Why Conservatives Can't Govern

[George Costanza]

In 2007, political scientist, author and professor of political science at the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, Alan Wolfe, wrote an article for Washington Monthly, titled "Why Conservatives Can't Govern." In that article, he stated:

"Liberals, while enjoying the perquisites of office, also want to be in a position to use government to solve problems. But conservatives have different motives for wanting power. One is to prevent liberals from doing so; if government cannot be made to disappear, at least it can be prevented from doing any good. The other is to build a political machine in which business and the Republican Party can exchange mutual favors; business will lavish cash on politicians (called campaign comtributions) while politicians will throw the money back at business (called public policy). Conservatism will always attract its share of young idealists. And young idealists will always be disillusioned by the sheer amount of corruption that people like Gingrich and DeLay generate. If yesterday's conservative was a liberal mugged by reality, today's is a free-marketer fattened by pork."

Strong words - and obviously written by one with a liberal agenda. But how close to truth are these words? Few can deny the love affair that has been going on between Big Business and the Republican Party lo these many decades. Few can deny the way in which the Republican Party has attempted to strangle Democratic attempts to do, well, just about anything. You may differ, but I have not seen anything close to approaching that coming from the left toward the right.

No corruption here, you say. Hmmm . . . now just exactly what is it that Tom DeLay is doing these days . . . . . ?

Strong words. Words for discussion, seems to me. Anyone want to step up?

 

[Oddball]

Faulty premise: Gubmint is there to solve our problems.

That's a pretext for paternalistic authoritarian rule, not de jure governance.

 

[Liberty]

Oddball is dead on, yet again.

 

[George Costanza]

Faulty premise: Gubmint is there to solve our problems.

That's a pretext for paternalistic authoritarian rule, not de jure governance.

Oh, I don't know. I would view my house on fire as a problem, as I am sure you would if yours was on fire. And who comes to put it out? And who pays the paychecks of those firemen?

Similarly, I would view a burglar in my house as a problem. I would view being unable to drive from Los Angeles to, well, anywhere, on a paved road as a problem. I would view an invasion by a foreign enemy as a problem. And who is it that solves all of our problems like that?

I think you get the idea.

Government is most certainly here to solve our problems.

 

[Greenbeard]

Strong words - and obviously written by one with a liberal agenda. But how close to truth are these words?

Effective governance has become anathema to conservative ideology. A pragmatic conservative could govern (which is generally how it works with executives at the state level) but the ideologues who've tried very hard to make themselves the public face of contemporary conservativism almost certainly could not.

 

[California Girl]

Faulty premise: Gubmint is there to solve our problems.

That's a pretext for paternalistic authoritarian rule, not de jure governance.

Oh, I don't know. I would view my house on fire as a problem, as I am sure you would if yours was on fire. And who comes to put it out? And who pays the paychecks of those firemen?

Similarly, I would view a burglar in my house as a problem. I would view being unable to drive from Los Angeles to, well, anywhere, on a paved road as a problem. I would view an invasion by a foreign enemy as a problem. And who is it that solves all of our problems like that?

I think you get the idea here.

Government is most certainly there to solve our problems. What are you thinking about here?

The issue may be that conservatives and liberals have a different view of what constitutes a 'problem'. I see law enforcement and essential provisions as a 'service' to be provided by government through taxation. I'll pay for the provision of essential services. I won't pay for you getting yourself into the shit and expecting someone to bail you out.

 

[Oddball]

Here we go again....You lose the argument at the federal level, which the author of the piece was clearly speaking about, you evade the point and chunk it down to local fire and police departments.

There again, though, their role isn't to "solve problems" per se, but provide a public service which are equally available to all.

There's a vast gulf between the local FD showing up to protect my property, when the neighbor's house is ablaze and federal bureaucrats telling me what kinds of light bulbs are "appropriate" for me to use....But you already knew that, didn't you?

 

[George Costanza]

Faulty premise: Gubmint is there to solve our problems.

That's a pretext for paternalistic authoritarian rule, not de jure governance.

Oh, I don't know. I would view my house on fire as a problem, as I am sure you would if yours was on fire. And who comes to put it out? And who pays the paychecks of those firemen?

Similarly, I would view a burglar in my house as a problem. I would view being unable to drive from Los Angeles to, well, anywhere, on a paved road as a problem. I would view an invasion by a foreign enemy as a problem. And who is it that solves all of our problems like that?

I think you get the idea here.

Government is most certainly there to solve our problems. What are you thinking about here?

The issue may be that conservatives and liberals have a different view of what constitutes a 'problem'. I see law enforcement and essential provisions as a 'service' to be provided by government through taxation. I'll pay for the provision of essential services. I won't pay for you getting yourself into the shit and expecting someone to bail you out.

Fair enough. I don't think Oddball was thinking it all the way through when he made his blanket statement about "problems." He would probably agree with the distinction you are making here.

So what would you classify as the type of problem you don't think government has any business bailing people out of? (My old English prof is probably turning over in his grave on the basis of that sentence.)

 

[Oddball]

Strong words - and obviously written by one with a liberal agenda. But how close to truth are these words?

Effective governance has become anathema to conservative ideology. ...

Coercion, the only tool of the state, is always ineffective....Always.

 

[Liberty]

Faulty premise: Gubmint is there to solve our problems.

That's a pretext for paternalistic authoritarian rule, not de jure governance.

Oh, I don't know. I would view my house on fire as a problem, as I am sure you would if yours was on fire. And who comes to put it out? And who pays the paychecks of those firemen?

Similarly, I would view a burglar in my house as a problem. I would view being unable to drive from Los Angeles to, well, anywhere, on a paved road as a problem. I would view an invasion by a foreign enemy as a problem. And who is it that solves all of our problems like that?

I think you get the idea.

Government is most certainly here to solve our problems.

the federal government controls fire departments? Really? And roads are in the constitution as an enumerated power. Next.

 

[George Costanza]

Here we go again....You lose the argument at the federal level, which the author of the piece was clearly speaking about, you evade the point and chunk it down to local fire and police departments.

There again, though, their role isn't to "solve problems" per se, but provide a public service which are equally available to all.

There's a vast gulf between the local FD showing up to protect my property, when the neighbor's house is ablaze and federal bureaucrats telling me what kinds of light bulbs are "appropriate" for me to use....But you already knew that, didn't you?

Funny you should mention light bulbs. Wasn't it George Bush who passed some type of policy ruling that mandates the type of light bulbs we must use in our homes?

Care to address the long-standing love affair between Republicans and Big Business?

 

[Oddball]

Fair enough. I don't think Oddball was thinking it all the way through when he made his blanket statement about "problems." He would probably agree with the distinction you are making here.

So what would you classify as the type of problem you don't think government has any business bailing people out of? (My old English prof is probably turning over in his grave on the basis of that sentence.)

Actually, I had thought that through...But, once again, the author is talking about the federal level here.

Then again, I'm not the one who started out with the overly broad and open-ended pretext of "solving problems" either.

 

[Oddball]

Here we go again....You lose the argument at the federal level, which the author of the piece was clearly speaking about, you evade the point and chunk it down to local fire and police departments.

There again, though, their role isn't to "solve problems" per se, but provide a public service which are equally available to all.

There's a vast gulf between the local FD showing up to protect my property, when the neighbor's house is ablaze and federal bureaucrats telling me what kinds of light bulbs are "appropriate" for me to use....But you already knew that, didn't you?

Funny you should mention light bulbs. Wasn't it George Bush who passed some type of policy ruling that mandates the type of light bulbs we must use in our homes?

Care to address the long-standing love affair between Republicans and Big Business?

Bush wasn't any kind of "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore), so his signing of that stupid bill --which was passed by a DEMOCRAT congress-- was unsurprising.

Care to stick to the subject you started, rather than lamely attempting to deflect over to this or that cozy relationship with big business, which are hardly the exclusive territory of republicans?

 

[Intense]

In 2007, political scientist, author and professor of political science at the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, Alan Wolfe, wrote an article for Washington Monthly, titled "Why Conservatives Can't Govern." In that article, he stated:

"Liberals, while enjoying the perquisites of office, also want to be in a position to use government to solve problems. But conservatives have different motives for wanting power. One is to prevent liberals from doing so; if government cannot be made to disappear, at least it can be prevented from doing any good. The other is to build a political machine in which business and the Republican Party can exchange mutual favors; business will lavish cash on politicians (called campaign comtributions) while politicians will throw the money back at business (called public policy). Conservatism will always attract its share of young idealists. And young idealists will always be disillusioned by the sheer amount of corruption that people like Gingrich and DeLay generate. If yesterday's conservative was a liberal mugged by reality, today's is a free-marketer fattened by pork."

Strong words - and obviously written by one with a liberal agenda. But how close to truth are these words? Few can deny the love affair that has been going on between Big Business and the Republican Party lo these many decades. Few can deny the way in which the Republican Party has attempted to strangle Democratic attempts to do, well, just about anything. You may differ, but I have not seen anything close to approaching that coming from the left toward the right.

No corruption here, you say. Hmmm . . . now just exactly what is it that Tom DeLay is doing these days . . . . . ?

Strong words. Words for discussion, seems to me. Anyone want to step up?

I think he has Conservatism confused with Blue Blood Politicians from both Parties, plagued with corruption. There is no substitution for "Value for Value". Government and Corporate Corruption has little to do with "Value for Value".
Fight, Tyranny, Monopoly, Privileged Exemption, where recognized. More Government is more problem, more problem with a huge appetite, never satisfied appetite. Say no to State Capitalism.

 

[Blagger]

George, in my experience, a government is there to serve, protect and nuture the country they've been elected to govern. Not use their time in office to suffocate and bombard the electorate with supposedly well intentioned 'supervision', in an attempt to convince the populace that they'd be helpless without all this extra 'care' that comes in the form of what is basically more layers of management. It's a bit like trying to help a disabled guy out of the pool after he's made it perfectly clear that he doesn't need any help, but grab him by the arms and pull him out anyway.

And let's not forget - in case you had - that your OPs source (The Washington Monthly) is a left-wing outlet whose current editor was Bill Clinton's head speech writer, no less.

 

[Liberty]

Here we go again....You lose the argument at the federal level, which the author of the piece was clearly speaking about, you evade the point and chunk it down to local fire and police departments.

There again, though, their role isn't to "solve problems" per se, but provide a public service which are equally available to all.

There's a vast gulf between the local FD showing up to protect my property, when the neighbor's house is ablaze and federal bureaucrats telling me what kinds of light bulbs are "appropriate" for me to use....But you already knew that, didn't you?

Funny you should mention light bulbs. Wasn't it George Bush who passed some type of policy ruling that mandates the type of light bulbs we must use in our homes?

Care to address the long-standing love affair between Republicans and Big Business?

Presidents don't "pass policy". Good lord, take a civics class.

 

[George Costanza]

Here we go again....You lose the argument at the federal level, which the author of the piece was clearly speaking about, you evade the point and chunk it down to local fire and police departments.

There again, though, their role isn't to "solve problems" per se, but provide a public service which are equally available to all.

There's a vast gulf between the local FD showing up to protect my property, when the neighbor's house is ablaze and federal bureaucrats telling me what kinds of light bulbs are "appropriate" for me to use....But you already knew that, didn't you?

Funny you should mention light bulbs. Wasn't it George Bush who passed some type of policy ruling that mandates the type of light bulbs we must use in our homes?

Care to address the long-standing love affair between Republicans and Big Business?

Presidents don't "pass policy". Good lord, take a civics class.

Have you ever heard of Presidential Policy Directives? Seems to me you are the one who needs to take a civics class.

 

[Liberty]

Funny you should mention light bulbs. Wasn't it George Bush who passed some type of policy ruling that mandates the type of light bulbs we must use in our homes?

Care to address the long-standing love affair between Republicans and Big Business?

Presidents don't "pass policy". Good lord, take a civics class.

Have you ever heard of Presidential Policy Directives? Seems to me you are the one who needs to take a civics class.

Yet here you are saying the federal government controls local fire departments. Cite in the Constitution where it says Presidents can pass legislation and bypass the congressional process. Thanks.

 

[bucs90]

If you say conservatives "cant govern" then I return by saying liberals "shouldn't govern".


And of course military, police and fire are gov't jobs. They must be. If not, then poor people would be raped and robbed without the protection of the police. It's just that simple. If poilce were private, only serving and protecting those who pay, then an attractive poor girl would be raped every single day. And of course, if a person didn't pay for a private police force, would that person be subject to the jurisdiction/authority of that police force? Also, combating a foreign invasion, domestic crime/violence, and fires are missions that are highly dangerous, and require PRE-training of people, thus, needing funding to have a force ready to respond BEFORE the act occurs.

Common sense tells us that the military, police and fire dept are gov't roles.

Common sense does NOT tell us that gov't is tasked with banning salt and soda, forcing us to buy private health insurance, and filing lawsuits against a state trying to keep illegal criminals out of it's borders after the federal gov't refuses to.

Common sense tells us that even dirt poor women shouldn't be raped, thus, a common police force must be funded.

Common sense does not tell us that the federal government should force all states to tolerate gay marriage.

Common sense tells us that in a world full of modern militaries, a civilian militia will not hold up against an invasion, hence the need for a federal, full-time army.

Common sense does NOT tell us that the government should in 2010 be able to ban the act of singing (Summer 2010, Town of Sullivan's Island, SC, banned singing on it's island due to resident complaints).



Common sense says we must fund a police department. Common sense does NOT then say the federal government should force the hiring standards of that police dept to be lowered in order to have a more racially diverse staff. Obama, however, disagrees.

 

[George Costanza]

Care to stick to the subject you started, rather than lamely attempting to deflect over to this or that cozy relationship with big business, which are hardly the exclusive territory of republicans?

Didn't read the entire OP did you? One of the main points of the quote in the OP relates to the relationship between the Republican Party and Big Business.

The love affair between the GOP and BB is well known, and much, much more intense than any such between the Dems and BB. Let's consider labor unions v. management. Who ya for there, Mojambo? Who is the GOP for on that one? "Tort Reform" is nothing more than a thinly veiled plum for the medical industry at the expense of the individual patient. Last time I looked, it wasn't the Dems who are touting "Tort Reform." Environmental issues - I don't see too many Republicans wanting to close down factories because they are polluting the environment.

Well?