Whither conservatism?
In light of recent political discourse, I think it's safe to say that the political fault lines in the "conservative movement" are finally coming to light.
The biggest fault line, to me, seems to concern the debate over the size and scope of the federal government, and I have to confess that I'm worried. Worried that the conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan - who were both skeptical about the government - will soon be completely overcome by the "authoritarian" strain of social conservatism that seems to be gaining strength (is it totally ascendent now? I don't know) within the movement and the Republican Party.
In many of our discussions here, I have sided with the majority in voicing anti-Administration sentiment, which I feel may have given the impression that I am not a "real" conservative like the kind you see on TV. I mean, seriously, I sound so reasonable at times, how can I be one of them? Well, I am and I'm not. Let me elaborate.
First and foremost, I distrust the federal government. By that, I don't mean what many Democrats and liberals mean when they say the same thing; that is, "I don't like the people in there and think they will do bad things... but once you get my people in there, we will solve the great problems." I mean that I think the ability of the federal government to solve problems is far more limited than its current functions would imply.
Note that I did not say I distrusted government. That would be foolish. I rather like the idea of government, to tell you the truth. What could be better than people getting together and resolving common problems with common resolve? In fact, I really like local government for precisely that reason. If the people of any small town in New Hampshire think, say, that the downtown area needs to be beautified, they can pass ordinances restricting certain kinds of development, slow down traffic, and float bonds to pave a sidewalk with brick rather than concrete. This is collective endeavor at its best.
Nor am I opposed to the idea of a federal government. There are certain things that localities can't do by themselves, and so we have states, which are really just groupings of municipalities or counties. By the same token, the states by themselves cannot perform certain functions - or, to be more precise, couldn't perform them effectively or economically - so we formed a "more perfect Union." What a great idea! But it's only a great idea so long as each level of government does what it's properly supposed to, barring genuine emergency. The most common refrain you've heard in this vein - I hope - is "the government which governs best governs least." To this I would immodestly add my own "the more things a government does, the fewer it does well."
What I'm getting at - and have got at in many of my posts - is that there is something that pre-exists our federal government. So when I see the federal government doing something that does not reflect this sentiment, I grow skeptical. I distrust. I think it is over-reaching and will not solve the problem. Indeed, it may make it worse. Now I am not unaware that there are trade-offs here: if I expect and hope the federal government stays largely out of our economic life and those personal decisions which relate to it, I have to be realistic and say that the state and local governments, and indeed this nebulous thing called "society," must be more active in promoting the general welfare. I also have to admit that there may be bad outcomes.
Getting back to our so-called "conservative" friends who are currently in charge of the movement and the government. I worry because they do not share any of my concerns. Or, if they do, they don't show it. I don't need to recount the litany here, we all know it : out-of-control spending, ill-conceived social legislation, and the like. What it shows is a willingness to disregard those principles I thought we shared in the interests of... what? An appeal to a different voting bloc? Maybe this makes sense for the Republican Party - it does need to contest elections - but what about the intellectuals who are now fawning over proposed socially paternalistic legislation? What is their excuse?
As I said above, I think there is something called "society" that exists before the government and is indeed its very foundation. I have never considered myself a liberal, although our goals (read any of my "green" posts about automobiles!) may be similar, because I have never felt they fully shared my belief in the prior existence of society and everything that it implies. I always felt more philosophically "at home" among conservatives because there was, in a large part, shared belief in the primacy of social networks, the individual and her many liberties, and workings of the marketplace.
But the current crop doesn't believe that any more, do they? What else could their legislative agenda be considered, other than an effort by the government to change the mores of society from the federal level to something more their liking? Despite their populist rhetoric, this reveals a deep distrust of society. That is, the government cannot trust you to determine right from wrong, so we'll make it very clear for you. We'll even punish you if you disagree. This in a country that, as I said above, was built on the idea of separate institutions and a mutual respect between them. Now the former defenders of that idea have come to believe they are the sole wielders of truth. A dangerous idea and not a conservative one. This is the difference between governing at the behest of the people and ruling the people.
In the spirit of this post and my general displeasure with conservative intellectuals, I would love to hear from the commenters. I would like to hear not just what your basic affiliations are, but why. Is my conservativism, as loosely sketched, something that gets your attention? If you don't believe in the importance of society and do think the federal government should do more in certain realms - that is, if you are the sort of liberal I described above - I would love to know why you feel that way. If you are an authentic paternalistic, authoritarian conservative, I'd love to know your thoughts as well. And anything in-between.
Let the discussion commence!
Update: Our dear friend Andrew Sullivan has a similar discussion going here.
posted by Joshua @ 2:08 PM
15 Comments:
LoWrit,
Excellent, excellent comments that deserve a response from all of us, I think. I'll reply in detail (a mix of agreement and disagreement, and you'd expect nothing less!) when I can.
Grrrr.... My first response is that LotW's post has made me more livid than any I have read before on Opti-mates... grrrr.
Okay, I've calmed down a bit now, But let me respond to your admittedly good questions.
1. When I mock "Ten percent improvement," and I will gleefully continue to do so, I am promoting an end to the hipocrasy so prevalent in the "religious right," which picks and chooses it's battles based not on Christ's teachings, but rather the predjudices and bogotry of a very vocal segment of people who identify themselves as Christians. When neo-cons (out of respect for Tac, and an understanding of his divergence, I would claim that the current powers don't count as classical conservatives at all) battle teen sex - and in fact all sex - as an arbitrarily "moral" issue while working to destruct the preventative measures against the social problems that it causes, it shows neither fortitude nor a capcity to properly lead via policy. It is simply a Holy War. When neo-con followers can lether up about oral sex and yet not give a damn about genocide, it is hypocrasy, and I will rail against it with all my force.
2. I understand what you're trying to get at, and I sympathize that it isn't fully fleshed out, but it seems as if you're promoting a system that would blame the butterfly in Texas for the hurricane in the Amazon. Justice will always be slippery, because we can never fully define what it should entail, and what practical purpose it should fulfill. At present, the best we can do is to regulate actions with clear consequences. You hit a guy and break his nose - that's assult. You take a t.v. that belongs to your neighbor - that's theft. As science progreesses, we understand consequences a little more. SUV's lead to global warming, for example, but that doesn't necessarily mean that SUV drivers should be punished, but rather that we should rethink our energy and transportation policies. Moreover, the dangre of your suggestion (and it comes ludicrously close to this on its own) is one of moral policing based on scriptural doctrine. There's a reason that democratic freedom is based on, first and foremost, forbidding that practice.
3. Of course social conservatism isn't completely bereft of good values. It would be a tiny minority who would argue that it is, but your fallacy is in believing that tradition requires government oversight in order to continue. Christmas, for instance, keeps on trucking without being required, which is good for Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Athiests, Jehova's Witnesses, etc. In addition, by legally promoting or requiring any one tenet of tradtion or morality, no matter how well intentioned or popularly agreed upon, opens the doors to the pet moralities and traditions of the current powers.
Overall, I disagreed almost entirely with every single thing you wrote, LotW, but I'll continue. In my opinion, the primary function of government should be to preserve freedom - something which, I believe, is best handled at the federal level. If Mississippi decides that gays and blacks aren't permitted access to health care, then it does no good to simply say that they should move to Tennessee. Meanwhile, I can agree that public works, education, and the majority of taxes should be local and state, though even here it becomse tricky, as what encroachment on education constitutes a violation of rights? As I said before, it gets tricky.
What offended me most, LotW, was your insistence that the "morality" pf the religious right was a morality worth legislating. What's wrong with suggesting that people keep it in their pants until they get married? A number of crucial things. First, it's not everbody's morality. Second, it's not sugegestions, but legislative and executive policy. Third, it's not nearly as lenient as you would propose. I advise everyone tyo read "The War on Conraception" in the New York Times Magazine to understand how far the religious right are scoping the battle against sex (they envision a world where any form of birth control is prohibited, even to married couples, as it creates an "anti-child mindset.") Lastly, the "morality" surrounding sex is largely arbitrary, particularly the neo-con version of it. If you strip away religion and politics, all you're left with is that consensual sex is okay, and non-consensual sex isn't. The neo-con movement probably spends more time and money inventing "moral" surroundings for public policy issues that don't really warrant them that it does trying to win elections. (See the war on drugs for an example.) Sadly, when the last century of conservatives have appealed to refusing to legislate morality, they have done so in the most misapplied of cases, such as the Civil RIghts act of 1964.
Finally, in response to Tac's original post, I identify as a liberal, in both the social and economic senses. For the social, I believe in the classic Voltair statement that, "my right to swing my fist ends when it touches your nose." Government should primarily preserve freedom, as we understand it and it's consequences upon others. It should not do so arbitrilly, however, no matter what majority of citizens believe in the infallibity of any religious scripture.
On the econmic front, I trust in the free market, to an extent. I believe that our societal future is contingent on, and in fact is equal to, the future of the middle class. Fully free market, with no restrictions, destroys the middle class, and leads to righteous uprisings. Unions and market restrictions, properly utilized, allow for virtually all who will put in an effort to thrive. Our current administration vigorously opposes both ideals, and I feel, Tac, that we are at one of those crossroads in history in which what once identified conservatives becomes liberal, and vice-versa.
Wow, that’s a lot of theory to wade through first thing in the morning…
Ok, so I do understand where both Lotw and Pascal are coming from, and they both have some good points. However, Lotw, you keep mentioning how the liberals want to put morality legislature into place that would replace the right’s morality legislature. I’m not sure if that’s your opinion or if you believe that to be the opinion of others, but I would argue that it is incorrect. A majority of liberals would like no legislature at all when it comes to morality. You want to get married young, have many children, live your life according to your religion? That’s great. You want to sleep with as many people as possible before the age of 25? The liberals would prefer you do it safely, but they’re not going to pass any laws encouraging or discouraging this. In many ways, I would say that socially, liberals follow more traditionally Republican ideals than conservatives, in that they would prefer there to be fewer laws and regulations in place when it comes to morality.
Yes, they do fight for anti-discrimination laws and gay marriages, but those are laws that are not restrictive. Legalizing gay marriage would affect gay people and their families, not the entire country (well perhaps in small ways, but I think you understand what I mean). Anti-discrimination laws allow people to live and get the same rights as every other human, regardless of skin color or what they do in the privacy of their own home. It is hardly the same thing as pushing for a law, such as the one in a town in Missouri, that prohibits three or more people living together unless related by blood or marriage, thus giving the town power to evict unmarried couples with children living together.
I think most conservatives feel like they are being unfairly victimized and pushed to become more liberal than they want to be. I think if the liberals were in charge of this country, that would hardly be the case. Sure, there would be sex education in every school, but you can still opt out of it if you want. We’d want emergency contraception to be available at every pharmacy country – that doesn’t mean you would have to take it. Being liberal is about respecting the rights of others and allowing others to live their life the way that they want, even if you disagree with their lifestyle. True, there is a small, vocal minority that wants more than that, but there’s a small, vocal minority in every group that tends to embarrass and misrepresent the rest. Being a feminist, I understand that well. Anyway, those are my two cents. Do with them what you will.
LotW, hopefully my "offense" was taken as light-heartedly as I intended. I rarely use the word "grrr" when I'm serious.
1. You're making the same distinctions that I am, more or less. True faith does come from within, and I have nothing but respect for the faith of most Christians. What I'm saying is that, as the neo-con/religious right movement is political in nature, it takes the already existing extra-faith prejudices of the hard-right faction - i.e. homosexuality - and then picks and chooses what it wants from the Bible to prop it up as a fire-and-brimstone "moral" issue. Mandating Kosher Law would be no less random, but there's no swath of voters ready to burn down cheeseburger stands, so the neo-cons ignore it.
2. Going back to the preserving freedom thing, and to your half-joking quote about the "idealized liberal world," no one is saying that people should expiriment, but rather that they should be able to choose to. I certinaly wouldn't claim that virginity pledges, for example, are immoral, just that they have been proven to not work very well, and when I mock the "ten-percent improvement," I'm mocking a neo-con hysterically clinging to a failed policy because it is good politics. Of course the family unit is a hugely important part of society, but the neo-con policies do nothing to promote it. They simply let the neo-cons blame the victims of their own choosing when things keep falling apart.
3. WHat it means for Christmas to "keep on trucking" is that traditions will maintain themselves until they become irrelevent. The moment that a tradition needs to be legally upheld is the moment that it should probably be allowed to die quietly. I picked Christmas because it shows no signs of dying out, and thus needs no preservation.
When the left's way of doing things works as it is supposed to, Christians keep all freedoms they have had. WHen the right prevails, Christians keep their freedoms, and non-Christians lose theirs. The religious right movement is not about preserving tradition, but about religious assimilation. Of course there are Christians who will believe, righteously, that his is the most important agenda. If one fervently believes that I will go to hell for my lifestyle, then it makes sense for them to want me to change my life and live for God. And of course they should have their voice. The question isn't in having their voice, but in legislating that voice at the expense of non-believers. And of course the question of whether the GOP was jumped the rails of classical conservatism, prefering instead to focus on a pageant of "moral values"
Oh, and Kelly is right on.
Okay. Let me step back into this, comment on the social values aspect, and then take it elsewhere.
One small point, Pascals: I am pleased to see that you are distinguishing between conservatives and those who are dressed up as conservatives. I appreciate it. That said, I have to quibble with your terminology. Among conservatives, "neo-con" is a term used to describe former liberal-ish types who came to support military intervention abroad (like Kosovo and then Iraq). A good example of this is Bill Kristol. The kind of social values conservative you are talking about we term "theo-con," a bit of a pun on "neo-con" and "theocracy." A good example of this is Sam Brownback. But again, this is a minor quibble and you get a million points for distinguishing in the first place.
Okay, now to the comments. I think what is being lost in this discussion of "social legislation" is the difference between public and private spheres. The consensus among the erstwhile liberals seems to be that a total absence of morality legislation is value-neutral and therefore doesn't favor anybody. I urge a bit more thinking on this matter.
For example, what about a polity that is "value neutral" on, say, what content can be displayed on billboards or business signs? We've seen the result: advertisements for strip clubs and sex shops by the roadside. Since this is the public sphere, there's no way people with objections can just shut off the TV, as they can in the private sphere. Now, if your first reaction is to say "Well, they should just suck it up," you've effectively admitted that a no-rules public sphere can play favorites and is indeed doing so in at least one case.
I think a principled conservative stand on matters like this is to support the ability of the localities to have standards of public decency. If some communities are sufficiently reserved so as to prohibit billboards that show more flesh than an ankle, more power to them. If other communities are less reserved and okay with racy billboards, that's fine, too. Where our theo-con friends have gone off the rails is that they wish to impose these standards at a state or national level. That's nuts, and not only for "First Amendment" reasons. As I said above, certain types of legislation simply don't work at any level higher than the local. Morals legislation is a perfect example: families and individuals in the local society can get together and determine what sort of public face they would like to put on their community. This keeps any regulation at a very human level and still respects the privacy of the individual - no one is coming into your house saying you can't have certain magazines or videos (or whatever); there is simply a general consensus that an individual's private likes or dislikes shouldn't be made everyone's business.
Theo-cons and their counterparts on the radical Left (to be distinguished from liberals) are so vexing because they want to abolish privacy. They think, in the name of fundamentalist consistency, that everyone should exactly the same in private and in public. Why else would the theo-cons want the public to have oversight in the bedroom and the radical Left want the bedroom to be celebrated in the public? Because nothing is "private" to that kind of thinking - everything is political and ideology. I think local legislation of a modest kind, on the other hand, protects the idea of privacy by drawing a difference between the public and the private.
In my opening, I said I was going to take the comments thread "elsewhere." My elsewhere is this: economics (not as sexy as sex, I know). Consistent with my limited-government conservatism, I think the federal government has to meet a high burden of proof before it intervenes in the economic life of the country and private decisions. I agree that I'm yelling into the wind here : farm subsidies and corporate welfare and set-asides are a fact of political life. But I still don't like them. But let me ask that of people - to what degree should the government (any level) be involved in the economy?
That is a very good point, Tac, and one I was overlooking. I would agree with you about leaving decisions regarding public spaces and their morality/social value up to local governments. However, I do believe there are exceptions that should be left relatively unlegislated - as I mentioned earlier, having access to emergency contraception in local pharmacies, for example, isn't something that would offend anyone in any town, as it is not in the public eye, and it isn't forced upon anyone. However, in general, yes, let's leave the porn billboards in Vegas because even liberals like myself like to be able to chose when and where they get to see large naked figures asking me to call them.
I've gotta agree with you on thew billboard front as well, Tac. It's almost everyday that I pass some advertizing that makes me try to remember if I ever came across that kind of blatent sexualization of the public sphere when I was a kid. Just last night, as I was on my way to work sound at a play, I got out on 72nd st. and Saw a giant Verizon Superpages billboard that read, "We can tell you where to get a mattress, a weiner, and herbal enhancers, all in your neighborhood." I looked down from the billboard to see a matress store, hot-dog stand, and Vitamin Center. I wondered how much money they spent for a single, location specific sex joke, and the economics that must have gone into deciding that it was worth the cost. CLearly, first amendment rights should be upheld, but I agree that communities should be able to decide what is acceptable in their public sphere. But, as Kelly so rightly pointed out, Strip Club banners are public; buying condoms or prescribing the pill are not.
I tried to explicate my thoughts on the economy earlier, but I guess it got lostr in the wind. I believe in a free market which promotes a grand middle class. By free market I don't mean, "without regulation" any more than those who would claim such a thing on FOX News. Just ask them if the drug trade is part of their marketplace to watch them shuffle in their own hypocrasy. I feel that a free market remains free - as a free country does - by having ewverybody play by the same rules. Baseball is no less free-to-all by enforcing nine players to the field, or by making people pass first and sedcond before they get to third. The rules should be set up so that anyone may prosper, but not at the expense of screwing the middle class, which seems to be the only way that the President and his colleagues think it is possible. (Given Bush's pedigree, we can almost understand where he got that misconception.) Still, my economic problem with the neo-cons (and theo-cons, thank you Tac) is their insistance that screwing your neighbor for more money is not only okay, but a noble right to be defended by all God-fearing individuals.
On the particulars, I don't like farm subsidies either. I feel that propping up an industry in a way which itself admits that the industry is over-productive is futile, and is also a diversion of funds away from education towards new-economy jobs which might ballance the agricultural industry in time.
But I remain a liberal, socially and economically, in hopes for the middle class, which is not only the future of America, but IS America. My favorite idea for this end is one that my former co-worker described to me. "CEO's can make as much money as they can get their hands on," he said, "as long as they don't make more than fifty times the wage of their lowest-paid employee."
\
Seem hopelessly liberal, or at odds with the free-market economy? Then explin to me why, exactly, this policy would be unfair.
I'm in the midst of studying for the first of my qualifying exams, so I haven't had much time to really think and sift through the various arguments. In fact, my first association currently with the word "argument" is "the angle a complex number expressed in polar form makes with the positive real axis."
Anyway, I definitely wanted to chime in on the billboards. Pascal -- I'm not sure how things were out in Oklahoma, but I know in Georgia, billboards advertising strip clubs and precisely how much clothing the dancers are or are not wearing, as well as what other kind of erotic accessories could be purchased in the vicinity are pretty much a staple of driving south on I-75 to Florida or north on I-85 to South Carolina (it probably also applies on 85 south to Alabama, but I don't go to Alabama much). Before we legalized fireworks in Georgia, we could always tell how close we were to a state border by the frequency of fireworks stand billboards and rather suggestive/explicit strip club billboards. In and around Atlanta, it was always amusing going on elementary school field trips and have some kid ask "Why isn't *Cheetah* at the zoo?" or "What is Gold Rush? Didn't that happen in California?" We all know that you can see "Live Nude Girls" right before Exit 177 on I-85.
In my neck of the woods, billboards have always been heavily sexualized, which is funny since it's the South. I haven't seen anything like it in Michigan or in New England.
Also, I hate farm subsidies and I don't think pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions based on their personal convictions.
I probably won't be able to comment more meaningfully because I have to return to the universe where the graph of the logarithm function results in an infinte Slinky instead of the nice inverse of the exponential that we all know and love. It's really a shame because I'd much rather play on this thread instead.
Kantian,
Consider your slack cut. I was making reference to the domestic policies of the more devout social conservatives, who are more properly "theo-" than "neo-." There are, of course, strong areas of overlap. In fact, many "neos" are meddlers - vide their foreign policy - a habit they picked up from their Trotsykite origins. But your general point stands : "neos" like to interfere in people's lives too.
Which segues nicely back into my economic points. I think the example of gas prices - oh, here I go again - is very instructive on the difference between my brand of non-interventionist conservatives and the current political stripe, as well as the important distinction between the private and public good in economics.
The logic coming from those who would offer rebates or investigate "price-gouging" is simple: gas is vital for transportation in our economy; its price has gone up; it's hurting people; we need to do something. Both political parties - eager to pander - have pretty much toed this line.
But this is really just supply and demand working as it should. Supply is not expanding (indeed, the "terror premium" and environmental regulations both guarantee that) while demand is increasing. So if you want the price to go down, and supply isn't going to increase, well, you have to decrease demand, don't you? Seems pretty easy.
Now here comes the paradox. I believe the non-interventionist conservative thinking should be to eliminate subsidies to the industry and increase the gas tax. But how does this work? Isn't that interventionism at its worst? No, it's not, and I'll briefly tell you why.
The current situation "at the pump," as it were, is the creation of meddling by the government to support certain industries over another. The first principled thing to do is eliminate the meddling. Then the individual car owner will actually see - without blinders - the market price of gasoline. Their behavior will then accurately reflect that cost when they seek alternate methods of transportation (be it carpooling, working from home, or whatever). Demand will recede and the price of gasoline will go down.
Okay, you say, that seems perfectly fair, but how can I then defend a gasoline tax? It comes down to the private/public distinction. Using roads and other byways of high quality is not, strictly speaking, a prviate "right" due a citizen. Transportation infrastructure is a "public good" that requires the government. The gasoline tax must then be viewed as a "user's fee" charged for using a particular form of public good, e.g., paved roadways. If there are more cars on the road, more roads are going to need maintenance, so it only makes sense for the gas tax to go up. It makes further sense for the government - in its capacity as financial manager and trustee of such public goods - to seek better investments for its transportation tax revenues, such as public transit systems that would require less maintenance per tax dollar. That's simple business sense, and conservative, too.
I think the desertion of this logic among 'conservatives' is actually more profound and upsetting than their swing toward moralism (although let me stress again that I disagree with both moves). They've relied on the meme of "someone else is doing this to you, noble American people," rather than "your actions have consequences, and here they are." It's easier for them this way because, well, it's fun to blame rich people to get poor people's votes! All while stuffing money in the rich people's coffers, I should add. Good grief.
Expanding on what we've all said - most recently Boudicca - in condemnation of farm subsidies, I would like to add this: the complete perversity of them is that they reduce the amount of food grown to keep prices artificially high. Gee, not like there are any people starving in the world or anything! This is why we must always (or almost always) fight the temptation to meddle in the workings of the marketplace. In the long run, it simply doesn't work (In addition, I would love for Boudicca - assuming she gets some time away from studying! - to give us a little more insight on the Southern/Georgian political climate on farm subsidies. Coming from rock-infested NH, they're always condemned here. But I know not everyone feels that way).
Pascals mentioned the idea, currently en vogue, to limit the salary of the highest-paid employee to a certain ratio in comparison with the lowest-paid. I don't know if our fair Bookie meant that this should be a law (which I would definitely be against on procedural, conservative grounds), but he did ask for someone to raise objections to it, and here I am!
The reason companies are willing to pay outrageous sums for executives is because of two factors working in tandem: risk/reward and supply/demand. That is, companies presume they will pay less in salary than they will get in increased profitability and share value. At the same time, the pool of superstar CEOs is, at present, pretty small. So with the supply low and the demand high, well, they're going to paid a lot. It's the same thing with sports, isn't it? If everyone could strike out 10 major-league hitters per game, Pedro Martinez wouldn't command $13 million/year.
This answer may seem unsatisfying until we realize that the creation of skilled labor is partly a function of public goods, something over which we have control! Education - a function of the state - is vital to learning marketable skills, is it not? So the conservative answer is to create a stronger vocational emphasis in education, and fund it. Additionally, we can probably agree that most successful people come from safe neighborhoods. What helps create a safe neighborhood? Partly trustworthy and dependable police, fire, and emergency departments. All public goods, I should add.
I could go on, but my basic point is that it is well within our power to create a larger skilled workforce, which would have the aggregate effect of lowering the ridiculous wages of the highest-paid and raising the low wages of the lowest-paid. Whether or not we do this is another matter.
Tac - to be fair, subsidies also keep the land arable, which is pretty important, though I do agree that we could find a different way to do it. (This is why farm subsidies were created in the first place. Over-competition damaging the land, and thus, agricultural futures.)
I half-disagree with you assessment of America's CEO's (and CFO's, etc.) While some of them are certainly geniuses, most have simply come up through the old-boy-network, which is supremely adept at allowing members to fail their way up the ladder and at rewarding their own with obscene salaries. I'm not just spitting at business here - I grew up among CEO's, and I'm thinking of family friends here. Some are definitely brilliant. Most are imcompetent at anything other than getting golden parachutes and changing companies (for higher salaries) after driving down stock prices. I'm not saying they're bad people - just bad at their job functions.
Somehow along the line, the Lower-middle-class got sold on the idea that unions were the biggest threat to the American dream, as opposed to the single best means of obtaining it. And when a populist system loses popular support, it becomes toothless at best and corrupt at worst. I dare say that American unions are now both, for the most part. This is great news for the top 10%, and bad news for everyone else.
The beauty of the salary ratio is that it actually rewards the genius CEO's while weeding out the inept ones. Management isn't just about manipulating stock prices - it's about creating efficiency, winning consumers, broadening markets, hiring, and firing, and often hiring people to hire and fire for you, and firing the people who can't. In short, the best CEO's will rake in more money for their stockholders and their companies, and if they can afford to pay their lowest-paid worker an extra dollar per hour, they are giving themselves fifty-times the raise. In its own way, it's fairer to the market to have the CEO's earning via skill than via which frat they joined in college, as it (largely) is now. That, and it bolsters the middle class, which is infinately more important than the CEO's salaries anyway.
Of course, the middle class still has the problem of a generation of newcomers intent on "buyin' stuff" rather than saving, but that's a different issue.
To take it back a few comments, a useful discussion of "theocons" can be found - where else? - here.
LoWrit,
I agree that the line between legislating opinion and decency is a very, very fine one.
This is why - in my conservative framework - it's a job for the localities to determine community standards, rather than a state or federal matter. This means that the case will be debated at a more face-to-face level and closer to the relevant issue.
The higher levels should pretty much stay out of the business of regulation because the question of liberty is affected. In fact, an excellent post on Congressional action and "presumption of liberty" can be found here, and I encourage everyone to read it. It's a bit thick, but worth it, I think. I've even taken the time to comment in their comments section, and I encourage that, too!
If I can expand on the Ninth Amendment/Presumption of Liberty thought for a moment, I'd like to relate it to my brand of conservatism and Boudicca's above point about pharmacies and (I assume) contraception.
While I think the localities have the authority to regulate public decency, I would argue that the use of contraception is a private matter beyond their ability to prohibit. In addition, the case law (Griswold v. Connecticut) surrounding birth control is fairly settled in favor of availability of contraception. As a result, civil society has - largely - come to accept contraception. In both cases, the libertarian-conservative thing to do is accept the consensus and rely on the presumption of liberty.
If that answer seems a bit wishy-washy (if you're a theo-con, it must), let me take it a step further. Conservatism is a philosophy, not an ideology. If a certain policy is empirically not getting results, it should be discarded. So on a pragmatic basis, I have to consider that I find abortion to be far worse than the use of contraception. Further, this finding of mine is on moral/traditional grounds that do do have a broad audience.
Now, knowing what I do about contraception (i.e., if used successfully, it mitigates against abortions), and with my distaste for abortion, the pragmatic solution is clear: the wide availability of contraception. So contraception can be defended on both libertarian and pragmatic grounds with a moral-traditional foundation.
So should pharmacists be able to refuse it to customers? Sure... if they don't mind getting fired.
I'm impressed with your site, very nice graphics!
»
Super color scheme, I like it! Keep up the good work. Thanks for sharing this wonderful site with us.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home