I would first apologize for the inflammatory - and ill advised - comment introducing the piece. Obviously, a more detached tone would better make my case.
Next, I would take issue with the suggestion that "an enduring skepticism about government's ability to reform society supplanted the postwar faith in sweeping social programs". If that was indeed the case, why vote for a liberal Democrat for President in 1976? Why, for that matter, pick Gerald Ford for the Republicans and not Ronald Reagan - the man who so effectively represented that precise sentiment?
Perhaps it is also somewhat banal to suggest there was - and is - a 'tension' between the right and the left. Has it ever been other than that? Federalists and Democrats? Abolitionists and States' Rights folk? It is not a stretch to suggest the right has a place in American society, balancing the left. It is, I think, a stretch to ascribe as much power and influence to it as the author does.
He quite naturally lumps the classical 'liberals' - limited government, fiscal restraint - with the religious fundamentalists. This is an obvious fallacy but one that the left buys hook, line, and sinker.
The first time I would suggest to Salil that he had a great deal in common with unreformed Marxists, I would not hear the end of it. But its ok for the Left to lump me - a moderately conservative Jew - in with people whose support for Israel derives from their belief that the end is nigh and I will ultimately be converted to Christianity (or at least 144,000 people just like me)???
Forgive the anger but the assumptions inherent in the author's argument make me think he really has very little idea of what he speaks.
I can agree with your train of logic, if not necessarily all the stations it stops on. I'd never make it as a politician.
I think the problem, from both the left and the right, is the same as it always has been. Politicians promise. Voters believe. Some fraction of the promises get fulfilled, but often times it appears almost by accident. As always, people who believe strongly in what they want and are willing to commit resources to getting it will win out.
Rinse. Lather. Repeat.
The Left had its time to play holier than thou, and the Right has had its moment. Just as the Left received its comeuppance, the Right is now feeling the shaft.
This is not new.
Perhaps it feels new to people who are just now witnessing the disconnect between the themselves and the people that they send to Washington. I'm not sure why they should. The people who sent the Democrats to power in DC didn't expect to get their jobs shipped overseas, their taxes to go up and real benefits to go down in a trifecta. They did -- which is neither good nor bad, it's just that some interests won and some lost.
On the other side of the divide, the Conservative movement had some legitimate points about big government, excessive spending, and a litany of other issues. How in the world did they get mixed up with social conservatism? The idea that we don't want government to interfere in our lives gets mixed up with government interference about life at the very beginning and the very end, for example, does not seem contradictory?
Nevertheless, the Conservative movement convinced itself that it had a mandate and could go to DC and "solve" its problems. Norquist and friends, their acolytes like Abramoff, were actually once convinced that they could accomplish all those things (drown government in a bathtub anyone?).
And yet...and yet. They came to DC. They were seduced by power. They were seduced by the availability of untagged money. Is it any wonder that the "Conservative" establishment, once it got into power, was responsible for turning huge surpluses into deficits and increased government spending? (One could make the argument that 9/11 changed things. I'm not convinced that's a good argument).
Anyway, I'm not sure the article put it in a good way, but I view this as another turn an ongoing cycle.
3 comments:
So if not their own what prism would you prefer that they view the revolution in?
Or to be more direct, which of their conclusions did you find unconvincing?
I would first apologize for the inflammatory - and ill advised - comment introducing the piece. Obviously, a more detached tone would better make my case.
Next, I would take issue with the suggestion that "an enduring skepticism about government's ability to reform society supplanted the postwar faith in sweeping social programs". If that was indeed the case, why vote for a liberal Democrat for President in 1976? Why, for that matter, pick Gerald Ford for the Republicans and not Ronald Reagan - the man who so effectively represented that precise sentiment?
Perhaps it is also somewhat banal to suggest there was - and is - a 'tension' between the right and the left. Has it ever been other than that? Federalists and Democrats? Abolitionists and States' Rights folk? It is not a stretch to suggest the right has a place in American society, balancing the left. It is, I think, a stretch to ascribe as much power and influence to it as the author does.
He quite naturally lumps the classical 'liberals' - limited government, fiscal restraint - with the religious fundamentalists. This is an obvious fallacy but one that the left buys hook, line, and sinker.
The first time I would suggest to Salil that he had a great deal in common with unreformed Marxists, I would not hear the end of it. But its ok for the Left to lump me - a moderately conservative Jew - in with people whose support for Israel derives from their belief that the end is nigh and I will ultimately be converted to Christianity (or at least 144,000 people just like me)???
Forgive the anger but the assumptions inherent in the author's argument make me think he really has very little idea of what he speaks.
I can agree with your train of logic, if not necessarily all the stations it stops on. I'd never make it as a politician.
I think the problem, from both the left and the right, is the same as it always has been. Politicians promise. Voters believe. Some fraction of the promises get fulfilled, but often times it appears almost by accident. As always, people who believe strongly in what they want and are willing to commit resources to getting it will win out.
Rinse. Lather. Repeat.
The Left had its time to play holier than thou, and the Right has had its moment. Just as the Left received its comeuppance, the Right is now feeling the shaft.
This is not new.
Perhaps it feels new to people who are just now witnessing the disconnect between the themselves and the people that they send to Washington. I'm not sure why they should. The people who sent the Democrats to power in DC didn't expect to get their jobs shipped overseas, their taxes to go up and real benefits to go down in a trifecta. They did -- which is neither good nor bad, it's just that some interests won and some lost.
On the other side of the divide, the Conservative movement had some legitimate points about big government, excessive spending, and a litany of other issues. How in the world did they get mixed up with social conservatism? The idea that we don't want government to interfere in our lives gets mixed up with government interference about life at the very beginning and the very end, for example, does not seem contradictory?
Nevertheless, the Conservative movement convinced itself that it had a mandate and could go to DC and "solve" its problems. Norquist and friends, their acolytes like Abramoff, were actually once convinced that they could accomplish all those things (drown government in a bathtub anyone?).
And yet...and yet. They came to DC. They were seduced by power. They were seduced by the availability of untagged money. Is it any wonder that the "Conservative" establishment, once it got into power, was responsible for turning huge surpluses into deficits and increased government spending? (One could make the argument that 9/11 changed things. I'm not convinced that's a good argument).
Anyway, I'm not sure the article put it in a good way, but I view this as another turn an ongoing cycle.
Post a Comment