Mike Konczal's most recent Wonkblog column focuses in on the potential pitfalls facing any attempt to put reformist libertarians and reformist liberals together into what Michael Lind has been describing as a coalition against rentiers—people who receive a substantial portion of their income from property or securities.
One problem Konczal anticipates is that the conservative side of the coalition has too narrow of a view of the problem....
What conservatives had to learn was that the government wasn't on their side. It wasn't going to aid them in enriching their goals—it would always be used to pursue special interests often inimical to conservative purposes.
This isn't a lesson many reformist liberals have yet learned. They still imagine that government programs will aid them in reaching their goals—instead of mainly serving to further enrich the wealthy, entrench the powerful and stymie upward economic mobility.CNBC NetNet
In my more hopeful moments, however, I still believe someday they may learn this lesson.
Prospects for a New Left-Right Economic Coalition
John Carney | Senior Editor
Like Konczal said.
I think the fundamental difference may be that liberals assume that good government is possible and conservatives assume it is not. I'd say that history tends to bear conservatives out, as would Karl Marx, for example. As soon as one acknowledges the fact that sociologists have established beyond the shadow of a doubt, that is, that a society of any complexity evinces a class structure and class interests, then power enters the mix and politics is based on power. Mainstream economists suppress this. See Michael Perelman, The Power of Economics v. the Economics of Power.
Traditional liberals and conservatives fall on the authoritarian side of the political compass and support hierarchical organization, which includes government based on the military model.
Liberals favor a large socially activist government that supports liberal causes (constituencies) and issues. Conservatives favor a strong socially and politically activist government that supports conservative causes (constituencies) and issues. Both operate on the basis of conflicting ideology and moral value structure.
Those who fall on the libertarian side of the political compass on the left and right support consensual organization based on the team model. The ideology of right Libertarians is based on radical individualism with voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit, and the ideology of left libertarians is oriented toward the integration of liberty, equality, and community (outside the US called "solidarity").
The libertarian view is supported politically in the US by Libertarians and Objectivists (Tea Party). There is no clearly defined left libertarian faction in the US at present other than at the fringes of politics. However, the fringe is becoming increasingly significant owing to economic conditions and the level of cronyism and political corruption affecting the US economy and US politics.
The political compass is a four quadrant matrix of potential preference on which which individuals place themselves based on answers to the test's questions. While it is a simplistic way to represent the complexity of preferences, it does fall into the way that we talk of political preference in the US presently, so in that sense it is a useful device.
Getting agreement across the four quadrants would be difficult enough without class structure and class and interests and the mechanics of power that go along with this. Very few are talking about this, however, other than Marxists and Marxians. The few others that are talking about it are the anthropologists, sociologists, evolutionary theorists, and cognitive scientists, but this is not penetrating public awareness very much yet.
10 comments:
There has never been a human society without government, and there never will be. Human beings are political animals who incessantly create and modify systems for creating and maintaining social order along the model whatever social ideals animate them. Therefore, to say that good government is impossible is tantamount to saying that a good human society is impossible.
Therefore, to say that good government is impossible is tantamount to saying that a good human society is impossible.
A lot of strict authoritarians would say that only a strong authoritarian government is capable of inducing "good" government, that is, is government based on "biblical law." Same with Islamist fundamentalists. So they would say that good government is impossible in a secular state.
Sure Tom, but what some strict authoritarians think doesn't seem to have much to do with the general issue.
Sure Tom, but what some strict authoritarians think doesn't seem to have much to do with the general issue.
Psychologically, there is always a strict father figure as the organizational principle at the basis of authoritarianism. Hierarchy is based at least subliminally on the Great Chain of Being as the basis of order. while the chief value of Libertarianism is personal freedom, the chief value of conservatism is order and the order is moral order.
Why the hell would the so called "libertarians" (right libertarians) make reforms against rentiers, which are they masters after all. This guy is delusional.
Apart from that, we still have to listen to sensible solutions to problems. All I read here is an other random rant that the government can't fix things. We are still waiting to see solutions which are real, beyond the 'down with the government, let the free market rule' (privatise, deregulate, abolish law?).
Not much better than saying 'let's all dance the kumbaya together'.
I think you're absolutely right Dan...I would just take it one step further than humans. All animals naturally develop hierarchies and societal structures....this is just as natural to humans as procreation. This is why I find the libertarian POV so ignorant...besides for our unique abilities to walk upright, make complicated speech and our overall brain mass....humans' ability to maintain social order in ever larger groups and to harness the laws of large averages in a cooperative fashion have been central to our rise from the African plains to dominate the planet. To me, libertarianism much more closely resembles anarchism than any other type of social/political ideology
Dan Kervick writes: "Therefore, to say that good government is impossible is tantamount to saying that a good human society is impossible."
A couple of thoughts.
1. Scale matters. A good achievable on a local scale does not necessarily translate into large social or political organizations.
2. We don't have to be so abstract. Instead, look at what's possible here and now. Is a good government and good society possible under the arrangements and on the scale of the United States of America?
3. I'm not sure a "good human society" is possible, so perhaps Dan is right. Attempts to create virtuous societies tend to end in tyranny or anarchy or both. We want a decent society, a tolerable society, a society that doesn't destroy good institutions and people. One that permits human goodness, human thriving. That's enough to ask.
John Carney: 1. Scale matters. A good achievable on a local scale does not necessarily translate into large social or political organizations.
Agreed. Scale is a huge issue in social relationships. Complex social organizations become more difficult and costly to manage as scale increases. When we get to the level of large developed nations, then increasing complexity results in emergent challenges that have little precedent. However, this is the given unless large societies are broken into small ones. The other way is to adopt the principle of subsidiarity in so far as possible by relegating decision making as close to those affected as possible.
2. We don't have to be so abstract. Instead, look at what's possible here and now. Is a good government and good society possible under the arrangements and on the scale of the United States of America?
John Kenneth Galbraith wrote a book on it, called oddly enough The Good Society, which is of course from the liberal POV. Here is a post from the conservative side, Towards the Good Society: A Conservative View. There's even a journal, The Good Society, published by the Committee on the Political Economy of The Good Society.
3. I'm not sure a "good human society" is possible, so perhaps Dan is right. Attempts to create virtuous societies tend to end in tyranny or anarchy or both. We want a decent society, a tolerable society, a society that doesn't destroy good institutions and people. One that permits human goodness, human thriving. That's enough to ask.
The ideal or optimal society is, well, an ideal, but it's always good to have ideals to shoot for, unless perfection becomes the enemy of the good. The way toward achieving closer approximation of ideal or optimal society is through creating ideal people and optimizing relationship. These are issues that pertain to culture and education, as well as self-cultivation, more than government.
A society's institutions should be designed to this end it that is the ideal. To the degree that they come under government or are government funded, then politics comes into the picture and opposing value systems. In many cases, the value systems are not only in conflict but they are mutually exclusive, and that makes compromise all but impossible. Then it comes down to power.
Most boring comment ever: I agree with everything Tom just wrote.
Post a Comment