Give Up Blog

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Conservative ideology

SusanG at Kos has a great article that hits on one of the basic underpinnings of the Give Up philosophy. One of our big arguments is that Republicans are fundamentally incapable of staying in power for long because they are incompetent. Why are they incompetent? Because they hate government, they expect nothing from it, and as a result get nothing from it. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, they expect government to do nothing (except maybe enrich themselves and their friends in private enterprise) so it does nothing. That's why I like McJoan's post so much. It's more angry than we quitters usually subscribe to, but it hits the salient points.

Would you hire a babysitter who hates children and thinks they should be eliminated? Or who declares for years in your hearing that children are irritants who should be starved to be small, unseen and mute?

Would you hire cops who think laws are stupid and useless and should be abolished?

Would you hire a conductor for your orchestra who believes music itself an abomination?

Then why would you hire - and you did hire them, America; they are your employees, after all, not your rulers, despite their grandiose pretensions - members of a political party who think government is useless, ineffective, bloated and untrustworthy?

You've hired for your kitchen the chef who spits in your food because he despises preparing meals.

You've hired for your yardwork the gardener who sets out to kill your roses to demonstrate his assertion that they will die in your climate.

You've hired for your office the accountant who's staked his career on proving no accurate books can be kept.

In electing Republicans, America, you put people in charge of institutions they overtly, caustically loathe and proudly proclaim should not exist. Good thinking, USA, and stellar results: Katrina, Iraq, Medicare D, trade and budget deficits, mine disasters and on and on and on and ...

If you put people in charge of running a project they are ideologically committed to proving a failure, it will fail.

...

Here's a thought - just a thought, mind you, beloved America: Perhaps it's time to return to government the party that has an ideological stake in making it ... you know ... succeed. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to raise our sights a wee bit and elect people who think public service is more than an opportunity for the "Biggest! Fire Sale! Ever!" for their friends and loved ones. Perhaps it's time to insist on greater - if not great - expectations from the employees we decide to hire or fire every two years to carry out our will under the constitution.

The difference between a Give Uper and a Kossack is that we believe the change back to Democratic rule is virtually inevitable whereas they are all motivated and useful in accelerating the change. Either way, the Republicans can't hid their incompetence behind fearmongering forever, and SusanG has pointed out the fundamental truth. Modern "Starve the beast" conservatives are incompetent at government by definition. They don't accomplish their goal of shrinking government, but in the meantime make it totally ineffective at greater expense.

6 Comments:

Dave Strumfels said...

Sorry, but the premise of this argument is incorrect. If by Republicans you mean conservatives, they do not "hate government" as you say. At least not in principle. Conservatives are supposed to believe in limited government, which they hold maximizes personal freedom. You can certainly dispute this position, but only anarchists -- not even libertarians -- simply hate government.

To use your own analogy of babysitting, a Republican would be a sitter who gave the child a great deal of freedom, including, yes, the freedom to risk getting hurt. The Democrat would cling to the child like a mother hen, making sure it never came to harm and taking care of its every need, but giving it little freedom.

Of course, if you are looking for a babysitter, a Democrat is probably the better choice. But do we really want babysitters running our own lives (this analogy is yours, remember, not mine!)?

All this is in theory, though. In practise, you're right about "conservatives" tending to seek office only to enrich themselves and their friends. But if Democrats -- and here I assume you mean liberals -- ran government so expertly, they would never be voted out of office. The Reagan revolution happened, at least in part, because of the perceived failure of liberalism to govern effectively. Perhaps this is because, in being too fond of government, liberals cannot see its inherent limitations?

3:36 PM, July 23, 2006

Rev. Dr. said...

Lot's of problems with your argument, in fact it's just totally wrong.

1. The analogy was not mine, a minor point, it came from SusanG at Kos.
2. The people we are talking about are a specific group who do talk about destroying government. The Grover Norquist clain of Club for Growth and all the senators and congressmen involved in his Wednesday morning meetings. Norquist famously said he wanted to get government down to the size where he could drown it in the bathtub. That doesn't sound like hate to you?
3. You assume voters are rational, and so do I, but remember democrats were voted out of office in fits of irrationality, about a blowjob, gays in the military, religion, security, you name it. When Democrats get voted out it's because of emotional wedge issues. The Republicans are famous for this. We don't get voted out because we govern wrongly (usually) we get voted out over sex, fear of gays, fear of terrorists, whatever. Shit, the revolution in 1994 would never have happened if Clin-ton didn't force gays into the military, and we wouldn't have gotten Bush the first time if he hadn't fingered an intern.

Finally, I'm not fond of an excess of government like you suggest. I'm fond of competent government. That's what this is about more than anything.

I don't feel like who can come up with a more clever analogy. I liked Susan G's list because they were an indication of an attitude getting adopted in a left wing blog, not because I believe argument by analogy. I use analogy rarely, usually to make a point about an argument, but hopefully never to make an argument. (Like my famous "shit sandwich" analogy).

7:24 PM, July 23, 2006

Rev. Dr. said...

That should read, I don't feel like arguing over who can come up with a better analogy. oops

7:25 PM, July 23, 2006

Another Anonymous Poster said...

The analogy is just way too apt:

Having Grover Norquist and his followers run the government is just like hiring Andrea Yates to watch your kids.

2:39 PM, July 24, 2006

Dave Strumfels said...

This is the problem with politics. People get so gosh-darned angry (not without justification, admittedly) ...

Note that I was talking about principled conservatives, the ones who genuinely believe in limited government. As opposed, or so I thought it was obvious, to a lot of "conservatives" who do get into office and proceed to enrich their friends. The Bush crowd make this hard to see, I agree, but there is a difference. I just have a problem with the assumption that conservatives are automatically incompetent because they allegedly all hate government. And I think if you want to beat conservatives -- a fair enough goal -- you should understand how they think. They do not all think as you describe.

Oh, sorry I attributed the babysitting analogy to you. Next time I'll make sure to get every last little detail right, even the ones that make no substantive difference. The analogy was useful, whomever's it was.

Oh, and I'm also sorry I suggested you are fond of "excessive" government, instead of merely incompetent government. But what if government is inherently incompetent, and the larger is gets, the more incompetent it becomes? If the nature of governing makes that impossible to avoid? I raise the questions because there are good reasons to think so. These seem like important questions, whoever is in power.

Thanks.

4:24 PM, July 24, 2006

Rev. Dr. said...

Oooh, snarky.

I disagree still, I think even principled conservatives, in their libertarian view of government, despise government. They simply don't believe that programs like Social Security and Medicare, or in the future, a single-payer health care system, will improve humanity. I think they do hate government.

I also have trouble believing in the idea that a principled conservative exists. Where are these conservatives? Every time I think there might be an example of one it turns out I'm wrong. McCain seemed to be a principled conservative, now he's courting Jerry Falwell and the religious right, saying that ID should be taught in schools.

No, I think conservatism is just a mask for unenlightened self-interest; an ideology that allows one to pretend that selfishness exists for some altruistic purpose.

10:35 PM, July 24, 2006