Conservatives think that if we could only return to the way the constitution was before “lawyer and liberals” spoiled it, everything would be great. Conservatives see this as the Holy Grail of arguments, the intellectual nuclear button: mention the constitution and our agenda become undeniable. In reality, this is a worthless argument. Not only do conservatives misunderstand the constitution, but citing the constitution simply isn’t a valid answer to the public.
Let’s start with the biggest reason not to make this argument: the constitution is meaningless to people’s lives. People look to politicians to solve problems and they evaluate ideologies in terms of their abilities to solve problems without creating new problems. For almost all Americans, the issues that matter are things like getting jobs, raising kids, buying a house, having a clean environment and good roads and good schools, and personal safety. The constitution doesn’t address any of that. Go ahead and look, you won’t find it.
The constitution is about the distribution of decision making authority, it never delves into the nature of the decisions to be made. In other words, it only talks about who gets to make the decision, not what the decision will be. That means, it offers nothing useful to average people who just want an answer.
Think of it this way. A group of people are arguing about where they want to hold a retirement party for a fellow employee. Some want to order pizza, some want to go out for burgers, and some want to bring cake. Arguing the constitution is the same as telling this group that the employee manual allows for employees to organize such a party... that’s absolutely useless to their needs. That’s the problem with the constitution argument: it’s useless. People want solutions, they don’t want to hear instructions on how decisions should be made.
And there’s more...
This is where it gets ugly. Let’s assume that people do care about the constitution. Here’s the problem: the conservative view of “the constitution” is actually a myth. When conservatives talk about the constitution, they are referring to an idealized interpretation of the document based on the rhetoric of the politicians who sold the document to the public, and not the document itself.
Indeed, to maintain their interpretation, conservatives overlook the parts they don’t like, like the commerce clause. The commerce clause (and the other caveats) allows the Federal government nearly unlimited power over most aspects of our economy. To get around this, conservatives fall back on a logical fallacy: “well, the government didn’t regulate this before, so it shouldn’t be able to regulate it now.” But that’s not a valid interpretation of the document. That’s an argument for tossing out the entire constitution and replacing it with one line: “The federal government shall have only the specific powers it exercised in the year 18__.”
Here is an example of the problem. The federal government has unlimited power to regulate commerce. Food is commerce. Ergo, the federal government has unlimited power to regulate food. Ergo, even under the conservative follow the constitution argument, the federal government has unlimited power to decide what you may or may not eat and under what conditions. Is that something conservatives want? No, it isn’t, so why are you putting all your eggs in that rotten basket?
So what is the point? Well, there are several.
First, trying to limit the government through the constitution is a hopeless cause. You may wish the constitution was written differently, but it’s not, and the way it’s written, the federal government has enough power to do everything liberals want. Relying on this argument is a dead end for conservatives.
Secondly, the American public has no interest in “what if” frivolity, nor do any of them want to turn the clock back to the 18th Century. So proposing to make things like they were when tricorn hats were in fashion will always fall on deaf ears with the public. Indeed, this argument makes it incredibly easy for the public to dismiss conservatives as out of touch. This argument reinforces the idea that conservatives don’t live in the modern world and have nothing to offer which the public could possibly want. It makes people think conservatives want America to look like Amish country.
Third, this argument is an evasion which takes conservatives out of the policy debate and cedes the ground to liberals to offer the public solutions...
Liberal: I can fix your problems.Who wins that debate?
Conservative: The constitution says I can’t help you.
This highlights something we touched upon in the comments yesterday. Conservatives too often get wrapped up in procedure rather than substance. A good example is the idea of pushing the Democrats to put together a budget. This is not something that matters to the public because it doesn’t affect the public if there is a budget or not... either way, the same amount of money gets spent. Conservatives need to start thinking in terms of how to frame arguments in ways that affect people in real terms. Technocratic arguments about the division of power don’t do that, especially when the public can just point to the Supreme Court, which never sees the constitution as a limit on federal power, and say, “see, you conservatives don’t know what you’re talking about with the constitution.”
Drop this argument. Focus instead on the policies that affect people in areas that matter to them.
64 comments:
As a thought, why doesn't everybody offer their best argument for limited government without mentioning the constitution. I'm curious how you would explain this if you were talking to a group of kids.
Alternatively, give us your best argument why it matters that the government spend less and live within its means?
Ben Franklin has a bunch of great quotes, but one that make sense to me is along the lines that a government with enough power to give you everything you need has enough power to take it all away. When people have the power to vote themselves money, it will spell the end of the republic. One trades liberty for security.
None of this is an easy sell when people are hurting.
My argument for living within one's means is that there is a point when we either have to print more money and cause inflation or risk having someone else (China?) call in the debt.
That's the best I can give you at 2:00 a.m. eastern.
Perhaps in laymen's terms, the best way to keep the most people living well is to have a robust economy. High taxation stifles the incentive for people to innovate and take risk which works against a robust economy.
Gotta go to bed, will pick up tomorrow with perhaps a clearer head.
Jed, Franklin was right. Once it became clear that the federal government could be useful to people, they made use of it... and kept making use of it. And the more useful it became, the more people sought to use it. This, of course, opened new avenues for enrichment for those who ran the government, so they were happy to allow the expansion.
Eventually, you get to the point where too many people have a vested interest in taking what they can from the government without any concern about the overall effect. At that point, it becomes the death of a thousand cuts on the economy and on personal freedom because so many people are cashing in... everyone from the poor to the rich, business, unions, government workers. None of them alone are the problem, but collectively, they become a crushing force.
Andrew....An argument I've used with my leftist friends is this:
Leftist (L): Obama needs the power to read our emails to prevent terrorism. He would never abuse that power.
Me (Rational/Logical Being): Okay, remember that that same power will be there when the next Republican President takes office. You want another George Bush with that power?
Substitute warrant-less email reading with any issue and watch them squirm. Of course their side (and ours mostly) are pure and holy in their motivations. The only time they can see when government can be tyrannical is when the opposition is in power. So it's a good discussion point to enlighten them that power once appropriated can be abused by whomever is in office at the time.
And truth be told, both free market capitalism and statist socialism do have problems. However, historically, for the reasons discussed, our society tends to be wealthier in toto under the former. Our people do want a degree of statism, but historically have resisted going to European levels. Progressivism always tends to suffer from a lack of a limiting principle. As Voegeli titles his book, what we ask of the producers of wealth is "never enough" so it eventually collapses of it's own weight.
Patriot - I made that argument the other direction under Ashcroft when so many were supporting anything he wanted to do to go after terrorism: "who will be defining 'terrorist' in a later Democrat administration?". And now...
As for the BIG questions Andrew posed, I'll get back to ya..
Patriot, That's a great way to throw their own "arguments" back at them. They don't even need to be rational arguments because the other side already believes them, so there's no proof required.
I've found that actually the best way to get the Democrats to stop doing something is to the use that same power to implement conservative principles. They tend to freak out when that happens.
Jed, Ideology, like economics, taken to extremes is foolish. These things will always fail because humans are just fundamentally too different for one size to fit all. I think ideology is at best when it is used to determine what is "better" than what is "best," and is used with a sense that there are always limits. Unfortunately, the people who want the extreme tend to be the ones who make the most noise.
rlaWTX, I think it's been fascinating watching the left flip flop all over the place about the Justice Department. Things they hated under Bush are suddenly totally cool under Obama. And no doubt they will be evil under the next Republican. I think the key is teaching them that it is inevitable that we will get to use their tools.
As for the BIG questions, please do. I'm curious what people can offer because this is something conservatives talk about all the time and I'd like to see if there is a way to explain this to people who don't already believe it.
The whole "follow the Constitution" thing reminds me of my grandfather and his repeated insistence that all you need to do to be a Christian is "live the Bible." It's not that people are refusing to do so, it's how they are interpreting the document in question that brings on the trouble. (Of course, a lot of liberals would like to ignore the Constitution altogether, but then a lot of churchgoers would like to ignore the Bible when it becomes inconvenient, so same difference.)
T-Rav, I think that's exactly the same thing. A lot of people assume that their understand is the only possible understanding and they think that just saying "follow the document" is enough to win the debate.
Unfortunately, that is exactly the kind of argument that makes people tune out because it's pretty obvious to most people that there are multiple interpretations in action. So "follow the constitution" really translates into "do what I want," which isn't an effective argument.
Andrew, I've been thinking about this and I am troubled that I can't think of a good way to explain the need for limited government. This is a fundamental tennent of our ideology and yet I don't have a good way to explain to people. How the heck did that happen?
As for living with their budget, I'm kind of drawing a blank on that one too. I think the best things is to point out that the government is dumping debt on their kids?
Doc, That is a problem isn't it? I'll come back with some thoughts later... sadly, it's been a busy morning.
Well, I'll be thinking of such an argument. For the record, is my ability to answer going to be hurt by the fact that I actually do want America to look like Amish country? I say no, but Brother Mueller says yes.
T-Rav, Brother Mueller?
But yes, it would probably hurt your credibility if you told people you want America to look like Amish country. :(
Well, here is an argument for limited government from ol' Ronnie Reagan:
"From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"
Each sentence of that paragraph works.
First, he introduces the progressive* argument:
"From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people."
Then, with a brilliant line, he takes it apart:
"But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"
Look at this does. He takes the liberal argument, that the world is too complex to be managed by the people through self-rule, and demolishes it on its own logic by pointing out that if the modern world is too complex for 230 million** people too figure out, then what chance does a tiny elite have?
There is so much in that little question.
There is the Adam Smith statement that “The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with most unnecessary attention but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of man who have folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it. ”
Or, if you want it more quickly, the old adage "Many hands make light work."
You wanted an example? There it is.
Next I will tackle the budget, I got one forming, but it might take a second.
Kit, Nicely done. Reagan was the master of making complex philosophical issues things people could understand as common sense.
This isn't my original thought, but I don't remember where it comes from: If I were to explain the reason for limited government to children, I would say that government is like a fire.
Fire is inherently dangerous. No matter its size, it can always burn. But, a small, contained, well-tended fire is very useful. It can provide warmth and light, it can be used to cook and clean. There are some things simply best done with a fire.
But if that same fire were left untended, if it were to escape its confines and grow large, then it becomes an all-consuming force not easily put down.
Kit et al, When talking about limited government, how about approaching it from two directions: freedom and unexpected misuses of power.
Freedom: This is aimed more generally at the government getting too strong. In this case, the best arguments are to point out to people the best ways to abuse the power they are trying to create. For example, if you want to weaken Democratic love for the Department of Education, you start proposing that conservative use the DoEd to jam through all kinds of things liberals hate.
You also do what rlaWTX and Patriot mention above and ask them how they will feel when someone "evil" (like Ashcroft) uses the power against them. And you remind them that when they give the government a power, it can be used by anyone who gets their hands on it and that you will used it gleefully to starve and harass their causes.
This ALSO means Republicans need to stop promising never to use these powers liberals create. This is so foolish, but it's been par for the Republican course my entire life. The Democrats do something abusive and the Republicans swear they will stop it if they ever get into power. That is the worst possible response. You need to promise to use it just as cynically. Only then do you create a danger to the Democrats of creating the power in the first place.
Unexpected Misuses This is more about the division of power. This is when liberals argue that it doesn't matter that whatever agency exceeded its authority because they like the result. You just flip it on them. "So you don't mind if the post master stops delivering mail to abortion clinics because he thinks abortion is immoral? You don't mind if the fire department doesn't respond to fires as homeless shelters because the fire chief decides he doesn't think money should be wasted on the homeless? Is that really how you think government should work?"
Again, you also need to let them know you're willing to use whatever new "rules" they establish against them.
tryanmax, That's a really good analogy. Bravo!
tryanmax, How about linking it to people's work? Most people don't like the companies they work for... or at least, they don't like the upper layers. The tops of corporations make decisions most workers think are wrong, seem out of touch, and seem indifferent. How about:
The federal government is like a big company that wants to control your job, where you live, what you eat, and how you live your life. Would you want your employer telling you what you can or cannot do in your kitchen or your bedroom... what kind of car you can drive... where you can live... telling you what to eat or how to raise your kids? Hardly. So why do you think it would be any better to let bureaucrats in Washington make those decisions for you? And make no mistake, they are making more and more of those decisions every single day.
Andrew, "Freedom" and "Unexpected Misuses" both are great.
The DoED thing reminds me of Ann Coulter suggesting things she would do if she was head of the National Endowment of the Arts (have a Norman Rockefeller exhibit, make Thomas Kinkaide the poet laureate, etc.)
I've almost got my budget one ready. It might need some streamlinin' from you fellas. :)
Budget.
2 Notes
1.)You can alter or folksy up the words into plain English that is easier to understand, this is just the basics of the argument. You can streamline it better if you want to.
2.)Places with an asterisk note possible weaknesses in argument to develop.
First, the only way to spend money is if you have money first and the only way for the government to get money is to tax it. And the only way for their to be money to tax is for a vibrant, successful, and wealthy private sector.
Now, if you are spending a lot there are two options: Big taxes and Big spending or Small Taxes and Big Spending.
The problem is, neither works. If spend big and tax big you hurt the economy, makes it harder for the people, especially those in the private sector, to make money, which in turn leads to less taxable revenue, which means less money in taxes, and thus less money to cover your massive spending.
If you tax low and spend big, you might get a slight jump in revenue due to more taxable incomes and property but those low taxes are never going to cover your massive spending. They might help for a bit but eventually your spending is going to get out of hand and it will snowball. And, the big spending means more people going to work in the government and, usually, more subsidizing of failing companies through bailouts. Both hurt the private sector. More government employees means fewer people working in the private sector which means a less productive private sector, and thus, the private sector is making less taxable income, because the public sector simply cannot produce a great deal of taxable income*.
And stimulus money and bailouts also don't work. Largely because they take away the most important reason the private sector is able to produce: the risk of failure. They reward executives for running the company bankrupts and keep the board members safe from the natural punishment that comes with hiring the idiot. Whenever there is a bailout there are layoffs of ground workers, but corporate bailouts keep the rich executives and board members safe from facing the natural punishment for their actions. The board members aren't forced to fire CEOS and, if they actually have some sense and fire them, they aren't compelled naturally to hire smarter and better CEOS who will keep the company from going into near bankruptcy. AND because they got the bailout they also know that they do not need to keep growing, they can just stay where they are. Instead of growing their business, increasing the number of employees, they just have to stay like they are.
Government bailouts and stimulus, especially those like the ones given to general motors, do not help companies. In fact, they hurt them. Instead of prosperous they become like a stagnant pond. They subsidize failure or, at best, subsidize stagnation.
So, if you want to keep the government in the proper shape and the economy in good order you have to keep both spending and taxes low. Low taxes means a good economy and low spending means the government can continue functioning as well as keeping the economy good.
*"because the public sector simply cannot produce a great deal of taxable income"
Note: Develop argument on why the public sector can't be taxed to cover big expensed
Thanks Kit. I like both arguments, though I realize they are negative arguments and not affirmative arguments. I like tryanmax's analogy as an affirmative argument. I think we just need to find a way to personalize it.
And let me say, the fact we don't have a simple way to explain something that is fundamental to our ideology is a strong sign of how badly we've tended the ideology of the past few decades.
"Thanks Kit. I like both arguments, though I realize they are negative arguments and not affirmative arguments. I like tryanmax's analogy as an affirmative argument. I think we just need to find a way to personalize it."
I think I touched on that with "many hands make light work." The question is how to explain that in terms of a free market system.
Working on that one, too.
One of the biggest problems with Romney, and I liked him a lot, was that he never explained how the profit motive (a.k.a. "greed"), when channeled properly in a free market economy, can be good.
First, we have to get out the basic points behind the idea, then we have to channel it into a digestible form. I like the one where you use the example of buying items. I get the item, you get the money. Its a trade where everybody wins.
It's like in the movies or tv shows. The scientist guy is explaining to his military boss the problem and possible solution in all these tech terms and the boss asks "English, please?"
And instead of following it up with a funny and clever one-liner that sums up the problem "The sun is about to blow up" we're getting pissed, calling the boss a moron, and then stomping out of the room in a huff.
Tyranmax,
Follow it up with explaining, how the big government is like fire.
I wonder if it is even possible to personalize the idea of big government as a bad thing? Seems to me that most people who don't see a problem with it would dismiss the whole argument with "but government is different."
Tyranmax,
"but government is different".
I've got a rebuttal to that. And it is sprung from the ideas of Friedman and Hayek.
tryanmax, I think it is. Reagan found all kinds of ways, "the most terrifying words, 'I'm from the government, I'm here to help.'"
The thing is that I think conservatives have lost the distinction between bad government and all government. We need to figure out what people don't like about government and link that with big government rather than just attacking government across the board.
I think the same impulses that make people hate big business and far away concentrations of power could help us here.
Kit, I'm going a slightly different way on the budget thing tonight... I'm going to do it as an article because I think that will be helpful.
I do think you are right that there is a huge disconnect between "greed is good" and people believing that greed will work for them. The problem really is that our rich have changed... they no longer produce jobs or goods, they are now middle men. So there is no longer a connection between letting them get rich and us being better off. To the contrary, they become rich by making us worse off.
-- "Andrew, "Freedom" and "Unexpected Misuses" both are great.
The DoED thing reminds me of Ann Coulter suggesting things she would do if she was head of the National Endowment of the Arts (have a Norman Rockefeller exhibit, make Thomas Kinkaide the poet laureate, etc.)"
Kit, by Norman Rockefeller, you mean Norman Rockwell, right? The artsy fartsy people that I know DESPISE both Rockwell and Kinkade. Kinkade deserved it, though. He was an asshole.
Andrew, Ron Paul will be sooooo angry with you, if he read this...
Snape, LOL! I'm sure that right now, Ron Paul is out there sitting in his kitchen, clutching his heart, saying, "I feel a great disturbance in the force." ;P
Yeah, there are probably tons of self-described constitutionalists who are furious with me, but the thing is that I've studied the constitution in law school and throughout my legal practice, I've seen how it has evolved and how it hasn't, and I've seen how it gets interpreted, and I can tell you that they are simply wrong. It doesn't work the way they think it does.
Not to mention, it just doesn't mean anything to most people.
To that end, I would simply personalize it with real-world examples:
Government took to long responding to Hurricane Sandy? That's b/c it's too big.
Government isn't doing enough to control guns? That's b/c it's too big.
Government can't get anything (you want) done b/c of gridlock? That's b/c it's too big.
If the person you're speaking to is astute enough to say, "but if government were smaller, it couldn't do X, Y, or Z adequately," first of all, you may be dealing with a thinker and have some hope. (There's still a chance they heard that line somewhere else though.) That's where you can get into decentralization and building up local government, etc. etc. etc.
* * *
I agree, too many conservatives have equated small government with no government. The first area that I noticed myself branching away from other conservatives was on this issue. Lots of conservatives feel that if it's bad for the federal gov't to do X, then the same goes for state, county, city, on and on. That's nuts. I may not want Washington to be the arbiter of all things, but that doesn't mean I want a free-for-all.
"I do think you are right that there is a huge disconnect between "greed is good" and people believing that greed will work for them. The problem really is that our rich have changed... they no longer produce jobs or goods, they are now middle men. So there is no longer a connection between letting them get rich and us being better off. To the contrary, they become rich by making us worse off."
I think i have a way to rebut this. And it will tie into gov vs. private sector argument above.
tryanmax, An argument conservatives often make plays on the human prejudice for closeness, i.e. we like things that are like us and near us better than things that are further away and unlike us. So they've argued, "local government is best."
I don't think that's a winner though because (1) people don't think local government is "big enough" to handle anything major, and (2) most people's interactions with local governments are negative. Local governments tend to be the ones who ticket your car, waste your money on a park in the mayor's neighborhood, squabble at budget meetings, and can't maintain the roads.
I'm wondering if we can't flip the incompetence of local governments upstream? People used to do this with the Post Office... "do you want X handled like Post Office?" Only, the Post Office really turned itself around and is like a lot now... outside of conservative circles.
Another angle is the Death Panel idea, the idea that a handful of bureaucrats can't make decisions for all of us.
Kit, Rebut away. I'd be interested to hear it. I really do think there is a problem with the rich in this country -- they are not rich because they are productive anymore, they are rich through government power.
Here it is. Why "Greed is good" (Might need a better title).
It covers both the "But government is different" side by pointing out, yes, it is different, but not necessarily in a better way and the issue of the rich you brought up.
Now, as before, it needs some streamlining but here it is. I toss it to you to turn it into soundbites, or at least more digestible.
In every society, people will usually follow their self-interest. Its also why you had the patronage system and why it springs up in most systems. Why do politicians appoint their biggest donors to nice government positions or give them nice little earmarks? So other people will know that this politician rewards those who help them. Its the same reason why in Communist states and big autocracies getting ahead was based heavily on who you know.
And its, true, that self-interest is why businessmen always push for the biggest profit. But you know what makes the free market different?
What the businessman drives for in his pursuit of his own self-interest: profit.
Greed, ain't the noblest of motives. But it can be channeled into a productive outcome.
First, lets look at the difference between how the public sector gets its money and how the private sector does. The public sector gets its money through taxation. It gains its money through direct coercion of the people. You pay the government x amount or you are going to jail.
The private sector gains its money voluntary payment for services or goods. People do not have to pay for the service or good if they either don't want it or don't think that good or service is worth the price the businessman is putting forth. And if they don't produce goods or services that people will buy at the price they are offering pretty soon they will run out of money.
Now what this difference means is that government services, especially when you have a big government, does not have to worry about whether or not they do a bad job because if they do do a bad job there are few consequences for the bad job because their income lasts as long as their big buddies remain in power and can use the coercive powers of the state to tax money. And no anti-nepotism law can truly change this as politicians will always find a loophole.
The private business doesn't have this luxury. In fact, while the free market doesn't necessarily punish nepotism or hiring your buddies it does punish you for hiring buddies and relatives who suck at their jobs because pretty soon you are going to start losing money. So you better hire people who know what they are doing.
This also ties into why corporate welfare, via the bailouts, doesn't work.
The reason CEOs are paid more is because, simply put, because while if you do a bad job only person who loses his job is you, if he does a bad job you and your friends lose yours.
Think about this, despite each bailout there were layoffs and, in some good cases, wage losses. People were hurt.
But those bailouts protected the ones who caused this mess and the boards that hired them, from the consequences of their bad jobs their bad jobs that cost you yours. If we didn't have these bailouts, a lot more crappy CEOS would be unemployed and, while the board members might not be on the street, they would be having their wallets pinched by a massive loss in profits.
Instead of channeling one of humanity's less savory aspects into a manner that is productive for both themselves and society as a whole they have turned it loose in all its ugly ways.
Note: Come up with reasons why (1) private monopolies are preferable to public ones in most cases and (2) the difference between services that by necessity must be under government such as fire and police and services that are better when privatized.
I have ideas, they just need to be put into words in the right order. :)
Now I've gotta pee. ;)
I'm back.
Here is a link that might summarize the first part of what I was saying.
LINK
Length: 2min 23sec
Kit, I don't think that works. It too full of dispute ideas, and it doesn't give people a reason they should care. It basically sounds like "the government sucks, but let CEOs get rich because they are important people."
It also skips right over the problem that so many people get rich today not from doing anything "worthwhile" but from being middlemen (finance types, lawyers), from being destructive (lawyers), or from being dipsh*ts (the Kardashians). It's a hard sell to say, "look at how these people help you out."
The cronyism doesn't help either because there is a sense that these people have gotten rich on the backs of the middle class.
Those are problems for any argument based on "greed is good."
The better approach is to abandon the idea of greed and to instead focus on freedom of choice.
What do you mean for dispute ideas?
"it doesn't give people a reason they should care. It basically sounds like "the government sucks, but let CEOs get rich because they are important people."
It also skips right over the problem that so many people get rich today not from doing anything "worthwhile" but from being middlemen (finance types, lawyers), from being destructive (lawyers), or from being dipsh*ts (the Kardashians). It's a hard sell to say, "look at how these people help you out."
The cronyism doesn't help either because there is a sense that these people have gotten rich on the backs of the middle class."
Give me a second and I'll respond to that.
Okay, so explain how it effects the middle and working class. Got it.
Also, I'm not a law student (and don't plan to be!), but am I the only one whose noticed that we are basically using the Socratic Method?
Asking questions, looking for weaknesses in arguments, etc.?
Kit, Sometimes the Socratic Method is the best way to get at something. You ask people to explain their thoughts and in the process, people tend to discover what they really do and don't believe and where there are gaps.
Sorry, "disputed" ideas. You are starting with the assumption that there are two ways -- the free market and government, and that the free market is always about voluntary exchange and government is run on cronyism. Those are things that people will dispute. Many people will say government is run without a profit motive because it's goal is to help people and businesses often force people into decisions. Those people will reject your argument right out of the gates.
I'll get to your most recent points in a sec. First my response to your earlier questions and problems about the rich and greed:
And note, these are not literally directed at you but more directed generally. They assume that you are not already a conservative. :)
Now, let's get to it.
First, why is it bad for the government to bailout the and companies?
-First, as I explained, you have removed the possibility of risk and, along with it, the profit motive. So they no longer actually have to produce items that will sell well. And since, they don't have to make sure these products will sell it no longer really matters what quality they are. And the companies that did badly now have an unfair edge over the companies that do well. The companies that do well have to constantly compete for better business against a government-backed disaster.
-Second, where is the money coming from? The taxpayers. Its not just the government subsidizing their bad decisions, its you. You are the one paying for their bad decisions, not them. Also, before you had power over them. The power to not buy. But now, with their taxpayer funded bailout not only is that power removed from you but they are taking money from you no matter what you think of their product.
Now, as for the Kardashians.
-First, When you die I assume you plan to leave the money to somebody, probably your kids or grandkids*. That is what the Kardashians and Hiltons parents did. They made their choice. They have that right. If you have that right so should they.
-Second, why do they stay in the news? Why do they remain rich for being stupid? This is a case where the government isn't subsidizing (at least I hope not!). You are. People want to watch them. And also, claiming that they aren't producing for the economy isn't necessarily true.
-Third, does anyone really think that Kim Kardashian is the one who actually cleans her own home? Anyone? No, she hires maids. In one sense, there are hundreds of people that keep people like her happy and who remain employed because of her.
So, in summary, she has a right to be stupid, and, as long as her parents and the consuming public are willing to pay for it, she has a right to make a profit from it.
Now, you have a right not to buy her stuff, not to watch her show, and not to let your kids watch it. And, if enough people do it, maybe she will have to learn some real skills.
*I'm not assuming you have kids. The question and statement are rhetorical. :)
"You are starting with the assumption that there are two ways -- the free market and government, and that the free market is always about voluntary exchange and government is run on cronyism. Those are things that people will dispute. Many people will say government is run without a profit motive because it's goal is to help people and businesses often force people into decisions. Those people will reject your argument right out of the gates."
I think I got an idea. Let me write it up first.
Now, I think I got a partial rebuttal.
"government is run without a profit motive because it's goal is to help people" unlike businesses.
Its true, its stated goal is to help people. Emphasis on "stated". The question that must be asked is "Does it always fulfill its stated goal". To answer that let me bring up private charities.
Private charities and church charities, even non-profit ones, must have more money coming in than they have going out or else they won't be able to help people. And the only way they can do that is by doing their job. This isn't greed, per say. But it is operating under the free market principles of competition.
In order for charity to get donations, which, I must emphasize, are voluntary, i.e., people choose whether or not to give them money. So, to get donations, these charities must prove to people that they are a charity worth giving to. In order for the Red Cross to receive donations people must think they are a charity that will spend their money well. If word gets out, via a free press, that the money is misused or their programs are not working then people will voluntarily stop giving money.
See the difference. When a government welfare program has problems they almost always say to the government "give us more money". If a Red Cross program isn't working they have to fix it. Have to. Or else word will continue to spread that they are not a charity worth donating to, donations will go down, and they will receive less money and will no longer be able to operate.
Same thing with churches, they have a service they give and if they want to be able to have the money to provide that service they need to provide it well. Compare the protestant churches in the US to the established churches in Europe. In order for the privately funded protestant churches to keep money coming in to pay their clergy they have to have members who are willing to donate. And to do that they must provide the service they promise, "spiritual and religious fulfillment". If they don't members will stop coming and they will lose money and will not be able to operate.
The established, and government-funded, churches of Europe do not have to do this as they will constantly receive government money. They are bleeding members and have become giant black holes where taxpayer money goes in and is never seen again.
Note: Red Cross may be substituted for any other charity.
Also, the "church" argument may work better with social conservatives in helping them to articulate free market principles than it would with liberal college students. ;)
Also, did I use "i.e." right?
"businesses often force people into decisions."
Can you elaborate on this argument?
I think I've got a pitch for a speech.
-Refer to the "Stagnant unemployment."
-Attack it as "government subsidized economic stagnation."
Example: "For the past several years, under the Obama administration, this country has seen massive bailouts billion dollar bailouts for failing companies. And what have we to show for it? Years of a stagnant unemployment rate at 8% and a $16trillion+ national debt that keeps on rising. Their excuse? 'It would've been worse.' Well I think we can do better than I think we have had enough of a government subsidized stagnation that has cost us trillions of dollars. As President I will work with Congress to not just 'keep it from getting worse' but make it better. I will stop subsidizing failed business leadership, I will stop the massive regulatory state that has hurt small business growth, and I will free the American entrepreneurial spirit to new ideas and new opportunities."
You know, I can actually picture Reagan saying this.
Kit, I'm kind of in and out at the moment, so this is a short response...
The forcing people point is this: a lot of businesses, like phone companies and health clubs, have gotten very good at trapping people in long-term service contracts that make them unhappy. Conservatives would say "you want the service, you pay the price." BUT that doesn't change the fact that people are unhappy about these things and it gives business a bad name.
Soooo when conservatives say "trust business," a lot of people think about things like these contracts and feel like they are being abused by business. That makes it hard to sell the idea that business is benign and buyers and sellers negotiate because people see a lot of "nasty" "take it or leave it" type contracts in their own lives and they have come not to see business as abusive or hostile.
Andrew,
So, how would you respond to it?
What would be your solution?
And what do you think of that speech example I put up?
And, Andrew, I don't see being pro-free market as necessarily saying "trust business" but saying that "businesses need to be faced with competition of the prospect of it in order to provide goods" and that government involvement tends to hurt competition.
Though I might see how it could be interpreted that way.
"The forcing people point is this: a lot of businesses, like phone companies and health clubs, have gotten very good at trapping people in long-term service contracts that make them unhappy"
That is one of those things where think tanks could come in handy. why do businesses do these? Why aren't their good, viable market alternatives?
Is their a government policy that incentivizes this behavior?
Re Government economic control:
Hayek's information argument: a command economy can not compete with the free market because there are so many choices and so many different variety of people's tastes and problems that it can not be dealt with by passing a few rules or placing a few committees over economic decision. Even in the absence of corruption you end up with what amounts to crude blunt force economics.
I would also add that the non linear complexity of the economics for a 350 million person state in a dynamic world economy is amenable to only the most limited and benign government control.
When you add the inevitable government corruption, unintended consequences and slow response time of government change you've got the recipe for eventual societal collapse.
Another approach is a comparison of the philosophies behind the American revolution and French revolution. The former assumes that people are imperfect and hence must be protected from a government elected by and executed by imperfect men. Even with "limited" US government we had
20000 people jailed for speech violations during the Wilson administration
Japanese internment with FDR. Murder of US citizens abroad without trial today.
The French (and communist) revolution assumed the perfectibility of men - particularly after you cut their heads off.
=Stalinist Maoist atrocities.
100 million killed by their own governments.
The notion of a benign helpful but invasive and ever increasing government is a myth that's doomed to bite us sooner or later. Unless you're a government union employee - then it's cool because pensions.
K,
I like the Hayek approach.
Make it shorter, and more digestible. Reagan did.
"From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"
Make a similar argument in about the same length with simpler words.
The Sowell Conflict of Visions approach might be a bit harder to use* because Dems will say "Well, we don't think humans are perfect." Its got some flaws.
*NOT saying it isn't true, though ;).
I think Hayek's basic approach is correct. I would avoid historical discussions though because history is disputed, even things that are undeniably true, and because people often refuse to believe that history can teach us anything. Always stick with the effect on them now and in the near future.
And if you want to use history, do something like, "Do you know why the Soviet Union had no tanning beds? Because the old gray farts in the Politburo never thought the public might want them. Are you sure you want five guys in Washington making decisions for you?"
Kit, I don't associate free market with business either, but most conservatives do. That's why they knee-jerk defend things like oil companies, even when those companies are running on subsidies and are looking to get special favors out of the government.
I would always focus on SMALL business in my rhetoric. Small business is ultra popular, it's the mom and pop store everyone loves. Frame all your business arguments in terms of helping/hurting them.
"I would always focus on SMALL business in my rhetoric. Small business is ultra popular, it's the mom and pop store everyone loves. Frame all your business arguments in terms of helping/hurting them."
Which means going after the regulations passed in the name of protecting David against Goliath but in reality protect Goliath against David?
Yes, but that's a policy question. I'm talking more about rhetoric. If you want to use business in a way that attracts people, talk about small business, not "business" and never "corporate."
Good point.
Post a Comment