Writing the day after ObamaCare’s passage in the House, Jonathan Tobin at the Contentions blog framed the event as he believes the Democrats see it:
[T]his bill’s purported goal of providing affordable health insurance to every American is seen by Obama and his backers as not only just but also inevitable, much the same way they think of the “New Deal” legislation passed by Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society.” They are convinced that [...]ObamaCare will soon be seen not as a massive expansion of government power but as yet another chapter in America’s inexorable journey to social justice…
Tobin goes on to argue that the real job for conservatives must go beyond a critique of ObamaCare, to an “attack on the liberal narrative.” In the process he employs a bit of rhetorical jiu-jitsu:
Rather than a progressive innovation, ObamaCare is a retrograde move that seeks to drag American politics and the economy back to the mistaken emphasis on government power of the mid-20th century. Like so much of the welfare economics and failed liberal policies of that era, ObamaCare has the potential to do far more harm than good.
This mode of analysis, which should be familiar to some readers here, defines our political moment as progressivism in self-eclipse, the moment when further progress along the path of leftwing statism requires retreat on every other, and when everything else that political progressivism originally stood for – cleaner politics, responsiveness to the popular will, efficient and up-to-date public administration, simple fairness – must be sought elsewhere. It could be a moment of profound opportunity to re-shape American politics, but only if conservatives are prepared to seize it.
Today, Republicans are proposing to make “repeal and reform” – repeal of ObamaCare, reform of health care insurance – a centerpiece of their political and electoral strategy, but the former aim is something that some vocal conservatives have been declaring impossible for months. Without accepting that claim, which will now mostly be advanced by Democrats, we can recognize that repeal will be far from easy.
As for the second aim, in addition to being desirable on its own merits, reform/replace reduces the political burden in one respect – providing a “give” to go with the “take” of repeal – but conservative credibility on reform remains suspect. When Democrats claimed throughout the Obamacare debate that their opponents had no alternatives, Republicans reacted as though unfairly attacked, the victims of a political-media conspiracy, but in concrete terms they were more guilty than innocent. The Republicans had had two presidential terms and an extended period of control of Congress without ever making health care overhaul a priority, even in the form of an incremental process of major reform. In 2008, John McCain did offer an excellent set of proposals, but it was offered defensively, at best, never in a concerted effort to lead on the issue. Merely pointing to some number of hopeless bills and invisible amendments, as in the recent congressional debate, is not the same thing as having proved your commitment, and this applies to other issues as well. As the first President Bush learned when campaigning unsuccessfully for re-election in 1992, if you have to plead with people to believe you’re engaged – reading “Message: I care” off a cue card – then it’s too late.
The ever ready conservative fallbacks – “Don’t spend so much money!” and “Don’t make a bad situation worse!” – may be wise words, but they’re not motivational ones. Some recent comments by Ross Douthat on Bart Stupak, the pro-life “Blue Dog” who may have put Obamacare over the top, discussed this problem with a view to socially conservative swing voters – potentially the most critical swing constituency in any national election:
[T]here are still pro-life Democrats for a reason: Because many abortion opponents can’t reconcile their views on social justice with the harder-edged, “any redistribution equals socialism” tendencies in the Republican Party. Some of these pro-lifers are older Catholic Democrats like Stupak; some of them are younger Americans who are hostile to abortion but don’t vote on the issue because they can’t imagine themselves being represented by the party of Limbaugh and Beck. A successful pro-life politics desperately needs these constituencies to find representation — and if there’s no place for anti-abortion sentiment among the Democrats, then pro-lifers need the Republican Party to feel hospitable to voters whose impulses on social policy tend in a more communitarian direction.
Douthat might have added certain non-white and immigrant constituencies to the groups that ought to be in play, and he might have noted parallel “impulses” animating many less religious voters. For our purposes, however, the key point may be the following:
There are conservative and market-oriented proposals on health care reform that are consonant, I think, with Catholic teaching on a just society. But the Republican Party’s leadership wasn’t interested in talking about them, and conservative pro-lifers didn’t seem particularly concerned about this lacuna in the debate.
That these observations will remain difficult for some conservatives to absorb tends to support Douthat’s point, though if you think about someone whom you know, someone who ought to fit within the religious right – Catholic, evangelical, Jewish, or other – but who voted for Obama in 2008, it may be easier for you to understand. Attacking “social justice” – “Message: We don’t care” – is as likely to repel these voters as to shake sense into them. They feel commanded by faith to care for the unborn, but they also feel commanded to care for the poor and vulnerable, to build a community whose commitments reflect their values. At a time when there are “conservative and market-oriented proposals” that promise better results especially from the perspective of social justice than anything in the discredited “New Deal”/”Great Society”/”New Foundation” playbook, to act afraid of a moral reckoning is self-destructive.
As on other issues historically identified with the left, a reflexive rejection of progressive premises tends to impair any simultaneous argument for alternative solutions. This contradiction underlies tension between “Reformlicans” and “Repealicans” that will likely worsen over time. Most of us realize that “Repeal + Reform” is a much larger coalition than Repeal or Reform separately, but concessions that seem obviously rational to some, as validating aspects of the just-passed bill initially seemed to Senator John Cornyn, may leave others nonplussed. Conversely, forms of direct opposition – such as unstinting criticism of Stupak, support for constitutional challenges, disputing the concept of health care as a “right” – carry some risk of re-casting Republicans as “enemies of health care.” Even the persuasive argument that ObamaCare will overwhelm the system with new demand implies that millions of Americans are presently under-served on a matter of life and death, and calls into question the critic’s commitment to their welfare.
The logic goes like this: “Enemies of health care insurance reform” -> “Enemies of health care insurance” -> “Enemies of health care” -> “Enemies of health” -> “Enemies.” Any attack on O-care that overemphasizes “repeal,” and under-emphasizes “replace,” will therefore reinforce counterattacks like this one, from the President on Thursday in Iowa City:
If these Congressmen in Washington want to come here to Iowa and tell small business owners that they plan to take away their tax credits and essentially raise their taxes, be my guest. If they want to look Lauren Gallagher in the eye and tell her they plan to take away her father’s health insurance, that’s their right. If they want to make Darlyne Neff pay more money for her check-ups and her mammograms, they can run on that platform. If they want to have that fight, I welcome that fight.
If it seems these days that all eyes are turning to Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, it’s in part because he is one Republican whose interest in and commitment to matters that affect Lauren, Darlyne, and the other cast members in the moving Democrat reality show, are undoubted, but Ryanism will also be attacked as hostile to programs and commitments beloved by potential new members of the Republican coalition. Consolidating the latter group’s support amidst a Democrat onslaught will require more than a link to a web-site and Ryan’s personal appearances in the mass media: It will take an earnest, collective labor of years.
Even under today’s unhappy but politically promising circumstances, a conservatism that aims for more than a temporary right-center electoral coalition must demand, and seek, full accountability. In this regard, a successful assault on the liberal narrative may not be the primary task after all. Conservatives believe that Obama-Pelosi-Reid-care is as abominably ill-conceived as it was oversold (Yuval Levin’s cover story in the current Weekly Standard provides a comprehensive critical framework). As external fiscal pressures and internal irrationality pull the contraption apart, the counter-narrative should write itself in broken promises, spiraling costs, bureaucratic chaos, and general economic underperformance – or worse.
The resultant spectacle may virtually by itself lead to electoral victories that in turn restore some balance to national policy-making, but formally or effectively repealing ObamaCare would be something much more ambitious. “Repeal and reform” recognizes that a sensible, coherent, and conservative replacement program will be critical in that effort, and provides for another major task. Finally, embracing both objectives implies – indeed, it presumes – the establishment of a new narrative that can withstand fierce opposition and broad skepticism, answer the people’s expectations and demands, and re-align American politics. Nothing else will do.
Comments 35
Let’s start with the most obvious,I have a preexisting Condition,and a close family member has one also. The Private Health Insurance Market isn’t interested in our business at any price. I’m too young for Medicare as is my close family member. I’m too rich for Medicaid. Is there an argument for me to oppose OC? Should I place the Greater Good of our version of Society over my immediate needs.
March 27th, 2010 at 11:35 am
@ Rex Caruthers:
Certainly there are arguments. I could provide some of them for you – what R proposals have to offer on Pre-Ex conditions, what R criticisms say about the D proposals – but the larger point of my piece is that whether you are inclined to believe them will depend in large part on whether you’re prepared to believe anything a conservative has to say on this subject.
March 27th, 2010 at 11:47 am
them will depend in large part on whether you’re prepared to believe anything a conservative has to say on this subject.
I’m prepared to listen to anything that makes sense. For example,this is a way this could have been taken care of,in my state,all Drivers are required to have Auto Insurance,and for those without funds,or whose driving records are very bad,there are two funds,one for the poor,and one for high risk drivers,both funds are funded by tax money. I’m not aware of any court challanges or public unrest about these required funds. It would have been easy to have a high risk fund for PECs,but it wasn’t done.
BTW2,When the Conservatives decide to campaign on a Federal Requred Balanced Budget,they’ll catch up with me. However,in the Absence of a required Balanced Budget,everyone competes for what is covered by the deficits.
March 27th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
@ Rex Caruthers:
The high risk pool, with funding, is the standard Con proposal. As Douthat points out, a serious commitment, including sufficient funding, wasn’t really demonstrated. The Ryan-Coburn-Burr (I think that’s right) proposal is much more generous than other R proposals.
I’ve always had a bit of reticence about balanced budget amendments, but I’ve warmed to the idea of incorporating a grown-up version in the list of Tea Party/reform conservative demands – as in that Hayward column discussed a couple of weeks ago under the “progressive conservatism” rubric, referring to Reagan’s Economic Bill of Rights.
March 27th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
– “but the larger point of my piece—a serious commitment, including sufficient funding, wasn’t really demonstrated”
Therfore we get OCARE;politics abhors a vacuum.
March 27th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Why re-litigate health care reform? That fight is lost. Repeal is a pipedream. Those politicians pushing the idea are more interested in fundraising than reform. To them, there’s a teabagger born every minute. At least now a few on the right are beginning to see the folly of obstruction. The right had countless opportunities to shape reform. The time to put forward conservative solutions is over. The CBO scored your best ideas. They do very little and help very few. They will never be seen as worthy substitutes for Obamacare. Time to let it go.
Looking at the demographics of the tea party crowds, I wonder how many teabaggers would have the leisure time to hold protest signs in one hand if they weren’t collecting government checks with the other? And let’s not forget that during this debate, GOP leadership offered a bill of rights for seniors that vowed to “protect Medicare and not cut it in the name of health-care reform.” That’s a pretty firm embrace of social justice. A death grip, one might even say.
March 27th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
I would like to write a post about this when I get a chance, but for now I will just say, first, that you may be right about the right political strategy for the Republicans at this point; and, two, that would just mean that the best political strategy for the Republicans will do nothing to stave off the real difficulties we face. Your assumption seems to be that, above all, what cannot be challenged is the assumption that the question is, “what can the government do for you?”; and that the Republicans answer should be, “just as much as the Democrats, but more efficiently and cheaply and less intrusively.” Shifting the question to “how could the government get out of the way, and just provide a few rules of the road so that Americans can build the institutions they need?” is, in this case, out of the question. With regards to health care, it seems to me that all kinds of innovations in the delivery of care, which would include more home care, more types of caregivers at different levels of expertise, for different situations, the development of a market for more portable medical technologies that could be used by individuals, a shift to private risk agencies rather than the FDA for new treatments and drugs, etc. would transform the whole health care environment. But how could any of that happen is the government’s approval is necessary for everything? And the government’s approval for everything will continue to be necessary as long as the two parties are competing to show who “cares” the most. I know there is no political market for dismantling the welfare state, but I persist in thinking it’s the only thing worth thinking about, because it will be done, one way or the other. When it is forced upon us, maybe it will help if there are some ideas and an emergent alternative public ethos in existence.
March 27th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
@ Quill:
Thanks for providing a summary of predictable – indeed, predicted – leftwing talking points: the debate is over, repeal is impossible, it’s funny and witty to refer to protestors as “teabaggers,” CBO scoring is unchallengeable, and so on. Most of us who have been watching the discussion could have provided them on our own, but not with the aura of self-superiority and blithe disregard for anyone else’s opinions or convictions.
As for conservatives implicitly embracing a call to social justice, I agree with that and on balance think it’s a good thing – don’t you? – though the far right is currently giving itself fits over the specific words, and will likely continue to “obstruct” measures deemed too “progressive” – another naughty word.
March 27th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
adam wrote:
Actually, the question and answer don’t match up, and it’s not a small point. The answer to the first question is that the government must play a critical role – because even completely removing the government from health care, without disastrous consequences (the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, ER must treat, etc., etc.), would require comprehensive government action over a long period. If that’s not your goal – I’d consider it utopian, starting from where we are – then you’ve already sold your soul to the government store.
The comparison to the Democrats is something much different and more aggressive: “The Democrats are operating on the basis of wishful thinking and thinly veiled self-interest – what they promise will never happen, and the attempt to make it happen will make things immeasurably worse. The Republicans are seeking the best practical, attainable answers to the legitimate concerns of the people, without fantasy or misdirection. That’s the American way, when it works. “
March 27th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
My goal may very well be utopian (or, to use a less loaded word, unattainable). The same may be true for the survival of America, or the West. It seems to me that the bet from the 50s through the 90s was that sustained economic productivity would compensate for the wastefulness of the welfare state; but, as the original neo-cons (among others) noticed long ago, the welfare state undermines the conditions required for sustaining that productivity. You want to co-opt the terms of liberals and progressives–”social justice,” and “progressivism” itself–and, like I said, that may be the best path back to power for Republicans. “Compassionate conservativism” seemed to work for Bush, for a while at least.
Here’s a good way of framing our differences. You say:
“As external fiscal pressures and internal irrationality pull the contraption apart, the counter-narrative should write itself in broken promises, spiraling costs, bureaucratic chaos, and general economic underperformance – or worse.”
I think that the contraption will be pulled apart, but it will tear a lot of other things along with it. Republicans will be faced with the choice of trying to put it back together again in a more rational way, and to do so they would need to cooperate with those Democrats who want to save it. Unless I’m misreading you, that’s the course you would counsel. I think that would be impossible–we will be, in many ways, close to a state of civil war once the contraption falls apart–and therefore a waste of energy. Republicans can slow down the destruction, but I doubt they could do much more; what conservatives might be able to do, though, is create new networks and markets outside of government control, and that might then establish their right to do so in relation to the government. The odds are against it, but I think it’s the only chance. The government just can’t do all these things any more, not even in a more minimal way.
March 27th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
@ CK MacLeod:
If you think you can contradict what I wrote, feel free.
Instead of sampling from the group think on right wing sites, and beating a stone-dead horse, why don’t you try to be proactive and offer some solutions on immigration or any of the other pressing social/economic issues that Democrats will be tackling next? You have a chance to be on the vanguard, break from the pack and show your fellow rightwingers how to engage for the good of the country.
Think how the healthcare debate might have changed if the GOP leadership had allowed Paul Ryan to offer his health care plan early in the process. I think he would have scored some points. Instead, you are left to fantasize about unringing the bell.
March 27th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
I guess it depends on how you define “it.” If you’re referring to ObamaCare, then, no, it’s not worth saving. If you’re referring to government commitment to the social safety net and beyond that to a government role in advancing social justice (by means other than the Great Society/New Deal statism) , then, yes, in America you need a majority coalition, and that means either cooperating with Democrats or converting Democrats.
Even under the apocalyptic scenario that you imagine – all the more so, perhaps – people will make demands of government.
March 27th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Already spent 1500 words contradicting what you wrote before you wrote it. For details on the critique of ObamaCare from a policy perspective, you can read the Levin piece I linked, or review Ryan’s analysis of the budgetary gimmickry. Levin also touches in his article on a subject he’s covered at greater length before: Beyond the decision that Ø made to go it alone with his D majorities, the bases for compromise on HCR are minimal to non-existent, because liberals and conservatives believe in fundamentally opposed directions for reform.
Until and unless the Democrats honestly address the analyses offered by Levin and Ryan, then they’re the ones living in a fantasy world, which would be fine, except that they’re about to start breaking things of value in the attempt to make the fantasy real. What they should begin to do now is figure out how to preserve the commitment to social justice amidst the eventual repudiation of them and their false promises. It’s going to be hard to make an argument for single payer through the tar and feathers.
Have you ever read how the Great Society was actually put together? LBJ & the gang hardly had the slightest idea what they were doing, but they “knew” they were doing the right thing, and figured it would all come together one way or another. O-care is a version of the same thing, at a point in history when there’s no excuse for it and much less excess capacity to afford it. The economic and political bills will come due, sooner or later.
March 27th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
I’ve always had a bit of reticence about balanced budget amendments, but I’ve warmed to the idea of incorporating a grown-up version
A Grown Up Version would be,imagine the conceptual difficulty,a budget whose liabilities generally equate to income. To do that next year,we would have to cut Federal Government spending by 60%,depending on the Interest rate(If interest rates climbed from 0 to 5%,our interest expense alone for 2011 will be 1.4Trillion),growing up is hard touuu do. My idea of a “Grown-Up” Balanced budget is one where everybody takes an equal hit,(based on % of Budget).
March 27th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
U some kinder commonist? Mebbe the opposite?
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is Keynes.
March 27th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
@ CK MacLeod:
They can demand, but can the government provide? I think less and less–which opens up the temptation to get power by pointing to the other party’s inability to meet those demands, thereby obliging oneself to place oneself in that same trap in turn. The alternative would be to promote and meet demands for more freedom–what would be the equivalent in health care, for example, of free enterprise zones or school vouchers? (HSAs line up with vouchers, I suppose, but Free Enterprise Zones–spaces where innovative relations between insurance companies, patients and health care providers can be tried out free from all the mandates–who is proposing those?) I’m not sure I disagree with you so much, except, maybe, in that I’m thinking that the energy and ideas will come from outside of government, and that the Republicans should be encouraging and learning from such experiences–so I don’t think a comprehensive program that tries to meet all the needs Obamacare claims to meet will be the point. Which means, I suppose, that I don’t think Republicans need to be as loaded up with ideas and plans as you seem to–the biggest trust issue they may have to overcome now is people’s skepticism over whether they really plan to take down Obamacare, or just want their cut.
March 27th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
adam wrote:
@ CK MacLeod:
They can demand, but can the government provide?
The answer is yes,until they are stopped by the laws of Bankruptcy. For decades the Federal Government has grown,grown,grown WHY? Because it could,it’s not ideology,(Why does a dog lick itself) We have had no mechanism in place to stop growth. We have a “Debt Ceiling”,but every so often,we just raise it. The Constitution has no balanced budget requirement,and the Conservatives/Liberals have avoided it because,(CKM will fill us in),well,it limits us when we want to spend the big bucks on whatever the Conservatives/Liberals feel is urgent. So if we’re logical,why are we whining about more spent money,that’s what we do whether it’s unfunded social spending,or unfunded military spending,its economic results are the same. We have evolved from a Republic into an Empire,the economics of unlimited government growth fueled this evolution. BTW,the EMPIRE needs new sources of funding,the Republic’s tax base is obviously no longer big enough to make payroll.
March 28th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
@ Rex Caruthers:
I’ll grant most if not all of what you say here, but I would insist on an even more radical “no,” because the question of meeting demands is not only one of money–if the demand is for better health care–or, for that matter, a better war-making capacity–rather than simply more money spent on health care or the military, then an ever bigger government gets less effective at meeting those demands well before it goes bankrupt. Regardless of money, in other words, the government simply has no way of knowing what patients will need and health providers might be capable of doing 10 years from now.
March 28th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Regardless of money, in other words, the government simply has no way of knowing what patients will need and health providers might be capable of doing 10 years from now.
You’re thinking rationally,governments don’t,governments operate on a chaos management system,and when,rarely,they make more “rational/smart decisions than the opoosite,in the hindsight of history,they look like they had it planned out,like Elizabethan England,(Although,If Spain had won the War,they wouldn’t look as smart) What makes Limited Government LIMITED is LIMITS,written in stone,(at least sandstone)
March 28th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Rex Caruthers wrote:
It hasn’t been decades, it’s been for the entire history of the republic, and in a different way it’s been the natural course of events since the first colonists. Once we decided to remain one country, federalized or not, we were bound to grow the government along with our territory, population, and economy. For all the bad press the progressives get on the right, they worked a necessary act of social self-defense against economic oligarchy, which is what industrial capitalism would have enforced without “checks and balances” if we the people, through government, hadn’t found means to provide them. As we know, other countries in the 19th and 20th Centuries experimented with different balances and different modes of organization of the state, and it’s a matter for debate whether some of the “corporate states” represented the victory of popular government over powerful corporate interests or the other way around – since the democratic, proletarian, and socialist states tended to be economic oligarchies by other names.
So, are we an empire or a republic? Or neither? What we choose to call what we have is rather secondary. We clearly depend on greater democratic input than the empires of old did – or could. We clearly have a permanent government with quasi-Mandarin class that acts as though impervious to oversight – but that’s also partly because the people don’t mind, much, as long as it continues to deliver the bread and circuses.
March 28th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
@ CK MacLeod:
“We clearly have a permanent government with quasi-Mandarin class that acts as though impervious to oversight – but that’s also partly because the people don’t mind, much, as long as it continues to deliver the bread and circuses.”
And by now we get lots of circus and no bread–indeed, the government now actively interferes with bakers and grocery stories (figuratively) and thereby prevents us from getting our own bread. So the people are starting to mind. Unlike previous empires, ruling over 95% agricultural populations, modern government is capable of doing enormous damage to basic productive activities through sheer irresponsibility and shamelessness. Even more, though, unlike gathering and redistributing surplus food and giving away land to supporters, granting goods to favored constituencies now requires messing with the basic springs of economic organization and motivation. It just can’t be done any longer, not even to the satisfaction of those favored constituencies (when the system of public employee pensions crashes, its beneficiaries will be even worse off for having relied upon it). The calculation problem Mises attributed to socialism is just as problematic for whatever it is we’re growing right now.
March 28th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
adam wrote:
I don’t disagree with your analysis in the broad regarding the increasing burden of the state and its appendages on the economy. Undoubtedly there are severe strains, and even worse ones to come, but we’re sure not at system breakdown/revolution yet. It’s possible for Charlie Crist to think he can win a Republican primary refusing even to consider raising the retirement age for Social Security.
I guess we’ll soon find out whether our system is made of glass, but I tend to think that it can survive much greater discord and turbulence than it’s had to so far.
March 28th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
@ CK MacLeod:
“I guess we’ll soon find out whether our system is made of glass, but I tend to think that it can survive much greater discord and turbulence than it’s had to so far.”
Probably. While we likely disagree a bit about the sturdiness of the system, we may disagree more about how much the government’s role as giver of bread can do to increase the system’s survival possibilities. My answer to that is: just about nothing.
March 28th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
If we abandon an agenda based on our ideology, for an long-term agenda that presumes the government is the central coordinator of “redistribution” for “social justice”, we have not just developed a new “narrative”; we have abandoned the ideological presumption that economic liberty is a social good. In a country where people earning above-poverty wages qualify for food stamps, and the poor enjoy 24 hour electric power, and cable, and cell phones, I question the urgency of “social justice”. It seems to be based on the notion that “nobody oughta earn so much money” rather than actual needs; “redistribution” not survival.
March 28th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Are we a republic, well I’d say yes, in the sense of late 5th Century
Athens, (although we are moving toward the oligarchy)and Jugurthan War era Rome, in one sense. This latest vote, suggests otherwise, however, toward the Council of 400, and other such measures.
In this light, Dowd, Rich, even Friedman, can only be read if need must, as some sort of fictional commentary, like those provided in the works of Drury and McCarry. Most political thrillers not of the Vince Flynn/Brad Thor variety, posit an invincible, ruthless right wing conspiracy, re North Patterson, Frey, Leonard Downie’s latest
offering, would that it were so, the reverse is quite nearly true
March 28th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
giver of bread
In order to keep giving,The Empire needs to feed,and because it is not in our national mythology to just take,we are becoming exceptionally creative about making up scenarios which will justify our appetites to ourselves. We must feed or expire.
March 28th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
@ Chris Balsz:
I believe the only one using the word “redistribution” was Douthat, referring to a wing of the conservative movement as “any redistribution equals socialism.” Without getting into the problems that our old friend J.E. has with the idea of “redistribution” – she likes to insist, IIRC, that it implies a static social product – if, say, food stamps at level “x” implies re-distribution, does that mean that Republicans are going to have to run against food stamps? If not, then doesn’t that mean that Republicans have accepted government coordination of redistribution to achieve a social end, deemed more morally sound, more desirable, more just? Is there or isn’t there a consensus in favor of a social safety net?
I think there very obviously is except on the fringes of the far right, and a candidate espousing an “every man for himself” absolutism wouldn’t even register in an election.
As for the “urgency” of social justice, with unemployment at 10% and real unemployment possibly pushing 20%, and no vast improvement in sight, there may be many people who disagree with you. Similar observations could be made, and have been made over and over again, on the subject of health care. If Republicans deny any urgency on the issue, then, and this was my main theme, they absolutely cannot expect anyone to take the “replace” part of the formula seriously from them.
If you say that only economic liberty has a chance of restoring a vibrant, growing economy, and vital, innovative health sector, then I agree with you. Even if you don’t happen to believe in a more just society – a society in which honest effort is rewarded honestly would be one definition – purely as a matter of political tactics why would you disclaim the moral good that others might see in your “ideology”?
March 28th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Can the GOP win a contest for redistribution of resources, with the Democrats; that’s a doubtful proposition, austerity has never been terribly popular as a governing gambit, economic growth has been the recent shortcut, to circumvet that hedge, but this current economic plan, makes that course of action highly improbable
March 28th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
@ narciso:
Win a contest for “redistribution,” why even try? The contest is over convincing the electorate that Republicans have a better handle on prosperity. How does it help in that contest to reinforce the image of conservatives as uninterested in the plight of the poor and vulnerable, or to act and speak as though we actually believe that the ills and inequities of a massified industrial economy be handled strictly through private charity? How do you sell a political bill of goods without arguing that it’s good for the society you’re selling it to?
March 28th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
How about let’s not pretend that they care about life except as an abstraction, for when they vote for the other goodies, how well has that worked out for you, they empower the most amoral technocrats
in the administration, and in congress. Do they care about private
economic development, that point seems unclear, as well. We have seen how this story goes, dependency breeds it’s own constituency,
that is the logic of this bill. It makes military contraction almost obligatory, it ennervates the local sense of community, of traditional institutions, it atomizes individuality for the collective. In extremis, you have the situation in Greece and soon Portugal
March 28th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
The argument ‘Catholics care about poor therefore Republicans do not’ appears to make an assumption that Catholicism can only serve to provide a just society by placing all responsibility in the hands of government bureaucracy.
What happened to Separation of Church and State?
If Catholicism needs government to provide a just society is this not a theocracy?
If government is the means to providing a just society then is not Catholicism an irrelevant religion worshiping nothing?
These questions aside; we are told health insurance companies are evil, why then did Democrats pass a law forcing (mandating) every American be required to purchase health insurance from evil health insurance companies.
The actions are far more uncaring than are the duplicitous words much like the majority Catholics voting for an infanticide President while claiming they care about protecting the Sanctity of Life.
My conclusion to this mess, serving Social Justice is poisoning the Catholic faith.
March 29th, 2010 at 4:19 am
“For all the bad press the progressives get on the right, they worked a necessary act of social self-defense against economic oligarchy, which is what industrial capitalism would have enforced without “checks and balances” if we the people, through government, hadn’t found means to provide them.”
‘Checks and Balances’?
How then did Progressives end up the Crony-Capitalists?
Besides; it is impossible to have a just society when Trial Lawyers own the Progressive Party.
March 29th, 2010 at 6:49 am
susan wrote:
I’m not sure who you think made that argument, but, as for the second part, the assumption you describe is an assumption of the statist left, as seen through a rightwing lens. Obviously, the left sees what it’s doing differently, but, even if what the left believes amounts to what you describe, why are we obligated to accept that definition? I would argue with Douthat – and with a Catholic writer like Michael Novak – that the conservative argument can be squared with the Catholic social teaching better than the liberal one can. To believe otherwise is to believe that economic liberty necessarily produces more inequity and strife than its alternatives. History suggests otherwise.
Alive and well. It would be an odd thing indeed if conservatives started arguing at this late date that faith and morality shouldn’t influence the political life of the nation and the political decisions of individuals.
That’s something for you to take up with Pope Benedict, I think. My own view is that you’re reading things into the the Catholic social teaching that aren’t there.
Good question.
So which is it, you want Catholics to vote their beliefs, against an “infanticide president,” or you want them to reject the teachings of their church? Serving social justice – under different names – is a feature of all of the great religions, and for that matter of all of the great atheisms. There is no religious or political philosophy that doesn’t offer its vision of a more just society.
March 29th, 2010 at 8:10 am
susan wrote:
Progressivism arose in the late 19th century as a response to the rise of industrial capitalism. We’ve discussed this at length on this site before: In short, in the first three or four decades of progressivism as a political movement, ca. 1880-1920, a major current of progressive politics was an emphasis on empowering the people against political machines and “the trusts.” The Sherman Anti-Trust Act is usually referred to as the first major piece of national progressive legislation. See also the proliferation of citizen initiative, referenda, and recall measures, the institution of primary elections and direct votes for Senator and other offices, etc.
Corruptions of power, mainly. It’s an old story. If you think crony capitalism exists and is a problem with the current crop of nominal progressive leaders, then you’re thinking like a real progressive, though even by 1912, the split between corporatist progressives and trust busting progressives was already plainly visible. (TR believed in “good trusts” and “bad trusts.” Wilson believed in “trusts” and “businesses.”)
March 29th, 2010 at 8:30 am
I wished I had been around. I have missed all this. CK, I am still running down more explanations on the rise of the progressive state in response to the industrialization of the US post civil war, and though I am not as well versed as I need be, the goodness of the progressives is quite overstated as well as your expression of the badness of industry.
To the larger question you asked in your post, I am afraid that the road you seek does not exist. In Rex’s very first post the folly is laid bare. The govt, having destroyed the private insurance market, has created conditions inviting their greater involvement.
A couple of thoughts however; the opportunity to peal this back will be based upon the acknowledgement by conservatives that the govt destroyed it, the govt will have to be a part of fixing it and then creating the conditions for their involvement to be scaled back, in time to nothing more than basic market regulation (contract protection and financial solvency) of the insurers involved in the market. In health care the backing of pre-existing condition riders to help out those like Rex will be a necessity. The mechanics will be difficult.
Absent this path, nothing the dems are doing is sustainable, and that includes all social policy – SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, SHIP, Unemployment Insurance – as well as each state having a public pension nightmare coming – financial ruin and retrenchment is all that awaits us. It won’t care about social justice and it won’t care that CK likes to separate progress from progressives. The money will run out. We will retrench militarily from protecting world trade and will choose to allow the dollar to no longer be the world’s reserve currency as a means to stave off the inevitable; but once these things happen our standard of living will already be shrinking, which will further reduce the food to feed the beast. As we are the last remaining nation to defend the west, when our demise happens, it might be much more drastic than we can imagine – more similar to Rome in the west than Spain and Britain, who had a natural heir to take their place.
Personally, SS is really an affront as the conditions in this country that existed at the time of its inception and now is radically different. That we take money from the poorest among us to give to those with more assets than anyone else smacks of Monty Python’s Dennis Moore skit. If conservatives cannot rollback Obamacare I am certain our children’s retirement will be much harder than our own. That Pelosi and Reid, who both know better, think it doesn’t matter, is discouraging.
March 29th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Trackbacks & Pingbacks 2
[...] cross-posted at Zombie Contentions [...]
“Repeal and Replace” – Filling In the Outline…
C.K. MacLeod of Zombie Contentions posted a fascinating discussion of the larger context of the fight against ObamaCare; his point is that we cannot win the argument to repeal ObamaCare until and unless we are prepared to argue exactly what……