two splendidly splendid pieces: one, from frank rich in sunday's times, explores the nexus of conservative government, privatization, and the disaster it has wrought; the other, from professor alan wolfe in the washington monthly, is an essay on why conservatives can't -- and shouldn't -- govern.
from rich:
Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration, the very model of big government that the current administration vilifies, never would have trusted private contractors to run the show. Somehow that unwieldy, bloated government took less time to win World War II than George W. Bush's privatized government is taking to blow this one.
and from wolfe:
Contemporary conservatism is first and foremost about shrinking the size and reach of the federal government. This mission, let us be clear, is an ideological one. It does not emerge out of an attempt to solve real-world problems, such as managing increasing deficits or finding revenue to pay for entitlements built into the structure of federal legislation. It stems, rather, from the libertarian conviction, repeated endlessly by George W. Bush, that the money government collects in order to carry out its business properly belongs to the people themselves. One thought, and one thought only, guided Bush and his Republican allies since they assumed power in the wake of Bush vs. Gore: taxes must be cut, and the more they are cut--especially in ways benefiting the rich--the better.
But like all politicians, conservatives, once in office, find themselves under constant pressure from constituents to use government to improve their lives. This puts conservatives in the awkward position of managing government agencies whose missions--indeed, whose very existence--they believe to be illegitimate. Contemporary conservatism is a walking contradiction. Unable to shrink government but unwilling to improve it, conservatives attempt to split the difference, expanding government for political gain, but always in ways that validate their disregard for the very thing they are expanding. The end result is not just bigger government, but more incompetent government.
it's a pretty straightforward argument, and i embrace it like i embrace the grace of ken griffey jr at his best in seattle, or ichiro at his best now: liberals should govern because, in all honesty, they believe in government and governing as a way to make people's lives good. conservatives don't believe government can do that, but can't argue for the elimination of government because it would mean embracing anarchy, and that ain't gonna happen. i'm not saying conservatism isn't useful -- it's great as a way to keep the excesses of liberalism in check (government intervention in the market to keep it more fair and competitive is essentially a conservative act, since a completely free market tends toward consolidation and anti-competitiveness) -- but it's useful only as a force of opposition.
as a true liberal, i believe in freedom: of expression, of choice, of trade, of body, etc. i also believe in government, but i don't want a huge mess slowing things down. i don't want high taxes (except on the rich, naturally). conservatism is useful in helping liberals achieve these liberal ideals of freedom.
it is not useful as a system of government.
No comments:
Post a Comment