Brink Lindsay's ignorance of 20th century history suggests that he's blinded by his ideology. Someone has already pointed out the New Deal program was developed in response to capitalistic excess. If left alone, capitalism will always reach for excess because it's based on human greed. Call me an optimist but I think most people want to behave in a manner that is beneficial to both themselves and society but if left on their own with no effective regulatory apparatus in place, greed wins over reason. Corporations are run by humans who are required by law to make a profit but obey the law; there is nothing in law that requires a business to act in the public good. Consequently business cannot be trusted with the public welfare. Governments are only slightly more trustworthy than business but they are also more subject to societal control and aren't legally compelled to place profit over everything else. FDR had no intention of going as far to the left as he did; but I'm convinced he would have gone further to the left if circumstances permitted. When FDR landed in the Oval Office, it was clear that he came to realize the economic situation was far more dire then he had believed and his reforms (call them collectivist...whatever) were critical for pre-empting violent social unrest, which most assuredly would have occurred had FDR sat on his ass like Libertarians and Conservatives wished he would have done. Bottom line: Markets have proven themselves to be a poor way to establish economic policy that's in the best interest of society and they create as many problems as they resolve.

Posted at May 26, 2008 12:14 AM in response to Liberals and Markets: A Strained Relationship

This is an excellent question!

Posted at May 25, 2008 11:58 PM in response to Liberals and Markets: A Strained Relationship

I like Paul Krugman often agree with him on most issues. However, I disagree with his assessment of the Clinton presidency, which was neither liberal nor progressive; in fact, Clinton's domestic policies were to the right of Republican Nixon. Did Clinton establish prosperity? Certainly he should be given credit for helping to do this but let's not forget that Bush I passed tax increases that aided 1990s prosperity. More importantly however, Clinton must be given full credit for continuing the worst policies of the Reagan years; rather than trying to overturn Reagan's anti-progressive policies, Clinton did much to countenance and legitimize them them. Clinton's DLC "third way" political agenda was and remains little more than GOP lite and I feel it should be categorically rejected by all progressives and liberals. I do agree with Krugman that Clinton's preference for health care mandates is more realistic then Obama's reliance on volunteerism; people won't volunteer to pay for health care if they don't perceive a need. The only truly universal health care system is one that includes everyone and that prohibits opt outs or any form of private coverage.

Posted at April 25, 2008 11:28 PM in response to Paul Krugman is Confused

Sssshhhhh! You used the "S" word with respect to health care. For 28 years, this country has worshipped at the foot of the rugged individual. Although it would appear that the majority of citizens feel the health care system is in crisis and that we need universal health care, one would hardly know this from the Washington political debate. In spite of what voters might say, the savvy politician understands that promoting major changes in the system such as it is would be DOA when they arrive on Capital Hill so the theme is to push for what we may think of as substantial cosmetic changes--a contradiction to be sure but then we're talking about inside the Beltway politics. I suspect it will take more then Tier 4 pharmaceutical costs to affect a desire for serious change in hearts and minds of voters and politicians; changes that eliminate insurance carriers, and, establish a single payer responsible for bottom line costs and who issues payments.

Posted at April 25, 2008 11:11 PM in response to Tier 4

I haven't seen the by now famous photographs proving Syrian-North Korean collusion in developing a nuclear reactor but I have to ask: Why would anyone believe Bush administration statements about this? Whether statements were made yesterday or seven months ago a rational person would have to ask questions and demand answers. I heard a radio report on NPR yesterday and the commenter was clearly prepared to believe this story because of the photographs. We can expect gullibility, even collusion, from the mainstream media but NPR?

I am prepared to believe that Bush and his minions would be more then willing to lie about any issue if it helped them to achieve their agenda whatever that may be. Further, as soon as any situation comes under the influence of this group of incompetents, manageable problems become disasters. Israel and Syria should therefore be thankful that Bush wants no part of promoting peace talks between them since his people could only screw up an already difficult and convoluted situation.

Posted at April 25, 2008 10:12 PM in response to 5 Comments on the Syria-Israel-North Korea Revelations