I Like Arnold Kling And Cafe Hayek . . .
Really, I Do . . .
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Culture | Featured Stories — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
But I must admit to having something of a problem with the ideas outlined here. If you want to tell me that we ought to limit the damage that public officials are capable of, I am in agreement. If you want to tell me that government does much more harm than good, my response is mais oui! But so much of Arnold Kling's commentary strike me as advocacy for rearguard actions that I wonder whether he thinks it remains important for classical liberals (by which I mean libertarians, small-government conservatives, libertarian-conservatives, etc.) to win elections and to have the chance to set national and local agendas. And yes, there is something that we should expect public officials to do about schools and education; namely, abolish the Department of Education and return decision-making ability back to the states and localities, which hopefully will expand school choice opportunities. There is something that we can and should expect public officials to do about health care; namely, ensure that it remains in private form through legislation and legislative incentives. And yes, there is something that we can and should expect public officials to do about energy; namely, to finally authorize ANWR drilling, the increased use of nuclear power and to ensure that no nonsensical anti-"price gouging" legislation actually passes Congress and is signed into law.
A quote from Robert Heinlein seems appropriate:
Of course the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you--if you don't play, you can't win.
Quite so. Classical liberals should continue to play the election game. And win. And classical liberal politicians should continue to have expectations demanded of them. And they should deliver. It is fine, well and good not to have expectations of government. It is fine, well and good to promote private enterprise. We ought to make sure that we have a political coalition in place that will help us do just that.
« Hating James Dobson: To Heck With His Qualifications, He's a Meanie — Comments (14) | What Does Big Government Look Like? — Comments (27) »
I Like Arnold Kling And Cafe Hayek . . . 22 Comments (0 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I don't remember them doing such a wonderful job prior to No Child Left Behind. As silly as some of the law's mandates are, it has been an overall improvement.
First of all, it's not like schools were really totally handled at state and local levels to begin with...even before NCLB.
But as for NCLB, many of mandates are not feasible. Like my brother, a teacher, says (paraphriasing):
It's like telling a dentist that he has to produce a bright pearly white smile from all of his patients...whether they just need a gum cleaning or have totally rotted out mouths.
But yes you're right. They weren't doig that great of job to begin with. But having the federal government get more involved was not the answer. Instead they should ceded more power and decsion-making to more local authorities coupled with a comptetive incentive via vouchers. It's not perfect but it's better and we can go from there.
Schools need more automony not less...and that automony needs to be coupled with accountibility...to themselves via vouchers for private schools.
Don't tread on me.
I like that you're reading this stuff. You're stumbling into some of my "regular reading" sites. I like it. Do it more.
This very article was actually the topic of a discussion at a libertarian blog I frequent. And yes, the gist of the article is spot on:
But one way in which libertarians differ from conventional liberals and conservatives is that we place less faith in having good political leaders.
The conventional wisdom is that we would be better off if politically powerful leaders were less mediocre. Instead, my view is that we would be better off if mediocre political leaders were less powerful....Democracy does not lead to particularly good choices.
Sad but true. Democracy as we have it was designed to protect people thru restraint of government...not the empowerment of it. But somehow we've managed to change all that. I find it ironic because people always complain about government and yet many inspried people keep trying to get it do their bidding in pro-active ways and we are almost always disappointed with the results. This self-defeating action is part of the problem.
and here's the gem:
The belief that the problem with government is the particular individuals in power is dangerous. The myth is that somewhere out there we could find great leaders who could use government to solve all of our problems. Instead, we need to be vigilant against the enlargement of government, by either mediocre or expert leaders.
As is often the case with Kling, I couldn't have said it better myself.
Don't tread on me.
if only they had better bureaucrats. I kid you not. This is basic to the false liberal world view. You got it right bro with having the mediocre wield less power!.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Do they? those liberals may exist but I don't know any of them.
But yes, many liberals have too much faith in the institution of government. Sure, they mean well but it's a bad article of faith to have and quite dangerous....not to mention that it doesn't serve their cause very well...but they keep trying.
_Don't tread on me._
don't blame us if we are less than optimistic about what political action can do. In my view the majority of people do not and will not believe enough in their fellow human beings to allow them power over their own lives, This unfortunantly is also true of many conservatives.
There is an endless line of jackasses who want to take away some of your freedom and property and they all have a "good" reason.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
If you really want education to be at the ultimate local level than one should advocate home schooling. Libertarians are all in favor of abolishing the Dept. of Education and returning the job of education to the state and localities. But that is in many ways, just a first step. Ultimately we'd like to see education completely privatized.
What's more this is one area where libertarians and religious conservatives can find great agreement. Though, we come about if from a different angle, both of us can agree that home schooling is far superior than schooling by the bureacracy at whatever level.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
Total privatization of education may be the goal of _some_ libertarians...with a captial L or small l....but not all.
I want to the public school system shaken up...but in a good way thru competition and good incentives like vouchers and the growth of private schools of different kinds to meet specialized needs....not thru the heavy hand of Uncle Sam.
But to totally privatize seems a little drastic right now. I won't go tht far until there is objective evidence that we'll be better off that way. However, abolishing the Dept. of Ed. is a good idea. Let state captials and their local governments handle the duties of the Fed.. They'll do a better job and their accountability to the people they serve will be more directly handled and effective.
_Don't tread on me._
Total privatization of education may be the goal of some libertarians...
But to totally privatize seems a little drastic right now. I won't go [that] far until there is objective evidence that we'll be better off that way.
Quite proportional. Exactly right. For my part I am a conservative not a libertarian, but conservatives and libertarians can and should agree on many things. This is one of them.
Despite repeated taunts by one very famous conservative, moderation -- in the classical, Aristotlean sense of the word -- has always been a distinguishing mark of the true conservative. It is liberals not conservatives who, in the name of an idea, use political power to propel the nation at top speed into dimly lit regions. Conservatives are skepical of drastic attempts at progress by federal fiat in any direction. Progress, where necessary, should come at a measured pace.
I am an absolute believer in publicly funded education for our children; I believe it is the responsibility of all of society to provide for the education of future generations. I am also an absolute believer that private enterprise can do a far, far superior job of performing the education task.
There should be taxing authority to collect funds to educate our children. That money should then be used to pay private enterprise to actually do the education on performance-based contracts. Do well, get paid. Do exceptionally, get bonuses. Do poorly, get replaced.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
schools for the simple reason that they, as an institution, can simply not possibly do the job of evaluation justice.
The can have some broad guidlines but that's it.
I also don't the idea of the government collecting money and handing it out to private business. That just smells of corruption, cronyism and poor administration.
What the government SHOULD do as far funding goes is simply attach funds to each child regardless of where he/she goes. The money is for the student...not the school. Let private schools compete with public schools for this "business"
And how are these shcools then evaluated?? By performance...but the judge is the parent who takes the child from one school to another.
People are less corrupt than government for simply reason that we do things voluntarily while the government uses force and often poor compromised judgement. Let the people decide.
_Don't tread on me._
implementation details. But suffice to say that I think there are ways to make it work with minimal involvement from government, the bulk of that being in raising (taxing) and disbursing (contracting) funds. There is nothing inherently wrong, corrupt or wasteful in government contracts, if you think that would be open to corruption you haven't been watching your local teacher's union and their pocket school board.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
But I' just stressing the importance of how you administer an idea. It can be just as important as the goal of the idea itself.
Far too often, good goals are ruined or not met at all because of poor policy details.
And I think that if public schools were put in better competition with private schools via vouchers, the school board and union corruption would take care of itself.
Don't tread on me.
This is a good time, I think, to apply by recent suggestion
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/mr_right/2006/dec/03/why_guiliani_and_ging...
that Neil though was thought provoking!!
about the need to get specific if we want to sell the small government theme that is at the heart of conservatism.
We have to sell it as a problem solving move that shows where we are, where we will be after the change, and, crucially, the transition phase, ie how we get from a to b.
I was for Bush's INITIAL NCLB to make schools account, but devastated that states were not required to offer vouchers in some sort of way to get federal money.
I think Bush thinks, probably correctly, that we have to wean people off fed govt aid and policy in state matters.
Yes, eventually, I would like to eliminate the big fed dept of educ (with one possible caveat below), but we have to be specific on how we do it when we argue it in the first place. Hypothetical arguments leave people worried that the status quo would ened up being less worse, unless we show them.
Now, one caveat, and this relates to national needs promted by things like Sputnik or shortages of scientists, etc.
more later
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
before but a diary specific to this subject would be a good idea and could bring some interesting discussion.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
how about a 7 day RedState Cruise? We get all of us RedState wackos together on a cruise ship with a half day or day devoted to each subject and debate this stuff, outside of course. Whoever is still on board at the end wins.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
Efforts to elect liberals to legislative offices, even at the state or even local level, have have frankly been failures. Suppose that, not only are we fighting a lost battle, but we're in the wrong arena.
Maybe those with a libertarian view should direct their efforts toward getting libertarians into the judiciary branch. Most such races are nonpartisan, and I believe that liberty-minded judges would be far more effective in gumming up the works of big government (and even rolling it back) than one or two classical liberals who might sneak into state legislatures.
Rather than judges who detect prenumbras and previously-hidden civil rights, wouldn't you like to have ones with the power to say to legislators and regulators "show me where it says you can do that in the Consititution -- if not, there's the door - use it."
"... abolish the Department of Education and return decision-making ability back to the states and localities, which hopefully will expand school choice opportunities."
Is there really such a big advantage in moving education from the federal government to state and local government? I don't remember them doing such a wonderful job prior to No Child Left Behind. As silly as some of the law's mandates are, it has been an overall improvement.
I don't think it's a big secret why there has been some success. NCLB created measurable standards, and it required school districts to care. For all the complaints about teaching to the test, that's exactly what we wanted: a little more reading and mathematics, and a little less building mock iglooes and false self-esteem.
Of course not everything in NCLB works that well, especially its insistence on mainstreaming the learning-disabled. But I think the law identifies a real purpose for the Department of Education: to serve as a bureau of standards. A free market only works when benefits are known; this could serve the purpose.
Yes, ideally we'd hand this over to independent testers. In practice, that's not politically possible. No one is going to put kids through tests made by a dozen different competitors, just to see which one works best. Nor is being able to compare results between states a small advantage.
Federalism is a good thing in the abstract. But let's not lose real benefits by chasing it too closely.