Tim's American Politics 101
Liberalism, in the modern sense, not at all the classical sense, which is its antonym, is basically the belief that people need to be saved from themselves by the government. Government needs to take people’s money and agency and make choices for them, because a grand central planner is better than the sum of individual choices. People are too dumb and irresponsible to save for or negotiate for retirement, so take 15% off what we would make, don’t generate any investment growth on it, and give it back to them later. Liberals are soft on crime- people are too vulnerable to their circumstances to be responsible for their actions.
Liberalism can basically measured by home much hope and faith people have in government’s ability to fix the fallen world. Conservatives have very little, liberals have much. Here’s my little arbitrary back of a napkin scale.
1- police crime and imprison criminals, fight defensive wars and be an example for the rest of the world, and protect property rights. That is it. Pure libertarians are here.
2- build roads, bridges, and provide basic K-12 education. Firemen, health and safety inspectors, licensing doctors and lawyers, all the things the government does, which we silently expect, and no one really argues the government shouldn't do.
Liberalism can basically measured by home much hope and faith people have in government’s ability to fix the fallen world. Conservatives have very little, liberals have much. Here’s my little arbitrary back of a napkin scale.
1- police crime and imprison criminals, fight defensive wars and be an example for the rest of the world, and protect property rights. That is it. Pure libertarians are here.
2- build roads, bridges, and provide basic K-12 education. Firemen, health and safety inspectors, licensing doctors and lawyers, all the things the government does, which we silently expect, and no one really argues the government shouldn't do.
3- provide a basic social safety net, and regulate banks and financial institutions, to soften the naturally wild swings of the economy. Grease the wheels of capitalism.
Conservatives are up from here. Liberals are down from here.
4- Intervene in the markets through tariffs, sanctions, moderately progressive taxation, and detailed regulation to protect “the public good”, be it environmental, national defense, pro-workers, etc. Humanize the effects of capitalism.
5- Equalize opportunities for children, women, and minorities through affirmative action programs, welfare, quotas, heavily progressive taxation, government spending driving the economy, etc.
6- Equalize outcomes by confiscating wealth, removing choice from the individual to the collective, etc. Marxists are here.
No serious contender in American politics, perhaps ever, has been a true libertarian (1) or Marxist (6)
Reagan may have been a 2 and FDR a 5 and they are probably the 2 key figures of the past century in US politics. Almost everyone else I believe has been overlapping in the middle, especially both Bushes.
Lieberman is a liberal- the only reason he is there is because he is country first- the problem is the country he puts first is Israel. Ted Kennedy is very much the quintessential liberal. Clinton was a mild liberal at heart, Nixon probably a mild conservative at heart, but both were self-interested first and foremost.
Abortion doesn’t fit the paradigm, because the dispute is over whether a fetus is human life with its own rights. If you agree with me that it is, then it becomes a basic function of the state to protect and punish abortion (level 1). If you don't, then it becomes state removing choices from individuals (level 6).
Social issues I believe flip the parties on the head- libertarians say the state should get out of cultural issues. I agree there too.
Obama’s books reveal that his brain can fairly handle and assess the views of all sides, which is comforting (many many many liberals can't do anything but mock and scarecrow conservative arguments). His actual record of voting and associations are far left. His plans are moderate. We would have to see.
As with every President, from John Alien & Seditions Act Adams and Thomas Louisiana Purchase through the Central Bank Jefferson, all the way to George W Freedom in Our Lands Depends Upon Wilsonian Wars of Liberation Bringing Freedom Everywhere Bush, power is addictive, and even those whose ideology and votes come from conservative views have a tendency to govern more liberally.
Conservatives are up from here. Liberals are down from here.
4- Intervene in the markets through tariffs, sanctions, moderately progressive taxation, and detailed regulation to protect “the public good”, be it environmental, national defense, pro-workers, etc. Humanize the effects of capitalism.
5- Equalize opportunities for children, women, and minorities through affirmative action programs, welfare, quotas, heavily progressive taxation, government spending driving the economy, etc.
6- Equalize outcomes by confiscating wealth, removing choice from the individual to the collective, etc. Marxists are here.
No serious contender in American politics, perhaps ever, has been a true libertarian (1) or Marxist (6)
Reagan may have been a 2 and FDR a 5 and they are probably the 2 key figures of the past century in US politics. Almost everyone else I believe has been overlapping in the middle, especially both Bushes.
Lieberman is a liberal- the only reason he is there is because he is country first- the problem is the country he puts first is Israel. Ted Kennedy is very much the quintessential liberal. Clinton was a mild liberal at heart, Nixon probably a mild conservative at heart, but both were self-interested first and foremost.
Abortion doesn’t fit the paradigm, because the dispute is over whether a fetus is human life with its own rights. If you agree with me that it is, then it becomes a basic function of the state to protect and punish abortion (level 1). If you don't, then it becomes state removing choices from individuals (level 6).
Social issues I believe flip the parties on the head- libertarians say the state should get out of cultural issues. I agree there too.
Obama’s books reveal that his brain can fairly handle and assess the views of all sides, which is comforting (many many many liberals can't do anything but mock and scarecrow conservative arguments). His actual record of voting and associations are far left. His plans are moderate. We would have to see.
As with every President, from John Alien & Seditions Act Adams and Thomas Louisiana Purchase through the Central Bank Jefferson, all the way to George W Freedom in Our Lands Depends Upon Wilsonian Wars of Liberation Bringing Freedom Everywhere Bush, power is addictive, and even those whose ideology and votes come from conservative views have a tendency to govern more liberally.
This election needs Sarah Palin, and it needs Ron Paul, maybe eveen Ayn Rand. Not necessarily to win, but at least to speak to a viewpoint in the discussion. The country needs someone to say that government action caused this housing bubble, it caused inflation, tough medicine is needed, not boneheaded bailouts which keep the bubble bubbly and inflation at 1% a month.
0 comments:
Post a Comment