Democrat Reactionaries; Hurray for the Status Quo!
posted by Bob Clasen
______________________
The rise of reactionary liberalism
Rich Lowry
_______________________________
"Please, don't change anything." That bids fair to become the liberal slogan for the early 21st century. Who knew government programs circa 2004 would have achieved an equipoise of perfection such that disturbing them in the slightest way would represent liberal heresy? And who would have guessed that "progressives" would become opponents of change so thoroughgoing that they would make Edmund Burke blush?
Reactionary liberalism will be the order of the day in President Bush's second term. Take Social Security. The program was started in the 1930s. Back then, there were 41 workers for every retiree. Now, there are three workers for every retiree. Back then, life expectancy was significantly shorter than its current 78 years. In other words, in 70 years the world has changed, but the structure of Social Security hasn't -- and liberals desperately want to keep it that way.
Never mind that dozens of countries have implemented some version of the Bush-proposed private retirement accounts. "It's just too dangerous" will be the mantra. We don't have the reform acumen of a Kazakhstan! We don't have the risk-taking verve of a Denmark! We don't have the keen governmental competence of a Chile! We don't have the reckless faith in markets of a Sweden! No, no. We are Americans, and all we can manage is a defensive huddle around the status quo.
The same basic argument will apply to tax reform, tort reform, health-care reform and further education reform. No issue quite highlighted the left's reactionary impulse than when, during the campaign, Bush proposed redeploying American troops from their Cold War outposts around the world. Liberals immediately reacted negatively, making the argument, basically, that the troops should stay where they are, because they've been there for 40 years, and everyone is comfortable with it.
It is in foreign policy that the new liberal orientation has been most stark. Liberals once believed in global change based on the advance of human rights. This was an admirable idea (if sometimes poorly implemented). Now it's been abandoned because Bush has picked it up, and liberals believe in little else in foreign policy except that whatever we attempt will fail. The left seems to have lost one of its historic attributes -- a belief in human capacities. When welfare reform was proposed in the 1990s, liberals warned that welfare recipients couldn't possibly hack being off the dole. In the war on terror, they implicitly suggest that Arabs can't manage living in democratic societies.
Why the migration of old-fashioned, status-quo conservatism from right to left? It is partly a function of the current political dynamic. Republicans are on the offensive, so Democrats must play defense. It is also a hangover from recent political history. Conservatives, for decades, have told themselves that "ideas have consequences," and have set about through think tanks, books and magazines to find the best ones. During the period of richest conservative policy ferment, in the 1970s and 1980s, liberals could content themselves with relying on what was an increasingly sclerotic congressional majority. Liberalism was dependent on the fumes of the New Deal and Great Society, which were powerful, but bound to dissipate.
Some liberals -- especially the cleverest bloggers -- realize it is imperative that Democrats re-brand themselves as the party of reform. But that will take some doing, as the party is simultaneously resisting every Bush-proposed reform. The Democrats will have to say "no, no, no and no" at the same time they try to rally the public around their innovative idea, say, to further erode the First Amendment with yet more campaign-finance "reform."
It is the sheer resistance to change that will inevitably be emphasized. In Voltaire's classic "Candide," the character Pangloss insists, against all evidence, that it is the best of all possible worlds. Voltaire meant in part to skewer an impervious belief in the felicity of the status quo. In this sense, Pangloss is becoming the patron saint of 21st-century liberalism.
Rich Lowry is editor of National Review, a Townhall.com member group, and author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.
______________________
The rise of reactionary liberalism
Rich Lowry
_______________________________
"Please, don't change anything." That bids fair to become the liberal slogan for the early 21st century. Who knew government programs circa 2004 would have achieved an equipoise of perfection such that disturbing them in the slightest way would represent liberal heresy? And who would have guessed that "progressives" would become opponents of change so thoroughgoing that they would make Edmund Burke blush?
Reactionary liberalism will be the order of the day in President Bush's second term. Take Social Security. The program was started in the 1930s. Back then, there were 41 workers for every retiree. Now, there are three workers for every retiree. Back then, life expectancy was significantly shorter than its current 78 years. In other words, in 70 years the world has changed, but the structure of Social Security hasn't -- and liberals desperately want to keep it that way.
Never mind that dozens of countries have implemented some version of the Bush-proposed private retirement accounts. "It's just too dangerous" will be the mantra. We don't have the reform acumen of a Kazakhstan! We don't have the risk-taking verve of a Denmark! We don't have the keen governmental competence of a Chile! We don't have the reckless faith in markets of a Sweden! No, no. We are Americans, and all we can manage is a defensive huddle around the status quo.
The same basic argument will apply to tax reform, tort reform, health-care reform and further education reform. No issue quite highlighted the left's reactionary impulse than when, during the campaign, Bush proposed redeploying American troops from their Cold War outposts around the world. Liberals immediately reacted negatively, making the argument, basically, that the troops should stay where they are, because they've been there for 40 years, and everyone is comfortable with it.
It is in foreign policy that the new liberal orientation has been most stark. Liberals once believed in global change based on the advance of human rights. This was an admirable idea (if sometimes poorly implemented). Now it's been abandoned because Bush has picked it up, and liberals believe in little else in foreign policy except that whatever we attempt will fail. The left seems to have lost one of its historic attributes -- a belief in human capacities. When welfare reform was proposed in the 1990s, liberals warned that welfare recipients couldn't possibly hack being off the dole. In the war on terror, they implicitly suggest that Arabs can't manage living in democratic societies.
Why the migration of old-fashioned, status-quo conservatism from right to left? It is partly a function of the current political dynamic. Republicans are on the offensive, so Democrats must play defense. It is also a hangover from recent political history. Conservatives, for decades, have told themselves that "ideas have consequences," and have set about through think tanks, books and magazines to find the best ones. During the period of richest conservative policy ferment, in the 1970s and 1980s, liberals could content themselves with relying on what was an increasingly sclerotic congressional majority. Liberalism was dependent on the fumes of the New Deal and Great Society, which were powerful, but bound to dissipate.
Some liberals -- especially the cleverest bloggers -- realize it is imperative that Democrats re-brand themselves as the party of reform. But that will take some doing, as the party is simultaneously resisting every Bush-proposed reform. The Democrats will have to say "no, no, no and no" at the same time they try to rally the public around their innovative idea, say, to further erode the First Amendment with yet more campaign-finance "reform."
It is the sheer resistance to change that will inevitably be emphasized. In Voltaire's classic "Candide," the character Pangloss insists, against all evidence, that it is the best of all possible worlds. Voltaire meant in part to skewer an impervious belief in the felicity of the status quo. In this sense, Pangloss is becoming the patron saint of 21st-century liberalism.
Rich Lowry is editor of National Review, a Townhall.com member group, and author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.
Comments
It's an interesting piece, and it has some kernels of truth. However, let's me describe a conversation from a party the other night. Surprisingly at 1 AM there were only a couple of liberals left (no doubt smoking dope).
One made the comment that Conservatives control the "language" of politics. Apparently some UC professor is trying to quantify why Conservatives control the media, and he thesis is it is their choice of language, which resonates with the electorate.
For reasons, which I have demonstrated, the majority of Americans are willing to vote against their self-interest. Why? As I demonstrated earlier, working class people give tax cuts that primarily benefit the non-working rich. They some how believe that, by a "short term" sacrifice, i.e. shifting more of the tax burden on to themselves and away from the rich, they too will prosper in the future. One might view this, if provable, to be a rather intelligent mature decision. Of course, if it is not true, then they are just suckers.
The entire debate on "values" appears to be controlled by the balled faced statement that Liberals hate Jesus, God, religion, etc. because Liberal attorneys (ACLU) has taken many of the flagrant "God in your face" questions to court. Many a right-winger has even intimated that the ACLU should be put out of business as being anti-American, seditious, and communist, etc. Democrats fail miserably to point out that the ACLU has litigated for a preacher's right to preach on the street corner, for the right of students to disseminate religious tracts at school, the right of non governmental employees to display religious symbols at work on their clothing (I don't agree with that one.
Turning back to the specifics of the "Status Quo". I am dead serious the right in this country wants to undo the New Deal. Social Security is on the top of the list. The social security tax burden is about 12.5% of $87,500. That's about $10,900 between employer and employee. Presently we are using this to balance budget, I think Bush will propose about $2000 of this go to private accounts. How will the "progressive" conservatives balance the budget with a loss of about 1/5 of the payroll tax? Higher taxes? Don't we have IRA's, 401(k)'s and other deferred comp plans for responsible citizens. Why is converting 1/5 of the social security tax to a private system going to bail out the social security system. The only possibility is to eventually, dismantle the public "pension" system to switch to a private, non-voluntary, defined contribution plan......
Again and again this author demonstrates the right-winger talent of using language to control the debate. Do the Conservatives seek to reform (fix) these problems or radically change them: "tax reform, tort reform, health-care reform and further education reform". We have seen the Bush "tax reform" has worker’s voting against his or her own interest. "Tort reform" ignores the cost of insurance companies...blame the lawyers,” health care reform" to date has been a give away to the pharmaceutical companies, and "education reform" is the no child left behind legislation. I argue none of these measures constitute reform. They are wholesale attack on numerous programs and institutions with the ultimate intent of returning this country to a pre-New Deal system..... No safety net. No public funding of public schools, if a private school can be subsidized, slash the public health care benefits, relax governmental controls on business.
But, again, it is the language of the debate that allows the Conservatives to control how the issues are framed. Destroying reforms of the past is cast as progressive, while defending them is viewed as reactionary and conservative. Go figure
I find it interesting that the Fox News approach (shouting insults) seems to be spreading. Democrats and Republicans demonize one another in the most extreme fashion. (See the humorous Dave Barry article). This makes it difficult to make any suggestions about improving Social Security. If you have theory about how the system might be improved, you are immediately accused of trying to “destroy” social security. The Fox News format makes for interesting debates, if you like the World Wrestling Federation style, but it is not likely to promote rational discussion or encourage compromise.
I think that electronic media, dependent upon ratings, has reduced the level of public discourse to a very low common denominator where the only thing that gets on the air is the political equivalent of the Jerry Springer show.
While I am not particularly worried about a “crisis” [another word that is overused] that is not going to hit for twenty to forty years, I think that it should be possible for rational adults to sit down and discuss ways to improve the Social Security system without being accused of wanting to destroy social security.
The political system currently makes me think of the deterioration of sportsmanship. We used to treat our opponents with respect and shake hands after a game. Now we do little celebrations after a touchdown and insult, or assault, our opponents.
Why can’t we, as a first step, appreciate the good intentions of our opponents?
After all, why would you even want to discuss political issues if you really believe that all Republicans (Democrats) are the spawn of the devil? I am perfectly willing to concede that most Democrat social policy is well intentioned. What I worry about is the unintended and unforeseen consequences of some of these policies.
You reject every potential reform as a “wholesale attack.” This is the kind of language we heard about Clinton’s welfare reform. Do you concede that some good came out of that reform, even thought it entailed the use of some conservative notions?
Do you recognize that raising taxes does have economic consequences? The European safety net may be admirable in some ways, but it has resulted in a stagnant economy with high unemployment. I talked to quite a few Danes when I visited last year and many were happy with their country, although they all complained about the high taxes, high cost of gasoline, high cost of automobiles. They enjoyed the free education and free medical care. But the ambitious ones leave Denmark and come to the United States for greater economic opportunity. What effect will this have on Denmark, in the long run?
b
Let's test your theory about high taxes. During the Clinton years, taxes were higher, the economy was booming, despite the high taxes, and we had ...what, a budget surplus.
I agree I think that you can tax an economy into a slump, but higher taxes don't equal financial ruin, and lower taxes don't equal financial nirvana.
Many European economies have problems the US economy doesn't have. Keeping social security and trying to balance the budget aren't mutually exclusive.
The Bush camp always drags European models into the mix to confuse the US electorate. We could have universal health care American style, keep social security, and probably balance the budget without becoming the feared socialist state that is dusted off and dragged out by Republicans every time something progressive is suggested.