Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Agree or disagree?

Brian, over at his place, asserts the following:

Obviously, Republicans (and here l mean the party not necessarily the people that vote for it) are not philosophical nihilists. But I do not believe that they stand for anything except winning elections.

Democrats sincerely attempt to govern, and often end up doing it poorly. Republicans govern poorly by design and call it "smaller government"...with the notable and notably expensive exception of the military, where no expenditure is too lavish, no mission beyond our grasp, and no criticism acceptable within the bounds of loyalty.

Nihilistic? Maybe not quite. But deeply cynical and dangerously destructive? You bet. 

Discuss.

5 comments:

Bike Bubba said...

Someone wiser than I noted that government governs best which governs least, and Washington is said to have noted in his farewell address that government is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. More or less, to arrive at Brian's conclusion, I have to assume that a lot of things near and dear to the Democrats' hearts--NPR, NEA, and a host of other alphabet soup agencies--are in fact public goods when they clearly are not in Adam Smith's definition.

First Ringer said...

The lament of the politically faithful is always that the "other side" is the one that's nihilistic/angry/deceitful/etc.

Brian's "Republicans govern badly on purpose" thesis sounds close to many conservatives I know who believe Obama is deliberately trying to sink the economy. I imagine it's easier to believe in a political cosmos guided by malevolent motive than simple incompetence, but that doesn't make it any more true.

Brian said...

Bubba--my definition of public goods is definitely broader than Adam Smith's. I have this crazy liberal notion that people didn't stop having good ideas after the 18th century.

FR--trust me, you can have a great deal of contempt for both parties, and still reach the conclusion that one is worse.

Mr. D said...

I imagine it's easier to believe in a political cosmos guided by malevolent motive than simple incompetence, but that doesn't make it any more true.

Right. But I also think there's another dimension here, which is that the sort of government that many folks* on the Left want cannot be delivered by Republicans, because it is never "fully funded" or somesuch. And because Republicans sometimes enforce such limits, that means they are governing badly on purpose.

*Not necessarily Brian, though. In fact, mostly not the case for Brian.

Bike Bubba said...

Brian--that may be so, but the trouble with your definition of public goods is that the fundamentals of markets have not changed since the 18th Century. As I posted on today regarding Obama's "clean energy investments," it's pretty clear that while we can broaden our definitions of a public good, the fundamental market principles have not changed--and the taxpayer is over five billion dollars poorer as a result.