liberals

First, Try Getting the Little Things Right

by Ryan Young on October 8, 2010

in Politics as Usual, Stimulus to Nowhere

Conservatives and Progressives believe in the power of government. Conservatives think that government can build democracies abroad and enforce morality. Progressives think government can lift people out of poverty and correct market failures.

This faith in government is simply astounding, given the evidence to the contrary. Government is charged with some big tasks. Some of them are necessary. But often, it can’t even do the little things. Have a look at these two news stories:

Stimulus Checks Sent to the Dead

Postal Union Election Delayed After Ballots Lost in the Mail

Washington has centuries of experience cutting checks and delivering the mail. You’d think they’d have it down by now; apparently not. Even so, politicians from both parties are still pushing for more, more, more. The right wants more military spending. The left wants more entitlement spending. They have all the faith in the world that their proposals will work as intended.

Sometimes, being a classical liberal feels like being the only atheist in a room full of believers.

“Sanity is not statistical”

by Ivan Osorio on March 2, 2009 · 1 comment

in Culture, Economy, Politics as Usual, Stimulus to Nowhere

There are few things more fascinating to watch than liberals hyperventilate to the point that they lose the basic ability to construct even a rudimentary argument. It’s not pretty, but like a car wreck, it’s hard to turn oneself away. Consider this letter in the current issue of The Economist:

SIR – Sadly, the Republicans have rediscovered the joys of opposition. Nothing as slight as a national crisis is going to make them shift from ground that seems so politically advantageous. Yet despite its considerable flaws, the stimulus bill does have substantial broad support—among voters. Perhaps, in time, the Republican rump will come around, but I would not count on it any time soon, especially when newspapers such as yours are prepared to treat their claims of high-mindedness with such undeserved respect. [Emphasis added]

The writer is essentially arguing that Congress should pass the stimulus, even though, admittedly, it has “considerable flaws”– because it’s popular. (Notice the lack of any discussion of its effects.)

And that’s not all. In the same letter, the writer accuses Republicans of engaging in “politically advantageous” pandering by opposing that same allegedly popular program.

With President Obama’s approval ratings still at healthy levels, we may yet see more similar defenses of policies he supports to be based on popularity — couched in more diginfied terms, such as “mandate,” of course.

It’s always good to keep in mind Winston Smith‘s greatest discovery: “Sanity is not statistical.”

Krugman is No Liberal

by Iain Murray on January 6, 2009 · 12 comments

in Features, Personal Liberty, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

Further to Cord’s post below, a real liberal, not a statist claiming to be one, would be familiar with John Stuart Mill’s argument that minorities need small government to protect them from the “tyranny of the majority“:

The “people” who exercise the power, are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised, and the “self-government” spoken of, is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest. The will of the people, moreover, practically means, the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority; the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this, as against any other abuse of power. The limitation, therefore, of the power of government over individuals, loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community, that is, to the strongest party therein. This view of things, recommending itself equally to the intelligence of thinkers and to the inclination of those important classes in European society to whose real or supposed interests democracy is adverse, has had no difficulty in establishing itself; and in political speculations “the tyranny of the majority” is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard.

Mill goes on to warn that limits on government are not enough, for the tyranny of the majority can also operate through convention – and this is what distinguishes the liberal Mill from the conservative. However, in a world where the liberal victory over convention is well-nigh complete, it is the limitation of the power of government over individuals that is more important. That is where liberalism has failed, because people who presumptuously call themselves liberals have been seduced by the power of the state and seek to use it to impose their own view of the world on everyone. The fatal conceit that Hayek, another great liberal who despised the idea that he might be thought of as conservative, warned against as leading down the road to serfdom has so completely infected modern liberalism that it has become the establishment that Mill warned against (perhaps Nobel laureates form the new aristocracy of this establishment).

It is perhaps a jape by history that conservatives have become the prime guardians of real liberty, but once liberty becomes a tradition, conservatives are bound to uphold it. Mill would recognize this, and approve heartily. If he does not know this, Krugman is not only no liberal, but he is no intellectual either.