Actually Existing Conservatism

It is clear that the American right, for all its howling about "big government," and the horror they affect to feel that a government might tax and spend, has no problem with big government or spending (their abhorrence of taxes seems sincere) so long as the big government initiatives the government is throwing money at are, for example, military adventures ($600 billion plus spent so far on the Iraq debacle, $200 billion plus on Afghanistan), surveillance of American citizens, or finding ways to incarcerate more people.  The  only government initiatives that actually seem to appall the right are those which might, in some small way, ameliorate the conditions under which the most miserable in American society live: universal health care, for example.

Over at Democratic Underground, someone calling himself  walldude (the "dude" in the name makes me think it's a him) sums up the confusion some of us feel at the contradictions that define the American right.

—David

Comments

[ken]

most likely iraq will pay for itself,afghanistan has been going down the toilet for years somebody needed to help and again it will most likely pay for itself,putting people in jail does cost but if you did a study,how much would it cost to just let them run around.and with a little luck obama has decided that goverment healthcare isn't the right way to go and will try a different approach,where as some of the wars stopped a madman that was hell bent on killing and invading,it looks like the townhalls stopped a madman that was hell bent on bankrupting america

[Only a Blockhead]

Hi Ken:

I respect you for being such a loyal reader of Blockhead even though you certainly disagree with many of the opinions I express here.  Most of us (me included) tend to seek out congenial thinking while doing our best to avoid that with which might challenge our beliefs.

We've been hearing that Iraq will pay for itself since very early in the war.  The debt, however, is still, years later, growing as we speak.  I guess you are suggesting that once the Iraqi oil industry gets back on its feet Iraq will be awash in cash and will feel so grateful to the United States for invading that they (and the rather fractious Iraqi citizenry) will be happy to toss the odd $600 billion (or whatever the total has risen to by the time Iraq decides to reimburse the US) America's way.  Again, you are more optimistic than me (ever read Candide?)

Afghanistan has always been a poor country.  There is no oil there.  Other than one lucrative crop (we discussed it in an earlier post) I can't think of what Afghanistan can possibly convert into several hundred billion extra dollars (i.e. cash that won't be earmarked for the country's own needs) that they'll be happy to PayPal to the American government.

It appears that Obama is backing away from a rational approach to health care.  Too bad.  As one who has lived in a country with socialized medicine for nearly 25 years, and whose wife has had a major operation here (which healed her and didn't bankrupt us in the process), let me tell you, Ken, it works well.  Are there problems.  Sure, but they're minor compared to the drawbacks of the system of doling out medical care in the US: rationing based on income of the patients.

And what do you have against capital letters, anyway? 

[ken]

well not to bruise your ego,but you were on the news and politics page,but that money that was sent to iraq kind of went poof no one knows where it went,and no i don't have it.and as far as both country's are conserned the lost money in bombings will more then make up for it in the future,who knows maybe someday you will want to vacation in afghanistan.....i don't know what country you live in but it sounds like your wife was lucky,alot of country's are keeping people in lines for years ,sometimes to many years,we have a pretty good system in this country just need to get the kinks out,no reason to start a goverment one thats always broke and offers sub-standerd care...if your wife has any more problems just bring her over here we have the most advanced care in the world..not to mention half the girls in my extended family make a pretty good living of our healthcare system..a post all kinds of places i hardly ever agree with any one a 100% but i do keep looking..

[Lightfoot Letters]

Understanding the left and right.

Outlawing Democrats and Republicans would be a start to understanding and simple. Just do it at the polling booth. If not, you or we, should not complain about Democrats and Republicans acting like self-serving  Democrats and Republicans. Modern Democrats are not liberals and never have been liberals. Republicans are not conservative, but in the past were liberals. Today, neither have a philosophy that can be understood, except power, control and getting elected. Which would make both authoritarian in nature, neither liberal or conservative, but buyable at the right price.

Health Care : The important point is the Federal Government has no authority to create a health care program. In fact it is the only point. That said; State, county  city governments already have created health care programs for public employees. If they want to expand these programs to cover the 3-5% that actually need help, with the vote of the citizens, they can. 

[Only a Blockhead]

Lightfoot Letters:

Thanks for your reply.

I didn't use the terms "Democrat" or "Republican" in the post to which you are responding because I agree with you about the essential meaninglessness of the terms
as they are employed to describe American
political groupings.  I prefer to use the terms
"left" and "right," though I do  understand that even those terms are not all that precise.  Both
"left" and "right" seem to subsume thinkers, writers, and activists of many different
stripes, and assuming it's not orthodoxy that we're after, this doesn't
seem to me necessarily a bad thing.

I slightly disagree with you about Democrats in that I think more than
a handful of party-members may actually be liberals; very few, if any, are
leftists.

(I can't resist quoting Bill Maher's quip: "The Democrats have moved to
the right, and the Republicans have moved to a mental hospital.")

With regard to health care, I wonder how you can believe that "the
federal government has no authority to create a health care program." 
What are Medicare and the VA if not health care programs created,
supported, and run by the federal government?  (The cabinet level
Department of Veteran's Affairs was, in 1988, signed into existence by
a former actor named Ronald Reagan.  It's the federal government's
second largest department after the Department of Defense.) 

If the Supreme Court were to declare Medicare and the VA
unconstitutional then we could say that the federal government has no
authority to create such health care programs.  The Supreme Court has
not done so.

If Congress refuses to allocate the necessary funds for such programs
then that would effectively end them (but wouldn't necessarily say
anything about whether the federal government had the authority to
institute them in the first place).

And, for better or worse, it seems that Congress will be the ones to
decide on whether the United States will adopt a more rational approach
to health care.

Again, thanks for commenting,

David

 

[ken]

what i don't get any thanks for commenting...and by the way  medicare is broke why should i trust the goverment to run a wal-mart when they can't run a lemonade stand.....oh and this just in canada's healthcare system is broke..they are trying for a more american system...thank you....and watch out for earthquakes

[Only a Blockhead]

Ken:

Excuse my poor manners, and . . . thanks for commenting.

[ken]

why,your welcome kind sir,japan healthcare,detriot seems to like it but i'm not so sure..

[Lightfoot Letters]

"With regard to health care, I wonder how you can believe that "the federal government has no authority to create a health care program."  The US Constitution denies the Federal Government that authority.

Bill Maher - Is that the same Bill Maher who claims he is a libertarian? That is as absurd as Maxine Waters (D) claming to be a liberal, as she is advocating nationalizing the oil companies.  But, that is a funny quote with some truth to it.

I assumed you ment D & R for left and right. That is the problem with letting politicians,  the media and public employees, especially education, destroy the meaning of the english language  for political purpose.

I prefer liberalism (libertaianism), socialism, marxism, communism, statist and authoritarian  which are fairly well defined terms in philosophy and political terms.

Equals: Democrats mostly statist and authoritarian socialist in practice. Republicans mostly liberals (libertarians) and socialists in practice.

Practical problem: Most Republicans, especially young Republicans do not understand the the concepts of natural rights, tolerance, free trade, limited government ect., which they advocate, are basic core principles of liberalism. 

 

[Lightfoot Letters]

If I may be so bold. There is a very relevant post on http://libertyviews.vox.com/ . I do not agree with all the conclusions. However, it is still very informative and thought provoking...if that is still allowed. 

[Only a Blockhead]

(I accidentally deleted the comment I wrote in reply to you earlier.  I'll attempt to reconstruct it here.)

Thanks for the link.  I'll have a look at it.

If you have a moment I wonder if you would mind pointing me to the section of the Constitution that denies the federal government the authority to create health care programs such as Medicare, the VA, and, perhaps, the currently debated system(s).

If such authority is not explicitly denied then it's up to the Supreme Court to interpret whatever sections of Constitution might be relevant (the tenth amendment?).  Thusfar they seem to have decided that the government does have the authority to institute, fund, and run programs such as Medicare and the VA (also Social Security).

Best,

David

[Lightfoot Letters]

US Constitution Article I, Sec. 8 denies the federal government the authority to establish entities such as Medicare, the VA, and other forms of socialized medicine. Note, the VA is a contract for services,  between the Federal Government and each citizen that serves. Not in the same category as other programs like Social Security Medicare or the Dept of  Education.

 
Amend. X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. This does not leave much to interpret. It seems clear to me that the Several States, Counties or Cities could have health care  programs and they do for public employees. It is my interpretation of the 10th Amend. that no authority exists for the Federal Government to create mandatory social security programs or  public relations programs like the Dept. of  Education. The Su. Ct. has no authority,to decide or create that, which does not exist.
 
Getting off subject a little.... thanks for a good post and good discussion!!

[Only a Blockhead]

As is so often the case with documents such as the Constitution that were written in times different and distant from our own, it is possible to read Article X in more than one way, and my reading of it is different from yours.  I would say that it clearly indicates that states do have the authority to institute, for example, health care programs (as Massachusetts has done), but I don't see where it states that the federal government couldn't also create a nationwide health care program in addition to those states that have done so. 

This sort of federal and state overlap is not unprecedented: one example of federal and state institutions existing in parallel would be the FBI along with state and city law enforcement.

It still looks to me like a job for the Supreme Court.  They're the ones whose job it is to decide in cases dealing with issues that the founders didn't or couldn't explicitly address.

And, of course, to say that a proposed government action is unconstitutional is not to say that it is necessarily a bad idea; to say that a proposed government action is constitutional is not to say that it is necessarily a good idea.  Because I think it would be a good idea for the US to have socialized medicine I want to believe that such a program would not violate the Constitution.  Perhaps one reason you are not displeased to believe that such a program would violate the Constitution is that you would oppose such a program even if you could be convinced that it didn't violate the Constitution?
  
And yes, thank you for the good discussion. The temptation to be snarky is always there (and I can be as snarky as the worst of them), but one sure learns a lot more in exchanges such as this one where each speaker treats the other with respect, and neither speaker raises his or her voice.

Best,

David

[John]

[this is good] There is a long-standing definition that a conservative wants the government out of your wallet and into your bedroom, whilst a liberal wants the government out of your bedroom and into your wallet [1]. Over the past few decades, teh two appear to have hybridized so that we have a government that wants into both, but is unwilling to admit it.

John

[1] In contrast to the other famous definition: A conservative is a liberal who has just been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative who has just been arrested.

[Only a Blockhead]

John:

Thanks for your comment. It made me grin.

Best,

David