Putting the 'Next' Into 'Next Right': Retooling vs. Restructuring

Submitted by chemjeff on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 12:37

My motivation for coming to this blog was to have the opportunity to discuss ways in which the Republican Party could more eloquently and successfully get out the message and philosophy of conservatism. (We had a long discussion about it here.) Traditionally conservatism is defined according to the three pillars of fiscal conservtism, social conservatism, and national security. For purposes of this discussion, these three pillars may be separated into their philosophical bases and their potential policy positions that flow from their corresponding bases, as follows. Now I can't say that these three descriptions are 100% complete but I hope they get the idea across.

Fiscal Conservatism

Philosophical basis: The marketplace is a more efficient allocator of resources than the government; hence when deciding how resources should be allocated, the bias should always be in favor of private-sector decisionmaking. Free markets build wealth, create prosperity, and raises standards of living for all; hence markets should be kept as free as reasonably possible. Moreover capitalism and free markets do a great job at preserving individual liberty, as those participating in the marketplace aren't requied to obey the will of the majority (e.g. if 90% of the population prefers Pepsi but I prefer Coke, I can still buy Coke if I so desire); hence regulations that restrict choices in the marketplace should be kept to a minimum.

Potential Policy Positions: Cut taxes; this returns money to the private sector and therefore leads to a more efficient spending of that money. Cut government spending; this reduces the demand for taxes and also makes the marketplace freer as duplicative government services are eliminated in favor of private-sector offering of those services. Reduce the regulatory burden; this preserves choice in the marketplace and leads to a freer market.

Social Conservatism

Philosophical Basis: Traditional values, customs and ways of viewing the world have withstood the test of time, hence they should be given deferential treatment over newer values or customs that have not survived the same level of temporal scrutiny. Moreover social change often leads to unintended consequences, most of the time deleterious ones, so change by itself should be regarded skeptically and, if deemed beneficial, should happen slowly, cautiously and methodically, so that any unintended consequences can be recognized and overcome. Finally, individual liberty is only beneficially meaningful when it is conjoined with a moral people; hence policies that promote moral clarity should be favored over those that create moral obfuscation or relativism.

Potential Policy Positions: Promote policies that strengthen traditional social institutions such as marriage and family. Appoint conservative judges who will agree to interpret the Constitution in a traditional manner instead of imposing their own views onto it. Promote a culture of life, as a moral people should err on the side of caution when dealing with this most precious gift anyone may have. Finally, faith is a traditional source of values and moral guidance, so while government should not promote any particular religion over another, neither should it attempt to banish religion from the public square entirely.

National Security

Philosophical Basis: The United States, as the only nation to have been formed as a result of ideals rather than simple geographical proximity, bears a special responsibility to promote and uphold those ideals throughout a world that has seen more than its fair share of barbarism and tyranny.

Potential Policy Positions: Reflexively and overtly support the service of our brave soldiers; they deserve nothing less. Promote the interests of the United States first and foremost, as our government works to serve us, not a 'global consensus'. Unapologetically defend the ideals upon which this nation was founded.

In my view, if you agree broadly with the philosophical basis of these three pillars, but not necessarily with every single conservative policy position, then you are a conservative. That is, you don't have to agree with every specific tax cut, but you do have to agree that, on balance, tax cuts are to be favored over tax increases. So, therefore, I don't see anything inherently wrong with these three pillars of conservatism, and our job here at The Next Right should be to adapt them to our present circumstances in ways that will sell to the public on Election Day. That is, I substantially agree with John Hinderaker's analysis of this topic from almost a year ago. This is what I term "retooling".

However, as has become more and more apparent to me, many of my colleagues here have come to the conclusion that we shouldn't merely adapt the pillars to changing circumstances, but that one or more of the pillars must go entirely. (Usually, it's the Social Conservatism pillar.) That is, they see The Next Right as an opportunity to more fundamentally restructure the nature of conservatism itself.

So this leads to two questions to my colleagues:

1. What is the philosophical basis for the brand of conservatism that you wish to see adopted? If you think e.g. Social Conservatism has got to go, what do you see as replacing it (if anything), and why?

2. In the new conservatism that you envision, how do you plan on differentiating it from the philosophical basis of liberalism that the Democrats offer? Pursuant to this question, here are three not-so-hypothetical situations for you to ponder, related to the three pillars above.

(a) Democrats propose that "greed" and "deregulation" are what caused our current financial mess. In your view, what should be the conservative response, and why?

(b) Democrats propose that teen pregnancy rates could be reduced if abortions were more widely available to teenagers. In your view, what should be the conservative response, and why?

(c) Democrats propose that international terrorism is caused mainly by poverty and hopelessness in poor countries, and that this poverty is perpetuated by global capitalism promoted by rich nations such as the US. In youre view, what should be the conservative response, and why?

Average:

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

chemjeff's blog
Login or register to post comments

Comments

You have come up with a

Submitted by In between on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 14:37.

You have come up with a thoughtful post. And I appreciate that, and I don't think I can match that, but will try to answer you.

I think my forte is in economics and I like to be right down the middle. But perceptions are different with different people. On Bush, at this point it doesn't make much difference if he was democrat or republican. He is the worst president of my lifetime and he had no idea on what he was doing. And to make things worse is that he hung on to ideology without fixing any problems. So that is where we sit today. We have a financial crisis brought on by democrats, republicans, and Alan Greenspan. But even before this, just a few months ago, and I saw it 5 years ago, we could see many failures. The supply side economics, the war, and no cuts in spending was creating deficits and debt. But of course Bush never saw the deficits, he never saw for 3 years that there was a problem in Iraq, and he sees no problems with free trade. And now and like always someone has to clean up his mess. It has happened all throughout his life.

<<FISCAL CONSERVATISM>>

I have no problem with free markets-if done right. It has been done wrong. How can you say free markets create wealth when I see people lose their jobs, less in wages, loss healthcare, and loss pensions? We are losing the middle class. If we have problems, then let's fix them. Don't ignore them. So as I have said many times, that for the last 8 years, our jobs are going overseas, our money to Iraq, and nothing for our infrastructure.

Cut taxes; I agree with this within reason. The problem is Bush overstimulated the economy. The 8 years of tax cuts is just borrowed money from other countries. In effect, the country ran on borrowed money. Here is a paragraph from USA Today:

"For no good reason — other than a philosophical aversion to taxes and reluctance to call for sacrifice — Bush squandered the budget surplus he inherited and almost doubled the national debt at a time of relatively robust economic growth. In so doing, he stimulated the economy when it was not needed, making it harder to do so now when it is. His fleeting and politicized attempts to address looming cost crises in Social Security and health care were fruitless, and both problems deepened."

The proper way to stimulate an economy is to have tax cuts for 2 years and also the fed lowering interest rates for 2 years. (time varies). Then you work on the budget. But to have tax cuts for 8 years and do nothing else is why you are seeing deficits and debt. The tax cuts were overdone. And now that we are in a recession, more tax cuts are ineffective. The fed has lowered rates to their lowest levels and they can do no more. So we are running out of possibilities of stimulating the country.

Add to that we have globalization. The factories are closing, people losing their jobs, and cities and states going broke. Okay true, they have to cut back spending, but still to see factories close what are they supposed to do. And then you see the president spend money on his war and you have to wonder, just what the heck is he doing for our country.

I laugh at the fact that some people say there should be a separation with the states and the federal government owes them no money. But it is okay for Bush to bankrupt the country and send our money to Iraq and neglect our country. Again, this is what I have seen for 8 years.

So whenever Bush has talked about free trade, factories close. And this is a good thing if you are Bush. So can anyone tell me how free trade is good when people lose jobs?

We have to fix the issue of globalization, just as much as we have to fix medicare, social security, and all the other parts of our budget and economy. Just as much as tax cuts are good for the economy, fixing issues are equally important, and also finding new sources of revenue with job creation.

Therefore as I have said many times, with globalization and with the loss of our industry. We need infrastructural spending (limited), energy independence, mandatory vocational training in which an economist at the Hudson Institute says the same, embryonic stem cell research as we are losing to Singapore, and all the science, innovation, research and development.

We are in new territory with globalization. We never had China and Eastern Europe open up before. Other countries subsidize their industry and that means we cannot compete on that level and the level of third world wages.

I know you say the private sector will create jobs. But there are a couple of problems. We are sitting in a recession and no jobs are created. And secondly, Apple, Dell, or anyone else does not have to create jobs here. More than likely the jobs will be made in a third world country. So you can have all the tax cuts you want, but it still does not solve the problem. And furthermore, what company can employ millions of people. And that is the jobs we need.

If we go back to the depression, it was the government that created jobs. It created it with WW2. The government bought the jeeps, tanks, ships, and planes and we built them in hundreds of factories. And it will be up to the government to fund new enterprises. There are 14 companies getting together to build a new battery and they need 1 billion dollars from the government. We need this kind of cooperation if we want to beat the Japanese, the Koreans, the Indians, and the Chinese. All of this collaboration with industry and government will create jobs for the private sector. There is a backlog of 700,000 patents that needs to be dealt with. We need to see that all discoveries in garages goes forward to make America great again.

This is thinking outside the box. It is a new way of thinking. You will need to throw away the old ideology. Globalization will be one of the most important economic issues of our time. It is new to us, and we have to recognize it. All of the westernized countries will be effected by globalization and we need to find solutions to this.

I want wealth for our country and the world. I have seen what ideology has done to this country. I have seen Bush glorify ideology. Now after seeing all the damage, it is time for management. Everybody manages, CEO's manage, managers manage, coaches manage, you manage your household. And just as much we need to fix medicare and the budget, we to need find solutions to the problems of the day. These past 8 years the rich have gotten richer, and the poor and the middle class has definitely gotten poorer.

So I guess it holds true that the republican party is just for the rich. The voters saw it that way and the republicans lost.

I will talk about social conservatism and national security on another post.

A suggestion

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 19:08.

You make some good points but you weaken your position by your obsessive focus on Bush,

Granted that he has been a poor President, but the fiscal health of the US is the responsibility of Congress at the end of the day.

These past 8 years the rich have gotten richer, and the poor and the middle class has definitely gotten poorer.

This is true, but you don't discuss the reasons why it is happening. Both parties have supported the policies which are causng this. That is to say, open borders immigration combined with support for the mercantilist trade polices practiced by China and others. Neither party has clean hands here.

Well, we are in Iraq. And

Submitted by In between on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 20:04.

Well, we are in Iraq. And what can you do but spend the money.

Bush pulled a "guns and butter." Iraq and tax cuts. And yes congress went with it. Of course Bush had a republican congress for 6 years and never vetoed a spending bill.

Bush never attempted to fix any social programs.

The Bush wanted to privatized social security would have cost 2 trillion dollars in transition and congress shut that down.

Bush glorifies free trade and not fixing the problems of factory closing and loss of jobs.

The president has to be a cheerleader. Seen nothing from him except his talk on Iraq, free trade, and tax cuts. And for years the deficits and debt went higher. He never said anything about it. And in fact, Cheney said "deficits don't matter."

The poor are getting poorer, because we are not dealing with globalization. People are losing jobs, pressure on wages, loss of healthcare, and no pensions. We cannot compete with third world wages. No one has addressed that issue. As Bush talks of free trade, factories close. If you want to fix it, then have infrastructural spending (limited), energy independence (jobs), mandatory vocational training, embryonic stem cell research since Bush vetoed that, science, innovation, and research and development. The government has to be involved with Manhattan projects. If not, then we lose to globalization.

Only thing we are doing is running up deficits and debt, sending our jobs overseas, and our money to Iraq. It was a wasted 8 years.

You're a loon.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 21:13.

You need to seek professional help for your Bush obsession.

And in fact, Cheney said "deficits don't matter."

As even somebody as stupid as you should understand, budget matters are matters for Congress. The VP has zero input in the matter.

We cannot compete with third world wages. No one has addressed that issue.

Well you and your Democratic buddies sure as hell aren't doing it.

As Bush talks of free trade ...

Shut the hell up about Bush, you moron. He's gone.. If you are capable of saying anything at all about the actual subject at hand, go for it.

Just telling you what Cheney

Submitted by In between on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 21:37.

Just telling you what Cheney said. That was the policy of the Bush administration. Bush never said anything about it. And Bush never vetoed a spending bill in 6 years. The supply side economics was supposed to take care of all our problems according to Bush.

<<Bush>>

His 8 years of deficits and debt will take 20 years to fix. So why should I shut up about it. He is a complete failure.

How long will it take to fix Obama's deficits and debts?

Submitted by logical on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 22:35.

"His 8 years of deficits and debt will take 20 years to fix. So why should I shut up about it. He is a complete failure."

I don't think you are against deficits and debt, they are just a convenient way for you to flog the outgoing president. Why do I think this? Because you are not sounding a warning about Obama's deficit and debt, which is Bush X 1000.

We not only have a recession

Submitted by In between on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 22:46.

We not only have a recession but we have a banking crisis. We face a depression and deflation. I have watched CNBC all week and every economist agrees that the government has to do something. Because the government is the last stand. The private economy is not moving. Corporations are laying off.

Bush is leaving the following. The highest deficits and debt. 2 wars, a military stretched thin, factories closing, people losing jobs, healthcare, and pensions, cities and states going broke, a housing crisis, a banking crisis, an auto crisis, a recession, and an infrastructure in neglect.

Bush has not kept up with science. Medical science has not gotten enough money through the years, he vetoed embryonic stem cell research, we need to be energy independent. There is so much work to get done, and Bush has done nothing.

So now Obama has to spend money in neglected areas and try to stimulate the economy.

I have never seen a mess like this in my life.

Schumer and IndyMac

Submitted by logical on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 01:20.

Any chance the banking crisis was triggered by Schumer's successful attempt to destroy IndyMac?

Gee Dubbz

Submitted by Cahnman on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 12:01.

On Bush, at this point it doesn't make much difference if he was democrat or republican. He is the worst president of my lifetime

He was no such thing. At some point over the next quarter century you will realize this.

<<SOCIAL CONSERVATISM>> The

Submitted by In between on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 17:35.

<<SOCIAL CONSERVATISM>>

The simple short answer here is "Freedom of religion is freedom from religion."

In fiscal conservatism you claim your right to a coke as opposed to a pepsi. So in social conservatism as well, I don't need religion or religious issues jammed down my throat. It seems to me that those that have religion are living in a pretty good world. True, it is not the Middle East, but just the same you can pray at home, pray walking down the street, and there are hundreds of churches to go to.

You (republicans) gripe about activist judges, but when you want judges-then you want it your way. And that is some religious issue put in place. I guess there is no middle ground here with the judges. The only thing that is necessary is that there is a separation of church and state. But of course if you want religion, then the religious organizations by all means can pay taxes.

If you want to settle an abortion issue, then leave it up to the states. Or any other religious issue for that matter. I don't care about gay marriage one way or the other. Again, leave it up to the state.

It is not up to me, to impose on other people. We can say "in God we Trust" and let it go at that.

<<NATIONAL SECURITY>>

I believe in a strong national security. I want the best military and the borders closed. However, Eisenhower has warned against the Military Industrial Complex." We have seen the misuse of the military by our president. We have seen a military stretched thin in two countries and those two countries were not secure. And with that 4400 soldiers have died and over 100 thousand civilians. We have seen the difference with Bush 41 with 500,000 coalition troops and the gulf war paid for. And we have seen Bush 43 with 170,000 troops max for two wars and the war not paid for.

Just like social programs that need to be cut, we need to know why we are in over 100 countries. Maybe there is a reason. But no country can keep going on spending the money we do and survive.

.............................................

In answer to question number 1. Social conservatism is not needed in government. People rely on their communities and the people around them and their local churches. Things are just fine outside of Washington. Social issues leave it to the state.

In answer to question number 2A. Even before this financial mess, we have seen greed and cronyism. Of course that happens with both parties. On the financial crisis, it is a touchy area, but you need some regulation to those out lying areas where there is speculation. When most people don't understand what is going on, then I think we have a problem.

In answer to question number 2B. I don't have much of comment on. I believe in sex education and not ignoring it. Nobody has solved this issue.

In answer to question number 2C. We will always have enemies. We need the best intelligence for the worlds security. We do however have to recognize that these people come from impoverished nations. There is no easy answer. I do not see where capitalism imposed poverty, but we have not seen the answer to the solutions of the other countries.

............................................

What we do know is that every 80 years or so we will have a depression or near depression, every 50 years or so we will have pandemics, and it seems every 50 years or so we will be attacked.

We will have wars over religion, over cultures, over water, over energy, and over land.

We also know there are superbugs and as they become more immune to our medicine of the day, they will create havoc. That is just another reason for having the best in science and medical research.

We also know that most ideologies fail. We have heard and done supply side economics or the trickle down theory. Or as Bush 41 called it Voodoo economics. Only to see deficits and debt by Reagan and Bush 43 .We have seen "guns and butter" both by LBJ and Bush 43. LBJ created inflation that lasted 20 years. Bush 43 created deficits and debt and it will take at least 20 years to fix, and probably be never fixed. We have seen "wage and price controls" from Nixon and "Win Buttons" from Ford. All failing.

And all it takes is simple management. Get away from ideology. You cut taxes at the appropriate time, you cut spending at the appropriate time, and you confront issues of the day.

Who is this "you"?

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 19:17.

If you want to settle an abortion issue, then leave it up to the states.

The people who made abortion a one-size-fits-all national issue where you liberals. Conservatives are attemptng to do exactly what you say should be done. Overturning Roe will return the issue to the states. Take this up with your fellow Dems.

And all it takes is simple management. Get away from ideology.

This would be more convincing if your own coments were not dripping with ideology. Any "simple management" must proceed from some basic assumptions about how the world works. In other words, from an ideology.

For instance, the idea that we should have a bigger middle class and fewer rich and poor is an ideological position. Obviously many people in DC have a different ideology.

Well, there is a certain

Submitted by In between on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 20:09.

Well, there is a certain ideology. But deal with the issues. We need to cut spending, then lets take each program and deal with it. We have deficits and debt and recognize it. The problem is Bush never recognized it, because his tax cuts solves all issues. We have globalization and Bush glorifies free trade and factories close. Just more ideology that free trade solves problems as factories close. And it goes on and on.

On the abortion issue, social issues are not my cup of tea. I really don't care.

You really don't care?

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 21:05.

You seemed to care when you were wrongly blaming the right for the fact that abortion is not a states right issue.

We need to cut spending

What a great idea!

Why don't you shut up aout Bush for five seconds and tell your Democratic President and Congress that they need to cut spending. Because they are all set to increase spending by a trilion dollars or so per year.

<<spending>> Well that is the

Submitted by In between on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 21:46.

<<spending>>

Well that is the problem. But all economists agree that the government is the last resort. It will have to stimulate the economy.

Bush stimulated the economy for 8 years with tax cuts. He overstimulated and now tax cuts are ineffective. 8 years of tax cuts and we are back into a recession.

The fed has cut interest rates to their lowest. They can do more to stimulate the economy.

Your last resort is the government.

Bush spent the money on his tax cuts, all borrowed. Bush spent the money on war. All wasted money, all deficits and debt. None of his policies will get us out of this mess. So again, the last resort is the government. The factories are closing up. People losing jobs. Cities and states going broke. A financial crisis, a housing crisis, an auto crisis, and a recession.

Give you a thought:

You can fill the bucket with all the tax cuts you want, but if the bucket leaks with our jobs going overseas and our money going to Iraq, then your tax cuts do no good.

In Between's BDS

Submitted by chemjeff on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 23:16.

Jon Sandor is right - you obsess way way too much over Bush. Yes, we get it - you think Bush is the worst president we have ever had ever ever ever. Really, what do you hope to achieve when you keep bringing it up? Do you expect conservatives to criticize Bush? We do that, over and over and over. Believe it or not, some of us did it even when he wasn't a lame duck. (Remember the immigration meltdown of 2007?) Or, do you expect conservatives here to completely renounce and repudiate Bush? Speaking only for myself, I won't do that - I probably disagree with ~60% of what Bush has done, and I strongly disagree with his position on Bailout Mania, but that still means I find common cause with ~40% of what he's done and, regardless, I still think he is a fundamentally decent human being. Really, I can't understand why you continue bringing up your BDS. At some point it just becomes trollish and you should simply stop.

Well, I can agree with that.

Submitted by In between on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 23:52.

Well, I can agree with that. But at the same time, republicans don't seem to have an answer to solving problems. All I here is tax cuts, and tax cuts, and tax cuts. There are so many problems piling up. And frankly, all I have seen is laissez-faire. So now that I said that nasty word laissez-faire that everyone disagrees with me on. Can we fix the problems. I have been waiting all these years to fix the problems. How can one ignore deficits and debt all this time? How can one say free trade is good when factories close. How can we keep sending money to Iraq, when our country needs attention. This is where we are at. So let's fix the problems.

invisible hand

Submitted by chemjeff on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 00:49.

Okay, now I am beginning to understand more your frustration. What you seem to want is some Republican Leader to stand up and offer a Detailed 14-Point Plan that will 'fix the economy' and 'return us to prosperity'...no? But here's the problem. If you believe in concepts like the 'invisible hand', as I expect most fiscal conservatives do, then you aren't likely to believe that such a plan will do much good, no matter what it says or no matter how well-intentioned. Instead, you'll tend to believe that what's likely to help most is to return money to the private sector, so that individuals, acting in their own selfish self-interest, can get on with benefitting the community in which they live. (This is not exactly equivalent to laissez-faire, but it flows from the same philosophical basis.)

So what Republicans should offer, IMO, is not a detailed plan, but the Anti-Plan! Perhaps this is what has you frustrated, since you can't sit down and judge each point of the Detailed 14-Point Plan on its merits because there are no points.

Well look. It doesn't take a

Submitted by In between on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 01:03.

Well look. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that when the president talks of free trade, factories close and we see cities and states going broke as they lose their tax base. So we have a problem. And the problem is globalization and the question is what can we do about it. We cannot let people lose their jobs, or have wages come down to third world wages, we cannot keep having people lose healthcare and pensions. It is the middle class getting hurt. And the cities and states.

I have state how we do this. It really is simple. Everything from energy independence to research and development. You have to create future growth. And there is nothing leading a way to having future jobs if our jobs go overseas.

I have been watching the deficits and debt pile up for a good 5 years. And nothing done. Like you say "cut spending."

I believe that the government has to do its part in being fiscally responsible, but also deal with problems. For the most part, the problems have been ignored. You don't even need a 14 point plan, in all cases. Just fix the problems. In energy independence, yes. All information should be jotted down and looked into.

I have sat back and watched the problems arise, and I just kept asking myself, when is he going to fix the problems?

Myopic

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 01:17.

You're looking in the right direction, but the view is rather blurry.

Globalization is a fact, and it's never going to go away.

Globalization saved us from the current hops shortage in the US and Europe.

The problem isn't so much globalization as the Chinese currency pegging policy. But in every previous instance of such a thing, the end result is worse damage to the nation doing the unfair currency manipulation.

We will never have energy independence. Never. It is unfeasible. We use too much energy.

The big issue with R&D is how it has shifted away from universities to private industry. That makes it several times more expensive as well as the products of that research less competitive.

Growth? Household consumption + Private investment + Government spending + (exports - imports)

What do you want to grow? Consumption? Gov't spending?

The safest way is through exports. But, oh yes, that would rely on globalization...

btw

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 01:28.

...if you were unaware that there was a terrible hops shortage in the US, then you just proved my point.

I'd actually forgotten about that.

Submitted by alexinoki on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 02:13.

There where a lot of up and coming independent brewers that ate it because they couldn't afford the hops.

True globalization is not

Submitted by In between on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 07:55.

True globalization is not going away. I have said we have to deal with it. Other countries are and we are not. Other countries are educating and subsidizing, and they have cheap labor on their side. All we have done is run up deficits and debt and be in wars. Other countries are gaining on us, our jobs are leaving the country.

You are right on the Chinese currency and they are manipulating it. A big problem.

However, globalization is not going away and we cannot compete with third world labor. And that is why I have suggested you need to create jobs in infrastructure (limited), in energy independence, mandatory vocational training, embryonic stem cell research, science, innovation, and research and development. This is the only way to deal with globalization if we want to preserve our standard of living.

<<too much energy>>

In every case with our problems in the country we are racing against time and money. We can create more energy. I am for anything. The nuclear plants can't be built because of a "not in my backyard" mentality, for example. But also we need to upgrade the electrical grid. Most of the technology is there, but you need to get around various community rules and we have to work on various technologies as if it is a Manhattan project.

<<R & D shifted to from universities>> Technically not a problem. The president can change any policy. We are just racing against time and money.

<<What do you want to grow?>>

Anything and everything. Facing globalization, the factories are closing and cities and states are going broke. We are racing against time and money. We have 700,000 patents backlogged. Singapore is subsidizing embryonic stem cell research and taking our scientists. And Bush vetoes the technology. China is teaching english to students to compete in the world, I am sure they are subsidizing science and technology. China is coming in with a car that runs on 63 miles on a battery charge. It will sell in the 20 thousand dollar range. We have nothing like that. Again we are losing. We should have had a Manhattan project on battery technology years ago. Whoever has the best battery technology will be number one in the world. You need a battery that will go 100+miles on a charge. If we had it, we could save the auto industry. We need to find an alternative fuel for the airlines, we need a new air traffic control system. This saves money for them and they need to buy new aircraft as they are running some of the oldest aircraft in the world.

We need any or all research and development to create new products and to replace the industry that is leaving the country. Who knows what that is. You don't know until you fund R & D. In globalization we are fighting against other countries subsidization of industry and cheap labor. So that means we have to do more than the average to preserve the middle class.

I would look to industry (like energy independence) to create jobs that will stay in this country. There is no way we can compete on the exports. It is all important, but the bottom line as we have seen is that we are losing jobs, wages, healthcare, and pensions. There are no easy answers, but sitting around and doing nothing is not an answer. You need government spending in the right areas. And that is in R& D. Individual companies can do it too, however, they don't have to create jobs here. More than likely Apple or Dell would build a plant overseas. So this has to be a government and industry collaboration. We do it with the NIH, NASA, etc. Other countries do it.

Let's clear up some common misconceptions

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 08:46.

...we cannot compete with third world labor.

We don't anyway. American goods are high-end products the world over. Other nations see "Made in the USA" as "Rolls Royce." It would be foolish for us to compete in the low-end market.

The nuclear plants can't be built because of a "not in my backyard" mentality

That's not why they're not being built. It's because of good, old-fashioned return on investment. It's more expensive to build one than it could feasibly deliver in returns over its lifetime (50 yrs).

Whoever has the best battery technology will be number one in the world.

No, it's likely that some other technology (such as hydrogen) will pop up and render the electric car obsolete. btw, where do you suppose all that electricity is going to come from? Every reliable source that I've seen has the same conclusions: that we will produce most of our electricty from coal in the 1st half of the 21st century, and from nuclear in the 2nd half of it.

If you want to read an energy expert that is good all-around and unbiased, look for something by Vaclav Smil

...the bottom line as we have seen is that we are losing jobs, wages, healthcare, and pensions

These look connected, but they're not.

<<high end products>> We make

Submitted by In between on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 10:04.

<<high end products>>

We make all kinds of products. In Ohio and the midwest factories are closing making anything and everything. The way I look at it, all industry is vulnerable to leaving the country. I think that is the way to look at it. It would be foolish to look at it any other way.

Going back 30 years, the Japanese had cheap labor, we saw the Japanese product. Most of it was cheap at first, but more and more they took the market share of textiles, steel, electronics and autos. We see today with 1 billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians taking our middle class jobs. We cannot compete with that and third world labor. That is why it is most important to have alliances with industry and create new industries and products, in hopes that some jobs will stay here. You have provided no answer to the millions in loss jobs, the loss of our standard of living, and the cities and states going broke. We have seen tax cuts for 8 years and that is no answer.

<<nuclear plants>>

There are a combination of problems, but we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact we need more electricity. ROI? France supplies 80% of their electricity with nuclear plants.

I have said in previous posts that we need an energy council and an energy plan and look at all areas. One way or the other we will need more electricity. Just like we have to cut government spending and no one does it.

<<car battery>>

There are problems with hydrogen. Heck there is a problem with every technology. Even for batteries. Is there enough lithium? And the geopolitical problems. But it does not take away that everyone is going to the battery and that China is coming in with a car at 63 miles to a charge. We are behind in time, money, and technology.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/26/electric-car-battery-makers-see...

<<coal and/or nuclear>>

There are problems with everything. All I can say is that we need an energy council and an energy plan and stop playing politics. We are behind in so many areas. The country is in neglect.

<<losing jobs>>

Not connected? Getting away from OPEC and creating your own energy will create jobs. I am for anything and everything concerning our economy. Energy independence may produce jobs. We have to find ways in producing jobs. We have an infrastructure in neglect. We have to have more in R & D for the future. Tax cuts does not solve any problems. It does not invest in the future. Tax cuts are for the here and now and is already spent.

All the nerds on Wall Street and in Washington say we do not need factories, that this will be an information society. Again we are dealing with a flawed ideology. They come up with these ideas of free trade, target the housing industry for growth, sub prime loans, and they have missed the boat. We see what is happening to the middle class, jobs going overseas, and the cities and states losing their tax base. These people have no answer for the upheaval. They come up with bright ideas and everyone else has to suffer. And all I am saying is that you need the best science, innovation, R & D, and the best government/business alliances to make it in this world.

We have an older generation that relies on government programs. Some programs can be cut, on the other hand you need economic growth to provide the jobs and have a tax base to pay for everything. It is investing in the future.

Well said...

Submitted by Cahnman on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 12:05.

Speaking only for myself, I won't do that - I probably disagree with ~60% of what Bush has done, and I strongly disagree with his position on Bailout Mania, but that still means I find common cause with ~40% of what he's done and, regardless, I still think he is a fundamentally decent human being.

I'm probably 90/10 pro-Bush (what can I say, I'm borderline liberal on immigration) however this statement sums up my sentiments almost perfectly.

social conservatism

Submitted by chemjeff on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 23:24.

I don't need religion or religious issues jammed down my throat.

What do you mean by "jammed down my throat"? The activist atheist left would argue that Obama's utterance of "so help me God" would qualify; I disagree. IMO conservatives should be tolerant of public expressions of faith and not fall for the slippery slope nonsense that putting a nativity scene in front of city hall during Christmas is somehow one short step away from a theocratic state. But, more to the point, what would your argument be for those social conservatives who have a very deep and personal connection with their faith? Would you tell them to shut up about God already?

I am actually amenable to the federalist idea that, as a tactical compromise, the so-called 'culture war' issues should be dealt with at the state level. But, keeping in mind that it is only a short-term compromise - the ultimate goal still remains the protection of life throughout the nation.

<<What would I say about

Submitted by In between on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 23:56.

<<What would I say about conservatives who have a deep and personal connection with their faith?

Go to church.

<<abortion>>

It doesn't solve the problems of the day, but whatever catches your fancy.

faith and church

Submitted by chemjeff on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 00:32.

No, you don't get it. For evangelicals, their faith goes far beyond merely showing up at church one day a week. It permeates their life and informs their judgment on everything, including politics. Even if I don't have that kind of faith, I can admire it in others. How about you?

I say it is fine for them,

Submitted by In between on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 00:47.

I say it is fine for them, but I value liberties just as much as you want to buy a coke and not a pepsi. If we want an all inclusive theology, then we can look to the Middle East. No thanks.

And you talk about judgement. And this is what controls Bush's mind. When asked why he didn't talk to his father on Iraq, he said "I believe in a higher authority." So God dictates how this country and its affairs run. Well, 4400 soldier and 100,000 Iraqis are dead. What does God have to say about that?

This country ran on ideology at its worse and some divine guidance. Now, can we fix this country or do we play games.

Chemjeff, thanks for your

Submitted by acinphx on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 18:29.

Chemjeff, thanks for your post. I agree that those are the basic tenets of conservatism as I understand them, or at least as was taught by my parents (who were lifelong Republicans). I'll just share a few thoughts that will undoubtedly get me flamed or branded a troll, but I feel compelled to discuss to them and would be very interested in your thoughts. I will then share my responses to your questions.

One aspect of conservatism as I understand it that was not specificially touched upon in your post is respect for the rule of law. I believe this best fits under social conservatism and perhaps you would see it encompassed in this part of your post: "Finally, individual liberty is only beneficially meaningful when it is conjoined with a moral people; hence policies that promote moral clarity should be favored over those that create moral obfuscation or relativism." So, here is what I believe that will undoubtedly get me flamed: Torture violates our laws and in torturing we fail to honor commitments we have made in international treaties, i.e., says that our law and word is worthless. To say that the U.S. has the right to torture anyone, while criticizing and prosecuting it when other countries do it, is most definitely moral relativism. Until Bush leaves office, he owns the torture policy but as soon as he leaves, we as a nation own it. If we don't as a people enforce our own laws by prosecuting him and any others who were part of authorizing or conducting it, we are saying to our own people and the world that we are not a people who respect the rule of law, that some are above the law, and that we are not concerned with lawlessness at the highest levels of our government. I do not see this view as inconsistent with conservatism and will happily accept any flaming that comes my way. I believe the Obama administration should prosecute and was disappointed that not a single Senator followed up on Eric Holder's response to the waterboarding question with the real question his answer implies: does he intend to enforce our laws against torture and our international commitment to investigate and prosecute it?

Now, my thoughts on your questions.

I don't think social conservatism has to go. I am pro-life. However, I do not personally support any religious teaching in public schools, support sex education including contraception, and oppose religious litmus tests.

I am more concerned about what I see as the extreme neocon turn of the party and Bush-style adventurism. What do I see replacing it? A move away from it! I personally don't agree with the Bush doctrine, at least as it was applied with Iraq. Focus on our national defense including much better border and port secuirty. I particularly agree with this statement: "Unapologetically defend the ideals upon which this nation was founded." (Thus, my long statement about respect for the rule of law.) I note also that you used the word "defend" and not "spread" as I simply think there are places in the world where we will have no success doing that.

(a) Democrats propose that "greed" and "deregulation" are what caused our current financial mess. In your view, what should be the conservative response, and why?

I think most Republicans would agree with the "greed" part -- don't you? I'm not familiar enough with the details of economic and regulatory policy to comment on the extent to which deregulation contributed. I'm as concerned about the role CDS had in the crisis as the mortgage deregulation that drove them. Unfortunately, because I believe greed is part of human nature, I believe some level of regulation will always be needed to protect against excesses. I'll leave it to those who understand this area far better than I do to respond in more detail.

(b) Democrats propose that teen pregnancy rates could be reduced if abortions were more widely available to teenagers. In your view, what should be the conservative response, and why?

I've never heard the Democrats I know promote the idea of greatly expanding access to abortion to teens, but maybe you're more in touch with what Dem leadershiop promotes. I think most of both parties would rather seen teen pregnancy rates reduced than abortion expanded. I believe the conservative response should be to promote the sanctity of life while also recognizing the realities of today: that teens are often sexually active and marriage is occurirng later. I don't oppose teaching sex education including contraception options. I also think conservatives should voice greater support for social services directed at pregnant teens -- too often, I hear more criticism than support.

I believe those are contributing factors, among others. Religious, nationalist and racial extremism of all stripes have long been contributors to violence and terrorism. I don't have a lot of time now to give this more thought, but could one possible response could be to point to examples of nations where poverty and hopelessness have been or are being alleviated by global capitalism? Again, really running out of time here -- do you know of such examples? Maybe some of the Asian or Eastern European nations? I'd also say you could argue it's not so much capitalism as how the nations are governed, e.g., countries in the mideast have vast wealth generated by global capitalism -- the oil revenue -- yet most of their people remain mired in poverty. Is it the global capitalism or their own governments who keep them mired in poverty? I think it would be easy to argue it's more the latter. (But please don't misunderstand -- I would not go on to argue that conservatism then demands 'regime change' in those countries.)

Thanks again for your post. Very thought-provoking.

Allow me.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 19:54.

chemjeff will reply also, I'm sure.

1. What is the philosophical basis for the brand of conservatism that you wish to see adopted?

I don't think that there are "brands" of conservatism. Peple have gotten into the habit of describing as conservatism whatever the Republican Party does. But it's a big tent containing libertarains and liberals as well as conservatism. If you want philosophy you'll need to read a book. I suggest Russell Kirks Prospects For Conservatives.

2. In the new conservatism that you envision, how do you plan on differentiating it from the philosophical basis of liberalism that the Democrats offer?

That's far too broad a question to answer properly in a comment thread. But conservatism and liberalism start from two very different philosophical bases. They have two completely different understandings of what human beings are. The liberal understanding is based entirely on economics, the conservative says that people are more then economic units.

Democrats propose that "greed" and "deregulation" are what caused our current financial mess.

They're half right. It was greed and regulation. Businessmen can bribe Congress into passing regulation more easily then scrapping it. And certain sorts of regulation were at fault here. Regulation as such is neither good nor bad.

Democrats propose that teen pregnancy rates could be reduced if abortions were more widely available to teenagers.

That's like saying that we can reduce deaths from cancer by executing everybody on their twenty-fifh birthday.

what should be the conservative response, and why

Apart from the above? We have high rates of both abortion and teen pregnancy because of cultural changes made in the last forty years. What has been changed can be changed again, in a better directon.

I've never heard the Democrats I know promote the idea of greatly expanding access to abortion to teens

Then I assume you live in North Dakota.

Democrats propose that international terrorism is caused mainly by poverty and hopelessness in poor countries, and that this poverty is perpetuated by global capitalism promoted by rich nations such as the US.

I would say that this is blatant nonsense. First, the countries most stricken by povetry are notably mssing from the list of countries which engage in terror. The Arab counties of the Middle East have considerable wealth, much more so than Africa, for instance. And yet we don't see people from Cameroon setting off bombs in London or New York.

And second, "global capitalism" is not perpepuating povetry. Or if it is, it's doing a very bad job of it. The greatest increases in wealth in the world today are happening outside of First World countries such as the US. So the Democrats, as usual, don't have the foggest idea what they are talking about.

I'd also say you could argue it's not so much capitalism as how the nations are governed

I'd say that you were right. But I'd also say that how countries are governed depends on the people living in them, in every case. Giving Iraq a new constitution copied from the American one would never work, because the suppositions it's based on are not ones which they share.

I believe the conservative response should be to promote the sanctity of life while also recognizing the realities of today: that teens are often sexually active and marriage is occurirng later.

When you say "recognize" I think you mean '"accept". It's not the function of conservatism, or liberalism, to simply accept the world as it is. They both want to change it. All political philosophies want that that.

conservatism, liberalism

Submitted by chemjeff on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 00:11.

I don't think that there are "brands" of conservatism.

Well, yeah my bad for using a recent buzzword. What I"m thinking of is strains, collections, conceptualizations of conservatism. And I will definitely read Russell Kirk's book.

The liberal understanding is based entirely on economics, the conservative says that people are more then economic units.

I don't think I would quite agree with that. When you say 'liberalism' do you mean the classical, 19th century version? Because I could agree with that. When I used the term I was thinking more along the lines of modern liberalism, sorry for not being clear. In my experience modern liberalism tends to group people into categories, and then attemps to use government to meet the needs of the category as a whole. So liberals will argue in favor of race-based affirmative action because they believe minorities as a group deserve preferential treatment by government; but when we conservatives argue the folly of giving someone like Oprah preferential treatment, who clearly doesn't need it, this argument falls on deaf ears because they fundamentally view the world in terms of categories rather than in terms of individuals. I will definitely agree with you though that conservatives ought to view individuals as more than just rational economic actors, and IMO this is the trap that libertarians fall into: by thinking that it's possible to have an orderly society without values, as long as it's capitalist.

And I broadly agree with the rest of the points that you raise. Thanks for your thoughts.

Brands, strains

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 19:20.

I think it's a category error to include libertarianism and liberalism as either brands or strains of conservatism. They are strains of the Republican party, no doubt.

When you say 'liberalism' do you mean the classical, 19th century version?

Yes. But modern liberalism shares the same assumptions. In fact communism shared the same assumptions. All agree that man is best viewed as homo economicus. They diverge from that common starting point as to what follows as a consequence. Contrast that with the views espoused in The Conscience of a Conservative.

In my experience modern liberalism tends to group people into categories

Viewing people by category is a useful way to look at them. It's how people look at themselves. One reason the left is winning all the political battles is that it has a better grasp of human nature. What's killing the right is its devotion to the notion that people are fungible. (Which is not a conservative or even a classical liberal idea, but one adapted from the left. There's irony.)

rule of law

Submitted by chemjeff on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 23:36.

Yes, that is a glaring omission. My apologies. It's hard to categorize it in this structure, as it is really a foundation for all three. But the essential idea that we ought to be respectful of the law is definitely a traditional values-type of argument.

more detailed reply

Submitted by chemjeff on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 00:28.

(a) Democrats propose that "greed" and "deregulation" are what caused our current financial mess. In your view, what should be the conservative response, and why?

Well, the whole idea of the 'invisible hand' is that selfish motives by the individual yield overall beneficial outcomes in society at large. So I'm tempted not to blame "greed". We of course should have regulation of the financial markets, at the minimum to protect private property rights and to create market transparency. But I don't think we should fall into the trap that the government somehow needs to clamp down against "excesses" - if a firm wants to pay a CEO $2 zillion dollars, I say let them, and if the firm goes under as a result, well boo hoo for them. To say that "excesses" need to be restrained is to suggest that government is capable of deciding what is "excessive" and what is not, and I'm highly skeptical that it can do so in anything but a highly politicized and demagogic manner.

(b) Democrats propose that teen pregnancy rates could be reduced if abortions were more widely available to teenagers. In your view, what should be the conservative response, and why?

Well I don't think Democrats are buying billboard space advertising abortions for teenagers, no. But Democrats are the one who consistently fight against things like parental notification laws; they are the ones who place abortion on a pedestal as some holy sacrosanct right that is more important even than free speech, and that any attempt to responsibly regulate it whatsoever puts us immediately on the slippery slope to tyranny. And on issues involving sex education and, more broadly, sexuality in the popular culture, I think this is a great opportunity for social conservatives especially to push a compassionate and realistic view of teen sexuality. Because, as we know, the message that kids here now is closer to the "Girls Gone Wild/MTV Spring Break" message.

I broadly agree - blaming global capitalism is a red herring. But here is another place where we should proudly stick up for capitalism. I really think the populist anti-globalization wing of the Republican Party is not healthy. If there's any one that I'd like to purge, it would be them.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Huh?

Submitted by Cahnman on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 12:12.

Torture violates our laws and in torturing we fail to honor commitments we have made in international treaties, i.e., says that our law and word is worthless.

And when, exactly, has the United States engaged in real torture under George W. Bush?

C ockeyed Optimists

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 22:05.

Whenever I read these long posts here trying to establish the "Foundation of Conservatism", I always think I'm listening to one of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity's 20-minute fact-free, dogma-filled screaming dittohead diatribes.

I'm just going to take a look at the beginning of this,

"...The marketplace is a more efficient allocator of resources than the government.."

And ask a couple questions:

1. When you say "The Marketplace", what exactly is it that you are referring to? Capitalism EXISTS to gain market advantage and to find a way to game the marketplace and the competition and reach Monopoly, the Holy Grail of Capitalism. Some companies, the most succesful, are great at this. See Microsoft, see EXXON-Mobil. The end result of their success is and has been the total dismantling of the free market for their products and services.

A "Free Marketplace", the foundation of the cockeyed optimism of naïve Conservatives, cannot exist without the hand of Government punishing abuse and dismantling monopoly. Regularly.

When the Government does not fulfill its obligation to police and maintain a free and open and competitive marketplace, you immediately have abuses and breakdowns like the one we are presently going through.

When you have no referees, anything goes on the playing field, and you cannot have a fair game.

That is why so much energy is spent by Corporations on "working the refs", why Corporate whore outfits like the Heritage Foundation put out so much garbage about the sanctity of free-market solutions, and about how stupid and how evil Government is.

2. The Government CAN be a "more efficient allocator of resources". The efficiency and low cost of administering the US' Social Security insurance program has been used as a model in other countries, and presently costs less overhead than any similar private-sector program, at around 1% of assets. CATO said so.

I will stop here, and state you are asserting dogma over facts.

So, let's summarize.

Submitted by chemjeff on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 23:59.

1. You don't have a clue about conservatism and capitalism. You won't find an honest free-marketeer who is an anarchist. Even Adam Smith argued for the state to provide some basic public goods, such as roads, and this is entirely consistent with mainstream fiscal conservatism. Nevertheless, go ahead and rail against those 7 or 8 anarcho-capitalist libertarians that you find. I'm sure they will be more than happy to listen to your 'thoughtful criticism'.

2. You don't understand the difference between 'allocation of resources' and 'administrative overhead'. I seriously doubt the validity of the claim you attribute to Cato, but even supposing it were true - I don't care if Social Security's administrative overhead is 0.001%. The real question is: In an efficiency sense, should the money have been transferred to Social Security in the first place? Is having 14% of my paycheck placed in the SS "trust fund" the most productive use of that money? The capitalist answer to this question is "no".

3. You really aren't interested in engaging us conservatives on an intellectual level - your primary purpose in this forum, instead, appears mainly to denigrate us and insult our intelligence. So, you aren't helping. Remind me again why I should not consider you a troll?

On Trolls

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 11:11.

I think I consider YOU a socially conservative troll.

Your combination of smarmy assertions and arrogance, your blithe assumptions that just because it's crystal-clear to your twisted pretzel sensibilities, why anyone who doesn't see the brilliance of your short-sighted, sophomoric assertions MUST be stupid, is just classical Conservatism.

To answer you doubts about my sources, here's the CATO study I quoted:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp-15es.html

when they were hired by the Right to supply ammunition for the dismantling of Social Security, and had to admit that the establishment and administration of private accounts was going to have to cost more than what the US Gov't's exemplary overhead costs for SS were.

As to whether the 7%, not 14% of your paycheck that goes to SS is "the most productive use" of that money, would you also consider doing away with your mandatory auto insurance? Because just like mandatory auto insurance protects you against uninsured drivers on the road, SS is poverty insurance for all, paid for by premiums on all. Not an investment, not an "entitlement".

Despite your obviously inflated idea of your own self-importance and acumen, you don't have a clue. Period.

It gives me great amusement watching you flail and sweat and try to punch your way out of the paper bag you live in. Thanks for the yuks.

JD, perhaps we get what we pay for

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 11:43.

The administrative costs of simply issuing monthly checks are low. So is the added benefit provided, since it is merely shuffling cash around and not providing capital for productive investments..

My administrative costs of leaving cash in a checking account are very low. The interest rate is microscopic. Were I to seek higher rates of return, I would need to spend time and money (i.e. fund management fees) to obtain this.

Social Security is the same. It has low administrative costs , a poor rate of return to the "investors" and is ultimately economically unsustainable anyway.

JD, take off the snark face for a second and answer this: Were it not for the installed base of tens of millions of recipients, would even the Democrats construct a program for senior income security this way? Why are state and local pension funds set up not to pay retirees from current tax revenue drawn from current employeess, but to invest the contributions in private sector securities? The folks running CALPERS aren;t libertarian think tank folks, now are they?

The dead hand of FDR still rules on this one.

Thanks for your tone

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 16:35.

Managing SS is a whole lot more than just issuing checks. The office does a fine job, along with the trustees, of making sure the checks to all qualified recipients are on time and on the money and will keep coming.

You keep thinking of SS as an investment with a payoff or a payout. It is not. It is neither a pension fund. It is an insurance policy plan built and run very well by the Government for Americans, set in place to protect them from the ravages of poverty in old age. And set in place to protect American taxpayers from the cost of having to find a way to not abandon seniors who made bad or no efforts to protect themselves and their loved ones in their old age.

Just like your state has put in place mandatory auto insurance laws, not just to protect the driver of a car in an accident from ruinous hospital bills, but also to protect the innocent people in the car that driver hits.

State and local pension funds, CALPERS, and many other fiduciary arrangements, not just public-employee, but most in the private sector have been devastated this year by the losses in the recent equity and bond markets. Many have suspended or changed payouts. Even fixed-income funds that relied on public and corporate bonds and dividends, offering income security in exchange for low single-digit returns, have been decimated. I was joking with a friend that we had 201-K plans now!

Yet the Social Security checks keep coming. And they will keep coming for the next 20 years, and the next 20 years after that without any changes at present, according to the latest reports from the SS Trustees based on their actuarial estimates, and very conservative estimates in their models for economic and productivity growth.

No one is prohibiting you or me from making other, additional arrangements to protect ourselves from poverty when we get too old to work, or to secure a good standard of living. And no one is going to be living high on the hog on just a check for $2000 a month from SS, but it's something. It's a blessing for many, and all they have to live on for some. That is its purpose.

well, here's the rub

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 17:16.

The ability of SS to honor those obligations is only as good as the ability of the economy to generate future payroll taxes. Excessive levels of unnecessary federal spending and debt will, in the Keynesian long run, depress the ability of the economy to generate such taxes. I think a Bernie Madoff analogy is inflammatory, but perhaps appropriate.

Consequently, the recent drop in pension fund value may simply be a leading indicator of SS viability....the market is signalling the out year level of economic activity will be depressed.

As for those conservative actuarial statements, every year I am told that about the time I retire the fund's revenues will only meet 74% of its legal obligations. So which solution are we going to impose then.....a huge benefit cut or much higher payroll taxes? The Republicans who suggested getting ahead of this obvious mathematical problem ought to get some begruding thanks, but much as the housing bubble was pooh-poohed by the establismhment Left; so will entitlement insolvency be ignored until someone's check gets shorted.

There you go. A perfect

Submitted by In between on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 17:25.

There you go. A perfect reason why we need Social Security. I am in total agreement. There has to be a balance between risk and safety. SS is one of the last safety instruments left. With the upheaval in middle class jobs, lower wages, loss of healthcare, loss of pensions, and crooks on Wall Street.. SS makes more sense than ever before. It is not perfect, to fix whatever is wrong you can tinker around with the numbers. But to ensure its viability, the politicians need to stop taking the 100 billion dollar plus out of the trust fund and have a healthy economy.

and trusting the government amounts to "safety"?

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 17:53.

As noted, I don;t think the present way SS is configured will permit a sound economy to be maintained. Personally, I think the 74% of current benefits they are promising me is very optimistic. We will maintain the early baby boomers in the style to which they have become accustomed, drain what's left of the accumulated "trust fund" (which is just government bonds...aka a draw on federal revenue anyway ) and leave the Generation Jones and Generation X people in the wind. The Millenials will have decades to make their own alternative arrangements; more mature workers will get hammered.

Anyone that buys...

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 04:17.

... a US Treasury bond is trusting the government.

They sell pretty well.

Excellent work

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Sat, 01/17/2009 - 23:32.

I really need to apply a bit more thought to this, but here's a few initial observations

1. I'm not one who believes in doing away with social conservativism. I see it as necessary. I'm all for doing away with the neocons. Why? Because they can only understand liberty in economic terms and ignore egregious violations of personal liberty. I think they have it backwards.

Oddly enough, though I find myself closer in agreement with socons on many issues, I find it easier to talk with libertarians to a fruitful end.

2. (a) Greed definitely played a role, as Greenspan's admission that their models had failed to account for it would indicate. As to deregulation, a failure in the execution of a policy in no way negates the value of that policy.

I can identify four parts to business: management (the board), investors (stock holders), workers (including middle management), and consumers. Things got way off-balance toward a deference to the management. We need to correct that.

(b) It's not the government's job to parent your kids. The day it becomes the gov'ts job, I'll be advocating mandatory shock collars for attending public schools.

Agree with you 100%

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 00:09.

About neocons. In fact, it seems a lack of civil freedom is a bonus to them.

Not one dimensional

Submitted by lgm on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 10:06.

Political opinion is not one dimensional. In fact, it has at least three dimensions:

three pillars of fiscal conservtism, social conservatism, and national security.

For example, Ron Paul was a fiscal conservative but "weak" on national security. Mike Huckabee was a social conservative but supported social programs strict fiscal conservatives would oppose. Strict Ayn Rand libertatians are social radicals, opposing all limits on private personal behavior, regulation of drugs, etc. Demanding rigid compliance to Republican Party positions on all issues guarantees that your candidates will be either thoughtless or dishonest.

Philosophical basis: The marketplace is a more efficient allocator of resources than the government;...

This is not philosophical, but empirical, or should be. "X makes better decisions than Y" should not be a matter of faith (philolsophy), but a falsifiable statement. There are plenty of poor private sector allocation decions. Our current banking crisis is the result of bad investments, for example.

New basis for conservativism

Submitted by artigiano on Sun, 01/18/2009 - 10:41.

Conservatives need to examine the obvious difference between a principle and a preference. A principle is something that applies in all cases with very, very, few exceptions and is not a matter of argument or personal conviction not shared by almost all men and women. As a liberal, I should be able to agree with your conservative principles, even while we argue about what specific policies are best to impliment your principles. In short, there is no such thing as your principles, only our principles.

A preference is what you personally would advocate or prefer in the current specific circumstance. Many others may also favor your preference, even a large majority. But it is still a preference, not a principle. Just a widely held preference. Examples would be "smaller government" or "lower taxes." If you as a conservative could wave a magic wand and make the government any size you want and the tax burden any level you want, then at that point you would have to abandon your principles. Would you continue to reduce government and taxes to the point where they no longer exist? Of course not.

If , the day after your "magic wand day" the Congress voted to reduce the size of government and taxes even further, you would argue for bigger government and increased taxes to return them to your PREFERED level. You have abandoned your "principles." It should be obvious now that they never were true principles just situational preferences. You insult others when you insist that your personal preferences are in fact universal principles.

The same can be extended to "activist judges" or "pro-life." Conservatives love activist judges who make new laws from the bench that agree with their preferences such as outlawing flag burning. If you allow no exceptions and wish to outlaw all abortions, you are genuinely pro-life. If you allow exceptions for rape/incest or life/health of the mother then your pro-life stance is not a principle but simply a situational preference. You are actually pro-choice, but would prefer that there be far fewer abortions. A stance you share with most liberals and approximately 85% of the population.

So is there an abortion principle? One we can almost all agree applies in almost all cases. How about, abortion is always a tragic response that none the less may be morally preferable to carrying a pregnancy to term.

Conservatives should promote as a principle "effective government" and "responsible taxation." If a program works to address the problem for which it was intended, it is good and should stay in place or be expanded. If a program does not work, it should be elliminated or modified. We should tax at a level that pays in full for all programs plus a bit more to address our mounting debt. If that means raising tax rates by 20% across the board, then conservatives should be in favor of it because it fits within their "responsible taxation" principles. Labeling liberals as "tax and spend" is laughable as that is the very definition of government. Conservatives seem to favor "spend and don't tax, just borrow" is clearly disfunctional.

I'm sure we could extend this discussion to non-domestic issues. But you get the idea, and my breakfast is ready and getting cold.

All 2 of 3 in agreement should be voting Rep

Submitted by TomGrey on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 10:46.

Great post! Since it fully agrees with my 2004 3-d analysis of Bush-Kerry, based on Pew exit polls of the 'most important' issue. With Moral Issues being the least of these 3, yet those who thought them most important overwhelming voting for Bush.

In general, Reps should be able to get almost all the votes of those who agree with any two of the three planks, and some of the votes of those who agree with at least one plank, i.e. pro-life altho also pro-gov't spending and anti-war.

Those who thought Economic issues (when aggregating various Gov't spending programs into Economic, or Fiscal) were only a little less overwhelmingly voting Kerry.

In this 2008 election, some 65% said Economics, and Moral Issues wasn't in the top reasons. Conclusion: most social conservatives voted Rep or Dem based on Economics. I.e. Catholics supporting Obama more than Kerry.

And Dems have a simple two-part economic message (for most problems):

1) the problem was caused by the Free Market, and

2) the gov't will solve the problem

Hopefully there will be enough stability in the economy for socons to again be important.

The challenge for small gov't types is to convince folks that less gov't will have a better medium and long term effect than bigger gov't. I, for one (Libertarian Paternalist), can support a huge stimulus of tax cuts, while also thinking that gov't directed spending will fail to be much stimulus for the long term. And print, rather than tax or borrow, the crisis money.

Putting the 'Next' Into 'Next Right': Retooling vs. Restructuring

Comments

User login

Subscribe & Connect

Ads

Promos

Recent blog posts

Recent comments

Search

Links