Publius accuses me of schadenfreude about liberal discomfiture with Obama's appointments. Schadenfreude? I supported the guy for president. I would personally be pleased to see Ingrid Newkirk appointed to head the USDA.
I belong to another small movement that is disproportionately politically active, and also, frequently toys with the lunatic belief that if only there were some structural change in the world, they'd finally get the opportunity to enact their agenda. Libertarians tend to moon over proportional representation and transparency initiatives. Right now, progressives are into cabinet appointments. But the underlying belief is the same, which is that if one could only get hold of some talisman, politicians would listen.
Politicians don't listen because they, unlike activists, know that polls lie. People say they want national health insurance. They also say they want lower government spending. But confront them with changing their insurance (with which they are, overwhelmingly, satisfied), or cutting Mom's Medicaid, and they change their minds. They will still tell you that they want national health insurance and lower government spending, but, you see, not that way, where "that way" is any feasible way to deliver their stated goal.
Politicians don't listen because progressive and libertarian activists are not pushing minor schemes to benefit themselves greatly at small cost to everyone else. They are pushing for radical change that will require radical fiscal medicine to effect. That fiscal medicine will not pass unnoticed, and hence, it does not happen.
This does not make me happy. It does not make me happy that I can't privatize social security and eliminate the corporate income tax, and it does not make me happy that I can't have radical agricultural reform and a stiff carbon tax. But the universe is not here to please me.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
For the record, I personally am enjoying a little bit of schadenfreude. I've said for a long time that he's just another cynical pol saying what he needs to say to get elected. The fact that he was able to delude more people than average is evidence of his skill, not his sincerity.
Not too much, though, because he can still to a hell of a lot that I don't like.
In normal times, I'd agree with you Megan. As much as soi disant progressives like to think everyone wants universal national health insurance, in reality, as you say, most people have health insurance, and most are happy with what they have. And those who are currently covered by the form of national health insurance called Medicare (a politically powerful group) must realize that if a similar program were extended to everyone under 65, it would likely lead to some form of rationing, higher premiums and co-pays, or a combination of both for current Medicare beneficiaries. The easiest way to make health insurance 'free' for progressive 20- and 30-somethings, after all, is to cut back on care for their grandparents.
These aren't normal times though. The specter of Great Depression 2.0 gives politicians the freedom to enact more radical policies than normal (just look at what has been enacted in the last few months). Hopefully though, the Great Depression comparisons will dissipate before a radical policy such as universal national health insurance gets adopted. As John Hussman wrote in his weekly market commentary today,
I'm having lots of fun these days because some of my friends mocked me when I said it didn't much matter whether McCain or Obama won. (I wrote in Fred T, myself.) So far, it looks as if events are likely to support my thesis.
proportional representation?
Does this make New Zealand a libertarian paradise?
Schadenfreude? I don't seen any schadenfreude. If dreamy-eyed progresso-bots suddenly realize that they voted for a politician, rather than a messiah, I call that 'growing up.'
Why did McArdle support Obama? I've followed McArdle's writing for years, and she always seemed to have a strong libertarian bent, which would seem to completely align with McCain. I'm not arguing, I accept Obama as the new president and all that, but I'm just curious: why?
i updated to note that the language i cited was one tiuny part of a more substantive point on something else.
also, apologize for lumping you with townhall. i'll send you a free UAW sweatshirt if i do it again
I can't speak for Megan, but as a guy with a strong libertarian bent, I voted for Obama because he seemed like a guy who was was interested in really learning about the issues, and to do something that WORKED. Even if I didn't agree with his policies, he seemed to have learned a few lessons about handing money to some Department of Fixing X wasn't a viable way to go, and he had some concern about the long term financial viability of the country, etc. Basically he struck me as a smart guy who was interested in good governance (which necessarily means he wasn't as left as people wished/feared).
McCain had been engaged in public service for most of his life, yet he would freely admit to being totally ignorant of economic issues. That is pretty much a killer to me; if you're going to be a politician (especially one whose been around for 30 years), you should have at least have an econ 101 understanding of the subject. Politicians should be renaissance men and able to think intelligently about a broad range of issues. Obama is that kind of guy. McCain was not.
Ingrid Newkirk .... are you mad?
Supporter of the Animal Liberation Front (terrorists), unconditional opponent of animal medical testing ("Even if we could cure Cancer and Aids, I still would oppose it" - paraphrased). I know this isn't your central point, and yes, a little animal rights is nice here and there .... but Megan, you must admit, this woman is a complete LOON.
PS: If she were head of the FDA, hypothetically, a very good chance it would be a federal crime to kill a cow, thus, have a steak.
DaveinHackensack, you are my hero of the day.
toxic - Yeah, except Obama is also ignorant on economic issues, but he's just another arrogant lawyer who thinks her can fake it, whereas McCain was at least honest.
I still think it is so cute that Megan thinks she is a libertarian, and not the rather conventional east coast liberal that she is.
As long as we're listing dreams, I'd like to see a requirement that every time a city dwelling self-proclaimed "libertarian" advocates a carbon tax she be required to buy a Prius for a rural midwesterner. Email me and I'll tell you where you can send mine.
I used to be quite active in politics, as a result of which I was able to formulate the definition of "unnecesary government program:" the ones that don't help me. The ones that do are "vital government services." Despite its imperfections our system is a democracy and we get what we genuinely want, not what we say we want.
As to Ingrid Newkirk, Megan--her group ran an ad campaign not long ago equating chickens and Holocaust survivors and when the Palestinians loaded up a donkey with dynamite and sent it towards an Israeli position she complained about the cruelty to the donkey.
A carbon tax is the best way to prepare for the coming ice age. Who am I kidding?
Have you been paying attention to the sunspots lately?
Today's sun spot number is ZERO. Not to worry. The current sun spot cycle is only delayed about a year so far. If this continues for a decade or more as it did for the Dalton Minimum it is going to get very cold outside.
A carbon tax in those circumstances will not be popular. Not popular at all.
"the universe is not here to please me" How much simpler all our lives would be if everyone understood this simple principle.
Thanks Klug, I'll be here all week.
Incidentally, the editors of the Wall Street Journal aren't sanguine about the prospects of avoiding an Obama-Daschle version of HillaryCare this time around: "The Obama Health Care Express".
But the universe is not here to please me.
Holdfast
That is what distinguishes Megan from being a conventional east coast liberal.
Today's sun spot number is ZERO. Not to worry. The current sun spot cycle is only delayed about a year so far. If this continues for a decade or more as it did for the Dalton Minimum it is going to get very cold outside.
Going to get pretty hard to hustle Cap and Trade in that environment. That won't stop the libs, though.
Massive glaciation moving south overrunning Canada would play hell with Bono's Global Warming concert, methinks.
Megan, have you noticed that the planet temperature has been stable for nearly ten years now? That there is not a single peer reviewed study proving that AGW actually exists? That water vapor has 24,000 times the effect on climate temperature as does CO2? That the theory of AGW is based completely on "computer modeling"? That the same people who can't tell me what the hell the temperature is going to be 2 weeks from now are trying to tell me that they know what they'll be 50 years from now? Do you all in the coastal cities honestly believe this crap? Are any of you capable of rational thought and scientific analysis? What has happened to the so-called intelligentsia in this country? Is questioning of the new religion of AGW so perilous? Jeez.
The problem is Megan that so much of this is conservatives like yourself drumming up angst about liberals being mad, so it's hard to take seriously.
c'mon, discomfiture?
I know the battle has been lost and discomfit is now a synonym of disconcert, but it got its new meaning by sounding like a perfectly good word that is a serviceable noun: discomfort.
Tom Hanna,
You can take your share of the prius out of the giveaways to the farm lobby.
Megan, as usual I find myself agreeing with you. If only those of us who are Libertarians could get our voices heard. Alas, we keep trying though and again I agree that it does not make me happy either to see no privatization of social security and other issues including the carbon tax, but to quote Robert Frost "the one thing I know about life is,it goes on"
Hackensack,
Your argument was more correct back in 94. The fact is, the reason why Universal Health care will happen is because the health insurance that most of us used to be happy with continues to deteriorate in quality while going up in price. Growing up, my parents never had to worry about health insurance. They got it through my dad's job and it covered everything that we needed. Now as a grown up having worked at several companies I can honestly say that the system barely works right now. Everything is inconvenient, bureaucratic (everything conservatives say that privatization does better than government...Bullshit) and I'm paying more for it. For many people, insurance is not covering services that it once was and everyone that I know who has a serious medical issue spends hours fighting with insurance companies for basic services....and thats the people who have insurance. The basic arc of things is that as more and more people have to deal with the system as it is now and as it will continue to deteriorate, the more people will look to government to provide a solution. Its inevitable because the private insurance product is becoming less efficient and is providing poorer service than the government run alternative.....oh well...another conservative myth busted.
Libertarians bloggers do not exist. Those of you who are stating that you are libertarians are really just fallen conservatives. Real libertarians do not feel the need to try and espouse a political point of view. There are plenty of places in this country where they can live their lives away from the public sphere, away from government subsidies and social programs...and many of them do. Yes, the government does sometimes meddle in some of their dealings, but its hardly a large burden to real libertarians, certainly its less of a burden than changes in the weather. But the ones who are part of this society actually want something else; They want a "line item veto". They want the right to say what programs and good and which are bad...what gets paid for and what gets cut That is not libertarianism, its dictatorship.
Kool Kal, that's a snazzy ad hominem argument you have there, but you shouldn't be surprised to learn that not everyone in the world is a utilitarian.
Megan-is-nuts, libertarians refers to a fairly broad range of political ideologies. The phrase 'real libertarian' is meaningless metaphysical hokum. You would be better served to say 'radical libertarian,' even if you intend to make the argument that only 'radical libertarians' are fully consistent, though again, the incredible burden falls on you to demonstrate the necessity of the point at which you delimit such nebulous concepts as liberty.
Ms. Mcardle
? "I would personally be pleased to see Ingrid Newkirk appointed to head the USDA." & "...I can't have radical agricultural reform"..
Why do you hate the bureacracies built around food production so much you mention them everywhere all the time? I notice that you use this as negative reference point far, far more than you use any of the other painfully wasteful and inefficient governmentals.
Despite deep, deep differences with my own politics/philosophy, I often find your views of great interest.. but I just don't get this "thing" you have with farming?
Best regards,
Michael Reed
BasicFact: Just a guess, but I think you forgot to change the name back to ScentOfViolets on your last post.
No....ScentOfViolets is way too fru fru for a man of my stature and personal size.
Its inevitable because the private insurance product is becoming less efficient and is providing poorer service than the government run alternative.....oh well...another conservative myth busted.
Try that line on anyone who has dealt with military or VA health care.
I really don't get the frustration with Obama's picks. Moderates can sell progressive reforms better than progressives can. These people lend political - if not substantive - credibility to his agenda, one that is generally quite progressive. In order for it to pass, he needs political credibility.
On a side note, I am quite happy that Megan can't privatize Social Security or eliminate corporate taxes. Quite happy indeed.
On a side note, I am quite happy that Megan can't privatize Social Security or eliminate corporate taxes. Quite happy indeed.
Why? You'd rather everyone be poorer than have everyone be richer if that meant that some people were richer than others? Do you think we can tax ourselves rich?
That's one possibility, SG. Another possibility is that I think those are great ideas but that Megan implementing them would be a total disaster.
Of course, if her policy-making and administering skills are as good as her blog, I wouldn't be worried.
But I'm pretty sure, SG, that some people continue to be much, much, much richer than others even with Social Security and corporate taxes. I also don't think making everyone richer is necessarily a good priority for policy-makers.
Bingo.. perfect reality-based commentary, Megan. (Ya mean national health care won't be cheap and flawless? I'm shocked.)
In contrast, extracating ourselves from Iraq is feasible, and we should (and will) move in that direction quickly.
I also don't think making everyone richer is necessarily a good priority for policy-makers.
Why don't you think making everyone richer is not a good policy priority? I can't fathom this.
Fundamentally, this is the question I'm getting to. It's certainly not a given that privatized SS and elimination of corporate taxes would make everyone richer. There's plenty of room for debate on that issue. But I understand you to be saying that, even if it would make everyone richer, you'd still oppose it. I can't understand that position. What's the downside of greater prosperity and liberty?
"Why did McArdle support Obama? I've followed McArdle's writing for years, and she always seemed to have a strong libertarian bent, which would seem to completely align with McCain. I'm not arguing, I accept Obama as the new president and all that, but I'm just curious: why?"
Cultural aesthetics and a sense of class affinity,of course.
SG, I'm not saying that making everyone richer should is asbolutely not a good priority, I'm saying it might not be. The government could make everybody richer by giving everyone makes less than 250k per year 10 dollars and giving anyone who makes over it 20 dollars, or vice/versa. Making everyone richer doesn't necessarily address fundamental problems with the distribution of wealth and income.
Also, M, that's not why Megan supported Obama. War is a very, very large and costtly government program. The most profoundly costly, actually. My guess is she decided to vote for the guy who was against the war.
His election has, of course, policy consequences that she'll hate a lot, and that liberals such as myself will love a lot. So dismissing her vote voice as the chic thing to do is really insulting to what had to have been a gut-wrenching decision on her part.
The government could make everybody richer by giving everyone makes less than 250k per year 10 dollars and giving anyone who makes over it 20 dollars, or vice/versa.
No it can't. The government can't give money without getting it from somewhere. The people who it takes the money from are by definition poorer. The government might take the money from future generations via borrowing, but that's still making somebody poorer. Or the government might print money, which devalues it making everyone poorer.
In order to make everyone richer, they have to enact policies that promote growth, not simply redistribute money. Growth can make everyone richer, redistribution is zero-sum.
Making everyone richer doesn't necessarily address fundamental problems with the distribution of wealth and income.
I assert that unequal distribution of wealth and income are not inherently problems and as such do not need to be addressed. Poverty (meaning possessing inadequate resources to maintain a basic standard of living) is a problem that needs to be addressed. If wealth and income were largely equal but everyone was poor (say the economic doomsday scenario that has been discussed at length lately), that would be a problem that needs addressing. If wealth and income were wildly unequal but no one was poor, that wouldn't be a problem.
Fretting about inequality to the exclusion of poverty is simply envy by another name. Regardless of what you choose to call it, it's still not a virtue.