| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
08 Aug 2007 09:44:37 AM |
| Object: |
The Failure of Anti-government Conservatism |
Conservatives are so blinded by their antigovernment ideology that
when they get hold of government they turn it into a corroded mess of
cronyism, corruption, and incompetence, a dilapidated whorehouse where
the plumbing doesn't work, the paint is peeling off the walls, and
everything is for sale.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_failure_of_antigovernment_conservatism
August 8, 2007
The Failure of Antigovernment Conservatism
Paul Waldman
Visiting the site of the Minneapolis bridge collapse on Saturday,
President Bush used the opportunity to get in a standard-issue
Republican dig on government -- you know, the entity in charge of
things like making sure bridges are safe.
"There's a lot of paperwork involved with government," he said,
promising to "cut through that paperwork, and to see if we can't get
this bridge rebuilt in a way that not only expedites the flow of
traffic, but in a way that can stand the test of time."
But don't expect too much.
"I make no promises on the timetable," the president then said,
bringing down the mood a bit.
He did, though, go on to say that the tragedy might lead to something
positive.
A pledge from his administration to push for greater investment in
infrastructure, perhaps?
Or a promise to repair crumbling roads, bridges, and utilities?
Fat chance.
"Out of these tragedies can come a better life," he said.
"And I, having visited with the people here, believe that not only are
they committed to a better life, not only are they committed to
turning something ugly into something good, but it's going to happen."
So our government may not do much beyond rebuilding this particular
bridge, but President Bush is relieved to find that the people
directly affected by this tragedy are "committed to a better life."
Perhaps he should have also encouraged them to eat more fruits and
vegetables.
When Bush glides into the scene of a tragedy, floating in the
molasses-thick bubble of banality that surrounds him at all times, the
results can be painful to watch.
But the tone-deafness of Bush's response to the bridge collapse offers
yet another illustration of how far the national debate has moved away
from the Republicans.
As hard as it may be for many progressives to accept it, scarred as
they are by years of GOP abuse and the tepid, apologetic stance of
their own allies, the time has finally come for them to defend,
without reservation, the idea of a vigorous, engaged government.
They can finally say, without fear of disastrous political
consequences, that sometimes government is not the problem, it's the
solution.
Back in Washington, last week saw the emergence of another golden
opportunity for Democrats to move the debate on the role of government
forward.
Both houses of Congress passed an increase in the State Children's
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which currently provides health
insurance to 6.6 million children, millions less than are actually
eligible.
President Bush, his compassion flag flying, has threatened to veto the
bill.
In Sunday's Republican presidential debate in Iowa, all 10 candidates
went on record with their opposition to increasing SCHIP.
Problem is, the program actually works as it was intended, thereby
inculcating citizens with the crazy idea that providing health
insurance through the government is a good idea.
There are occasions in politics when your opponents walk up to you and
say, "We're taking a stand that is terribly unpopular with the public.
Not only that, the issue highlights one of the most basic differences
between us and you, offering you the opportunity to make truly
fundamental arguments that will not only serve you well today but help
you win elections for years to come. Now what are you going to do
about it?"
Well, what are the Democrats going to do about it?
If they were smart, Democrats would drop everything for the next month
and talk about nothing but SCHIP.
Get the House and Senate versions of the bill reconciled, get it to
President Bush, and force him to follow through on his veto threat.
Let Republicans continue to argue that they're afraid increasing
funding will lead to more children having health coverage (and no,
that isn't a caricature -- that's actually what they're saying).
"If Congress continues to insist upon expanding health care through
the SCHIP program," said President Bush, "I'll veto the bill."
Nine of the 10 Republicans running for president oppose expanding
SCHIP, lest children get coverage through the government and thereby
become, in Rudy Giuliani's words, "wards of the state" (the exception
is Tommy Thompson, who said he favors expanding the program, just not
the way this bill does it).
Duncan Hunter complained, "This is socialized medicine. It's going to
go to families that make $60,000 a year. Those aren't poor children."
Why the focus on SCHIP?
First, because this is an issue on which the public's opinions
couldn't be clearer.
In May, a CNN poll asked respondents, "Do you think the government
should provide a national health insurance program for all children
under the age of 18, even if this would require higher taxes?"
Seventy-three percent said yes.
A CBS/New York Times poll in April found that 84 percent said SCHIP
should be expanded to cover all uninsured children.
That's about as close to a national consensus as you ever find.
And the Democratic talking points couldn't be simpler:
Democrats want to give health coverage to kids, and Republicans want
kids to go without health coverage.
The second reason the Democrats should talk about SCHIP every time
they get within earshot of a reporter is that this is a rare issue on
which the Republican argument is abstract and dry, while the
Democratic argument is concrete and lends itself easily to effective
emotional appeals.
A junior high school debater could rip apart the Republican candidates
and their pathetically outdated attacks on "socialized medicine."
Try this:
"Mayor Giuliani, let me tell you about Betsy Wilson. She's 10, and her
parents both work hard -- mom is a waitress, dad is trying to build a
carpentry business. But like millions of Americans, they can't afford
health coverage, so Betsy doesn't get the doctor visits she needs. Now
we want to give the Wilsons the opportunity to get health coverage for
Betsy, so she can stay healthy and they won't be bankrupted if she
gets sick again. But you say no. Did I mention that Betsy had a rare
form of cancer when she was 6? She's in remission now, thank heavens,
but the Wilsons worry every day that it could come back. And those
HMOs you like so much won't cover her because they think it might cut
into their profits. So answer me this question, Mayor Giuliani: How
can you look at Betsy and say, sorry, too bad -- you can't have health
coverage? What kind of a person says that to a child?"
The Republican reply will, of necessity, be abstract -- talk of the
glories of the free market and the hope that with the right mix of tax
incentives, families like the Wilsons might be encouraged to get a
health savings account, with which they would "own their own health
insurance."
And they'll lose.
The third reason Democrats should make SCHIP the issue of the month is
that it connects so well with issues like infrastructure maintenance.
It highlights the fundamental divide between the right and the left:
Progressives believe we're all in it together, while conservatives say
we're all on our own and we're all out for ourselves.
Progressives think government has to do the things markets can't do --
and when it does them, it ought to do them well.
Conservatives are so blinded by their antigovernment ideology that
when they get hold of government they turn it into a corroded mess of
cronyism, corruption, and incompetence, a dilapidated whorehouse where
the plumbing doesn't work, the paint is peeling off the walls, and
everything is for sale.
For the last seven years we've seen what happens when people who have
nothing but contempt for government are given its reins.
Amidst all the misery that has resulted is the greatest political
opportunity Democrats have had in decades.
Yes, the public can't stand George W. Bush.
But the discontent goes far deeper.
Democrats can either address that discontent and explain its true
sources, or wait for their opponents to find a way to blame it all on
them.
Many of us believe that this is a defining moment in the ongoing
ideological struggle between conservatism and progressivism.
But that moment will be squandered unless those with access to the
public make clear exactly what these debates are about.
Issues like SCHIP and maintaining our infrastructure get to the
differences that should define our politics.
But they only do so if the most important players in the debate make
the decision to talk about them that way.
This is an opportunity not just to define Bush, or the Republicans in
Congress, or the GOP presidential candidates, but to define
conservatism itself.
It's time for prominent Democrats, the ones who have the power to get
on the evening news, to talk in explicit terms about the consequences
of the conservative antigovernment philosophy and what it says about
the people who advocate it.
Conservatives are the people who degrade government to the point that
it cannot effectively maintain our roads and bridges.
Conservatives are the people who turn over our defense budget to
corrupt contractors who steal the money that ought to go to our
troops.
Conservatives are the people who won't let poor kids have health
insurance.
But will we see Democrats making those arguments?
Andrew Sullivan recently argued that Hillary Clinton suffers from
"political post-traumatic stress disorder," that she "has internalized
to her bones the 1990s' sense that conservatism is ascendant, that
what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have
structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their
side."
Putting aside the question of whether this is true of Clinton, it
certainly is an accurate description of more than a few prominent
Democrats.
There is a whole generation of Democrats -- politicians, congressional
staff, political consultants, and party functionaries -- who either
started their careers or matured during the Clinton years, when the
dominant Democratic strategy was one of triangulation, long before it
was given that name.
They spent their time worrying not about how to contrast themselves
with Republicans, but how to contrast themselves with other Democrats.
But 2007 is not 1994, and there is no political benefit to proclaiming
one's opposition to big government.
Arguing for the progressive vision of government's appropriate role
will not lead inexorably to Republican victories -- just the opposite.
A time like 1994 may come again one day, but this is not that time.
If Democrats don't make the case for government now, when the public
is more ready to hear it than they have been in decades, they will
continue to find themselves on the defensive.
There's a good chance that before his presidency comes to its
long-awaited end, George W. Bush will stand at the site of another
tragedy, another failure of his administration and his ideology, and
offer another string of anti-government clichés dripping with
unintended irony.
The fact that he did so last weekend and was not greeted with ridicule
and contempt has nothing to do with the power of his ideas or his deft
public relations.
It is up to his opponents, at long last, to stop acting ashamed of
what they believe and stand up for government.
When they do, they'll find the public is already there waiting for
them.
________________________________________________
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Drunk with Power" |
|
| Title: Re:The Failure of Anti-government Conservatism |
08 Aug 2007 10:06:48 AM |
|
|
Harry Hope wrote:
Conservatives are so blinded by their antigovernment ideology that
when they get hold of government they turn it into a corroded mess of
cronyism, corruption, and incompetence, a dilapidated whorehouse where
the plumbing doesn't work, the paint is peeling off the walls, and
everything is for sale.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_failure_of_antigovernment_conservatism
August 8, 2007
The Failure of Antigovernment Conservatism
A pledge from his administration to push for greater investment in
infrastructure, perhaps?
Or a promise to repair crumbling roads, bridges, and utilities?
I used to "invest" in infrastructures like bridges, electrical grids,
healthcare, retirement funds, etc We used to call such
investments "paying taxes" and the returns were pumped back
into the U.S. Treasury which reduced the need for taxes.
But no, Bush wants the rates of return to be variable and speculative
by privatizing and deregulating these national and local infrastructures.
The rates for electricity, water, food, ... all the infrastructures for basic
living needs, are now going to get tied-in with inflation and price gouging.
Bush's Gucci Bag backdoor taxes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley F. Nelson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Failure of Anti-government Conservatism |
08 Aug 2007 11:02:48 AM |
|
|
These people are not actually "anti-government." Far from it. They simply
want a government that does exactly what they want done in exactly the way
they want things done and in exactly the time they want things done. They
are opposed to any governmental activity at any level that does not meet
their juvenile, destructive expectations.
Stanley F. Nelson
Dallas.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
