Lotsa folks seem to think this missive applies mostly to the Bush administration; if y’all want to keep your "reality-based" hats on after the election, though, you’ll see that it applies equally (if not moreso) to the Democrats.
This, it seems to me, would go a long way to admittin’ the mistake and startin’ the correctin’ process. He’s the guy who gets it. What’s "it"? Well: Republicans win when they run to the right. Democrats win when they run to the right. See a pattern?
Update: Our loyal commenteers are politely, but persistently, telling me to shove it. The general objection (but by no means the only objection) is that if Democrats become Republican-lite, Republicans will become Republican-heavy. I don’t think that should be much of a concern, however.
First, if you stop by RedState, you’ll see that Republicans are already well on their way to heavy-dom. They want to purge Specter. Chafee can go to Hell. They’re calling Richard Lugar, R-Ind., a RINO. (Perhaps they’re unaware that, until January 2004, Lugar voted with President Bush 100 percent of the time.) The swing to the hard right has already begun, and it’s starting to get really uncomfortable for Republican-sympathancs such as myself.
Second, always keep in mind that most of the country is not hard-right. It’s center-right — and that includes most RedStates. Case in point: Tom Coburn couldn’t win a schoolboard seat in most Indiana counties, and this is a state that the networks called for Bush while the polls were still open. The right kind of Democrat — a moderate — does quite well here,* and even better elsewhere in the Midwest (like, say, Ohio. And Missouri. And Iowa. Et al.).
A Democrat will not sweep the Old South or the Rocky mountain states in our lifetime, just as a Republican won’t sweep the Northeast or California. The Midwest (of which, bizarrely, Florida seems a part) is the battleground. For better or worse, the battleground leans right. Until Democrats figure that out, they’ll have trouble.
Finally, I’m sympathetic to the notion that this may considered "selling the party’s soul." (Not too sympathetic, though, since I’m not a member of the party and thus not overly enamoured with the soul in question.) I don’t think it need be taken that far. Semantics and procedure are your friends here. You support "civil unions" that are "legislated," not "gay marriages" dictated by "activist judges." You want to keep abortion "safe, legal, and rare" — and you’re prepared to legislate as much. (Really, must you fight for an unfettered right to late-term abortions?) These are simple, swallowable changes that will attract the swing voter — and start swinging elections your way.
But, then, what kind of advice did you expect from ObWi’s putative "centrist"?
*See, e.g., Evan Bayh, who just handily won re-election (despite Bush’s coat-tails). Lee Hamilton. Indeed, Indiana has had eighteen years of Democratic governors (which just ended, it should be said), and there’s been a decade’s worth of Democratic Mayors in Indianapolis.
No, I don’t. Running to the right only shifts the playing field to the right. If Democrats, for example, say “Alright, forget gays, we’ll write them off, you can have your damn marriage amendment,” Republicans will run further to the right and try to recriminalize sodomy. If Democrats give in on an unqualified ban on late-term abortion, Republicans will still tar them as the party of baby-killers and go gunning for a complete overturning of Roe. They’ll do this because by moving right, the Dems concede that their positions are wrong and/or bad, and the Republicans will always out-flank their attempt to become Republicans Lite.
Don’t believe me? Show me a winning DLC candidate who isn’t Bill Clinton – that is, who isn’t dripping with charisma. Bill Clinton lost Congress again and again for the Democrats; his successors – Gore and Lieberman – were outright disasters, carrying his centrist message but not his style or his chops.
Even then, Clinton is not perceived as a centrist by the Right (and I’m not referring to conservatives here, I’m referring to the Right – these are, it should be very clear by now, two entirely different political categories). He’s perceived as a Liberal or a Leftist by dint of being a Democrat. Worse, he’s Bill Clinton. Say his name three times and he’ll appear in Rush Limbaugh’s mirror with a hook hand. My point: the right will make a “liberal” out of Democrat they’re given, and shift right accordingly.
Nor do I believe that two or three percentage points means that the country overwhelmingly supports Bush’s policies. On the contrary, voters who voted based on the war in Iraq voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. The country is still split 50-50 on the war; in many polls the split favors those who opposed it. What those percentage points do mean is that (1) the GOP was immensely successful in divorcing George Bush from the consequences of his policies – and indeed, often from the policies themselves, and (2) that the Democratic party never figured out – until way too late – how to coherently deliver its message. Even with the right message, you need to be able to speak clearly; all our spokesmen, as much as I thought they’d make great leaders, had mouths filled with marbles.
Losing an election is not a call to abandon your values, especially to a party that, to be frank, has all the wrong ones right now. Bloating the deficit in a time of war, catering to the ugliest, most bigoted side of Americans, utter negligience in the face of nuclear proliferation and the terrorist threat – this isn’t what we need in a party, or in a president. That’s why I voted for John Kerry, and that’s why I’m going to do everything I can for the next four years to make sure the Democrats get their message out next time. Because this time it emerged as a mess.
it sounds like you assume Democrats want to win for the sake of winning, and not because they think they have ideas that would be good for the country.
i mean, i guess liberals could run as conservatives, then do the opposite once they got elected… but that would just get confusing…
I’d also point out that Bill Clinton was the man who signed DOMA into law, the man who increased the number of gays being kicked out of the military, and the man who advised John Kerry to come out against gay marriage and civil unions. Doing that doesn’t just sell the Democratic party’s soul. It sell’s America’s soul. I’m not willing to give up and concede that this must be a nation of bigots, and say that only a race to the bottom of the foul can win the day.
Regarding the editorial in question: the Democratic Party needs to mobilize, to unify, to get new voters into the party. It started doing that this year under Howard Dean and Joe Trippi – and those two managed to sell centrist policies to the left. Either of them would be much more qualified than Bill Clinton. Every Democrat is a New Democrat now, and has been for a decade. It’s time for something newer.
okey-dokey. I guess we can add cleek and Ironlungfish to the list of people who don’t get it.
I agree, the Republicans are really going to have to admit their problem. They had a wartime incumbent with an approval rating at or above 60% at the beginning of year and nearly lost the election.
Or were you talking about a different problem 🙂
praktike: okey-dokey. I guess we can add cleek and Ironlungfish to the list of people who don’t get it.
Does this mean that you don’t understand the point they raised, or don’t care?
don’t get it
well, if “it” means: run to the right of where you really are for the sake of winning elections; or if “it” means: the left is hopelessly (-3% for a guy was described as the “most liberal Senator in the country”) out of touch with American values… then no, i don’t get it.
3% nationwide.
65,000 votes in Ohio. that’s 6 people per precinct in OH.
As you can see in this very illuminating map, the red states clearly have the west coast and the northeast outnumbered. It only makes sense that the latter two should run to the right and embrace the slightly more conservative positions of the former.
We tried this. See: 2002 midterms.
Why is public opinion moving to the right, do you think? Is it spontaneously moving? Are magical fairies pushing it? Or is it being moved right because only one side is pushing on it?
here’s a good primer
“Why is public opinion moving to the right, do you think?”
OBL gave us a shove, and people have tended to perceive the right as tougher and better on security. And (in my view) the left sees the country, or at least the close-to-water parts, as growing more secular and socially liberal in response to which it becomes complacent, while the right sees upsetting changes and gets fired up.
Plus I think the Republicans have a better grasp of message packaging and campaign tactics (read, willingness to go negative / talent at doing so). Plus I think the press’s incompetencies currently serve them better.
I’ve got little knowledge and even less interest in this sort of thing, so I’m just going to chime in and say that I’m not a big fan of overanalyzing the electorate in order to get reelected. It may be what works, but it’s designing government straight out of popular opinion. Ideally, you’d seek to move popular opinion with your vision of what’s right, rather than chasing the drift of popular opinion.
But as I’ve noted, ignorant and bored with this sort of thing am I.
How ’bout this for a descriptive map
http://www.selekta.com/map.jpg
praktike, thanks for the primer.
Henley
I am not sure this is about religion or not( not registered at the LA Times) but that discussion is all over the blogosphere, including multiple threads at Crooked Timber.
And I look at FDR to Truman and Eisenhower and Nixon and Reagan and so on and you are going to have a hard time convincing me that the Democratic woes have anything to do with religion. Carter was not beloved by the right. It may have to with culture.
But mainly I look at the Republican Party of Richatd Nixon and I see that a wing of that party has somehow attached certain political positions to a religious foundation. Jefferson Davis thought God was his side also.
How ’bout this for a descriptive map
Yep, that’s the one I linked to earlier, but I did it a little more sneakily.
Actually, there are a lot of things going on, but may I suggest that from 1930-1980 the Democratic Party had very strong local organizations derived from union chapters. That foundation is lost, and not replaced.
The current Republican Party has that kind of organization derived out of churches. Which adds to the appearance that the problem is religious, but is more about the organization than the motivations.
Whoa. Wait a second.
There’s really not much wrong with the core message of the Democratic Party. And future demographics favor us enormously.
For the most part, all those saying we must change or die are those who want us to die.
The GOP owns the media. They’ve done a fantastic job at making the major networks cower (not very hard to do as network news is owned by sympathetic corporate interests) or at least think twice about suggesting Dear Leader might have screwed up. They even have a network that’s an arm of the RNC. And they positively own cable.
Meanwhile, the GOP has no shortage of 527s telling us at every opportunity how they’re getting crucified in the media.
Look, if Ohio or Florida had done the right thing, the GOP would be whining about moving leftward or finding attractive candidates from the NE or far West.
I blame it on a resurgent strain of Bolshevik anti-intellectualism, and I predict it will get much uglier before a correction. Fortunately, the corporate wing of the Republican party isn’t on board with that and should be able to prevent it from getting out of control.
Bob McManus gets at the problem. It is not message, or philosophy, or any of that. It is organization.
Bush got 9 million more votes in 2004 than in 2000. Kerry got 5 million more votes than Gore got. They got their voters out. We didn’t. The Republican Party is better at this than the Democrats. The answer is not to run right, or run left, it’s to run harder, and do some blocking.
So we do have a problem, but I disagree with von as to what it is. I think an awful lot of it is just plain poor execution.
All the discussions about the other stuff remind me of people running a business that is doing poorly sitting around and worrying about strategy and restructuring and various grand schemes, and not trying to cut expenses or sell more product.
“Actually, there are a lot of things going on, but may I suggest that from 1930-1980 the Democratic Party had very strong local organizations derived from union chapters. That foundation is lost, and not replaced.
The current Republican Party has that kind of organization derived out of churches. Which adds to the appearance that the problem is religious, but is more about the organization than the motivations.”
This is such a good point it bears repeating.
Look, no one here is qualified to have this debate. Hard partisans believe their party has the right answer for every situation. . economic, social, whatever. They will never admit that they other party got even one issue right. Any failure is a result of voter misunderstanding. And I’ll wager that most people commenting here are hard partisans. . nearly a pre-requisite for hanging out in the political blogosphere. But in fact, most people are not hard partisans, especially in presidential races. They’re looking at a menu. They think the Republicans deserve their vote sometimes and the Democrats others (and sadly, the Libertarians almost never deserve their vote), and which one gets it depends on each party’s strength. The Democrats are perceived as good on social issues, the Republicans on getting the government off your back and lately for being stronger on foreign policy. Right now the psychology of the country is fearful and angry, and the Republicans probably (and ironically) look like the most likely party to make the fear go away.
The Democrats can either try to play to this new mindset of the country, which would be nigh impossible, since it’s not in their area of strength, try to change the mindset of the country, which is laudable but takes a while, and the Republicans are doing everything they can to make sure they don’t, or they can wait it out until people decide that Americans starving in the streets is now more important than the 0.000001% chance you’ll be killed by a terrorist.
That’s why I’m correct, Sidereal. 😉
It is largely a war of perceptions. And the party that holds the media high ground to shape, manipulate, and control those perceptions–wins.
That’s why the GOP won several days ago. Regardless what anyone one thinks or believes about a particular party’s position on issues, it boils down to how that issue is perceived or presented in the media.
John Stewart’s appearance on Crossfire really points up the issues. Most voters aren’t particularly well-versed on the issues and tend to come down on the side they hear most often or perceive to have the easiest answer or solution. Unfortunately, complex problems often don’t have neat and simple solutions.
The idea that they won’t get more extreme because they’re already extreme is not one there’s a lot of historical support for.
The idea that they won’t get more extreme because they’re already extreme is not one there’s a lot of historical support for.
Well, maybe or maybe not, but that’s not my point. My point is that they’re moving to the right already, because they think they have room to. What the Democrats do (or do not do) won’t influence them.
Go Read This
“There’s really not much wrong with the core message of the Democratic Party. And future demographics favor us enormously.”
Err, not if the Hispanic vote increasingly goes Republican. Then Texiera’s projections are screwed, as are we.
“Actually, there are a lot of things going on, but may I suggest that from 1930-1980 the Democratic Party had very strong local organizations derived from union chapters. That foundation is lost, and not replaced.”
Your average American is subject to a lot more financial risk in their life than was the case 30 years ago, with more job insecurity, the decline in defined-benefit pensions versus 401k’s, and the decline in gubmint support of grade-level and college-level education, which is only only stressful but also erodes the type of social solidarity that underlies unions and community organizations. [Not all of this is because of domestic policy changes, but because of the rise of other countries as industrial powers.]
The lack of a sense of solid solidarity was one of the most striking thing that I found when I moved to the US – that 15-20% of the population could be without health insurance and few outside that population gave a rat’s ass about their fellow citizen’s plight.
But it’s harder to feel generous to your neighbour when you have the feeling that your own position is precarious, when you’re just a few lost paychecks away from losing your car/house, and that your kid not only has to go to college to get ahead, but has to get into an elite college to really charge up their career. I’d posit this as one of the reasons why the more self-orientated evangelical churches, emphasizing grace over acts, have won out over the more social-mission orientated liberal denominations.
But, when you join an evangelical church it doesn’t insulate you from the general corrosion; so evangelicals have as high a divorce rate or higher than non-evangelical Xtians or agnostics.
So, let’s all blame gays in San Francisco for emitting decadentium rays which cause families in Ohio for breaking up, rather than economic stresses of restructuring and globalization.
“That’s why the GOP won several days ago. Regardless what anyone one thinks or believes about a particular party’s position on issues, it boils down to how that issue is perceived or presented in the media.”
Yeah, but that presentation is framed by the three events forming a meta-narrative:
– The riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention (liberals are wackos out of the mainstream)
– The Iran hostage crisis (liberals are pussies who can’t stand up to our enemies)
– The Oil Crisis and resultant inflation (liberals can’t be trusted with the economy).
I don’t agree with Lakoff that you can overcome those issues solely by “framing” – an acute event has to happen that breaks the former frame of reference.
It took interest rates to hit 15% in the UK in 1993 (cheers, George Soros!) before the Tory party lost its veneer of economic competence over Labour. But the Tories got 17 years of uninterrupted power out of being able to punish Labour with memories of the 1978 Winter of Discontent.
Cleek: Freedman’s analysis is embarrassingly bad on many levels; it is so fraught with errors, it’s hard to know where to begin.
One can legitimately criticize how voters were surveyed on the issue as “morals,” “values,” etc. are extremely subjective and of course, moral values would be seen as the top issue to any voter who views himself/herself as devout.
Too many arguments lately claiming to find THE error by the Dems, on the theory that had they not committed this error, Ohio or some other state would have tilted by a few 100K votes, and Kerry would’ve won.
Beware the fallacy of underdetermination. The Dems need to fix their organization, AND their message, AND a lot of other things. Because this shouldn’t have been a Kerry 51/Bush 49 election. It should’ve been a Dem blowout.
They do need to tack a bit right. Abortion, let’s face it, is ugly, and the Dems need to be the party of “let’s change people’s minds on abortion, not change the laws” instead of the “Wheee! Abortions for everybody!” party.
But mostly, as I just vented over at Yglesias’s blog, they need to get over this contempt for the average American that they share with the Republicans. Bush just got reelected by a bunch of well-meaning neighbors of yours and mine who honestly believe that Saddam was building nukes, and that Iraq helped out with 9/11. The Dems relied on the media to point out the truth, the media wouldn’t do it, and the public voted on the facts as it understood them to be. Hell, I’m amazed Bush got ONLY a 51% majority.
You may be getting a raft of crap from the commenters, von, but I’m with ya. History’s on your side.
2004: Kerry, who is a losebian, was too liberal and lost.
2000: Gore, abandoned DLC, went populist and lost.
1992-1996: Clinton ran moderate and won.
1988: Dukakis, too liberal, another loss.
1984: Mondale, too liberal, another loss.
1980: Carter, failed liberal, another loss.
1976: Carter, just eked out victory from a damaged opponent.
1972: McGovern, who started it all, too liberal, another loss.
Uh, von, in case you hadn’t noticed, the Democrats are already running to the right. Nobody wants to bring back full welfare. The Dems talk about balancing the budgets; it’s only Dick Cheney who says that “deficits don’t matter.” Things have changed a lot in the last few years. I don’t know about “center-right”; how about splitting the difference and going for plain “center”?
Semantics and procedure are your friends here. You support “civil unions” that are “legislated,” not “gay marriages” dictated by “activist judges.” You want to keep abortion “safe, legal, and rare” — and you’re prepared to legislate as much. (Really, must you fight for an unfettered right to late-term abortions?)
Kerry’s position on civil unions was as you recommend.
As for the late-term abortion issue; we both know it’s a canard. The GOP could have a ban on late-term abortions very quickly if they’d be willing to protect the health of the woman. But the GOP would rather have the issue than what it hopes to accomplish.
Sounds to me like your advice to Dems is to “dumb it down” and engage in vacuous slogans like “they hate our freedom” or “threaten the sanctity of marriage.”
But do Democrats go on the offensive about this? Nope. They get quiet, like they are ashamed or something. Pretty easy to belt out some simple, compelling rhetoric about mothers dying.
But that sort of thing doesn’t happen – because they’re too busy protecting the “slippery slope” of abortion restriction to make the laws make moral sense to people.
… but they do. And have said as much. Unless you’re buying Osama’s new swing voter strategy.
But do Democrats go on the offensive about this? Nope. They get quiet, like they are ashamed or something. Pretty easy to belt out some simple, compelling rhetoric about mothers dying.
Again, the fact is House Dems were willing to ban late-term abortions provided there was an exception for the health of the mother. GOPers said no.
Seems to me if you’re really concerned about the unborn as you assert, getting most of what you want is infinitely better than nothing at all.
And have said as much.
Really? Would you have a cite? Or is this one of those interpretations?
Seems to me you’ve got me figured all wrong. I am a Democrat, and I’m annoyed that they didn’t turn this around to burn Republicans – which I think it would have, given that I don’t think most people are very confortable with women being forced to die under the law.
Sorry – years ago I remember reading some Al-Queda training manual that went on and on about how disgusting and ungodly the freedom was in western countries, and how it can be used against us, yada yada yada. This really shouldn’t be surprising to you. “Hating freedom” sounds ridiculous, but Afghanistan under the Taliban is a pretty darn good, real-world example that it is not just rhetoric either.
Kerry, who is a losebian
ah. the reason i stopped visiting Tacitus.
Well, Tac booted me for calling him dishonest, but I wouldn’t go back there now if I could. As we can plainly see, this is level of cogent analysis provided daily by their premiere poster.
Right-wingers can burble and chuff denials all they want, but they should know that the gay-bashers, racists and creationists are their core constituency now. Let’s see how they appease them.
Frankly, I’m pretty far to the right as Democrats go. If the Dems move any further right I expect that the Greens and lefties will just stay home. There’s no way we can out right-wing the GOP. It isn’t gonna happen.
We’ll see how things go in the next four years. If the American people rise up and boot these cretins from office, then my faith in the system will be somewhat restored. If not…well, I understand that Austrailia is looking for good computer people.
How about the Democratic candidate was horrible and they ran an even more horrible campaign. Don’t change who you are, change who you run. Jeesh!
Guys, I recognize that my earlier comment has been studiously ignored but it really wasn’t a joke. Wartime incumbents are nearly impossible to unseat. The fact that this election was close (roughly 3% vote margin, EC down to the wire) means that the Democratic party did a fairly effective job even though that is not how things are being portrayed.
Look at the largely negative public statements of many paleo-cons, “Main Street” Republicans, and defense specialists during the runup to the election. I think that the more relevant question is how can the DNC and their surrogates leverage the obvious dissatisfaction that traditional GOP supporters have with the current situation in the Republican party.
What do you folks make of Kerry not being trusted by the majority of voters on the economy?
I found that striking, and something that hasn’t been discussed enough.
Or there’s this approach. We’ve triangulated before. This, I don’t think we’ve tried for nearly 40 years.
What do you folks make of Kerry not being trusted by the majority of voters on the economy?
I found that striking, and something that hasn’t been discussed enough.
Praktike, I think that – and all of this – speaks to the fact that the Democrats’ message sucked this year. Their policies were appealing – poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans want universal health coverage, didn’t trust Bush on the economy, didn’t trust him on Iraq, but weren’t willing to fully make the jump to Kerry. And they weren’t willing to make that jump by three percentage points.
This isn’t “sell your soul on abortion and gay rights” time, Von (because as even you concede, the Republicans will keep pulling right and right until even Dick Lugar is an apostate. When Dems move to the right, they concede the playing field to the far right. If you want to be a centrist, you should want another party tugging on the other side of that rope). This is “find out why you aren’t speaking the same language as the guys in those big corn-filled states” time.
Again, the fact is House Dems were willing to ban late-term abortions provided there was an exception for the health of the mother. GOPers said no.
Per Jonas, this is not “going on the offensive.” Going on the offensive is putting it in the party platform. It’s mentioning it “out loud” (not quietly in committee) by putative Democratic “leaders.” Such as:
Pelosi: “Well, Tim Russert, we want to block all third trimester abortions, except where the health of the mother is at stake. We’ve introduced legislation to that effect. I don’t understand why Tom DeLay, who say’s he’s against abortion, is blocking it.”
DeLay: [?} “No, we want to ban all abortions no matter what?” [Won’t happen without major changes at the S.Ct., turns off more than 50% of the electorate.] “No, we want to play games.” [So you don’t really care about unborn life?] “I object to the life of the mother exception” [….]
Blogbudsman makes another compelling point, BTW.
I agree with von that we Dems will have to change, but I don’t see it as moving to the right?
To me, being a lefty is about an abiding desire to stand up for the little guy, the outcast, minority, weak and poor. What must we do to reach a majority in Arkansas, Misouri, Tennessee, New Mexico, Iowa and Ohio? Champion a ban on late term abortions except for cases where the mother’s life is at stake? Cry on the roof tops that “under god” in the pledge and voluntary prayer in schools are just fine with us? Move for civil unions not marriage? Speak of the power of hard work and ownership to help the poor? Perhaps I’m dense, but I don’t see how any of this constitutes “moving to the right”. Infact, my deeply religious mother (who happens to be a staunch democrat) would be shocked to realise that this isn’t already party of liberal dogma.
It seems to me that the changes needed are rhetorical and spiritual. We will not have to swear of f the new deal, or champion poor houses. Just encase our vision in the same christian moral veneer that FDR, MLK, Bill Clinton and Barak Obama did. I don’t see what’s so terrible about that.
Per Jonas, this is not “going on the offensive.” Going on the offensive is putting it in the party platform. It’s mentioning it “out loud”
Exactly.
What percentage of abortion opponents do you think knew about this?
What percentage of those who got those $300 tax rebates knew that was a Democratic proposal?
What percentage of people worried about terrorism knew that Bush opposed setting up the 9/11 Commission?
What percentage of those who want to eliminate estate taxes because they harm small businesses know the Democrats proposed a $5 million exemption?
And if you think those percentages are too small, and that increasing them would help, what shoud have been done about it, and by who?
Put another way,
Think of all the things movement conservatives have had to abandon on their way to power:
-Abolition of the Departments of Education, Health and Human services, Transportation etc.
-Elimination of Medicare.
-Reduction in the size of govt. (ha!)
I mean for crying out loud, their leader just passed a medicare prescription drug benefit and civil unions for gays is now a centrist position held by 2/3s of the electorate.
Incomparison, having to couch our vision in religious language, embrace muscular (liberal) interventionism abroad and emphasize work and savings as a means of helping the poor is a tiny price this liberal-bleading-heart atheist is happy to pay.
Per Jonas, this is not “going on the offensive.” Going on the offensive is putting it in the party platform. It’s mentioning it “out loud”
Frankly, putting it in the party platform would have the same effect as writing it on a note, stuffing the note in a bottle, corking it and tossing the bottle into the middle of the North Atlantic.
Perhaps a few hardcore political junkies might read it but that’s about it.
As an illustration, take a gander at the Texas GOP Platform of 2000. This was the platform endorsed by George Bush when he ran as a “compassionate conservative.”
It is the platform crafted and dictated by the current House Majority Leader.
Take a look and then tell me party platforms carry some visible and overriding message to the electorate.
Just encase our vision in the same christian moral veneer…
See, I have a real problem with that although I agree with you substantively. We don’t want a veneer of Christianity because, let’s face it, people aren’t stupid about their religion; if we’re faking it, they’re going to know. What we need are people of faith who also believe what we believe, and who choose to cast our common message in their terms of faith.
Part of that, of course, requires the Dems en masse to not freak out quite so foolishly whenever people employ religious language in politics. Part of it is that we need to find a way to say “That’s not what I would have called it, but that’s exactly what I would have done” on both sides of the religious divide and not make it look like a horrific flip-flopping mushy-kneed liberal. And part of it requires a massive mobilization of local party operatives who are willing to go to these religious, conservative people and actually listen to what they want and respectfully point out that the world they want is more likely to come about with Democratic policies than Republican ones.
And the key component there is exactly what you said, Williestyle:
To me, being a lefty is about an abiding desire to stand up for the little guy, the outcast, minority, weak and poor.
Exactly.
Excellent points, WillieStyle. Political analysis for magazines and newspapers tend to be overly simplistic. I think the everyone-moving-to-the-right meme is one of those that can only be arrived at by disregarding that which doesn’t fit.
See, I have a real problem with that although I agree with you substantively. We don’t want a veneer of Christianity because, let’s face it, people aren’t stupid about their religion; if we’re faking it, they’re going to know.
Veneer is the wrong word. I simply meant enthusiasticaly advertise the fact that our agenda gells excellently with the beatitudes. “Let your light shine” and all that.
Ah, that makes sense WillieStyle. And yes, I’m in perfect agreement there.
I think the everyone-moving-to-the-right meme is one of those that can only be arrived at by disregarding that which doesn’t fit.
I think it’s fairly clear that political discourse (and thus politicians?) has moved significantly to the right over the past ten or twenty years, although of course I’m wary of formalizing the statement since notions of “right” aren’t necessarily uniform across either space or time. The notion that everyone is moving to the right, though, is clearly false (again, for a reasonably uniform notion of “right”), as witnessed by the election just passed.
Of course, I’m whacked out on Vicodin right now — yay oral surgery! — so what the heck do I know?
WillieStyle, liberals have ALREADY moved to the right. Remember welfare reform? DOMA? Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? There are no movement liberals. We’re all New Democrats now.
Veneer is the wrong word. I simply meant enthusiasticaly advertise the fact that our agenda gells excellently with the beatitudes. “Let your light shine” and all that.
I’ve got no problem with that. I’d be happy to take the same liberal values we touted this year and note that they stack up a lot better with Jesus than Dubya and his lot do.
Von, what your suggesting the Dems ought to have done with P.B.A. would have required something like a “Contract with America” kind of splash campaign outside of the normal legislative process. Dems introduce alternative versions of bills all the time, but they fail to get attention to them. In some cases, they are trying to get the word out and failing. In other cases, they also get outmaneuvered like they did on PBA. This gets to what JMM is talking about in terms of laying out an alternative agenda as a party of opposition, not one of obstruction.
“To me, being a lefty is about an abiding desire to stand up for the little guy, the outcast, minority, weak and poor.”
Yes, I like this too. But the emphasis on the ‘outsider’ can be overdone, and the sympathy can be unpleasantly selective (sympathy for the poor black guy; sneering at the nascar & country-music loving poor white guy). And while the Dems have policies that are more “for the people” they haven’t had candidates (Gore, Kerry) who seem especially “of the people”. The Dems don’t need to move to the right on policy but they don’t need to move to the left either (at least in terms of what it takes for electoral success).
Policy per se is not the issue but what has been crucial to the right is how they have developed a popularized version of a bigger right wing philosophical/policy vision. Limbaugh, O’Reilly, “It’s your money!”, etc. Progressives need to find ways to defend progressive taxation, for instance, in response to flat tax visons of fairness. But while there are philosophical defences of liberal views of progressive taxation what is lacking is some practical connection between these philosophical justifications and appealing popular expressions of them. Ultimately we need to find a whole set of popular easily expressed phrases that serve as shorthand for more developed philosophical positions — we need the liberal equivalents of “it’s your money” and “death tax” and so on. The right really understand (as one might perhaps predict) that a view has to be *sold*. But we need some more regular folk (or at least people who can connect with regular folk) doing the sales for our side.
WillieStyle, liberals have ALREADY moved to the right. Remember welfare reform? DOMA? Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? There are no movement liberals. We’re all New Democrats now.
Welfare reform? Dude I’m a broke black guy and I don’t see welfare reform as moving to the right per se. The point is to help the poor. If we help ’em better by getting them to work so be it. Moving to the right would be embracing the Hooverian attitude that the government has no business helping the poor at all.
DOMA? In 4 years we’ve gone from anti-sodomy laws in multiple states to civil unions for gay couples being a centrist position held by 2/3’s of the electorate. Think about that for a second. I think liberalism is progressing just fine even if we Dems don’t always benefit.
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? Again, this wasn’t moving to the right. We went from “We will ask, you must tell and we’ll kick your sodomite butt to the curb” to “Don’t ask don’t tell”. Progress that’s slower than we’d like is still progress.
Awesome, Willy. Although pragmatic conservative thought might dictate that it’s far better to enable others to become self-sufficient than it is to do nothing at all, and have multiple problems to deal with. We can’t all find that hidden utopian valley and become master craftsmen, now, can we?
But that was another thread.
In 4 years we’ve gone from anti-sodomy laws in multiple states to civil unions for gay couples being a centrist position held by 2/3’s of the electorate.
This was the doing of two courts in Vermont and Massachusetts, not the bold work of Democrats deciding to lead with their hearts. The guy Von would put in charge of the party wanted Kerry to come out in favor of banning gay marriage on a state level and against civil unions. THAT is “moving to the right,” and it’s selling your soul for political purposes, and what’s more, IT WON’T WORK. The more Democrats chase the Republicans to the right, the more Republicans will simply outflank them.
What we need is to articulate our values, not to run away from them.
Welfare reform? Dude I’m a broke black guy and I don’t see welfare reform as moving to the right per se. The point is to help the poor. If we help ’em better by getting them to work so be it.
This is a stupid strawman and you know it. “Welfare reform” was a position of the right since before Reagan; Clinton famously co-opted it. And I haven’t seen much convincing evidence that it HAS helped the poor.
And the number of gays that were kicked out of the military DRAMATICALLY INCREASED under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Please get your facts straight.
oldies but goodies:
“Liberty and justice for all.”
“We can do better.”
2006 midterm special:
“end one party rule.”
If there’s nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the Universe
Wake up people. If the democratic party has any faults, the single fault that dwarfs all others in the way that the planet Jupiter dwarfs the planet Mercury is the fault of self flagellation. I’m certainly not saying that our…
To me, being a lefty is about an abiding desire to stand up for the little guy, the outcast, minority, weak and poor.
To me, that’s what being a caring person, regardless of politics is about. You claim that ground for the left and you tick off people from the center or right who think the same about themselves and give them a reason not to look more closely. Plus, no matter how much they “are” of one of those groups, pride has an effect too. So, the same person reads from one party that he’s stupid for not supporting the D’s cause they’re working for his economic interests and from another party that he’s smart for voting for the R’s because they’re worlking to save the world from terror, which lever will be pulled? The one labeled “I need help, get me some from others” or the one labeled”others need help and you’ll be helping keep us safe at home”?
The right really understand (as one might perhaps predict) that a view has to be *sold*. But we need some more regular folk (or at least people who can connect with regular folk) doing the sales for our side.
Funny, I pointed this out on a thread a while back and was greeted with derision about how my vote could be had through a slick sales job. Sure made me want to look closer at the D side I’ll tell ya. This is what many of us were telling our Dem friends. Calling people stupid or greedy or crazy, rather than adressing an issue (different for different people) that was completely legitimate in their minds does a pretty good job at both lowering the desire to look closer at the D’s and the possibility of earning any cross-over salespeople to, well, cross-over.
Funny too that my wife works at one of the best ad agencies on the planet here in SF. Screaming Dems the lot of them, bought out a theater and gave everyone time off to go see F911. Did they get a single call from the DNC to work on ads? Guess.
Of course, I’m whacked out on Vicodin right now — yay oral surgery! — so what the heck do I know?
You and me both brotha, no fun having bone drilled huh? Take it easy and take that “other” med they prescribed too so it all comes out OK in the end 😉
Right, it’s a shame. The Dems are the ones who are not “reality-based” on this issue.
It’s similar to when you emphasize the importance of the candidate being able to connect with average Americans and you are told that this is an obsession with personality. It is a matter of personality but not just in some derogatory sense of that word (though one can hardly underestimate personality if one wants to win in this soundbite, celebrity obsessed culture – you won’t win by acting as if we live in some rational utopia). It’s a matter of emotional intelligence and knowing how to identify with people: not just policies, facts, reasons and arguments. In fact, I submit we have just been given unarguable proof of the fact that it is not just about having the best arguments. (Again, clearly, this is not to say we should not care about them.)
Are there any decent potential midwestern candidates? I’m convinced the next Rove-style goal will be to turn the midwest into the next South.
In fact, I submit we have just been given unarguable proof of the fact that it is not just about having the best arguments.
No, it is that the GOP largely controls the media. That’s the takeaway.
Let’s be clear: George Bush doesn’t drip with charisma. In fact, to the extent he attempts to “connect” with the electorate–it is under highly-scripted and tightly-controlled circumstances. Under any other circumstance, his handlers probably pop Xanax like M&Ms, waiting for ther trainwreck.
Yet, he presents the perception of ‘connecting.’ How? Skillful use of the media. Setting expectations so abysmally low that when he doesn’t foul up it looks as if he’s the Second Coming. Handlers and other surrogates who constantly tell apocryphal stories of George W. Bush–regular guy.
Oh, we have a problem alright and it starts with the midterms in 2006.
Navel gazing is fine sport but at some point we have to snap out of it and re-focus our efforts on the future.
Wining the presidency would have been nice but frankly the office is overrated and GWB has a ‘mandate’ only because he has Congress and that is where the real power of the people resides and especially in the senate.
In 2006 a number of vulnerable democratic senators are up for re-election together with several moderate republicans. These are sure to be Rove and GWB’s targets in their efforts to build the thousand year reich and they will necessarily be ours too.
Imagine a Senate with republicans taking the seats of the two Nelsons of FL and NB, Conrad, and Byrd, together with fire-eating republicans replacing Lugar, Snowe, Chaffee and Jeffords. Not a nice thought is it?
This is a good post and thread.
We, the Dems, must do whatever it takes to win. Period.
That can be done on many parallel tracks. We can, in fact, have one track that earnestly and honestly articulates our policy goals and another track that viciously and savagely eviscerates the opponent. We can have a candidate who kisses all the right babies and speaks a language to a certain part of the electorate and we can have a chief political strategist who ruthlessly gets out every vote by whatever devisive and wicked means necessary. We too can be sincere, compassionate, ruthless, liars and cheaters and be right on the issues. I wanna win.
I’m with Jonah Cord and others: we’re too nice.
Let’s take abortion, for example. Personally, I’m moderately pro-choice if that’s O.K. with everyone. I am pro-choice but would hope abortion is rare and not used as a mere convenience. Whether a foetus is human life or not is a ridiculous discussion to me: it is.
But I realize my definition of convenience may not jibe with the convenience of others in the real world.
I also know for certain that women of child-bearing age are human life. I absolutely will draw the line at Tom Delay’s “no exception” position, which is NOT a negotiating position. If a candidate like Coburn can utter his “execute abortion doctors” rhetoric (which is NOT mere rhetoric) to secure his base and win then we can run candidates who keep a list of women murdered by Tom Delay and Tom Coburn and their policies, should they get their way. And we can call in our campaigns for the execution (under the rule of law, of course) of doctors who refuse to save those women’s lives and politicians who have created the conditions for their murders. And we can energize an angry, dangerous base to place us in office.
Moderate goals, radical means.
Now, I’m not particularly sanguine about the Red Staters being punished politically for crossing some line, as Von is. I think we’re dealing with people (enough for a majority) who are uncompromising ideologues who eat their own (Spector) and are rewarded for it. Many believe they do God’s work. If, in fact, George Bush and his religious base (heck, most are pleasant people) believe as they do on this issue, then there is no political appeal to their actions in a Republic. My vote doesn’t count. Only God’s and Osama’s.
The libertarian wing of the Republican Party, all nice people, go along with this stuff because they might get their taxes cut and get some justices appointed to the Supreme Court who might overturn RoevWade, doggone it, but who might also eviscerate (a disaster in my opinion) much of the Federal government’s responsibilites going back to 1932.
That cannot be permitted to happen.
But remember, Karl Rove didn’t thank God or Osama for this election. He looked in the mirror and thanked that ruthless manipulator.
So, by all means Liberals, Let’s get God on our side, Osama on their side, and get it any way we can.
But then I’m always too negative. But Richard Vigurie was depressed for a time, too, and then got everything he wanted.
P.S. My generalizations have numerous exceptions,
of course. Everyone here, for starters. You’re nice; Tom Delay ain’t nice. So spare me the outrage. I know who my enemies are. The rhetorical terms for this war we’re in are not set by me or anyone here. I think we all know who set the terms; again, with the generalizations. 😉
John Thullen: Two words: media infrastructure.
Build it and they will come.
Look, the message Dems are selling is fine–and supported by a clear majority of Americans. We have no shortage of admirable candidates. And we have the political strategists to do the wet work that are the equal of (and sometimes surpass) GOP counterparts.
What we don’t have: a major network that is an arm of the DNC, any meaningful presence on cable, next to nothing on commercial radio, and precious few think tanks willing to echo chamber the Dem message.
To me, being a lefty is about an abiding desire to stand up for the little guy, the outcast, minority, weak and poor.
Williestyle (you poor, broke black grad student you ;)).
If that’s a lefty, then I’m in. One of the reasons I don’t vote Dem, is they wish to use the hammer of the law to do that, which invariably is the wrong mechanism.
The better way is churches, private charities and personal intervention. Persuade and recruit to make the world better for the poor, and everyone else, don’t threaten and bully (which the law always does).
We don’t disagree over goals, but over methods. Compassion is not something a government can have. Only people can be compassionate.
“Compassion is not something a government can have. Only people can be compassionate.”
So we should give up at a policy level by e.g. not funding job-retraining programs and transportation credits, and instead hope “churches, private charities and personal intervention” will be inspired by that decision to suddenly start fixing things?
You and me both brotha, no fun having bone drilled huh? Take it easy and take that “other” med they prescribed too so it all comes out OK in the end 😉
Oh yes. Right with you, brotha. I’ll raise a glass to you tomorrow once I’m off the injured list 😉
spc67:
“The better way is churches, private charities and personal intervention.”
How come that didn’t work for so many during the first 80 million years of history? Not that government intervention works too much better, but I’ll take the marginal improvement. And I’m all for for charity, personal intervention, and religious freedom.
On the other hand, Tuesday is garbage pick-up day in my neighborhood. I’ve decided to throw it all out on the lawn from now on. I doubt any personal intervention, charitable outreach, or religious intervention is going to persuade me otherwise. And my compassionate, neatnik neighbors better not send that threatening, bullying government over to do their dirty work.
How come that didn’t work for so many during the first 80 million years of history?
Uhhhh… you want to maybe rework that statement? Even under more realistic interpretations (e.g. 8000 years?) you still need to be more chary in your generalizations; as written, that’s just, well, wow.
What’s up spc, long time no see.
How’s Hawaii treatin’ you?
The better way is churches, private charities and personal intervention. Persuade and recruit to make the world better for the poor, and everyone else, don’t threaten and bully (which the law always does).
We don’t disagree over goals, but over methods. Compassion is not something a government can have. Only people can be compassionate.
Two objections to that my good man:
1) The government is just another tool for collective action. Collective action is critical for civilization to function and sadly, at a large enough scale, it cannot be entirely voluntary. But if we gave everyman a veto life would be hobbesian indeed. My biggest quarrel with libertarianism is that it fails to see the good in democratic cooperation. Not every majoritarian measure lies on the road to serfdom. The rawlsian social contract can be a beautiful thing.
2) My second objection is less philosophical and more pragmatic. The fact is we don’t have these discussions in a vaccum. We have thousands of years of civilization and hundreds of years of democracy to draw upon. And it’s rather clear to me that the record of states that relied solely on charity to deal with the poor has been pretty dreadful. Old people really did die in the streets. Poor farmers really did eat hay. Bright poor kids really did go their entire lives without a realistic chance of attending college. And ones standing in life was dictated almost entirely by that of ones father. This was true of pre-new-deal America and pretty much anywhere else you care to mention. Kindly show me a state where government intervention wasn’t needed to eliminate these ills.
Oh and as a pre-emptive rebutal to the classic laissez-faire example: there’s siginificant gov’t intervention in Singapore too 😉
Anarch:
You’re right, of course. But then I’m a guy who thought the scene of Woody Allen and another guy slipping and falling 26 times on an impossibly large banana peel in “Sleeper” was more hilarious than one guy slipping on one of those little reality-based banana peels.
Incidentally, speaking of the our horrid bully of a government, if my tax dollars are to be funneled through churches, I hope I’m not bullied into going along with that.
And when do I get my tax refund for the abuse and murder and Abu Gharib. I want it back…. now! I refuse to pay for evil. Bullies.
spc67:
I really do hope you consider and compromise with WillieStyle’s eloquent words.
Otherwise, let the horrific government bullying begin.
Smiley face, spc67.
You know, my government teachers tried to bully me into spelling “Abu Ghraib” correctly, but with me it’s the principle of the thing.
One of the reasons I don’t vote Dem, is they wish to use the hammer of the law to do that, which invariably is the wrong mechanism.
The better way is churches, private charities and personal intervention.
Then there’s George “Third Way” Bush, who wants to use the hammer of the law to take money from my paycheck, then give it to churches. (Who by the way don’t have to abide by any Federal job-protection laws when they take that tax money.) If it’s all the same to you and to him, if you’re going to take it anyway, just give it directly to the poor people, please.
I object to the question even more than I object to the answer.
Why has the country moved right? Because the Repubs were able to (a) take control of some major media operations, so that they could get their message out there, and (b) had a clear message that they wanted to get out there, and that resonated with some people.
The Dems need to do both of the above also. They need to figure out their message, and get it heard. The fact that they managed to win 49% percent of the vote this time around without doing either is pretty damn good.
There is no necessary reason for the country to be moving to the right. It is moving to the right because the Dems aren’t giving any real alternative.
Move right, move left — doesn’t matter. But GET A MESSAGE, for crying out loud. How hard is that?
I don’t actually buy the “too nice” argument – I’m far too bad of a Democrat for that, I suppose.
Take the example of the partial-birth abortion ban. Most Democrats had the reasonable proposal, that is in accordance with the majority of Americans beliefs – that Abortion should be legal but restricted in common-sense ways. Meanwhile, Republicans have the “never” position on Abortion – that’s extreme.
So why did Kerry managed to get painted at the out-of-the-mainstream with values guy on Abortion?
The hardened, political cynic in me says that parts of the pro-choice base would not accept that position. So he couldn’t constantly beat Republicans over the head with it without pissing off the base. Meanwhile, Democrats really are terrified to say anything out of the mainstream, even when they’re right. So they shut up -instead of making a principled argument people could understand, and hopefully be persuaded by.
I’m not saying it’s time to play dirty – we already have (see “draft”) and everybody else does anyhow. It’s a tactic, not a strategy, and one I’m not convinced has a long-term future.
P.S. Whatever party manages to shirk off their base in favor of the median voter is likely to have the thousand-year reich alluded to previously. The bases of both parties are completely out of the mainstream. If we Democrats aren’t careful, it will be the Republicans who do this first – as they do not seem to have any viable candidates for 2008 who are not at least social moderates.
As I said, Jonas, work on many tracks. They’ll all be needed to win. You are not a “bad” Democrat.
Shout principled arguments from the rooftops unlike the current crop of timid Dems. But you’ll need the ruthless Dems, too, if there are any. Be an attractive candidate; let others demonize the opponent. It worked for George W. Bush.
Then you get to run the government and carry out the policies that follow from principled arguments.
But you may have to surround yourself with the ruthless again to threaten things like changing “cloture” rules and such to implement your principled policies.
Arlen Spector was not intimidated by cogent, principled argument last week. He was threatened.
The big tent is a big lie the day after the election.
I’m saying, fine, whatever works.
Let’s all start playing that game. It’s fun.
I intend to be the next to last person standing so you can be the last person standing.
By the way, Jonas, I have a feeling we talk past each other, despite major agreement.
My fault, because of the manner of my presentation. Think Socrates meets Don Rickles. Not that I’m either, but humor me.
I really hate it when someone agrees with me 😉
Threadis interrruptus.
So what’s with the porn spam newly arrived on threads from back in July?
I notice Brad Delong having the same problem recently.
Ha! I do that too. Can’t leave well enough alone… if someone agrees with me for the “wrong” reasons.
Again, you’re right to point out the problems with the Republicans. I’m not sure the big tent can survive with all the power they now have. No more excuses – they have to put out for their interests groups – which are in conflict with each other and the general public.
And it’s rather clear to me that the record of states that relied solely on charity to deal with the poor has been pretty dreadful.
WillieStyle’s point is a strong one. Where are those societies that have successfully taken care of their poor and weak through churches and other private charities? What evidence do we have that this would work, that it could work in today’s society or any likely future society?
It sounds like Spc67 is arguing that the best way to to achieve a semblance of social justice is to have a moral revolution– for everyone to become much more caring and giving and charitable (or, if not everyone, at least a great many people).
But how likely is it that such a moral revolution will occur? And until it does, if it ever does, what do we do? Let the poor and the weak suffer and die for our sins and our selfishness? Perhaps that’s the right thing to do– perhaps that’s the only realistic thing to do if you are convinced that government intervention is inherently ineffective or immoral. But let’s call a spade a spade– taking the government out of the social welfare business means that Grandma is out on the street selling apples. Let’s not deceive ourselves about the likely efficacy of private charity.
Where are those societies that have successfully taken care of their poor and weak through churches and other private charities? What evidence do we have that this would work, that it could work in today’s society or any likely future society?
No less a liberal than Bill Bennett (of Book of Virtues and Drawing Into An Inside Straight: Please, Jesus fame) has stated private charities and churches can’t come close to meeting the charitable needs in this country.
The naive, technocratic enthusiasm for government solving our social ills here is rather disheartening. Long ago I realized that any hope for vastly improved conditions in society will come through the efforts and committment of society, not the government.
Using the political system as the means is, on an individual basis, the least efficient way of spending ones time. Every time I have tried to achieve something that would improve my community, and it involved politics, it turned out to be a complete waste of my time, effort and money. Every time I put my resources into a non-political effort, I made more of a difference than my tax dollars ever will.
No, it’s not time to dismantle government programs. But to settle for the mediocre yet huge achievements of the government will not remedy societies ills – and often, it creates new ones. It’s time to acknowledge this and start making progress.
off topic:
when everyone says the country’s divided worse than they remember, I tend to remember the 1960s and think “you know, we’re not killing each other over this”.
that’s still true, but apparently we’re now killing ourselves.
link here. Needless to say, there is nothing President Bush could conceivably have done to this young man or his family that is worse than what he just did to himself and to them. (Also needless to say, even that much was vanishingly unlikely.)
von: Semantics and procedure are your friends here. You support “civil unions” that are “legislated,” not “gay marriages” dictated by “activist judges.”
You mean the same semantics that are being used to defend now-defunct segregationist provisions of the Alabama state constitution? From where I stand, “activist judges” sounds like an epithet that is only useful to those who wish to demonize the judicial branch for protecting minority rights and to provide a veneer of respectability to positions that promote inequality. That term will become my friend around the same time as “radical homosexual agenda” and “sodomite lobby”.
It sounds like Spc67 is arguing that the best way to to achieve a semblance of social justice is to have a moral revolution– for everyone to become much more caring and giving and charitable
I think you are giving him too much credit. If a liberal made the argument, “I believe in a strong national defense. I care about our national security. But I think we should cut the military budget to zero and leave defense to churches, private charities and personal intervention, instead of using the hammer of law”, conservatives would not accept that as a valid, or even coherent, argument – and certainly not the argument of someone who cared about national security.
We already know what the society spc67 is advocating looks like – it’s called Dickensian London.
The better way is churches, private charities and personal intervention. Persuade and recruit to make the world better for the poor, and everyone else, don’t threaten and bully (which the law always does).
First, welcome back spc67! I haven’t seen you in ages; it’s good to know (assume?) you’re doing well.
Second, could you clarify something for me: does this criticism you’re making here apply only to the social net, i.e. to ensuring that the weak, the misfortunate and the destitute are adequately cared for, or is this a criticism of government in general?
Using the political system as the means is, on an individual basis, the least efficient way of spending ones time. Every time I have tried to achieve something that would improve my community, and it involved politics, it turned out to be a complete waste of my time, effort and money. Every time I put my resources into a non-political effort, I made more of a difference than my tax dollars ever will.
Sure, no doubt. But the point of government is to address the things that people are unable (or incredibly unlikely) to address with individual action.
To take just one example: most, I think, would be in agreement that it’s good to have national parks. Now, which would be a more efficient and viable way of creating a national park system– having the big bad bully government say “yo, hands of these great swaths of land” or trying to assemble a consortium of individual landowners who will voluntarily agree to make their land off limits for the good of the country? You tell me.
Government is not an ideal tool, but it’s a useful tool– it accomplishes things which history and common sense suggest can’t or won’t be accomplished through the independent effort of individuals.
Of course it fails in many respecst. But at least some of its failures can be addressed through reform and through good-faith research. I feel that government can be improved. I am not so confident that human nature can or will be improved– and I don’t think we should wait for a massive revolution in invidivual consciences to start trying to address the injustice, the suffering and the harms that exist in the world.
You say it’s “naive” to expect great good to come from government, rather than “society” (whatever that is). I think what’s naive is the idea that individual efforts are likelier to able to create a relatively just society than prudent government action will.
I wrote: “In fact, I submit we have just been given unarguable proof of the fact that it is not just about having the best arguments.”
Reply: “No, it is that the GOP largely controls the media.”
Hmmm. Think about it.
Anyway, I take the ultimate point of Jadegold’s reply to be that it is not just about having a candidate who can connect but rather how the media shows the person as connecting (or not). There’s obviously a considerable amount of truth in this. But given how the right wing machine uses social class so effectively in their anti-liberalism there is a kind of silliness in the Dems not acknowledging that it might be a bad idea to go with candidates who can so easily be spun as emotionally reserved, know-it-all-seeming, aloof etc. Of course, the reality is that we had 2 blue-blood bonesmen to choose between. But the Dems will counter the culture/class card a lot better if they pick some candidates who are more representaive of the average American — or who at least (as W undeniably does) can transcend his class background better than, say, a Gore or a Kerry. Dems might not like to hear this but part of learning from this election involves learning the right lessons (even if unwelcome to some).
BTW, as a Brit, I’m fascinated by the class dynamic in all this. Thought you guys didn’t have classes (ho ho).
74% of Bush supporters believe Bush supports putting labor and environmental standards into trade agreements, something Bush opposes. 72% of Bush supporters believe he supports signing the land mine treaty, which Bush opposes. 69% of Bush’s supporters believe he supports signing the nuclear test ban treaty, which Bush opposes. The majority of Bush supporters believe Bush supports participation in the International Criminal Court, which Bush opposes. The majority of Bush supporters believe he supports signing the Kyoto protocol, which Bush opposes.
Majorities of Bush supporters also support all these things, and they falsely assume Bush does as well.
One can not run on issues in such a situation. An activist, skeptical, and honest press might help, but one does not exist. A seperation between the executive branch and corporate interests might help, but one does not exist.
What exists is the merging of corporate, political, media, and religious interests into one unified bloc. Anyone familiar with the history of the 20th century should have a clear idea regarding what happens next.
But given how the right wing machine uses social class so effectively in their anti-liberalism there is a kind of silliness in the Dems not acknowledging that it might be a bad idea to go with candidates who can so easily be spun as emotionally reserved, know-it-all-seeming, aloof etc.
The GOP media machine is going to attack whoever the Dems run as a candidate; they did it in 1992 when they sought to portray Bill Clinton as a hick of low birth from a backward Southern state. Earlier, the same was done to Jimmy Carter: peanut farmer with Green Acres-style relations.
As an illustration of the power of this media machine, let’s look at the fact 72% of Bush’s supporters believe Saddam had WMDs despite the Kay and Duelfer Reports and the small inconvenience we haven’t found any. A good analysis is found here.
Long ago I realized that any hope for vastly improved conditions in society will come through the efforts and committment of society, not the government.
All fine and dandy. Now all you have to address is why we haven’t seen ‘vastly improved conditions in society.’
After all, there’s really nothing stopping society from making the requisite efforts and commitments independent of government efforts.
Williestyle and those others of goodwill,
Life is good on my island blue state (damn).
Private organizations couldn’t step into the government’s role immediately no. And my solution DOES involve a moral revolution of sorts. We have to stop EXPECTING the gov’t to be all things to all people. We have to stop handing over our responsibilities for our fellow citizens to others, especially to our clumsiest, least efficient organization.
So what’s the answer? How about this?
Over 20 years we gradually lower the income tax burden to near zero. In each one of those ten years, we each have to contribute what we would have paid in income taxes today to a charity of our choice. So each year we’d pay less in taxes and give more to charity.
Over that 20 year period several things would happen. New charitable institutions would spring up and compete for our dollars. We citizens would become accustomed to a higher level of charitable giving and we’d spend time determining which charities were doing the most worthy work and the best job. We’d also have more and more of our neighbors involved in charities, and fewer and fewer involved in the gov’t. We’d build up lots of social pressure to get more involved in our communities and passing the buck would become less and less acceptable.
At the end of 20 years, we cease requiring the charitable giving. Then we find out what kind of people we really are. I’m willing to bet we’d have a better nation.
If I’m wrong? Then we deserve a revolution. But I am unwilling to continue policies that buy social stability at the expense of a permanent underclass. The Great Society has failed. Time to try another way.
I am open to negotiation on length of time etc.
Unfortunately I think this can only apply to social issues. There are things only gov’t can do (no matter how badly they do it) military, police, fire and perhaps education.
There are things only gov’t can do (no matter how badly they do it) military, police, fire and perhaps education.
Most of these things have been in the private realm at some point or another – firefighting in New York during the mid 1800s, for example.
You advocate returning welfare completely to the private realm, as it once was with disastrous results. Why not also return fire protection completely to the private realm, as it once was with disastrous results?
“The GOP media machine is going to attack whoever the Dems run as a candidate; they did it in 1992 when they sought to portray Bill Clinton as a hick of low birth from a backward Southern state. Earlier, the same was done to Jimmy Carter: peanut farmer with Green Acres-style relations.”
Yes, all Dem candidates will be attacked. But think of the costs of such an attack for the Repubs. And notice something else that Carter and Clinton have in common? (3 guesses.)
You advocate returning welfare completely to the private realm, as it once was with disastrous results. Why not also return fire protection completely to the private realm, as it once was with disastrous results?
I promised I would only respond to those of goodwill, but in your case I’ll make an exception .
1) Current approach is a disaster, you propose continuing it? I won’t support the buying off of a permanent underclass in the name of social stability.
2) Our nation is considerably wealthier than ANY society in history, giving should be easier. Let’s just forego the third TV and second VCR.
Dan: We agree; all Dem candidates will be attacked.
I guess I’m not getting your larger point–are you suggesting we need to only field candidates who, despite being born into families of great wealth and privilege, must act like cowboys and anti-intellectual buffoons?
Gotta reject that; basically it’s an admission we’ve got to dumb down to appeal to the electorate. Again, this is a function of the GOP-controlled media that: a.) allows someone coming from the bluest of the blue-blood elite to pretend he’s just a ranch hand from his ranch recently bought in 2000; and b.) promotes the notion intelligence and intellect are undesirable while mangling the English language is the highest trait we should seek in our leaders.
“are you suggesting we need to only field candidates who, despite being born into families of great wealth and privilege, must act like cowboys and anti-intellectual buffoons?”
Well, no, the hope was that we might be able to field candidates who aren’t born into great wealth and privilege. And, either way, there are ways of being smart that don’t rely on wearing one’s learning quite so heavily on one’s sleeve (hence standing for intelligence but distancing oneself from intellectual and cultural elitism). This is what one needs in a candidate for democratic election, especially one who is running to help those who haven’t had a privileged education and barely have time to keep track of the regular (and appallingly bad) news. It’s got to be kept simple.
1) Current approach is a disaster, you propose continuing it? I won’t support the buying off of a permanent underclass in the name of social stability.
2) Our nation is considerably wealthier than ANY society in history, giving should be easier. Let’s just forego the third TV and second VCR.
Setting aside point 1 for a moment, let’s take on spc67’s second point.
First, I’d quibble that our nation is wealthier on a per capita basis. Second, I think spc67 underestimates wht is needed to bridge the gap of social needs.
The average (since 1987) household contribution to charity (in 1998 constant dollars) is just over $1000.
The average percentage of households (since 1987) contributing to charity is about 70%.
Just doing back of the envelope calculations, this means the average household (assuming a continued 70% participation) would have to contribute about $10,000.
That’s a pricey TV and VCR. Must be one of those plasma models with the home theater.
Of course, this rough analysis doesn’t include demographic issues; i.e.; need doesn’t match location, etc. And it doesn’t include the fact that most charitable giving in the US is to those charities (churches, synagogues, parochial schools, universities, Ys, colleges, etc.) the donors themselves use.
The flip side of this equation that having the government do something discourages people from taking direct action themselves. Individual action is a bit of a misnomer here – I’m talking about collective actions of consenting individuals.
Your government National Park system is only efficient and viable if you completely neglect the massive costs involved in getting the juggernaut of government to do what you’d like it to do. Meanwhile, every candidate who doesn’t care about National Parks puts the entire thing in jeopardy, causing people to waste more time, money and effort keeping what you’ve achieved safe. Candidates that agree with your plan also cynically play up the threat to keep you sending them cash and giving your vote.
On the other hand, donating time and money to the Nature Conservancy would be a far more efficient, than let’s say, supporting a candidate based on this (quite sensible) public good. 14,345,000 acres protected in the United States alone; 116,241,700 worldwide – all voluntary action by private citizens. Meanwhile, if Kyoto had been written in a manner that would have given corporations credit for planting forests to offset C02, you’d have so many preserved parks you’d get sick of them, I’d bet.
The failures are never addressed. Reforms merely add new wrinkles and complications. The unaccountability of the political process combined with monopoly powers, competing special interests, and nearly unlimited funds just has does not add up to a well-functioning system.
You and I can not reform the system, without getting less results for our effort than we would otherwise. And the fact that individuals can not contribute their expertise, time, opinions without fighting entrenched interests is why this just isn’t anywhere near ideal.
The department here in NYC that provides homeless services pays slumlords $3000 a month to put up homeless people and families. Despite that pricetag, these no-longer homeless folks are not my neighbors here on Central Park West. Rather, scummy slumlords who are chummy with corrupt city officials kick out working families who can only pay about a quarter of that amount, making more homeless people. Meanwhile, I can’t walk down to City Hall and offer to find them some cheaper apartments, because citizens can not do something good to help without upsetting the whole, corrupt farce.
We need to build alternatives if we want real change. This is a wealthy and compassionate country, and there’s nothing stopping us if we change our priorities.
Prudent government action almost never happens. Individual efforts made the government possible in the first place and keeps it going – don’t forget that.
Jadegold,
I was speaking metaphorically (which you knew), as for your calculations, how would it work with no income tax burden?
Current approach is a disaster, you propose continuing it
The current approach is far better than the past approach, AKA Dickensian London, which is the past result of the policies you recommend. Now that was a real disaster, and you propose returning to the policies that produced it. Not a smart idea.
Our nation is considerably wealthier than ANY society in history, giving should be easier.
Ignoring the fact that the statement is strictly false on a per capita basis, the argument is equally as valid for such things as fire protection. Such things were in the private realm in the past (despite your argument that they are “things only gov’t can do”), and we are far wealthier as a nation than we were when this was true. You have made no argument whatsoever that would distinguish between welfare and the other items, such as fire protection, that you listed.
Nor have you made any substantive argument that I am not “of goodwill”, but I’ll have enough class not to pursue that one further for the moment.
On the other hand, donating time and money to the Nature Conservancy would be a far more efficient, than let’s say, supporting a candidate based on this (quite sensible) public good. 14,345,000 acres protected in the United States alone; 116,241,700 worldwide – all voluntary action by private citizens
Not quite. I am certainly a fan of the Nature Conservancy’s work, but your assertion that the results of that work are all voluntary acts by private citizens is not true.
A large part of the organization’s budget comes from government grants – up to 60% in some years. Second, you will find that while the Nature Conservancy claims to have “protected” the number of acres of land you cite, it actually owns only a small fraction of that land. The rest of the land was sold back to, you guessed it, the government, for use in parks, national reserves, etc. Apparently, in the vast majority of cases, even the Nature Conservancy feels the government can do a much better job of protecting land than it can.
After all, there’s really nothing stopping society from making the requisite efforts and commitments independent of government efforts.
You really do see our wallets as just never-ending money machines don’t you?
Why not also return fire protection completely to the private realm, as it once was with disastrous results?
Because no one could afford the required liability insurance…now that John Edwards is back on the prowl 😉
Not to mention that The Nature Conservacy is a pretty corrupt organization. Lots of self-dealing, some diagonal oil drilling, tax fraud, and so forth. Give to some other group.
Hi Spc67, hope I qualify as a person of goodwil…
Your idea is an interesting one, but I see a few monster drawbacks.
1. How would you restrict which charities qualified for these funds? This would be incredibly important– can you imagine the number of organizations that will be springing up to try to soak up this titanic infusion of money? The amount of misuse of funds and just plain scamming would likely be breathtaking. Who’s going to oversee things? The contributors? I don’t think most people are going to have the time or resources for effective oversight. To me it sounds like an absolute bonanza for hucksters.
2. Will there be any way to make sure the funds are distributed rationally? If not it seems likely that certain charities will draw far more money than they need for their mission, and other equally or more important ones will draw less. I don’t think we can count on market forces to make sure this system works, because people don’t act rationally when they are deciding how to give charitably (As was revealed by the deluge of blood donation after 9/11). This doesn’t mean that people aren’t well-meaning, just that their good intentions may not naturally move down very productive channels.
3. When you remove the mandatory charity requirement, there are going to be some serious effects. Some people will no doubt continue to give. It seems almost certain that many will not, or will scale back their levels of generosity dramatically. This will almost certainly mean an enormous and abrupt drop in social services, which will have drastic effects on the recipients of those services, and also on the large charity industry that will have developed over the preceding 20 years. Those effects seem likely to cause severe social and economic shock waves.
These are a few objections which popped into my head. I’m sure there are other valid ones. To me your system sounds like an unbelievable gamble which would be just as likely to lead to complete social collapse as to any positive change at all. Perhaps it could be tested on some small nation like Iceland. Trying it here seems foolhardy in the extreme.
Felixrayman,
See, why don’t we just put this money into the National Parks instead?
Why does the government pay a private charity to buy land that it buys the land back from? This is what I’m talking about guys.
Reminds me how apparently the government pays Americorps workers to build the houses that Habitat for Humanity used to have volunteers build. Hey, I got an idea if you want to build low cost housing… low cost contractors. It will never work!
I’m sure that it has nothing to bad to say about the government, now that I’ve learned it’s living off welfare…
Praktike,
I spoke too soon, apparently! But you see, at the very least, we as citizens are able to punish the organization – should we choose to – by withholding our money and time. When the government is self-dealing or oil drilling, well…
Jonas Cord and sp167 (you’re right, I’m running low on good will):
Your paragraph on the homeless in New York neglects this background: the homeless are homeless not only because of individual pathalogies or plain bad fortune but because employers and landlords decided to make these people homeless.
Enter your corrupt city government and now an idealistic vision of charity solving these problems.
How about this? Nip the problem in the bud by not firing people from their jobs and not permitting evictions, regardless of individual pathalogy. Now that would be a human and social transformation. Start the charity early.
Wait, that’s idealistic, too.
Re-enter your corrupt city government, which is corrupt because folks decide to make it that way. Re-enter charity. Which might help for awhile until employers and landlords fire and evict a new set of folks.
Let me rephrase a question I asked earlier on this thread or somewhere recently. During the first 80 million years of history (yeah, yeah, I know) why did individual volition fail to set aside National Parks? Certainly everyone had their chance. Nothing was stopping them. Then Teddy Roosevelt and the Federal government did it. Pretty well, too. Matter of opinion, I realize.
Same with funding charitable giving. NOTHING — no tax, no Federal or State policy — prevents charities, churches, or individuals from solving poverty, joblessness or homelessness completely… by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. Just as nothing stopped the same institutions from solving these problems for 150 years until, you know, the tiresome, inefficient government (I forgot, bullying, too) came along and did a pretty good job of it. As Bill Gates once pointed out.
You say you can’t because you have to pay taxes, and have nothing left over. There were no Federal taxes to speak of before early this century. Where did all that money go? Certainly not into eliminating poverty, homelessness, and chronic underemployment. Otherwise, folks would not have concluded, hey, let’s use government to improve the situation. And, by the way, churches don’t pay taxes, but we still have these persistent problems.
I generalize, of course. Much good was done then and is done now. By liberals and conservatives.
And by government.
See, why don’t we just put this money into the National Parks instead?
Because then we couldn’t play along with the charade that it was some sort of private capitalistic effort, now could we? We would all have to agree with the idea that preserving, undeveloped, some miniscule fraction of the country’s area was a goal worth pursuing, and we would have to agree that government, with it’s powers of eminent domain, was best suited to pursue that goal. But, since we don’t all agree with that, we get charades like the Nature Conservancy.
And, like I said, I’m a fan of the Nature Conservancy’s work, warts and all. Cascade Head would be condos and strip malls now if it wasn’t for them, and the fact that it isn’t is worth more than it cost, in my opinion. Although my utter lack of goodwill may admittedly influence my opinion.
Just for the record, the Nature Conservancy is making an attempt to deal with its problems.
Now on to our scheduled programming: About replacing government services with voluntary contributions, there are several standard reasons for not doing this. First, there are some things that only the government can provide, like a system of criminal law, fair market conditions, and so forth. (Broadly speaking, ‘the rules of the game’ which allow us all to play fairly.) Individual actors play according to the existing rules; they are often not in a position to create and enforce the rules themselves, nor is there any obvious reason to think that if they could, the rules they would create would be good ones (as opposed to those that benefitted the particular people who were in a position to make the rules, like those who control huge amounts of investment capital in a market that lacks the sorts of regulations that ensure fairness, like bans on insider trading; or the ‘criminal law’ as created and enforced by the mafia.)
Second, there are things that work much, much better when you don’t just rely on individual voluntary action because of the free rider problem: when you rely on individual actions that produce a benefit to everyone if most people do them, but that it makes sense to try to evade if you can, many people will evade this action, and thus everyone will forfeit the benefit. Example: trying to stop overfishing. It would be better for all fishermen if fisheries were not fished to the point of collapse, but it is in the interest of each individual fisherman that people generally should restrain themselves from catching too many fish, but that he should be the exception. Armies are arguably like this: it would in principle be possible to pay for an army through voluntary contributions, but everyone would have an incentive to avoid paying for it (since it’s hard to defend one person’s land without defending his or her neighbor’s land as well), and even if everyone did contribute one year, there would be no assurance that this would continue; and armies require predictable and reliable funding sources.
Then there are cases in which there are market failures: someone does something that exacts a cost on someone else, and this cost is not captured by the market. One standard example would be air pollution: if I run a factory that causes air pollution, and you live next door, it’s not clear that without some government intervention my asthma (which you caused) will be paid for by you, and thus it’s not clear that the market will efficiently allocate costs and benefits.
And finally, there are cases in which it’s just a lot easier to do things collectively. For instance, it would be possible for each and every one of us to test our food individually, rather than relying on agricultural inspectors, the FDA, etc., but why would we want to? In this case, I am perfectly happy to let the FDA do its job so long as it does it reasonably well.
The last group is, of course, expandable. I don’t really see why there should be a presumption against doing things through collective rather than individual action, absent some general argument about why government does things badly. (This doesn’t mean that I support a presumption in favor of government action; just a case by case assessment.)
Felixrayman,
The government is best suited to do this? I’d rather see the government and private charties doing this, thank you very much. I’m not the guy who is going to tell you we should privatize the National Parks – the government has them and it’s too late. I’d rather see a thousand flowers bloom here and have more than one institution to rely upon regarding the conservation of nature.
Hilzoy,
Your central argument is rather bizarre. You seem to have limited the two possible actions as individual versus collective, where collective can only happen via government. This is simply not the case. While any organization is likely not to encompass the entire population, there is no reason to think this should be the case for every last thing.
Every time you insist that a new program be done “collectively” on the government level, you do so over the objections of those who disagree, and this should be kept to an absolute minimum. For example, Public Radio & Television, something I enjoy and privately support, but I feel like an ass asking some guy in the stix to pay taxes so I can hear self-fascinated hipsters with nasal voices fill up airtime with quirky personal anecdotes.
I would prefer that I was allowed to take risks as I see fit, frankly. And would rather there were private standards organizations that I could listen to or ignore, rather than have to let politicans decide for me. Jews and Muslims already have food standards organizations that are reasonably trustworthy; I’d enjoy a selection of secular ones with a daring indulgence of unpasteurized dairy.
John Thullen,
I dare say this is not because of the magical powers of government, but because of unprecedented levels of weath and comfort that allowed such a luxury.
Let me put it this way – the poor in the 19th century spent something like 80% of their income on food. The poor today spend 20%. That’s survival we’re talking about, with not much of a margin to set aside pretty parks – and survival just gets more and more tenuous the further back in time you go.
Meanwhile, all of these glorious examples of government acts often had very private beginnings or lots of private, voluntary support. Next time I’m reading one of my New York City history books, I’ll be sure to take some notes so I can break out examples for everyone.
Half true! Every dollar you take away in taxes prevents the accumulation of wealth of an individual – who, with those dollars in his or her pocket, might of felt comfortable enough to think about charity. Maybe not. But heck, it’s also a dollar that prevents someone from getting ahead.
Certainly, nothing is standing in the way of charities from solving these problems. And that’s why it fascinates me, and where I’ll be spending my time, thoughts and efforts; as I’m convinced we can do better. And if you want to know why I won’t be trying to get the government to do it – well, because even if you disagree with what I think should be done – you nor anyone else can stop me. And that’s whats glorious about not being involved in the political mess.
The government is best suited to do this?
When eminent domain is required, yes.
I’d rather see the government and private charties doing this, thank you very much
Sure, we need all the help we can get. But in this particular instance, the private charity is actually partially, and sometimes almost completely, a government funded entity. And if you’re going to argue we need private (although mostly government funded) entities to buy up land and then turn around and sell that land, at a hefty markup, to the government, with the stipulation that the government turn it into a public park or wildlife refuge….you know, I ain’t a genius but I bet I could figger out how to cut an unnecessary step outta that process….
I’d rather see a thousand flowers bloom here and have more than one institution to rely upon regarding the conservation of nature.
Given that private institutions such as the Nature Conservancy turn around and sell 90% of the land they get ahold of to the government – because they believe the government can do a better job protecting it than they can – it seems that you are describing a distinction without a difference.
You really do see our wallets as just never-ending money machines don’t you?
Unlike you, I’m not psychic; I have no idea what, if anything, is in your wallet.
Apparently, you couldn’t be bothered to read the full context of my remarks. If you had, you’d see I was responding to Jonas Cord’s assertion the social ills of society can only be resolved by the “efforts and committment (sic)” of society. So, your quibble is really with him.
I merely pointed out (as have others) that if this assertion is true, there’s nothing preventing society from making the requisite commitments and efforts.
JakeV,
Good questions all. Would hucksterism be present? Yes. Like it is everywhere and always. But My approach would have the competitive market’s protections. What I mean is that distribution would take care of itself the same as it does in the world now for ordinary goods and services. There are very few places in the country where one doesn’t find a church, an auto mechanic, a food market etc. There is little reason to believe the same wouldn’t be true for charities. Asn the new charities would be competing for dollars and hence efficiency and evidence of success would be keys to keeping a particular operation going.
As for the end of 20 years? If you are correct, then we’d have a huge problem. I think you are wrong and I’m willing to bet on it.
Hilzoy,
Collective action doesn’t have to be limited to the government or legal requirement.
Whether I agree with your views or methods or not, Jonas, go for it. I would do nothing to prevent your good works.
But please don’t prevent me and others from using government to carry out our good works.
Taxes, you say. When I get my refund for murders at Abu Ghraib, you’ll get yours for stuff you don’t want to pay for.
Collective action doesn’t have to be limited to the government or legal requirement.
No, but as long as participation in the collective action is optional, then you potentially get the “free rider” problem that hilzoy described.
I would prefer that I was allowed to take risks as I see fit, frankly.
This is fine until a bad risk that you take ends up affecting others — e.g. if you contract some sort of communicable disease from insufficiently-tested food, or take a drug that makes you psychotic. There’s also the question of whether the population in general (many of whom, bear in mind, are not particularly smart) are capable of making good judgments about which sources of information to listen to and which risks to take.
“I would prefer that I was allowed to take risks, as I see fit”
Take them. You’re allowed.
Gather mushrooms, ignore FDA guidelines about the ones that cause the blurred vision, tingling feelings, and hallucinations, not to mention the death of your dinner guests.
I’d rather you not. But you’re allowed.
John Thullen,
Oh, it won’t be me preventing you. But others will. Which I why I merely ask that you consider that perhaps your good works would be better done outside of that mess, that’s all 🙂
I’ll be doing no such thing. To imply that the FDA only prohibits or regulates deadly poisons is an oversimplification.
kenB,
I don’t think private charity is a “tragedy of the commons” kind of thing. A charity supported by people voluntarily means that those who care about the charitable activity are putting their money and time where their mouth is. A government program means that you’re making people who don’t care or disagree with it pay for it anyways. Everyone who shrugs in the face of this isn’t being particularily respectful of his or her fellow citizens.
See, this view of the public as being stupid leads to even government action being doomed. If the government answers to the will of the people, and the people are dumb, where exactly does the impetus for sound, intelligent FDA policy come from? Not to mention that smart people everywhere will disagree wildly as to what is safe to eat and what isn’t.
If you can’t trust your fellow citizens to make decisions about their own well-being, well, you’re arguing for something other than democracy.
I don’t think private charity is a “tragedy of the commons” kind of thing.
I tend to disagree — poverty contributes to other social ills that potentially affect others, e.g. crime, panhandling, etc.; to the extent that charities ameliorate these, the benefit spreads to those who don’t contribute.
If the government answers to the will of the people, and the people are dumb, where exactly does the impetus for sound, intelligent FDA policy come from?
Remove “FDA” from your question and you have the problem of democracy in general. Does that mean that we should scrap the whole government in favor of private contracts?
kenB,
You aren’t particularily charitable, as you insist that any benefit done for society must be paid by everyone who enjoys it. Most people involved in charity are quite content to improve society, regardless of whether there are “free riders” who benefit without helping. Given that not everyone is going to see eye to eye on what precisely benefits society, I don’t have much of a problem with that at all.
Absolutely not. I don’t think people are dumb and policy decisions made upon that conclusion I find condescending.
Most people involved in charity are quite content to improve society, regardless of whether there are “free riders” who benefit without helping
And you know this … how? Do you have polling data to support it?
Absolutely not. I don’t think people are dumb and policy decisions made upon that conclusion I find condescending.
Policy decisions made based upon realistic expectations of people’s behavior I find wise.
If you are correct, then we’d have a huge problem. I think you are wrong and I’m willing to bet on it.
Just for the sake of argument, what’s your downside if you turn out to be wrong and hilzoy turns out to be right? A guilty conscience? BFD. Now, about the people whose actual, you know, lives you feel content to gamble with . . . you think they want you betting their survival?
KenB,
Because if I do something good for society, I tend to feel good about that, irrespective of whether others are forced to do so as well. You’re denying any impulse of altruism in human beings.
It is a realistic expectation that other people are going to do things that you consider to be “dumb.” Whether or not you presume to prevent them under the law is something else entirely, and something you should carefully examine given that no doubt many find your own behaviors, preferences and actions to be “dumb” and would like to proscribe your liberty accordingly.
Because if I do something good for society, I tend to feel good about that, irrespective of whether others are forced to do so as well.
You missed my point, which is that you’re stating a broad rule based only on your own feelings and experience. Do all other givers feel the same way? How do you know?
You’re denying any impulse of altruism in human beings.
You’ll have to show me where I did that.
Whether or not you presume to prevent them under the law is something else entirely, and something you should carefully examine
And you as well. You made a broad statement about individual liberty — my point is only that rather than making lyrical pronouncements about freedom, one should carefully consider the possible consequences of any given decision about whether to protect people from themselves or not, or to what extent. I believe that sometimes it’s justified, especially (but perhaps not exclusively) when the cost of an individual’s bad decisions is apt to be borne by others.
When you keep asking for polls and statistics to show that people enjoy doing charity irregardless of whether everyone else is forced to.
Freedom, to me, includes the ability to make a bad decision. How human beings can learn in an environment that precludes making mistakes is beyond me. Nevermind the near impossibility of the apparatus of government being just in determining what is a mistake and what is not.
And if the costs are because of our social programs or insurance – forget about it. Such things are the way we as a society share risk. To then say that then we must prohibit risk-taking is completely authoritarian.
Freedom, to me, includes the ability to make a bad decision.
Fine. But isn’t there some boundary where you’d expect Govt oversight–especially if the results of your bad decision(s) start to adversely affect others?
Only if my bad decision has a very clear relationship between that decision and the adverse affect. If I stupidly cut down a tree in my yard, and it falls on my neighbors garage and destroys it, I’m clearly adversely affecting others – mainly, my neighbor in this case.
If we’re talking about motorcycle helmets or something – absolutely not. The “adverse affect” to others would not have happened if someone doesn’t share an insurance plan with the helmetless motorcyclist, or the State hadn’t decided to pick up everyones bills. Neither of these reasons strikes me as sufficient for the infringement of liberty. Heck, neither the State nor the insurance policy should be covering such behavior if they find it that prohibitably expensive and reckless.
Hi — I did not mean, in my post last night, to assume that there were only two options, individual action and government action. I was addressing the question when it made sense to say that individual actions should replace government actions, which is why, at the outset, I said “About replacing government services with voluntary contributions…” I meant only to outline the kinds of cases in which that replacement might not make sense. Nor do I assume it’s the best way to deal with problems. I think it often is in e.g. my first case (setting up fair rules of the game for e.g. markets), but in general I think, as I said, that one should consider these things on a case by case basis, with no presumption one way or the other.
If we’re talking about motorcycle helmets or something – absolutely not. The “adverse affect” to others would not have happened if someone doesn’t share an insurance plan with the helmetless motorcyclist, or the State hadn’t decided to pick up everyones bills. Neither of these reasons strikes me as sufficient for the infringement of liberty.
So, in your libertarian utopia, we’d leave motorcyclists to die and rot on the median strips of our highways?
My bad…we wouldn’t have highways in the libertarian utopia.
Jadegold,
I’m not a libertarian, by the way. I usually start from that point, grapple with the problems and compromise. But no I am not advocating a self-inflicted Motorcyclist holocaust. Helmetless motorcyclists would likely pay through the nose for their danger-seeking behavior in insurance. Normal Motorcyclists would not.
Hey, don’t complain to me how hard it is to get around in the libertarian utopia 😉
Hilzoy,
Very well, I see. I’m not going to argue that government programs should be replaced by voluntary actions until such time it’s demonstrated that society is capable.
When you keep asking for polls and statistics to show that people enjoy doing charity irregardless of whether everyone else is forced to.
I notice that you didn’t quantify “people” this time. I wasn’t denying the existence of altruism, just asking you to defend your thesis that most people wouldn’t care how much anyone else might be giving. Somehow you construed that to mean that I thought no one felt this way, which is absolutely not the case. In general, I don’t categorically disagree with anything you said, I was just reacting to your tendency to make sweeping statements.
I try very hard to quantify and conditionalize my statements to avoid such situations, but evidently not hard enough. My sincerest apologies.