Sorry. I reject the use of the labels "liberal" and "conservative", so I reject your metaphor. Mind you, I've always felt the left/right categorization was overused (sure, sometimes the terms apply, but just as often other dichotomies, such as libertarian vs. authoritarian, would be much more functionally descriptive). But after the past two years, the labels barely mean anything principled any more. It's just "our side" and "their side" (neither of which remotely resembles "my side").
The "conservatives" are running up budget spending and protectionism while the "liberals" are joining in on the trampling of liberties (note the bipartisan voting on the so-called Patriot Act... the provisions of which were originally proposed by the Clinton administration) while also denouncing the notion that Muslims could ever be democratic. And the two sides have flipped as to who's isolationist and who's not. Those are just some examples of how meaningless the labels have become.
The way I see it, the "pendulum" is the wrong metaphor, considering that neither party takes a principled stand favoring what I care about, civil and economic liberties. (Dean, for example, is the best of the candidates on civil liberties, but one of the worst on economic ones.) Granted, that's always been true, but the situation looks worse now than it's been in decades.
OK. Below is a quick version of my ideal principles and policy positions, and how Dean and Bush measure up. (Note that I'm merely summarizing what I believe and how I organize those beliefs; I'm not actually expecting to *convince* anyone. To even *attempt* to so that, I'd probably have to write a *book* on each category... and I'd still fail-- I'm not very good at persuasive writing. :-)
On civil liberties:
(1) Deep suspicion that "sacrificing individual freedom for (some greater good)" is a bad deal. Nearly every time individual liberties are sacrificed for the sake of greater "security" or "law enforcement", there isn't much gain to security or law, but the liberties lost are not easily regained. Recent examples (all of which I oppose): The so-called USA-PATRIOT Act, much of the "War on Drugs", most attacks on privacy, and most gun control legislation.
[Dean's record: pretty good-- he spoke out early against some provisions of the Patriot Act, and he got an "A" grade from the NRA-- I wonder how many of his supporters know *that*? :) Dean hasn't been outspoken about the idiocies of the "drug war", but at least he's focused on treatment instead of intradiction.]
[Bush's record: hideous across the board, except for opposition to gun control, and even *that's* obviously just to not lose votes.]
(2) Ideally, get the government out of making social policy, except for enforcement of freely-agreed-to contracts (but pragmatically, at least have equality in the law that does exist). Separation of church and state. Recent examples: I oppose the sorts of affirmative action that are de facto quotas, such as in U. Michigan's admissions policies are Title IX, and I favor legalizing gay marriage.
[Dean's record: Mixed. But at least he signed the civil unions bill in Vermont.]
[Bush's record: Pretty awful. Sortakinda opposed quotas, but not very strenously. On gay marriage, he could be even worse-- *more* strident-- I suppose... but not by much. And, he has not the slightest clue why it's *good* the US is *not* a theocracy.]
(1) Respect for the power of the free market, and deep suspicion of monopolies and oligopolies (whether governmental or corporate or mixed) and centralized command. When a current economic-related problem seems to be occurring, the first question should be "what are ways in which the free market-- providers of good/services openly providing a selection of options to consumers/payers-- *not* currently occurring?" Examples:
(a) environmental damage? -- Incorporate environmental "externalities" into the internal economics of a company, e.g. by allowing tradeable credits.
(b) insufficient health care availability? -- Recognize that when the consumer (individual) and payer (company) are not the same entity, a basic assumption of a free market is violated, and any "reform" should start by allowing individuals the same tax credit as corporations receive.
(c) degraded freedom of speech, as with ClearChannel? -- The problem is not *just* that they have a semi-monopoly, but that new competition, such as low-powered stations, is restricted.
(d) massive inefficiency in education -- The government monopoly is *not* working to educate students, even though the per-student expenditures are highest in the world. Therefore, try a variety of privatization measures-- need-based vouchers, charter schools, for-profit schools, whatever. Let failing schools *fail*, and be closed down.
(e) massive inefficiency in agriculture -- Axe the entire Department of Agriculture. Justify that by saying it's an anti-poverty measure (to reduce all food costs 15%, as estimated by the Heritage Foundation) with a "negative cost" (the current DoA's subsidies total dozens of billions of dollars per year).
But most politicians' instinct is to seek *new* regulations and/or protect *existing* industries and businesses.
[Dean's record: hideous. He openly favors re-regulation.]
[Bush's record: gives lip service to free market principles, but never fights for them, instead supporting existing industries-- often with *increases* in "support"-- as long as it'll help him politically.]
(2) Respect for the power of free trade to maximize wealth (defined broadly) for all, in the long run.
[Dean's record: not promising. Better than Gephardt, I suppose. :-)]
[Bush's record: lip service again. Blatant protectionism on steel and lumber, and he did nothing to fight to fight against agribusiness for a *real* FTAA.]
The "conservatives" are running up budget spending and protectionism while the "liberals" are joining in on the trampling of liberties (note the bipartisan voting on the so-called Patriot Act... the provisions of which were originally proposed by the Clinton administration) while also denouncing the notion that Muslims could ever be democratic. And the two sides have flipped as to who's isolationist and who's not. Those are just some examples of how meaningless the labels have become.
The way I see it, the "pendulum" is the wrong metaphor, considering that neither party takes a principled stand favoring what I care about, civil and economic liberties. (Dean, for example, is the best of the candidates on civil liberties, but one of the worst on economic ones.) Granted, that's always been true, but the situation looks worse now than it's been in decades.
I hate everybody. I'll leave it at that.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
On civil liberties:
(1) Deep suspicion that "sacrificing individual freedom for (some greater good)" is a bad deal. Nearly every time individual liberties are sacrificed for the sake of greater "security" or "law enforcement", there isn't much gain to security or law, but the liberties lost are not easily regained. Recent examples (all of which I oppose): The so-called USA-PATRIOT Act, much of the "War on Drugs", most attacks on privacy, and most gun control legislation.
[Dean's record: pretty good-- he spoke out early against some provisions of the Patriot Act, and he got an "A" grade from the NRA-- I wonder how many of his supporters know *that*? :) Dean hasn't been outspoken about the idiocies of the "drug war", but at least he's focused on treatment instead of intradiction.]
[Bush's record: hideous across the board, except for opposition to gun control, and even *that's* obviously just to not lose votes.]
(2) Ideally, get the government out of making social policy, except for enforcement of freely-agreed-to contracts (but pragmatically, at least have equality in the law that does exist). Separation of church and state. Recent examples: I oppose the sorts of affirmative action that are de facto quotas, such as in U. Michigan's admissions policies are Title IX, and I favor legalizing gay marriage.
[Dean's record: Mixed. But at least he signed the civil unions bill in Vermont.]
[Bush's record: Pretty awful. Sortakinda opposed quotas, but not very strenously. On gay marriage, he could be even worse-- *more* strident-- I suppose... but not by much. And, he has not the slightest clue why it's *good* the US is *not* a theocracy.]
Reply
On economic liberties:
(1) Respect for the power of the free market, and deep suspicion of monopolies and oligopolies (whether governmental or corporate or mixed) and centralized command. When a current economic-related problem seems to be occurring, the first question should be "what are ways in which the free market-- providers of good/services openly providing a selection of options to consumers/payers-- *not* currently occurring?" Examples:
(a) environmental damage? -- Incorporate environmental "externalities" into the internal economics of a company, e.g. by allowing tradeable credits.
(b) insufficient health care availability? -- Recognize that when the consumer (individual) and payer (company) are not the same entity, a basic assumption of a free market is violated, and any "reform" should start by allowing individuals the same tax credit as corporations receive.
(c) degraded freedom of speech, as with ClearChannel? -- The problem is not *just* that they have a semi-monopoly, but that new competition, such as low-powered stations, is restricted.
(d) massive inefficiency in education -- The government monopoly is *not* working to educate students, even though the per-student expenditures are highest in the world. Therefore, try a variety of privatization measures-- need-based vouchers, charter schools, for-profit schools, whatever. Let failing schools *fail*, and be closed down.
(e) massive inefficiency in agriculture -- Axe the entire Department of Agriculture. Justify that by saying it's an anti-poverty measure (to reduce all food costs 15%, as estimated by the Heritage Foundation) with a "negative cost" (the current DoA's subsidies total dozens of billions of dollars per year).
But most politicians' instinct is to seek *new* regulations and/or protect *existing* industries and businesses.
[Dean's record: hideous. He openly favors re-regulation.]
[Bush's record: gives lip service to free market principles, but never fights for them, instead supporting existing industries-- often with *increases* in "support"-- as long as it'll help him politically.]
(2) Respect for the power of free trade to maximize wealth (defined broadly) for all, in the long run.
[Dean's record: not promising. Better than Gephardt, I suppose. :-)]
[Bush's record: lip service again. Blatant protectionism on steel and lumber, and he did nothing to fight to fight against agribusiness for a *real* FTAA.]
Reply
Leave a comment