I’m skeptical about getting back to older virtues, simply because I don’t think human beings are ever very virtuous. But it does look to me as if the welfare state encourages bad habits. It’s not just the welfare state, though — the right-wing “investment” state, the mentality that home prices will always go up and stocks will always turn a profit, is also deranged, to the extent (which in fact is a very great extent) that it encourages unrealistic expectations and then invokes government (which itself is insolvent) to rescue or correct the markets.

I can see that diminishing resources and increased competition may make the welfare states 20th century liberals dreamed about a thing of the past. People may become more self-reliant and work harder out of necessity, but I still wonder if the idea of getting back to older virtues through greater reliance on market discipline may not be too much to expect from this generation of Westerners.

After I posted I remembered David Frum’s great u-turn from a very “dry” market-based conservatism to the wettest welfare-state conservatism. Whatever one thinks of Frum, is the idea of reforming character through government austerity perhaps too much of an unrealizable dream?

To put it another way: is it enough to limit the effects of liberalism (however one understands that term) or to make liberalism “conservative”? Or is liberalism so terrible that it must be extirpated?

Does that apply to the idea that cutting back the welfare state will make people more responsible? I’m not trying to score an ideological point against paleos or other conservatives, just wondering if there wasn’t something unrealistic about that project as well. Perhaps that wasn’t a modest goal either, or if it was, what about the idea that freeing up financial markets would make money men more prudent?

And, T.O.M, the GOP uses govt power to mold society via their own spending priorities (esp. military/war). Let us not pretend that political parties formed to gain govt power are not interested in using it.

I think this is really the bigger problem, namely, that the Republicans don’t run many populist candidates. There are plenty of suburban races where there is an economically moderate socially liberal Dem vs. econ. libertarian-ish and socially moderate GOPer. There are few with nationalist Republicans challenging populist Democrats.

The GOP at the Congressional level is just too homogeneous and does not reflect the party at large. The House Democrats, at least, have factions reflecting different backgrounds and different interests (social conservatives, labour-backed, progressive Left, black, hispanic, DLC). Yet, even working class Southern and Midwestern GOP districts get the typical suburban, small-govt rhetoric, free trading, social conservative at election time only-type of Congressman.

If Scozzafava would have won 60% in a two-way race, and were such a popular legislator, surely she could have managed more than 20% in the three-way polls right before quitting. And certainly in a three way race, the Democrat would not get over 40%.

How do you blame the third candidate for a type of Nader factor when he was running well ahead of your own, while she was endorsed by the RNC and Gingrich?