As usual, David Brooks is making me think. His column today questions one of the bedrock notions of Golwater Conservatism, the veneration of the individual and the responsibility of the individual for his or her own lot in life (very Ayn Randish, also).
I still believe in these notions, and I feel they have a place in the pantheon of conservative ideas. But the way Brooks talks about the housing crisis is very convincing. I have been a relentless critic of not only many of the people who have been caught up in the issue, but also the hysteria surrounding it. I remain convinced that individual choices poorly made are at the root of this problem. That said, my brand of conservatism doesn't equip me to deal with the issue in an effective manner...politically. Yes, I can stand up and shout about responsibility and greed, but there is nothing in my ideology to equip me to SOLVE THE PROBLEM. Nothing our government is doing to solve this problem (much of which I support) can be considered "conservative" by even the most tortured definitions.
I guess I've got some thinking to do.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Found great interest in this article too which lead me to a similar one by David Frum in the NY Post about the "Vanishing Republican." I am sure one of your astute readers must have forwarded it to you as well.
Another fine piece of literature about this kind of conservatism, apparently being omitted from too many preschools and kindergartens today is "The Little Red Hen", the story of the hen who finds a grain of wheat, decides it best to plant it, rather than eat it now, for a more bountiful harvest later on. Of course, the actions connecting finding the wheat and eating the bountiful harvest are of little interest to the hen's fellow community citizens, the dog, cat and some other creature whose species evades me at the moment. They would rather lounge, play or sleep so the hen does it all herself even though she politely offers each to share in her labors at each step. When it comes time to eat the fruits of her labors, and only her labors, the rest of the community shows up eager to help eat it. In this once lesson-teaching fable, they lose because they didn't contribute their able bodies and minds to the effort so necessary to arrive at an edible harvest. Today, I am sure the lesson would be that the Red Hen is felinist, caninist and other speciesist as well as an evil, uncaring, selfish "big grainer" who should be taxed of her abundance so those who are clearly oppressed and without grain can feel better about themselves. Oh, and clearly we would need to establish a central governmental infrastructure (paid from the harvest as well) to reapportion Red Hen, Inc.'s windfall grain harvest. And when Red Hen decides it just isn't worth it anymore to stay in the grain business, moving on to the egg business instead, the government infrastructure employees, faced with loss of revenue could hire C. Hicken Lyttle and Associates to lobby for increases in taxing "Big Egg" to help prop up the falling sky.
I have to go back to quoting George Bailey: "Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath?"
No extravagance, no granite, no 3-car garage. Just life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
A political answer has to include the same expectation and entitlement management understood by the people George Bailey was talking about.
Not an easy political sell, but a pragmatic approach.
Another vote for "The Vanishing Republican" that knuckledragger mentioned.
Dan, your George Bailey is just as fictional as the idea of recipients of entitlements understanding, managing, or even appreciating them.
Good conversation here; I read Frum's piece, and I honestly don't agree with his central premise (that growing income inequality is driving the natural Republican constituency base lower). Keep in mind, Frum is hawking a book in which this is his central theme, so the articles he's writing are out there to support an idea that I don't see as getting much traction. Why is the Republican Party flat these days? A couple of reasons. The first is that we don't have too many engaging Republican politicians center stage. Palin, Pawlenty, Barbour and Jindal are still second tier folks, though Palin is breaking out.
Secondly, the Republicans made hash out of their time in control. Dick Armey and that little weasel from Texas Tom Delay used their power and authority to gain more power and authority. Voters have moved away from the Republican party because Republicans governed poorly and they want a change.
Thirdly, the war. It is seen by folks as a Republican War, it is not popular, and the Republicans have suffered.
Frum does little to back up his assertions. At the same time he bemoans the "vanishing" Republican voter, the Democratic voter is vanishing also...that is, fewer people actually identify with a party than used to be the case. In absolute terms, the Republican voter may be vanishing, but in relative terms, they are not.
Frum wants to change the Republican Party, and I applaud that. He's not a fan of social conservatives, and neither am I. But I think he is drawing erroneous conclusions. Fewer people identify themselves as Republicans NOT because they find Republican ideas less desirable, but because they found Republican governance flawed. Fix the latter and the former will prevail.
We must keep in mind some of the possible causes of the alleged growing income inequality. Which political ideology has consistently encouraged illegal immigration which consists primarily of uneducated people with little or no skill with the resultant increase in the number of lower income people.
Which political ideology has consistently encouraged social promotions and/or elimination of grades resulting in large numbers of ill educated people entering the work force with no marketable skills with the resultant increase in the number of lower income people?
I would offer that CW is correct in saying " Republicans made hash out of their time in control" The Republicans came into power in 1994 with grand plans and bold ideas to correct the wrongs of the liberal Democrats only to become less fiscally responsible than those they replaced. I would expect all thinking Americans to examine the record(s) of their 9% approved congress and regardless of political affiliation to throw the bums out. In the words of John McCain we need to put aside politics and put "country first".
Post a Comment