I found a passage today which drives home the exact point I made in my last response to you about how I perceive the conservative argument for free markets and deregulation:
The markets are like a well-designed clock: so well-designed, in fact, that there's no need for oil for the gears because friction doesn't exist, and there's no need for blue prints and adjustments because it just so happens that spontaneous well-functioning clocks result from the natural design of the universe.(yes, I rephrased it, fuck you) The passage that echoes that sentiment comes from Ben Stein reflecting upon the subprime meltdown. I present it because I would think you generally would agree with his economic views...and won't automatically shut him out (I mean, he was one of Nixon's speechwriters and remains one of his greatest defenders...)
One truth, that deregulation is sometimes a good thing, has been followed down so long and winding a road that it has led to an immense lie: that deregulation carried to an extreme will not lead to calamity....I think he says it much better than me. And I would ally myself with him completely on this point. Do you disagree with his assertion?
As a side note, I did notice one thing during our recent exchange: I do have strong philosophical and intellectual attraction to many of the concepts embodied in economic conservatism, free markets, and individual freedom. I would actually consider myself a Burkean Conservative (though I'm gonna ask that you not push me too much on that quite yet as I get more acquainted with the idea.) I also feel that federalism has its merits and should be protected (yes, I will admit discomfort with Roe v. Wade on a purely Constitutional and structural basis, despite the fact that I think overturning it would be a monstrosity). I believe that local governance makes sense for many issues, and that a well-functioning community of communities is preferable to a centralized stateist regime.
BUT...ultimately my loyalty lies with human beings and the individual experience, joy, and suffering of other people. My loyalty is not to ideas despite their temptations of an elegance and ease in which I can rationally rest my faith and be comforted by easy truths. This is why when I am presented with the choice between "5% GDP growth, unemployment, dislocation, and suffering" VERSUS "3% GDP growth, employment, sustainability, political and economic stability, and opportunity for individuals to find happiness," I will always choose the 3% and a better society. And yes, I do think these are the choices. The past 7 years have shown that the 5% growth and massive growths in inequality are inextricably intertwined. And that choice does not reject Adam Smith, but embraces him and asks how to make it work in this world.
...Once again, I'm not sure how I got off on that tangent (which I suspect is the wine)...because I do have a point, the point is this:
No matter how much I can respect certain conservative principles, whenever I encounter a Republican conservative, I am always so utterly shocked, aghast, and appalled by the things that come out of their mouths. Even if I know I can dig deep and find shared principles (less government = more freedom), the presentation, tenor, and violent contradictions just drive me bat-shit crazy. It's infuriating because there are wonderful ideas buried underneath a layer of !Blargh! that I simply cannot comprehend or get past. That's all. That was the point.
(...and btw, my exposure to Obama's speeches on faith, economics, politics and the like all seem to reflect these precise sentiments (at least until very recent turmoil) which I have never heard from a politician. The recent political veering and swerving (i.e., protectionism when he's always been fairly free trade) makes me uneasy, but I do believe he shares my core perspectives. And I think a lot of younger liberals share a similar perspective ("mitigated" free markets and individual freedom), which is why I called you out on intellectual dishonesty in trying to compare modern liberalism to stateist socialists.)
...ok. That's all. I'm going to bed so I can study more Tax tomorrow. Drunk blogging is a stupid, stupid idea.
5 comments:
Dude, except that Burke was a massive elitist. So there's that. Don't go all Andrew Sullivan on me.
Note: Not that he's Burkean, but he allies himself really strongly with one particular strain of philosophical thought. To be an anything-ean is probably bad. Nobody's got it completely right.
Except your mom. BOO-YA!
Ooh Ooh! And also, let's argue about markets and education (i.e. vouchers), something I actually know about! Something besides all of this SEC, frothy credit markets, Smoot-Hawley, tariff, ograbme horseshit that I don't care about.
Either that, or I'll just continue to mask my ignorance with derision.
Either way.
Also, you should come see me in DC this summer (I'll be there from May 10 to June 20).
That didn't seem like a drunk blog ... you can do better.
Fair enough about the Burke thing...though I did include an express disclaimer about it... I have always labeled myself as a pragmatist...but since everyone calls themselves that, I figured there may be a better way to express my deep deep hatred for white kids with dread locks who speak of revolution. Or a basic distaste for anyone who still uses the phrases "Revolution" and "The System" with a straight-face and determined expression.
In any case, my beliefs are generally Underscored (zing!) by a deep mistrust of ideologies, -isms, and I guess -eans...BUT...
...don't shit on me just because I'm Awesomean.
(I actually don't know anything about education policy, except for a strong suspicion that it's generally broken...so if you want to fire a shot, feel free.)
let's come up with fun things that "ADM" could stand for. that's a good way to spend my time.
Post a Comment