I had planned to post this, but got busy. Then the Liberals Only thread in IMHO made me go ahead and do some quoting. Now that I have, I think I’ll make the post I meant to last week.
In the current issue of Harper’s George McGovern, the guy Nixon was so freaked out by he resorted to all kinds of criminal activity, has written a very encouraging essay about liberalism: “The Case for Liberalism: A defense of the Future Against the Past”.
In small part, he says the following:
And now here is the challenge:
So, SDMBC’s (Straight Dope Message Board Conservatives)…what is your response to the challenge he sets?
(And yes, I know already that most conservatives do not agree that all of the things he cites as being wonderful are wonderful, like the minimum wage. That is not the debate. )
Simple (even though I’m not a conservative), The Federal Reserve. McGoverin says it was liberal initiative over conservative opposition, that is total BS. Conservatives were just as happy as liberals to have a Federal Reserve System. Just because a liberal president established it, doesn’t mean anything.
And yes, most conservatives would say those federal initiatives aren’t wonderful at all.
Many instances of privatization of functions previously handled exclusively by the government are seen as successful (though some are also a mixed bag and some are not successful, of course). Those are conservative ideas in action.
Welfare reform was, of course, a conservative goal co-opted (to his credit) by Bill Clinton. Indeed, was designed to undo some of the bad effects from a liberal program – LBJ’s Great Society. And most observers consider that reform a success.
The demise of the Soviet Union was hastened by Reagan’s military buildup.
And it’s pretty limiting to restrict this to federal programs only. Conservatism has as one of its guiding principles a belief in federalism and decentralized government. That being the case, most truly conservative initiatives would take place at the state and local level. For example, conservatives championed ending bilingual education in California, and many of the detractors of that initiative have now praised it as successful. Ditto concealed carry laws. The jury is still out on vouchers, but I think that will be added to the list of conservative successes.
It’s also lopsided because conservatives are, by definition, reluctant to expand the government, preferring to rely on private industry wherever possible. Most new government programs and agencies (good and bad) are thus proposed by liberals, not conservatives. Conservatives are more likely to point to private industry successes as evidence of the efficiacy of their policies than the success of a government agency.
My response is that McGovern’s ability to assign liberalism as the initiator of everything that is good in the world is as unsurprising as it is shallow and false.
However, the liberals are welcome to take credit for SS and Rural electirification if they want.
It seems that liberals feel some need for the gov’t to make everything better, whereas conservatives trust people to make whatever they feel is important better.
It shows McGoverns true colors that he is happy that a mess of socialist programs were initiated by others of his ilk. As a conservative, I should dearly hope that ‘our list’ is far, far smaller.
I’d also concur with ISiddiqui regarding the Fed and add the SEC to that list. WTF? Since when was the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (which created the SEC) a triumph of liberalism over conservatism? If anything, it can be seen as a triumph over the liberal idea of the nanny state. Here’s why:
US securities regulation – governed by both the Exchange Act and the Securities Act of 1933 – is purely disclosure based. That is, the government doesn’t try to tell securities purchasers if the security is a “good buy” or set minimum standards for the quality of a stock before it can be sold. It just requires that investors be told all the information, good and bad, that is relevant to their buying decisions.
Prior to those acts, securities regulation was handled by the states in the form of “blue sky laws” (these laws still technically exist, but for a variety of reasons they’re almost totally preempted by federal law and thus are for most practical purposes meaningless). Many blue sky laws were merit based securities regulation – they sought to only allow securities meeting certain quality targets to be sold within the state.
Anyway, at the time it was passed, many people wanted federal securities regulation to be merit based, in the state law fashion. Fortunately, disclosure-based regulation held the day – it isn’t the government’s job to save investors from themselves, so long as they are adequately informed of the risks of a given investment.
Overall, a pretty decent response, Dewey. Too bad we don’t have George here to respond.
However, I will say a couple of things.
Have any specifics to offer?
I’ve never seen any convincing proof of this, just a great deal of credit-taking. I’m not saying proof doesn’t exist, just that I’ve only been exposed to people stating this as though it were fact without ever offering anything specific to back it up. Can you help here?
Well, are conservatives running for federal offices just so they can dismantle them?
And while it is certainly conservative dogma to say that they want less government, it hasn’t really been shown to be true. Conservatives want less liberal goverment programs, but they are perfectly happy to have more conservative ones. (“Office of Faith Based Initiatives”, anyone?)
And seriously, I really don’t know…who is responsible for the supremely stupid 170,000 person bureaucracy Homeland Security bill? If it was liberals, shame on them, if it was conservatives, double triple with rainbow sprinkles shame on them (seeing as they are against bloated government and all)
I’d like to take this moment to say that while liberal, I was never, ever a fan of bilingual education. Everything I had ever learned about being bilingual (which I am not myself) told me that such a thing was a truly terrible idea. My two best friends in grade school were Cuban girls, and both of them spoke not a word of English when we met, and were completely fluent and even accent-free a year later.
There are countless examples at the local level. At the federal level? The sale of Conrail.
And let’s not forget the twin sister of privatization, deregulation. Deregulation of the airline industry, for example, has saved travelers tons of money since it was instituted.**
Just as an IIRC, I’ve seen interviews with Soviet officials who said Reagan’s military program forced them to spend more on their military, which hastened the economic collapse of the USSR. Our generals weren’t the only ones concerned about “missile gaps.”
No, they’re also running to play defense against Democrats.
Actually, in many cases your statement is true. Tom DeLay famously first ran for office because he was sick of EPA regulation that interfered with his exterminator business.
The problem, of course, is that even though conservatism frequently shouts “don’t just do something, stand there,” Republicans do just the opposite. I guess everyone wants to feel important, and slowing government growth just isn’t sexy.**
[quote]
And while it is certainly conservative dogma to say that they want less government, it hasn’t really been shown to be true. Conservatives want less liberal goverment programs, but they are perfectly happy to have more conservative ones. (“Office of Faith Based Initiatives”, anyone?)**
[quote]
Actually, I think that’s a bad example. The OFBI is really more of a “if we must spend, let’s at least not exclude private organizations of faith from our spending” type of thing. It’s a concession to political reality rather than a conservative pipe dream.**
I’d say, shame on all of 'em. Liberals didn’t oppose the Homeland Security bill based on its size, they opposed it because it stuck it to the unions. I’m not thrilled about the new office either, but at least it’s arguably an extension of national defense, which is the one thing in which conservatives recognize a need for a big federal role.**
I don’t think you’ll get a liberal on record as being thrilled with concealed carry, but it certainly hasn’t been the disaster they predicted. I recall specifically an interview with the county sherriff of Harris County, TX (which encompasses Houston) who was dead-set against concealed carry, but a year later had to grudgingly admit it was working OK.
Well, I can tesify, as a recovering Texan, on one of the joys of a heavily armed population. For one thing, a couple of ill tempered louts in a bar annoy each other, rather than an unseemly fist fight with its attendant bruises and disruptions, someone gets his brains all over the wall, next to the deer with the sunglasses.
Yessirree Bob. Nothin like a little vigorous social Darwinism.
—I’ve never seen any convincing proof of this, just a great deal of credit-taking.—
I have to partially agree on this one. That Reagan outspent the Ruskies to death is accepted dogma, but I suspect it’ll probably be one of those things some savvy historian will conclusively debunk decades from now, when there aren’t as many people around who worship Reagan. What we do know is that, to justify all his spending increases, Reagan’s administration seriously mislead the American public about the health of the Soviet Empire: there were already signs of serious decay and debt when he took office, and it’s certainly not clear that their continued poor spending policies were contingent on whatever degree of extra spending and threatening Reagan did.
—And while it is certainly conservative dogma to say that they want less government, it hasn’t really been shown to be true.—
Well, it’s true that one shouldn’t confuse “conservative” with “libertarian,” and conservatives have found it convient to be against big government only in those times when others were holding the reigns of power. But, aside from responding to the claims of others about what conservatism is, you’re actually shooting yourself in the foot here. If conservatives have increased the size and scope of government, it certainly becomes kinda hard to argue that they’ve been nothing but obstructionist in terms of getting successful ideas enacted.
—I’d like to take this moment to say that while liberal, I was never, ever a fan of bilingual education.—
That’s nice… but we were having a discussion about what successful initiatives conservatives initiated over liberal opposition. That you, a liberal, happened to be against the grain on this one doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that it’s a good example of exactly what McGovern is challenging conservatives to provide… and your little digression allowed you to bypass having to acknowledge it as such.
—Who thinks that’s a great idea again?—
Well, now we see the emptiness of McGovern’s statement. If all one is going to consider good and well supported are things liberals happens to like and vice-versa, then we can see right through that ploy.
Oh hey, McGovern. Forgive me if I need forgivence for this, but how serious can you take someone who lost to Nixon? Not only lost, but by a huge landslide in 1972.
By and large, liberals favor more government programs and conservatives oppose more government programs. So, it’s obvious that most government programs would have been initiated by liberals. This goes for bad government programs as well as worthwhile ones.
Conservatives arguably can take credit for the absense of government programs in various areas. E.g., America is a leader in semi-conductor research, because the government didn’t get involved and allowed innovators the freedom they needed.
Well, at the local level, I’d have to offer a biggie: Rudy Giuliani’s anti-crime programs. Liberals hated them all, but darned if they didn’t do a good job of making New York City a safer place to live.
Honky-tonk shootings are only relevant to the issue of concealed carry if one of the shooters holds a concealed carry permit. Contra to what anti-CC people said would happen, there haven’t been a rash of shootings by CC permitholders.
Even if you don’t believe John Lott’s theory that mandatory CC laws reduce crime, you have to concede at a bare minimum that he shows that such laws did not increase gun violence. The horror stories just didn’t come true.
It’s a pretty shallow trick, if you ask me. If you define the ‘good’ as what Liberals want, then of course conservatives are going to come up lacking, simply because they are not liberals.
Were I to engage this debate, I’d start by claiming the ‘good’ of low taxes, less regulation, economic growth that outstrips the more socialist countries, a military so strong that Americans basically frame the political debates of the world. Then I’d continue to talk about how good it was for me to protect people against being told what they can buy, whom they can sell to, and what products they can make. I’d point out that the United States would have much more restrictive gun laws without us. And yet, crime would probably be higher as criminals become emboldened as they have in England, which now has a higher violent crime rate than the U.S.
I would point out that the states are much more autonomous today than they would be otherwise, and the country is better for that. I’d say that the very fabric of American culture, which is more rugged, more risk-taking, more individualist and entrepreneurial is the great strength of America, and it’s a conservative value. The Democrats would have led the U.S. into a European model of society. Look at the two of them, decide which one you like better, and that will define whether you think this is an advantage or not.
Then if I were really political I’d say that the reason the social programs in the U.S. work as well as they do because Republicans managed to trim away the grosser excesses that have caused other countries like Canada and the U.K to see their infrastructures deteriorating. I’d point to Canada and its 9-month average waiting list for an MRI scan, and say the Democrats wanted to take you there, and we stopped them.
Hmmm. The internet evolved from Darpa, a government funded program. Touché.
In fact, didn’t much of the early semiconductor research take place at private labs (e.g. Bell Labs & Robert Noyce) that were encouraged to fund basic research because of tax incentives? I’m not sure if I’d classify research tax incentives in the 50’s as a liberal or conservative thing; the ‘tax break’ part sounds conservative, the social-engineering sounds liberal. So maybe it’s bipartisan.
Sam: major hyperbole noted, a comment on your last paragraph:
Personally, I’d point to many countries where less well-to-do seniors and others have little to no healthcare, public or private, and wonder if conservatives would have led us that direction save for the balancing influence of the liberals. I would also speculate that it’s probably a good thing that conservatives and liberals can generally balance each other’s excesses. Agreed?
I’m not sure this is true (in any way, shape, or form). The US, at the time, probably did not know the state of the USSR. It is easy to look back, but when you have a country that is fully in control of record keeping and industry, it is VERY hard to have an accurate status of the economy. Remember, Carter also expanded military spending, so it wasn’t simply Regan’s administration that believed the Soviets were a threat.
I find it interesting that so-called “free market” conservatives ran like rabbits to replace the airport passenger checkers, who had been selected by the “competitive process,” with federal employees when they got frightened enough.
—I’m not sure this is true (in any way, shape, or form).The US, at the time, probably did not know the state of the USSR.—
Not so: we knew quite a bit about what they had, and what they were developing, and the state of their economy. In several cases, the claims of administration officials were belied by their own intelligence estimates.
Try the Myth of Soviet Military Supremacy (1986) by Tom Gervasi for more. Also look into CIA debate over whether Russia wanted parity or superiority in the late 70s, and their intelligence about the KGB’s own conclusions in 1981 that it has already lost the arms and economic race.
Just so you know (in case you are one of those “must defend to the death anything that could possibly reflect poorly on saint Reagan”), this isn’t simply a debate of liberals vs. conservatives. Many conservatives, particularly Sec of State George Shultz and Colin Powell, complained for a long time that CIA director Casey and his deputy Gates were knowingly releasing economic and intelligence estimates that were wildly inflated, and rejecting all research drafts that said differently. Among the many things our government used to justify huge expenditures and arms sales to shady characters were a non-existent Soviet plot to kill the Pope, an utterly imaginary new line of Soviety bombers (Pentagon officials joked that perhaps we should offer the Soviets technology and funding to actually build what we hoped they wouldto justify our own new lines of bombers and fighters), supposed Soviet threats to Iran, and so on. To be honest, it’s not clear how much Reagan knew about the intelligence situation, as it’s usually unclear what Reagan knew about anything important going on under his nose, but there was undoubtedly a situation during the late 70s (under George Bush’s watch) and the 80s where the needs of politics and military spending drove released intelligence on the Soviets rather than the other way around. While no one can fault the outcome, many people wonder if we were really well served in the degree.
