Of all places, Starbucks has a fascinating interview with National Review Online‘s Jonah Goldberg in which he gives a rather succinct and deceptively intelligent description of conservatism:
You’re an editor at one of the country’s leading conservative journals. Was your quote intended as a critique of contemporary liberal thinking? Do you think there’s more original thinking coming from the Right?
Yes. That doesn’t mean there aren’t terrible steak-heads and bores on the Right or that I think there aren’t very innovative minds on the Left. But as a whole, I think liberalism is rusty and atrophied. Liberalism – by which I mean the political Left in America and not “real liberalism†or classical liberalism – has very little to offer. All of its ideas revolve around protecting, extending or tinkering with government programs and entitlements. In a sense what we call liberalism in America is small-c conservative, even reactionary. It’s based on a knee-jerk desire to defend the status quo. A few years ago Teddy Kennedy took to the floor of the U.S. Senate to denounce government scholarships (a.k.a. “vouchersâ€) for poor black kids to go to private school. Why? Because Kennedy’s idea of liberalism is whatever reliable liberal interest groups say it is. Liberalism began as a philosophy of limited government. Now what we call liberalism is instinct for the expansion of government at every turn.
Goldberg’s comment is interesting, because it exposes one of the major flaws in modern political terminology. For the most part, especially now, liberals are conservatives, and conservatives are liberals. If that’s counterintuitive, it’s because we tend to get hung up on the dictionary definitions of the word.
What do liberals/”progressives” (an abuse of the term if ever I’ve heard one) really stand for these days? Goldberg’s example of Kennedy illustrates the point that the “progressive” movement has become reactionary. Don’t touch Social Security. Don’t reform education. Don’t do anything that might limit the power of the government and give individuals more control over their own lives. It’s all couched in the language of helping the poor, etc., but the effects would be far different. The left is currently stuck in a time warp back to the 1930s. In the 21st Century, people are used to being empowered. People are far more used to taking control of their lives than they were 75 years ago because society has changed. The investor class continues to grow with 92 million Americans being invested in the stock market. The class warfare ideologies of the left have less pull than they had previously — it’s hard to argue that we should sock it to Big Business when you’re trying to look out for your 401(k).
The entitlement culture never worked. The New Deal did far less to end the Great Depression than World War II did. LBJ’s “War on Poverty” resulted in a win for the forces of poverty. The decline of social mores in the US brought us AIDS and a massive social underclass which still exists today.
The fundamental recipes for success in life have not changed – hard work, a strong family and community, and personal ethics. It’s not that the left doesn’t believe in those things — they do so fervently. It’s that their preferred mode of achieving those ends just doesn’t work. Government is not compassionate. It can never be. The very concept of equal justice under the law requires a dispassionate state. Government can’t build communities, people must. The best government can do is throw money at a problem, and if that actually worked we’d be living in Utopia by now. To borrow a line from Dinesh D’Souza liberal means can never achieve liberal ends. The welfare state at best would be an economic failure — at worst it would drain the very values that are required to achieve in life, creating a permanent underclass who are subservient to the state. It isn’t a question of who’s more compassionate than who — it’s a question of which means can achieve the desired ends. The means of what passes as modern liberalism just don’t work.
The decline of social mores in the US brought us AIDS
Please do explain.
J.
Unfortunately, what Goldberg and Reding equate with “new ideas” are really just stale retreads of the mainstream political ethos of the 19th century. It’s unclear whether today’s left is really bereft of new ideas or whether they’re merely being realistic about the inability to pay for many new things given our nation’s bleak financial condition, and thus are forced to play defense to avoid turning the clock back a century on civilized society. Keep in mind that the “vibrant new ideas” coming from the right will cost infinitely more money to implement than anything being seriously discussed by the Democratic Party, which is now firmly to the right of where Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford were domestically a generation ago. Ultimately, the Democrats are moving laterally while the GOP is moving back, yet managing to market their pre-Progressive Era worldview as innovation. Considering that the Democrats are only stuck in the 20th century rather than the 19th, I would still qualify them as the party of “newer” ideas.
What do liberals/â€progressives†(an abuse of the term if ever I’ve heard one) really stand for these days?
As I tell you, over and over and over again, each time you ask: we stand for fair wages, a social safety net, the freedom to live your life as you see fit, the protection of the civil liberties that allow you to do that, and open, fair, and transparent government.
Republicans stand, apparently, for shifting blame onto the victim under the guise of “personal choice”, which is their codeword for “making the disenfranchiesed someone else’s problem, preferable their own.” How else would we explain the manifest failure of Republican policies to enrich anyone but the already rich?
Which entirely misses the point. Liberals claim they stand for those things, they may believe they stand for those things but liberal means cannot acheive those ends, and some of those ends are economically impossible, require giving up essential freedoms, or conflict with each other.
If liberals actually understood their own philosophies they’d grasp this.
Making crude strawmen of the opposition doesn’t work either.
The modern left sees people who are poor or otherwise unsuccessful and immediately think they are “disenfranchised”, as though their status or condition is somehow imposed upon them by outer forces depriving them of that which they deserve.
The modern right is more inclined to think that hte the poor or otherwise unsuccessful are in that position as the result of choices made by them – not by others.
That’s a big difference that leads to profoundly different approaches to policy.
As Jay points out, the Democrats aren’t currently attempting to address the supposed “disenfranchisement”, while Republicans are attempting to make it easier for these folks to make choices in their own interests.
Liberals claim they stand for those things, they may believe they stand for those things but liberal means cannot acheive those end
Actually liberal means have proven effective at achieving those ends. That’s the plain and simple truth, and that’s why Americans approve of essentially liberal policies. That’s why Republicans can never offer their policies in any straightforward manner; that’s why they have to get elected on abortion and bashing gays.
Their policies don’t work, liberal policies are proven to work, and Americans realize that. They’re just a little unclear on exactly which side offers the policies they support.
The modern left sees people who are poor or otherwise unsuccessful and immediately think they are “disenfranchisedâ€, as though their status or condition is somehow imposed upon them by outer forces depriving them of that which they deserve.
We see that because most of the time, that’s the case.
The modern right is more inclined to think that hte the poor or otherwise unsuccessful are in that position as the result of choices made by them – not by others.
Of course they see it that way – that’s the perspective that allows them to wash their hands of any responsibility or duty to those people. It’s classic blaming the victim.
while Republicans are attempting to make it easier for these folks to make choices in their own interests.
Unless, of course, it’s a woman making choices about her own reproductive interests. Can’t have choice there, right?
Your rhetoric would ring a little less hollow if you had actual examples of Republicans supporting any “choices” except the ones they demand everyone make.
“The modern right is more inclined to think that the poor or otherwise unsuccessful are in that position as the result of choices made by them–not by others.”
And a county-by-county election map overview confirms that the “modern right” lives largely in places where they have no contact with poor people, and thus have no better perspective on the choices being made by poor people than I have in opining on the choices made by New England shrimp boat operators. The upwardly-mobile young professionals living in the gated communities of Republican strongholds like Carver County, Minnesota, and DuPage County, Illinois, are generally clueless about the socialization that occurs in children who grow up in poverty, ultimately confining their short-term opportunities and limiting their long-term choices.
There will always be stories of children from impoverished upbringings achieving impressive levels of success in adulthood, but for every one of those, there will likely be 10 cases of lateral mobility generation to generation. As public education continues to be defunded and used as a political football, the ranks of the uninsured swell by millions per year, and the available funds for every poverty relief program in existence are diverted to tax cuts for the wealthy and hapless missile diaphragms in outer space, it appears likely that the quality of life for the poor will take a giant leap backward in the years to come. Of course, this will give the sons and daughters of privilege who represent the “modern right” to ramp up their finger-wagging about the “bad choices” being made by people who don’t have the option of expanding their bank accounts through untaxed stock dividends and untaxed inheritances from daddy.
Yes, look at a map of red counties/blue counties. Note how the richest counties in the country are the brightest shade of blue. That argument doesn’t even pass the smell test.
There are upper-income blue counties (such as Manhattan), but by and large they are that way because of an urban presence. Minnesota’s wealthiest county, Hennepin,, may be deep blue, for instance, but it has little to do with Eden Prairie and everything to do with Minneapolis. There are very few upper-income blue counties with no urban presence….particularly outside of the northeast.
Your rhetoric would ring a little less hollow if you had actual examples of Republicans supporting any “choices†except the ones they demand everyone make.
Choices about how to invest retirement money (think Social Security).
Choices about schools to attend (think, school vouchers).
All of the choices that the child would make throughout his life if not for the government allowing the convenience of one person to trump his right to live. We’ll call that 3 examples.
And based on the response comments, it’s nice to see you guys were happy to illustrate my point – that you see no responsibility on the part of poor people for their own conditions. Jeez, didn’t you people go to public high school, where there were many who didn’t take education seriously – and it wasn’t because the “man” was preventing them from reading their books, doing homework or showing up for class. Sure, some are “disenfranchised” but it’s a whole lot smaller percentage than you think.
Choices about how to invest retirement money (think Social Security).
You still have that choice. Invest your money how ever you like. Is there some law that prevents you from investing your own money however you like? And in case those investments don’t pay off, or you’re crippled for life, you won’t be out on the street because you also have defined benefits from the government. An insurance policy. And all that the government asks to provide this amazing service – the best-run service in the history of the country – is that you kick in a little bit for as long as you’re employed.
But complaining that you “didn’t get to choose” is like complaining about having to pay your health insurance bill that year even though you didn’t get sick.
Choices about schools to attend (think, school vouchers).
I’m sorry? Did I miss something? Did somebody pass a law that says you have to go to public school no matter what? (Must have been Republicans if they did; they’re the ones passing all the laws these days.) Last I checked, you could choose to homeschool; you could choose private schools; you could choose whatever you liked.
But having a good public school in your neighboorhood, instead of a failing one, benefits you and your community even if you don’t have children. It raises your property values and lowers crime. And all the government asks to provide this beneficial service is that you kick in a little money based on the value of your property.
All of the choices that the child would make throughout his life if not for the government allowing the convenience of one person to trump his right to live.
Women have an absolute right not to be pregnant. The ability to choose to have an abortion is necessary to that right – contraception won’t guarantee you won’t become pregnant, and choosing abstinence won’t guarantee it either.
Jeez, didn’t you people go to public high school, where there were many who didn’t take education seriously
I went to public high school, where a lot of people took education as seriously as they had time for, between the two jobs they had to hold down because their single parent’s minimum wage job wasn’t enough to put food on the table and pay the rent. Where they showed up for class as often as they could before the need for work drove them into the minimum wage workforce full-time, or into the Army. Where they read as many books as they could afford, which were almost none.
The people I saw squandering their high school educations were the people who were going to get into college and succeed no matter what – in other words, the sons and daughters of the wealthy. Most poor people are poor because of misfortune, or because of choices others made. These poor people who are poor because they’re lazy are mostly figments of your imagination. No one works harder than the poor.
I went to public high school, where a lot of people took education as seriously as they had time for, between the two jobs they had to hold down because their single parent’s minimum wage job wasn’t enough to put food on the table and pay the rent.
Oh yeah, I’m sure that’s what the were all doing.
Women have an absolute right not to be pregnant . . .and choosing abstinence won’t guarantee it either.
Wow. See, the way it works is a man has to insert . . . I’ll give you an exception for rape. How bout that? Why is it that you can’t be pro-choice unless you eliminate every single consequence of decisions?
And I’m still looking for the opt-out-of-social-security form. Seems the govt withholds taxes every single paycheck without ever asking me. You don’t think that removes a choice? I’m wondering why everyone is so upset about school redistricting since we are so loaded with choices.
In a capitalist society, every dollar that you are forced to send to the government reduces your choices. You want more to go there, I want less. I want more choice. You don’t. Unless it’s to kill defenseless fetuses in the birth canal (you aren’t going to tell me you are against partial birth abortion, I’m sure).
I’ll give you an exception for rape. How bout that?
How do you distinguish the rapes from the non-rapes? Keep in mind that the majority of rapes are not reported to the police.
And how does an exception for rape address the issue of contraceptive failure?
Why is it that you can’t be pro-choice unless you eliminate every single consequence of decisions?
People should only be responsible for the consequences of their own decisions, not those others made for them.
Seems the govt withholds taxes every single paycheck without ever asking me.
They ask you ever 2 years. It’s called “elections.”
You don’t think that removes a choice?
How does it? Paying SS taxes doesn’t prevent you from investing in other sources.
Unless it’s to kill defenseless fetuses in the birth canal (you aren’t going to tell me you are against partial birth abortion, I’m sure).
I’m against it, but it has to be legal. If you were really against it you’d be working to make abortions faster to have. As it is, a lot of late-term abortions happen simply because that was the soonest a woman could get access to an abortion.