Interesting post. I think this is a discussion worth having, as many paleo/localist concerns I find myself sympathizing with are simply very difficult to translate into concrete political action. One of the issues I had with your series on free trade, for example, was that you had taken some important cultural concerns and refashioned them into a very blunt political program.
In Kaus's defense, an echo chamber on the Right probably helps the liberal cause. Getting his team to avoid a similar pitfall is probably the pragmatic thing to do.
Corruption is a fact of life, and I'm not sure you can ever get rid of it entirely. That said, I think dealing with parochial welfare questions at the state and local level is both more democratically accountable and less prone to egregious political pandering.
In Shirky's defense, the main thrust of his post seems to be that the decline of old media platforms is inevitable given the rapid pace of technological change. I know he comes off like an Internet triumphalist in other forums, but I read this post as pretty dispassionate analysis of the quandaries facing professional journalism.
It's weird, because Goldberg is stuck between a rcok and a hard place, and I'm kind of sympathetic to his plight. His views on settlements and the peace process are pretty reasonable and he's usually a darn good reporter, but he also has hair-trigger sensitivities to any accusation of anti-Semitism. I think this is unfortunate and frequently compromises his objectivity, but given his background I can't really blame him it. It's like he overcompensates on the anti-Semitism front to make up for his liberal views on the peace process.
I think the central criticism of Rush's remark, Matthew, is that decentralization can't be wished into existence. It requires a coherent political blueprint, and Rush is apparently unable (or unwilling) to grapple with this.
I think there are real fault lines developing within the democratic coalition, and I think you're right to point to the emerging divide between democratic voters and their policy-making proxies. But I think the party rank and file basically agree with their leadership about what constitutes a good society - egalitarianism, tolerance, economic opportunity etc. - the really disagreements arise only when the discussion turns to means (this, I think, is the fundamental difference between neoliberals and progressives).
With conservatives, on the other hand, social traditionalists and fiscal conservatives have vastly different political worldviews. I don't think this forecloses the possibility of tactical collaboration, but I do think it makes conservative debates over first principles a lot messier and a lot more important than comparable debates on the progressive end of the spectrum.
I think there were big, messy debates over the first principles of liberalism in the 1980s and the early 2000s, when conservatism seemed ascendant and liberals had to go back to the drawing board. I tend to think that those discussions only take place when a party is down and out.
That said, I also think the nature of the fusionist project means that first principle debates are simply more important to conservatives than they are to liberals. Some self-identified Republicans would describe themselves as modern heirs to the liberal tradition, while others are staunch traditionalists. The Democrats, on the other hand, don't have a major philosophical fault line running through their intellectual history. A few academics have developed communitarian and postmodern critiques of modern, technocratic liberalism, but this takes place at the movement's fringes. The divide between cultural and fiscal conservatives, on the other hand, is always front-and-center.
Interesting post, Chris, but doesn't this whole debate strike you as rather trivial? I mean, is Kaus's self-identification really undermining liberalism from within? Personally, I'm inclined to think that the benefits of keeping a few heterodox thinkers around outweigh any downsides, but Kaus isn't exactly a critical cog in the liberal political machine. If he was less abrasive, I doubt he'd draw a fraction of the amount of attention he attracts now.
Also, I'm envisioning the future of the League as some sort of benign marijuana co-op on the Washington-British Columbia border. Why ruin that dream, ED? Why?
The rationale for stopping short of full-blown legalization is that it would prevent a dedicated Marijuana industry from aggressively marketing the drug. This does nothing to lessen the actual effects of marijuana, but it may help avert the development of a pot equivalent to Big Tobacco. Matthew Yglesias has written a few posts on this that I don't care to dig up right now.
I'm not sure if I agree with his argument - like you, I'm a bit wary of restricting peoples' right to buy and sell products - but it is something worth considering.
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. There's an intuitive distinction between marijuana and tomatoes. One is a vegetable, the other is an addictive drug that may lead to health problems. That's a non-arbitrary reason to restrict property rights and stop short of full-blown legalization.
I'm sympathetic to a lot of this, but I don't get how we're supposed to fiat cultural renewal through a few tariff programs. One of the reasons I admire Professor Deneen's work is that he emphasizes the importance of cultural change. Absent a real mindset shift, heavy-handed national legislation isn't going to do a thing to promote restraint, virtue and localism.
Here's a question for you, Mark: Is agreement over first principles or agreement over immediate policy a more durable basis for political collaboration? As long as the Republican Party doesn't morph into something akin to Europe's Christian Democrats, you have to assume that social conservatives will continue to provide the most reliable small-government constituency. So even if libertarian first principles are closer to the Democratic Party's core philosophy, should that really matter in terms of real, practical politics? I feel like your proposed coalition privileges intellectual purity over actual policy-making.
Great post. One thing I'd suggest is that mainstream liberals are more willing to listen to dissidents than their Republican counterparts. After a dismal 2004 election cycle, progressive activists were actively courted by the Democratic Party and, in a few cases, actually co-0pted by establishment institutions (Dean as DNC chair comes to mind).
Mainstream conservatism, on the other hand, seems a lot less hospitable to dissident intellectuals. Holding liberal intellectuals accountable for their party's actions actually makes sense in a world where they wield a significant amount of influence over the progressive movement. Holding fringe conservatives responsible for a party that simply isn't interested in their input, on the other hand, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I'm sympathetic to a lot of what you have to say, E.D., but comparing Sweden's educational system to the United States' is a bit too apples to oranges for my taste. No matter what Jeb Bush says about immigrants from Baghdad and Somalia, Sweden will always enjoy an incredible level of cultural homogeneity that contributes to educational success. I'm not sure how that translates to the American experience.
I'm sympathetic to your premises, but erecting a few trade barriers is emphatically not going to change our culture of consumption. That sort of thing requires a mindset shift that can't be forced through by policymakers in Washington. Meanwhile, the real costs of protectionism Mark and I keep hammering at are going to have a huge impact on our collective well-being.
It's also worth noting that economic growth can be morally beneficial under the right circumstances. Benjamin Friedman's "Moral Consequences of Economic Growth" makes this point rather elegantly: shared prosperity enhances tolerance, reduces sectarian tensions, and frequently energizes civil and cultural institutions. Granted, you may not share Friedman's political premises, but I think conservatives ought to consider the upside of economic growth as well.
1.) I'm in complete agreement with E.D. - countries have the right to self-determine their economic policies. There's no doubt that some of the tactics employed by global financial institutions have been extremely invasive and, at times, coercive, and that's wrong.
2.) That said, certain forms of protectionism are so devastating to developing nations that I can find no reasonable justification for their continued existence. This year's college debate topic happens to be agricultural subsidies, and having done some research on the subject, it's hard to overstate how badly rural African farmers are screwed over when we dump cheap, subsidized cotton and foodstuffs on their domestic markets.
3.) I think advocates of protectionism frequently suffer from extreme selection bias. I've written on this before, but it's worth repeating: no one talks about failed experiments in industrial policy. Moreover, even "successful" protectionist measures frequently incur unintended costs further down the road. The United States' experiment with industrial tariffs, for example, was a major bone of contention between the North and South leading up to the Civil War.
Having said all that, here's a concise explanation of why I'm generally in favor of free trade:
1.) The consensus of credentialed economists is overwhelmingly in favor of removing trade barriers (off the top of my head, the only exception I can think of is Dani Rodrick). Economics, of course, isn't as unambiguous as high school geometry, but it is a fairly rigorous, empirically-minded field, and I'm inclined to defer to the authority of experts who've spent a long time studying this stuff.
2.) Periods of expanding free trade strongly correlate with significant increases in global prosperity.
3.) As I've argued elsewhere (http://bestelectionever.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/what-protectionism-looks-like/), I think our political process would warp any effort to revive protectionism beyond all recognition.
4.) A protectionist backlash would seriously undermine multilateral cooperation with a host of important allies. I also think that multilateral mechanisms like the WTO are genuinely useful for alleviating commercial tensions.
On “Innovators Needed”
That is a slick innovation, Tim. Tragically, I lack any mobile device with a keyboard. I wonder if I can throw my laptop in a ziplock . . .
On “Working with what we’ve got…part II”
Interesting post. I think this is a discussion worth having, as many paleo/localist concerns I find myself sympathizing with are simply very difficult to translate into concrete political action. One of the issues I had with your series on free trade, for example, was that you had taken some important cultural concerns and refashioned them into a very blunt political program.
On “Multi-generational living…”
No shame in that. This economy sucks.
On “Whenever you say “Nobody on our side does that,” you’re wrong.”
In Kaus's defense, an echo chamber on the Right probably helps the liberal cause. Getting his team to avoid a similar pitfall is probably the pragmatic thing to do.
On “Stranger than Nonfiction”
Hahahahahahaha it's on Amazon, so I'm assuming it's real. If not, I give the folks at National Review a lot of credit for their creativity.
On “In Defense of Corruption*”
Corruption is a fact of life, and I'm not sure you can ever get rid of it entirely. That said, I think dealing with parochial welfare questions at the state and local level is both more democratically accountable and less prone to egregious political pandering.
On “the Web has a lot less to teach the print media than you think”
In Shirky's defense, the main thrust of his post seems to be that the decline of old media platforms is inevitable given the rapid pace of technological change. I know he comes off like an Internet triumphalist in other forums, but I read this post as pretty dispassionate analysis of the quandaries facing professional journalism.
On “the anti-Semitic accusation as throw-away”
It's weird, because Goldberg is stuck between a rcok and a hard place, and I'm kind of sympathetic to his plight. His views on settlements and the peace process are pretty reasonable and he's usually a darn good reporter, but he also has hair-trigger sensitivities to any accusation of anti-Semitism. I think this is unfortunate and frequently compromises his objectivity, but given his background I can't really blame him it. It's like he overcompensates on the anti-Semitism front to make up for his liberal views on the peace process.
On “Regarding Rush”
I think the central criticism of Rush's remark, Matthew, is that decentralization can't be wished into existence. It requires a coherent political blueprint, and Rush is apparently unable (or unwilling) to grapple with this.
On “Protectionism and National Security”
Keep fighting the good fight, Mark. I'd weigh in if I could, but I'm afraid the last round of free trade debates left me exhausted.
On “Liberal First Principles”
Chris -
I think there are real fault lines developing within the democratic coalition, and I think you're right to point to the emerging divide between democratic voters and their policy-making proxies. But I think the party rank and file basically agree with their leadership about what constitutes a good society - egalitarianism, tolerance, economic opportunity etc. - the really disagreements arise only when the discussion turns to means (this, I think, is the fundamental difference between neoliberals and progressives).
With conservatives, on the other hand, social traditionalists and fiscal conservatives have vastly different political worldviews. I don't think this forecloses the possibility of tactical collaboration, but I do think it makes conservative debates over first principles a lot messier and a lot more important than comparable debates on the progressive end of the spectrum.
"
Chris -
I think there were big, messy debates over the first principles of liberalism in the 1980s and the early 2000s, when conservatism seemed ascendant and liberals had to go back to the drawing board. I tend to think that those discussions only take place when a party is down and out.
That said, I also think the nature of the fusionist project means that first principle debates are simply more important to conservatives than they are to liberals. Some self-identified Republicans would describe themselves as modern heirs to the liberal tradition, while others are staunch traditionalists. The Democrats, on the other hand, don't have a major philosophical fault line running through their intellectual history. A few academics have developed communitarian and postmodern critiques of modern, technocratic liberalism, but this takes place at the movement's fringes. The divide between cultural and fiscal conservatives, on the other hand, is always front-and-center.
"
Interesting post, Chris, but doesn't this whole debate strike you as rather trivial? I mean, is Kaus's self-identification really undermining liberalism from within? Personally, I'm inclined to think that the benefits of keeping a few heterodox thinkers around outweigh any downsides, but Kaus isn't exactly a critical cog in the liberal political machine. If he was less abrasive, I doubt he'd draw a fraction of the amount of attention he attracts now.
On “Blogging heads, Kaus, and the League”
Hahahahahaha that's so legit.
On “Grow your own?”
Also, I'm envisioning the future of the League as some sort of benign marijuana co-op on the Washington-British Columbia border. Why ruin that dream, ED? Why?
"
ED -
The rationale for stopping short of full-blown legalization is that it would prevent a dedicated Marijuana industry from aggressively marketing the drug. This does nothing to lessen the actual effects of marijuana, but it may help avert the development of a pot equivalent to Big Tobacco. Matthew Yglesias has written a few posts on this that I don't care to dig up right now.
I'm not sure if I agree with his argument - like you, I'm a bit wary of restricting peoples' right to buy and sell products - but it is something worth considering.
"
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. There's an intuitive distinction between marijuana and tomatoes. One is a vegetable, the other is an addictive drug that may lead to health problems. That's a non-arbitrary reason to restrict property rights and stop short of full-blown legalization.
On “Growth and Prosperity”
I'm sympathetic to a lot of this, but I don't get how we're supposed to fiat cultural renewal through a few tariff programs. One of the reasons I admire Professor Deneen's work is that he emphasizes the importance of cultural change. Absent a real mindset shift, heavy-handed national legislation isn't going to do a thing to promote restraint, virtue and localism.
On “Killing Frankenstein’s Monster”
Here's a question for you, Mark: Is agreement over first principles or agreement over immediate policy a more durable basis for political collaboration? As long as the Republican Party doesn't morph into something akin to Europe's Christian Democrats, you have to assume that social conservatives will continue to provide the most reliable small-government constituency. So even if libertarian first principles are closer to the Democratic Party's core philosophy, should that really matter in terms of real, practical politics? I feel like your proposed coalition privileges intellectual purity over actual policy-making.
On “the foul rag and bone shop of real politics”
Freddie -
Great post. One thing I'd suggest is that mainstream liberals are more willing to listen to dissidents than their Republican counterparts. After a dismal 2004 election cycle, progressive activists were actively courted by the Democratic Party and, in a few cases, actually co-0pted by establishment institutions (Dean as DNC chair comes to mind).
Mainstream conservatism, on the other hand, seems a lot less hospitable to dissident intellectuals. Holding liberal intellectuals accountable for their party's actions actually makes sense in a world where they wield a significant amount of influence over the progressive movement. Holding fringe conservatives responsible for a party that simply isn't interested in their input, on the other hand, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
On “the invisible heart”
I'm sympathetic to a lot of what you have to say, E.D., but comparing Sweden's educational system to the United States' is a bit too apples to oranges for my taste. No matter what Jeb Bush says about immigrants from Baghdad and Somalia, Sweden will always enjoy an incredible level of cultural homogeneity that contributes to educational success. I'm not sure how that translates to the American experience.
On “Can The (Economic) Ladder Be Restored?”
Chris -
David Frum's take on the Gold Standard seems pretty apt to me:
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWQyYjc1ZjNjZTc5ZTcxODM1NDQ5ZDhhODZjZTU5YmQ=
"
E.D. -
I'm sympathetic to your premises, but erecting a few trade barriers is emphatically not going to change our culture of consumption. That sort of thing requires a mindset shift that can't be forced through by policymakers in Washington. Meanwhile, the real costs of protectionism Mark and I keep hammering at are going to have a huge impact on our collective well-being.
It's also worth noting that economic growth can be morally beneficial under the right circumstances. Benjamin Friedman's "Moral Consequences of Economic Growth" makes this point rather elegantly: shared prosperity enhances tolerance, reduces sectarian tensions, and frequently energizes civil and cultural institutions. Granted, you may not share Friedman's political premises, but I think conservatives ought to consider the upside of economic growth as well.
"
A few thoughts:
1.) I'm in complete agreement with E.D. - countries have the right to self-determine their economic policies. There's no doubt that some of the tactics employed by global financial institutions have been extremely invasive and, at times, coercive, and that's wrong.
2.) That said, certain forms of protectionism are so devastating to developing nations that I can find no reasonable justification for their continued existence. This year's college debate topic happens to be agricultural subsidies, and having done some research on the subject, it's hard to overstate how badly rural African farmers are screwed over when we dump cheap, subsidized cotton and foodstuffs on their domestic markets.
3.) I think advocates of protectionism frequently suffer from extreme selection bias. I've written on this before, but it's worth repeating: no one talks about failed experiments in industrial policy. Moreover, even "successful" protectionist measures frequently incur unintended costs further down the road. The United States' experiment with industrial tariffs, for example, was a major bone of contention between the North and South leading up to the Civil War.
Having said all that, here's a concise explanation of why I'm generally in favor of free trade:
1.) The consensus of credentialed economists is overwhelmingly in favor of removing trade barriers (off the top of my head, the only exception I can think of is Dani Rodrick). Economics, of course, isn't as unambiguous as high school geometry, but it is a fairly rigorous, empirically-minded field, and I'm inclined to defer to the authority of experts who've spent a long time studying this stuff.
2.) Periods of expanding free trade strongly correlate with significant increases in global prosperity.
3.) As I've argued elsewhere (http://bestelectionever.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/what-protectionism-looks-like/), I think our political process would warp any effort to revive protectionism beyond all recognition.
4.) A protectionist backlash would seriously undermine multilateral cooperation with a host of important allies. I also think that multilateral mechanisms like the WTO are genuinely useful for alleviating commercial tensions.
On “God keep our land…”
Sounds like you'd fit in comfortably with most Christian Democrat parties, E.D.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.