Balance
One of the more entertaining aspects of listening to the hardline conservatives is how they label any one to the left of them as a socialist. This inlcudes the entire Democratic Party, most independents, and basically anyone else who disagrees with them.
Speaking as one of these people I will point out that I (and I think I'm not alone in this) am not beholden to any 'ism'. I am not interested in maintaining ideological purity in the face of contradictory eveidence, nor will I push some theoretical ideal simply because I have become convinced that it satisfies an abstract principle. I am interested in results.
If one looks at the kind of hardline communism of Cold War Eastern Europe, what one finds is that a small number of people lived with great wealth and luxury, while the vast majority lived in abject poverty.
Somewhat ironically, if the pendulum swings from far left to far right things don't change that much. If the libertarian extremists had their way, much of the institutional infrastructure that keeps the economy ticking along fairly smoothly would have to go. Things would, as these people prefer, be left to a kind of Hobbesian 'State of Nature' where we all fight for the finite resources and the few strongest would prevail. As with communism, we would then have a small number of people living with great wealth and luxury, while the vast majority live in abject poverty. If anyone needs an example to prove that this would be the outcome, look at 19th century Britain or America, or late 20th & early 21st century Africa.
If extreme leftist policies and extreme rightist policies both lead to a low quality of life for most people, they each have little to recommend them, even if they are ideologically consistent. The system that ensures the best quality of life for the most people is surely the one that a government elected to represent all those people should adopt. If that system is a market-driven economy with legal safeguards and a social safety net, so be it. If the 'state of nature' conservatism achieved those results it would be great. But as much as its advocates want to believe that it would, in practice it does not. Sadly they (like their communist counterparts) are so beholden to the principle that they are blind to the reality, and it is for this reason that they should avoid trying to run a country.
Speaking as one of these people I will point out that I (and I think I'm not alone in this) am not beholden to any 'ism'. I am not interested in maintaining ideological purity in the face of contradictory eveidence, nor will I push some theoretical ideal simply because I have become convinced that it satisfies an abstract principle. I am interested in results.
If one looks at the kind of hardline communism of Cold War Eastern Europe, what one finds is that a small number of people lived with great wealth and luxury, while the vast majority lived in abject poverty.
Somewhat ironically, if the pendulum swings from far left to far right things don't change that much. If the libertarian extremists had their way, much of the institutional infrastructure that keeps the economy ticking along fairly smoothly would have to go. Things would, as these people prefer, be left to a kind of Hobbesian 'State of Nature' where we all fight for the finite resources and the few strongest would prevail. As with communism, we would then have a small number of people living with great wealth and luxury, while the vast majority live in abject poverty. If anyone needs an example to prove that this would be the outcome, look at 19th century Britain or America, or late 20th & early 21st century Africa.
If extreme leftist policies and extreme rightist policies both lead to a low quality of life for most people, they each have little to recommend them, even if they are ideologically consistent. The system that ensures the best quality of life for the most people is surely the one that a government elected to represent all those people should adopt. If that system is a market-driven economy with legal safeguards and a social safety net, so be it. If the 'state of nature' conservatism achieved those results it would be great. But as much as its advocates want to believe that it would, in practice it does not. Sadly they (like their communist counterparts) are so beholden to the principle that they are blind to the reality, and it is for this reason that they should avoid trying to run a country.
posted by Sparx at 08:10
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home