Pragmatists vs Idealists, cont.

Before the healthcare bill was passed, many pragmatist bloggers were writing quite often about opposition to the bill, that it was extreme, misinformed, misguided by radio talk show zealots, etc -- well, now the bill has passed, and the pragmatist bloggers, after an initial, bland response, which showed neither elation nor regret, are now becoming quiet. I haven't seen a good old conservative-bashing post in a while. The bill is passed, and for those who felt the Tea Party had too much influence on sausage making, well, the Democrats have the power -- they won, and they're going forward. So, now, what have the pragmatists to say? Our healthcare system has been altered and now we'll have to see what happens. We're assured that the alterations aren't drastic and are actually free market-friendly -- we'll see.

Now, the only thing left to do for the moderates is to find another way to marginalize the base and weaken the influence of Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, etc. Radio talk show hosts on the right have been in part a big issue for the moderates. Most of the criticiism surrounds the commentators' hyperbole and over-the-top rhetoric. As an independent, I have no problem wth the talk show hosts -- I understand their role as they see it, and when I listen to them, I listen just as open-mindedly as when I listen to Jon Stewart or Bill Maher. The hyperbole and satire either hit home or they don't -- sometimes it becomes shrill and other times it's funny and biting. I must admit, I lean toward this type of off-the-wall back and forth moreso than the dry, bland pundit-speak -- if I want an in-depth analysis, I go to academics who have written such works regarding political matters or social concerns -- then I usually read both sides of an argument, or third or fourth views if they are available. But, for the wonderful rabble and satirical wit-matches I listen to the players with a flair for the dramatic and a good sense of humor. Palin isn't known for her humor, but the rest are good, American-style political entertainment wih a touch of gadfly mischief. I love all of it.

The moderates believe the talk-show hosts on the right are dangerous because many people who are not fully educated on the issues get their ideas from these spokespeople and don't have the ability to filter out the hyperbole. The moderates fear that ordinary people will take the over-the-top rants literally and that this will create public rage and fear which could lead to something destructive. I don't share their concern. This type of satircal, biting commentary is traditional in America.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. said - 

"What we need is a rebirth of satire, of dissent, of irreverence, of an uncompromising insistence that phoniness is phony and platitudes are platitudinous."

Yes, we do -- we need more not less. The problem with the moderates is they don't like what's being said, but the satire and rants from both sides keep any one phony actor from bloviating without a good laugh at their pomposity. When Lord Acton said -- "The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the party that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." -- was there great concern that people would react to this "evil" by taking to the streets in arms against the new "tyranny"? Why do people understand the older hyperbole as containing grains of truth, yet gasp at the literal interpretation of a Beck or Limbaugh? But even today, some people laugh at Maher while wringing their hands over Coulter. It all seems hypocritical and melodramatic.

Independents who are truly non-partisan are likely to be turned off by the double standards. The constant attacks from the moderates toward the radio talk-show hosts must surely be seen as over-blown and shrill. I could take quotes from H.L. Mencken and make him look radical and hyperbolic, but to what purpose? The public knows how to filter, and the few who are so ignorant they will believe anything, well, what's to be done? The only way to avoid certain people misunderstanding media commentary is to give everyone a script which is dumbed down and perfectly clear. It's ridiculous to make so much fuss over radio talk-show hosts, or tv personalities. I trust the intelligence of the Amercan people and their ability to make their own judgements.

My main concern with the moderates' participation in recent political discourse is that it's been mainly critical of conservatives with very little criticism of progressivism in general or Obama in particular. I understand that the moderates want to separate themselves from social conservatives and the Tea Party movement, but what do they actually stand for and against? I'm not certain. I've read some moderate blogs which criticize the amount of spending, but very little criticism over what the spending is for -- it seems the moderates are saying several things -- Obama's a better choice for president than the option of McCain with Palin as VP, that the economy was in critical condition and something had to be done, and that the status quo in healthcare was unsustainable, so something had to change. The moderates appear to find little fault with Obama except his tendency to give too much control over to Pelosi and Reid, and the more far-left faction of the party, regardiing setting policies. The moderates invested in Obama as a protest against McCain/Palin, and they are riding this investment hoping that Obama moves to the center.

As an independent I see Obama as a progressive true believer who is politically manuevering for the institutionalization of progressive ideology. If you believe in a powerful government role in the economy and the free market, then you will find this reasonable, even though you might balk at extreme forms of government intervention. Someone who believes in limited government and the power of the free market will be appalled at what's happening. It appears moderates have adopted the modern idea that free markets have failed in many ways and are no longer sufficient in a complex, modern society, therefore government intervention is necessary -- we just need to guide this intervention wisely, they say, so that we don't kill the goose laying the golden eggs.

This is the tragic flaw in the moderate position -- the belief that statism can be practiced moderately. This flawed idea has led to the downfal of the Republican Party and the ascendance of the Democrat Party -- if statism is necessary, then Democrats do it better than Republicans, because there are still Republicans fighting against statism, whereas the Democrats are dedicated to the statist approach. The Republican conflict regarding statism sends a message that they aren't committed to limited government and a free market. This lack of any conviction to limited government and a free market by any, or not many, among the political class has opened the door for special interests and their lobbyists to take over government so that the best connections and alliances have won. The part of the public who have failed to lobby for their private interests, individual rights and hands off of businesses, are now finding themselves without representation in Wasington, D.C. The Republican Party has not defended the private sector against plunder and attacks from anti-free market forces.

So, now, we find ourselves with a battle between statists and anti-statists -- and in the coming elections the battle will be over the independent vote. This independent is voting for limited government and a free market -- the pragmatists have been misguided -- the idealists are taking a stand.

Pragmatists vs Idealists

In my previous post I broadly defined Republican moderates as pragmatists and the Tea Party/opposition to progressivism as idealists and asked which approach would most likely win the independent voters. It also matters, assuming most Idealists will vote for Republicans, which approach will inspire the highest voter turn-out of partisan Republicans.

It's become apparent that the independents who swing back and forth between Republicans and Democrats during elections will be the deciding factor in determining which party has power. Speaking as an independent, male, businessman, partly college educated, partly an autodidact, with a libertarian/classical liberal mindset, I have many problems with the moderate approach and how they've characterized the Tea Party-like opposition to progressive policies -- many moderates (and other political stripes, but here I'm discussing moderates) don't even accept that Democrat policies are mostly progressive and still insist on using the term "moderately liberal". Even if some policy proposals, and the ones that have passed, are watered down due to resistance, their long term effects are progressive, and the progressives in the Democrat Party have said over and over that these are just first steps to achieve  much more progressive goals to redistribute wealth and institute their version of socail justice. I don't use "progressive" as a smear word, but rather to identify political players and their agenda who have talked about instituting progressive reforms. Liberal, progressive, it's all relative, and the important fact is that the policies are statist in nature, giving government a more powerful role in regulating and manipulating the economy and the actions of private companies, not to mention regulation of the behavior of all citizens in the form of mandates and taxes on certain behaviors.

The moderates' claim that it's best to work with the Democrats to shape legislation is correct to a point, but when it comes to the progressive agenda to reshape how government relates to its citizens, i.e., statist policies which enhance the power and control over individual choices in a free market, compromise is only a small obstacle which doesn't stop the progressive movement, just slows it down temporarily. To this degree I side with the Idealists on free market/classical liberal principles. If, however, Democrats and Republicans could stop their war long enough to use reason to deal with the unsustainable reality of the welfare state, and other critical problems, I say --Yes! -- work together! Between idealism and pragmatism we can can come up with a better safety net that won't bankrupt the nation. Between idealism and pragmatism we can come up with better policies for immigration, energy production and use, healthcare, education, national defense, protection of the environment -- but the prgressive approach is so out of line with reason and long term viability, it's incredible that smart people who call themselves educated moderates can't see that this course is disastrous, and that tiny tweaks in legislation will not stop the progressive mission -- it's become a religion to the left -- they are true believers -- and the true believers are controlling the Democrat Party. Instead, the moderates compliment the progressives on their determination and blame the Republicans for not providing tiny tweaks to slow down the negative effects for a few years at best.

The most egregious aspects of the progressive agenda need to be resisted in an unequivocal, principled fashion, otherwise it gives the impression that the Republicans agree with much of the progressive vision, and it weakens public resolve to fight the radical changes -- however, at some point, public resistance will become so strong that even if Republicans capitulate, the public's resolve will only strengthen, and then we'll see a third party arise. This is a time where extreme private sector measures are needed to counteract extreme political measures -- nothing short of unshakable resistance will do. The Democrats have too much power and they are too religious in their progressive beliefs -- not all Democrats, but enough in powerful positions to change America for a long time to come, and to do a great deal of damage to our economy and individual rights. The Democrats who are not true progressive believers are being swept along on the seductive promise of power and control and the final implementation of social justice -- it's the sawdust revival effect - Obama and company have been on one long revival tour and the speeches keep coming. When the smoke clears, what will America look like?

Major healthcare reform has been passed, and people are still learning how this affects the personal lives of citizens and the bottom lines of private companies. It will be a good thing for Republicans to not have any fingerprints on this salmagundi of negative consequences. If this seems radical and unreasonable to pragmatists, I must ask how being a part of the passage would be helpful. It would be surprisingly naive for politically astute moderates to believe that something positive could've been accomplished with Republican input and support, but naivete is not the problem -- it's political calculation that's at issue. The moderates can only believe it would've looked better if Republicans had put more effort into compromise. It's obvious from how imortant this bill is to progressives that they would never go long with Republican support which significantly made the bill more conservative -- in fact, they showed no interest in including major, common sense, free market ideas -- and they were offered.

I listen to a lot of political news, and I heard Republican proposals over and over, so the dishonest narrative that Republicans only said no is totally inexcusable as parroted by pragmatists. The Republicans offered ideas and they weren't accepted -- to say otherwise is nothing but a lie -- a lie that's been repeated over and over. One of the reasons the healthcare debate went on as long as it did, is that progressives insisted on the extreme, controversial, and economic-damaging aspects of the bill against the resistance of some in their own party, so it's obvious they never intended to include Republican ideas, except in weak form that would have no lasting power to moderate the bill. The moderates miscalculated politically, and if the Republican Party had listened to them, it would've been disastrous -- even Snowe and Collins saw this.

So, I have to ask -- how did the moderate pundits miscalculate so badly? The only conclusion I can draw is that they were blinded by mistrust and disdain of the idealists -- Snowe and Collins are politically-centered enough to not allow disdain of the idealists to blind them, but the moderate faction of the Republican Party who are not politicians, not running for office, are not thinking clearly. They might claim this makes their point, that it is they who are acting on principles -- but if so, what principles? Is it possible they think the healthcare bill is good for the country, or do they think that simply by participating in the passage, it would be a politically wise move -- which is it? Either way, their judgement is in question, and their credibility is damaged. No one who has an inkling of empathy for classical liberal principles could think the healthcare bill is good for the country, or that Republcan involvement in its passage would've been politically wise. The moderates appear to be confused regarding what they stand for.

Llet's say the pragmatists believe the bill has many faults, but something had to be done and with some Republican involvement it would have even been marginally better. Let's say they are taking a realist approach which accepts there's no perfection and that elections have consequences. This is a realist approach, but is it valid? First, something needs to be done about the current healthcare system which has been convoluted due mainly to past government intervention -- once Medicare and Medicaide were introduced to the system and regulations prevented free market forces from working, the unintended consequences led to our current healthcare problems. So, although something needs to be done, it's ridiculous to accept more government intervention -- we can argue about the position I've taken, but it will lead nowhere -- you either think that more government intervention can improve the present system or you don't. As an independent who believes that more government intervention will add to costs and create a reduction in quality, I have to disagree with the moderates that although something must be done, that doing what's been done will make things worse.

The question is -- do most independents think that more government intervention will be worse than what we presently have? The polls suggest they do, and my personal experience also leads me to believe that most independents agree with my position -- I'm more libertarian than most independents, but I'm not that much different than the majority who believe the healthcare bill as passed will be bad for the country.

So, how would Republican involvement in the passage of this bill be politically advantageous. The moderates, from this independent's perspective, have been wrong on both acounts -- dangerously wrong -- so wrong, that I have to wonder what motivates them. As I wrote above, the only reasonable explanation is their visceral reaction to the conservative base. I will write about this visceral reaction next.