How Far Progress?

[millring]

At what point would you consider arguing against political progress? Is there a point -- for you -- when centralization and/or government ownership, or even government intervention would lead you toward maybe even voting in a different direction from what you've voted all your life?

[Doug]

Do I need to reply? 

[mnhermit]

passed it 30 years ago

[Doug]

Apr 23, 2015 7:40:23 GMT -5 mnhermit said:

passed it 30 years ago

35 years ago 

[fauxmaha]

The US government has a Raisin Administrative Committee which is responsible for the National Raisin Reserve. The intent is to artificially prop up raisin prices.

IMHO, we will know that the government is big enough when (and only when) they establish a Binder Administrative Committee and start a National Binder Reserve.

Until then, we're not even beginning to address the problems this country faces.

[Marshall]

I don't know what you mean by political progress. I figure you're probably referring to the ever-more-present-creep-of-government-regulation-into-everyday-life.

And, yeah. The proof is in the pudding. And I think there's rarely ANYTHING government regulation does that truly hits the mark. And there's always collateral damage in any shotgun solution. I suppose that's the march of mankind's progress. 12 steps forward; 11 steps backwards.

Depends on if my best interest falls in the collateral damage area, (which it does much of the time).

[Russell Letson]

When I have more time, maybe I'll try to unpack the assumptions and presumptions I sense lurking in that complex question. I can see right away that the conflation of "political progress" with "centralization and/or government ownership, or even government intervention" is going to reward investigation. Also the implied direction that the presumed audience would be changing from, along with the presumption that said direction has been singular and consistent for a lifetime.

[millring]

Apr 23, 2015 10:23:23 GMT -5 millring said:

Apr 23, 2015 9:59:48 GMT -5 Russell Letson said:

When I have more time, maybe I'll try to unpack the assumptions and presumptions I sense lurking in that complex question. I can see right away that the conflation of "political progress" with "centralization and/or government ownership, or even government intervention" is going to reward investigation. Also the implied direction that the presumed audience would be changing from, along with the presumption that said direction has been singular and consistent for a lifetime.

Fifty years ago, if you had asked a Democratic political candidate (imagine a journalist trying to entrap a candidate based on presuppositions in much the same manner in which Republicans are currently hounded with "gotcha" questions like "Do you believe in evolution?", "Why do you want do deny women birth control?" "Why do you dislike minorities?")....so, imagine that fifty years ago you asked a Democratic candidate, "Are you a socialist?"

Fifty years ago I believe you would have gotten a vehement denial of ANY connection between Democratic political philosophy and socialism. Additionally, you might even have been given a cogent argument against socialism, complete with the reasons why such an economic system might fail.

Jump forward to the 80s or 90s and ask the same question of the same generic Democratic candidate. I think you would still have been given a denial -- but it would have been given with a "Oh, don't be RIDICULOUS! <insert explosion of derisive laughter at the mere suggestion> Of COURSE I don't believe in socialism". Additionally, the public sentiment of the Democrat-on-the-street would have been similarly incredulous at such a charge (that there was any similarity in philosophy between socialism and Democratic/Progressive). But the ratio of laughter to reasoned explanation of difference between the two philosophies would be considerably expanded (more derisive laughter, less reason).

Today, if you similarly tried to ensnare a Democratic candidate by suggesting that their goal is that the US end up as a European socialist country -- minus only the "European" part -- I think there just might be a deer in the headlights response. There is no longer a distinction. (One of the names I hear most often as a Democratic dream candidate is Bernie Sanders.)

Or is there? That's what I want to know. Would you under any circumstances argue for freer markets? Less regulation? Private ownership?

[fauxmaha]

This story seems curiously relevant.



I love the line in the article that says: "The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is investigating." That, after the article explains how this young scholar caught the cottonmouth snake while swimming, and then was bit while "trying to kiss the snake "

So, we have public resources directed toward this "investigation", and yet we still do not have a National Binder Reserve.

That is some screwed up priorities, right there.

[Dub]

Just as individual Republicans can be all over the map in their philosophies, so are individual Democrats. The way campaigning is done and the way votes come down in Congress is not necessarily an expression of individual goals and philosophies. Fecal matter occurs. When I was little, Democrats were the party of racial intolerance. Republicans were the party of tolerance and fiscal responsibility. Now, Democrats have, for the most part, abandoned the working class but adopted a sort of politically correct "tolerance", almost to the exclusion of reason, while embracing capitalism wholeheartedly and marching in lockstep with Wall Street. The Republicans have welcomed the former Dixiecrats and religious fundamentalists while abandoning, at least in practice, any pretense of fiscal responsibility. Neither major party today has been consistent in philosophy or programs over the last 50 years.

I think I would prefer that government not subsidize business directly. I might, however, be willing to consider dropping most taxes on business. After all, with the possible exception of exports, we all pay for business' taxes anyway. But I strongly favor universal single-payer healthcare for everyone. As for funding retirement, we either need to make sure that everyone is paid well enough to fund their own retirement or beef up the Social Security system. If we are to continue with corporate taxes, I think all religious groups should be taxed on the same basis. A social safety net is also important. We need to abandon the war on drugs. This has not resulted in any benefit that I can see. We are responsible for the brutality in Mexico and Central America. We are the people who fund the Taliban through our drug purchases. Stop the war on drugs, close most of the prisons, make high quality drugs available at prices that don't attract criminals and tax sales to pay for rehab programs. I think drug use will go down.

Oh, and education needs to be free for all citizens willing to demonstrate academic achievement. This will help more than most other things to restore our nation's competitiveness. And quit trying to rule the world.

We need to take some of the emotion out of our political process and somehow reward rational analysis and civil discourse.

[Doug]

And quit trying to rule the world.

Just that alone would double everyone in the country's income.  Well except for the Masters of War. 

[patrick]

Apr 23, 2015 7:58:45 GMT -5 Marshall said:

Depends on if my best interest falls in the collateral damage area, (which it does much of the time).

I'd probably agree with this. When do we have too much government? When the government can intrude on the medical decisions like whether a woman can have an abortion if she chooses, and what the size of the doors on the janitor closets in the facility must be, and order medically unnecessary ultrasounds based just on irrelevant political interests.

When do we have too little? When a corporation can dump toxic wastes into the air and water we all depend on with impunity and government can't do anything about it.

When we reach either of those two states, we have either too much or too little government.

Hope that clarifies things.

[patrick]

Jeff, the reason we do not have a National Binder Reserve is because the binder industry is run by calm competent people like yourself, unlike those wild, irresponsible raisin farmers.

[Russell Letson]

On-the-fly analysis of John's "fifty years ago" post: I have to decline to accept the characterization of "gotcha" questions--it is, in fact, a question-begging characterization of how politicians are interviewed. The evolution question is legit in an environment in which some office-holders and candidates play to a part of the electorate that denies its conclusions and then proceeds to question the whole scientific basis for the model. I am disinclined to accept the "dislike minorities" question as one that gets asked in anything like that form, so specific examples would be welcome. And the one in the middle about birth control is similar to the evolution issue, except that opposition is generally mystified by arguments about personal (or corporate-personal) conscience or by conflating various specific means with abortion.

I was around and at least marginally aware of political discourse fifty years ago, and I don't recall any journalist outside the National Review orbit calling Democratic programs "socialist," though the Cold War rhetoric of the times certainly made that label one that almost any politician to the left of Norman Rockerfeller* would deny. On the other hand, I also recall that careful commentators knew the difference among and between the various descriptors for politico-economic systems, so I was aware of the distinction between, say, Soviet and Swedish approaches.*

Would I argue "under any circumstances for freer markets? Less regulation? Private ownership?" Well, duh. I have and I will. I will also continue to see governmental power as a necessary counterweight to corporate power and distributed private greed and stupidity. See Patrick's post for a thumbnail answer that echoes my feelings on the subject.

* Who would be shunned and vilified by the current GOP "base." As former Minnesota governor Arnie Carlson actually was--as traditional a Republican as one could want. You can look it up, along with the political opinions of Al Quist, the guy Minnesota Republicans chose to endorse instead, way back in 1994.

[brucemacneill]

So, just to save some time and pixels, John, the answer to your question, on this forum, appears to be no.

[millring]

Apr 23, 2015 12:47:33 GMT -5 Russell Letson said:

On-the-fly analysis of John's "fifty years ago" post: I have to decline to accept the characterization of "gotcha" questions--it is, in fact, a question-begging characterization of how politicians are interviewed. The evolution question is legit in an environment in which some office-holders and candidates play to a part of the electorate that denies its conclusions and then proceeds to question the whole scientific basis for the model. I am inclined to accept the "dislike minorities" question as one that gets asked in anything like that form, so specific examples would be welcome. And the one in the middle about birth control is similar to the evolution issue, except that the opposition is generally mystified by arguments about personal (or corporate-personal) conscience or by conflating various specific means with abortion.

I was around and at least marginally aware of political discourse fifty years ago, and I don't recall any journalist outside the National Review orbit calling Democratic programs "socialist," though the Cold War rhetoric of the times certainly made that label one that almost any politician to the left of Norman Rockerfeller* would deny. On the other hand, I also recall that careful commentators knew the difference among and between the various descriptors for politico-economic systems, so I was aware of the distinction between, say, Soviet and Swedish approaches.*

Would I argue "under any circumstances for freer markets? Less regulation? Private ownership?" Well, duh. I have and I will. I will also continue to see governmental power as a necessary counterweight to corporate power and distributed private greed and stupidity. See Patrick's post for a thumbnail answer that echoes my feelings on the subject.

* Who would be shunned and vilified by the current GOP "base." As former Minnesota governor Arnie Carlson actually was--as traditional a Republican as one could want. You can look it up, along with the political opinions of Al Quist, the guy Minnesota Republicans chose to endorse instead, way back in 1994.

Do you think a Democratic candidate can safely answer (say, for laughs, he exposed himself to a conservative interviewer) "Sure, I embrace socialism as an economic model, and I think it would be safe to generally categorize my intentions, if elected, in helping progress the United States toward that end."

Do you think a Democratic candidate could feel safe in both answering that question while still not alienating potential voters?

[Russell Letson]

Do you think any actual, viable major-party candidate (other than Bernie Sanders) actually holds those beliefs? Do you think that, say, members of a cribbage league actually dislike cribbage?

John, I know that you have a model of public discourse that sees control of the terms as a hegemony-maintaining device, and that the left wing of our public culture has managed to frame discussions in ways that eliminate some opinions from the conversation. But if admitting that some elements of socialist practice might be worth considering is PR poison, doesn't that suggest that it's not just "the left" that has roped off some terms and categories as unmentionable?

[millring]

Apr 23, 2015 13:19:21 GMT -5 Russell Letson said:

Do you think any actual, viable major-party candidate (other than Bernie Sanders) actually holds those beliefs?

And that's what I'm trying to ask. Thank you.

How does a Democratic candidate differ in economic philosophy from European socialists? And, if they don't differ, could they express that without political (election) repercussions in the US, or is the US populace still dragging its feet -- maybe even a little fearful of socialism (not up to speed with the US intellectual who has already accepted, welcomed, and even worked tirelessly toward that end).

[millring]

Apr 23, 2015 13:32:21 GMT -5 millring said:

Apr 23, 2015 13:19:21 GMT -5 Russell Letson said:

Do you think any actual, viable major-party candidate (other than Bernie Sanders) actually holds those beliefs?

And that's what I'm trying to ask. Thank you.

How does a Democratic candidate differ in economic philosophy from European socialists? And, if they don't differ, could they express that without political (election) repercussions in the US, or is the US populace still dragging its feet -- maybe even a little fearful of socialism (not up to speed with the US intellectual who has already accepted, welcomed, and even worked tirelessly toward that end).

Apr 23, 2015 13:19:21 GMT -5 Russell Letson said:

John, I know that you have a model of public discourse that sees control of the terms as a hegemony-maintaining device, and that the left wing of our public culture has managed to frame discussions in ways that eliminate some opinions from the conversation. But if admitting that some elements of socialist practice might be worth considering is PR poison, doesn't that suggest that it's not just "the left" that has roped off some terms and categories as unmentionable?

No. I think history has done that. Again, 50 years ago we were pretty much in agreement -- both Democratic and Republican -- that Socialism actually represented an economic danger. Today we are no longer in agreement. It isn't because Republicans or conservatives have controlled that language. It's that the left has shifted to what we ALL used to believe was extreme. (all the while denying any similarity to socialism -- and even ridiculing anyone who dared point out any similarities)

[patrick]

Apr 23, 2015 13:35:46 GMT -5 millring said:

No. I think history has done that. Again, 50 years ago we were pretty much in agreement -- both Democratic and Republican -- that Socialism actually represented an economic danger. Today we are no longer in agreement. It isn't because Republicans or conservatives have controlled that language. It's that the left has shifted to what we ALL used to believe was extreme. (all the while denying any similarity to socialism -- and even ridiculing anyone who dared point out any similarities)

I think the problem with this analysis is in constructing "Socialism" (with a capital) as being some monolithic movement that can be all-encompassed in one word. As Russell points out, "European Socialism" embraced any number of variations, including the Swedish model that served to keep Sweden relatively protected while the US sank into the misery of the Great Depression.

50 years ago, and even longer than that, liberal policies WERE decried as socialist, even outright Communist. Any labor movement in the early 1900's through the '50's was called Communist and the capitalists used the fear of Soviet-style Communism and Marxist-Leninist thought (at least as they portrayed it) as the reason why all labor movements had to be stopped. The Social Security system has always been called socialist by conservatives, without interruption. And go back to 1961 and listen to Ronald Reagan saying that enactment of Medicare would bring about a socialist dictatorship.



On the other hand, how about asking any Republican candidate if he/she would go back to the days of the 1890's and get rid of child labor laws, and all labor protections, and all environmental protections. See what they answer.

We currently live in a country that practices socialism for rich people and capitalism for poor people. Folks are starting to wake up to that. Hence, rich people are screaming that all those non-rich are the real socialists.