Wednesday, March 17, 2010

What is the difference between the Left and Right?

This is a broad topic that I want to learn more about. The Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty, the second link, from the Mises Institute is a good place to start to understand the differences between the Right and Left. This or most of what I talk about is not going to be of any immediate concern for the average person, but it does provide a glimpse into where we are headed as a nation and a world. Most of our dreams of being successful, wealthy, and having a good life all hinge on a society and a governmental framework that will make this possible. It is still possible to go out and live one's dream, but this will be much more difficult to do with the changes-- the growth of government and the negative effects that go along with this, tax increases, inflation, and a debt driven crises to name a few-- that are occurring in the world. Having an ideal of the direction the country and world is headed as opposed to just blindly stumbling along will help one to achieve their dreams. So how does the differences between the Left and Right matter to you? In America we have a two party system. The two choices that we have before us when determining the leadership of the country and the direction that this leadership is taking us is a false choice in terms of the size of our government: in reality we don't have a choice when it comes to smaller or bigger government. If one explores the difference between these two political parties, one will find that they are leading us towards the same direction: bigger government, and that the two parties are at the core the same. This is in part due to the electorate that would not stand for a party that would make any real shift away from ,a general statement, big government. What is happening in the political realm must be reduced back towards its primary as it is a symptom of our cultural decay, not the cause of our troubles.

From the link above we can see that the right has been just as guilty as the left in moving America towards bigger government,
For one thing, the income tax amendment, which he[right-wing libertarian] deplores as the beginning of socialism in America, was put through Congress in 1909 by an overwhelming majority of both parties.
It goes on to state that most conservatives view the New Deal as a liberal plan, but the foundations for the New Deal were laid by Hoover, a Republican. Much of the New Deal was just an expansion of what Hoover started.

I have been covering Theodore Roosevelt in my history class. He was America's first progressive President and he greatly expanded the government and was instrumental in starting fundamental transformation of our country away from limited government and towards the welfare state. It was Nixon who took America off of the gold standard, although a real gold standard did not exist at that time. These are just a few examples that show that there is little difference between the Left and Right.
I read this article that is written by a liberal. It is an interesting read on what the movement by the electorate's opinion and shift towards conservatism, or the rise of the Tea Party, might actually mean for the long term prospects of a real shift away from bigger government. The main point of the article is to illustrate that the movement by the right towards libertarianism, or the principles of Ayn Rand, will actually lead back towards a rise of the Left. The main points that I found interesting were the ones showing that conservatives do not support or espouse what we would consider conservative values: they are not that different from the left,
The media is building Ryan up as a serious thinker.[He was influenced by Ayn Rand. He wants to privatize social security and replace Medicare with vouchers.] Build him up even more, I say. Give him a Nobel Prize, like Obama's. Make him the face of the Republican Party. Progressives should want Ryan and Paul and the Cato Institute to define the next American right. That will ensure its minority status for decades.

Before Buckley and the movement conservatives took the right in another direction in the 1950s, this country had a libertarian, isolationist right, the right of Robert A. Taft and Alf Landon. Thanks to their opposition to the New Deal, U.S. entry in World War II and the Cold War, the libertarian isolationists turned the Republicans into the minority party between 1932 and 1968. The only Republican to be elected in that era, Dwight Eisenhower, ran for the presidency in 1952 to save the GOP from Taftian isolationism and dismissively rejected suggestions that the Republicans try to repeal New Deal programs like Social Security.

Richard Nixon, like Ike, was a modern Republican whose formula for a Republican majority was big government on behalf of the middle class plus a hawkish foreign policy and moderate social traditionalism. The neoconservative writer David Frum has argued that this is the only possible combination that can produce an enduring Republican majority. I agree, and it is therefore with delight that I observe the rise of radical libertarianism in the GOP.

True, thanks to the popular backlash against the bailouts and the unpopular healthcare bill, the Democrats will suffer losses in the midterm elections. The Randian right will claim that Republican gains in Congress are proof that the American people share their goal of abolishing Social Security and Medicare. They should be encouraged in that belief.

After all, the public has repeatedly rejected any attempts to privatize Social Security or slash Medicare benefits. Reagan denounced both entitlements, but as president he raised taxes to support Social Security and refused to touch Medicare. Under George W. Bush, a Republican Congress passed the Medicare drug benefit, which, for all its concessions to the pharma lobby, was the biggest expansion of socialized medicine in the U.S. since Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law.

When Bush supported the partial privatization of Social Security, the proposal was so unpopular with the public that the Republican majority in Congress never allowed it to come to a vote. Bush touched the third rail of American politics -- and was promptly electrocuted. Last but not least, one of the arguments that Republicans opportunistically used to mobilize popular opposition to the Democratic healthcare bill was the claim that it would lead to cuts in Medicare for the elderly.[All emphasises mine.]
I agree with the main point of the article in that a move towards classical liberalism or libertarianism(if libertarianism is really classical liberalism?) will not mean be a long term winning strategy for the right and that there will be no long term movement away from big government because the electorate will not stand for this. These quotes illustrates how what we consider conservative does not necessarily lead to a smaller government. Government will continue to grow until it reaches the oppressive stage or a command economy. Only when we reach this stage much later down the road(maybe not that much later)will the system collapse and real change can occur. This is a very short introduction to the detailed look at the Left and Right. This provides a look at where America is headed.

5 comments:

  1. I think it just goes to show that politicians are doing too many behind the scenes deals just to stay in power. I dont think the health care bill would have passed were it not for favors being dealt here and there. All our politicians are prostitutes being bought off just so they can get a paycheck.

    We need someone to get in there and start whistle blowing. The public would need to back up this individual because we know that the politicians would silence the person creating all the ruckus.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't think that I can properly convey the gravity or seriousness or importance or magnitude this health care reform will have on American and our future. A truly historic event. He does ok, http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html
    Rush, "The cost of this[health care reform] is incalculable to our character, to the relationship citizens have to their government, to freedom, to liberty. The destruction here is totally predictable[if you know history and basic economics], and that's why this is so frightening." http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032210/content/01125107.guest.html

    The sad thing and the reality of the matter is that people will not support anyone that will dramatically change the system. Did you hear the republican guy screaming hell no last night? He was deriding the democrats for cutting funding to medicare, it is going bankrupt, and how that will hurt the people. We now have a new structure or box. Any changes to the existing system will be confined--within the box--to this system and not doing away--going outside the box--with this system. How are the republicans or anybody going to be able to run for health insurance companies being able to deny coverage to a child with a preexisting condition and all these immediate little meretricious goodies? Republicans have only expanded these entitlement programs. Look at what happened to Bush above when he tried to reform social security.

    We can blame government and politicians , these are the symptom and it is we the people that are to blame for what is happening.

    "The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The public can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

    A revolution-like change--a good one or a bad one--in our country and world will occur in our lifetime.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree that the difference between Dems and Reps was disappearing in the '90's and even with George Bush's Compassionate Conservative agenda (SChip) which was another step towards the socialism-ization (to coin a poor word) that this health care bill has jumped fully into.

    But, I think now, the election of Obama, and his clear Socialistic agenda of wealth redistribution (which, by increasing the size of government and increasing taxes on middle and upper income groups, Obamacare does), is forcing the differences into clear view. Particularly coupled with the economic downturn, which Obama's policies are exacerbating.

    It's just possible Republicans will truly and strongly grasp and promote the Small Government principles that they sort of abandoned after FDR and only started to come back to with Reagan. I think that the parties are dividing clearly into Big Government and Small Government parties.

    I don't want to root for an extended recession, but my worry is that once the economy turns around a little bit (if it does), the vast majority of the population that is angry now will go back to business as usual. But, as long as the economy is bad, this anger is going to spell huge trouble for Dems in November. And, as shown in the Republicans' strong, united stands against Obamacare in the Senate and House, they are willing and able to act with party discipline. If they can keep this up, they can make a huge difference. This could be a huge Reverse Revolution this fall.

    ReplyDelete
  4. From what I read and the noted examples above, it appears that the difference between Republicans and the Democrats started disappearing long before the 90's. If you read the PDF file above, you will see there has been really no difference at all between the two parties; thus a Republican win will not significantly change the direction the Country is heading. Republicans will possibly win big in November. To see where things are going, one must look at the primary causes: philosophy and education both which determine the beliefs of the electorate. Things will swing back away from the big swing to the left. But the pivot point that this pendulum is swinging is moving to the left. It will not be possible to completely do away with this transformative legislation or the other major changes that are occurring in our Country. The Republicans strong and united stand against this was based on this: One of the main arguments against the health care reform by the right was that it cut medicare spending. This is not a stand for the principles of limited government. This is pandering to the fear that people have in loosing their "entitled" benefits. The range of debate and the attempts at reform will now be confined to a new framework or box of more government involvement.

    People will not stand for a real reworking of the existing structure of our government. They are not likely to give up or reduce their "entitled" benefits of social security and health care nor are they likely to come to the realization or understanding of the principles of freedom. They will only respond to the immediate situation of a poor economy by electing a party that will promise change, not a party promising fundamental change back towards freedom.

    How will people respond to the coming major economic downturn?

    "But neither a low standard of living nor progressive impoverishment automatically liquidates an economic system[command system]. It gives way to a more efficient system[capitalism] only if people themselves are intelligent enough to comprehend the advantages such a change might bring them." Mises

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree that the Republicans started moving towards the Democrats much ealier (in fact after WWII), as I said above in my first response. It's just that Reagan was about moving in the opposite direction. His famous statement "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" and many other statements shows this. And is one of the main reasons he was elected. But, after the Republicans big wins in '94 (again based on a campaign of small government) they turned away from the Small-is-good idea. Actually, I want to say that George Bush I started to move away from it. His famous "no new taxes" phrase followed with raising taxes cost him the election in '92 probably.

    Jeff, you are assuming trends continue, and I agree there is a good chance that will happen, but I think it's possible we've reached a tipping point here and the trend is about to reverse. The media can't spin small-government policies in the negative light that they could in the past. Trying to spin Republicans' stand against this as "the party of no" would completely backfire this time. Right now, at least for a little while, the population does realize that the government needs to back down.

    Let's see what happens on April 15 this year. I think the Tea Parties are going to be even bigger than last year. This is going to be fun!

    ReplyDelete