|Milton Friedman, American Hero||What Did Senator-elect Jim Webb Mean?|
by Christopher Chantrill
November 26, 2006 at 6:52 pm
ACCORDING TO the exit polls at the November election the American people think that the Democrats are more likely than Republicans to limit government spending. Can this really be true?
But really we should be encouraged. The opinion polls are telling us that Democrats, at least when they are talking to the voters rather than among themselves, are talking spending restraint.
Mid-term defeat or not, when Democrats are toning down the rhetoric on spending demands it is first down and ten for conservatives and Republicans. It is time to move the chains down field. It is time to execute more imaginative plays.
When we talk about more or less government spending we are still discussing the liberal agenda item: Should we spend more or less on the liberal welfare state built up in the last century?
Let stop discussing the amount of government spending. Let us ask the bigger question: Why we are continuing to throw money at the human disaster of the failed liberal welfare state?
Governments have to do some things, like protect the people from enemies foreign and domestic. The problem with government is everything else, and the idea that government spending is ever beneficial beyond its obvious advantage to individual recipients and organized producer interests.
Take a look at the Big Three government programs: education, health care, and welfare. They call the Iraq War a disaster for tossing 100 billion dollars per year into a rat hole for the last three years. And it was all because President Bush was too stubborn; he just would not listen.
Well, what about the disaster of government education? For over a century the progressive class has stubbornly demanded that we throw good money after bad for universal, compulsory, government education. Did they ever listen to the critics? No. They told the critics that they just didnt care about kids.
We know, because we have the statistics, that literacy in the Anglo-Saxon countries has not budged after more than a century of compulsory, universal, government education for children. But we toss about $500 billion a year, every year, into the K-12 education rat hole with no improvement in test results for twenty years, and none expected in the future. Wheres the exit strategy from this disaster?
The same applies to health care. For about a century we have been building a top-down health care delivery system according to the plan of the progressive class. But the result of the government domination of health care is that nobody knows what kind of health care people want, and how much they are willing to pay for. We only know that, at present where people pay out of pocket about 14 percent of their health care costs, they want a lot of health care. Of course they do.
Then there is government welfare. The scope of this disaster in domestic violence, in shattered marriages, in drug dependency, in destruction of lower-class culture, is almost beyond imagining. And it is all because of the stubbornness of the progressive class. They knew what was best, you see. And anyone who disagreed was mean-spirited and lacking in compassion. Because people have needs.
If we can get away from the merely pragmatic issue of too much or too little spending we can start to engage in what liberals call ethical issues. Is it ethical to legislate compulsory education that doesnt deliver very much in the way of education? Is it ethical for politicians and bureaucrats rather than parents to make all the decisions about education? Is it ethical to continue for one more day an education system in which accountability is the last priority?
Health care in the United States is just as dominated by the producer interest as the education system. And now we have the huge problem, growing daily bigger, of geriatric health care and assisted living. Is it ethical to throw expensive medical procedures at older Americans so that they can molder away their last years, frail and broken, in a nursing home?
In government welfare, at least, we have made a start in changing the conversation, showing that welfare mothers are not helpless victims but resourceful humans that respond vigorously to the expectations that society places upon them. But the road is long, and the government welfare producer interest big and powerful.
Of course, changing the conversation is only the beginning. The challenge of changing America for the better is immense, and we shall not live to see the promised land.
But we can imagine an America in which parents control the education of their children. We can imagine an America where patients control the quality and the priorities of health care. We can imagine an America of mutual-aid associations woven in a web so dense that government social workers just give up trying to understand its reachas they did in New York City at the turn of the twentieth century trying to understand the social-service networks of immigrant Jews. And we can begin the journey to a land flowing with milk and honey.
The politics of the future is not a question of spending. It is a question of imagination.
Buy his Road to the Middle Class.
[W]hen I asked a liberal longtime editor I know with a mainstream [publishing] house for a candid, shorthand version of the assumptions she and her colleagues make about conservatives, she didn't hesitate. Racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-choice fascists, she offered, smiling but meaning it.
Harry Stein, I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican
[T]he way to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,
Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop
discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Roberts, C.J., Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District
[T]he Liberal, and still more the subspecies Radical... more than any other in these latter days seems under the impression that so long as he has a good end in view he is warranted in exercising over men all the coercion he is able[.]
Herbert Spencer, The Man Versus the State
[To make] of each individual member of the army a soldier who, in character, capability, and knowledge, is self-reliant, self-confident, dedicated, and joyful in taking responsibility [verantwortungsfreudig] as a man and a soldier. — Gen. Hans von Seeckt
MacGregor Knox, Williamson Murray, ed., The dynamics of military revolution, 1300-2050
[The Axial Age] highlights the conception of a responsible self... [that] promise[s] man for the first time that he can understand the fundamental structure of reality and through salvation participate actively in it.
Robert N Bellah, "Religious Evolution", American Sociological Review, Vol. 29, No. 3.
[In the] higher Christian churches... they saunter through the liturgy like Mohawks along a string of scaffolding who have long since forgotten their danger. If God were to blast such a service to bits, the congregation would be, I believe, genuinely shocked. But in the low churches you expect it every minute.
Annie Dillard, Holy the Firm
[Every] sacrifice is an act of impurity that pays for a prior act of greater impurity... without its participants having to suffer the full consequences incurred by its predecessor. The punishment is commuted in a process that strangely combines and finesses the deep contradiction between justice and mercy.
Frederick Turner, Beauty: The Value of Values
Within Pentecostalism the injurious hierarchies of the wider world are abrogated and replaced by a single hierarchy of faith, grace, and the empowerments of the spirit... where groups gather on rafts to take them through the turbulence of the great journey from extensive rural networks to the mega-city and the nuclear family...
David Martin, On Secularization
What distinguishes true Conservatism from the rest, and from the Blair project, is the belief in more personal freedom and more market freedom, along with less state intervention... The true Third Way is the Holy Grail of Tory politics today - compassion and community without compulsion.
Minette Marrin, The Daily Telegraph
These emerge out of long-standing moral notions of freedom, benevolence, and the affirmation of ordinary life... I have been sketching a schematic map... [of] the moral sources [of these notions]... the original theistic grounding for these standards... a naturalism of disengaged reason, which in our day takes scientistic forms, and a third family of views which finds its sources in Romantic expressivism, or in one of the modernist successor visions.
Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self
There was nothing new about the Frankish drive to the east... [let] us recall that the continuance of their rule depended upon regular, successful, predatory warfare.
Richard Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion
The Union publishes an exact return of the amount of its taxes; I can get copies of the budgets of the four and twenty component states; but who can tell me what the citizens spend in the administration of county and township?
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America