Esquire, I feel your pain. I was born in the opposition (the Reagan years), and then had to live through its redux for another eight under Bush. (And, really, Clinton wasn't all that much to cheer about by 1998.) I suspect you don't regard the Bush Years as the embodiment of conservative principles -- we'll disagree on that -- but I want to offer you some unsolicited advice: things aren't so bad. Cheer up.
I remember election night 2004, when most of my college campus was in shock. I remember the head of the college Democratic Party chapter wandering in a daze (really, just circling again and again) around the campus center, and the next day, everyone was depressed. Reading the media wasn't all that helpful; The New Republic wrote that American liberalism was headed for a long internal decline.
Things were bad then, but in four years it all change. So, just watch, you guys will be back. Yes, health care won't be repealed, but there are all sorts of things your side can do to modify it to suit your own agenda (no, really! You can finally pass that 'doc fix' everyone's talking about, or press for more cuts to Medicare, or scrap that "Independent Advisory Commission" that may finally bring on the totalitarian utopia you guys said would occur after Social Security and Medicare was passed).
When President Obama came into office, I recall Jonah Goldberg extolling some of the joys of being in the opposition. And there are many -- no doubt getting to call the current head of state a fascist and wave around 'DON'T TREAD ON ME' flags are high on the list -- but there are also some pains. Sometimes, you lose. (For the liberal side, think about how tough it was to swallow Bush's climate-change policy, or the Iraq war, or tax cuts for the rich -- policies no less momentous than the health bill, in my opinion.)
Let me say one final thing: I really don't think this bill is as "landmark" as everyone says. All this nonsense that the legislation somehow guarantees Obama a permanent place in presidential history strikes me as somehow absurd (the guy could lose his majorities this November -- very likely -- and then hobble to defeat by 2012, with only the stimulus, credit card reform (and, since it was snuck into that bill, letting guns into national parks) and a very modest health care bill to show for it).
We disagree about this bill, which your side depicts as the end of America as we know, and my side thinks has somehow solved all our problems. Nonsense: the employer-based system remains largely in place (though may very slowly fade out, an objective that both Republicans and Democrats should favor). The bill received the qualified support of parts of the insurance industry, the American Medical Association and the AARP -- we could cynically say it bought our all the stakeholders, or we can simply say it's so watered down to be quite meaningless. That the bill so eerily resembles the one Republicans proposed in 1994 strikes me as a strong indicator of its moderation.
Anyway, that's beside the point. Loathe the legislation all you want; wallow in the angry editorials, the harbingers of doom, CBO dartboards -- but don't worry. Your side will be back, sooner than you think.
Sunday assorted links
3 hours ago
Berchmans,
ReplyDeleteYou consistently characterize calls of ‘socialism’ or ‘fascism’ as strident right wing talking points. You could be right, particularly since the most vocal in this regard tend to be talking heads, an uniquely unsophisticated lot. (I often think that the only criteria these days for becoming a talking head – like Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and Bill O’Reilly – are a loud voice, an uncompromising opinion, and a full dose of self-righteousness.)
So my question to you is: at what point do you become concerned about our increased dependency on government? What, for you, is the tipping point? That is, when do you say enough is enough? And can you quantify that point? Or do you just lick your finger, stick it in the air, and see where the liberal winds blow? Because it seems to me that for you, any talk of creeping government intervention is just puerile drivel.
Help me understand why I’m wrong.
VM
VM --
ReplyDeleteI think there's a clear difference between worrying about "dependency on government," and using loaded terms like totalitarianism and fascism. Esquire doesn't think the latter is all that loaded; he thinks it's an ideology with clear goals (all of them liberal, conveniently enough), but I disagree.
Ezra Klein made this point today, and I think it's worth repeating: instead of using such far-out language -- death panels, another example -- the Right could have made very persuasive arguments against the health care bill (and they did, here and there -- 1) the minimum benefits standards may stifle regulation; 2) people will 'game the system' because of the law against pre-existing conditions, and so on). I wish we could have had more of that, less of the talking-head discussion.
But to your question: I worry more about political rights when I start to think about high levels of government intervention. As long as elections come around each cycle, and speech stays free, and there are laws on the books about due process and habeas corpus -- I think we'll stay clear of Nazism.
This isn't to discount "economic freedom" -- it's just to suggest I have a lower standard (and it seems that as we go along, the Right seems to keep raising theirs as well). I'll flesh this out more in a bit, but I think I have a mouse in my kitchen. Must run.
Actually, VM, the more I think about your question -- can I quantify my preferred level of government -- the more I find it amusing. You've become a complete social scientist, all rigorous and all (statistically speaking, of course). And I like that you make me sound unreasonable for not having a specific number or percentage in mind, as if that means I'm willing to dilly-dally as I see fit.
ReplyDeleteBut what's the point of saying, for instance, that tax revenue as percent of GDP should not exceed 40 percent? Or 50? Isn't that an imperfect piece of data to begin with? The last time I checked -- in 2007 -- America was at 28.3 -- does that make it any less free than New Zealand (36) or the UK (also 36)?
What other statistics are there to measure whether or not we're living in a totalitarian society, VM? The top marginal tax rate set to rise to what it was in the Clinton years (39)? When liberty also endured another testing time?
Look, I supported health care reform because I thought it would improve a galling situation in this country wherein millions are denied care and access because of circumstances beyond their control (like a pre-existing condition). And things have to be tied together: if you want to allow access to all, you have to have a mandate (to prevent people gaming the system), which means you also need subsidies (to help people pay so they can satisfy the mandate and buy insurance).
Anyway, I don't think any talk of "creeping government intervention" is nonsense. I just don't think this one -- health care form -- is all that creepy.
(I appreciate your main post, btw. Thanks for the thoughts.)
ReplyDeleteI'm not really interested in the argument about whether or not this specific idea is a threat to liberty in your mind Berchman's.
Instead, I have actually been wondering if you can describe in the theoritical a level of government intrustion in the US that you would define as worrisome?
It's easy to keep saying "No big deal. Nothing to see here." What I'm interested in is if you have a threshold where you WOULD be troubled?