![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Thought for the day: Conservatives are incapable of competent government
Here's an interesting and provocative thought I came across today:
Food for thought.
"...conservatives invariably govern badly because they don’t really believe that government should exist at all - except, perhaps, as a way to funnel the peoples’ tax money into the pockets of party insiders. This conflicted (if not outright hostile) attitude toward government can’t possibly lead to any outcome other than bad management, bad policy, and eventually such horrendously bad social and economic outcomes that people are forced into the streets to hold their leaders to account..." (Ganked from Common Dreams: When Change Is Not Enough: The Seven Steps to Revolution, by Sara Robinson)Very intriguing. Is it true, that conservatives govern so badly because, deep down, they don't believe in government in the first place? Could the same also be said of Libertarians? I presume she is talking about economic conservatives here, because social conservatives believe in government as a way to control and enforce morality.
Food for thought.
no subject
I can assure you that any "revolution" in this vein would make the Bush administration look like a walk in the park. The only people who use this word seriously are naive, stupid, or evil.
no subject
You didn't answer the fundamental question here, though: Can one govern competently if one doesn't believe in government?
> I can assure you that any "revolution" in this vein would make the Bush administration look like a walk in the park. The only people who use this word seriously are naive, stupid, or evil.
You sound genuinely distressed that the word "revolution" is being used at all. Maybe it is time to overthrow the government of the United States? Thomas Jefferson told us it would be necessary, periodically.
no subject
Interesting, since I don't know my own politics. Perhaps you can tell me what it is.
Can one govern competently if one doesn't believe in government?
To say that conservatives "don't believe in government" is not particularly accurate; they believe in minimal government. Even libertarians agree that government serves several useful purposes, such as national defense. Conservatives believe that government is inferior to the private sector in most matters because its monopoly position invites corruption and waste. Which is at least partially true. As far as competence is concerned, I would suspect that a conservative government would waste a smaller percentage of each dollar spent, simply because under their vision there would be so much less to oversee. Otherwise, the only limitation on competence is the ability of the voting public to recognize it, which is severely limited.
As someone with progressive values, I hate progressive politics with a passion, because its proponents are generally so out to lunch with respect to how those values could be realized. I'm not talking about progressive academics who often have pretty good and well informed ideas - I'm talking about the masses of flaming idiots who think that capitalism is inherently evil while the government can solve problems by showering money on them.
The idea of a "revolution" in the US is so stupid that it's almost beneath the level of rational discussion. With the exception of certain wars of independence, I can't think of any revolutions that didn't end up being vastly worse than the status quo. They are hideous, destructive events that offer opportunities chiefly to the greedy and vicious - the most vicious of which become the new elite. If our government cannot be improved through democratic means, there is surely no way that it could be made better through violent ones. I mean, this seems so obvious that I am embarrassed to even have to say it.
(I don't know why I even spend time on this, since I have no intention of getting politically involved, and discussions of this sort are not in any way relevant to my life.)
no subject
> Interesting, since I don't know my own politics. Perhaps you can tell me what it is.
Well, you're pretty obviously pro-capitalism, and I gather from your previous posts that you have a strong libertarian bent. Am I off in my interpretation here?
>Conservatives believe that government is inferior to the private sector in most matters because its monopoly position invites corruption and waste. Which is at least partially true.
True as that may be, I ask again (rephrasing), can someone who believes that government is inferior to private sector be a competent government manager? I suspect the answer is no, because of the inherent conflict of values.
I personally do not agree that the private sector is superior to government. Fundamentally, I think this is a flawed idea because the private sector has no incentive to work in areas where there isn't money to be made, and the private sector's primary goal is to make money, not to serve the public. Where those values conflict, the public will lose every time.
>I'm talking about the masses of flaming idiots who think that capitalism is inherently evil while the government can solve problems by showering money on them.
Capitalism isn't inherently evil, but neither is it inherently good. It's a neutral tool, like fire... and like fire, it can be used properly to heat, or improperly to burn. Right now, the current capitalist system in the United States is being used to burn the lower classes, in order to heat the upper classes. That is a recipe for disaster, and recognizing that fact doesn't make one a "flaming idiot."
Government is also a tool, that can also be used, or misused. And right now, I believe it is being grossly misused.
That's why this revolutionary message is striking a chord with people. People at the lower rungs of the American class system see the fact that their lives are being misused. And that is what I interpret Sara Robinson's message to be: this misuse of these tools is setting the stage for revolution. If we want to avoid that bloodshed, we need to change course now.
>The idea of a "revolution" in the US is so stupid that it's almost beneath the level of rational discussion.
Stupid to you, perhaps, but to those in classes below you? When they aren't distracted by the bread and circuses, there's a real discontent welling up in the working class and shrinking middle class.
>[Revolutions are]... are hideous, destructive events that offer opportunities chiefly to the greedy and vicious - the most vicious of which become the new elite.
I will not argue with you, because I agree with you on this point. Violent revolutions are bloody, nasty affairs, best avoided. The fact that talk of it has begun to circulate in the United States should give everyone pause, and ask, "Why are people growing unhappy? What are we doing wrong? What can we do to stop this growing unhappiness?"
Of course, revolutions can be nonviolent, as well, Think the "Quiet Revolution" of the Québécois, or the nonviolent revolutions that brought down Communist governments in Europe in the late 1980s/early 1990s. I suppose there is a semantic point on how one defines "revolution." Some argue that the "American Revolution" wasn't actually a revolution at all, but instead a "national liberation movement."
> If our government cannot be improved through democratic means, there is surely no way that it could be made better through violent ones. I mean, this seems so obvious that I am embarrassed to even have to say it.
Hmmmm... perhaps. But if democratic means don't work, and violent means are best avoided, then how can change be effected, when the system itself is corrupt?
> I don't know why I even spend time on this, since I have no intention of getting politically involved, and discussions of this sort are not in any way relevant to my life.
I would say it's because you have a brain, and like to think about such things. ;-)
no subject
Of course they "can" because there are lots of cases where the values of a conservative administrator align exactly with the needs of competent governance. The question you are really asking is more likely "is a conservative government likely to reasonably administer a particular program when it is counter to their ideology?" Well, maybe not, but that's a very different question.
no subject
Hmmm. If we are defining "conservative" as meaning someone who believes the private sector to be superior to the private sector, how do we define "competent governance?" I'm not splitting hairs here, just trying to get to the root of the question.
I'm not convinced that most conservatives (using the above definition) "can" be competent government managers, because if a government manager believes that the private sector could do their job better than government, then they are likely going to be working against competent governance, and for the benefit private sector competitors. Which is exactly what we are seeing a lot of, in the rash of privatizations and selling off of government functions to the free market. It's a fundamental clash of values.
Of course, some people are able to rise above ideology for the good of the government ("the greater good"), but most conservatives who value personal gain and the free market over collective good and good government are not likely (in my mind) to work very hard to preserve that good government. Instead, their goal will be to weaken/dismantle the government.
>"is a conservative government likely to reasonably administer a particular program when it is counter to their ideology?" Well, maybe not, but that's a very different question.
Is it really a fundamentally different question? I'm not so sure.
no subject
In Saskatchewan the conservatives were elected in the early '80s and they sold off a bunch of government departments. We ended up having a big government deficit and bad roads. A very different situation than what was told to us. Many people suspect that it was the plan all along. The previous leftist government had not been in debt. So there you go. I think that any kind of government can blow money on things or use money frugally.
no subject
The last person who tried to peg my politics called me an "uber uber leftist". So you decide.
no subject
no subject
http://that-dang-otter.livejournal.com/503865.html
It seems to me, though, that in this post you've fallen victim to the seductive notion that there is one argument that can slay all your political "opponents" in one shot. This, in turn, rests on the assumption that politics is some sort of game with teams, winners, and losers.
Polarization is very destructive to democracy. Insofar as I do pay attention to politics, no opinion gets any consideration at all unless it shows consideration of both liberal and conservative principles. And in my own reading, I habitually pay more attention to ideas which I instinctively oppose, and spend more time critiquing ideas which I instinctively approve of.
So generalizations that start with "conservatives are..." or "liberals are..." rate pretty low in my regard, insofar as they mostly represent game-playing and are rarely rooted in consequential policy issues.
no subject
Just thinking out loud...
no subject
I realize on closer reading that the article is not actually promoting revolution, but the it presents it as an alternative to the present course strikes me as irresponsible. (As if it matters, or that it matters what I think about it.)
Yes, the threat of revolution would be a very serious problem, but I'd say this article tremendously exaggerates it.
i>Hmmmm... perhaps. But if democratic means don't work, and violent means are best avoided, then how can change be effected, when the system itself is corrupt?
What makes you think change can be effected at all? Maybe politics is like the weather, and unfolds with total indifference to the efforts of individual people.