I don’t think that conclusion really follows. The common thread in all the examples seems to be the level of importance.
Food?
Selling me hams and eggs for dinner: Private business can do that.
Making sure people don’t starve to death: Government has to step in, or it won’t get done.
Housing?
Selling houses, renting out apartments: Private business.
Making sure people don’t freeze to death during winter because they don’t have a roof over their heads: Government.
Shoes?
Sure, whatever.
I mean you gotta throw the capitalists a bone here and there. Make them feel like they’re contributing. It would be silly anyway to have government step in and regulate all kinds of inconsequential things where they’re not needed, its just more hassle for everyone. I’m sure the government could sell shoes just fine, but they have no particular motivation to step in where they’re not needed or wanted. But when it’s really important the job gets done right, you get the government to do it.
Well, yes, if someone makes the argument that “the government can’t do anything”, that would be the logical conclusion… Except no one has yet quoted anyone actually making that argument. Those people would be called anarchists, not tea partiers.
NO, THAT ISN’T THE CLAIM. There. Someone said it directly. Now let me fill in your part:
“But the tea party says it!”
Now here’s my part: No, they don’t. Or at least, you’re taking their hyperbole literally. Seriously, folks, that’s why Sam Stone is changing your quote to show you how absurd it is. Clearly no one on the left says “the market doesn’t work for anything”. Clearly John Mace is trying to get you to show someone that says the OP’s assertion because then you’ll realize that no one actually says that.
It’s not that hard, people.
No, the term for that would be “non tu quoque”…“not you either”.
I must be hallucinating all of the case studies the teabaggers use in their shouts to stop the growth of federal government. All I hear is that the government can’t do anything right. I don’t think I’ve seen a single substantive argument that the government is specifically less efficient at, say, postal delivery, or health care, from tea party activists, rather than simply asserting “well, we all know the government is inefficient, so we could save money by privatization.”
Well, for most conservatives, perhaps, it’s an exaggeration of right-wing rhetoric. But there do tend to be a few in the crowd who interpret things that way. I didn’t give a cite at first because you don’t know my mom, & you didn’t know me as a teenager. It was a short walk from Reaganism to anarchism for me. Really, I’m arguing against one rather silly take on right-wing philosophy.
But the denunciation of “three-letter agencies” goes back to the 1930’s, so there is something there that needs to be confronted.
I don’t think the general idea is that government is necessarily bad, but that the free-market is superior at certain tasks under certain circumstances, and the reverse is true as well. For example, free-market is likely to be superior where there is potentially a difference in the quality of a given product or service based upon how much one is willing to pay, or where a profit motive is easy to invent. Government is probably superior in situations where everyone benefits roughly the same, where it’s only really useful if everyone has access to it and everyone pays for it, or where a profit motive is either difficult to envision or results in a conflict of interest.
Depending on how one sways politically, some of those one could make arguments for in either direction. For instance, I’ve seen arguments for things like courts and prisons being able to go to the free-market, but a lot of people might see those as potential conflicts of interest. Meanwhile, something like schools is probably a little easier to understand how, with government, everyone gets more or less a basic level of eduction, but with privatization, one can pay more money to get a better education. At the same time, only the most extreme toward the anarchist side will ever think that government shouldn’t handle things like national defense, and only the most extreme on the other side would ever think that the free market shouldn’t handle provisions of things like cars.
Interestingly enough, I think there’s still some truth to this conclusion. Conflicts of interest arise all the time in government, and we constantly hear about various pork funds and unrelated amendments and withholding of votes and such. These are the sorts of things that government is supposed to be free of so that it can do what it’s supposed to do. But, perhaps, if government were only focusing on the sorts of things that don’t really provide profit motive, maybe much of that sort of corruption would go away because there really wouldn’t be any reason for bribes and all that.
That part isn’t necessarily false. It says the government is bad that those things. It doesn’t say the government is bad at all things. The OP says “If conservatives don’t want the government to run health care insurance, why do they want the government to run national defense?” Do you agree that that’s what the OP is saying? Do you then further see that it’s as stupid as saying “If a construction worker doesn’t want to use a jackhammer to install plumbing, why do they want to use it to break up concrete?”
In case I have to spell it out for everyone, a jackhammer is good at breaking up concrete and bad at installing plumbing. Similarly, the government is bad at health care but good at national defense.
The OP seems to imply that conservatives think that the government is bad at all things. That is false and a complete strawman. Conservatives don’t claim that. Those people are called anarchists, which conservatives are not.
A bit early for the tea party but surely you remember:
From here after a very quick search.
Now, I admit “always” is a bit of hyperbole. Even the right doesn’t say that - the point of the OP is that if they were consistent, they should.
Anarchists think that the government should not run anything - I do not believe they care whether the government does a good job or not. If you think that government is automatically oppressive, you hardly worry about if they oppress effectively, do you?
Now, perhaps in your world radical right wingers carefully consider the costs and benefits of each function, and decide accordingly. Down here on this planet they have a bias against government doing anything - except military and police functions, and probably a few others.
The OP is saying that conservatives should come out against government control of these functions to be consistent. Accusing the OP of accusing conservatives of being against all government functions totally misses the point. If they applied some consistent criteria to decide whether government should or shouldn’t do something, it would be fine. But anyone who says Social Security is inefficient is ignoring the facts.
I think the conclusion we can draw is that the concern with government competence is a lie, and the real cause of calls for privatization lie elsewhere.
It seems to me that anyone who is “in the government business” is (a part of) the government. The suggestion that someone outside “the government” run “the government” is impossible by definition. See, e.g., here, 1, 3a and 5.
The time required to communicate political ideas is valuable. The Tea Party members don’t want to waste it listing all the things they believe the government should be involved in. After all, this list would be something they had in common with other Republicans, and with Democrats.
"Now, perhaps in your world, construction workers carefully consider which tool is correct for the job, but down here on this planet, they have a bias against using a jackhammer for anything- except breaking concrete, and probably a few others.
The OP is saying that construction workers should come out against jackhammers breaking concrete to be consistent."
…consistent with what? Some bizarre criterion that you just came up with? Do you think construction workers should be consistent and never use jackhammers, even when breaking concrete? If not, why do you think conservatives should be consistent and never use government, even when defending the nation?
Thing is we really do not know what Tea Party folks want beyond broad generalizations.
Alright! A manifesto with some concrete steps! Now we’re getting somewhere!
Ah…well…so much for a “manifesto”. Really just populist bullet points. All well and fine as far as it goes but it doesn’t go far at all.
Tea Party folk are not anarchists but they clearly dislike government and while admitting its necessity want to keep it as small as possible.
That is fine as a starting point but then, as the OP was on about, what parts are ok (or at least necessary)? Where do you start? Where do you stop?
As is typical Tea Party folks are woefully short on details. All just vague hand waving at big government. I fully expect, if anyone actually did manage to implement that manifesto, a majority of Tea Party folk would squeal like a stuck pig as they find some piece of the pie they happen to like taken from them.
Careful for what you wish for. You just might get it.
I think the difference is that you don’t hear “capitalism never does anything right” from the left nearly as much as you hear “the government can’t do anything right” from the right.
This does not say whether the people in the survey lean right or left politically but:
So a majority of voters in the US thought government was the problem (sans the distinction you noted) in 2009. I doubt that number is very different today.
My gut suggests of that 59% a majority are leaning right. I have no evidence for it from that but were I a betting man that’s what I’d put my money on.