# Well-intentioned ideas that won't work in real life: green grocer liberalism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 10, 2012, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728 "2012-06-10T15:17:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/121 "2012-06-11T04:12:40Z")
How is **Bricker** 100 per cent wrong, exactly? Idealism has always been associated with liberalism. Take your country back? (Dean) Yes we can? (Obama) A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on? (Kennedy) These are generally of the ‘America can be better because we owe it to the little guy’ variety, whereas the Republican slogans of idealism are the social conservative kind. Liberals seem pretty hellbent on saving people from themselves. That’s not always bad, but a quick Google shows that millions upon millions of dollars have been spent in various agencies in PA to combat obesity over the last 10 to 15 years. Yet…the rates are rising. And how many _billions_ have we spent in the last three decades on health and nutrition? To what avail? The poorest kids in America have access to free health care and are some of the unhealthiest. Conservatives are just a lot cheaper with their ideology. It doesn’t cost a lot to deny gays the right to same sex marriage. 😉 Finally…when someone on the Dope doesn’t like a ‘liberal’ idea (or perhaps like the idea, but not the execution) they are quickly painted as Big Bad Meanie Heads. Oh, and cites? They’re only useful if they support your argument. Otherwise they are very flawed, or haven’t been replicated enough, or \_\_\_\_. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/122 "2012-06-11T04:18:15Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > How is **Bricker** 100 per cent wrong, exactly? Idealism has always been associated with liberalism. Take your country back? (Dean) Yes we can? (Obama) A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on? (Kennedy) > > These are generally of the ‘America can be better because we owe it to the little guy’ variety, whereas the Republican slogans of idealism are the social conservative kind. > > Liberals seem pretty hellbent on saving people from themselves. That’s not always bad, but a quick Google shows that millions upon millions of dollars have been spent in various agencies in PA to combat obesity over the last 10 to 15 years. Yet…the rates are rising. And how many _billions_ have we spent in the last three decades on health and nutrition? To what avail? The poorest kids in America have access to free health care and are some of the unhealthiest. > > Conservatives are just a lot cheaper with their ideology. It doesn’t cost a lot to deny gays the right to same sex marriage. 😉 > > Finally…when someone on the Dope doesn’t like a ‘liberal’ idea (or perhaps like the idea, but not the execution) they are quickly painted as Big Bad Meanie Heads. Oh, and cites? They’re only useful if they support your argument. Otherwise they are very flawed, or haven’t been replicated enough, or \_\_\_\_. Well sure…if you ignore the cost of things like wars conservatives start under false pretenses or the cost of indigent children or ineffective bailout programs etc… Lets us not forget the cost of lost opportunity by celebrating ignorance in the attempt to maintain bronze age fictions etc… I think what you are talking about is a human condition more than a party condition. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/123 "2012-06-11T04:22:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But that answer doesn’t work. > > Which sort of proves my point. The liberal answer is an expression of a well intentioned impulse, absolutely unfettered by the reality of the world. Liberals want to help. They have concern for people. > > But when the facts contradict the ideology, the ideology seems to win more often than it should. Here is an example. The ideology? What ideology? You just characterized liberalism as a well-intentioned desire to help. And liberalism sometimes uses an organized system as a tool for problem solving. That sounds pretty straightforward rather than particularly ideological to me. A lot of us can readily concede that the issue raised by the OP was ill-conceived, but it strikes me as fairly narrow and insignificant, not something that that’s key to demonizing liberalism in general. Citing a small example as the basis for slippery-slope reasoning plays into conservative fact-free ideology in portraying their opponents has having a far more radical agenda than they really do. It’s either being implemented imperceptibly slowly or there’s a giant conspiracy to keep it a secret, but it’s there. It’s swell that you grant that liberals are well-intentioned when so many other conservatives will brook no positive characterization of them whatsoever. But surely there are well-intentioned liberal initiatives that have succeeded and conservative initiatives–well-intentioned or otherwise–that have failed. I think the solution would be an approach to problem-solving with more rigorous cost-benefit analyses, and yes, less ideology. But don’t just come out against doing good. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/124 "2012-06-11T04:25:22Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > [Washington Post.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/will-philadelphias-experiment-in-eradicating-food-deserts-work/2012/06/08/gJQAU9snNV_blog.html) And you don’t see any difference between opening a new grocery store and providing healthier options in corner stores? ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/125 "2012-06-11T04:50:54Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Liberals seem pretty hellbent on saving people from themselves. That’s not always bad, but a quick Google shows that millions upon millions of dollars have been spent in various agencies in PA to combat obesity over the last 10 to 15 years. Yet…the rates are rising. And how many _billions_ have we spent in the last three decades on health and nutrition? To what avail? The poorest kids in America have access to free health care and are some of the unhealthiest. > > Conservatives are just a lot cheaper with their ideology. Tax cuts ain’t cheap. Neither was the invasion of Iraq, which they thought it would spread democracy throughout the Middle East (and pay for itself). > [@](#): > > It doesn’t cost a lot to deny gays the right to same sex marriage. True, but conservatives believe gays are a threat to the “fabric of society” which is worthy of a much more negative epithet than “idealism”. In fact, it’s _superstition_. Indeed, I’m starting to characterize conservatives’ paranoia of all things smacking of “socialism” as a kind of secular superstition. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/126 "2012-06-11T05:06:25Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > And you don’t see any difference between opening a new grocery store and providing healthier options in corner stores? I do. I support the former. The former ensures that people have access to a real grocery store. The latter just puts some bananas alongside Cheetos and calls it a day. > [@sqweels](#): > > Tax cuts ain’t cheap. Neither was the invasion of Iraq, which they thought it would spread democracy throughout the Middle East (and pay for itself). SPEAKING OF IDEALISM, where is that old article by Madeline Albright published years ago…? Oh, [here](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700999.html). (I love the internet.) > [@](#): > > The “realists” are right to bemoan the invasion of Iraq, but that misguided operation cannot be used to indict the promotion of democracy. The purpose of the invasion was to seize weapons that did not exist and to sever a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that had not been made. **The failures were of leadership and intelligence, not a too-fervent commitment to democracy.** > > In Egypt, although the Muslim Brotherhood is officially banned, candidates associated with it nevertheless achieved startling success in last year’s parliamentary elections. The government’s response has been to crack down further on political opposition – both religious and secular – a move sure to engender even greater anger. President Hosni Mubarak seems intent on bequeathing power to his son, but the more the regime is seen to rig the odds, the less that inheritance is likely to be worth. If America values its standing with the Egyptian people – and it should – its support for democratic reform ought to be unwavering. > > As for the Palestinians, let us be fair – elections did not create Hamas. Voters turned to that terrorist group only because prior Palestinian governments didn’t deliver. Now, precisely because of the elections, Hamas will be tested as it has never been before, and it will be required to do what it has never done. This will create pressure on the organization to refrain from violence and to moderate its policies toward Israel. Democracy did not create Hamas, but it may cause Hamas to change – or to fail. Either outcome would be an improvement on the status quo. > \*\* > The debate between idealism and realism in foreign affairs moves back and forth like a pendulum because neither extreme is sustainable.\*\* Now, I don’t think that America can spread democracy any better than I can spread peanut butter with my toes, but the intention is sweet. (Supporting democracy when it’s rising, however, is a little different.) ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/127 "2012-06-11T05:51:24Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > I do. I support the former. The former ensures that people have access to a real grocery store. The latter just puts some bananas alongside Cheetos and calls it a day. You do realize that is exactly what this program Bickler is complain about is exactly that, they subsidized 122 display fridges but most of the spending was on public awareness, helping connect stores with suppliers, creating a buyer pool to get prices down and healthy eating advocacy. It is quite obvious you haven’t even visited the projects web page. Many of these areas don’t have the lots that would support large supermarkets, and unlike in suburbia like you are use to many people do not have cars. The corner shop is their grocery store. They also give loans to open stores in undeserved areas. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/128 "2012-06-11T10:38:21Z")
If conservatives want to give over the “idealistic” descriptor, liberals should let them. It would mean that the Founding Fathers were liberals. > [@Farmer Jane](#): > > How is Bricker 100 per cent wrong, exactly? Idealism has always been associated with liberalism. Take your country back? (Dean) Yes we can? (Obama) A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on? (Kennedy) Ever heard of a thousand points of light? Compassionate conservatism? “We find these things to be self-evident…that all men are created equal”? I guess all of these are “libruhl” too? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/129 "2012-06-11T10:53:32Z")
We’ve passed through the rabbit hole for reals. This is a high-class way of saying “BLOOMBERG (D) BANS SODAS IN NYC”. Enjoy your fellow travellers at Fox. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/130 "2012-06-11T13:33:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > At a cost of some $900,000, Philadelpha inner city corner stores are being incentivized to carry fresh fruits and vegetables. As the Washington Post explains: > > \ > > That is a lot of money. > > And it’s based on an idea that isn’t solid. > > \ > > But in both the Obama administration’s green grocer plan and Bloomberg’s no big soda plan, I see the same impulse: we know what’s best, so do it. > > I don’t want my government to have that attitude. Didn’t want to wade through the whole thread, so maybe somebody has already mentioned this, but - isn’t this _exactly_ the sort of thing conservatives are talking about when they champion states’ rights? The “50 laboratories” concept? So you don’t like Philadelphia’s inner city diet improvement initiative. Great, don’t move there. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/131 "2012-06-11T13:48:50Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Didn’t want to wade through the whole thread, so maybe somebody has already mentioned this, but - isn’t this _exactly_ the sort of thing conservatives are talking about when they champion states’ rights? The “50 laboratories” concept? > > So you don’t like Philadelphia’s inner city diet improvement initiative. Great, don’t move there. I don’t like the federal dollars being used to fund the experiment, when previous experiments have shown the concept doesn’t work. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/132 "2012-06-11T13:54:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, then what is the flaw that conservatives have and why is that better than idealism? I don’t wan to put words in your mouth, but from your description it sounds like the flaw is forcing their morality on others. That sounds worse than idealism to me. But I’ll let you explain it. It’s nice to have a debate opponent that doesn’t simply deny and refuse to answer questions, isn’t it? Yes, I’d say that the conservative fatal flaw is the attempt to impose morality. I distinguish that from idealism for reasons that are hopefully clear. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/133 "2012-06-11T13:58:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s nice to have a debate opponent that doesn’t simply deny and refuse to answer questions, isn’t it? > > Yes, I’d say that the conservative fatal flaw is the attempt to impose morality. I distinguish that from idealism for reasons that are hopefully clear. Thanks, but it’s not entirely clear to me. Both seem to be aiming for the same thing-- a better society, with “better” being defined subjectively by both sides. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/134 "2012-06-11T14:01:42Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > A lot of us can readily concede that the issue raised by the OP was ill-conceived, but it strikes me as fairly narrow and insignificant, not something that that’s key to demonizing liberalism in general. Of the rest of you – the ones of you that are not conceding that the issue raised by my OP was ill-conceived – how many of those of you are resisting that concession because I phrased it this way, because I tied it to liberalism in general? How many, in other word,s are now defending this idea precisely because it’s a general defense of liberalism? ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/135 "2012-06-11T14:02:38Z")
Well-intentioned ideas that work: Public parks. Public parks were originally intended as a tonic for the morals of the poor of the city, getting them the benefits of country living, away from the demeaning urban life. Richard Shenkman has cites in his books, but here’s another (page 10 onwards): > **[The Benefits of Parks and Community Gardens - Trust For Public Land | PDF](https://www.scribd.com/doc/65716487/Benefits-of-Parks-Why-America-Needs-More-City-Parks-and-Open-Space)** > > Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. Public parks cost a lot of money, and, as the above report notes, began to decline in the 20th century with flagging funding. But they revived when the advantages were made clear. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/136 "2012-06-11T14:05:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Thanks, but it’s not entirely clear to me. Both seem to be aiming for the same thing-- a better society, with “better” being defined subjectively by both sides. Sure – that’s the “well-intentioned” part that’s shared by both. It’s not an easy distinction to formalize, but here’s my try: “idealism” refers to a general attitude that good ideas and good people are the natural state of affairs, and merely removing obstacles will free people to make good decisions and allow good ideas to flourish. Imposing morality is the mirror-image of that – that good decisions are not the norm, and in matters of morality, obstacles are necessary to discourage people from making bad choices. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/137 "2012-06-11T14:13:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure – that’s the “well-intentioned” part that’s shared by both. > > It’s not an easy distinction to formalize, but here’s my try: “idealism” refers to a general attitude that good ideas and good people are the natural state of affairs, and merely removing obstacles will free people to make good decisions and allow good ideas to flourish. > > Imposing morality is the mirror-image of that – that good decisions are not the norm, and in matters of morality, obstacles are necessary to discourage people from making bad choices. OK, I see where you are coming from. But I still think it’s incorrect. I see that both sides take both attitudes, depending on the issue. Liberals certainly aren’t anti-law. That is, they don’t think that we need fewer laws to prevent people from doing “bad” things, whether it’s not wearing a motorcycle helmet, not killing someone, or not buying a Big Gulp. And conservatives generally want the market to sort out things in the economic sphere-- thus taking the position that free people make decisions that are best for them and for society. ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/138 "2012-06-11T14:53:49Z")
As a Brit the Liberal/Conservative divide in the States always gives me problems as the words don’t have the same meaning over here but a question for **Bricker** : If the prior evidence showed that such a scheme actually worked, would you be in favour of it? To generalise: should the state be spending tax money on a scheme that will improve the health of the poor? A genuine question - I’m interested in your response. Not a “gotcha”. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/139 "2012-06-11T14:54:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If I could pick a summary line for why I am a conservative, it’s this: liberals mean well, and want to make things better, but their ideas are too often more idealistic than practical. This is true of conservatives as well. I’d use the exact statement you made to characterize the conservative views I’ve seen concerning abortion policy. Anyway, I agree that green-grocer liberalism (just give them access and they’ll make the right choice) is unworkable–because it rests on a false assumption. Just providing access at a grocery store, absent any more systemic changes, will have no effect on people’s choices or their health, or at least so I’d expect. I do wonder what studies the policy was based on, though. Maybe we’re wrong. Maybe it turns out just having the stuff available does lead to measurable effects on the health of the population. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2012, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728/140 "2012-06-11T15:04:38Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > As a Brit the Liberal/Conservative divide in the States always gives me problems as the words don’t have the same meaning over here but a question for **Bricker** : > > If the prior evidence showed that such a scheme actually worked, would you be in favour of it? To generalise: should the state be spending tax money on a scheme that will improve the health of the poor? > > A genuine question - I’m interested in your response. Not a “gotcha”. That’s a really good question. Probably not. But there, my opposition would be ideological. That is, I wouldn’t try to claim it didn’t work. I’d accept that it did, but argue that it was not the role of government to spend money like this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-intentioned-ideas-that-wont-work-in-real-life-green-grocer-liberalism/624728.md?page=8)