The New Republic

Liberals are parasites who seek to live at the expense of others. Liberals despise freedom and believe that the great unwashed need to be told by experts how to live and how to spend their money. Libertarians, to their credit, regard these views with the contempt they deserve. In domestic policy libertarians have much to contribute. But libertarianism works only within a freedom loving country. It is of no use in foreign policy, where dealing with totalitarian enemies requires a strong military and a willingness to use it.

- bulbman1066

February 12, 2010 at 4:23am

"Liberals are parasites ..." is the statement of a hateful bigot, not a libertarian. It is also not a statement that someone who loves America could make - one who hates any large class of Americans is by definition not a patriot. The thing that baffles me is that despite Kilgore's long efforts to dissuade liberals of the utility of making common cause with libertarians, and that also baffles me about much libertarian opposition to Obama, is that Obama's actions have been generally more friendly to libertarian interests than any of his recent predecessors. A lot of Second Amendment advocates are absolutely freaked out about Obama, some enough to go on shooting rampages against cops, and yet the only action Obama has taken on any gun issue is to expand firearms possession rights on federal land. On budget issues, while Obama has not reigned in federal spending - and thank God, since that would have turned the recession into an actual, 25-percent-unemployment, free-market capitalism-may-not-survive-it depression - he has at least restored the basic accounting methods necessary for fiscal responsibility to the federal budget. Again, much more in line with libertarian demands not only than his Republican predecessor but also more in line with libertarian demands than the entire federal Republican Party. Obama is objectively speaking much less of a statist than George W. Bush, and also objectively less of a statist than any plausible Republican nominee for president in 2012. Now, there are many kinds of libertarianism in America. In the East, we are mainly familiar with the Ayn Rand-reading YAF crowd, who are really just a form of Wall Street-allied elitists, a variety of conservatism that doesn't care all that much about abortion. But in the West, a form of progressive libertarianism is more prevalent, and that form of libertarianism offers not only expedient political alliance for liberals but also useful models for improving liberalism itself.

- rhubarbs

February 12, 2010 at 10:57am

Come on rhubarbs, bulbman is a satirist of the first sort. He is always good for a laugh. It takes skill to say something both content free and offensive at the same time. I especially loved his choice of words in describing the "great unwashed" where he reveals his contempt for the American people as being filthy and unclean. kudos. You managed to parrot all unthinking morons perfectly.

- blackton

February 12, 2010 at 12:46pm

I don't think of Americans as the "great unwashed", liberals do. Look at the hysteria that the tea party protestors have evoked in the American left. Liberals yammer about the working class but hold its actual members in contempt. Several prominent liberal commentators have expressed the opinion that the American electorate is just too stupid to appreciate Obama's plan for the government to take over what is left of private medicine in this country. Thomas Friedman, the epitome of the pretentious liberal jackass, has even proposed that the system of government in China is superior to democracy. According to Mr. Friedman, the Chinese can do what needs to be done without having to worry about those dumb voters. Tell that to the millions in China’s gulag. I'm not an extreme libertarian. I think the bank bailouts were a necessary evil. But I agree with Larry Summers (a man I admire) that such government action should be targeted and temporary. I don't hate liberals. Most of my friends are liberals. I was a liberal myself until I got mugged by reality. My politics is eclectic center-right, as is fortunately the case with the majority of the American people. In the days of Harry Truman, George Marshall, and Dean Acheson liberalism achieved greatness. But today liberalism is about doing everything possible to undermine the security of this country and assure another terrorist attack. It’s about the race hustling of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the NAACP. It’s about the Neanderthal teachers’ unions ripping off America’s children. It’s about deficit spending that will bankrupt the country unless it is reined in within the next year or two.

- bulbman1066

February 12, 2010 at 1:47pm

One problem I have with libertarianism is that it is an inherently adolescent philosophy: "If Dad would just get off my back, and let me do whatever I want, I could accomplish so much!" Which is soon followed by Sonny Boy plowing the family car into a concrete piling. Sometimes Father DOES know best, and you better damn well listen to him... or else. Another problem is that their idolatrous worship of capitalism blinds them to the fact that business has more power than government and therefore can be a bigger threat to personal liberty. For example, your rights of free speech disappear once you pass through the doors of your workplace, but the corporation you work for can spend whatever it likes to exercise its new right to "free speech." Personally, I would rather trust a government I have nominal control over, instead of corporatism over which I have NONE.

- zardoz67

February 12, 2010 at 2:04pm

bulbman, what government takeover of private medicine are you yammering on about? The current proposal is about as free market as it can be. And read up on some John Maynard Keynes and the history of the Great Depression before you start campaigning for deficit reduction. We are in a demand-side economic crisis. Until the consumer is able to start spending again, government should spend as much as it can to keep the bottom from dropping out of the economy. When we are in full recovery, then we can tackle the deficit, not before. At least the current administration's spending is not structural, unlike Dubya and the profligate GOP who turned a projected $850 million surplus into an over $1 trillion deficit.

- zardoz67

February 12, 2010 at 2:16pm

"We are in a demand-side economic crisis." Absolutely. Astounding how Republicans think the solution is supply side economics (which produced the glut in the housing market, build it and they will come doesn't work when the people can't afford it) Tax cuts for the rich are meaningless as investments when our productive capacity is not being utilized as it is due to lack of demand. Hey, neat trick bulbman, using the term "unwashed masses" and putting it in the mouths of "Liberals" and then condemning them for it. And, like it or not, most of these tea party protester are kooks. And I felt the same way about a lot of the anti-war protesters with their signs of Bush as a Nazi, and the idiotic General "Betrayus" signs. Might I suggest valium to calm your nerves. You are in hyperbole overdrive so I truly do view it as comedy. Honestly, no one can seriously believe such idiocy and be hoped to be taken seriously. "But today liberalism is about doing everything possible to undermine the security of this country and assure another terrorist attack" This is the statement of someone who is mentally defective. Yes, I am sure Obama's keeping Bob Gates, promoting Petraeus, bringing in Jim Jones, etc. is a liberal plot to assure another terrorist attack (because Liberals just love to die by terrorist bombings), and I find it especially devious Obama's increasing troop levels in Afghanistan and aggressively taking out Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership in Pakistan (and lately in Yemen), his hidden agenda is that in killing all of these enemy soldiers they will Phoenix like spring from the ashes and (hooray) bring down America, forcing us to be transgendered, Allah worshippers who believe in fake global warming to... Trying to channel your insanity makes my head spin, so I will just stop.

- blackton

February 12, 2010 at 2:39pm

Nothing funnier than modern liberals exposing their ignorance about economics. And they don't even know enough to be self-aware. Parasites the wrong word -- in the words of the great fmr i-banker who can't spell CAPM, Rahm' -- liberals are retarded. Though that an insult to those with development disabilities. As a classcial liberal myself -- committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, and free markets -- modern liberals are an abomination to the laws of the universe. Let take the silly notion of demand-side crisis. This is based on the Keynesian myth - pardox of thrift --- "While savings may pave the road to riches for an individual, if the nation as a whole decides to save more, the result could be a recession and poverty for all.” (The so-called “paradox of thrift” popularized by Samuelson.) In reality, study after study shows that the key to higher economic growth is more savings and investment, not less, as long as it’s productive savings and investment. Consumption is the effect, not the cause, of prosperity. And modern liberals need to stop throwing out Keynesion economics as support. It has not been taught in mid-upper level econimics courses for decades. Even the late Samuelson, who authored a popular entry econ text, had taken most of the Keynesion myths in the latest edition -- include the demand-side crisis BS.

- mr_rationale

February 12, 2010 at 3:29pm

Keynesian deficit spending didn't end the depression. The New Deal was an economic failure. Nor did deficit spending end any of the downturns since World War II. Monetary policy has been the instrument of choice. The current economic crisis didn't come from a Keynesian excess of saving. It is the child of years of low savings and high consumption leading to imbalances in the world economy. If the US government continues to run large deficits interest rates will rise and cancel any benefits that might result from the stimulus. There is no such thing as a free lunch, Keynesian or otherwise. The OMB has pointed out that the lion's share of the "stimulus" so far has gone to unemployment payments and medical care for the unemployed. This is necessary, but it is not a major stimulus to the economy. If the government wants to run a deficit that might actually do some good it should lower taxes that penalize saving and investment. By contrast spending on boondoggles like solar energy and high speed rail is a waste of the money of future taxpayers. Obamanomics is about passing out goodies to favored special interests in order to buy votes. It is not serious economics.

- bulbman1066

February 12, 2010 at 3:34pm

Also, lets examine how modern liberals support the goals of the poor: - They give the least amount to charity on per capita basis of any political segment - They block public education reform with their powerful teachers union, thereby denying education improvements to those who need it most - They block the legitimate role of religous organizations in caring for the poor. Actions speak louder than words

- mr_rationale

February 12, 2010 at 3:36pm

"The New Deal was an economic failure." No, bulbman, it was not. New Deal policies lowered the unemployment rate from 25% to 15%, but when conservatives flexed their power in 1937 to begin deficit reduction, unemployment climbed again. It wasn't until the economic stimulus caused by World War II did the economy fully recover.

- zardoz67

February 12, 2010 at 4:19pm

Lowering the unemployment rate to 15% after five years is not very impressive. Plus if the so-called recovery was dependent on permanent deficit spending it was bound to self-destruct. Keynes was asked what he though of Roosevelt. He replied that he liked FDR until he met him and realized that he knew absolutely nothing about economics. One thing Keynes criticized was that the amateurish and erratic behavior of the Roosevelt administrations frightened off investment. Sound familiar?

- bulbman1066

February 12, 2010 at 4:35pm

Yes, it's the difference between economic theory and political reality. FDR went as far as he could within the bounds of a democratic system. There were those, like William Randolph Hearst, who wanted him to seize dictatorial powers to deal with the Depression. Thankful for us, he did not, and saved both democracy and capitalism in this country. And given the depths he was given in 1933, reducing unemployment by 40% is a remarkable achievement. If US unemployment dropped back down to 6% by 2012, Obama would be hailed as an economic miracle worker.

- zardoz67

February 12, 2010 at 4:53pm

of course zardoz, and let us not forget that greatest spurt of government spending, WW2, which effectively wiped out unemployment. You are trying to reason with fools, you can never get through to them, they think because they have had some success in the most prosperous economy in the world their heads are not totally up their asses. And being that China has a far greater savings rate than the US kind of puts forever to rest the idiotic theory that an economy can exist without consumption. The Chinese government is forever trying to push the Chinese to consume, but being that China doesn't have any social safety net they have not succeeded. But hey, why pay attention to reality when "Liberals" can be basely insulted. Too funny.

- blackton

February 12, 2010 at 5:08pm

"of course zardoz, and let us not forget that greatest spurt of government spending, WW2, which effectively wiped out unemployment." blackton, if you check a few posts above, I didn't forget about it at all. As for our resident gadflies, I'm reminded of that old quote attributed to Mark Twain : "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

- zardoz67

February 12, 2010 at 5:18pm

check zardoz, my bad, I referenced your last posting when I wrote mine.

- blackton

February 12, 2010 at 5:54pm

Of course World War II ended unemployment. Millions of men were drafted into the army and men and women worked in defense plants. That wasn't a Keynesian stimulus. It was a command economy. "And being that China has a far greater savings rate than the US kind of puts forever to rest the idiotic theory that an economy can exist without consumption." You're trying to say something with that sentence, but you aren't succeeding. I suggest you read the Economist and the Wall Street Journal and inform yourself about the current economic situation. Sheesh, even President Obama is starting to show concern about the deficit. Maybe Republican gains in the fall will give him cover to start moving in a more responsible direction. Outmoded liberal clichés about the New Deal are no substitute for thought and knowledge.

- bulbman1066

February 12, 2010 at 5:57pm

Well, Bulbman, I don't have contempt for Tea Baggers because they're working class. I have contempt for them because they rant and rave and say inane, irrational crap on a regular basis. And it wasn't an accident that they had gay-basher and hate-monger Tom Tancredo as their speaker at their recent convention. Look around any Tea Party crowd and you'll see ONLY white people. Not 90%, not 95 %, but ONLY white people. There are plenty of working class black and latino who think their taxes are too high, that government is too big, etc, but they obviously feel totally uncomfortable being around Tea Partiers, and Tea Partiers are obviously just fine with that. The Tea Baggers are a grass roots movement....with some VERY selective roots.

- skeebler

February 12, 2010 at 6:23pm

bulbman, the US did not become a command economy until the War Production Board was established after Pearl Harbor. But unemployment had been dropping for over two years. Why? Because war spending at home and abroad was acting as a Keynesian stimulus.

- zardoz67

February 12, 2010 at 6:37pm

OK zardoz67, you have a point. Preparation for war also revived the Germany economy in the thirties. Score two data points for Keynes. The Nazis did a better job because they let wages float. By setting wages artificially high the New Deal kept unemployment high. If you set the price of something above market the market doesn't clear. Economics 101. That a stimulus worked in Germany doesn't mean that a stimulus will work now. The debt load is just too high. We've already maxed out our credit cards. If I understand correctly, Keynes' proposal was to run a surplus in good times and a deficit in bad. One problem is the time lag with a stimulus. By the time the stimulus kicks in it's usually no longer needed, and indeed counterproductive.

- bulbman1066

February 12, 2010 at 7:59pm

For handling the normal ups and downs of the business cycle, you're correct that Keynesian stimulus would be not be an effective tool. Monetary policy would be much more useful. But when faced with a persistent economic downturn, the time lag issue would not be a problem. Current predictions are stating that it will take a decade to turn this around, so a large Keynesian stimulus would still have an effect by the time it would kick in. And such deficit spending is not structural. Once the economy recovers, the spending will disappear because it is not needed. At that point, we can start serious deficit reduction.

- zardoz67

February 12, 2010 at 8:56pm

As for the "paradox of thrift", even the Bible recognizes its existence: "For the kingdom of heaven is as a man traveling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. "Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. "After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. "He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. "Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strewed: and I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. "His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strewed: thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 25:14-30

- zardoz67

February 12, 2010 at 9:15pm

"Both believe in a world of rational actors" Is this really true? If so I'm not sure I quite understand rational choice theory. Libertarians have always agreed with liberals on social issues. But the fundamental difference between liberalism and conservatism, if you could boil it down to a phrase, would be "whether free will". No libertarians/conservatives are determinists (either hard or soft). Most liberals are at least compatibilists, whether they realize it or not. Ask them about helping the poor and needy, and they will lament social disadvantage and structural inequity every time. This is the acid test. Anything else is a marriage of convenience. Either you believe that society creates, and is therefor responsible for man, or you do not. As far as I can tell, this is quite illiberal, classically defined. But then the 19th century did not have much in the way of social research data. It certainly didn't have fMRI.

- elirector

February 12, 2010 at 11:29pm

bulbman1066 "Liberals are parasites who seek to live at the expense of others." I am yet to meet a Libertarian who is a "self made man." They are mostly the sons and some daughters of middle class parents who made it with the help of others, either their families or the State. Real achievers like Frank Lloyd Wright rejected Libertarianism which shocked one of his admirers Ayn Rand to no end. She is the godmother of American libertarians and created a little totalitarian cult that the mirror image of Stalinism without the power to kill people, thought she did ostracize and threaten people whom she thought betrayed her. In addition, most libertarian today wouldn’t last a week in a real libertarian social environment where people really needed to fight for their food. These folk are not just parasites, they are ignorant hypocrites.

- jdyer

February 13, 2010 at 12:44am

bulbman1066 "Preparation for war also revived the Germany economy in the thirties. Score two data points for Keynes." Ayn Rand along with many libertarians don't believe in the draft. In fact even during WW2 Rand preached volunteerism. She didn't want any one to be conscripted into the army. Had we not have had a draft I doubt we would have won either WW2 or the cold war.

- jdyer

February 13, 2010 at 12:51am

See the February 2010 issue of The New Criterion for a devastating attack on Ayn Rand by the brilliant conservative writer Anthony Daniels. Dr. Daniels, a British psychiatrist, is in my humble opinion the finest essayist on social and political topics writing today. Here's a sample from the Rand essay: "Although she wrote in English, and her two most famous books are American in subject matter and location, she remained deeply Russian in outlook and intellectual style to the end of her days. America could take Rand out of Russia, but not Russia out of Rand. Her work properly belongs to the history of Russian, not American, literature—and nineteenth-century Russian literature at that. "Rand’s virtues were as follows: she was highly intelligent; she was brave and uncompromising in defense of her ideas; she had a kind of iron integrity; and, though a fierce defender of capitalism, she was by no means avid for money herself. The propagation of truth as she saw it was far more important to her than her own material ease. Her vices, of course, were the mirror-image of her virtues, but, in my opinion, the mirror was a magnifying one. Her intelligence was narrow rather than broad. Though in theory a defender of freedom of thought and action, she was dogmatic, inflexible, and intolerant, not only in opinion but in behavior, and it led her to personal cruelty. In the name of her ideas, she was prepared to be deeply unpleasant. She hardened her ideas into ideology. Her integrity led to a lack of self-criticism; she frequently wrote twenty thousand words where one would do. "Rand believed all people to be possessed of equal rights, but she found relations of equality with others insupportable. Though she could be charming, it was not something she could keep up for long. She was deeply ungrateful to those who had helped her and many of her friendships ended in acrimony. Her biographer tells us that she sometimes told jokes, but, in the absence of any supportive evidence, I treat reports of her sense of humor much as I treat reports of sightings of the Loch Ness monster: apocryphal at best. "A passionate hater of religion, Rand founded a cult around her own person, complete with rituals of excommunication; a passionate believer in rationality and logic, she was incapable of seeing the contradictions in her own work. She was a rationalist who was not entirely rational; she could not distinguish between rationalism and rationality. Of narrow aesthetic sympathies, she laid down the law in matters of artistic judgment like a panjandrum; a believer in honesty, she was adept at self-deception and special pleading. I have rarely read a biography of a writer I should have cared so little to meet."

- bulbman1066

February 13, 2010 at 1:29am

Miss Rand's followers refuse the libertarian label and call themselves Objectivists. For libertarianism at its best see the papers of the Cato Institute. The products of that think tank couldn't be less Randian. They are reasonable and pragmatic, and often make a real contribution to the solution of practical problems.

- bulbman1066

February 13, 2010 at 1:45am

"See the February 2010 issue of The New Criterion for a devastating attack on Ayn Rand by the brilliant conservative writer Anthony Daniels." I read it and I also read the biography of Rand that he was reviewing. He didn't say much that wasn't already stated or implied in the biography. Still, without Rand I doubt that conservative libertarianism would have taken off in this country. Before Rand libertarianism was a name for 18th century males who thought that they had the right and the freedom to sleep with any woman that took their fancy. After Rand libertarianism came to mean the right of males to make money without paying taxes to a government. They also believed and believe government that puts limits on money making is by definition Fascist. Are you one of those people who believe that there was no difference between John Kennedy's New Frontier and Fascism as did Ayn Rand (originally she compared it to Nazism.) This is where Jonah Goldberg got his idea for his "liberal fascism" idea. No Ayn rand no Jonah Goldberg.

- jdyer

February 13, 2010 at 3:31pm

I find the following phrase to be interesting (and false) "...it’s true that modern liberals and libertarians share common ideological roots...and both consider the promotion of individual autonomy to be a positive good." Since when do liberals (there are always a few exceptions) believe in personal autonomy, other than for abortion and a handful of other social issues? Most liberals still support the war on drugs and the power it gives to government hacks (asset forfeiture, police corruption, etc.) as much as any christian conservative. How about personal autonomy in allowing me to spend my money on what I believe to be important, not what some brain-dead congressmen and senators (and state legislators) believe is important. Aren't you tired of Democrats and Republicans fighting over how to spend YOUR money? Of course, if you work for the government (and government employees are overwhelmingly liberal), you like the easy work, high pay and lifetime gold-plated pensions, automatically adjusted for the inflation created by the government, and gold-plated heath insurance that drives up the cost for the rest of us. To liberals, individuals (other than the political elite) are meaningless. Charity is virtue; welfare is theft. Vote Libertarian and we'll fight to put YOUR money back in YOUR pocket. Dale Ogden, Libertarian, 2010 Candidate for Governor of California http://www.daleogden.org http://www.daleogden.net

- dalefogden

February 14, 2010 at 1:09am

"How about personal autonomy in allowing me to spend my money on what I believe to be important, not what some brain-dead congressmen and senators (and state legislators) believe is important." Why is it an either/or, Dale Ogden? The government isn't stoping you from spending your money the way you see fit. What you are reallys saying is that you shouldn't have to pay taxes. Sorry, paying taxes is the price we pay for being members of this polity. Do you expect people to represent you without being paid? Are you willing to be a governor of large State without compensation of some kind? Get real.

- jdyer

February 14, 2010 at 9:51am

Paying taxes for the legitimate functions of government is fine. The trouble is that thanks to public employee unions and other rent seeking special interests taxes keep getting higher. This syndrome has sent the once prosperous state of California to the verge of bankruptcy. Wealthy people, who pay most of the taxes in California, are leaving the state in droves. By contrast Texas, along with other low tax states, is doing pretty well. The electorate senses that if Obama gets his way the whole country will go the way of California, Michigan, and other states trashed by the Democrats. That's why the Obamessiah's numbers are in the tank. You can fool people only so long before they wise up and realize that they have been conned.

- bulbman1066

February 14, 2010 at 4:20pm

bulbman1066 “Paying taxes for the legitimate functions of government is fine. The trouble is that thanks to public employee unions and other rent seeking special interests taxes keep getting higher.” People have always complained about high taxes. Real business men will always be able to make a profit no matter the tax rate. Post WW2 taxes were much higher than today and good businessmen still made money, lots of money.

- jdyer

February 14, 2010 at 4:34pm

According to the a chart from the Brookings Institution federal tax revenue as a share of GDP has been pretty stable since the forties. I was referring to the tax burden in states like California. Also, due to the fact that there is no foreseeable end to deficit spending the federal tax burden on individuals and business will have to be considerably larger in the future to avoid financial collapse. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

- bulbman1066

February 14, 2010 at 5:29pm

"Also, due to the fact that there is no foreseeable end to deficit spending the federal tax burden on individuals and business will have to be considerably larger in the future to avoid financial collapse." Maybe so, but during WW2 the deficit as apercentage of the economy was larger than it is today. Also Clinton, like Obama, inherited a large federal deficit and debt which he reduced by rasing taxes while the economy grew. I believe he passed on a small surplus to Bush jr. which the Republican promptly erased. Of course the Republican claimed that there was no surplus. Still, check this graph on deficit spending. http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/04/washington-posts-gra.html

- jdyer

February 14, 2010 at 7:04pm

Jdyer, you forgot to put the link to your graph. Take a look at this paper from the Brookings Institution. The deficit is structural and it's the fault of both parties. There are going to have to be huge cuts in entitlements. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/01/column-the-us-is-broke-heres-why-.html

- bulbman1066

February 15, 2010 at 4:28am

The link is there, bulbman, click on "view comment in full." The system cut off the second part of the comments, but I am too pressed for time to rewrite it right now.

- jdyer

February 15, 2010 at 12:01pm

Thanks for the link jdyer. Be sure to read and comment on the Brookings article, which was written by a distinguished economist who is neither conservative nor libertarian.

- bulbman1066

February 15, 2010 at 1:52pm

It would seem that a mystical belief in the power of government to make everything right in a society is as misguided and as dangerous as a mystical belief that the so-called 'free' market can deal with every major problem the world is facing. Unfortuately, most liberals and social democrats know that a rational mix is what's needed, while most conservatives don't (or, they do, but are a bit cowardly about saying so). Either way, that may go to explain why conservatives are somewhat short of ideas on solving the crises we are now facing in existential matters such as energy, employment, health, education, and national security in a global situation that has changed since the end of the Cold War.

- ironyroad

February 15, 2010 at 11:29pm

"Unfortuately, most liberals and social democrats know that a rational mix is what's needed, while most conservatives don't (or, they do, but are a bit cowardly about saying so)." Speaks for me too, except that I would say it's fortunate that "...most liberals and social democrats know that a rational mix is what's needed..."

- jdyer

February 16, 2010 at 3:31pm

Yes -- that was badly formulated, I must admit. The improved version: "Fortunately, most liberals and social democrats know that a rational mix is what's needed, while unfortunately most conservatives don't (or, they do, but are a bit cowardly about saying so)."

- ironyroad

February 16, 2010 at 9:37pm