Glenn Beck. Oh my heck.

Wonkette : Republicans Unleash Hilarious ‘Road To Recovery’ Plan On Embarrassed Public

Wonkette : Republicans Unleash Hilarious ‘Road To Recovery’ Plan On Embarrassed Public

Posted using ShareThis

A Reale Liberaltarian Manifesto

Ms. Reale,

Would you be so kind as to offer us a definition of a liberaltarian?

Sincerely,

Anonymous

Well, hello.

Hello, conservative(ish), white, male, upper class, Christian bloggers!

It is I, liberaltarian feminista!



I think we'll get along just great, don't you?

The Anti-Feds

I think Quarles is right on, though I doubt his opinion needs my reinforcement. My question regards your conception of democracy, Brad. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists debated this question extensively (and there was a lot more on the line then than there is now in this blog discussion). The Anti-Federalists wanted political decision-making localized to the greatest extent possible. Localization was necessary for democracy, they argued. The further away decisions were made from the people, the more democracy became a convenient, merely nominal title. Incidentally, Thomas Jefferson proposed dividing the country into small communities he called "wards." (He must have had a chat with Brother Joseph.) Again, localization of decision-making allows citizens to become sufficiently acquainted with their political situation and gives them a more meaningful shot at influencing policy. At least, that is the argument. The Federalists, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of a strong national government. Above all other goods, such a government would provide security. The country would be protected from international threats and minorities would be protected from the tyranny of the majority.


Certainly, neither the Federalists nor the Anti-Federalists were opposed to liberty. Their differences derive instead from their ideas about what liberty is and what threatens it. (I should note that I am generalizing for ease of discussion. Both the Feds and the Anti-Feds had disagreements with themselves; each member had his or her nuanced view. Nevertheless, they did share general positions. That may go without saying.) Anyway, the Anti-Federalists stress that democracy is itself only when the governed are able to participate in their government in a meaningful way. What meaningful participation is exactly is not self-evident, but they are clear that it cannot occur unless government is localized.


For the Federalists, democracy must be restrained if liberty is to be preserved. They reason that "the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint." It is the job of the elites, the enlightened statesmen, to "refine and enlarge the public views" so that the will of the people might be in accordance with reason and justice. This process of refinement appears to be antithetical to the dictates of justice according to the Anti-Federalists. Liberty and justice require that the will of the people be mirrored, not filtered (and thereby critiqued and checked). The Federalists respond by claiming that liberty is of little worth without security from the masses, domestic and international. Indeed, the preeminence of security is one of the leitmotifs of the Federalist Papers. Hamilton continually refers to the universal baseness of men as a threat to national (and therefore state and individual) security. The intent of the references is to convince Americans of their need for government to protect them from the dangerous caprice of their neighbors next door and abroad.


The question seems to be that we choose between a paternal government or a subservient one. Do we give up decision-making power completely to the leaders we elect because of the sophistication required to make good decisions? Or do we ask our leaders to tell us how they see it, but ultimately let us decide? Are we Anti-Feds or Feds?

"Us"

This post is intended to further illustrate Austin's thoughts, as well as a previous response to a question I posed.

Wrote Austin:

"What sense is left in a system where uninformed people mindlessly vote for whichever pretty-faced candidate fit the most key words (change, hope, middle class families, etc) into their pre-packaged and processed prime-time interview?"

Consider Austin's words in relation to a brief dialogue I had with Randal Quarles, former treasury undersecretary to President Bush. During a Q&A session Mr. Quarles' held after he gave the keynote address at a private equity conference, I asked, "From your experience in the federal government, what is the greatest obstacle to political progress in [economic] issues?" After a ten second pause he replied, "Us." Mr. Quarles went on to explain that the government is full of good people, trying to do a good job. What makes things difficult and consequently ineffective, he explained, is that we don't know what the hell is going on, and we end up pushing (directly or indirectly) our elected representatives into making dumb decisions or not making any substantive progress by voting based on simplistic, oftentimes erroneous premises. Of course, we would hope that statesmen would possess sufficient integrity and such unequivocal commitment that they would always do what is right and what works. This is certainly ideal, but to systematically expect this sort of behavior is extremely unwise.

Call it Parkins's Law or the path of least resistance, but we must acknowledge that aspiring politicians will get votes in the easiest, simplest ways possible, whether that means adopting simplistic "yes or no" or "more or less" positions, or retaliating against opponents to shift the campaign focus to issues irrelevant to economic or social value. We can make getting elected as easy or as hard, as focused or as distracted, as reasonable or as ridiculous as we want it to be. If the political process in the United States is in any way not going the way we'd like it to go, it is absolutely our fault as voters. Democratic elections are enormously powerful mechanisms of excellence. If only we care enough about how this country is run, we can set the standard for being elected and subsequently reelected as high as we want. These people are certainly capable. So I think we should do it.

Also, I should probably explain my reasoning for including President Bush in my post. Listening to 99% of people I know talk about politics motivates me to electrocute myself, and a great deal of that motivation stems from flippant criticism of President Bush.

My opinion is that judgments you make on people's decisions should be supported by equivalently strong evidence. Saying that someone (a President) made a stupid decision is not justified if your evidence is that, after the fact, negative unintended consequences transpired. I suppose you can say that, but if you consider someone stupid because he or she cannot accurately predict adoption of policy and retaliation of policy, you are intellectually ridiculous. I am of course, in this context, referring to our failure to predict the unfortunate rejection:adoption ratio of the Iraqi civilians and politicians, as well as the dreadful retaliation:accommodation ratio of the insurgents, the Iranians, and others with incompatible interests. If you think you would have accurately predicted it, you're a liar. Contemporary military strategy is composed of entirely new hypotheses.

Whether President Bush made poor decisions or not, the fact is that he is refreshingly distinct from most every other existing and aspiring politician. His point of differentiation is that, ultimately, he did not make decisions based on what everyone simplistically provoked him to do. I find it disappointing that soon after Iraq became a challenge the official position of the Democratic Party became: If you commit to something but then unexpected difficulties arise, BAIL! Leverage these unexpected difficulties by calling them manifestations of bad policy! In President Obama's case, use the war to create a position for yourself that will get you elected, but then don't make one substantive change in policy or strategy once you're in power.

Cowards.

The same goes for how we 'treat' terrorists. Many disapprove of the tactics the Bush administration promoted to keep us safe. All I can say is that if you are a part of this constituency, I'm glad you don't have the ear of Secretary Gates. Sure, it is horrendous to consider any violence imposed upon any human being, but what constitutes persuasion varies among the human race. As the graphic asserts, like it or not, we have been safe ever since 9-11. This fact denotes either insufficient motivation on the part of our enemies or sufficient protection on the part of the past administration. In summation, there is something to be said for the few who are willing to do what is ugly and unpopular, but also right.

My hope is that we will seek out these types of individuals to make these types of decisions, and for the rest of them, that we will at least significantly raise the bar for election and subsequent reelection.