None of the Above: Part I
“As I grow older, I regret to say that a detestable habit of thinking seems to be getting a hold of me.” – H. Rider Haggard
“A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices.” – William James
—————————————————————————————————–
So which is it? Am I an aging addict of the detestable habit of thinking, or am I merely rearranging my prejudices? Honestly, I’m not sure, but I do know this much: The libertarian impulses of my youth and the stoic conservatism of my early adult years are gradually giving way to the doubts of middle-age – doubts that are centered on two questions:
(1) Do I really believe smaller government and lower taxes are the cures to what ails us?
(2) When people are hurting and in need, is it appropriate for their government to turn away, claiming, “That’s not our issue; it should be resolved by individuals and the free market”?
Libertarian conservatives don’t doubt the answers to these questions. They respond “yes,” to both, without hesitation, without equivocation.
Twenty years ago, I would have been similarly clear-headed. I’m no longer so sure and, apparently, neither is 13-year Republican Congressman Steve Chabot of Ohio. According to a Feb. 19 article at Politico:
… Chabot has earned a 97.5 percent lifetime rating from The American Conservative Union and has largely stuck to the Republican ranks, except to oppose some pork-laden spending bills.
But when foreclosures in his hometown of Cincinnati skyrocketed, Chabot found himself aligned with Democrats — and against his party’s leaders, his conservative colleagues and the White House.
Chabot’s bipartisan dalliance illustrates how tough economic times could erode the Republican conference that House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) is counting on to blunt Democratic victories running up to the November elections.
So, let me get this straight: When rock-solid conservatives learn that their constituents are suffering, they suddenly decide government should do something about it?
That’s not a surprise, really. Many of us have had a change of heart about government action when we encounter unexpected and otherwise insurmountable challenges. Consider the value that my friend, Dennis Sanders, found in Minnesota’s Medicaid program when he needed its assistance back in 1996. Or my experience, when I realized that had it not been for government action, our only child, who suffers from a severe case of Tourette Syndrome, might never have had access to the medications that help him lead a reasonably normal, productive life.
These cases and others suggest that “pure” libertarian conservatives are comprised of those who have not yet hit the brick wall of non-solutions; have not yet needed (nor had an opportunity to appreciate) just how valuable government “interference” can sometimes be.
—————————————————————————————————–
“Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed.” – Herman Melville
“Whatever you may be sure of, be sure of this, that you are dreadfully like other people.” – James Russell Lowell
—————————————————————————————————–
On the other hand, despite the groups and individuals who have been helped by government action, I’m not ready to label myself a progressive. For every example of government doing good, there are multiple examples of government wasting precious resources and implementing counterproductive programs – failures that have been thoroughly documented by the likes of Barry Goldwater in 1960, Philip Howard in 1994, and Paul Ormerod in 2005.
And so … which is it: Get government involved or keep it out of the way? Adopt a predominantly conservative or progressive approach?
More than ever, I’m convinced the “right” answer is “none of the above,” hence the title and subject of this series of posts, which I’m developing as both catharsis and catalyst, to resolve a muddled past and inform future decisions, including the most foreseeably pressing of those decisions: My votes in November. In the process, I hope you, too, find something of value herein.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
20 Responses to “None of the Above: Part I”
'When rock-solid conservatives learn that their constituents are suffering, they suddenly decide government should do something about it?'
This is essential politicking. It's never an issue of more or less taxes, or gov't's hand or not, but the efficacy and return on things. If gov't does well, it's good, if not it's not. If taxes are spent on real things people can see, it's good, if not, and it's pork, it's bad.
Libs tend to overlook the bad, and Cons ignore the good. In toto, gov't is a good thing, it's the small details that cause problems.
'“A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices.” – William James'
He's right. Most folk do things, then rationalize after the fact- be it on votes, lovers, jobs, etc.
1. Pete, “None Of The Above” or “NOTA” has been sometimes sought as a ballot alternative or choice to force new (other) candidates to be on the ballot, which is to say also, in effect, that different policy goals by government are being sought and in particular that the status quo is rejected.
2. Government ultimately is power over people and is inherently dangerous. (Consider the elements of truth buried in the mountain of anger and hatred for the Bush administration by those who view that administration as abusive.) The burden of proof for government interventionism is always on the advocates or the supporters; that is the American way as well as the moral, not merely the truly libertarian, way. Where things go wrong is in the (truly) rare instances where it is government that is made into a demon, is demonized, is the object of irrational antagonism. This in fact is rare in this country (those on the Left favor excess government interventionism in select areas and do not see things accurately) but it does exist among some in the true (and in fact small) libertarian fringe as well as among anarchists.
Wonderful post, Pete.
It's a great segue to what I've been thinking about for some time now.
While periodically being drawn into the passion of particular issues, in the end I always return to a basic theme: the need to step back from particulars to survey the entire landscape. How are things working out?
Our political debates suffer because they are oversimplifications. Whether it's governement or private corporations, global markets or local enterprise, society is managed by people, and people don't change their basic character just because they operate in a different structure. People have both good and bad impulses, and what we are all looking for is a way to encourage the good and combat the bad..
We need to recognize, I think, that there is no magic answer to this quest. It's more to do with finding a workable balance: One set of principles inevitably impinges on another set, and the mistake, in my view, is to frame these debates as good vs evil. Instead, we need to acknowledge both the positive and negative effects of each and look for a pragmatic balance.
Of course, sometimes one simply has to choose which single principle takes priority, and a balancing act is simply not possible. If the federal governemtent had bowed to states rights issues, we would still have segregated schools mandated by state laws, By and large, though, such stark decisions are not necessary. They are only made to appear necessary by the absolutists among us. who deign to even acknowledge the legitimacy of others' concerns. That human characteristic is omething we should all strive to rein in, severely.
[...] Read the rest of this thought-provoking post by Pete Abel on The Moderate Voice. [...]
I appreciate your willingness to grapple with your uncertainty. Maybe it does have to do with getting older, or maybe with other changing circumstances. But I think a lot of people feel this way. You've articulated it very well.
I have traveled this path from ideological fiscal conservative to pragmatist. To me the most direct path to finding the optimal balance between empathy and fiscal restraint is electing folks who are not beholden to an extreme point of view. To achieve this requires more competitive districts and less influence of special interests.
Paul,
The problem with pragmatism is that it is not really pragmatic. The ratchet effect is where spending only goes up. It comes from the economic cycle. The problem with pragmatic politicians is that they always find an excuse to increase spending in the good times but raise taxes during other times. Long term spending increases based upon short term economic conditions cause government spending to always to up. The other problem with people claiming to be pragmatic is that they will just not cut spending during the good times.
The other idea is that when new spending is added and new programs are started, the government is making the argument that the every existing program is more important than the new program but that the new program is so important, it must be done. Many people have problems with that logic. Cutting existing programs to fund new ones would be a better statement of a new programs importance.
There is nothing pragmatic about instinctively, reflexively believing the solution to every problem is found in government interventionism and spending, especially (and first rather than last) in Washington. That is not pragmatic at all. This is the moral defect of the reflexive response to any idea of tax reform that it be “revenue neutral.” The position that there's nothing wrong with any and all kinds of spending, it should never be questioned, and reduction is heretical, is morally as well as economically defective.
The incrementalism situation Superdestroyer refers to (the “ratcheting”) is related to the very good analogy and metaphor I described earlier about government (and especially Washington-based) programs as the equivalent of medications, which are prescribed to resolve ailments, but which produce side effects (sometimes worse than the original ailments), but which too often are seen as best addressed not by questioning the medicine, but by adding new medicine atop the old to address the side effects. Then comes additional medicine for the side effects of the earlier additional medicine, and so on. The fools insist that there's nothing wrong with medication as practice for everything, despite decades of side effects and other unforeseen (and many foreseen) unfortunate consequences.
Well, I'm going to sort of agree with the point Superdestroyer is making. I think it's possible that solutions to difficult problems might eventually end up causing problems of their own. Then those problems have to be solved.
I think life is like that, though.
Plus, there is an entire political argument dedicated to the idea of cutting spending. It's well-funded. It has it's own alternative media. And it wins elections. But when its politicians get elected, they never actually cut very much spending. Yet those who trumpet this idea–cutting spending–never seem to have problem with that logic. In fact, they continue to talk about cutting spending as if they were doing something that is about to, you know, cut spending.
“I think life is like that, though.”
Change is not the same as improvement. However, one cannot Do Nothing as one's choice or alternative all the time. This isn't a world of Middle Ages stasis (nor were the Fifties, you critics…).
It's the eternal question, Pete, and I've been wrestling with it myself.
One traditional answer is the notion of the “public good”. Under some versions of libertarian-ish philosophy, government should only be involved in genuine public goods, and let the others remain private issues. A public good, as I understand it, is something which can only be achieved when the polity act as a single unit. Military defense is a classic example. In modern warfare, it is simply impossible for private individuals to defend their state working privately. They must come together, coercively, to accomplish the task or it cannot be accomplished. Even in colonial days with “well-armed militias,” those were put under a central command with compulsory force when an actual war began.
Another public good would likely be infrastructure. We couldn't have a transportation system that connects the vast majority of the nation easily from private interests. There's not enough money to be made by building a private road to 3 houses outside of town. Other public goods might be interstate commerce or public health measures, such as the CDC handles. Of course, it's not always clear what is or is not a public good. How about education and health care? Can they truly be achieved privately?
One might also be a pragmatist in investigating what government does well and what it does poorly. Governments are great at massive projects that require the coordination of huge resources — an Apollo program, for instance. It's usually much worse at anything that requires efficiency, being nimble, and reactive (in the good way). Perhaps we can try to keep government away from the latter type projects even if we think they are otherwise worthwhile.
In short, instead of simply debating more or less government, we can also debate where. I've longed hope to develop some coherent philosophy that would allow me to cut certain govt. programs on a rational basis, allowing govt. to focus on what they do well, but I've never had time to really think it through.
In re SD and George Sorwell about solutions causing problems of their owen, , I absolutely agree.
I would add, though, that NOT trying to find solutions creates another set of problems. Problems don't vanish just because you ignore them; they fester and multiply. Then you get extreme backlash reactions, which actually obscure, rather than solve, the original problem imder discussion.
Solutions have problems; that's a given. Democracy gives rise to problems, for heaven's sakes. Would we be better off without it?
The only thing required is an open mind, as opposed to ideological loyalty, in assessing what the problems are and how to adapt and adjust the program accodingly.
In re SD and George Sorwell about solutions causing problems of their owen, , I absolutely agree.
I would add, though, that NOT trying to find solutions creates another set of problems. Problems don't vanish just because you ignore them; they fester and multiply. Then you get extreme backlash reactions, which actually obscure, rather than solve, the original problem imder discussion.
Solutions have problems; that's a given. Democracy gives rise to problems, for heaven's sakes. Would we be better off without it?
The only thing required is an open mind, as opposed to ideological loyalty, in assessing what the problems are and how to adapt and adjust the program accodingly.
Doma: 'The only thing required is an open mind, as opposed to ideological loyalty, in assessing what the problems are and how to adapt and adjust the program accodingly.'
You just defined liberalism, and why history vindicates it.
Doma: 'The only thing required is an open mind, as opposed to ideological loyalty, in assessing what the problems are and how to adapt and adjust the program accodingly.'
You just defined liberalism, and why history vindicates it.
I enjoyed Pacatrue's reflection on 'the common good' and libertarian thought.
It led me right back to my search for balance, however.
The individual will always be in a love/hate relationship with societal pressures (be they governmental or other). That's just in the nature of things, and I find it futile to expect a final, definitive answer to our conflicting urges. Individuals come together to form communities, because the power of the many can benefit the individual. Then they splinter if the expectations of the community trample too heavily on inherent individualism.
The indivicual/societal relationship gets more complex by the day, as we finally begin to realize how interrelated the entire globe is. What happens in China or Africa has an impact on us, and vice-versa.
IMO, no -ism can answer all our urges, as they ebb and flow. The best we can do is look for ways to balance them.. The yin and the yang.
I enjoyed Pacatrue's reflection on 'the common good' and libertarian thought.
It led me right back to my search for balance, however.
The individual will always be in a love/hate relationship with societal pressures (be they governmental or other). That's just in the nature of things, and I find it futile to expect a final, definitive answer to our conflicting urges. Individuals come together to form communities, because the power of the many can benefit the individual. Then they splinter if the expectations of the community trample too heavily on inherent individualism.
The indivicual/societal relationship gets more complex by the day, as we finally begin to realize how interrelated the entire globe is. What happens in China or Africa has an impact on us, and vice-versa.
IMO, no -ism can answer all our urges, as they ebb and flow. The best we can do is look for ways to balance them.. The yin and the yang.
Pacatrue,
The issues of infrastructure and education are the two that did the most to turn me against libertarians because the ones that I knew of wanted both of those to be privatized along with pretty much every government function except defense and law enforcement.
Pacatrue,
The issues of infrastructure and education are the two that did the most to turn me against libertarians because the ones that I knew of wanted both of those to be privatized along with pretty much every government function except defense and law enforcement.