Thinking Like an Elephant
The relentlessly maligned Jonah Goldberg has been complaining that the cascade of hostility directed toward his book Liberal F-ism largely emanates from critics who haven’t read it, or even ponied up to buy it. Fortunately, he has a free piece in the Washington Post that I’ve read in full and would like to trash. Of particular note is this line: “Today the American public seems deeply schizophrenic: It hates the government – Washington, Congress and public institutions are more unpopular than at any time since Watergate – but it wants more of it.”
Actually, the public’s hostility toward government today is just as sane as it was during the Watergate era. When government fails abysmally, especially in ways that are patently antithetical to the Constitution, Americans become unhappy toward those responsible. It’s pretty obvious to much of the public that government under the control of conservative Republicans has failed in myriad manifestations. Republican candidates are having such a hard time crafting a message that is both conservative and politically appealing because those are the two concepts that have come to seem paradoxical. It’s because the right-wing’s philosophy and ideas have over and over again proven not to work in practice that Republicans are having a hard time attracting voters. Americans don’t want more government, they want better government.
To Goldberg, the big problem with Bush was his “compassionate conservatism,” which produced “the biggest federal government expansion into education in history and the largest spike in entitlement spending since the Great Society.” Presumably, he’s referring to the No Child Left Behind Law and the Medicare drug benefit. Both of those pieces of legislation were indeed deeply flawed, though they rank pretty far down on the list of Bush administration failures. What prevented both laws from being much more effective and popular, though, was their incorporation of counterproductive features intended to impose conservatism on the compassion. In the case of NCLB, those included provisions aimed in one way or another at weakening support for public schools while offering little besides penalties to induce improvements; with the Medicare drug bill, you have the large and growing doughnut hole to keep beneficiaries from becoming “insensitive to costs” and the prohibition against government competition with private plans. Those laws would be much more popular, and effective, in the absence of their “conservative” elements.
Goldberg doesn’t so much as mention these failures of movement conservatism’s ideology as implemented under the Bush administration: the Iraq War, the widespread use of torture, unchecked domestic surveillance, huge tax cuts for the rich, the decimation of FEMA and other agencies, Social Security privatization (which would have been disastrous if enacted), and the evisceration of environmental, public health, and safety regulations. But those are the reasons why Bush and the government generally are so unpopular, and why conservatism has little left to say about governing.
Goldberg concludes his piece by saying that the traditional conservative believes that if you don’t have a good idea for what an elephant should be doing, the best course is to encourage it to do nothing at all. But the elephants who have been stampeding all over the government and the constitution the past seven years – let loose by a conservative movement that cheered on their every step for most of that time – have caused damage that can only be repaired by those who recognize the right’s responsibility for the disasters.
Actually, the public’s hostility toward government today is just as sane as it was during the Watergate era. When government fails abysmally, especially in ways that are patently antithetical to the Constitution, Americans become unhappy toward those responsible. It’s pretty obvious to much of the public that government under the control of conservative Republicans has failed in myriad manifestations.
There's the start of a good critique there, but it becomes so simplistically partisan so quickly that it just goes to hell faster than the new season of Heroes. So Republican government has failed, but the Great Society worked? Jimmy Carter's term worked? Always, 100%? Sad to say, the most successful Democratic president of the last half century is the one who bemoaned the fact that he was so hemmed in to Republican policies that his administration had become Eisenhower Republicans. Well, I like Ike, and although I think it will be healthy for both parties for the Democrats to win this time (and to have to take responsibility for a while, instead of voting for it after voting against it), here's hoping the next Democrat in office is more like Ike and less like Jimmy, too. And maybe Reagan's 25-year-boom can be a 35 year boom.
January 14, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mgmax--
Just to be clear: the post is about modern movement conservative ideology -- the belief system and policy ideas propagated by the well-funded right-wing network of think tanks, university programs, media affiliates, etc. beginning with the creation of the Heritage Foundation in 1973. Eisenhower had nothing to do with that brand of conservatism. Reagan had a lot to do with it. Bush carried out in full many of the ideas that Reagan initiated but pulled back from to varying degrees (e.g., tax cuts, SS dismantling). I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was saying that only Democrats are popular.-- Greg
January 14, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
anrig said:
"Modern movement conservative ideology" is, to put it simply 'unbridled capitalism.'
January 14, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
mgmax said:
Wasn't there a brief recession in 1987, then another longer one in 1991?
And didn't Black Monday in the market occur in October 1987, losing 25% of the value of the DOW?
"Reagan's 25-year-boom"?
January 14, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love this argument. The Dow goes up 50 bazillion over 25 years, unemployment falls to near-record lows, and you say it's all shit because... the market crashed 21 years ago!
"We've been happily married for 25 years--"
"Wrong! You had a fight over where the car keys were in 1987! You're living in a house of LIES!"
January 14, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what it is worth, the biggest percentage gain in the DOW over the last 25 years was Clinton's second term. There was no sustained gain over the temporary spike in '87 until Clinton's first term.
January 14, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
So... Reagan's prosperity didn't actually start to show up until after he was out of office for about ten years?
Gotcha.
January 14, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Believe what you want, here in the echo chamber of the marginalized. Believe that the deregulation and inflation-busting of the Reagan era aren't the basis of all our prosperity today. Believe that the Soviet Union just fell because it felt like it. Believe the Carter years were a lost paradise. I don't care.
Just don't elect somebody who screws it up by believing that government can run the economy anywhere but into a brick wall.
January 15, 2008 4:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The deregulation of the S&Ls brought us this prosperity?
January 15, 2008 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Believe what I want? ROTFL! Oh thank you mighty Mgmax for the permission to have my own opinion.
Hmmmm. What shall I believe, what shall I believe, decisions decisions, decisions. Shall it be facts, or Mgmax's bullshit? Facts or bullshit? Man, it's a tough one.
I know, I think I'll go with facts! It's a wild and crazy plan but it just might work!
The facts, speak for themselves. And they don't speak particularly well of Reagan.
Which is why you don't have any answer but whiny petulance, like a baby who has just been spanked.
The facts show that deregulation started under Carter, not Reagan. A little detail that you like to overlook. The facts show that Reagan only continued a Carter policy, but overplayed it and extended it to disastrous extremes - S&L, Trucking, Airlines, Enron... and we've been trying to walk back from that damage ever since.
The facts show that the real inflation busting had nothing to do with Reagan, and everything to do with the stabilization and collapse of world oil prices. It had been energy shocks and the Vietnam war that had driven inflation.
The facts show that under Reagan, job creation and economic growth were mediocre. These are the keys to assessing economic performance. You know this and you've got no way around it.
The facts show that Reagan ran colossal deficits, something which you know every well, but would eat broken glass rather than admit.
The facts show that as a President, Reagan lead the country into two very bad recessions.
Reagan's 25 years of prosperity my ass.
Take your right wing propaganda and run it up some other flagpole. Consider yourself served.
Oh, and the Soviet Union fell because Reagan said 'tear down that wall' ROTFL!!! Yeah. Peddle that bullshit.
January 15, 2008 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron,
you were warned, now I must act;
I fine you $10.00 for introducing inconvenient facts!
January 15, 2008 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The military buildup started under Carter as well. Nixon and Ford had kept military pay crippled, Carter delivered the first big pay raise in a long time. I know I was collecting a Navy check at the time. Plus he introduced a lot of modernization into the Navy, much like Bush II won the Battle of Baghdad with Clinton's Army, Reagan won much of the Cold War with Carter's Navy. In contrast Reagans 600 ship fleet concept simply meant wasting billions of dollars keeping and in some cases re-introducing obsolete vessels instead of retiring them. We spent huge amount of money bringing back those four battleships which had no real modern function and in practice only served to screw up even further the Lebanese Civil War. The second ship I served on was mechanically a piece of junk scheduled for decommissioning. Instead they sent it to Bremerton shipyard to refit it. When we left the Yards the only problem we had was that the gun system didn't work, the propulsion system failed about every three days of sailing, and the missile system was iffy, in large part because the Weapons Direction component was so antiquated as to make one cry, we sailed off to confront the Soviets with tube based equipment (yep 50's era vacuum tubes) which I was lucky enough to have the responsibility for maintaining and in the event fighting.
Lucky it never came to that, the only live missile test we tried failed, with almost tragic results, and we never got the gun system on track. But by God our very existence added to the fleet count. The fact that we weren't actually at any point really mission capable being merrily ignored by all.
In the end Reagan threw a lot of money at the Navy but wasn't really responsible for the technical advances that make the modern Navy what it is. AEGIS, the SeaSparrow, the evolution of the Terrier missile into the Standard, the Los Angeles class submarine, Spruance Destroyers all them started under his predecessors and the Navy would have been far better served by maintaining a focus on modernization over sheer numbers. But Ronnie got his rocks off on having 16'' guns so we got us the New Jersey and three other retiree battleships out of retirement at unbelievable cost to no ultimate end.
January 15, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as I've said, when you look at Reagan's actual record, it's not all that impressive...
Average or slightly below average in job creation.
Average or slightly below average in economic growth.
Highest level of unemployment in postwar history in 1982.
Two major recessions as a result of very bad management.
Raised payroll taxes on average people, cut income taxes on the rich.
Runaway government spending, mostly military.
Massive deficit financing to pay for it all.
S&L Fiasco.
Stock market crash.
Economically, he was a middling to terrible President.
But by fictionalizing his accomplishments to a 25 year legacy, Reagan can take credit for Clinton's accomplishments.
Gotta love the right wing....
January 14, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mxmax,
first off, you were the one who went back 25 years to the Reagan years as a starting point for your fantasy.
Second, as far as the market rise and low unemployment, didn't that happen under Clinton? Oh, and Clinton erased the Reagan deficit and balanced the budget while he was at it
January 15, 2008 5:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was also a real estate depression after 1987 to about 1993. However, since Paul Volker and Alan Greenspan broke the back of inflation and started a now almost 30 year slide in interest rates the economy as a whole has been booming.
The major problem aggrevated by explicit Republican policies has been the tilting of the benefits in too concentrated hands.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 15, 2008 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose I could just let it go. But:
"Reagan's 25 year boom"?
Someone's been smoking a few rocks, I take it.
Let's look at Reagan's actual economic record.
National debt increased from 700 billion to 3 trillion dollars.
The U.S. Trade deficit also expanded.
America went from being the largest creditor nation, to the largest welfare nation on earth.
Unemployment, approximately 7% at the start of his term, went up to 11% by 1982, dropping thereafter.
Job growth under Reagan was about 2.1% per year, pretty average for post-war Presidents.
The Savings and Loan industry was devastated. That in itself was a major fiasco.
He also presided over the stock market crash of 1987.
Although he cut taxes on the wealthy, he actually increased net payroll taxes. Thus, he actively shifted the tax burden downwards, collecting more money from poorer people, and less money from richer ones.
Real wages, adjusted for inflation, stagnated under Reagan.
The American economy under Reagan grew by 3.4% per year. Pretty good... except that the post war average was 3.6% per year. Reagan was an under-performer, slightly below average.
Reagan's policies also manufactured a recession in 1982, which was used to fight inflation at the cost of the highest unemployment in the post-war era.
Ultimately, it was the worldwide collapse of oil prices, something that had nothing to do with Reagan's policies, which allowed the American economky to recover.
Oil prices had been the bane of the Carter Presidency, and before that, Ford and Nixon. In this sense, Reagan was the man who had fallen into a barrel of cocks and come out sucking his thumb.
Reagan's brilliant economic policies lead to a late eighties recession, starting in 1987, that plagued his successor, George H.W. Bush until 1992.
Indeed, Reagan's bad management of the economy was repudiated by George H.W. Bush, and then later by Bill Clinton.
In short, whatever worked with the economy, worked in spite of Reagan, not because of him.
Meanwhile, if you want solid economic management and genuine prosperity, look to Bill Clinton, who spent most of his terms attempting to unravel Ronald Reagan's damage. He even managed to balance the budget.
Sadly, once Bush II came in, he set about destroying all that.
25 year boom? Rubbish.
January 14, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron,
there you go again, bringing up facts and reality. I must warn you, if you continue down this road I will be forced to fine you $10.00
January 14, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
B-b-but Reagan/Bush increased weapons trade with Iran , and helped increase Medicare billing from Jeb's Cuban mob supporters in Florida, and Neal Bush did some good deals before the S&L thing hit the wall. The Iran thing led to a lot of 'true American patriots' being pardoned before they were even convicted of anything by George H. Bush.
January 14, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don’t forget, he destroyed the Evil Empire and started the Star Wars project (Dude, the Force was with him).
January 14, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a great point, Don. If the force, or the US Military Forces, to be exact, were here with him and not in Russia with them, how do we get 'credit' for the destroying? I mean, wingnuttia wants it both ways. We destroyed them because of Reagan's superior force build up and everyone knows that communism will never work. From what I understand it was more a problem caused by the 2 C's - communism and corruption, but don't say that in the presence of a devoted Reaganite. They would be ruling us today if it wasn't for him. Did Star Wars ever actually get off the ground and near a star?
"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden
January 14, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
We’ve already spent over $100 billion on Star Wars, and are currently spending $10 billion a year, which will be $19 billion in five years, for a project that has never been proven to work and for which we no longer have an enemy. But, hey, that’s nothing when you have $600 billion military budgets. We’re gonna bankrupt the greatest nation on Earth because of the war movies Ronnie liked. I’m glad he never watched Dr. Strangelove. Then again, maybe he did.
January 14, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a great point, Don. If the force, or the US Military Forces, to be exact, were here with him and not in Russia with them, how do we get 'credit' for the destroying? I mean, wingnuttia wants it both ways. We destroyed them because of Reagan's superior force build up and everyone knows that communism will never work. From what I understand it was more a problem caused by the 2 C's - communism and corruption, but don't say that in the presence of a devoted Reaganite. They would be ruling us today if it wasn't for him. Did Star Wars ever actually get off the ground and near a star?
"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden
January 14, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
GregAnrig said;
I think there are times when "better government" requires "more government."
Greg,
you're right about conservatives stampeding government these past 7 years, and the public sees what that hath wrought, and that's why I think the Conservative movement is all but dead.
January 14, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wanna make EVERYBODY mad? Put up a Balanced Budget Act. No more free government doughnuts.
Of course, if you chop the handouts, what happens then? Hmmm....
January 14, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
We had balanced budgets under Clinton and the only folks getting mad were Republicans.
January 14, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon the ad hominen pop psychology, but the most most pathetic thing about Jonah's analytical work is that he is truly sincere in his beliefs and seems to be deeply hurt that his wisdom is not being embraced.
Rather than being a tough-skinned SOB like Limbaugh or his mother, Mr. Goldberg seems like a soft and sensitive kid who addled his post-pubescent brain during advent of AM Right-Wing Talk Radio and Conservative Attack Publishing.
How would any of us have turned out if, during our teen years, we heard mommy promoting theories about Anita Hill's sluttiness and Rush yelling that the fall of the USSR was actually Gorby's Communist ploy to take over the world.
Freud may have been cuckoo, but he wasn't wrong about everything. Oedipus or potty training - Take your pick.
January 14, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
great description of Jonah :-)
January 14, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
John, Completely unintentional-- I swear!!! --Greg
January 14, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The right wing doesn't oppose big government, it opposes GOOD government. As long as the government is spending billions on unnecessary wars and weapons systems, as long as it's spying on millions of its citizens, imprisoning them wholesale, limiting their freedom of expression, and expanding police powers to search, seize, and sell the property of its citizens...THAT'S okay with the neocon crowd. But as soon as the government wants to provide a free meal, a cheap loan, or an adequate rental apartment to the neediest of its citizens,--why THAT'S when neocons want to shrink the government!
The neocon ideology isn't wrongheaded, it's nonexistent. It's just a few cheap, hypocritical slogans used to mask their love of war and death, and their hatred of normal human beings.
January 14, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You left out one of the main neo-con "ridiculousnesses" ---
1-- Just say no. (don't have sex)
2--Don't have an abortion if you actually did #1
3--But you better give that baby up for adoption to a wealthy couple if you follow our instructions because...
4--Don't expect any help with insurance, welfare, or any other type of governmental support once you have decided to raise your bastard on your own, you slut, you!
5--Make no mistake -- having the baby is a neocon punishment. Once that has been inflicted on the person, they are happy to just go on to the next wedge issue.
Jan
January 14, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, Jan, but I disagree that "having the baby is a neocon punishment." Neocons care about social issues only for the purpose of getting religious conservatives to vote for them. Huckabee, for example, is no neocon, but he would cheerfully burn his own daughter at the stake for considering an abortion.
January 14, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Huckabee would burn his daughter for considering an abortion, but I guarantee you that every young woman who gets an abortion is not the daughter of a Democrat. Neocons have given wing to the very notion of "Do as I say -- Not as I do." They are hypocrites extraordinaire.
Do you think that Genna Bush (if she got knocked up) would be giving her spawn up for adoption?
Funny how our VP manages to have a gay pregnant daughter and no neo-cons decry him. Why not? Because they agree on the money issues and the war issues -- All the IMPORTANT stuff!
Jan
January 15, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genna Bush (if she got knocked up)
What makes you think she hasn't been? She looks like a party girl to me.
January 15, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't I think she's been knocked up? Because Laura is her mother and she was a party girl herself. I'm sure the Bush twins have been on birth control pills from the get-go.
Jan
January 15, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point.
January 15, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The relentlessly maligned Jonah Goldberg has been complaining...
Good post, Greg, but you misspelled "malignant."
January 14, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL... XD
January 14, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which raises an interesting epistemic point.
Was Jonah born malignant? Or did it take relentless rounds of malignment to make it happen? I guess its one of those nature vs nurture things we may never settle.
By the way what is that in his pants?
January 15, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Americans are by and large skeptical of government. However, that is largely a meanless idea. Part of the success of the Clinton Adminstration was reminding people that government was not just a bloat bureaucracy but could help people with their every day problems.
What is more popular than Social Security and Medicare. These are social insurance programs
into most people pay and from which most people benefit.
One reason to be skeptical of populism is that it tends to end up being about goverment programs that inevitably interfere more and more in peoplel's lives. However a government that can help people with what is most needed everyday is a government that gets American support or has at least since the New Deal.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 14, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Skeptical of government?
I don't see that. I see a population which celebrates its government, that elevates the President to a quasi-deific figure, that fetishizes its army, that celebrates all the exercise of punitive state powers - police, judges, courts, prisons. Endless laws to regulate behaviour. And deep down, a cowed sheepish terror of the state that they have created.
January 14, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fear caused by 9/11 like the fear caused by the Depression has given government more power. However, on a day to day basis Americans are skeptical of government, especially government as a source of social change.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 15, 2008 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm skeptical of that.
The American right wing makes a virtue of trumpeting that government can't do anything. But they fetishize government more than anyone else.
I keep thinking of the veneration of the President as some sort of demigod - the quivering outrage that the right emits when a (Republican) President is in any way disrespected. The extraordinary pomp and ceremony that accompanies the President everywhere, reminiscent of a Chinese emperor or the French sun king.
I'm also thinking of the Right wing fetish for using government to implement a social agenda - be it segregation, faith based services, pro-life, anti-porn, drugs, etc. The right wing certainly believes fervently in government and it governments power to enact the rights social agenda. Don't be mistaken about that.
Liberals are often denounced for 'social engineering', but in fact, the extremist and repressive aspects of American society have been big fans of social engineering. The entire Jim Crow system in the south was nothing but a 90 year campaign of relentless social engineering and experimentation designed to keep blacks down and turn them into second class subhumans.
Skepticism about government is one of those stories that Americans like to tell each other, but factually... I'm just not convinced.
January 15, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Skepticism is the wrong word, for sure. At least my crowd is irreverent, and not automatically respectful of authority. We were the ones laughing at Firesign Theater's report on the President's Bowel Movements in the Nixon years.
It was Republicans demanding reflexive respect for authority, an end to the demonstrations and such. Conservatives disrespected the rabble, but revered the flag.
As to whether Americans want government to act on their behalf, as a mechanism for change, I'm sure that correlates with the particular Americans in question. If you were black in 1954, you wanted the federal government to guarantee your rights (ditto the 60s, ditto the 70s, ditto the 80s, and on). Precisely those Ameircans that lack financial power or fame seek redress in Washington.
I seem to remember something about redress, in the Bill of Rights, perhaps? Perhaps the very first amendment? Could that perhaps refer to government being asked to effect some change?
January 15, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be absolutely clear, if you were black in 1954, the government of the day had very clear laws about who you could marry, what public bathrooms you could use, etc. That same government was willing to spend quite a lot of money to educate white children, but not to educate you or your children. That government was very willing to put you in jail if you sat on the wrong stool in a restaurant.
Americans that lack financial power or fame might want to seek redress from Washington, but its pretty clear that municipal, state and federal governments have favoured the powerful and the wealthy, and that these parties have never been hesitant or reluctant to use government to their ends.
January 15, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes to your second para. In '54 the Eisenhower overrode the state of Mississippi.
I'd say that until recently, with the destructive policies of the Bush WH, the fed was more often than not the protector of individuals against state laws and community practices. All Jim Crow laws were state-level.
January 15, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1965 the Federal Government was pretty much limited to exercising its rights under the Commerce Clause. Which for good and for ill has been stretched pretty damn far by both sides. Ultimately almost anything can be connected to at least the possibility of it effecting interstate commerce to one degree or another. Lots of evil things were done under cover of States Rights. On the other hand the Founders left pretty little room under the 10th Amendment.
"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"
For all practical purposes the 10th Amendment is a dead letter and from a lot of perspectives maybe it is a good riddance, but it is still sitting there and still explicitly underpinning States Rights. FDR and latter Truman and Ike did as much as they could for Civil Rights considering the makeup of the courts and the plain reading of the 10th Amendment, but you can't make everything happen yesterday.
January 15, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
We Americans are utterly skeptical about government, but only when we are filing tax returns. We can enjoy watching the destruction of Iraq and the Iraqis on our TV news, enjoy watching the "crime reports" on our local TV news, enjoy watching people incarcerated for possession of drugs, etc. but we feel only outrage and bitterness as we write the checks to finance those government activities.
You see, our main fetish is pieces of paper, with big numbers on them and a president's photo in the middle.
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 15, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goldberg doesn’t so much as mention these failures of movement conservatism’s ideology as implemented under the Bush administration: the Iraq War, the widespread use of torture, unchecked domestic surveillance...
Guess you didn't hear the news, Greg. The government is no longer tapping as many phones as they were a month ago. Approx 500 less, actually, because the FBI did not pay their phone bills in 5 different regions. In some cases, the phone line being used to deliver the results were cut, too, resulting in the evidence drifting off into the ether, never to be seen again.
Wait for it, though. The reason for all of this is not totally clear but part of it seems to stem from the loss of the person responsible for the bookkeeping, who had to plead guilty last June for helping herself to $25,000 of the FBI's money. As they owed over $66,000 to one phone company alone and she seems more valuable than her takings, my suggestion is to let her keep the money, get her back there and see if she'll do some bookkeeping. Doesn't the nation's safety depend on her?
I just started Part II of your book. Not only is it loaded with information, it is a great read, too. The research and the analysis have a meaningful relationship to each other, which is so refreshing in these days of rewriting historical politcal theories to match the title of a book. When you do an update, I hope you add in the FBI wire glitch. As Irving Kristol says on page 98, "...political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government." Well said, Irv. Just look how that's working for the FBI.
"To save your world you asked this man to die; Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?" W.H. Auden
January 14, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seashell,
What wonderful compliments about my book! You made my night.
Cheers! Greg
January 14, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got a suggestion for the FBI. Maybe they can set it up in a super-duper secret lab somewhere to avoid future problems and embarrassments. We could give it a keen code name like 'Operation Electronic Bill Pay' and give secret authorization to the Bank of America to pay the phone bill each month.
WAIT A MINUTE! That's what I do right now!
At one minute we are expected to believe that all of this is vitally important for our security and that questions about it or God forbid legal liability for the Telecoms are practically treasonous. At another we are expected to accept that Telecoms are in their rights to shut down vital intelligence operations at will. With no one on the other end particularly noticing.
Somehow I think that not everyone of these wiretaps was actually directed at a high value foreign target, instead it would appear that a broad bureaucratic net was cast with no one actually being that concerned with monitoring it. Either something is so important and timely that you can't afford seventy two hours to get judicial approval or you just decide it is easier to skip that step anytime you want to.
Trying to dismiss this as the result of some G-7 clerk stealing money and taking her eye off the ball doesn't cut it. The FBI used to spend their time investigating and prosecuting fraud, it is simply mind-blowing that it is even possible to steal their money. G-Men turned Keystone Cops. It it weren't for the whole trashing the Bill of Rights thing it might even be funny.
January 15, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 'big government / small government' argument is, imo, largely a canard. The reality is that the Right uses it as a code word regarding things it sees as an impediment to its causes, or a waste of 'its' money, for example, Social Security, Universal Health care, environmental regulations, checking imported toys for lead paint, etc.
I'm suprised that nobody here has mentioned the biggest Big Government boondoggle the Cheney/Bush administration has perpetrated on the citizens of the US; The Dept. of Homeland (in)Security. Their record of porkbarrel spending is well-documented, and the resulting benefits very thin indeed.
Personally, the only good thing I can say about them is that they've stopped the color-coded 'terror index,' but overall, i'd prefer to just have our National Guard troops back where they belong, rather than any 'innovations' regarding the use of Blackwater and their Hessian ilk.
January 14, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely.
The Right has perfected the trick of separating spending into two distinct categories. Category one is 'Spending we cannot NOT afford' which in practice boils down to anything military. Category two is 'Spending we CANNOT afford' which basically is everything else. Which is why they didn't even blink insisting we needed a one year Iraqi war supplemental of another $46 billion but that Democrats proposing $20 billion in domestic spending over a five year period was a budget buster. It is why they can blithely propose $120 billion immediate stimulus packages to stave off a recession that may not happen but vote down a five year $35 billion dollar SCHIPS bill because god forbid some middle class kid might get health coverage ahead of every last poor kid in the country.
In this world view people like me just don't get it, we are not serious enough to understand why we have to spend an extra $46 billion this year alone on Iraq (for a total pushing $200 billion) buy can't afford $7 billion to give health care to American kids.
I came up with a joke back in 2003 that made even the warmongering wingnuts at work laugh:
"I got good news and bad news"
"What's the good news?" "George Bush came out for universal health care."
"What's the bad news?" "It's only for Iraq"
Which pretty much was the tone back then. When you pointed out that we were spending 10s and later 100s of billions of dollars in Iraq war defenders kept pointing out that we were painting schools. Hmm, give me a billion dollars and I could make a good start on painting every school in frickin America, any sense of proportion has simply been deliberately obscured.
Ike warned us there would be days like this, that Small Government would be redefined as Government benefitting the Military Industrial Complex and Big Government defined as the New Deal. Pretty much it has come to pass just the way he called it.
January 15, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This gives the impression that you think it is only the string of failures under the Republicans that is responsible for the low opinion the public has of the government. To make that case, you would have to show that when the government was not controlled by Republicans, the people thought it was great.
Alas, I think it would be pretty hard to show that was the case. Americans have always had a low opinion of the government, especially Congress, for certainly aa long as I can remember. Certainly the current period is probably at the low end of the scale, but i don't think opinions of Congress have ever been majority favorable. If anyone can show me differently I'd be interested, but I don't think it's the case.
There's something about American political culture that encourages distrust and disapproval of the government, especially the federal government. This long predates "movement conservatism" and so to ascribe it to them is a bit misleading.
At the same time, it is surely incorrect to say that because Americans are dissatisfied with the performance of the government, that means they want less of it. There is not a shred of evidence that is true outside the loony world of conservatism.
I think this is largely true in the abstract but I find in interesting that there isn't a lot of evidence that people are willing to weight "good government" that highly in their list of criteria for deciding who to vote for. Candidates who run as competent technocrats tend to lose to others who connect with voters on an emotional level. All you need to do is look at Mitt Romney. Probably one of the ablest managers around, he chose to run as an ideologue because he knew that managers don't win elections, at least at the federal level.
As is the case in so many other areas, what people say they want and what they do in terms of action are contradictory. As much as we might assume otherwise, voting preference is very often totally irrational.
January 14, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad,
you're reading something into it that isn't there, the idea that Greg is referring to only Republican administrations. He referenced Watergate because its the classic example of his point, hostility toward government, not because it was a Republican administration.
Neat trick, you misinterpret what is written then attack your misinterpretation.
January 15, 2008 4:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also look at Goldberg's original quote in the first paragraph. He was the one who said that hostility toward government is higher than it has been at any time since Watergate. That's actually true. --Greg
January 15, 2008 5:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point you are making, and have made repeatedly, is that conservatives are failures at governing. Furthermore, you note that the government is quite unpopular now, and you ascribe that to the failures of conservative governance.
My only point is that while the government is perhaps especially unpopular now, the government is never actually popular. There are simply degrees of unpopularity, even when Democrats have been in charge. So while conservatives are perhaps responsible for the marginal increase in unpopularity, they are not responsible for the overall unpopularity. There seems to be a high level of dissatisfaction with government that is endemic to American political culture.
January 15, 2008 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad, There's all kinds of data to look at about the relative popularity of government over time, particularly in comparison to other institutions. This Gallup poll summary includes some interesting stuff along those lines (though no comparisons here with the private sector). It's kind of a half-empty, half-full picture depending on how you look at it -- my own perspective is that during normal times the public has by and large been fairly favorably disposed toward government. Might make an interesting longer post at some point.--Greg
January 15, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Conservatives are failures at governing, how can you be successful at something that at a minimum you thoroughly dislike, and at most, hate? Conservative/Government is an oxymoron.
While I believe Conservatives are failures at governing I also believe Conservatives love to loot government and the taxpayer when they get control. History bears much of that out.
January 15, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mgmax, if you think this analogy somehow confirms your unsubstantiated assertion to a 25-year (35?) Reagan policy based boom, you are well and trully far out there in wingnuttery land. After all, he was only there eight years, and his mind about six.
The facts don't need repeating or clarification. You'd be better off arguing that the unparalleled growth enjoyed over the whole second half of the twentieth century was founded on the policies and mechanisms adopted by FDR and Truman.
Oh, and I think the joke about 50 Brazillions references shrub's economic naivity rather than reflecting your own tenuous grasp of reality.
January 14, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really I don't get why someone like Goldberg gets attention from you as a conservative voice deserving of your words and thoughts. Taking the time to trash him gives him buzz, and coming from someone like you, a bit of undeserved gravitas as well.
He's never been anything but a pundit, on the very light side. No doubt got his first jobs on his mother's coattails, she of the not exactly exalted scholarly resume. It's not like any serious conservative with power is going to hire him as an advisor. And it's not like many a sophomore college Republican couldn't compete with the quality of his output. He's "relentlessly maligned" for a reason, he's a dork. He's like Anne Coulter or Bill O'Reilly without the celebrity appeal, derivative of them, but only much more dorky and with much less potential. Scan his columns at LA Times or NRO and see how little there is to his work.
It's absurd how much attention he gets from the liberal blogosphere, as I get the impression many conservatives don't give a damn what he's saying.
January 15, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lamont, His piece was on the front page of the Washington Post's Outlook section on Sunday. That's a pretty big forum, which in turn gives added publicity to his book. Without a response, people who don't know better would presume that he might be insightful or something. That said, the massive hostile response to his book no doubt helped its sales, unfortunately. --Greg
January 15, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the interest of not adding to Google hits I won't mention the name, but said fool has a piece at LAT that will argue for dissent as synonymous with democracy. Thus Obama is selling another fairy tale, because unity is not likely to happen. (I assume, since I won't read him.)
Where was this fool in 2002?
January 15, 2008 5:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
What was ole Jonah doing before his mother Lucianne started conspiring with Linda Tripp?
January 15, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink