Liberals: The real pollyannas

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

"In the annointed we find a whole class of supposedly 'thinking people' who do remarkably little thinking about substance and a great deal of verbal expression. In order that this relatively small group of people can believe themselves wiser and nobler than the common herd, we have adopted policies which impose heavy costs on millions of other human beings, not only in taxes, but in lost jobs, social disintegration and a loss of personal safety. Seldom have so few cost so much to so many." Thomas Sowell, "The Vision of the Annointed"

Life is difficult, or so goes the beginning of M. Scott Peck's "The Road Less Traveled." Conservatives accept this, and the notion that life is rarely simple, tidy or fair. It is an imperfect world full of imperfect people.

Liberals see the imperfections of the world, but are not content to accept these imperfections as inevitable. In fact, liberals think wicked social problems can be solved if only we have the will, if only we spend the money, if only we try a bit harder.

The bad parent will improve with education. The career criminal can be reformed. Unmotivated shirkers simply lack training. Pupils in public schools will learn more if we pay teachers and administrators more. Why, the solutions to all of our social problems are within reach if we only listen to the "annointed" and fund an endless array of government programs.

History gives one little reason for confidence. Despite staggering spending on social programs, there is little evidence these programs have actually many thorny social problems. In fact, these programs may have actually damaged the persons they intended to help.

Liberals, as a general rule, are reluctant to admit the failure of social programs. This ranges from simple denial to criticism of the delivery of services, the level of funding, etc. This faith that good intentions can be translated into successful public policy is a matter of near religious faith.

This takes us to the heart of liberalism--the notion that an enlightened, benovolent elite can improve the condition of the common man (or woman). This elite shares a sense of moral superiority. Why... because they are acting in the "best interest" of the unwashed masses. Declare a crisis. Pass new laws. Fund new programs. Establish a "czar," an office or a bureau. All to save us from ourselves... again.

The common man looks upon these efforts with a jaundiced eye. The inner city poor are less confident that the corner drug dealer can be rehabilitated. They are less sanguine that a gov't check and a social worker really create a path out of poverty.

When questioned, the liberals are quick to suggest others simply care less. Their opponents are not only unenlightened, but hard hearted. Why? The conservatives allegedly care more for money than for the homeless or drug addicts or the mentally ill. While one might find an occasional misanthrope, the conservative simply see a different world than the liberal. The conservative feels central government (the political incarnation of the liberal elite) can do little to change the nature of man or the elemental "unfairness" of life. In fact, conservatives suspect social engineering costs a good deal of money and often leaves the "beneficiaries" worse off than before.

Noble intentions are not enough... except for those smug and self-satisified to have them and indulge them at the expense of others.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 08, 2001

Answers

And your solution is?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), February 08, 2001.

1) Shut down two agencies for each new one created.

2) Discontinue two old programs for each new on started.

3) Reduce spending in other areas $2 for each $1 spent in a new area.

4) Require that programs have specified, measurable goals. Discontinue those programs that fail to approach those goals, or even turn out to be counterproductive. Do this even though you know in your heart that the program *ought* to work, and you just can't understand why it doesn't.

5) Evaluate government programs in terms of measured impacts, and NOT in terms of intentions. Recognize what can't be fixed and drop it.

6) Don't be blinded by religious notions of "fairness" or "compassion". These are always short sighted. A progressive tax structure, for example, is *intended* to place the burden on those most able to bear it. In practice, we are rewarding failure and penalizing success. With predictable results.

7) Focus education resources on the best students, rather than on helping the slowest learners. One Einstein is far better than thousands of functional mediocrities.

This list could go on and on.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 08, 2001.


And your solution is?

I think you missed the point FS.

Not every problem has a "solution", we will never have utopia here on Earth.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 08, 2001.


Before all else, do no harm. Adherence to this rule (combined with an objective measurement of program outcomes) would eliminate many government initiatives.

We ought to be honest about the limitations of collective action... and about the inevitable price in individual liberty. Some criminals cannot be reformed. Some addicts cannot be cured. Some people cannot be helped.

We ought to realize the corrosivity (and frequent unintended consequences) of government "charity." A gov't check and in-kind subsidies can shackle a person as firmly as any chains. Where is the pride or dignity in dependence on the state?

We ought to recognize that success is not possible without failure. The greatness of America is not equality of individual outcomes, but the freedom of each citizen to strive, to struggle and occasionally overcome.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 08, 2001.


Jose--

Well said but I think you might be giving the collectivist mind-set too much credit. It's not only that their "solutions" don't work, it's not only that their "solutions" often make things worse (prompting them of course to call for more "soluitions")---- it's that they don't care if their "solutions" work.

Oh some do, but too many have a vested interest in solutions that don't work. If the solutions did work, they'd be out of a job. The bureauracracy has one agenda---self preservation. It survives no matter who is in power. It's insidious.

Jose---I have a distant recollection that you are from Argentina. True? Probably you're from Tulsa.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 09, 2001.



off

-- (-@-.-), February 09, 2001.

dum dum

-- Danny (no@grip.con), February 09, 2001.

Jose:

By your own criteria, would you eliminate the war on drugs tha Ashcroft wants to escalate?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), February 09, 2001.


off now?

-- (clean@up.crew), February 09, 2001.

FS--

Valid point. If Libertarian Conservatives want to criticize Liberals by using the anti-Big Government argument then they can't merely replace one type of Big Government program with another type. (However Tory Conservatives can do that without being inconsistent).

I have to believe that you would like to see the general use of narcotics decrease. If so, how do you think that we can best get from here to there? Do you think that legalization of drugs is a good idea?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 09, 2001.



FS, more OT, I thought this link about the screenwriter of Traffic was interesting---

Addic ted

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 09, 2001.


Conservatives occasionally have bad ideas including the War on Drugs and its precursor, Prohibition. Other bad conservative ideas include corporate welfare, censorship and trophy wives.

Ayn Rand's enlightened capitalist is a mythical character. The astute businessperson wants a monopoly, preferably with government regulations that hamstring his (or her) competitors and generous tax breaks.

The liberal would have us believe the capitalist is evil. In truth, he is selfish and will use goverment to his own ends if given the chance. Self interest, like any motive, can be destructive if taken to an extreme.

The capitalists' desire to influence public policy is narrow. Protect my business from cheap imports. Limit my taxes or my liability. Grant me a license.

This is much less ambitious (and dangerous) than what the liberal seeks. The liberal wants government to reshape society, improve the common man and make every day sunny and 70 degrees. The liberal thinks the lion should lie down with the lamb... oblivious to what will happen when the kinder, gentler world lacks predators and balance.

I imagine it feels quite good to be liberal, noblesse oblige and all. It must be satisfying to feel morally superior to others, to gallantly take income from the wealthy and distribute it to the poor.

If only redistribution of wealth made better men or women; if only it were so easy.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 09, 2001.


It must be satisfying to feel morally superior to others...

Yes, it does, but that's beside the point. :^)

Is this a continuing excerpt from some other publication, or is this an original posting? If original, is it even being made by the same "Jose"?

Flint - nice, simple answers. If the gubm'nt programs being proposed are being proposed by conservatives, who gets to have the responsibilty of axing the other 2x programs? Liberals or conservatives? Just curious. It sounds like a great plan, and if we keep it up for a few decades, who knows, we may end up in a pre-industrial liberatarian utopia!

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 09, 2001.


How about a post-industrial Libertarian utopia?

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), February 09, 2001.

No, I did mean pre. "Liberatarian" must mean "liberal Libertarian", though.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 09, 2001.


There are many who feel morally superior to others... perhaps because it is much easier than feeling intellectually superior. To feel intellectually superior, one must demonstrate some measure of intellect.

To the issue of excerpts, if the thought is not contained in quotations with an appropriate citation, it is original.

Finally, libertarian utopias are no more realistic than liberal utopias. Personal freedom is a reasonable notion that can easily become foolish when taken to an extreme. Should the American 2nd Amendment allow private citizens to own military weaponry like surface-to-air missiles? Tactical nuclear warheads? Biological weapons? Libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion is anarchy. Anarchy is only the illusion of liberty; the reality of freedom requires some balance between the rights of individuals and the interests of a civil society. The rule of law requires law and a concentration of power ample to enforce these laws.

Libertarians are correct to distrust the collective when it holds some level of power over the individual. This is why democracy must contain safeguards against the tyranny of the majority. Libertarians err when they see all collective power as inherently evil. Some degree of organization and order is necessary... unless one prefers the feudal or totalitarians political systems that would emerge from anarchy. An enlightened democracy allows citizens the opportunity to pursue happiness with minimal interference.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 09, 2001.


Bemused:

Yes, these answers are too simple, but you gotta start somewhere, and concrete proposals tend to make more headway than hazy moral discussions.

But if I might ask, why do you presume that if we did this for a while, the result would be "pre-industrial"? Are you implying that government is responsible for industry, or maybe we owe industry to bureaucracy? I confess I see a small but definite negative correlation between industry and government bloat.

I do like the idea of sunset laws. They force politicians to actively go on record voting in favor of programs to preserve them, which in turn can be used by the opponent in the next election if the program has been a failure. And these probably work better than my proposals, which (I suspect) would only inspire politicians to redefine what we mean by a "program" or an "agency" or even a "dollar".

My goal isn't a utopia, only incremental improvement. I don't believe we can cure all the world's problems, but this does NOT mean I don't believe we can make improvements at the margin. That's why I proposed a *process*, not a utopia.

And I agree entirely with Jose Decker y Gasset, freedom doesn't lie in a lack of restriction or regulation, but in appropriate restriction and regulation. Good fences DO make good neighbors, but only if they really are good.

All in all, if I could make my living off of YOUR money and efforts, I wouldn't be inclined to kill this golden goose either.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 09, 2001.


Decker, of course! I see it now. Shhhhhhh, loose hips slinky lips.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), February 09, 2001.

Lars:

You've asked me twice now, so I am going to answer. Yes, I think drugs should be legalized. I am too tired and it is too late to discuss why. Maybe tomorrow.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), February 10, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ