We're gonna take it straight to [the American people] and we're gonna win or we're gonna lose articulating exactly who we are and exactly what we believe and exactly what our vision for America is....Going back to a CPAC speech Paul Ryan gave in 2008, Rush gets very excited about converting voters to conservative ideology. He uses that word, "ideology," over and over again. Go to that second link and read the whole thing. I'm making a big deal out of this because, listening to the podcast, I got worried about ideologues.
"There are those who say that modern society is too complicated for the average man or woman to deal with." And that is being said. That's the whole premise of liberalism. You're incompetent. You can't manage your own life. You're not smart enough. You're not able enough. You're not competent enough to make the right decisions in your life. "There are those who say modern society is too complicated for the average man or woman to deal with. This is a long-standing argument, but we heard it more frequently after the mortgage credit collapse and financial meltdown in 2008. They say we need more experts and technocrats making more of our economic decisions for us. And they argue for less 'political interference' with the enlightened bureaucrats … by which they mean less objection by the people to the overregulation of society.
"If we choose to have a federal government that tries to solve every problem, then as long as society keeps growing more complex, government must keep on growing right along with it. The rule of law by the people must be reduced and the arbitrary discretion of experts expanded..." So you buy into this complexity argument, you are automatically buying into "only government can fix it."...
"If the average American can’t handle complexity in his or her own life, and only government experts can … then government must direct the average American about how to live his or her life. Freedom becomes a diminishing good. But there’s a major flaw in this 'progressive' argument, and it’s this. It assumes there must be someone or some few who do have all the knowledge and information. We just have to find, train, and hire them to run the government’s agencies. Friedrich Hayek called this collectivism’s 'fatal conceit.' The idea that a few bureaucrats know what’s best for all of society, or possess more information about human wants and needs than millions of free individuals interacting in a free market is both false and arrogant. It has guided collectivists for two centuries down the road to serfdom -- and the road is littered with their wrecked utopias. The plan always fails!" It always has failed.
And yet there are a lot of Americans (we talk about this a lot): Government comes up with a program and it's a debacle. It's a mess. So what's the fix? Government! Another program. We continue to go back to the architects of failure to fix what they broke in the first place. And Ryan simply argues that we are all capable of living our lives in freedom much more productively, much more capably, than being told how to live by a bunch of people who can't even manage their own lives.
Where are these magicians who know how to live their own lives? Who are they? And how do they magically end up in government? Well, they don't exist, and they aren't in government, and this is the ultimate argument. Small-government conservatism means turning your life back over to you. This then raises the question that we all are asking ourselves: How many Americans want that responsibility anymore?
How many takers are there who'll just as soon punt all the responsibility and accept whatever little things they get and they're happy, versus how many people really want the opportunity to be the best they can be with as few obstacles in their way as possible? Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address, was actually one of the first people to articulate this whole point that Ryan made at CPAC. "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself.
"Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." And again, even Jefferson said there has never been a time in history where a government-run, top-to-down country has prospered. The greatest example of human prosperity is the United States of America, and it was not made up of the way Barack Obama sees it or wants it to be seen or wants it to exist....
But I like the fact that there's somebody who's gonna be on the news every day that can talk like I do.... We've got somebody who can articulate what we believe. It's in his heart. He doesn't need crib notes. He doesn't need briefings. He doesn't need a consultant to tell him what to think or how to answer a question. He knows it. He's lived it. It's his soul.In a way that sounds good, but it's asking for a leap of faith, and it's asking for you to embrace a faith and accept all the consequences. And in that articulate presentation of the reasons for the faith, there's a key matter that you've got to believe: That people really can provide for themselves. If you just cut them free, they'll take responsibility. They're smart enough and competent enough to figure things out for themselves and take all the precautions they should. But I can't believe that! And we're too compassionate to allow old people to live in the streets or a child to be denied medical treatment and so forth. So there's no way anymore to tell people they're all on their own.
Come on, everybody, let's be ideologues! That seems quite dangerous and absurd to me.
Now, on some moderate level, I can see saying that as we structure our various programs, we ought to try to maximize personal freedom and responsibility, but I want sensible, realistic politicians thinking carefully about these things. Rush kept saying he was "jazzed" about Ryan. Jazzed at the opportunity to make it all starkly ideological.
I'm skeptical.
Posts
252 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 252 of 252wish you supposed fiscal conservatives, (i.e., selfish bastards), were as selfish about when it comes to "your" money going to kill and maim human being around the world
Oh we conservatives actually enjoy that part! We even pay extra in taxes to ensure we get a Live Feed of the mayhem. Its important to have good entertainment playing in background while dining off the belly of a sacrificial virgin lashed to a satanic altar.
[stupid troll deserves stupid]
this is althouse warning rush about too much ideology...
Presumably, this can be mitigated or prevente altogether by common representative management of the commons...i.e., through "government," rather than through the willy-nilly activities of multiple self-interested parties.
You can presume what you like.
The reality, however, is that private ownership works better than "representative management" in all situations where ownership and responsibility can be clearly defined. Government management works better only where ownership and responsibility cannot be clearly defined, e.g. with air and water quality.
There's a reason why you hear about, say, elephants being driven to extinction by people interested in their ivory -- but never, ever hear about mink being driven to extinction by people interested in their fur, or cows driven to extinction by people interested in their meat. The reason is that mink and cows have owners, and elephants do not.
Unsurprisingly, when people have been allowed to actually own elephant herds and harvest them for ivory, the elephants thrive.
"And we're too compassionate to allow old people to live in the streets or a child to be denied medical treatment and so forth. So there's no way anymore to tell people they're all on their own."
Fine, do it any which way you want. Help them. You do it, with like-minds if you feel the need.
But don't ask taxpayers to subsidize it through government. Find a way to do it with private means. That's what Rush is saying. What you talk about, do. What you can't do, don't talk about. Taxpayers are not responsible for your sense of responsibility. Do it yourself, whatever it is you want done. That's what Rush is saying.
Who on earth hasn't figured out that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are left-wing ideologues who have almost run this country into the ground??
I'll take my chances with Romney and Ryan.
------no one has to want grandma to starve for it to happen...they just to not give a shit one way or the other. There are plenty of those folks around, not necessarily restricted just to those in the Wall Street boardrooms and Big Bank CEO corner offices.
Government doesn't give a (#** one way or another. That's why the liberal ideological fixation on taxing the rich to show 'concern' is so blind.
Look at the abysmal failure of government child protection over and over. Look at the inner city.
Quit saying those who critique our massive welfare state are monsters. You libs solutions are shot. You've lost the argument that's why you are physically threatening conservatives.
"We won't let grandma or poor cousin Floyd die on the street if we can help it. "
Fine, then don't. You help them. I don't need to through government taxes. You're talking charity, not government responsibility.
Your stochastic structure is mushed by pathological altruism. And tyrannous impulses.
"We won't let grandma or poor cousin Floyd die on the street if we can help it. "
Your stochastic structure is mushed by pathological altruism. And tyrannous impulses.
8/14/12 9:53 PM
Why thank you David! That's good.....right? Is that as good as being a boomer bitch who doesn't love her children? You are too charming.
------Jefferson said "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself.
"Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
And Rush echoes the question for us. This is the ideological question do we need the "messiah" to govern us (harshly as we see) or do we return to what Jefferson endowed us with (which is slipping away under Obama) to "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"?
@ AllieOop
"Why thank you David! That's good.....right? Is that as good as being a boomer bitch who doesn't love her children? You are too charming."
If you're going to quote then why don't you include the entire quote? Or at least show where you cut his quote?
Oh because then you'd actually have to address his argument rather than just being a bitch right?
Yeah that's impressive.
Long story very very short—
I know a couple in Dix Hills NY. Fancy address, built-in, near Olympic size swimming pool, the works. He, a chiropractor and an MD, and she an RN and a chiropractor, are credentialed to the teeth.
They are both on disability for nonexistent maladies.
It'a all broken, man, thoroughly, completely, absolutely broken. What's worse—so are the people.
Ed, many commenters don't include the entire comment when they quote. I responded to the part I wanted to, not what I thought YOU or anyone else might want me too. My perogative, a wee bit controlling aren't ya?
"The problem, as I have heard it put, is that if America steps aside, some other power will take up the role of global policeman (a phrase I hate, BTW). What other nation would you trust with that power?"
One with full-spectrum military power sufficient to keep open world-wide lines of communication.
There's only one.
"Folks, this is it. The very crux of every single argument that ever happens on the internet. The great divide: can we take care of ourseves or not?"
Concur. Re-revolutionizing of USA is occurring. Individual responsibility, including for charitable activity, is of the essence. This is the actual fundamental transformation that is underway. It accords with the purpose of history and is both indefatigable and indomitable.
The argument of Prof. Althouse is invalid because it equivocates on the referent of "the people".
"The people" to be freed from governmental paternalism are referred to as a collective noun, but Althouse in her objection switches to understanding "the people" as a individual atomistic persons who do not communicate, coordinate or care for each in the absence of government.
Yet "the people" collectively will care for themselves and each other willingly and voluntarily because they are human beings. It is a wild extremist ideology to maintain that government is what makes us human.
The prerequisite for a moral or blameworthy act is that it be undertaken freely. The ancient dream that somehow the wise among us should be able to force the inferior to do right thing even against their will was always impossible because of this contradiction between the nature of morality and the nature of coercion.
I'm a little confused by the Professor's post.
I thought Ryan was a younger skinny guy who has presented a detailed plan to pay for medical care for retired citizens both now and in the future. A plan that won't collapse a few years after the next Presidential term.
Rush Limbaugh is an older, larger man who isn't running for any office. And I've never heard Rush say that there should be no social security or medicare-like program for retirees.
It's may be that your right brain hippie ego is trying to take over the left brain, rational thinking part of your personality.
Lawyers and artists aren't always real strong on math, but please. LOOK AT THE NUMBERS! For the children!!!!!!
The Boomers have a ton to apologize for to all generations who follow them here
The Boomers didn't set up the Medicare or the SS system or ratchet the benefits up for decades--that was the Greatest Generation, because they voted more than the young people they were fleecing.
The Boomers' major fault was not having enough babies to keep the scheme going another generation.
Jefferson returned to this theme several times. Read the wisdom of these words........
"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824. ME 16:73
Those who would rule their fellow citizens and those who have confidence and cherish their fellow citizens.
When a President abandons respect of Congress and substitutes rule by executive Order, who is the ideologue?
Meanwhile, over at Slate, a liberal wonders why the left has no Ayn Rand.
The author asks "American conservatives have a canon. Why don’t American liberals?"
The author forgets to mention Alinsky and Marx of course.
But her main point is correct. Unlike the right, the left has no real ideology beyond seeking to transfer money and power from other people to themselves.
At its core, the American Left is all about personal greed and power.
Exegetical statement: the NT parable of the good Samaritan (a despised demographic in First Century Judea) marks individual not aggregate reponsibility. The injunction and illustration is spoken to a man, not a nation. The speaker was in no position to address a nation.
No sane person would address those words to an aggregate body larger than an immediate, voluntarily present audience. There is no religious or secular corporate obligation to subsidize the life of an other. Voluntary and recommended, even urged individually, yes. Obligatory, no.
Only vote-seekers/extortionists claim an obligatory tax-based "safety net." Aid is effective only when personal, voluntary and anonymous. If you want others mandated to do it, you're impulses are irreligious, tyrannical and inhuman. Neither NT nor OT will support you.
Among scriptures, only Koran will do that. In Iraq, at least, imams send gangs to beat congregants they find in arrears on the mosque tax ("charity"). The US Constitution calls it establishment of religion. Forced charity, such as through IRS, is exactly that.
You may feel you are *your* brother's keeper. Fine. Go to it. I am under no obligation to. I will take care of my brother as God gives me light to see to do. You have no leverage on my charity short of destroying my personhood. Neither does God, nor would He want to. But you do?
Meanwhile, over at Slate, a liberal wonders why the left has no Ayn Rand.
Further proof that more people should follow the maxim "write what you know".
It may look, to a member of the left, like conservatives adore Ayn Rand. Meanwhile, back in Reality, conservatives have always disliked Rand -- who was, after all, an atheist with no regard for "traditional values" or coercive social institutions. There was nothing conservative about Rand's vision of how society should operate.
Hell, even most libertarians think objectivist philosophy is extreme. :)
This election isn't about ideology it's about a scary monster in the night, maybe a ghost.
AlleyOpp: we cannot abandon those who cannot care for themselves and remain a nation based on Judeo/ Christian values.
I don't know why not.It was government policy (The Great Society) that tripled the inner city illegitimacy rate over the last four decades (from the mid-twenties to the mid-seventies). We couldn't have done more harm to what before then were mostly stable black communities than if we'd firebombed them with helicopter gunships.
We basically put an entire race on welfare and the result is that children raised by single moms have more problems across the board--more teen pregnancies, more delinquencies, more illiteracy, more arrests, more drug use, lower high school graduation rates, a greater chance of spending time in prison. They don't get jobs because when they go in for an interview they let their underwear show and they wear their ball hats sideways. But even when they are given employment applications they can't read well enough to fill them out.
"The author asks 'American conservatives have a canon. Why don’t American liberals?'
"The author forgets to mention Alinsky and Marx of course."
Don't be a dope. "American liberals" do not read Saul Alinksy or Karl Marx. Although Alinsky seems to be the boogie-man du jour of the rabid right, I'd bet most Americans today across the political spectrum have no idea who he is.
The messiah has said we're our brothers keepers. (Quoting either the Bible or the Chilean government in Atlas Shrugged). But he has a brother, and he isn't his keeper.
The author asks "American conservatives have a canon. Why don’t American liberals?"
The intellecutal American left does have a canon. It is embodied in the writings of Richard Cloward and Frences Fox Piven.
The Cloward-Piven strategy calls for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".
It is the canon of the Obama administration. That's why the work requirement for welfare reciepients was just waived by presidential order. And why the Obama administration is telling Mexican citizens how to apply for welfare before they illegaly enter America.
Here's a quote: The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.
Outright redistribution of income. That is exactly what President Obama has been calling for.
There's your liberal canon. They just don't talk about it much in public.
Robert Cook,
Don't be a dope. "American liberals" do not read Saul Alinksy or Karl Marx.
Who do American liberals read?
Michael Haz, if you think the Richard Cloward of Frances Fox Piven have the slightest influence on public policy, you have it exactly backwards.
The strategy that's in play in Washington--and it will be in play whether the Democrats or Republicans are "in charge," because they really aren't the ones in charge--is to transfer as much of the public's treasure as possible into the hands of the richest elites, the 1%, as they have been called, because it is the 1% who are really in charge.
We do not have a government any longer that is in the least representative of the American public at large. The men and women in Washington, from the Oval Office on down, and with rare exception, are in the employ of the 1% (and their less-wealthy-but-still-fucking-wealthy brethren and sistren).
I'm skeptical of Rush, who I sometimes find simplistic and repetitive.
And I, on the other hand, am sick and tired of words like "nuance." Nuance is an arrogant liberal term designed to add to the egos of leftists. The popularization of "Nuance" allows leftists to assimilate contradictory leftist dogma, because by doing so they become "smart" and accepting of insane contradictory ideas.
Simple things have tremendous advantages. It creates clear bright lines. Marriage is a great example of an institution that, to most people, has clear bright lines. Get married, have kids, raise them with a mother and a father. Sure, the implications and the legal contract associated with it has become exceedingly complex, to add on top modern day views of "Fairness," but marriage is a great example of a simple idea that has worked very well for many thousands of years. I would say marriage as an institution is under assault with all this stupid "Nuance." If Julia wants kids, she better damn well get a man who is going to pay for them, instead of boffing the Harley rider and expecting society to pay for it. (And not to piss Crack off too much, the Mormon church and people are compassionate to those who lose a husband or a wife).
Things become vastly more complicated when two contradictory ideas come into being. As an example, equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of outcomes. This is where I want ideology. Two contradictory approaches lead to fraud and abuse, as clever, unscrupulous people obtain capital by finding the many cracks in the system, which then militate for more oversight.
Screw Nuance, give me the simple rules that make businesses thrive. Outside of criminal law, it seems to me the primary ingredient necessary for a healthy economy is to bust up massive monopolies, starting with the government ones.
"Who do American liberals read?"
There's no telling. Stephen King? Paul Krugman? The New Yorker?
Dante,
Life is nothing if not nuanced, and "the simple things are all complicated", as Pete Townshend wrote and Roger Daltrey sang nearly 50 years ago.
The cherised "simplicity" you seek doesn't exist and never did, and it's childish to think so.
"...it seems to me the primary ingredient necessary for a healthy economy is to bust up massive monopolies, starting with the government ones."
What are the "government monopolies? And, who will bust up any massive monopolies if not the government?
--If grandma has to eat cat food to balance the budget, so be it.--
I hate feeling this way, but I do because the old people have set it up so that I have to eat cat food when I get old.
Allie, your 9:56 link goes to story which I can't read because of a registration pop-up.
So typical of Dems these days. They're just a bunch of loose canons who can project a single coherent message, and when they try--subtle fail turns to massive fail.
Chickelit,
Try this and note that Page himself says "[i]n a July 12 directive, the Obama administration invited the states to apply for waivers from welfare reform rules that require recipients to get a job, seek a job or engage in job training." Then note that Page tries to use some weird logic to claim that Romney is wrong when saying that "(u)nder Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job".
--And, who will bust up any massive monopolies if not the government? ---
We, The People?
Chickelit,
The link I provided sends you to a closed article as well, even though I could read it. Google for "romney's welfare queen" and you'll see a link to the article that you should be able to read.
--Don't be a dope. "American liberals" do not read Saul Alinksy or Karl Marx. Although Alinsky seems to be the boogie-man du jour of the rabid right, I'd bet most Americans today across the political spectrum have no idea who he is.--
Are you suggesting most Americans are liberals?
@Ken: No, when I click "close"on the pop-up blocking the story, it lands me in a story about immigrants. I can't see the story I want on the side bar.
If the story and thoughts are so important, somebody just cut and paste please.
The overriding perception right now is that conservative canon is laissez faire and liberal canon is lazy-fair. It doesn't have to be that way IMO, but the left only counters by denial. This why the economy is the paramount issue, as it should be.
Chickelit,
I don't want to get Ann or myself in copyright trouble by cutting and pasting the whole story. You can look at my search results. I clicked on the link with the title "Romney's welfare queen - chicagotribune.com" and was able to read the article.
Sorry about the link, when I first accessed it it didn't require a registration. But Chickelit, really, why such biting sarcasm? Was that necessary?
Thanks Ken, that was actually surprisingly helpful of you.
@Allie: But Chickelit, really, why such biting sarcasm? Was that necessary?
By telling you that the Dem message is a bunch of "loose canons" I'm just reiterating the message that Dems lack a coherent message.
Allie,
Thanks Ken, that was actually surprisingly helpful of you.
Your welcome.
And I'm sorry you find this surprising. While I am fairly aggressive in my arguments, I thought I've always carried myself with an attitude towards open access to information. I will argue strongly for what I believe, one of my core beliefs is that information should be made freely available for people to make up their own minds.
While I'm sure you find me as reprehensible as I find you, I would never be surprised at your helpfulness. While I think you're a bad/lazy thinker, I don't think you're a dishonest hack who would refuse to help others find information to help them make up their own mind.
Thanks Ken--I got the article so we're on the same page.
The author is angry that Romney has found resonance with the message that Welfare-to-Work was a good idea? That Romney is at odds with Governors of his own party who are seeking waivers? That Romney is propagating "old lies" about welfare queens? I found Page's closing line the most ironic:
It may be a sign of Romney’s weakness that he and his team are now willing to openly play with such racial and cultural dynamite. Or maybe it was the idea all along.
"'--And, who will bust up any massive monopolies if not the government?'
"We, The People?"
In other words, the government.
"'Don't be a dope. "American liberals" do not read Saul Alinksy or Karl Marx. Although Alinsky seems to be the boogie-man du jour of the rabid right, I'd bet most Americans today across the political spectrum have no idea who he is.'
"Are you suggesting most Americans are liberals?"
No. Do you think "across the political spectrum" refers only to liberals?
Robert Cook said...
"...it seems to me the primary ingredient necessary for a healthy economy is to bust up massive monopolies, starting with the government ones."
What are the "government monopolies?
The post office, IRS, etc.
And, who will bust up any massive monopolies if not the government?
You're assuming all monopolies are bad.
Robert,
What are the "government monopolies? And, who will bust up any massive monopolies if not the government?
The only successful monopolies have been the ones created in collusion with the government.
In the absence of government intervention, new entrants come into the market to eat away at the monopolist's market share. The only thing that has ever prevented this, in the past, has been laws making it difficult or impossible for new people to enter the market.
As for examples of monopolies created by, or in collusion with, state and federal governments:
- AT&T
- Standard Oil
- NBA/NFL/etc
- Most utilities
- USPS
Post a Comment