Thursday, April 19, 2012
Political Mayhem Thursday II: Platforms vs. Principle
Yesterday I was driving along, trying to figure out the coherence between these planks of the Republican platform, all of which a politician like Scott Walker embraces:
1) Smaller government
2) Bigger military
3) Eliminate debt
4) Lower taxes
5) Pro-life
6) Pro-capital punishment
7) Anti-Gay marriage
What a mish-mash! A smaller government conflicts with a big military and prohibitions on gay marriage and abortion. The idea of lower taxes conflicts with limiting debt. Being for capital punishment certainly doesn't mesh with a distrust of government (we trust it to kill citizens?), or with a pro-life position (even a position of protecting innocent life, given the number of people taken off death row as innocent).
So how does someone hold these contradictory positions together? I suspect in this way: By simply accepting and supporting those positions that various Republican consitutiencies want, despite the inconsistencies. There is no principle that binds them all, or even most of them, together, as they are driven by the expediencies of coalition.
The same, of course, is true of Democrats. Consider these positions which are all part of Democratic orthodoxy:
1) Environmental protection
2) Union and other jobs for the working class
3) Expanding health care coverage
4) Pro-choice and pro-gay marriage
5) Shifting tax burden to the wealthy
6) Create a more diverse, inclusive society
7) Rely on technology to solve problems
The biggest problem with this bundle is that it is simply impossible to do all that without bankrupting the country. Further, if you protect the environment, you restrict the industries that most often provide good jobs to those in the working class. Relying on technology to solve problems is hindered when you tax the wealthy people with those skills, and tends to cut out minority groups who do not have access to educational opportunities.
As a nation, we yearn for a meaningful articulation of principle-- which is what we got from Abraham Lincoln, from FDR, from JFK, from Martin Luther King, and from Ronald Reagan. Perhaps the cause of our political disillusionment today is that the two political parties have utterly failed to start from principle, and work from there towards popularity. Instead, they try to achieve a majority by annexing interest groups with little in common, a project that is anathema to what we long for: a strong moral voice that settles our fears and offers hope.
Comments:
<< Home
Just for the record, "ideology" is a word / concept rejected by Burkean conservatives. That is, Burke identified ideology as a recipe for political foolishness. This, of course, is part of the great tension between Burke conservatism / Kirk traditionalism and much of what comes out of the Republican Party.
SEPARATE BUT SOMEWHAT CONNECTED THOUGHT: Part of the mass of contradictions relates to the wide spectrum of political thought that has to be stuffed into the American two-party system.
Having said that, conservatism is respect for tradition. G.K. Chesterton said conservatism was "democracy of the dead." Giving all of human history a vote on the present.
Most of 1-7 fits in with that general impulse to conserve tradition.
As for our current political dilemma...I wish I knew the answer.
SEPARATE BUT SOMEWHAT CONNECTED THOUGHT: Part of the mass of contradictions relates to the wide spectrum of political thought that has to be stuffed into the American two-party system.
Having said that, conservatism is respect for tradition. G.K. Chesterton said conservatism was "democracy of the dead." Giving all of human history a vote on the present.
Most of 1-7 fits in with that general impulse to conserve tradition.
As for our current political dilemma...I wish I knew the answer.
I don't disagree, but keep a few things in mind.
It's the Republican position, and that of some economists, that lowering taxes will actually help cut debt because lower taxes leads to job creation. I think that's true if your're cutting a rate from 50% or more down to 35% or lower. But at some point, further cuts in tax rates won't help.
As the Prof himself has explained before, a bigger military definitely helps build an economy. That's one of the main reasons the economy grew in the 1980's.
I'd also disagree that all Republicans wnat "Bigger military." What many want is "more aggressive military." I am not saying either one is a good (or bad) thing. And what ALL elected officials, regardless of party or idealogy is MORE military spending in their own district or state.
It's a mess, but if you read about the 1780's and the mess created after the end of the Revolutionary War and leading up and through the ratification of The Constitution, you will see that conflicting and contradictory statements and mismatched idealogies are nothing new
It's the Republican position, and that of some economists, that lowering taxes will actually help cut debt because lower taxes leads to job creation. I think that's true if your're cutting a rate from 50% or more down to 35% or lower. But at some point, further cuts in tax rates won't help.
As the Prof himself has explained before, a bigger military definitely helps build an economy. That's one of the main reasons the economy grew in the 1980's.
I'd also disagree that all Republicans wnat "Bigger military." What many want is "more aggressive military." I am not saying either one is a good (or bad) thing. And what ALL elected officials, regardless of party or idealogy is MORE military spending in their own district or state.
It's a mess, but if you read about the 1780's and the mess created after the end of the Revolutionary War and leading up and through the ratification of The Constitution, you will see that conflicting and contradictory statements and mismatched idealogies are nothing new
WF--
Actually, our tradition at this point seems to be unsustainable spending (70 years of that), abortion on demand (40 years), large activist government (70+ years), and what Republicans see as relatively high taxes. They don't want to conserve these values and traditions, they want to change them.
If they meant conserve personal freedom, they would be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.
If it means to conserve resources, they would be environmentalists.
"Conservative" means none of that. It means the unprincipled mish-mash of the Republican coalition, just as "progressive" is read to mean the quilt of Democratic positions.
Actually, our tradition at this point seems to be unsustainable spending (70 years of that), abortion on demand (40 years), large activist government (70+ years), and what Republicans see as relatively high taxes. They don't want to conserve these values and traditions, they want to change them.
If they meant conserve personal freedom, they would be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.
If it means to conserve resources, they would be environmentalists.
"Conservative" means none of that. It means the unprincipled mish-mash of the Republican coalition, just as "progressive" is read to mean the quilt of Democratic positions.
I wish a copy of "Credit, the Day's Religion of Choice" I wrote in the early 70's had been saved.
Similar to your compelling paper on "Crack Cocaine" and the roles demand, distribution and profit potential played in its growth - credit helped transform neighborhoods once focused on caring, sharing and being supportive of each other into conclaves where advertisements defined worth and material possesions and vacation destinations celebrated success.
Spending habits began to cull, categorize, separate and elevate. Attainment became a magnate drawing many up the next ladder rung, distancing each from the other - yes, through effort, though also through public institutions and services (schools, fire life safety, infrastructure, etc) and chance.
Realization that retaining and maintaining that desired and acquired could not be managed alone helped foster the alliances formed that protect personal interests.
"There is no principle that binds them all, or even most of them, together, as they are driven by the expediencies of coalition."
Until the next crisis brings all of us to our knees, the statement, "There is no Red America, there is no Blue America, there is the United States of (stagnation) may continue to best describe our nation and ourselves...
Similar to your compelling paper on "Crack Cocaine" and the roles demand, distribution and profit potential played in its growth - credit helped transform neighborhoods once focused on caring, sharing and being supportive of each other into conclaves where advertisements defined worth and material possesions and vacation destinations celebrated success.
Spending habits began to cull, categorize, separate and elevate. Attainment became a magnate drawing many up the next ladder rung, distancing each from the other - yes, through effort, though also through public institutions and services (schools, fire life safety, infrastructure, etc) and chance.
Realization that retaining and maintaining that desired and acquired could not be managed alone helped foster the alliances formed that protect personal interests.
"There is no principle that binds them all, or even most of them, together, as they are driven by the expediencies of coalition."
Until the next crisis brings all of us to our knees, the statement, "There is no Red America, there is no Blue America, there is the United States of (stagnation) may continue to best describe our nation and ourselves...
# posted by 
: 11:16 AM
: 11:16 AM
Two Different Points:
1. The GOP and the Democratic Party are two big rivers with a lot of different streams and currents within. Why uneasy alliances and contradictions? There are numerous distinct movements and impulses under these big banners. For a good analogy, think about parliamentary systems where there are numerous parties and often coalition governments. Dems and Repubs are "coalition parties."
2. What it means to be a conservative...more later.
1. The GOP and the Democratic Party are two big rivers with a lot of different streams and currents within. Why uneasy alliances and contradictions? There are numerous distinct movements and impulses under these big banners. For a good analogy, think about parliamentary systems where there are numerous parties and often coalition governments. Dems and Repubs are "coalition parties."
2. What it means to be a conservative...more later.
As an add-on to my last point and a preface to POINT TWO, here is an incomplete list of the streams within the Republican Party:
Traditional (Social) Conservatives
Religious Social Conservatives
Neo-Conservatives
Libertarians
Non-Interventionists
Realists
Compassionate Conservatives
Supply Siders
Free Marketeers
Traditional (Social) Conservatives
Religious Social Conservatives
Neo-Conservatives
Libertarians
Non-Interventionists
Realists
Compassionate Conservatives
Supply Siders
Free Marketeers
I'm no historian or scholar, but I think many of the platforms listed on the conservative side tend to spring from "traditional Christian values." Not so much the gigantic military, but the others. Historically, Christianity has been very distrustful of government, leading to Platforms 1, 3, and 4. Platforms 5-7 are Biblically defensible viewpoints (even if you disagree with the viewpoints, they're defensible from a Biblical perspective).
I suppose maybe #2 joins in because the Communists were godless S.O.B.s that oppressed religion and were coming to take away our Sunday lunches in the Fellowship Hall. I don't know, that's all I've got.
On a somewhat related note to the course of this discussion, I've never understood the phrase "have your cake and eat it too." If you have cake, what the heck else are you going to do with it? It's not a work of art.
I suppose maybe #2 joins in because the Communists were godless S.O.B.s that oppressed religion and were coming to take away our Sunday lunches in the Fellowship Hall. I don't know, that's all I've got.
On a somewhat related note to the course of this discussion, I've never understood the phrase "have your cake and eat it too." If you have cake, what the heck else are you going to do with it? It's not a work of art.
I think that means you have it and eat it at the same time, like you eat it, but it still exists on the plate.
# posted by : 12:52 PM
: 12:52 PM
Pope, communists were indeed godless S.O.B.s that oppressed religion and were coming to take away your Sunday lunches in the Fellowship Hall but you should also know that aside from top rank apparatchiks, communists were beyond distrustful of government. That distrust was the only personal sentiment that came close to rebellion to the ideological [and actual] hostage lockdown the Communist Bloc essentially was. And on the pointless point of cake eating, that is exactly it…if you eat the cake you won’t have it, but cake is for eating so the having and the eating become two incompatible issues. Well, I admit the saying is stupid, but it does sound gluttonous, so there… translate that in traditional Christian values.
Anon 2:06, as a matter of fact yes I was a communist scout! And a very proud one at that…but then I grew up, reality kicked in and Marxist Utopia didn’t look like such a promising deal after all.
I don't like cake. So I will neither have it nor eat it.
I will have my cigarettes and smoke them too though.
I will have my cigarettes and smoke them too though.
# posted by : 2:44 PM
: 2:44 PM
RRL, good you don’t live in NYC. Our mayor banned smoking in bars, public parks and public beaches, now he goes for rental apartments. If you ever consider progressive activism, looks like a smokin’ good cause for you!
Marta - I was in NYC last November. I sat outside in a park in Brooklyn and read a book for several hours, and smoked the whole time. I kept getting dirty looks, but nobody did anything.
I consider it my own personal stand against fascism.
I consider it my own personal stand against fascism.
# posted by : 5:22 PM
: 5:22 PM
I think Pope was on to something. Edmund Burke invented early modern conservatism as a reaction to the French Revolution. Russell Kirk reinvented modern conservatism in America in reaction to the Communist Revolution.
Mark:
I think what you are missing here, at least at the national level, is that Congressional Republicans meet all of your agenda criteria. The President does not.
I'm not leveling this charge at you, but the national media seems to give Republicans a pass when they allege that President Obama has pursued an agenda of over-regulation that is stifling business. I cannot remember the last time that I heard a responsible journalist challenge the asserter to identify an example. If anything, the President's base has been disappointed in his failure to pursue just such an agenda. The facts are that he has disappointed the left with his willingness to drill, his ignoring the unions, his very Republican (at least until he adopted it) approach to health-care reform, his acceptance of extension of the Bush tax cuts, and his acceptance of massive spending cuts under the debt deal.
Count me among his early supporters who laud him for his pragmatism---you can't care, at a macro level, about environnmentalism, etc., when the country is headed for the poor house.
All of this is why I agree in substantial part with the post over at The Daily Beast by Michael Tomasky entitled "Barack Obama and the ‘Centrist’ Fantasy About Dealing With the GOP" Just read it, and ask yourself if you can disagree with it.
I think what you are missing here, at least at the national level, is that Congressional Republicans meet all of your agenda criteria. The President does not.
I'm not leveling this charge at you, but the national media seems to give Republicans a pass when they allege that President Obama has pursued an agenda of over-regulation that is stifling business. I cannot remember the last time that I heard a responsible journalist challenge the asserter to identify an example. If anything, the President's base has been disappointed in his failure to pursue just such an agenda. The facts are that he has disappointed the left with his willingness to drill, his ignoring the unions, his very Republican (at least until he adopted it) approach to health-care reform, his acceptance of extension of the Bush tax cuts, and his acceptance of massive spending cuts under the debt deal.
Count me among his early supporters who laud him for his pragmatism---you can't care, at a macro level, about environnmentalism, etc., when the country is headed for the poor house.
All of this is why I agree in substantial part with the post over at The Daily Beast by Michael Tomasky entitled "Barack Obama and the ‘Centrist’ Fantasy About Dealing With the GOP" Just read it, and ask yourself if you can disagree with it.
1 & 2) you can still have a smaller government and bigger military. For instance, if you fire the 100K people working for the IRS, you can have, say, 50K new troops and still get leaner! Seeing as this week is tax-week, I don't know why anyone would be opposed to this plan.
3 & 4) Everyone knows that if you eliminate the debt on your credit cards, you pay less in interest. Thus, you lower your payments and can spend make less and still be in the same lifestyle which allows you to post online rather than working on getting your clients out of jail...er...for instance!
5 & 6) not guilty does not equal innocent. I think we're talking more about the "because you haven't been corrupted by the world" kind of innocence. Like I was in law school!
7) a moral code doesn't necessarily lead to more government. For instance RRL smoked 3 gallons of tar in NYC and nothing happened...eventhough he knew he shouldn't!
3 & 4) Everyone knows that if you eliminate the debt on your credit cards, you pay less in interest. Thus, you lower your payments and can spend make less and still be in the same lifestyle which allows you to post online rather than working on getting your clients out of jail...er...for instance!
5 & 6) not guilty does not equal innocent. I think we're talking more about the "because you haven't been corrupted by the world" kind of innocence. Like I was in law school!
7) a moral code doesn't necessarily lead to more government. For instance RRL smoked 3 gallons of tar in NYC and nothing happened...eventhough he knew he shouldn't!
# posted by : 6:13 PM
: 6:13 PM
On a lighter note... my ex-husband bore a stunning resemblance to "Beaker." But was not necessarily humorous. Make mine a Princess cake from Wuollet's and I'd like some NOW please!
RRL even though I've never smoked a single cigarette in my life I totally get your moral stand against fascism, but I have to say I take great pleasure in watching the eye-rolling, disdainful Euro-trash squirm every time they are harassed at outdoor terraces and inside bars.
Marta, I make no apologies for Eurotrash. They get exactly what they deserve. Nobody should wear clothes that tight and listen to music that bad.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 1:36 AM
: 1:36 AM << Home
