I believe it would be much cheaper as well as more coherent if the GOP simply chose to privatize and contract-out its operations — to the Heritage Foundation!

(It's not whether anyone likes or dislikes that organization. It's that that organization is well known for presenting what amounts to the mainstream model nowadays of US conservatism, whose publishings could simply be read verbatim by righty talk radio show hosts. At least they, unlike the GOP, know what they want to do.)

For example, you said earlier in this thread that you don't put your faith in Obama as one individual but rather in the movement he's leading- but my response to that is that he still will be very important as an individual in how he shapes that movement and I don't like what I see so far. As a comparison, take the civil rights movement- MLK made very deliberate decisions about how he could best capture the rising sentiment, how to control it, how to lead through specific rhetoric and actions, and how to prevent elements that other civil rights leaders were promoting which would have led to setbacks instead of progress (disassociating from groups like the Black Panthers.) I don't see any of those elements in Obama's leadership- in fact just the opposite. That may be due to the fact that he's working through the political process, where vague platitudes work best to capture the overall sense of desire for change instead of specific leadership to goals that he really explains to the people in his movement. But regardless of the reasons, that's a problem.

And then there's your point in this last comment about party's reconsidering and reforming when they're out in the wilderness. That's the CW, but I don't think it really happens that way- instead, one party sits out until the other one screws up badly enough for the pendulum to swing back in the other direction, and then voters get so mad that they decide to kick out the bums in that party and put the old bums back in place. Sure, occasionally you get a true change in the party that went through a timeout (Newt Gingrich's movement was one such example) but even that was shortlived because the voters didn't hold them to the changes they'd promised.

I honestly don't know what the answer is to reforming the GOP- I think it probably has more to do with starting from the grassroots in state parties, to grow a new crop of politicians in waiting. I certainly wouldn't want to return the GOP to control of both branches of the federal govt right now, but I think voters are mistaken to think that it's a good idea to allow one party rule by the Democrats either. IOW, I don't really know what works but I think I know what doesn't work.

Sometimes it's better to accept a system that you disagree with but is more logically consistent rather than one that could theoretically be better but is in complete disarray. I also think a lot of it comes down to sacrifice.

A lot of libertarian and conservative types complain about government intrusion holding them back but lead pretty extravagant lives (I think that our upper middle class has a pretty extravagant lifestyle in the scheme of things). I'd rather have a system that has more safety nets even if they are very inefficient, and then make some personal sacrifices to set up alternatives than to support one that is inept and gives a bad name to some of my aims.

The Ron Pauls of the world are grouped in with the Phil Gramms of the world because ostensibly they believe in “free markets” even though they have entirely different drivers.

I also think it's easy to reform when out of power. So if the Republicans say, I dunno, supported ending the drug war and moving to real Paygo and running surpluses to cut down on our debt and cutting military spending and corporate subsidies…..then maybe I'd reconsider. But they aren't going to do those things while in power.

I just think that your goal of shifting to private sector solutions will be completely thwarted by an Obama administration working in tandem with a Dem Congress. We've already moved too far toward govt based solutions, and our trusty leaders have learned that they can sell the public on quasi private partnerships which really serve no one's interest but the politicians. Look at the GSEs, where the legitimate goal of increasing homeownership gave cover to politicians forming corrupt partnerships and refusing to allow proper oversight (using the laudable goals of the program as a shield by accusing anyone who questioned the practices of having less honorable intentions.)

I understand your point about not having private organizations ready to take over the function, but again, I think it'll be worse the longer we wait to try to make that shift.

The sneering at Obama for suggesting that keeping tires properly inflated and the car tuned would save as much oil as the expected increase from drilling off the coasts…when with realistic assumptions the math supported him…was appalling! And that is beneficial now, not in 20 years.

Combined with his grizzly DNA comments (which weren't inserted haphazardly but at the request of a commission looking at protecting the species) and I have little faith that McCain will respect basic research much more than Bush.

I think that the idea that the Republicans do keep power with the people is laughable. To me it's very clear that they have become a crony capitalist party that expands the role of government to give handouts to everyone, but funnels more to the rich.

Look at McCain's mortgage proposal. While the Democrats stupidly suggest buying mortgages and having them on the government's books, McCain suggested buying them at face value which is an automatic transfer of wealth to the people that created the mess.

Look at the Medicare drug bill. The Democrats suggest a greater role in medicine through insurance, but the Republicans passed a bill that cost over $1 Trillion over 10 years that gives it all to existing insurance companies and gives them complete freedom to determine what drugs they cover and switch them at will.

Look at the military and government operations in general. Both sides advocate increasing them, but only the Republicans have outsourced the duties to private companies that auditors have found increase costs 30-80%.

The question of “public” vs “private” sector is outdated. The real question is that of “debt” and “liquidity” versus “regulation.” Republican policies have expanded the debt and are pro-massive liquidity while against regulation…and McCain's proscriptions follow this pattern.

The true fiscal conservatives that are for real free markets I have little disagreement with. They are for disbanding the Federal Reserve, going to a gold standard, pulling back all our military commitments and merely having a force large enough for defense (they want to go back to the idea that the military is only large enough to protect the country from invasion and if we need to fight a foreign war we should mobilize the whole country and raise taxes like in WWII) and cutting most government programs.

These policies would cause a massive collapse in asset prices and cut off most credit except for business ventures. It would encourage saving and keep the government from expanding through debt issuance.

I disagree that we can just switch over to this system because we don't have the social institutions to support a fast switch. But I am open to the idea that if we start now then in a few decades the role of private non-profits and for-profit corporations could supplant a lot of government functions while charity and volunteerism would have to increase a lot to help those in need…but I think that is possible.

That's the thing- people can laugh at conservatives who are genuinely afraid of “libruls!” but to me there's a very real basis to that fear. For me, it's not about fear, it's about a deep seated belief that when we elect people who strongly believe that the government based solutions are the correct approach, we give over power (and more importantly, money and other resources) that needs to remain with the people.

My argument is two fold:

First Obama is trying to create a movement. He is looking to reframe politics for the next 30 years just as Reagan, FDR and Lincoln did. So my faith isn't in him per se, it's that it'll become bigger than him.

Also our Checks and Balances are broken. Congress is broken. Whether it's Democrats or Republicans there will be no effective checks nor leadership. I think the entire balance of power is off (something that I'll admit started under Liberal political aims even as it was expanded under Reagan through the present). If you could give me the choice between voting for a competent Congress that represented the best of liberalism and pair it with McCain, versus a competent one that represented the best of conservatism paired with Obama, I'd have a very tough choice to make. And I'd rather the latter than Obama with a Democratic congress.

But considering that's not the choice it's easy for me.

But no I'm not optimistic as I don't think that the problems are political in nature at all. I think that politics are more of a consequence of the fundamental nature of society rather than a driving force. I have more faith that the Gates Foundation will help solve health care than politics, and that the tech crowd is going to step up very soon and help with our energy and transportation problems. The technology is there it just requires vision and leadership that I think politics won't provide.

That said I think that government has a very influential role in helping foster some of that, albeit often inadvertently and in programs no one thinks about.

Since I don't think politics are the answer, I'm much more intent on working on my projects that if they work out will save tens if not hundreds of billions a year and further understanding of systems, and doing that in a way where hopefully at some point I'll have the money and influence to affect some of the core changes on a fundamental level.

Ha, so true. But look at it this way, mikkel…you and I seem to agree about the basic approach to the situation, but your view is that one particular man is the key to getting to that solution and that rests on that one man's ability to intellectualize the right blend of policies and to morally oversee the system to prevent abuses. My view is that the solution has to come from a more adversarial system of checks and balances which includes sometimes balancing party identities to push back against each other, while also educating voters to their responsibility of being less partisan and more objective in evaluating their legislators for malfeasance.

So, which of us has the more realistic approach?

And then there's all of the other talking points that get bandied around, like Phil Gramm. What is your objection to him, exactly? I'll be interested to see if you even know why people have demonized him, or if you're just regurgitating.

I have to go but a quick point I want to make- to me it's not so much about liberalism being a boogeyman, though I do fundamentally default to conservative free market economics and then add on regulations rather than defaulting to a centralized govt led economic system.

But I think the important thing is that people should understand the two philosophical approaches rather than judge the people that they think represent those approaches (as you mentioned Carter probably wasn't as liberal as his opponents think he was, and similarly GWB doesn't really represent conservatism.)

And they should consider where the checks and balances lie with each system; to date, I feel that when we move in a more liberal/socialistic direction we end up with the worst of both systems because we lack ethical leadership- our elected officials usually sell their economic policies in such a way that the oversight function is overlooked. I believe that liberals are often right about the unfettered greed effects on Wall Street, but then they overlook the unfettered greed of liberal politicians- and vice versa for the conservative voters.

That's where I think our emphasis needs to be.

I'm trying to figure out how to make this philosophical point briefly, but basically it is the idea that ALL sides tend to think (or act in a way) that the definition of a good society is the absence of the current ills, without realizing that the very act of changing will bring new ills and challenges. This isn't just a political phenomenon, but is easily seen in scientific understanding and even completely natural events like punctuated equilibrium in evolution.

There are both intra-system swings that I think we tend to have, and inter-system swings where the entire order to destroyed (i.e. going to communism, dictatorship, etc). Both of these transitions are accompanied by disorder, power shifts and fear, with the greater the change the worse the transition period. The greater the problems in the current system, the more likely that there will be an inter-system swing.

This is partially why history rhymes even if it doesn't repeat. For instance the current economic problems are caused by too much debt in the world and are the direct result of an inter-system change that happened with the creation of the Federal Reserve. That led to the Great Depression and from that arose modern economic theory of the Keynes/monetarists. They figured out how to tame the new system and thought that they could control it (with arguments and minor swings back between Keynesian thought and Friedman thought) but they shared the same underlying assumptions that I feel are demonstrably wrong. And now we're paying for it.

But the only reason why we have the system we do is because on the prior system the boom/bust cycle was must shorter and more violent. So we've traded the 7-10 year cycle of prosperity and panic for a much longer one that builds up cumulative imbalances and then has a crash of unimaginable proportions. Ironically, any attempt to change the system once it's too overloaded will guarantee that things fail, so we tend to just work within the existing system by doing a swing and then when things get better and it would be a good time to reassess the basic assumptions, no one wants to cause things are “fixed.” (Until the excesses of that swing show up of course.)

Ironically, the very problems that we have created now that mystify a lot of the economists who never saw it coming were perfectly understood by the ones in the 1800s. So in some sense, we have gotten dumber in the last 100 years.

I could write forever about this but to sum up my basic point, humans tend to think linearly and create positive feedbacks. This means that we extrapolate past trends and logic out to the future and once we get positive results, alter the system in a way that compounds the results (a good example is that very heavy tax burden and no free trade policies led to the idea that we should cut taxes and open up some trade, and when we did that had positive effects….so then it went to the idea that if taxes were as low as possible and there were as few barriers as possible that would just make it even better! Of course this isn't entirely true, but it's become ingrained as the “Truth.”) In reality it's becoming clear that we should start adopting counter-cyclical negative-feedback economic and foreign policies to avoid wild imbalances.

So it's not what Buckley said because it is not saying to “stop” (I'd argue this is always tough because there are always classes that will be out of power and a lot of progress comes from rotation of power….rotation that is natural due to technological advancement) but it is saying “slow down” and tries to work within the system. Then based on technological and social development, at some point those policies will fail and a new system will arise….and there will be a lot of turmoil but the chance for far greater regrowth.

These ideas that destruction is a natural phenomenon and consequence of prosperity is ancient and seen in all the Eastern religions and thought but something that is notably absent from most Western. (Although I'm not sure that Eastern cultures have actually learned anything practical from this point as they are very statically oriented.)

About Obama, from reading how he supposedly develops ideas and the ideas of his closest advisors, it is very clear that he is an intra-swing sorta guy, and even more so, that he is the type that embraces negative feedback loops (at least in theory). However, I fear that we're at a point where everything — whether it's the economy, energy, foreign power balances, social mores — is at a fissure point and about to erupt. The entire 20th century way of thinking is going to be severely challenged and I'm not sure if Obama is up to the task of recognizing this. I can't think of any politicians that are.

And dismissing Palin is impossible given McCain's age and health history. I don't want there to be the slightest chance that she will become President.

I'm not trying to push the “who is Obama” meme as a talking point, I'm trying to raise the legitimate question of whether or not people are voting for him for positive reasons (other than ones based on his rhetoric) of policy. And I reject your claim that Palin negates this legitimate question, because she's the VP selection for a Presidential candidate that IS very well known. I realize that a bunch of people came on board because of Palin, and that's stupid- but really most people who are supporting McCain are supporting him, not her (in fact many of us are supporting him in spite of her- and I say that as someone who actually does see promise in her but I think she's way too green right now.)

If people really are rejecting conservatism in favor of liberalism, shouldn't the people actually understand those principles first?? There's been such vast misunderstanding and misrepresentation of our entire economic situation that I'm horrified that people are making such judgments based on that knowledge or lack of knowledge.

I suppose to your point about McCain lacking the ideas- I don't really disagree, but more fundamentally I suppose I believe that the conservative principle that Buckley famously described (standing athwart history and yelling stop) really does apply. Again, if people are desiring a strong shift toward liberalism, shouldn't they understand what that means first? Should people not take a critical look at Europe to see if moving in a more liberal direction helps or hurts economic conditions overall, and whether their policies are sustainable- instead of saying (as you seem to) “Hey, Europe is still so far to the left of us and they've survived so far, so why not move in that direction and give it a try?”

On your last paragraph, again I agree that the primary complaint isn't necessarily about who gets punished- I just see that as the only way to open my argument, to try to get people to recognize that that's the sleight of hand that they're falling for (the blame the other guys syndrome.)

A bit off topic, but I'd love to hear any feedback you have on a discussion I'm having with Rudi in another thread about the roots of the subprime meltdown (specifically, my timeline and the points that I'm trying to raise about party culpability as it relates to the tension between “creating more affordable housing” and the need to apply fiscally sound principles in doing so.)

Well I think that the downfall of Congress is the biggest concern as its inability to function has helped drive polarization in the country, led to some of Bush's worst excesses and made the budget FUBAR. I don't see how we can have good governance from either party until Congress is fixed.