the fault of a Democratic Congress; and when a Republican Congress is in, governmental growth is the fault of the Democratic president.
"But be honest with us and yourself, how big would you think government would be if 1994 hadn't happened? Or if we had had President Gore? Seriously... it would stagger the mind."
I don't think I'm the one kidding myself. Let's see, if we'd had President Gore, why would our experience have been different than when the Republican Congress "forced" (apparently) Clinton to rein things in? The likelihood is, and it may be hard to admit, that government would have grown less (stereotypes and biases aside) under Gore and the Republican Congress. That outcome would have been more consistent with recent history than your scenario.
1) Reagan's Budgets were meant to bolster the neutered military (by the WORST POTUS in history, James Carter) and win the Cold War. Your context and conclusions are incorrect again.
2) Republican's can only fix Democraps deficiencies from one end of Pennsylvania avenue.
When the Republicans originally took over congress they shut down the govt to keep Clinton from his fiscally irresponsible budget he was used to getting and thereby controlling spending (before the power overwhelmed the Republican's and they started overspending and were thrown out---RIGHTFULLY SO!) Which Clinton happily takes credit for their efforts after the fact.
George Bush is NOT a conservative, he's a fiscal moderate in social conservative's clothing. Having said that however, he HAD to spend govt money following 9/11 to keep the economy he inherited from going further in the toilet. I remember the impending recession coming pre-9/11 that we were spinning into and have often commented that the 'Silver Lining' to 9/11 was that it caused the nation to come together and it allowed govt to start spending money to drive the economy. (However, they should have reigned in that spending by 2004 and didn't)
In closing, you're right the RINO's in congress got their azzez handed to them for not following their earlier leadership under Newt Gingrich. He left, they faltered and were thrown out. They became power hungry and lost their way. That much of your post is true. The rest of your analysis is wrong in that you produce incorrect conclusions to questionable propositions.
1) I looked at his budgets; apparently you haven't. Just because the "myth" persists doesn't make it true. Note: while Carter's was an unsuccessful presidency, he was not the worst POTUS in history. See this page (the rankings are not a product of Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranking_presidents
Even the Wall Street Journal polls (2002/2005) don't rank Carter last. His overall rank is tied for 28th with Gerald Ford. Like most of the rest of your analysis, your opinion that Carter was the worst American president is simply that -- your opinion dressed up as though it were fact.
2)The idea that Republicans fix Democrats' deficiencies or Democrats fix Republicans' deficiencies is silly. In truth, these days they both are overburdened by their own deficiencies and the government and country suffer as a result. Both parties are dominated by hypocrites and opportunists. While individuals may prefer the theoretical philosophy of one party over the other, in reality they are both terminally corrupt.
3) Calling George Bush a fiscal moderate is close to the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I (and many others from across the political spectrum) consider Bush the most fiscally reckless president in our history. Interestingly, you acknowledge the "wisdom" of Keynesian economics to save us from recession. While deficit spending may soften or shorten a recession, massively increasing spending while simultaneously waging two wars and cutting taxes is a prescription for disaster.
4) "However, they should have reigned [sic] in that spending by 2004 and didn't" Of course, "they" means a Republican president and a Republican Congress which pretty much obliterates everything you've said about Republicans and fiscal responsibility. Fix Democrats' problems? Nonsense. Bush inherited a reasonably positive fiscal house and proceeded, with the unrestrained help of a Republican Congress, to trash it. I know, I know, it's always someone else's fault. It's the Democratic president or Democratic Congress or the GWOT or Jimmy Carter or on and on ad nauseam. Is it really impossible for you to see the pattern? Horrible, hypocritical performance plus frantic finger pointing equals fiscal responsibility. Sorry, it won't wash.
The "Presidential Rankings" that you linked to are also nothing more than opinions.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
They are opinions, but they are the opinions of a cross section of scholars from across the political spectrum, as opposed to the opinion of a single person* or a group of people drawn from a relatively narrow range of political philosophy or ideology.
*who in all likelihood doesn't devote his or her career to studying history or the presidency
...one swimming rabbit was of a better opinion than a boatload of scholars.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
Kos' piece is a nice example of cleverly hidden bad logic. Like Al Gore and his CO2 / global warming graph that shows that correlation IS causation, Kos makes a simple but subtle error in his logic. He states "If they govern effectively, they invalidate their own antigovernment ideology." This is clearly misstated, because Republicans would see to govern such that Government is no longer a problem. We know this because he set this statement up to represent the case where Republicans reversed the state of the first statement "government is the problem."
If you change that line to say "if they govern such that government is no longer a problem, they invalidate their own antigovernment ideology" then the error is clear. Republicans seek to solve the government problem, not to be a "problem in an effective manner".
Liberals have to rely on bad logic to sell their position, which is sad. I bet he could sell monorails to a few voters. Of course it's infinitely harder to explain this and point it out than it is to just swallow it as a gotcha moment.
"I can say - not as a patriotic bromide...that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and...the only moral country in the history of the world. - Ayn Rand
Just how well read are his acolytes? Check out their comments on his blog, and make your own conclusion.
They want to live in an echo chamber, so Kos built one for them. They happily pay rent to him and moonbattily chatter away. And, Kos plays to them.
His acolytes don't get upset if Kos' opinions are inaccurate or shallow. No, they only get upset if Kos isn't sufficiently shrill.
I do wonder, though, if Kos has tired of his moonbat disciples, and views the Newsweek gig as a chance to get accepted as one of the Democrat illuminati. If so, his current flock may disown him, while the Democrat Beautiful People refuse to accept him.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
....if this mumbo jumbo passes for "intellect" on the left.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 11/19/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Kos has always punched way above his weight, and sooner or later this was goingto catch up with him. He's basically a lightweight intellectually, morally and politically, with a gift for polemics but no real grasp of history, and little gift for expression.
Even a column in Newsweek requires more talent than Markos has, and he quickly runs dry, falling back on his most influential period -- 2005-6 -- when the Bush Administration fell into a pattern of inxplicable drift and failure, and the influence of blogs became salient. As a result, his column reads like a trip down memory lane.
More than half the column is devoted to revisiting Katrina and the Iraq Reconstruction period (2005 and 2004 respectively) and while these memes will always result on DKos in a long thread consisting of "Bush lied!" and "Halliburton!", we're looking at the 2008 election, and Kos is supposed to be on the cutting edge.
Please.
I never thought I would be comparing the MSM favorably to any blogger -- but at least the LA Slimes and even the NY Slimes don't use "quagmire" to describe Iraq any more, as Kos does.
And in 2008, what's the biggest NEW issue? Aside from national security flashpoints, it's undeniably illegal immigration -- a topic that goes unmentioned in this column.
...is that he cannot discern between governing and government. The former is what people do, the latter is the tools in service to the former. Reagan was basically saying that the tools are dysfunctional.
Kos is imbecilic in not being able to grasp that Government is not something that simply occurs, but is the result of action. Unfortunately, there are many who will simply agree with him. In our system, the only way to correct bad government is through good governing.
I'm all for plentiful and persnickety - even BIG - governing that results in less, smaller and more efficient government.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
...but the idea is actually a good one. If Democrats want to win, they should paint a picture of Republicans as "starving the beast", "using their power to sabotage government", etc. It could be very effective.
Conservatism = practicality over ideology
Liberalism = ideology uber alles.
And of course the simplest thing to do is apply this idiots reasoning to other fields.
Garbage men box themselves in by cleaning up the trash
Doctors box themselves in by eliminating illness
Cops box themselves in by keeping a lid on crime.
It has been observed that as intelligence increases the ability to make wrong choices decreases thus boxing in the hyper intelligent.
Markos and his cohorts do not seem to be boxed in.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777