The Democrats are doomed by Lew Rockwell

[lew]

Those of us who loathe Republicans, especially Republican presidents, have some hope against hope that the Democrats will nominate a candidate who can save us from the certain doom of eternal Republican rule. Sadly, it seems that Bill Clinton, as much as we hated him at the time, was the last of a kind: a fairly normal and plausibly electable Democrat. In retrospect, he seems like the model of the moderate social democrat.

Hey, he signed off on welfare reform, a capital gain tax cut, and decentralized speed limit control. Also, he at least had the wisdom to pull out of wars gone wrong (are there any other kind?). He cut government payrolls and reduced the deficit dramatically. Would that Republican presidents show such restraint!

(One reason that Democrats make better presidents: they actually believe in government, dummies that they are. And so they tend to want to make it work better and more efficiently on behalf of their voters, who are tightly connected to the public sector. The Republicans, in contrast, don't believe in government and so they are happy to steal everything in sight, wreck the budget, detonate the bombs, etc.)

Now, one might argue that a bad Democrat is better than any Republican, and I'm open to that idea. For one thing, a Democratic president inspires Republicans to be better than they would otherwise be. They suddenly remember, for example, that government is the problem and not the solution, that government spends and taxes and regulates too much, and they even cultivate skepticism about foreign intervention.

But just look at the crew the Dems have assembled for this year! What a mess of hucksters, victim-group politicos, and anti-capitalistic wackos. Maybe they would be tamed in office, but they sure are a scary crew otherwise. It can be depressing, to be sure, but let us remember that the root of the problem is not the individuals in question but the ideology that underlies the raison d'être of the modern Democratic Party, at least at the national level.

That ideology is socialism. I know what you are thinking: these guys aren't socialists, for it's been years since any prominent Democrat openly advocated the nationalization of all industry. So triumphant have free markets been that they don't even believe in this stuff anyway.

That's true enough but it sidesteps the reality that there is no economic activity that these people don't favor regulating to the nth degree. They talk of privacy and civil rights, but when it comes to commerce, they recognize no right of privacy and no individual rights. All property is up for grabs to control and meld in the name of national wellbeing.

That's the practice, but what about the underlying theory? Here too, socialism of the old sort is gone. But the socialist theory of society still burns brightly. Their model is that in the state of nature, meaning in a state of freedom, all is conflict and cruelty. Pathology and ugliness are everywhere. The government is necessary to step in at every level of society to resolve these otherwise intractable conflicts and manage our way into the new epoch of human well-being.

The old conflict view of society posited a perpetual clash between workers and management. That idea survives to some truncated extent in the Democrats' love of labor unions. But since unions constitute a tiny and dwindling sector within the labor market, and only thrive in the public sector, this idea takes a back seat to many other and crazier ideas.

You will recognize them. They believe that a deep and intractable rift separates the sexes such that one is always dominating the other, and so legislation and regulation are always needed to even the score and make up for past wrongs. The same is true of the races, and natives and immigrants, and the abled and disabled. None of these people can possibly work out their differences on their own. They need deep institutional change – even social revolution ushered in by elites – in order to bring about dramatic, Hegelian-style advances.

So it is with man's general relationship with the environment. They posit an abiding conflict between the two, such that if one ascends, the other must descend. That is why all moves toward human prosperity are ultimately regretted as an attack on precious natural resources that should be left undisturbed. This is a Marxist idea: life under freedom is a prize fight in which everyone is throwing punches. All appearances of contentment are illusory. The job of the state is to decide winners and losers, while our job is to obey the authority and come to a consciousness that the expropriators must be expropriated.

Only this conflict model explains why these people can't imagine, for example, that business and consumers can have a cooperative relationship rather than an antagonistic one. So it is in every area of life. Even the most long-lasting institutions, such as the family, are seen as fundamentally pathological and exploitative. The same is true in international relations: they don't like Republican wars that much, but offer no model of internationalism that can replace the view that it is always and everywhere war by someone against someone, and so the only way to stop war is to wage one.

Such is the view of today's left. They have never come to terms with the great insight of the old liberal revolution, which is that society is self-managing over the long term. People can work out their problems. Human relationships are characterized most often as cooperative rather than antagonistic. People, not bureaucrats, know what is best for their own, and pursuing their self-interest is compatible with, and even enhances, social well-being.

Such propositions are entirely rejected by most of the Democratic hopefuls. It's true too that Republicans (with the heroic exception of Ron Paul) have their own objections to the old liberal view, but we'll save these for another day. For now, suffice it to say that party elites among the Democrats regard regular Americans as the problem and not the solution, so it is no surprise that they continue to have problems finding candidates for whom people are willing to vote.

The heck of it is that the policies they promote end up bringing about conflict where none exists, and thus make society reflect the very reality that they posit as their underlying theory. Their cure is the very disease that they sought to eradicate.

Let us remember that the core problem, in the end, is ideological and not personal. Uproot the underlying anti-liberal assumptions of the Democrats, make them Jeffersonian once again, and you would have a viable party. Until then, they will be hopelessly stuck in the mire at the national level, as depressing as that is to admit.

[7960]

(One reason that Democrats make better presidents: they actually believe in government, dummies that they are. And so they tend to want to make it work better and more efficiently on behalf of their voters, who are tightly connected to the public sector. The Republicans, in contrast, don't believe in government and so they are happy to steal everything in sight, wreck the budget, detonate the bombs, etc.)

This kind of rhetoric makes all political shit nearly unreadable.

[lew]

Originally Posted by 7960

This kind of rhetoric makes all political shit nearly unreadable.

But it's true.

[7960]

Originally Posted by lew

But it's true.

But it's not....neither stereotype is true.

[lew]

Originally Posted by 7960

But it's not....neither stereotype is true.

Bad as Clinton was, he was more efficient with the government than Bush has been.

[7960]

Originally Posted by lew

Bad as Clinton was, he was more efficient with the government than Bush has been.

Oh, you want to compare those two presidents? I thought the article talked about republicans and democrats, not bush v clinton.

I'm not up for a fight today...fuck it. Clinton was awesome, dems rock, GOP just wants to spend money, blah blah blah. You win

[lew]

Originally Posted by 7960

Oh, you want to compare those two presidents? I thought the article talked about republicans and democrats, not bush v clinton.

I'm not up for a fight today...fuck it. Clinton was awesome, dems rock, GOP just wants to spend money, blah blah blah. You win

I've never claimed Clinton was awesome or the Democrats rock.

[DosEquis]

I would say that the last three republicans have not represented the foundation of their party. There is only 2 things that I can think of that they have done which their base agrees with, one being huge military spending and the other is tax cuts.

Any other issue they have failed their supporters. Growth in government, outrageous spending, abortion is still legal, our actions as world police, etc etc.

[lew]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I would say that the last three republicans have not represented the foundation of their party. There is only 2 things that I can think of that they have done which their base agrees with, one being huge military spending and the other is tax cuts.

Any other issue they have failed their supporters. Growth in government, outrageous spending, abortion is still legal, our actions as world police, etc etc.

Yep.

[RMNIXON]

"Such is the view of today's left. They have never come to terms with the great insight of the old liberal revolution, which is that society is self-managing over the long term. People can work out their problems. Human relationships are characterized most often as cooperative rather than antagonistic. People, not bureaucrats, know what is best for their own, and pursuing their self-interest is compatible with, and even enhances, social well-being."


The best part!





Ideological left does not = Liberal thinking!


There are far too many people who consider themselves "liberal" but are really just waiting for their talking points on any given issue just like the dumbest of conservatives.

[RMNIXON]

"But just look at the crew the Dems have assembled for this year! What a mess of hucksters, victim-group politicos, and anti-capitalistic wackos. Maybe they would be tamed in office, but they sure are a scary crew otherwise. It can be depressing, to be sure, but let us remember that the root of the problem is not the individuals in question but the ideology that underlies the raison d'être of the modern Democratic Party, at least at the national level."


1. Hillary: She is all about Hillary. I don't see any sign of leadership. Like Bill she might do OK as long as the polls reflect what should be done and not just what is most popular. Leans Liberal, but what makes her look good is what counts. Her "conversation" is you listening. Hope for no serious National Security Issues? Good Luck... Prediction: Will get nasty (or have her people do it) before this primary is over.

2. Edwards: He is the worst of the popular bunch. He is every Crooked Lawyer and Used Car salesman combined. He is every self-absorbed jerk you knew in High School and has worked it into middle age as self-promotion. If there is anything to the man other than a thin skin of "I Care so throw all your money and power at me" I don't see it. Empathy to him is an act, not an actual feeling. And he may be able to sucker more "soccer" moms than Hillary? I would go Hillary over Edwards any day. Prediction: He will leap at Hillary's VP spot if he can't upset her in the primaries.

3. Obama: I read as an honest liberal thinker. But he is so "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" that you wonder who is waiting in the wings to take over? If he is smart and can't upset the Hillary Coronation he will back off and won't do something stupid like hitch his wagon to hers in a VP spot. You got many chances to run for President young man! Don't be in such a hurry....
Prediction: Might upset Hillary but won't accept a VP spot.

4. Richardson I also think is honest and does not fall for the liberal class warfare bit or celebrates American "weakness" in the war on terror or in the eyes of left leaning Europe. Prediction: Will loose steam in the primaries, runs low on money, and drops out.

5. Joe Biden: Prediction: Will say something stupid before he drops out.

[RMNIXON]

I should also add in all fairness that I think a Democrats can win in 2008. But there are far too many balls up in the air to make a good prediction now. 2000 and 2004 are solid evidence that the people who actually vote are split very even, so events may be far more important than personalities!

[JSmythe]

RMNIXON, I'd like to put $100 on number 3.


Lew Rockwell is an idiot.

[Winter]

Originally Posted by lew

Bad as Clinton was, he was more efficient with the government than Bush has been.

Amen to that!!!!!

[lew]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

Lew Rockwell is an idiot.

oh

[RMNIXON]

"That's true enough but it sidesteps the reality that there is no economic activity that these people don't favor regulating to the nth degree. They talk of privacy and civil rights, but when it comes to commerce, they recognize no right of privacy and no individual rights. All property is up for grabs to control and meld in the name of national well being."


They are Lyndon Johnson Democrats. They view the productivity of society in terms of the governments take and what they can do with that money, not what it does for the non-government sector which is plenty. The only purpose in letting the rich get richer is to tax them. Johnson paid for the Great Society by backing off the socialst kind of talk in industry. Watching the left pretend to be all happy when capitalism is good and the rich are getting richer under a Democrat is fun to watch. Clinton did it well......

[Thorgrim]

back off socialist talk, when did he begin?

[motivez]

Definitely an interesting article, and I agree with some of what he says, but I also don't agree that either stereotype he tries to expand on really exists the way he suggests.

[lew]

Follow up article on why the Republicans are doomed.

Imagine that you are blindfolded and told that the food you are about to eat is ice cream. It turns out to be chicken liver. Or imagine that you think you are diving into warm water but instead it turns out to be near-freezing.

This is pretty much what it is like to be governed by Republicans, and there is no better case in point than George W. Bush. He, like all Republicans since the 1920s, campaigned as a shrink-the-government man. More incredibly to recall, he blasted the "nation-building" of Bill Clinton and insisted that the US needed a "humble" foreign policy.

What we got instead is, well, what we got, which is the polar opposite. The man who wailed over Bill Clinton’s big government has made Clinton’s spending record look great by comparison. The guy who decried "nation building" has decided that bombs and tanks are a great means to inspire a wholesale upheaval in the Gulf region.

What’s interesting here is what motivates big-government Republicanism. The party itself has no strong investment in the public sector as it currently stands, apart from the prison bureaucracy and the military. Most civil servants and teachers and postal workers support the Democrats, knowing full well who is buttering their bread. Republicans, essentially, see the public purse as something not to conserve but to rob and give to those who do vote Republican.

Thus is the government contracted out – and vastly so. Thus are religious charities eligible for public funding. Thus are private schools encouraged to get on the dole. Thus are industrialists eligible for every privilege one can imagine. Heck, if you are big enough and powerful enough, the Republicans might even start a war on your behalf. This gets very expensive indeed, even more expensive than old-fashioned, reformed-minded, repair-the-schools, renew-the-cities, make-the-government-work social democracy!

And you know how the left says that the Republicans care nothing for your privacy or for individual rights? The Republicans seem to be living up to a caricature of their reputation. Anyone who questions whether the FBI ought to be permitted to tap your phone or read your email, or whether the CIA ought to be able to lock people up forever without a formal charge, is denounced as a leftist.

Where have Republican grassroots been? Here we find disgrace. They were charmed by Bush going into all this, and they have not ceased to be loyal. Yes, along the way – this always happens – some of the rank-and-file become irritated that Bush isn’t doing more to stand up to the Democrats. But a Republican White House always, always, always knows how to deal with this problem. The prez sets up a 15-minute meeting with "conservative leaders" at which they fawn all over him. They then report back to their minions that the president is a great guy and needs our support. Most people comply since they fear the devil Democrats more.

As for foreign policy, my goodness, the rank and file are gullible in the most ghastly way. These people went from scorning Clinton’s exertions in Somalia to calling anyone who doesn’t support the war on Iraq a traitor to America itself. The display of Nazi-style jingoism has been nearly unbearable. The flag is worshipped as a holy object, the national anthem is treated as a sacred hymn, every character in a military costume is canonized, and the president himself is exalted as a godhead incarnate. Now we know – because we are living through it – the stuff of which fascism is made.

We could go on. But rather than decry the hypocrisy, lies, and unrelenting bamboozlement, it would be more productive to examine the underlying social theory that leads Republicans to campaign one way and govern another. Elsewhere we discussed how the Democrats believe in a conflict-based model of society, with their imagined society consisting of groups of warring tribes (men v. women, blacks v. whites, etc.). In the same way, the Republicans imagine that the social order is rife with conflict, but a conflict of a different sort.

Republicans believe that all of society, whether your town, the nation, or the whole world, is divided between those who adhere to the law and those who are inclined to break it. These they define as good guys and bad guys, but it is not always true since the law these days is not the law written on our hearts but rather the rules as laid down by state masters. But this seemingly important point is completely lost on the Republican mind, since they believe that without the state as lawmaker, all of society and all of the world would collapse into a muddle of chaos and darkness.

This view they get from Hobbes. Not that the average buyer of Ann Coulter’s books reads political philosophy. They rather accept a popular version of the fundamental anti-liberal idea: society is a wreck without Leviathan. This is why they celebrate the police more than merchants, why they think that war deserves more credit than trade for world prosperity, why they call drafted killers for the state the "greatest generation," whereas the pioneers of the 19th century are merely historical curiosities.

In short, their meta-understanding of politics bypassed the liberal revolution of the 18th century and embraced the anti-liberal elements of the Enlightenment. Up with Hobbes, down with Locke: that is their implied creed. Liberty is fine but order, ORDER, is much more important, and order comes from the state. They can’t even fathom the truth that liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order. That thought is too complex for the Manichean mind.

Now, it is true that Republicans tend to be better on issues of welfare, environmentalism, social legislation and the like. They reject egalitarianism, more or less, and have no strong beef with business. But none of this matters in the defense of liberty because they are intellectually wedded to the