At their best, liberals make it possible for people to achieve what they want. At their best, conservatives make it possible for people to choose what they want. Unfortunately, they are rarely at are rarely at their best. Conservatives can be clumsy in their attempts to encourage people and often rely too heavily on enticing people through incentives and tax relief. Liberals tend to be impatient and too quick to resort to regulation and coercion out of frustration. Neither are very good at discerning what people want. It is hard enough to figure out what your spouse wants, yet we are inclined to believe we can know what the nation wants - and how to get it.
There is a difference between trusting people to do the right thing and compelling them do the right thing. Foremost is determining what the right thing is. Conservatives (as opposed to Republicans) tend to trust people to know the right thing, and are optimistic that, if allowed the room, people will do it. They seek to maintain the liberty necessary for people to pursue goals of their own choosing and live their lives in a manner that makes sense to them. They trust that people will act decently and with restraint in the pursuit of those goals. Liberals, despite their professions of looking out for the people and championing their interests (or perhaps because of it), are sceptical of the people's ability to recognize the right thing and pessimistic about people's inclination to do it. They are predisposed to mistrust the willingness of people to act with decency and restraint, and doubt the people's ability to discern beyond their own interests and do what should be done. They prod, bribe, exhort, manipulate, legislate, and if all else fails, threaten in an attempt to overcome what they see as the failings and shortsightedness of the citizens. Moreover, liberals believe people, unsupervised, cannot be relied upon to acquire and maintain the proper sentiments and "values" necessary to the harmonious society they envision. In their unceasing vigilance, liberals constantly meddle with society by monitoring speech, text books, curriculum, opinions, beliefs; virtually everything said, done, and believed, lest people stumble into intolerance and error.
Liberals do not trust the efficacy of tax breaks or deregulation because they do not trust people to behave or spend appropriately, i.e. not to behave and spend in a manner contrary to their own best interests as those interests are understood by liberals. Simply put, liberals do not trust people. They fear that without the constant guidance and restraint of government, people would act, believe, and spend their way into misery and oppression. Conservatives do not trust government. They resist attempts by the government to encroach upon concerns and issues more properly left to individuals and trust that people will act appropriately in their own interest. Clearly, not all Republicans are conservative, nor are all Democrats liberals.
The risk of liberty is that others might act in ways and pursue goals that you disapprove of. The benefit of liberty is that you can act in ways and pursue goals that others disapprove of. The question is whether the risk is worth the benefit.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Time has Come
Evidently, Obama has come to disdain the legislative process. The difficult and complex process of drafting law, and the negotiations necessary for it's passage, were condemned by Obama in his health care speech as "games" and "bickering." He demands action, and he demands results. Not just any results though; but the results he wants. His strategy seems to be to set himself apart from, and perhaps even above the government and pose as some sort of champion fighting on behalf of the beleaguered populace suffering under the indifference of petty and selfish rulers. The suffering of the people grows as burghers, councils, and princes haggle and contest prerogatives, jurisdictions, and perks. A champion is sought and finally found to relieve the suffering and do what needs be done. Obama would be that champion.
Opposition to Obama's health care plan is frequently portrayed as motivated by pettiness, partisanship and ideology carried out under spite. What compassionate, reasoned person would possibly oppose such a good and noble plan as to extend health care to those who need it? Only the wicked and the ignorant could oppose the laudable plan of providing health care to those unable (and in some cases, unwilling) to obtain it. While Obama seeks to enlighten those who oppose his plan out of ignorance through his many speeches and press releases, he lashes out at those who oppose him out of "partisanship." He scolds and harangues those who oppose his plan for political reasons, but demonstrates his nobility and high mindedness by asserting his patience and willingness to work with those willing to work with him.
But his patience has limits. If Congress will not give him what he wants, or rather, as he claims, what the people want, he will seek to bully it in the eyes of the public until it yields. It has been argued that the obeisance of congress to "special interests" should not be allowed to frustrate the great calling of national health care. Under the rhetoric of those clamoring for national health care, Congress is increasingly being portrayed as weak and venial. This serves to enhance the view of the president as the one person who can be trusted to do what is right and necessary for the country.
I am concerned as to what lengths Obama is willing to go to achieve his ambition. Many times in history, kings and consuls have been frustrated by the limits to their powers presented by legislatures and laws. And many times in history have those kings and consuls, when their ambitions were thwarted by senates or councils, taken their frustration to the public where the pettiness and lack of vision on the part of those that opposed them was condemned. I do not mean to compare Obama to a king or an emperor. The problem lay more with the office and what people have come to demand of it than whomever happens to be in it. The more that is demanded from the office, the more power it will assume to meet those demands. The more ambitious the man in that office, the more readily will power be accumulated. The more power that is accumulated, the greater the demands made upon the office. The greater the demands, the more power that will be needed to satisfy those demands; and on and on it goes until the office becomes the lodestar of government.
If Obama truly sees the legislative process as a "game," we should all be troubled. Drafting and enacting law is not a game. It is a difficult and complex process in which many interests and objectives must be weighed and balanced. Enacting a law is not supposed to be easy. It is supposed to be difficult and we should be thankful it is. The more difficult it is to pass a law, and more time required for it's passage, the more confident we can be that that law has been thought through and has a reasonable chance of accomplishing what it was enacted to do. Perhaps more importantly, we can be a little more confident that the need which engendered the law is a truly a need that can be redressed by law.
Opposition to Obama's health care plan is frequently portrayed as motivated by pettiness, partisanship and ideology carried out under spite. What compassionate, reasoned person would possibly oppose such a good and noble plan as to extend health care to those who need it? Only the wicked and the ignorant could oppose the laudable plan of providing health care to those unable (and in some cases, unwilling) to obtain it. While Obama seeks to enlighten those who oppose his plan out of ignorance through his many speeches and press releases, he lashes out at those who oppose him out of "partisanship." He scolds and harangues those who oppose his plan for political reasons, but demonstrates his nobility and high mindedness by asserting his patience and willingness to work with those willing to work with him.
But his patience has limits. If Congress will not give him what he wants, or rather, as he claims, what the people want, he will seek to bully it in the eyes of the public until it yields. It has been argued that the obeisance of congress to "special interests" should not be allowed to frustrate the great calling of national health care. Under the rhetoric of those clamoring for national health care, Congress is increasingly being portrayed as weak and venial. This serves to enhance the view of the president as the one person who can be trusted to do what is right and necessary for the country.
I am concerned as to what lengths Obama is willing to go to achieve his ambition. Many times in history, kings and consuls have been frustrated by the limits to their powers presented by legislatures and laws. And many times in history have those kings and consuls, when their ambitions were thwarted by senates or councils, taken their frustration to the public where the pettiness and lack of vision on the part of those that opposed them was condemned. I do not mean to compare Obama to a king or an emperor. The problem lay more with the office and what people have come to demand of it than whomever happens to be in it. The more that is demanded from the office, the more power it will assume to meet those demands. The more ambitious the man in that office, the more readily will power be accumulated. The more power that is accumulated, the greater the demands made upon the office. The greater the demands, the more power that will be needed to satisfy those demands; and on and on it goes until the office becomes the lodestar of government.
If Obama truly sees the legislative process as a "game," we should all be troubled. Drafting and enacting law is not a game. It is a difficult and complex process in which many interests and objectives must be weighed and balanced. Enacting a law is not supposed to be easy. It is supposed to be difficult and we should be thankful it is. The more difficult it is to pass a law, and more time required for it's passage, the more confident we can be that that law has been thought through and has a reasonable chance of accomplishing what it was enacted to do. Perhaps more importantly, we can be a little more confident that the need which engendered the law is a truly a need that can be redressed by law.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Health Care Hammer
It is turning out that national health care may not be the bargain many are hoping for. Despite the common view that a national health plan would be a low cost option available to those who need health care insurance but cannot afford it, it is in danger of becoming a mandatory obligation that would cost many Americans thousands of dollars a year. A plan has been proposed in Congress that would fine people up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance. Plans have already been proposed that would coerce money from employers, drug and medical manufacturers, and labs to pay for the government's proposals to help those without insurance, as well as those struggling to keep their insurance. But every tax on business is ultimately a tax on consumers.
Fearing that squeezing the health industry might not be enough to provide the funds needed for national health care, some in Washington are exploring the need to squeeze the public. While there is the veneer of legitimacy in the idea of making the public pay for a public benefit (I have always understood health as a private benefit, despite the casuistry of health care advocates), it is unclear what that benefit will be, and whether the public will be willing to pay for it after they know what it is. Naturally, there is talk of offsetting some of the cost to taxpayers through manipulating the tax code, but giving some people back some of their money at the end of the year is unlikely to ease the burden of regular payments to their insurers. The real cost of a national health plan to the American taxpayer will be staggering. Merely trying to obscure those costs within the massive federal budget by legislative slights of hand will do nothing to reduce those costs.
There are many factors that make up the cost of health care. The addition of a new federal bureaucracy to handle health care will do nothing to diminish those costs. Perhaps even worse, to the economic considerations that must be made by private insurers, will be added the social and political considerations demanded by activists and and imposed by government underwriters. Procedures and treatments will inevitably acquire a political component as different groups and interests jockey for attention and coverage.
National health insurance will be another hammer to beat the market, and society, into compliance with the vision held by liberal idealists. At least the hope is that the market can be beat into compliance, rather than beat to death. If the public can be led to believe that they are getting an essential good at a bargain, they will take it. No doubt, once the public comes to rely upon the government for health care, the program will become a juggernaut; unstoppable and invulnerable. My fear it that if liberals achieve their vision of a public dependent upon the charity, beneficence, and supervision of government, it will be impossible to wean them.
Fearing that squeezing the health industry might not be enough to provide the funds needed for national health care, some in Washington are exploring the need to squeeze the public. While there is the veneer of legitimacy in the idea of making the public pay for a public benefit (I have always understood health as a private benefit, despite the casuistry of health care advocates), it is unclear what that benefit will be, and whether the public will be willing to pay for it after they know what it is. Naturally, there is talk of offsetting some of the cost to taxpayers through manipulating the tax code, but giving some people back some of their money at the end of the year is unlikely to ease the burden of regular payments to their insurers. The real cost of a national health plan to the American taxpayer will be staggering. Merely trying to obscure those costs within the massive federal budget by legislative slights of hand will do nothing to reduce those costs.
There are many factors that make up the cost of health care. The addition of a new federal bureaucracy to handle health care will do nothing to diminish those costs. Perhaps even worse, to the economic considerations that must be made by private insurers, will be added the social and political considerations demanded by activists and and imposed by government underwriters. Procedures and treatments will inevitably acquire a political component as different groups and interests jockey for attention and coverage.
National health insurance will be another hammer to beat the market, and society, into compliance with the vision held by liberal idealists. At least the hope is that the market can be beat into compliance, rather than beat to death. If the public can be led to believe that they are getting an essential good at a bargain, they will take it. No doubt, once the public comes to rely upon the government for health care, the program will become a juggernaut; unstoppable and invulnerable. My fear it that if liberals achieve their vision of a public dependent upon the charity, beneficence, and supervision of government, it will be impossible to wean them.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Democracy in Afghanistan
It was reported this morning that there were significant irregularities in the recent presidential elections in Afghanistan. Voting fraud and intimidation were evident in abundance. Why is it taking so long for democracy and free and fair elections to take hold in Afghanistan? Afghanistan has already had eight years. Just because it took us here in the U.S. over two hundred years to work out the kinks and irregularities in our electoral system; even with a head start, doesn't mean that Afghanistan shouldn't be able to sort it out in eight.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Government Still at Work
In an article printed this morning, it was reported that a disabled Vietnam veteran in Houston received a service dog to help him in his disability. But he did not receive it from the government, even though he applied to the government nearly eight years ago.
The Department of Veteran's Affairs Web site states that they "routinely" provide dogs to veterans who need them. What the Web site does not say is that it takes years after applying for the dog for the veterans receive them. The reason for this delay, according to the Department, is that they must "conduct studies on the dog's benefits and the problems promoting the service." One might think that studies regarding the benefits of providing service dogs, (I assume they were speaking of the benefits to the veteran, rather than the dog), and how the program would be promoted, would have been completed before the program was initiated. But one would be wrong.
After waiting nearly eight years for the government to provide him a dog, despite his undisputed need and eligibility, the veteran turned in frustration to a private group, which was able to provide him with a dog. Even though the government program to provide disabled veterans with dogs was initiated eight years ago, they are evidently still working out the procedures and rules. One can envision the office where these rules are being studied as bureaucrats read files and studies, craft memos, establish rules and procedures, and hold meetings to discuss the implementation of those rules and procedures - and then hold more meetings to discuss any changes that might need to be made.
It should be kept in mind that providing disabled veterans with dogs is a small program with a simple and uncontroversial objective. The motives behind it are good and the need is unchallenged. Yet, even with this going for it, the government is still unable to effectively administer this program. But I suppose the government will do a much better job administering health care since it will be a larger program with broader goals, a much greater budget, and many more people working on it.
The Department of Veteran's Affairs Web site states that they "routinely" provide dogs to veterans who need them. What the Web site does not say is that it takes years after applying for the dog for the veterans receive them. The reason for this delay, according to the Department, is that they must "conduct studies on the dog's benefits and the problems promoting the service." One might think that studies regarding the benefits of providing service dogs, (I assume they were speaking of the benefits to the veteran, rather than the dog), and how the program would be promoted, would have been completed before the program was initiated. But one would be wrong.
After waiting nearly eight years for the government to provide him a dog, despite his undisputed need and eligibility, the veteran turned in frustration to a private group, which was able to provide him with a dog. Even though the government program to provide disabled veterans with dogs was initiated eight years ago, they are evidently still working out the procedures and rules. One can envision the office where these rules are being studied as bureaucrats read files and studies, craft memos, establish rules and procedures, and hold meetings to discuss the implementation of those rules and procedures - and then hold more meetings to discuss any changes that might need to be made.
It should be kept in mind that providing disabled veterans with dogs is a small program with a simple and uncontroversial objective. The motives behind it are good and the need is unchallenged. Yet, even with this going for it, the government is still unable to effectively administer this program. But I suppose the government will do a much better job administering health care since it will be a larger program with broader goals, a much greater budget, and many more people working on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)