DC Wrapup
I’ve now left DC and am in New York. I will be back in DC for their Independence Day party on the 4th of July. Before I move onto NYC stuff, a wrap-up of the political stuff in DC.
The US Capitol. Unlike NZ, the actual representatives have their offices elsewhere. I was surprised how easy it is to get into the Congressional offices. There is a security scan, but once you are past that you can just walk whereeveryou want, and pop into any office. Quite different to NZ where you need to be approved by an office to be allowed in the building.
Anyway first some general political chatter I picked up:
- Even if there is a swing to the Republicans in 2010, no way they can win the House or the Senate back. Most of the Senate seats coming up in 2010 are held by Republicans and they have five incumbents retiring and only one Democrat retiring. Incidentially 23 of the 100 Senators are in their 70s, 80s or 90s – incumbency is useful.
- Obama’s ratings remain high, but increasingly polarised.
- The big and maybe only issue in 2010 will be the economy. Obama promoted the stimulus package on the basis it would stop unemployment reaching certain levels that have now been exceeded. The bailout of the banks is very unpopular also.
- The Republican frontrunner for 2012 is Mitt Romney. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty also a strong contender.
- Sarah Palin is definitely going to try for the 2012 nomination. She won’t get it but may do well enough. A lot may depend on if Huckabee stands as they compete for support bases.
- Near universal consensus that the US will be unable to ever have the Government get back into surplus and at some stage they will start printing money which will fuel inflation and devalue the dollar.
Back to the rest of the Freedom Forum. A number of excellent speakers.
30 years House veteran Jim Sensenbrenner gave us a US political update. Sensenbrenner is one of eight Congressman from Wisconsin and won in 2008 with 80% of the vote.
We also had a UK politics update from British MP Philip Dunne. While the Conservatives are well ahead in the polls, it is quite possible there will be a hung Parliament as Labour has an effective gerrymander with seat sizes. The Conservatives need to beat Labour by 5% to get more seats and by 9% to get an absolute majority.
We has two expert speakers on the US healthcare reforms. There is considerable opposition to Obama’s proposals, but even less satisfaction with the status quo. One of the speakers was Robert Moffit who has been asked by two dozen states to help them with their healthcare systems.
On the economic side we were equally well served with an address by Stephen Moore, who founded the Club for Growth and is a member of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board. Also heard from the former Secretary of Commerce.
The two highlights for me were Jonah Goldberg and Grover Norquist.
Jonah Goldberg is the editor-at-large of National Review Online and blogs many times a day at The Corner. He is a hugely entertaining and provocative speaker. He told us about how he got sick of being called a fascist and Nazi by left wingers for years on end, so it motivated him to write his book – Liberal Fascism. The book made No 1 on the NY Times best seller list.
Despite the irreverence of Goldberg, he also backs his thesis up with a mass of research about prominent hard left supporters of Italian fascism and German National Socialism before WWII. I’m not going to cover all the arguments here but am going to order a copy from Amazon as Jonah’s speech intrigued me enough to want to read his research for myself.
There is a wider issue Goldberg touches on – that is the tendency of the media and left to label anyone bad as “right wing”, such as Putin.
Grover Norquist (whom I’m met a couple of times previously) was the most relevant for me. Grover is arguably the most influential lobbyist on the right in the USA. Grover expanded on the main political battle is between coalitions. He aptly names them the “Leave Us Alone” Coalition and the “Takings” Coalition.
In the US, these get represented by the two major parties. Grover points out that the main parties have become these broad coalitions because of the US political system, quipping that in most European countries a party that polls 2% may get to pick the Prime Minister, while in the US a party that polls 2% is officially nuts 
Grover says the prime motivation of members of the Leave Us Alone Coalition is they want the Government to leave them alone. Members tend to be taxpayers, business owners, gun owners, home schoolers, stock owners, Police and military, and communities of faith.
The Taking Coalition is (this is the US) trial lawyers, union leaders, government grant recipients, welfare beneficiaries and those who administer the “social welfare industrial complex”, government employees, Govt funded NGOs and businesses seeking favours for their business.
There is a strong parallel back to NZ, with this analysis. Those of us on the right have been well aware that the more people who become dependent on the Government, the more likely it is they will vote for a party that promises to tax other people more, to spend on the takers. The goal is a permanent majority of 60% dependent on the other 40%.
This is why Labour opposes the private sector at every opportunity. This is why families who earn over $100,000 now receive social welfare payments. This is why the state sector has grown so fast and so big. This is why Labour always go for inefficient universal benefits rather than targeted benefits. This is why they want to crowd out the private sector in education and health, why Cullen nationalised assets etc.
Whether or not you agree with Grover;s exact descriptions his thesis is correct. And long-term sucess for the centre-right in NZ will be determined by ensuring that there are more people in the “Leave Us Alone” coalition than in the “Taking” coalition.
Now this can be challenging. The “Taking” coalition has hundreds if not thousands of lobby groups and NGOs all demanding more money from taxpayers. There are very very few groups that speak up on behalf of the “Leave Us Alone” coalition. That is because most members of it – well they just want to be left alone – they only engage in politics when the Government annoys them enough (anti-smacking law).
July 1st, 2009 at 1:57 pm
This is why Labour opposes the private sector at every opportunity.
Do you really believe this?
I fear you’ve been listening to the extreme right fringe (see Norquist), which considers any government and the taxation required for such as a criminal intrusion into the lives of citizens. They’ve dragged the Republicans into irrelevancy, and if you listen to them you’ll try the same with National.
[DPF: They don't consider any taxation as an intrusion - I know their manifesto very well, and that absolutely do not say that want no taxation.
And yes I absolutely believe that many of Labour's decisions are about gaining a permanent majority for the left. Absolutely no doubt at all]
July 1st, 2009 at 2:13 pm
“Whether or not you agree with Grover;s exact descriptions his thesis is correct. And long-term sucess for the centre-right in NZ will be determined by ensuring that there are more people in the “Leave Us Alone” coalition than in the “Taking” coalition.”
Ummm … except that it isn’t. For one thing, it ignores completely the “culture wars” aspect of US political divisions. How exactly is it “leaving us alone” to demand the repeal of Roe v Wade? Or to seek to impose prayer in schools? Or to prevent gay marriage? Or to try and pass legislation requiring Terri Schiavo to be kept alive? Trying to reduce politics to one simple division/axis of disagreement is plain silly … in fact, it is reproducing the same basic error that Marxism suffers from (“it’s all about class … no matter the issue, it’s all about class!”) Now, I know Norquist doesn’t really care about these sorts of issues, and that it’s inconvenient for you to face them (given your liberalism on social issues), but ignoring them completely is a bit lame.
For another thing, claiming the Republican’s really represent the “leave us alone” coalition after George Bush et al ran up the US deficit (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2005/10/18/the-bush-tax-cuts-and-the-deficit/) is a bit rich … they’re more the “give us it all now, and fuck the future” coalition. The most you can respond to this is “the Democrats are even worse” … which shows everything that is wrong with US political culture. Constantly having to choose the lesser of two evils kills faith in democracy. So give me PR any day, Norquist’s sneers aside.
Oh … and as for “Those of us on the right have been well aware that the more people who become dependent on the Government, the more likely it is they will vote for a party that promises to tax other people more, to spend on the takers. The goal is a permanent majority of 60% dependent on the other 40%” … has redbaiter managed to hack your site, or are you just channeling his spirit today? Evil conspiracies everywhere! Neo-marxists under the bed!
Frankly, DPF, I think you need to get out of the hothouse of Washington (literally … the heat is frying your brain), take a nice dip at Gt Barrier Island, and calm down a bit.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:14 pm
I think this is a very interesting thesis and certainly in New Zealand we should be concerned about the way governments are quite frankly buying elections. The Labour government with its interest free student loans to university students is an excellent example of a government flagrantly purchasing parts of the electorate.
For me the big story is the coalition of left-wing parties and the left-wing mainstream media. There is no way that a national government would have been able to get away with what labour got away with over those nine long years. But they do so because they have a supportive media who allow them to get away with almost anything. The ability of the anti-smacking legislation to get through despite 80% opposition from the electorate is an excellent example. The media we can now see was on the side of a 20% who supported the anti-smoking legislation.
Thank goodness for blogs such as this which enable ordinary people to break through the mainstream media dominance.
It will be interesting to see what happens with Obama. Because he is a poster child for left-wing policies. He supports all of the Progressive sexual/feminist/race-based liberation movements — gay-rights this, affirmative action that — completely unrestricted access to abortion at any time and for any reason. He also believes in big government and is putting together the most radical left-wing government takeover of the private sector in American history. But the mainstream media let him get away with it. Plus Michael Jackson died (what could be more important for the mainstream media to cover than that!).
But if Obama is correct in his views then the United States will soon return to prosperity, the country will be at peace with its international neighbours and the world will be a better place. It’s a really good test of left-wing politics and policies in action.
Surprisingly — I think he is completely wrong. I think the government takeover and record levels of debt will be a potential catastrophe for the United States economy. I think his progressive social agenda is completely at odds with the reality of the human condition. So I believe that the United States will continue to sink into decadence and despair. But hey — I could be wrong?
July 1st, 2009 at 2:27 pm
“But if Obama is correct in his views then the United States will soon return to prosperity, the country will be at peace with its international neighbours and the world will be a better place. It’s a really good test of left-wing politics and policies in action.”
That’s an incredibly big if, Scott. If it were any bigger I’d have to put warning lights on it to ward off aircraft.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:35 pm
[DPF: They don't consider any taxation as an intrusion - I know their manifesto very well, and that absolutely do not say that want no taxation... ]
Grover Norquist is well known for saying of Government that he’d like to “reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub”. They want very little taxation, far less spending on Government than that favoured by the majority of the population. They do consider Government as an intrusive agency, and accept that a bare minimum may be needed, but as something unfortunate but necessary.
Norquist also compared taking taxes from the rich to the Holocaust.
So yeah, he’d fit comfortably with Roger Douglas. Why don’t you join ACT, David? They seem to have a better fit with your beliefs based on what you’ve espoused here.
Hardly
July 1st, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Grover says the prime motivation of members of the Leave Us Alone Coalition is they want the Government to leave them alone. Members tend to be taxpayers, business owners, gun owners, home schoolers, stock owners, Police and military, and communities of faith.
The Taking Coalition is (this is the US) trial lawyers, union leaders, government grant recipients, welfare beneficiaries and those who administer the “social welfare industrial complex”, government employees, Govt funded NGOs and businesses seeking favours for their business.
My understanding of Norquist’s philosophy is that seven foot tall alien reptiles are also involved. Honestly DPF, aren’t you embarrased to put your name to this nonsense?
[DPF: Not at all. I have no idea what you are talking about.]
July 1st, 2009 at 2:40 pm
[Labour has an effective gerrymander with seat sizes]
gerrymander is an emotive word, and implies deliberate action – presumably the UK has a system similar to NZ where it is an independant body that sets the electoral boundaries. If that is the case, it is definitely NOT a gerrymander. It’s probably no different than in NZ under FPP when National governed several times with less total votes than Labour, but more seats.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:41 pm
And yes I absolutely believe that many of Labour’s decisions are about gaining a permanent majority for the left.
So do I. Just like National’s policies are designed to give permanent majorities to the right. It’s what political parties do. But you also said that Labour “opposes the private sector at every opportunity”. That was a ridiculous statement, and you should just admit it. It’s like me saying National opposes Government at every opportunity – it simply isn’t true by any measure.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:47 pm
[DPF: They don't consider any taxation as an intrusion - I know their manifesto very well, and that absolutely do not say that want no taxation... ]
On the very wikipedia page you linked to, Norquist is quoted as follows:
“Cutting the government in half in one generation is both an ambitious and reasonable goal,” Norquist stated in May 2000. “If we work hard we will accomplish this and more by 2025. Then the conservative movement can set a new goal. I have a recommendation: To cut government in half again by 2050″. To that end, Norquist has been noted for his widely quoted quip: “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”
This your goal too, DPF?
[DPF: Cutting it by half goes beyond my ambitions. Hell I'll just settle for it growing at a slower rate than the overall economy]
July 1st, 2009 at 2:52 pm
AG — you ask a few questions — more than happy to help you out with them.
“How exactly is it “leaving us alone” to demand the repeal of Roe v Wade? ”
Roe versus Wade was a massive overreach by the Supreme Court — who somehow found the right to abortion in the Constitution and overturned the laws of the States. It was imposed on the people by the United States Supreme Court — an unelected body — who were upset that their progressive agenda was not being implemented quickly enough by the elected legislatures. Repealing Roe versus Wade will not actually automatically change the abortion laws. What it will do is enable each state of the United States of America to legislate the abortion issue as they see fit, rather than having the Supreme Court imposing it on them.
“Or to seek to impose prayer in schools? ”
Having prayer in schools was a traditional cultural practice in the United States. Again through the work of particularly one atheist activist — Madeline O’Hair — the courts have conspired to drive out prayer from school life.
“Or to prevent gay marriage?”
When put to a referendum of the people this is not a controversial issue. The people of the United States have consistently shown that they do not want gay marriage imposed on them. Even in a liberal state like California which recently rejected gay marriage.
“Or to try and pass legislation requiring Terri Schiavo to be kept alive?”
Given that members of her family were willing to keep her alive by feeding her, it was a court imposed decision in favour of the husband that meant her life support systems were turned off.
So I think you have it exactly turned on its head AG. It is the liberal activists that are imposing their views on us, the silent traditional majority.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:00 pm
MikeG,
The reasons for the gap between the number of Conservative and Labour votes needed to gain an absolute majority are discussed here:
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/index.html?orderedseats_help.html
You are right, though, to call DPF on the term “gerrymander”. It’s nothing of the sort.
[DPF: Really. Well the population of an English seat ranges from 70,000 to 146,000 - that is a huge huge variation. The average is 96,500 and sd is 11,600. In Wales they range from 42,000 to 97,000 so Welsh people get far more say than English voters with an average size of 75,000 and sd of 10,000. In Scotland the range is from 26,000 to 105,000 which is an average of 86,700 and sd of 13,000. And finally in NI they range from 78,000 to 114,000.
So if that is not a gerrymander, I don't know what is]
July 1st, 2009 at 3:11 pm
The goal is a permanent majority of 60% dependent on the other 40%.
This is why Labour opposes the private sector at every opportunity. This is why families who earn over $100,000 now receive social welfare payments
And this explains John Howard/Peter Costello in Oz?
And this explains why John Key/Bill English have done nothing at all about undoing WFF?
Jesusinabreadbasket – I didn’t realise that the Austalian Liberal Party and the NZ National party were really the Labo(u)r party all along.
Do you have to be stupid to be right wing, or does it grow on you?
July 1st, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Tax cuts on lower incomes = universal benefits
Working For Families = targeted benefit
Ummmmm……?
July 1st, 2009 at 3:19 pm
GW Bush (a Republican) holds the record for the largest % increase in American government spending (post WW2) during any 8 year term.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Scott,
And I’m sure you’ve a very convincing argument as to why day is actually night.
Roe v Wade.
I’m actually not a fan of Courts using “rights” to overturn legislation. But you are being rather devious to claim those who oppose this decision from a “right to life” perspective do so purely out of concern for constitutional niceties and the importance of democratic lawmaking. No. they oppose it ’cause it stops them being able to criminalise abortion (i.e. to tell women they cannot have a particular medical procedure). And these “right to lifers” are in the “big tent” Norquist (and DPF) call the “leave us alone” coalition. Now, you can weasel out of this by saying they want the judiciary to leave them alone so that they can get about interfering in womens’ medical choices if you want to … but that is a cheat.
Prayer in schools.
Right. So if it is “a traditional cultural practice”, then it is OK to impose it on all others who want to have no part in that particular faith. As we’re being all cultural relativist and po-mo, I assume you’re on board with Saudi Arabia passing death sentences on apostates? After all, it traditional. And cultural. Just not exactly “leaving people alone”.
Preventing Gay Marriage.
Again, I am referring to those activists who inhabit Norquist/DPF’s “big tent” of “leave me aloners”, yet wish to prohibit people from marrying simply because they are in love with a person of the same sex. These folks don’t just oppose gay marriage via judicial fiat (something I also disagree with). They OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE. And if this is “leaving people alone”, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Terry Schiavo.
Now you are just being silly. If you honestly think (1) that the US Congress has ANY place WHATSOEVER in dictating what medical treatments an individual person must have; and (2) that the state should “leave individuals alone”, then you must have some fascinating rows with yourself over dinner.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Lot of butthurt Leftards ITT. God forbid somebody extols the ideals of low tax and small government, even if the major parties of that side of the spectrum don’t practice it.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:40 pm
unaha-closp (532) Vote: 3 2 Says:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Grover Norquist (whom I’m met a couple of times previously) was the most relevant for me. Grover is arguably the most influential lobbyist on the right in the USA. Grover expanded on the main political battle is between coalitions. He aptly names them the “Leave Us Alone” Coalition and the “Takings” Coalition.
GW Bush (a Republican) holds the record for the largest % increase in American government spending (post WW2) during any 8 year term.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the biggest growth in government and defecit was under Reagan.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:42 pm
DPF:
“Well the population of an English seat ranges from 70,000 to 146,000 – that is a huge huge variation. The average is 96,500 and sd is 11,600. In Wales they range from 42,000 to 97,000 so Welsh people get far more say than English voters with an average size of 75,000 and sd of 10,000. In Scotland the range is from 26,000 to 105,000 which is an average of 86,700 and sd of 13,000. And finally in NI they range from 78,000 to 114,000.
So if that is not a gerrymander, I don’t know what is”
True, the population sizes for seats in each of the four parts of the United Kingdom & Northern Ireland differ markedly. (NB that “Great Britain” is actually an amalgam of four different entities, which came together in different ways, and are governed under different pieces of legislation … even though they each send MPs to a common parliament at Westminster). So there are admitted discrepancies in the share of representation each enjoys … no-one is denying that, or that this discrepancy has political consequences.
But a “gerrymander” implies conscious and deliberate rigging of the boundaries for political gain. This claim can’t really be sustained. For example, Welsh representation is determined by the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 … passed by a Tory government.
Furthermore, this uneven distribution is only a small part of the reason for the gap between what Labour and the Tories need to win. This paper puts it attributes only 12 seats, or a 0.7% gap, to the fact that Scotland and Wales are over-represented.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/index.html?orderedseats_help.html
July 1st, 2009 at 3:47 pm
AG – but the representation is not just different between the four countries that make up the UK – it varies greatly just within England. If they had a 5% tolerance rule such as we do, then it would changes things further.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Better names for the two coalitions would be: “Give Money To Us” and “Give Us More Money”.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:04 pm
AG — I’m not sure what to make of your arguments?
To repeat — the courts, more expressly the Supreme Court of the United States imposed the right to abortion on all the states of the United States.
Prayer in schools was an accepted practice in the United States. Please don’t go on about Saudia Arabia. I am not an apologist for Islam. Sticking with the United States — the Supreme Court imposed a ban on prayer in school.
So your point about “leaving people alone” is not proven. Your examples are actually ones of liberal/radical activism. And that is the story of the last four or five decades. A remorseless liberal minority imposing their views on everybody else. Anti-smacking is a classic example in New Zealand of a liberal minority imposing their views of parenting on everybody else.
Gay rights and gay marriage had been imposed by an activist gay minority on everyone else. It is now a crime to not rent out your rental property to a gay couple for example. You must hire a gay employee even if you think homosexuality is immoral. We might think the homosexual lifestyle is wrong, but the law has been changed and imposed on everyone.
So you have exactly wrong AG. It is a remorseless, Liberal, godless minority of activists that have turned society upside down in the last 50 years. What you are railing about is the possibility of conservative, possibly Christian but not necessarily so, men and women striking back and reclaiming the culture.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:06 pm
David,
Absolutely. Redistributions in the UK are based on silly rules. I found this good description of the process: “Currently, Parliamentary boundary reviews are based on the electorates at the time the boundary review commences (unlike local authorities boundaries, which are based on projections of the future electorate). In the case of the boundaries which will be used for the next election, the review began in 2000, so by the time the boundaries are first used in 2009/10 they will already be a decade out of date. By the time they are replaced by the next boundary review, due to report between 2014 and 2018, they will be close to 20 years out of date.”
Simply put, the fact that people tend to move from poorer areas (ie: inner cities, etc) that vote Labour to wealthier ones (ie: the suburbs) that vote Tory, but the electoral boundaries aren’t redrawn in a way that captures these movements, hampers the Tories. Ironically, we in NZ do it much better, even though boundaries don’t really matter much anymore.
However, it isn’t just (perhaps even primarily) the fact that boundaries have problems that accounts for the gap needed for Conservative majorities. You have to add to this:
(1) Differences in turnout (i.e. Labour voters are less likely to actually vote than are Tory voters);
(2) Support distribution (i.e. where voters are concentrated);
(3) Tactical voting (i.e. Lib Dem voters who (at least until recently) hate the Tories more than Labour).
There’s a good discussion of all of this here: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/electoral-bias
July 1st, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Scott,
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes. I was responding to DPF’s claim that politics primarily is defined by a “leave us alone” coalition versus a “takings” coalition. I pointed out that this is too simplistic an analysis as it misses out entirely just the sorts of social issues you are discussing, in that “social conservatives” such as yourself wish to impose your set of values on the USA and other countries … which cannot be described as “leaving people alone”. So you rather prove my point, thanks!
Now – on the substance of your views, feel free to harken back to a mythical, golden past when God was in his heaven and morals were respected. I’ll get on with living in the modern world. I just hope you leave me alone to do so!
July 1st, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Pawlenty/Palin 2012
July 1st, 2009 at 7:40 pm
@Scott
Roe vs Wade might be an over-reach by the Supreme Court, but the case was ostensibly fought as a “right to privacy” issue.
To overturn it would require reinterpretation of the fourth ammendment, which is the “leave us alone” part of the US constitution.
By dividing the political system into two camps overlooks conflicts, such as where one can be against abortion, yet believe in the privacy of citizens. Even staunch originalist judgues like Anton Scalia recognise the conflict.
So, AG was kinda right to wonder how one can be “leave us alone” while wanting to overturn Roe vs Wade!
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:54 am
Hi Ephemera — thanks for your thoughtful post.
The essence of the “leave us alone” faction, as originally posted by DPF, is that there is a large group of people who just want the government to leave them alone.
Now with regard to Roe vs Wade, and I appreciate there are finer legal nuances here, surely this is a case of a government body — the judicial branch of government, not leaving the people alone? Formerly the people of the different states of the United States of America had put in place abortion laws through their legally elected State representatives. Now with the stroke of a judicial pen all the laws regarding abortion were overturned. Surely that is Supreme Court overreach? Surely that is the essence of not being left alone?
With regard to AG and his last post — his claim is that people like me are trying to impose my view. However with regard to the United States and the “leave us alone” faction, I suspect they are looking for a return to the original values of the United States. These values have been usurped by Liberal/radical activists over the last 40 or 50 years. This was done at the Supreme Court and Federal government level. Again the antithesis of “leave us alone”.
Now AG interprets “leave us alone” as — leave us alone with our Liberal values that we have now imposed through the courts and the government. I am saying that the “leave us alone” movement is seeking a return to Conservative values of limited government, lower taxes, and self-reliance. This is the exact opposite of the Liberal/radical movements emanating from the 60s, and currently being reintroduced by Pres Obama, which stress big government, higher taxation particularly on the middle class and the wealthy, and a wide range of government intervention through government funded agencies to clean up the mess generated by secular liberal values.
In New Zealand the last Labour government provides an excellent example of Liberal/radical governance in action. Some of the reasons they have been finally ejected from office is that they do not leave people alone. They want to tell us, among many other things, what to feed our children at school, what showerheads we should have in our showers and how we should discipline our children. They were an example par excellence of the government not “leaving us alone”.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:38 am
Scott,
“I am saying that the “leave us alone” movement is seeking a return to Conservative values of limited government,”
OK. One last try at this.
Just how is government “limited” when it regulates through law the sorts of medical procedures women (i.e abortion) or a woman (Terry Schiavo) may not or must have? How is government “limited” when it stipulates through law what forms of inter-personal relationship may and may not be officially recognised through marriage? How is government “limited” when it (through the public schools that students are compelled to attend) requires by law that one particular form of religious observation be undertaken by all?
You appear to have an odd definition of “limited”. It seems to consist of “it’s OK for the State to intervene through law in order to make everyone do what “traditional conservative values” require”. But that simply is NOT “limited” government in any meaningful sense – it’s extremely interventionist, simply interventionist in a way you happen to think is “good”. Now, that’s OK. You are free to argue that “the government should intervene in peoples’ lives to make them live in good ways”. But please, please just don’t try to claim this is somehow the government “leaving us alone”. That’s just dishonest.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:07 am
If you can think beyond base partisanship then, yes, it does explain them. It certainly explained Muldoon. The whole idea is to permanently lock in these left-wing charades from institutions to individuals so that not even a re-elected “right-wing” government can change them. Hence the grins on lefties faces over WFF and NZ Rail. The parties become merely tweedle dee to tweedle dum, as this country was for decades before 1984 and as it is now. That’s why, over the last few years, one has heard wistful comments from Labour that, over time, National would be forced to return to the (semi) halcyon days of Holyoake. With the rise of Key it would appear that their wishes have come true!
When DPF and others speak of a “permanent majority for the left” what he’s focusing on is not the National/Labour bunfight but the ultimate goal of the left – rachet socialism. One can let the fur fly over changes at the margins, such as how many state houses are built or whether the health budget should grow at 10% per annum or less – or more. But there can be no real fundamental changes because too many people have been made dependent on these things. The bureaucrats and their jobs, the people who receive the money or the services or goods.
Best of all is to actually co-opt the private sector. Think how many so-called “private sector” law firms and consultancies and ad agencies and others depend upon government for a substantial portion, perhaps even the bulk of their income. Get those groups hooked and you’re home and hosed. It’s one of many reasons why the US left are so gleeful about GM, Chrysler, AIG and a huge chunk of Wall Street now being at the beck and call of Obama. It’s often hard enough to distinguish between large corporate bureaucracies and government, direct government involvement makes it even harder; GM as the old NZ Dairy Board, or perhaps Fletcher Challenge circa 1980.
We’re a long way down that track, not quite so far as we were in 1984, but trending back, this time with the grim determination of the left not to be hijacked again in a revolution that would destroy the work of decades. Total, final victory for the forces of progressiveism – at least in the sphere of economic redistribution.
Except that it isn’t. The problem is that we need to remember what that whole period ultimately delivered to us – a society that was unable and unwilling to cope with real change in the world. Government departments that could not change, “private sector” businesses that could not change, people who could not change. And the reasons for that are rather connected to this…..
Ah yes – social issues. I remember that scion of the left, Russel Brown, rhetorically thumping the table last November in a thread on the US elections, declaring that he was sick of the Republicans hammering away on abortion and gay marriage when the economy was collapsing around their ears. As is usually the case with him I thought this line rather disingenuous, in that Democrats have regularly mined those issues to at least as great a degree for their electoral advantage. Similarly, I don’t see much mention here of an old left obsession – gun control – perhaps because the left in the US have given up on that, but only for the moment I would assume.
But aside from these publicised social issues the real problem is that the type of economy desired by the left necessarily means heavy government involvement in the lives of ordinary people, either directly or indirectly (….”imposing your set of values…..”). This is not simplistic. It’s not even just theory; many of us lived through this in NZ, where seemingly every little thing you wanted to do (putting tables and chairs on a sidewalk, opening a shop on Sunday) had a rule and a bureaucrat to enforce it. We reacted against that fairly strongly and imagined that we were kicking against a ‘right-wing conservative’ society.
In fact we weren’t. All this crap came about as a direct result of trying to enforce a left-wing economic model: leveled and egalitarian with doctors earning no more than accountants, or plumbers, or the PM. Where a shop opening on a Sunday might mean huge changes to union workforce rules. The fact that a ‘right-wing’, National party was running it was a mere flip of the coin.
A left-wing economic system corrupts everybody, and ultimately everything, in such a way as to cause it to collapse sooner or later. There are no limits, beyond that of the private sector to pay for all this, AND since nobody knows where that tipping point lies the whole edifice just continues to grow to the point of collapse. That is what it always degenerates to, and it always degenerates to a Muldoon type running the thing and ordinary people very much not being left alone on social issues.
Given the objectives of the system and the “lock-in” tactics, it has to.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:15 am
I think the ‘leave us alone’ sentiment was best summed up by William Burroughs:
We live in complex 21st century nation states that require regulation by a large, well funded central government to function. We use free markets to set prices, allocate scarce resources, drive technological innovatoin and other such desirable things, but without a state providing regulation and infrastructure the market is highly prone to catastrophic failure. It’s useful to have people around to point out when that government is overstepping its bounds and compromising our freedom, but the notion that we can get the state to ‘leave us alone’ and let the free market magically solve all our problems is a childish fantasy.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
tom,
“We reacted against that fairly strongly and imagined that we were kicking against a ‘right-wing conservative’ society. In fact we weren’t. ”
Doesn’t that just prove the point? There is no necessary “right wing”/”left wing” correlation between approaches to economic matters (ie market liberalism vs. regulatory control) and social policy matters (ie social liberalism vs conservative control). So, one may see an authoritarian regime that promotes market freedoms (Chile under Pinochet, China today), a socially liberal regime that tightly controls economic matters (most of the Scandanavian nations), an authoritarian regime that tightly controls economic matters (Muldoon), or a socially liberal regime that promotes market freedoms (the 4th Labour government; Iceland (until the crash)).
Trying to define politics into one rigid spectrum (left/right, “leave us alone”/”taking”, star belly sneetches/non-star belly sneetches) is too simplistic, easily falsified as an empirical proposition, and hence not very useful.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
AG — I am sorry but it is you that is being disingenuous. Let’s have a final go at this.
“Just how is government “limited” when it regulates through law the sorts of medical procedures women (i.e abortion) or a woman (Terry Schiavo) may not or must have? ”
The abortion industry is paid for and funded by massive government expenditure. So if you want more limited government, then the government should get out of providing abortion. The abortion rates would plummet if abortion was not provided freely on demand by our taxpayer dollars. So not a good example. The Liberals, of which I would think you are one, want abortion on demand. Therefore that requires massive government expenditure. Therefore more government, rather than less government.
With regard to Terry Schiavo, the argument was whether to withhold further feeding of the patient or not. Whether a person should be allowed to die or should receive medical care in this case became a matter for the courts as there was a dispute between members of the family. Courts do this all the time and there is no political philosophy I am aware of that would abolish the law and the courts system. So it is a poor example of limited government. Both liberals and conservatives would agree there is a need for the rule of law in cases such as this.
“How is government “limited” when it stipulates through law what forms of inter-personal relationship may and may not be officially recognised through marriage?”
From time immemorial marriage has been between one man and one woman. It is the godless secular individuals who have overturned our tradition and customs to promote “gay marriage”. If government, particularly the last Labour government with the active connivance of the mainstream media, were not involved in promoting homosexuality, I suggest the whole issue would die away. Most people instinctively know homosexuality is wrong. And they are right. So get government out of the whole business and take all references to homosexuality out of the law books and homosexuality would not be an issue. The homosexual will get back in the closet and normality will be restored. Again limited government means that homosexuality will not be an issue. It is the active promotion of the homosexual lifestyle by gay activists aided and abetted by high-ranking government officials that has led us to the sorry state we are in.
” How is government “limited” when it (through the public schools that students are compelled to attend) requires by law that one particular form of religious observation be undertaken by all? ”
Once again — and I suggest you are being deliberately obtuse by not getting this — prayer in schools was a normal and accepted part of life in many schools in the United States. It is by government regulation through the courts that prayer was banned. So that is not limited government. Please do not argue this. People of their own free will prayed in schools. The government imposed its will on all schools in the nation and banned prayer. That is not limited government, that is the government interfering in people’s lives.
“You appear to have an odd definition of “limited”. It seems to consist of “it’s OK for the State to intervene through law in order to make everyone do what “traditional conservative values” require”. ”
No — again all of your examples show Liberal activists interfering in people’s lives through the court system. Whether it be abortion or prayer in schools or gay marriage — Liberal activists have tried to promote change by putting laws into place to regulate people’s lives.
A Conservative believes in limited government. Liberals believe in big government and a big court system. So it is the Conservative that is much less likely to interfere in people’s lives. It is the Liberal that feels compelled to do so.
Scott — out
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Presumably Mr Norquist was in favour of George W Bush cutting funding which resulted in the city of New Orleans being unable to repair their levies. That sort of “leave-us-alone” attitude is pretty unhelpful. And other people have said the same thing already, but it appears that a not-unsizeable number of this coalition want to be able to determine whether homosexuals can get married or not.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Scott,
It would be nice if you could find a consistent line of argument and stick to it, instead of changing your position from post to post.
Abortion.
The issue is not how it is paid for (or, at least, that is a secondary issue). it is whether the government legislates to prohibit it. You want this to happen. So you are not in favour of limited government.
Terry Schiavo
Of course the courts need to decide in cases of familial disputes. What is NOT limited government is congress seeking to legislate to overturn that court ruling. If you approved of this, you do not favour limited government.
Prayer in schools
Public schools are state actors. If you don’t understand that, it is you who are obtuse. So when schools mandate a particular religious observance, then that is the state (ie the government) acting to require individuals to take part in (or suffer the pressure to participate in) one religion. If this is OK by you, you do not favour limited government.
As for “liberals believe X, conservatives believe Y’ … you betray a very simple minded, limited ability to grasp complexity. This may make your life easier. But it isn’t a very good guide to reality.
Peace out.
AG
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:25 pm
You’ve been paying too much attention to Richard Prebble. He was always going on about how the New Zealand Parliament is one of the most open in the world … they won’t even let you take cameras on their guided tours.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Danyl Mclauchlan says on July 2nd, 2009 at 11:15 am:
Socialism is a childish fantasy that has never worked. Time for you to grow up Danyl.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:34 pm
One of the greatest and effective posts you have ever done Mr. Farrar.
You only need to see the commies coming out like red ants from a nest you’ve stepped on to know how effective.
And when you see Danyl et al saying things like-
“Honestly DPF, aren’t you embarrased to put your name to this nonsense?”
its a sure sign that you’re on the right track, that you’re hurting them, and that they have no real answer.
Well done.
Heroic.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:35 pm
“Presumably Mr Norquist was in favour of George W Bush cutting funding which resulted in the city of New Orleans being unable to repair their levies.”
A stupid ignorant socialist lie and cowardly smear.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:31 pm
“A stupid ignorant socialist lie and cowardly smear.”
It is indeed.
The left have had a temporary? setback with the election of the Obama messiah, there is now no one to pin their lies and slander against.
So well refined and resourced was the leftwing lie machine that they had no plan on how to consolodate their position, hence a recent loss of ground on many of their pet causes.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:31 am
Maybe we could take up a collection to send John Key to the next Freedom Forum. Seems to be a political dimension he is entirely ignorant of.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:32 am
Actually it misses my point entirely – which is not that there is necessarily a correlation – but that travelling down your path produces a society where eventually there can be no differences between economic policy and social policy, and from which there can be no change short of a revolution.
For all of your “above-the-fray” sneer about star belly sneetches I see that you still know that sides exist, in that you refer to ‘authoritarian’ vs ‘socially liberal’ – putting you on the side of the angels of course. But what your path leads to is a society in which the “socially liberal” government necessarily becomes more authoritarian as people move from simply being ‘liberal’ about sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll, to being liberal about the car they drive and the house they live in and other aspects of life choices. Authoritarianism is the ultimate destination for anybody who espouses the line that everything is political, which has certainly been the mantra of the left for the last 40 years.
Looking at it from the other side – the end point rather than the entry – is to see that two of those authoritarian governments you identified became more socially liberal, with local and international economic changes often providing the pressure. On the latter point I note the sad/funny days of NZ families flying back from Australia in the 1970’s loaded up with household goods, a slow awakening akin to that of Eastern Europe. Whether that will happen with the Chinese government is uncertain, but that’s what many people around the world are betting on as they support the increasingly freed-up Chinese economy.
By contrast a ‘socially liberal’ government that endulges in the usual orgy of ever increasing regulation, nationalisation, subsidies and bailouts, will find itself trending away from being liberal because it has to in order to make the whole mess work at all. What gets me is the way left-wingers like you offer apologetics for it nowadays: “yeah, you two gay guys can get hitched, big ups. But the wedding limo must be a Ministry approved hybrid. A permit will NOT be issued for the pink Cadillac”.
It’s like you’re all still living in the 1970’s or 80’s, where the authoritarians are obvious rulers like Muldoon and the obvious signs are in areas of sex and drugs. Whether you cannot get past this or whether you don’t care I don’t know, but my bet would be on the latter given the uncanny resemblance your attitudes have to those of Scott – except now the ‘liberal’ side of the fence are the enforcers, the enablers, the new authoritarians. Say goodbye to Muldoon, say hello to Russell Norman.