So says commentator Michael Lind, who is not a leftist by any stretch – in fact, he used to be a National Review editor – in his recent article, “Obama’s Timid Liberalism.” After pointing out that FDR did not create the Manhattan Project or Social Security, and Eisenhower did not create the Interstate Highway System, through incentives to private enterprise, but by direct government funding and management:
That’s hilarious considering the right is talking about him like he is the next Stalin.
All these identity politics are getting pretty irrational. It’s like the left is looking at the right’s move toward intellectual purity and obscurity and making a half-assed attempt to emulate it.
Those are curious examples of federal projects with which to draw a liberal/conservative dividing line.
-
The Manhattan Project was a defense project. Specifically, to win a world war that claimed 50 million lives. Even amongst the small-government and libertarian circles that I frequent, I have never heard of anyone decrying the Manhattan project as a ‘liberal’ program. Common defense is, of course, to be led through direct government funding and management. What is Michael Lind’s point here?
-
Social Security is an example of a government-managed success? Is that what the point of the commentary is supposed to be? You must be joking. In it’s infancy, it was a thinly disguised welfare program. Now, it’s a $50 trillion ticking time bomb. Perhaps I am missing the point of the commentary. If so, please correct me. The objectives of SS would have been much, much better addressed through straight welfare at the onset (during the Great Depression) and incentives for private saving and investment afterwards.
-
The interstate highway system is the most worthy of discussion in the ‘grey area’ between public and private enterprise. At it’s inception, Eisenhower’s motivation was also national defense. If you want to stick to that line you are back to point number 1, above.
But I generally applaud the notion of well-designed infrastructure that can increase the total productivity of a nation, and the government should step in if initial transaction costs become too high for the private sector to shoulder.
Highways, airports and ports are good examples of things that would take years and years to wind through the courts, cost billions of dollars to implement and would only be feasible at the extreme uppermost end of private sector ownership.
Perhaps you can offer your opinion on why the commentator offered these examples, and what it has to do with Obama. Because the examples make no sense to me.
The examples were offered because they are well-known instances of major government programs, recognizable to every reader, and because they illustrate the contrast between the New Deal Democrat/Eisenhower Republican approaches to “public provision of public goods” and the contemporary neoliberal approach.
He is not jumping out of war. He is still in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder if he sees the unemployment that might be caused if they came home as making him stay
He is not for going after Bush and his minions in court.
He has not taken over the banks ,even though they robbed us blind and did not start to lend while knowing full well that was the reason they were being bailed out.
He did overturn Bush’s block on stem cell research…
Hmmmm…
OK, fine.
Is the claim then that ‘neoliberalism’ is a widely-held belief amongst Obama opponents? That a majority of them, for example, would decry the Manhattan project as a big liberal program?
If not, than this sounds like a giant strawman to me.
IdahoMauleMan The straw is on your side. When someone says they want to see a ‘Manhattan’ project, it means they want Government to fund groundbreaking research to the tune of billions if need be. It has nothing to do with the political alignment of the project.
Jeez. He’s been President for less than two months. Give the guy a break.
No, among supporters. That’s the whole point.
The Manhattan Project was groundbreaking research that had a clear and compelling objective of national defense. Therefore, it is unquestionably in the province of government management and oversight.
I’ve read Lind’s article twice and I still don’t understand what he is getting at. So maybe it’s time to move on to something else.
What he’s getting at is that, the value of a given government program being assumed, direct government action in the FDR-Eisenhower tradition is a better way to get it done than “market oriented” approaches.
Well the only thing that is characteristic ‘The Manhattan Project’ comparison is that it’s a massive government research project.
What makes Obama not liberal enough is that he’s not making a solar energy manhattan project. There are perfectly good reasons for this of course, like the fact that we are on the verge of solar energy and by the time the government project got off the ground it’d already be in the works by the private sector. More amazing solar power comes available every day. It seems like once a week I am reading an article about a new and better solar panel. It’s all well and good to want a Manhattan project, but at this point it would be too little too late and would be bad for the industry that has already invested so much into it.
Liberals were never going to be happy with Obama because he’s a left of center pragmatist.
Obama is bad, or something.
The author doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Let’s consider the energy policy piece:
People haven’t rejected top-down pollution regulation because of blind ideological opposition to the government being involved. Refuting that straw man is all Lind does by pointing to successful top-down government policies. People have rejected top-down environmental regulation in some areas because it hasn’t been very successful. There’s been relatively little innovation in the pollution-control field precisely because there is absolutely no incentive to innovate. If a power plant invents a cleaner technology, the existing law will simply force them to adopt it, costing them more money.
Moreover, technological innovation is not the only thing needed. We also need to be thinking about energy efficiency, for example. There is no Manhattan Project to be had for energy efficiency. What is needed is an economic solution to make the cost of energy reflect the cost of pollution.
But even putting aside the author’s misguided rejection of cap-and-trade (all the more intellectually dishonest by suggesting it should be rejected merely because it was initially championed by conservatives), cap-and-trade isn’t an alternative to government R&D. They are not mutually exclusive, and indeed Obama plans to pursue both. The point is that in order for alternative technologies to succeed–regardless of who invents them, the costs of pollution need to be internalized for dirtier technologies. That’s what cap-and-trade does. And it isn’t “indirect” or “overly complicated” as compared to the alternative top-down approaches. It is, in fact, quite elegant. It simply prices the cost of pollution back into the decisions that produce it. It is much simpler than the existing system. Read the Clean Air Act sometime and tell me that it is direct and simple.
See the last line:
Why not?
When in his administration did Eisenhower get the Interstate System off the ground? Was Eisenhower dealing with an economic crisis? Seriously when in all this time has Obama had the opportunity to do stuff like this? It hasn’t even been two months.
Because it isn’t purely, or even primarily, about technology. Technology helps, but it is primarily about the decisions that individuals and firms make. We can mandate that everyone turn their thermostat to a certain level, that power plants invest in more efficient transmission means, etc., but that isn’t a Manhattan Project. It is something closer to rationing, except on a level never before seen in the western world.