Comments on: What’s The Deal?

By: Paleo myopia? « Upturned Earth || John Schwenkler

Paleo myopia? « Upturned Earth || John Schwenkler — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:44:50 +0000

[...] First, while I do share the Larisonian skepticism of governmental meliorism, I agree with Ross that things like flat taxes (too regressive) or thorough and immediate bulldozings of the admittedly crumbling remains of the welfare state (too socially and politically disastrous) are not what conservatives should be aiming for, at least in the near term. And so to the extent that the Grand New Party agenda is aimed at eliminating the sort of dependence on governmental safety nets that make the centralized state seem so intractable, that sounds great to me – but even well-meaning governmental programs have a proud history of near-perpetual motion, and so there’s every reason to go in for some serious scrutiny as well. [...]

By: conradg

conradg — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:14:19 +0000

I’m not clear, what exactly about any of these policies is different from the Democratic party’s basic platform? Aren’t Ross and Reihan essentially saying the Republicans should all become moderate Democrats? I think we already have a political party for that. Personally, even though I’m a Democrat, I’d rather see some real choices being offered, which to my mind would argue that the Republican party ought to go in the Ron Paul direction, not the Sam’s Club way. At least I’d find that prospect somewhat tempting and bring an influx of new ideas into the mix, rather than just putting a Republican spin on Democratic policies.

By: Tuesday Reading « Upturned Earth || John Schwenkler

Tuesday Reading « Upturned Earth || John Schwenkler — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:06:11 +0000

[...] Finally, and in a similar vein, read Reihan Salam, responding to Rush Limbaugh with characteristic calm and charity (the first words into my mind when I read about what Limbaugh had said were “Big. Fat. Idiot.”), and explaining why sometimes the best way to tame the beast is not to starve it. Money quote: The important thing is to target the hidden subsidies that make up the hidden welfare state. Yes, we absolutely need to cut wasteful spending. But we also want to increase freedom. That means freeing our labor markets, loosening regulations, tilting government policies in favor of giving families more flexibility rather than less. To do that, though, we have to make what has been invisible â€” a social policy built on corvÃ©es that are tying the hands of American entrepreneurs â€” and make it visible. That will cause short-term expenditure increases. That has not been the policy of the Bush White House or the Clinton White House, which were only too happy to use budgetary flim-flam to hide the true cost of their goals. (Remember when we thought we could fight the Iraq War on the cheap?) [...]

By: conradg

conradg — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:44:56 +0000

I’m curious, do you think the New Deal largely failed to end the Depression because it was an entirely wrong approach, or because it didn’t go far enough in deficit spending to boost the economy, as happened in the WWII boom that ended the Depression?

By: RegularRon

RegularRon — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:02:42 +0000

I thought as “Conservatives” and “Libertarians” we were, in a way, trying to get rid of the New Deal, and the Great Society?

Either, I missed the memo, they “we” suppored this disgusting and yes, Un-Constitutional, Federal Progam, or I am in LaLa Land.

Daniel, love the writing sir. Please keep up the good work.

By: jaloren

jaloren — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:26:35 +0000

I imagine the reason conservatives want to associate themselves with such a “lousy” program is that its current incarnation is immensely popular and considered a great success.

Now admittedly libertarians judge things quite differently (to put it mildly) and they respond to the New Deal’s popularity by taking the role of the aggrieved elitist, shaking their heads in dismay at how the ignorant, unwashed masses vote against their interests (which I don’t necessarily disagree with being an elitist myself).

Its my understanding that among libertarians there is a consensus that 1. the New Deal was awful and 2. It should be gotten rid of. That is not a consensus among anyone else. Many people, including conservatives, see merit in the New Deal.

If nothing else, as an electoral matter I strongly encourage the Republican party to repudiate Social Security. Considering how well privatization turned out, I am sure advocating the end of the program would work out even better.