June 26, 2006
Proud to Stand for Nothing
Jonathan Chait reprints a Los Angeles Times column in TNR online today.
He contends that Democrats don't need sweeping policy, or written manifesti. They are just swell guys who make all the right decisions at the right time. I appear to be putting words in his mouth but I am really not.
Alas, this is inherently a losing game for liberals. Here is the problem: Conservatism and liberalism are not really mirror images of each other.Conservatives venerate the free market and see smaller government as an end in itself. Liberals do not venerate government in the same way, and we do not see larger government as an end in and of itself. For us, everything works on a case-by-case basis. Should government provide everybody's education? Yes. Should government manufacture everybody's blue jeans? No. And so on.
Now, it's true that conservative Republicans have done an awful job of limiting government. But that doesn't stop Republicans from communicating their ideology. Everybody knows what they stand for. They're for lower taxes, strong defense and less spending--even if they habitually fail at the spending part and have royally screwed up the defense portion of late.
But nobody knows what Democrats stand for because you cannot, and should not, formulate sweeping dogmas when you're operating on a case-by-case basis.
Maybe one should send Mr. Chait a copy of Star Parker's book, "You Have to Stand for Something or You'll Fall for Anything "
This is exactly what drives me insane about Bill O'Reilly. He has no centering philosophy, proudly (and loudly) boasting that "I'm not ideologue." Well I am, and I've spent a lot of nice days reading very dull books to get here, William. When I vote for somebody, I want to have a good idea what he or she believes. I may be disappointed but we both acted in good faith.
And I realize that I do not appear philosophically rigid enough for a certain wing of ThreeSourcers. But the day I proudly argue -- as Chait does -- that I have no coherent, codifyable positions, just trust me to make good decisions, you can just shoot me.
And on a side point, Mr. Chait, I have a deal for you. Let's nationalize blue jean production and return market economics to education. Parity is conserved and I think we'll be much better off, if less stylish.
Posted by: jk at June 26, 2006 1:49 PMNo they stand for something.
"We're not them."
Witness: phillyagainstsantorum.org I tried. But I can't find a mention of Santorum's opponent on that entire site.
Posted by: AlexC at June 26, 2006 3:13 PMI think I must be that philosophically rigid wing of ThreeSources that jk is referencing but I propose to look at the question this way. How much slavery is enough Mr. Chait (or JK, or anyone else who wishes to address the question)? Too dramatic? A slave produces and someone else owns what he produces. I produce and the government owns what I produce for the first half of the year (more or less).
Then Mr. Chait or some Democrat politician determines what is done with my money. He (any many others) state that, of course, the public schools must be funded. I don’t intend to send my children to the public schools (others have no children). Therefore my money is spent to educate others children. The slave’s work is spent to educate the master’s children. So if we take this dynamic one step further, this makes slaves of our country’s most productive individuals and masters of the least productive. The welfare system produces exactly the same dynamic.
Those who state that these items should be decided on, “case-by-case,” basis are saying that they should be the masters to determine where the productive output of others should be spent. So, I ask again Mr. Chait, “how much slavery is enough.”
Posted by: dagny at June 26, 2006 4:41 PM | What do you think? [3]