I gave my answer multiple times. Perhaps you missed it in the din of liberals screaming they don't deliberately ignore things and conservatives are all obstructionists.

If certain parts of government, regulatory agencies for instance, are understaffed, it actually costs us more.

I agree. Understaffing is a good example of the poor resource allocation conservatives lament, and one of the reasons government frequently disappoints.

In fact, I've written that the medicinal metaphor is perfectly apt with excess government. Not only is the dosage raised, but the “solution” to the problem of the bad side effects (so many of which are so often predicted) is normally a dosage of another, additional medicine, too. (Still another government program or initiative — that rarely ends — is the response to bad results, in other words.)

I guess that makes the post-1994 Clinton gang a bunch of mantric Republicans (actually, they were just ending their stupid lurch leftward to alien extremes, and conceding to reality), and I'm sure you could find plenty of people among the unions and elsewhere hurling the same charges at Mayor Dave Bing in the city of Detroit, as he (and school chief Bobb) attempt decades-overdue reforms to try to forestall pending bankruptcy. (What's going to happen when all the reckless over-spending and borrowing this year and in the starry eyes of lib Dems still to come, and more monstrous interventionism, by Washington bring similar problems on us all, eventually?)

There's nothing wrong with wanting the size and scope of Washington returned to where it belongs (though some honest interpretations of “belongs” would see the end of more than 2/3 of what our federal government contains, and does, currently) — and much of what it would not be doing if it returned to its true constitutional bounds and shackles(!) wouldn't necessarily be assumed by state or local government, either — and I should just repeat my earlier remark posted elsewhere that it makes perfect, if ironic, sense, to see true reformers elected to office with the deliberate objective of acting as doctors ideally would, in researching and practicing so many and so much of their current jobs out of existence.

I don't agree. I have no love of big government for its own sake, but I do believe in “right-sizing”. To leave your doctor analogy behind, it's like a car engine. It's tempting to say smaller is better in terms of fuel efficiency, but that's not really true. If the engine is too small for the weight of the vehicle, you actually lose efficiency. If certain parts of government, regulatory agencies for instance, are understaffed, it actually costs us more, just like when there is inadequate enforcement of tax law. Fewer auditors doesn't save us money, it costs us.

None of which is my point. My point is that the Republican mantra “privatize, deregulate, cut social spending” has not served us well. It has trashed our economy and empowered unelected lobbyists and fat cats to call the shots to the detriment of the majority of Americans.

He'd better say that a good fraction of the time, because most problems do get better on their own, while the pills that mother gives you don't do anything at all.

If, on the other hand, he reflexively said “This medicine doesn't seem to be helping; raise the dosage!” he'd sound a lot like you.

I don't know, JS. I wouldn't equate skepticism about global warming with denial, and as a scientist I'm a bit alarmed at the level of certainty being accorded long-term climate models that still involve much guesswork. It's not too hard to imagine the conclusions changing and science losing its voice in global policy for the next 50 years.

As for health care reform, I'm at a loss to find a better phrase than “willfully ignore” for describing liberals' reception of every reform idea from the right. I've witnessed it a hundred times on these pages. And congressional democrats certainly ignored republican HR 2520; it's a stretch to claim they did it accidentally.

My doctor works to decrease my need for his services in the future, even though that means less business for him. If he did the opposite, I'd pick a different doctor.

I have similar expectations of legislators.

As for the content of the piece, I think the question of “intellectualism” is moot here. Conservatives are comprised, in my assessment of the complicit, the sheep and the distracted. The “intellectuals” I assume in your view would be the complicit.

The “complicit” are the rich, powerful and greedy; those who directly benefit from policies designed, tested and proven to drive an increasing wealth gap. They know exactly what they're doing, and their intent is to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. The GOP mantra for the last 30 years has been “privatize, deregulate, cut social spending” (Milton Friedman's quote, but Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and others had the same view). The result of implementing these policies is ALWAYS the same (feel free to point out an example in which this is not true). It's the transfer of public wealth to private hands, private debt to the public, and an increasing wealth gap. I figure most or all the complicit are in the top 1%. Not sure if you're there, but probably not. I am, but I don't consider these policies good for rich people. Indeed, a radical increase in wealth gap has preceded the collapse of every single empire this world has known.

The “sheep” are easily manipulated by the complicit, generally through fear, nationalism and religion. Some are true believers who truly believe the conservative “philosophy” such as cutting taxes will increase government revenue (it doesn't. ever). They believe in the “magic” of the market, that by deregulating industry, competition will lower prices and the “market” will sort out the bad players. It doesn't reach their consciousness that deregulated industries screw their consumers, their employees, the environment, the communities in which they work and even their stockholders. Some are driven by the delusion that if policies favor rich people, these policies will help them become rich (yeah, right). Some are driven by simple selfishness and appeals to “letting people keep their own” and not sharing. The Rand-ian feel-good meme “The Virtue of Selfishness” applies here, as people LOVE to think their selfishness is somehow a good thing. Many are simply bigots of one sort or another or just live in fear of whatever boogeyman is held up to them: Communists, criminals, terrorists, “the gay agenda”, “the liberal agenda”, Muslims, liberal academics, activist judges, whatever.

The “distracted” are single issue voters. It doesn't matter what other policies the party represents. They will always vote for an anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, pro Christian, anti-union, pro-NRA or other single issue cause. Obviously there's lots of overlap between the sheep and the distracted.

A good friend of mine thinks my Republican taxonomy should include “the demented” too, but I figure most of those are “sheep”. There are surely some crazies, but I think most are fear-driven zealots easily led by the complicit.

Jazz, maybe you're rich. I figure you're a sheep and true believer. Hope you find that as insulting as are your comments to me.

Like who, JS? I was feeling hopeful when Mr. Moran promised “a few liberals who…using logically sound arguments, have something important to say,” then disappointed when his Jacob Weisberg quotes took the low road. The third quote dismissed conservatives as having bad intentions (I sure am tired of that particular slander), and the last quote equated conservative thought with George Bush's shortcomings. Is this as good as it gets?

However, I found Mr. Moran's thoughts about conservative reformists quite good.

I have a piece coming up as a companion to Rick's asking the question, “Is Classic Liberalism Dead?” I can't wait to hear your “reasoned” response to that one.

1) What exactly has Obama done that's revolutionary? Is it only health care, where it's likely we are only going to have co-ops and forced private insurance, or do you have something else in mind?
“
2) Same paragraph, you say: “But to millions of patriotic, god fearing Americans, they feel they are losing their country and will fight to keep it.” First up, I hope “patriotic and god-fearing” isn't supposed to exclude people who disagree. Any lack of patriotism on the left is matched by Gov. Perry and ilk who wish to secede from the nation if their political views aren't dominant. There are also millions of God-fearing liberals as well as conservatives, despite the conservative Christians attempts to declare otherwise. More important, how exactly are they losing their country? It is just about the desire for Blue Cross to decide their health decisions instead of a government? Honestly, it strikes me as closer to Glenn Beck's belief that Obama hates white culture but can't even define it when asked. I don't mean to attack here, but what part of America is exactly being taken away that they must fight for? Maybe it's because I grew up in the small town South, but this used to be code for hatred of non-whites. I want to understand what it really is since I'm a liberal incapable of grasping such things.

2) More importantly, because this is the positive contribution I believe conservatives can make, what exactly are the ways we can keep the “safety net” without losing independence and self-reliance? I would hazard the guess that a large majority of Americans want this in the abstract terms presented, but what exactly do you have in mind? I think one could devote several blogs just to this and I'd be interested. (More than in reading about what I am unable to understand.)

Finally, and this isn't a criticism, I appreciate your comments about moving various tasks from the feds to the states. For me, that has always been my best idea of how to balance safety nets and independence. It varies with the size of the state, but, in general, individuals have a lot more say over how their own state is run than the federal government, and so moving things to the states allows people to have more say. But I appreciate the point that this doesn't lower taxes. In fact, it might raise them at times if economies of scale are lost.

For the adults among the voting public, imagine hiring a carpenter who thought carpentry was the source of all evil and that his profession should cease to exist. Or buying a “used car” to use your analogy, from an outfit that despises cars, thinks they should be dismantled and buried forever and their only goal in running a car dealership is to dismantle and destroy it so the public can be car-free.