tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post3442248741450208494..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: "The Core of the Problem Lies With the Republican Party"Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-37762297096857185122012-05-02T20:31:50.743-05:002012-05-02T20:31:50.743-05:00I truly appreciate the civility on this blog, howe...I truly appreciate the civility on this blog, however, do not appreciate the condescension in this post re Sandra Fluke. Let's assume that she went before Congress to ask us to subsidize her Manolo Blahniks. If a man's very expensive shoes were being provided to all men, but women were told to buy their own - then yes, we should subsidize her shoes! The entire issue is that a need borne almost entirely by women (contraception or pregnancy/childbirth) is being discussed and "dismissed." Similar needs for men aren't even being questioned. Preventive services for men are covered, as well as "enhancement" for men's needs. But all women's preventive services are not being covered.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-45047784725673205452012-05-01T20:18:42.136-05:002012-05-01T20:18:42.136-05:00@CSH -- my guiding principle in teaching an intro ...@CSH -- my guiding principle in teaching an intro course is to make it seem as unhumiliating as possible to the students to make asses of themselves, in order that they may come away smarter. A main part of executing this is demonstrating my own willingness to say and do stupid things. So I can dig it.the classicisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08691196845661570282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-78109511758842011762012-05-01T20:00:44.558-05:002012-05-01T20:00:44.558-05:00@theclassicist - just came back for curiosity, but...@theclassicist - just came back for curiosity, but I take your point about Fluke and the pill. I admit I hadn't thought about it. Someday, in my perfect imaginary world where we all respect collective effort, either as a Hayekian backup plan or as something we really believe in, those considerations would be a fair part of the contraception conversation.<br /><br />What a bargain this place is. I can be something of an ass on occasion, and still I walk away smarter than I started. In how many contexts can you say that?CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-60502224172321385692012-05-01T19:22:17.710-05:002012-05-01T19:22:17.710-05:00The thread is definitely dead now, but in case you...The thread is definitely dead now, but in case you come back, CSH:<br /><br />(1) I keep not wanting to get into this, but okay, I'll say it: it really is a big deal that the pill means Sandra Fluke controls whether she gets pregnant, while other forms of contraception -- even forms that mostly involve her own body parts -- put her at the mercy of a sexual partner. That sexual partner might be lazy, or impatient, or not thinking clearly, or indifferent to SF's future, or violent. And suppose a woman didn't protest when a man said "no contraception" -- that decision in that moment should defeat her plans and intentions? Unless she has access to the pill, the answer is definitely yes. And that's why the pill is a part of basic health care.<br /><br />(2) Yes thanks for such an awfully good thread. I love that this is a place where we can get cranky without forfeiting the right to be treated as rational.the classicisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08691196845661570282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-60164406422766273792012-05-01T10:41:14.680-05:002012-05-01T10:41:14.680-05:00It may be the same dynamic, but the Greens - or ev...It may be the same dynamic, but the Greens - or even the super liberals - aren't RUNNING the Democratic party. You have a real, moderate large national party with actual power, battling an extreme fringe from a small party with very little power. It's not the same thing at all.KarenJGhttp://webfaerie.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-45873723891773392162012-05-01T06:28:41.795-05:002012-05-01T06:28:41.795-05:00They are winning some, but their reputation as an ...They are winning some, but their reputation as an invincible force is overstated. They have lost three out of the last five presidential elections, and control one part of Congress, wih demographics not on their side. In a country with rising racial minorities, and their base aging out, time is not their friend. The 2010 elections were an anomoly caused by bad economic times. They remind me of the Soviet Union in the 1980s: much feared, but fragile. If they were dealt a few haymakers in the next few elections, we might be surprised at how far they fall.Lindanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-5814921038280257602012-04-30T20:09:32.863-05:002012-04-30T20:09:32.863-05:00CSH,
No hurt feelings here. I think that the onl...CSH,<br /><br />No hurt feelings here. I think that the only way to deal with issues is to lay them out seriously and honestly. Many of our unpleasant surprises these days come from the fact that, for too long, we have tried to avoid basic issues. For what it is worth, I hope Jonathan is right and I am just a grumpity-wumpkins. So much the faster for the coming of a happier future if I don't know what I'm talking about.Anastasiosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-16528161029725582982012-04-30T18:27:16.790-05:002012-04-30T18:27:16.790-05:00I see no failures of comity at all. I mean, have y...I see no failures of comity at all. I mean, have you <i>seen</i> the comments on other blogs? Anyway, I agree, an exceptionally instructive thread. :-)Professor Jeff Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00282906964800653240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-70873512696891280542012-04-30T18:20:08.607-05:002012-04-30T18:20:08.607-05:00Thanks again for your comments, guys, and I want t...Thanks again for your comments, guys, and I want to apologize (particularly to Jeff and Anastasios) for failing to adhere to the rules of comity around here. While this might not have always been the most pleasant Plain Blog thread, I think I may have learned the most from it.<br /><br />I mentioned a while ago that Rand Paul recently claimed to believe in a $2.4 T Federal Government. Maybe Paul's a bit extreme; maybe the average Republican would believe in a $2.8 T or so Federal Government. If by "Federal Government" we mean "that part of the economy not efficiently left to private enterprise" (per Hayek), then $2.8 T is just under 20% of the GDP of $14.6 T. 20%, to a conservative, probably feels about right.<br /><br />And 20% is an awfully big part of the economy to <i>categorically hate</i>. I imagine an alternative universe where conservatives, being good little Hayekians, revere that part of the economy, recognizing that the US is too big and complex to let the invisible hand handle everything, and so we take what (to Hayek) is an entirely essential backup plan (collective action) very very seriously.<br /><br />I know that's impossible given the current mentality in this country, certainly prevailing on the right. Its not like what I think has any importance anyway. But man - at least in my mind, this model really works. Its the future. I hope.CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-74766723400347194242012-04-30T17:02:04.819-05:002012-04-30T17:02:04.819-05:00Replying to Anastasios,
I'm pretty confident ...Replying to Anastasios,<br /><br />I'm pretty confident that empirically that's wrong. Polarization at the individual level is a minor thing, and while I don't want to say that there are no different worldviews at all, I'm confident that there's less of that than there was 25 or 50 or 75 years ago. <br /><br />It's an elite-level issue, and mostly -- not all, but mostly -- within the GOP network. So you have Glenn Beck going on TV and saying that the US, a year or two into Obama's presidency, is unrecognizable...but no one out there in the world actually believes anything like that. <br /><br />Madisonian democracy works (among other ways) by reducing the threat of being in the minority. That fails if one of three conditions holds: extreme ideological polarization, extreme partisan polarization, or extreme polarization around an issue. I see very little if any polarization around ideology or a single issue. I can see a fair amount of partisan polarization, but I'm fairly confident it's confined to a small slice of the nation.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-11470995932683669942012-04-30T16:41:51.261-05:002012-04-30T16:41:51.261-05:00First of all, CSH, what you're calling "h...First of all, CSH, what you're calling "high-minded" is just a receding hairline that makes my forehead look bigger. So have some mercy there. As to your proposal, good luck with it -- by which I mean, both, good luck with it (sincerely), and, <i>yeah, good luck with that.</i> The federal government has been a convenient target for conservatives pretty much since it was formed, and "government" in general is way too useful as a whipping post in basically every country where it exists. The obvious riposte you'll get from your T.P. Patriots is that the various miracles you're talking about could all be provided better and more cheaply by the free market. (That was Gingrich's proposal for space exploration, for instance.)<br /><br />I really don't know what the solution to that is. Wish I did. Continued success at providing stuff that most people want, I guess, so that conservatives who oppose it continue to lose elections. In other words, political trench warfare as far as the eye can see. Oh, goody.Professor Jeff Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00282906964800653240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-50350419926111157172012-04-30T15:46:58.130-05:002012-04-30T15:46:58.130-05:00Guys, thanks for the comments, particularly here a...Guys, thanks for the comments, particularly here as the thread is disappearing below the fold. Perhaps a proposal for the positivity Anastasios is referring to at the bottom of his last, here's an insight that popped into my head yesterday. Might it also be an answer to the alleged lack of liberal line, as well as Jonathan's opening question about bringing the right back to sanity, in addition to a way toward the better future Anastasios referenced?<br /><br />The answer is to <i>revere the Federal Government for the many centralized wonders it can achieve</i>. Its obvious where the right fails on this, as they pretty much just hate the government, no questions asked. IMHO, the left sometimes indulges the satisfying emotion of centralized successes (personalizes it), moreso than admiring the external entity delivering the same.<br /><br />Once more, with feeling, Sandra Fluke: there's a pushback to my argument, one that this community is probably too high-minded to advance, but is nevertheless perfectly valid - in a world where everyone hates the government, who the hell am I to begrudge Fluke from getting hers, assuming one concedes the characterization? Its a good point - who the hell am I indeed.<br /><br />So going all the way back to Jeff's post at 12:55 PM Saturday, listing some of the things the centralizing collective provides: those are things we should hold in the highest esteem. Not (I allege) as totems of why liberalism is the best ideology, but rather as things that make us proud to be the best damn country in the world.<br /><br />Why does this solve the problem? Over to you, Sandra Fluke. In the current world, its almost impossible to begrudge her ask that her $83/month of contraceptive cost be forced on her fellow enrollees. Now suppose that we all revered the actions of the central government. Then he pushback would be "Really, Sandra Fluke? The same government that puts the man on the moon/has the best infrastructure in the world/sponsors the best R&D in the world/etc should interfere in markets to insure that your cost be covered?" We may still answer yes - but it is suddenly intuitively obvious to me that the only way to draw a reasonable line is to respect - very highly - what the Federal Government <i>actually</i> does do. Its only that respect that will put pressure on the next person in line to justify their request.<br /><br />This is an interesting idea, to me anyway, because it suggests that by damning government endlessly, Republicans are condemning themselves to a world where it is hard to stop government's growth, on the rationale that - if government sucks so much, who is anyone to begrudge anyone else from asking for theirs?<br /><br />Perhaps big thought leaders in the Republican Party have figured this out, and they're goosing the hoi polloi with anti-government rage, knowing this guarantees <i>more government</i>, which is really good for business.<br /><br />I'm suddenly tempted to go down to a rally, accost a couple of Tea Party patriots, and drag the scales from their eyes, to understand that the only way to control any thing's bloat (e.g. central government) is to highly respect those things it actually does do.CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-89480723315886740212012-04-30T15:39:19.218-05:002012-04-30T15:39:19.218-05:00Anastasios, I agree that (a) it could happen here ...Anastasios, I agree that (a) it could happen here and (b) it likely won't, not in our lifetimes, even though, yes, the politico-cultural divisions are deep and real. Two percent annual GDP growth is not great, but it's enough to keep that lid on, I think. One or two more big economic shocks, though, and who knows. You are right that the preoccupying issues of today probably have only about one more generation left in them (that's the lament of the <i>American Conservative</i> piece I've been linking to), but I see some other possibilities for big trouble ahead: a sudden acceleration in climate change; an organized revolt of the Global South against the Global North; or, the one I'm actually rooting for, a cultural awakening in which millions of people suddenly realize that they weren't put on this earth to be wage-slaves to a few rich people. Conceivably, the Occupy movement is the first inkling of the latter. (But then, conceivably, so were numerous other events going back to about 1848.) Anyway, we shall see! If the death panels don't get us first.Professor Jeff Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00282906964800653240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-79029588980518453992012-04-30T15:16:12.695-05:002012-04-30T15:16:12.695-05:00Well, Jeff, in fairness I have to say that there h...Well, Jeff, in fairness I have to say that there have been plenty of people over time who have made the analysis you have just made about "Kristallnacht," (both in the actual instance and other similar instances,) and been dead mistaken. CSH is not wrong on the face of it over the Robespierre analogy. It could definitely happen here, eventually, with either side holding the ropes. Luckily I don't think we will get there.<br /><br />But that doesn't mean that there are not irreconcilable differences at work in society. The political system may be more polarized than America as a whole -- but I'm not sure it is all THAT much more polarized. Most people aren't strongly committed to one side or the other because most people don't think about issues all that much. But when something happens to bring issues to the fore, the flocking toward the poles happens quite rapidly. We really do have very different basic orientations and worldviews developing, and the really aren't, at heart, compatible with each other over the long term. I think we have to acknowledge that fact before we can hope to deal with it. I think the article referenced in the original post is a good step toward public acknowledgement of that fact, as is Anon's original post which is, as I have said, to be congratulated for its clarity of moral statement.<br /><br />Now, as I've said I don't think this will end in violence. For all the problems in America, most people still have too much to lose (although I am forced to admit it most likely seemed that way in both 1775 and 1860). Open violence is only the clearest way these things are resolved. The other way is tectonic (to use a CSH word) shifts over time, by which one side gradually wins and the other gradually fails (extension of the franchise, for instance), or by which the very issues become dead letters (such as rural prosperity choking the Free Silver movement). I suspect that is what will happen here. If we can keep the lid on for twenty years or so a combination of economic and demographic change will move us beyond a lot of this crisis. Which is not to say that things won't get much, much nastier. They will -- there is simply no other way for things to be with irreconcilable differences for the moment growing much stronger. But, barring a very large shock, we won't be going to the lanterns. New attitudes will come along, old attitudes will fade, and as the saying from the history of science goes, "progress will advance one funeral at a time." If you want a more positive outlook, then "progress will advance one maternity ward at a time." It amounts to the same thing.Anastasiosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-62500408686535830682012-04-30T13:51:15.810-05:002012-04-30T13:51:15.810-05:00Ah good, CSH. This comment, too, is a helpful insi...Ah good, CSH. This comment, too, is a helpful insight into the thinking of reasonable conservatives. I'm pleased to see it.<br /><br />But notice that I include an adjective before "conservatives." For some purposes, it's useful to reify a group like that, to treat it as a single entity with essentially a single way of thinking. I do that myself and don't object to it in principle. But for other purposes, it obscures more than it clarifies; you would have to start making distinctions, and would have to recognize that if the issues or the political environment were different, some people who would currently call themselves conservatives (or whom others would so identify) would no longer fit that description and some would actively reject it.<br /><br />It's the same with liberals, of course. There may be characteristics that are often found in the thinking of so-called liberals -- sentimentality or bleeding-heart-ism, for instance -- but not in all, and not on all issues and in all circumstances. I'm quite sympathetic to the Occupy movement, for instance. But I recall some years ago when students as UCLA, where I was then teaching, set up a similar type of encampment and then went on a hunger strike. The issue? They wanted a Chicano Studies Department, and the administration was willing to give them only a Chicano Studies "program." Now, I have no love whatsoever for the UC administration and no confidence that any decision it makes is likely to be right. And I'm all for Chicano Studies, in fact studies of all kinds. Yet I, and as I recall other liberal-minded faculty, thought this particular demo was idiotic. A hunger strike? Really? You'll <i>risk people's lives</i> over the difference between a "department" and a "program"? Grow the hell up, was my curmudgeonly and basically conservative reaction.<br /><br />So, likewise, I think in the Manolo Blahnik example, there might be some liberals who didn't get on board because of the "Real Housewives" angle, but there would be others -- like me, who wouldn't know a Manolo Blahnik if Manolo himself bashed me on the head with one -- who would make a calculation (maybe on a napkin?) and conclude that the distribution of Manolo Blahniks is best left, as at present, to the free market. And there are various other subgroups whose reactions pro or con would have various other motivations. The point is, "liberalism" would fragment over a question like that, which means there'd never be a Night of the Long Knives (and BTW, did you mean Kristallnacht? ... aimed at shoe stores this time, I guess) because there wouldn't be enough people left in the group representing the viewpoint you fear. Honest, there would not be, you have my promise.<br /><br />And just one footnote to that: We could apply the same "sentimentality + Robespierre" analysis to the right, of course. "21st- century conservatism," if we treat it as a single entity, ranges from a quarter-billionaire who sings "God Bless America" at speeches, which is about as sentimental as it comes; to a guy who wears sweater vests, like some kind of sitcom dad, and who was obviously sentimental for a time before contraception and other such works of the devil made everything so damn complicated; to -- I'm skipping over a bunch of degrees here -- people who drill with militias and takes their cues from <i>The Turner Diaries,</i> a novel that actually did imagine a right-wing Kristallnacht. Should liberals therefore be alarmed that a victory for one of the first two guys means they'll be hanging people from lampposts? If not, then there's no rational reason for conservatives to fear the reverse.Professor Jeff Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00282906964800653240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-69045594932153897122012-04-30T13:41:27.767-05:002012-04-30T13:41:27.767-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Professor Jeff Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00282906964800653240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-42725395352754048602012-04-30T07:20:52.433-05:002012-04-30T07:20:52.433-05:00Also reminiscent of the best of David Bowie's ...Also reminiscent of the best of David Bowie's songs: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wzfGWuY3lg&feature=related" rel="nofollow">Cygnet Committee</a>. Started as a lament against all the people coming around and ostensibly asking for Bowie's advice, though in reality just wanting a piece of him (for their own sentimental indulgence). Turned into something epic.<br /><br />I think there's one other problem with sentimentality: conservatives feel that liberal indulgence of their own sentimentality is ultimately quite dangerous. See this thread: a conservative suggests that the EPA be eliminated (a fairly mainstream conservative position, and one with negative effects that are fairly obviously debatable), and Anastasios just about went Robespierre on the guy. <br /><br />Liberals see Rousseau and the romantic possibility of reason remaking the world in the image of enlightened man; conservatives see the inevitable Reign of Terror that follows.<br /><br />Without going further into that point, I wonder if we did an investigation of this community, and counted the number of times a liberal said "this or that conservative position is completely insane" vs. "Interesting point, but the counter is.." we've all seen that the ratio would be something like a thousand to one.<br /><br />No comity from the right? Shifting from France to Germany, maybe those Tea Partiers perceive a Night of the Long Knives when the liberals take over. No, no, those conservatives are totally crazy. Check out Anastasios at 9:28. That sort of thing would <i>never</i> happen with 21st century liberals!CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-73707149038660699022012-04-30T07:03:59.246-05:002012-04-30T07:03:59.246-05:00The subthread was getting too long - I was happy t...The subthread was getting too long - I was happy that Jeff brought up the example of women's shoes earlier; I'd like to modify my earlier position: its not that liberals "have no line", its rather that the line is contingent on sentimentality.<br /><br />Jeff sets up a false choice that either insurance covers Fluke's $83/month contraceptive needs, or else she gets knocked up. Obviously, there's a 3rd road: utilizing any of the myriad cheaper avenues to achieve that goal. Touchy topic, though. Women's health issues. Evokes images of Rick Santorum with devil's horns on his head! <br /><br />But take Jeff's shoe example. What if, instead of testifying that she needed her $83/month contraceptive cost covered by her fellow enrollees, Fluke instead went before Congress to ask that her Manolo Blahnik needs be subsidized by her community, since what girl can not get at least one new pair of those per year? <br /><br />Unlike "women's health", I trust that Fluke's shoe request would evoke images of The Real Housewives of New Jersey, and thus liberal sympathy would turn to malice, such that while liberals would never encourage Fluke to find a cheaper way to achieve her goal of not getting pregnant, if it were shoes, you'd be telling her to go to the Steve Madden store, and probably with pretty colorful language.<br /><br />This is all reminiscent of the Denis Leary/(Bill Hicks) routine about how people get all concerned about the clubbing of little seals (who clap their hands all cute!) but a cow is just a big stupid ugly cow, screw the cow, cut off that thing's head because we like us some hamburgers...<br /><br />(more...)CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-2604450811595079312012-04-30T00:56:32.993-05:002012-04-30T00:56:32.993-05:00Yes, this is where I would refer again to the Amer...Yes, this is where I would refer again to the <i>American Conservative</i> article I linked to above:<br /><br />http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/why-the-right-cant-win-the-gay-marriage-fight/<br /><br />I agree that conservatives aren't wrong to feel they're under siege; they've been winning lots of battles this past generation, but gradually losing the war. And I think that's going to get worse for them in coming years.Professor Jeff Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00282906964800653240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-24627623596086326792012-04-30T00:12:50.573-05:002012-04-30T00:12:50.573-05:00Just wanted to pop in again to make one quick obse...Just wanted to pop in again to make one quick observation: that while Jeff is correct that liberals feel "under siege" for the last 30+ years or more (dating either to 1980 or 1978 or 1968, depending). more historically-minded liberals thinking that they've always been under siege except for a few brief bursts of liberal success in the 1930s and 1960s), it's also the case that conservatives feel that they've been under siege at least as long, and with just as much sincerity as liberals.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-84974971498756791032012-04-30T00:01:20.655-05:002012-04-30T00:01:20.655-05:00I don't want to speak for CSH, who I wish woul...I don't want to speak for CSH, who I wish would get back into this discussion, but I take him to be saying, not that economic efficiency as such trumps morality, but that at some point an abstract morality that takes no account of costs becomes a kind of immorality in itself, because it collectively bankrupts us and/or requires confiscatory taxes, thus damaging the futures of people like his kid who otherwise would be better provided for. To be truly moral, in other words, we also have to be prudent and wise. The Sandra Fluke case is, I think, an unusually bad one for making this point, because insuring against unwanted pregnancies, and preventing the arrival of dependent children whose own medical needs would then have to be covered too, does seem entirely prudent and cost-effective. (Unless you argue, as perhaps Limbaugh would, that pregnancies resulting from wanton sex shouldn't be medically treated, nor should the kids born therefrom have access to medical care. But that policy would require a callousness toward little kids, especially sick ones, plus a level of totalitarian intrusiveness into the origins of each pregnancy -- Limbaugh's videos, maybe? -- that any sane conservative, any sane person, and certainly CSH would reject.)<br /><br />Those flaws in the example aside, CSH seems to be saying that if he cites cost, unintended consequences, or the other concerns that conservatives sometimes raise about this or that item on the liberal wish-list, he doesn't like liberals assuming he's just being selfish or heartless -- or if they do, screw them, because he's just trying to protect his kid (i.e. upholding a different morality). And he seems to be saying that there's an almost unlimited potential to be denounced in such ways because the liberal wish-list seems unlimited, and only grows with each new benefit that comes online. (Although here again, he is discounting the possibility that modern "miracles" also sometimes <i>save</i> money. I think the Pill is probably one excellent example; electronic medical records, also included in Obamacare, are another, etc.) So he sees himself in a kind of trap that he and his conservative friends can't escape: They're bound to be looked down on at some point for resisting, no matter how prudently in their view, what some liberals somewhere are demanding as a right for all.<br /><br />I just want to say that I take these points, and I hope he finds our combined answers here, if not fully satisfying, at least worth thinking about. CSH speaks for many, I believe, who are well-meaning and even (in their way) liberal-minded but who self-identify as conservative. It's a point of view that liberals, feeling under siege as they have these past 30-odd years, perhaps spend too little time engaging. I think there are good answers to it, but it's worthwhile being reminded that they're not always obvious even to some very smart people.Professor Jeff Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00282906964800653240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-89089882975287371542012-04-29T21:42:55.949-05:002012-04-29T21:42:55.949-05:00I'll pick up on what Jeff and classicist said,...I'll pick up on what Jeff and classicist said, and add it to what I said above. It is true that liberals have very strong moral tendencies. That is where you have to engage them if you want them to listen to you. Once again, politics is moral philosophy, not business management or strategic planning. Economics can be part of a moral argument, certainly. But don't expect that an argument from economic efficiency will win automatically, or even get much of a hearing if the the economic inefficiency is small and the moral imperative great. At the end of your discussion about Fluke you began making a moral argument, which is the type of thing that might actually work. But unfortunately you rest much too strongly on the assumption that economic efficiency IS moral on the face of it, which is not necessarily something anyone will agree with (even given that the numbers add up as you say, which many seem to deny). Once again, you can't wave your hands and claim that economic generalities trump moral particulars. You have to persuade liberals from one set of moral particulars to another set. Usually, they are persuadable, as Jeff says, if the argument is good enough, the numbers add up, and the new moral particulars as strong or stronger than the old. But trying to lay down some general statement about limits will only get you polite nods, or sometimes weary eye-rolling, and trying to win your point by waving a cost-benefit sheet in people's faces will not automatically work for any number of reasons, as discussions about Fluke on this thread show.Anastasiosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-20354130110506311772012-04-29T19:49:51.737-05:002012-04-29T19:49:51.737-05:00Idk whether this is still a live thread, but @CSH,...Idk whether this is still a live thread, but @CSH, and @Justice Kennedy too -- !: liberals embrace lots of limiting principles, just as conservatives do -- but often what one side wants to discuss in terms of principle, the other side is thinking of in a practical way that's already limited. Therefore they can't really understand how a good faith operator could require a limiting PRINCIPLE, since it's foolish to make every discussion of xyz or abc a discussion about principles, when we already have certain accepted parameters for debate.<br /><br />For instance, I've heard liberals express a very direct parallel to your observations about spending growth, only in re: tax exemptions and tax cuts. "Well, yeah, we support donations to private educational institutions, but why should I subsidize your gift to your alma mater with a tax deduction?" "Sure, it would be great if we could maintain the artificially low taxes of recent years, but people just need to look the books in the eye (?!) and realize we can't." "I expect that industry-wide tax break does bring some business here, but it's mostly a giveaway to institutions that would be there anyway, an incentive to others to reclassify what they do under a new heading, and really not at all obviously a good, let alone the best, use of our taxes and regulatory apparatus."<br /><br />Also -- CSH -- I have to say, by far the most common and obnoxious government intrusions into my life are at the state and local levels. My town is zoned for single-family homes and they can't be converted to apartments -- so that, in practice, a landlord can rent out multiple apartments in a house, but only one of them to a married couple. My town, like many of its neighbors, also zones to keep most chain stores out -- leading to the existence of one really unpleasant neighboring town that's just strip malls and big box stores. Housing is artificially (and absurdly) expensive in town because you're not allowed to build anything higher than three stories. There are no bars because in New Hampshire (!) a business that serves alcohol legally has to have a certain percentage of its receipts coming from food. Perhaps some of these have liberal and others conservative intent; I don't know. But they're all bad for anyone who doesn't already own in town. Can we have a limiting principle that says local regulations can't be set in stone by the people who are already there, that the process should accommodate renters (most of the population for most of the year; it's a college town) and should just be more flexible in general? I guess not. My state legislators are too busy demanding that every law cite its foundation in not just the Constitution but the Magna Carta as well, and passing redistricting maps that flagrantly violate the state constitution, and trying to tell people in same-sex marriages "whoops! No, we take it back," and engaging in other important freedom-protecting activities. Idk what my town is too busy doing. We don't even have municipal trash collection.the classicisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08691196845661570282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-40412933886138055912012-04-29T19:30:36.232-05:002012-04-29T19:30:36.232-05:00CSH,
You are welcome at my parties anytime, but d...CSH,<br /><br />You are welcome at my parties anytime, but don't expect anyone to check their strong moral beliefs at the door, much less because of some hastily scrawled figures on a napkin. Politics, as my old graduate advisor used to opine, is essentially a branch of moral philosophy. That is one reason we have wars. It is not the only reason, and I don't think the current situation in America will end in violence. But if you really want people on the left to listen to your concerns, you can't try to dismiss "the particulars" with a wave of your hand. These issues, the FDA, the EPA, and yes Sandra Fluke cannot be treated in such a cavalier fashion. Sorry. People care passionately about these things for reasons that do not necessarily trump economic efficiency, but which will not yield automatically in the face of appeals to such economic concerns, be they polite or passionate or sanctimonious or tearful. Once again, sorry. Anon, as I say, is clear about his moral imperatives, and thus is to be thanked for his honesty. There are other people with other, equally powerful but very different moral viewpoints, and we gain nothing by pretending that is not the case. Things on America are, I am sorry to say, going to get a lot nastier and more dysfunctional before they get better. Once again, we gain nothing by pretending anything different.Anastasiosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-40815326758883078252012-04-29T14:53:17.109-05:002012-04-29T14:53:17.109-05:00CSH, I'm pretty sure that liberals, being such...CSH, I'm pretty sure that liberals, being such generous people as you say, wouldn't make you do those calculations on a napkin -- somebody would go find you some note paper. :-)<br /><br />Besides, you'd need more than a napkin to do the calculation properly. I'm no accountant, but when you're toting up the cost-benefit ratio of an insurance provision, don't you have to include what's being insured against? My understanding is that most insurance companies, with that in mind, <i>prefer</i> to cover the pill. That's not because the insurance industry is a bastion of liberals.<br /><br />And as to your main point, I think you're defining "liberals" circularly, as though there is this group of people whose views would never change regardless of actual circumstances or the question at hand. The people espousing liberalism at the moment are reacting to a situation in which good arguments can be made that collective provision is too low. The US has an ungenerous welfare system by world standards, its tax rates are also low by world standards and lower than they used to be even here in times of prosperity, the infrastructure is plainly in disrepair, etc. AND there's a political movement that has taken over a major party on the pledge of making all this worse. So sure, liberals are currently demanding more than they're currently likely to get.<br /><br />But suppose the circumstances were substantially different. Let's say one of those radical collectivists (aka "not liberals") I mentioned decided that the shoe industry should be nationalized and shoes provided free, because after all everyone needs shoes. (Well, the GOP would start arguing then that they don't, that shoes are actually an earned privilege, but never mind.) Many of us who self-identify as liberals now would not support that. We would point out that the Soviet approach to shoes was tried before and was a dismal failure, and that the free market is actually doing pretty well at providing a wide range of shoes, from the very affordable to the very pricey. There are some concerns about foreign child labor and such, but those can be addressed in other (liberal) ways without collectivizing the provision of shoes. <br /><br />In other words, if that were the issue, some of us would become <i>conservatives</i> and defenders of the free market. I think many of us would -- even Nancy Pelosi, I'm guessing, because something tells me she likes being able to shop for shoes.<br /><br />So while of course there is a kind of liberal temperament that expresses itself across a range of issues, what makes liberals liberals (and not radicals, rigid Marxists, etc.) is that it's not absolute; it's responsive to circumstances and amenable to argument. FYI, lots of liberals have kids too, and would worry just as you do about impossible tradeoffs that threatened those kids' futures. But they don't think that's what we're talking about in the current political environment, and they're also more inclined to see some things that you (apparently) see in zero-sum terms as win-wins. Spending on infrastructure increases the nation's future wealth; nationally guaranteed health care prevents needless suffering and lowers costs overall; progressive taxation promotes social cohesion, etc. Even contraception: Look at societies that aren't committed to women's reproductive rights, and tell me honestly you'd prefer your daughter were growing up in one of them. Today's liberals are <i>defending</i> your kid's future, not threatening it.Professor Jeff Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00282906964800653240noreply@blogger.com