A few weeks ago, I wrote a journal entitled the Smashed
Pillars of Conservatism. This got me branded as a liberal,
as if that was some sort of dirty word. Now I'm going to
lash out against the left, so it'll be time to be called a
fascist, I suppose.
The truth is that neither the left nor the right work. In
the past, they've both had their moments, but they are now
exposed for their weak ideological cores.
Ideology doesn't work in the modern world, because it is too
simple to adequately address the complex realities in which
we live. The president applied his 'less government'
ideology to FEMA when he entered office, dismissing it as a
liberal entitlement program. So he absorbed it into Homeland
Security, downgraded it from a cabinet position and put it
under the leadership of a man with no experience in the
complex field of disaster response.
The result? We lost a city. This happened because ideology
was applied too consistently. SOME government is necessary.
SOME government is essential. Approaching the real needs
that government must serve through the filter of ideology is
a presecription for disaster in the modern world. It has
evolved past simple answers.
Conversely, I will never forget the day I sat down to read
Hillary Clinton's health care plan. It had been devised by
as rigid a left-wing ideologue as exists in or near American
government, Ira Magaziner. I was appalled by what I read.
This was old-style socialism of the kind that has made the
Canadian and British health care systems so miserable.
The right wing seeks to control our moral choices and
cultural life; the left to control our social choices and
economic life. And this health care plan was as outrageous
an invasion of social choice as had ever been proposed in
this country. Had it passed, responsibility for health care
decisions would have been completely removed from both the
individual and his doctor.
I was not the only person chilled by the plan. It shocked
the entire country and led to the Democrats' loss of
congress in the midterm election, and deservedly so.
The left's history of enforcing social choice and imposing
economic planning is awash in failure and blood across the
world. Communism, which is an extreme form of this, killed
millions and was the curse of this planet for nearly a
hundred years. Economic planning leads to economic
stagnation, and social control to outrageous injustice, and
the two together sap initiative and destroy the quality of life.
And yet the American left continues to pretend that there is
something valid about the hoary old 'progressive' ideology
that attached itself like a barnacle to our urgent social
needs during the Depression.
President Roosevelt's new deal was a socialist's dream, but
it wasn't put in place by a socialist, but rather by a
pragmatist who realized that the country was going to be
starved into rebellion if the government did not provide the
jobs that business could not. At one point, thirty percent
of the workforce was unemployed, and literally thousands of
Americans were starving. This was when Roosevelt came to
power, and when a whole array of social controls that are
still important to us today were instituted.
Most of the emergency New Deal programs, such as the WPA,
are long gone, of course. What remain are the regulatory
mechanisms that make illegal the most outrageous
manipulation of financial markets, that insure bank
deposits, and that deliver the assurance that people who
spend their lives productively will not be left to starve
when they retire.
All three of these residues of the New Deal are necessary to
the effective functioning of our society. Fortunately, the
president has, at least for the time being, given up his
ideologically inspired effort to corrupt the social security
system--not because he doesn't want to, but because, with
his approval rating through the floor, he can't. For now.
What amazes me is that these two opposing--and quite stupid
and discredited--ideologies seem to be all that are
available to us politically. I hear talk that the 2008
presidential race could be between Hillary Clinton and
Condoleeza Rice, a battle between two worthless ideologues
if there ever was one.
Surely there must be moderates somewhere. As, indeed, there
are, but they get no press. Their good sense is boring to
Fox and CNN and the lying radio talk shows. They thrive on
controversy, so they court the extremes. That's fine, as a
form of entertainment, but if that's all that's left to us
in the real world of politics, our country is going to be
ruined.
We need Hillary and Condi like a hole in the head. Or Kerry
or Bush, or any of these extremists of either stripe.
So, what DO we need. If only the center can govern, then do
we even need a two-party system? Well, yes we do, because
good government is a complex process in the modern world.
Flexibility is essential, and a party that is more weighted
toward meeting social needs is as important as one that is
more weighted toward encouraging economic activity. Not that
the two things are mutually exclusive, but they are often at
odds.
An example would be the need to raise the minimum wage being
weighed against the need to encourage business growth. Right
now, Condi would opt for no minimum wage, while Hillary
would go for a national minimum income guarantee to all.
Either choice would harm the country irreparably, and this
is the problem when our choices are limited to extremes. The
truth is that neither the Democrats or the Republicans are
capable of governing this country, and will not be as long
as they are controlled by the ideological extremists. And
yet, they're the only choice we have, except for
vote-wasting alternative parties.
What we need are leaders in both parties who respect the
center and use the ideological extremes in the role that
they are good for: as resources for innovation. Both
extremes should be allowed to propose innovations--but, for
God's sake, not to ram them down our poor throats. They
should be near power but not in power. As resources, they
are useful. As government, they are awful.
I always feel a chill when I hear people using the word
'progressive' in describing their ideology. This is because
I associate that word with its historical origin in the
communist movement and all the horrors that came with it. It
amazes me that anybody in this world could still call
themselves a Marxist, given how completely history has
discredited the idea that central economic planning is
anything but a disaster. And yet, the American left is
controlled by people who call themselves 'progressives.'
Give such people the horrifying powers of arrest granted by
the Patriot Act, and you have the potential for the creation
of an American KGB. The fact that right wing ideologues have
these powers now is bad enough, and it is the shame of this
congress that it granted them. It is fantastic and
outrageous that any secret arrest can be made in this
country now or at any time. But, mark my words, this new
power is beloved of all ideologues, and as long as moderates
remain out of control, these sick, evil powers will only grow.
Ideologues are never as effective as moderates. They cannot
be, simply because the world we live in demands more
flexibility and compromise than they can provide.
We need to encourage moderate candidates at every level, to
seek them out, to contribute to their campaigns, to elect them.
I was delighted to see that the ratings of right wing radio
are plummeting--and that left wing radio is not growing to
replace it, thank God. People are listening to sports. In
other words, they're beginning to opt out of the whole dance
of death between the left and the right.
Good, may they both fall on hard times. If so, perhaps
people of reason will fill the vacuum, and our country will
be saved from the stupidities and evil of the extremists,
left as well as right.
