What unites the Democratic party is not obvious. Previously, I said only that they cannot be thought of as ‘socialists-light,’ as might be tempting, for this implies that the Democrats desire government solutions, which they do not. A better analysis is that Democrats are willing to use government as a way to make its citizen’s lives better.
To both the religious and economic conservative, the above statement is offensive. Religious conservatives see government and religion as engaged in a fundamental war for hearts and minds; we must either believe that religion can improve people’s lives, or that the government can. For the life of me, I do not see why this is an “either/or” thing. I believe strongly that local, personalized, religiously-based solutions are a better way to improve people’s lives than any government solution can be, when those solutions are available.
The problem, of course, is that those solutions are not always available. For example, in the health care debate, there were a few town-hall type debates where cancer patients who had been kicked off of their insurance publically asked Republicans leaders (Cantor and Boehner, as I recall), “What am I supposed to do now?” The answer was that “You should see what private charity/church resources are available.” So does Boehner expect us to believe that some local church is going to pay tens of thousands of dollars in medical costs as some kind of ministry to a single person? I’ve been to a lot of churches in my life, but I’ve never been around one that had an extra $100,000 lying around to help someone with their medical bills.
A similar analysis is available in the case of the free market. Free market solutions to problems are preferable when those solutions are available. But consider the above case. I consider it morally reprehensible that rescission (canceling someone’s insurance policy) is a legal option for insurance companies (rescission is appropriate when the person intentionally committed fraud on his application. However, the practice of rescission, before yesterday, occurred sometimes even when there was no fraud). Let’s assume that rescission is a problem (you’re free to disagree with me about this, but I am also free to think of you as a horrible person): is there a free market solution for rescission? No, there is not. Insurance companies are not going to keep sick people on their roles out of the goodness of their hearts. If they can legally dump someone, they are going to; furthermore, they are acting appropriately, for their only job is to make as much money as possible within the parameters of the law. The government’s job is to change laws when those laws don’t make a damn bit of sense.
9.06.2010
Theories of Government, Part V: What do the Republicans Believe?
If the socialists believe in complete government control of the economy (and society, in the case of Communists), and true libertarians believe in a severely limited role for government, then what do the Republicans believe? It is tempting to say that the Republicans are libertarians-light, as I suggested in the first post in this series; that is, they basically have a ‘small government’ philosophy, but are more tempered about it. I no longer believe that this is true.
A better summary of the Republican philosophy is something like this: “We believe in small government, except for when we don’t.” For example, they believe in small government except when they tried to defeat health care reform by arguing that it would cut Medicare (I thought they hated Medicare?). Or take warrant-less wire-tapping. I am fine, as any normal person should be, with warranted wiretapping (let’s get those terrorists!). But warrant-less wiretapping means that the executive branch spies on any citizen it wants too, for any reason whatsoever, without having to explain those reasons to the legislative or judicial branches. All Republicans I know supported this, although it’s hard to imagine how the government could get any bigger and more intrusive than that.
Or some other philosophy busters: the Americans with Disabilities Act, the proposed federal amendment banning gay marriage, the jaw-dropping expansion of the federal deficit under Reagan and both Bushes (it declined slightly under Carter and actually turned in a surplus under Clinton), and a highly-desired federal amendment to ban abortion (not a state-by-state law, as it was before Roe).
We could multiply examples, but my point is that the idea that a ‘small government’ philosophy guides the GOP’s policy positions just flatly contradicts history. The truth is that, in the end, I have more respect for the strict libertarian. It’s just ridiculously frustrating to talk to a Republican, because they just keep making up the rules as they go along. For example, it was a complete waste of time to try to talk to a Republican during the heath-care debate, because as I alluded to before, they just kept saying how health care reform would cut Medicare. The libertarian, on the other hand, believes in principles, and it is possible to have a fruitful discussion about principles, even if those principle are, as I tried to argue last week, unrealistic.
A better summary of the Republican philosophy is something like this: “We believe in small government, except for when we don’t.” For example, they believe in small government except when they tried to defeat health care reform by arguing that it would cut Medicare (I thought they hated Medicare?). Or take warrant-less wire-tapping. I am fine, as any normal person should be, with warranted wiretapping (let’s get those terrorists!). But warrant-less wiretapping means that the executive branch spies on any citizen it wants too, for any reason whatsoever, without having to explain those reasons to the legislative or judicial branches. All Republicans I know supported this, although it’s hard to imagine how the government could get any bigger and more intrusive than that.
Or some other philosophy busters: the Americans with Disabilities Act, the proposed federal amendment banning gay marriage, the jaw-dropping expansion of the federal deficit under Reagan and both Bushes (it declined slightly under Carter and actually turned in a surplus under Clinton), and a highly-desired federal amendment to ban abortion (not a state-by-state law, as it was before Roe).
We could multiply examples, but my point is that the idea that a ‘small government’ philosophy guides the GOP’s policy positions just flatly contradicts history. The truth is that, in the end, I have more respect for the strict libertarian. It’s just ridiculously frustrating to talk to a Republican, because they just keep making up the rules as they go along. For example, it was a complete waste of time to try to talk to a Republican during the heath-care debate, because as I alluded to before, they just kept saying how health care reform would cut Medicare. The libertarian, on the other hand, believes in principles, and it is possible to have a fruitful discussion about principles, even if those principle are, as I tried to argue last week, unrealistic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)