The fact is that we have been ruled by conservatives for the past 40 years, Clinton included. Conservatism was proven a failed government philosophy when the Founding Fathers formed this country and chose a liberal form of government known as Democracy. And conservatism as defined in the context of these times has also proven to be a dismal failure. Unfettered capitalism is a return to the rule of natural law. Under such law, even if we all started from the same position with the same abilities, at the end of each leg of the competition, a settling-up and adjustment would occur that would improve the conditions and abilities of the winners and reduce that of the losers so that the next leg of competition would have the winners starting from a favored position. If you play this game over thousands of legs and scores of generations, you get what we've got right now. Unfettered capitalism is designed to eliminate the middle class by continuing to concentrate wealth and power for the strongest. Human beings created the rule of law to help level the playing field. The conservatives gained and maintained power because they successfully define the discussion so that an argument against a candidate could simply be a label such as "liberal" (simple words for simple minds). Nothing more need be said just as in days past the use of the word "communist" had the same impact, ending the discussion. The fact is that democratic socialism is a better blend of government and economy for the benefit of the most people (exception the uber-rich). As erudite as George Will and others of his ilk can sound, they are just plain wrong. Liberalism has never been proven a failure. Its flaws are a myth: strong on social issues, weak on financial and national security. The best of times have always been during Democratic administrations (not a coincidence as Will implies) especially under FDR and JFK/LBJ. With the exception of Lincoln's presidency, most of the real progress made in our history occurred during these administrations. Liberals have been at a disadvantage because we are not willing to ???swiftboat??? the truth so freely. There has never been a choice so clear as the one between McCain and Obama, not since, uh, Bush and Kerry. It is tragic that after these past 40 years and especially the past 8, that this election is even close. If we could have 40 years of a liberal government and economy, today's times would be something our grandchildren would find difficult to comprehend.
- 1
- 2
Conservatism: Not TBTF
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Domestically, the relationship between the national government and the nation's economy has changed more in recent weeks than at any time since the Depression. During the New Deal, the pell-mell expansion of government supervision of economic life was propelled primarily by fears generated by cascading events. But another propellant was a constellation of doctrines—about capitalism's "contradictions," "market failures" and the need for socialism, or at least "planning" through government control of the economy's "commanding heights." Today, the "social safety net"—a phrase that originally described aid for widows and orphans—is being radically enlarged to provide security for investors in large financial institutions. This enlargement is being improvised by conservative Republicans whose only doctrine is the theory of TBTF. The theory is that this or that institution is too big to (be allowed to) fail.
Today's surge of "conservative corporatism" began with the Bush administration's brokering of JPMorgan Chase's takeover of Bear Stearns. This let loose the argument—a non sequitur—that if the administration thinks the national interest is implicated in the survival of this or that big economic entity, the administration is morally obliged at least to acquiesce in Congress's solicitude for individuals with mortgage problems. The administration has restricted the free practice of capitalism between consenting adults—the short selling of the stocks of 19 financial institutions. And the administration wants Congress to cede to it the power of the purse, granting it an unlimited call on federal funds to guarantee Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's obligations.
The theory, which might be right, is that such a guarantee has always been "implicit" in the existence of such "government-sponsored enterprises" that are created by government to do something it favors, in this case, democratize access to housing loans. The theory also is that having the resources to bail out those two entities will make bailing them out unnecessary because investors will not lose confidence. Nevertheless, this looks like semi-socialism—keeping profits private, but socializing losses.
The romance of capitalism was never more intense and the prestige of entrepreneurs was never higher—not in the Gilded Age, not in the "roaring '20s," not in the "go-go" Reagan years of tax-cutting and deregulating—than in the 1990s. That was during a Democratic administration, which had the good luck to coincide with the flourishing of information-technology industries.
Today's conservative corporatism of the Republican administration might "work," meaning it might minimize the duration of, and damage from, the current crisis. It is, however, complicating McCain's task of depicting Obama as a reckless enlarger of government. McCain is losing recourse to conservatism's core message about the rationality of governmental minimalism that allows markets to inflict their rigors.
© 2008
- 1
- 2
Discuss