34
by Biznono_Archive
Linus Van Pelt, I think conservative is ultimately the right word to use to describe George W. Bush. The American meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" have always been perversions of their British origins. But more than that, Bush is not the first conservative to define himself as an economic libertarian while helping to insure the continuation of big government. So many of those on the right who feel the fiscally profligate Bush has betrayed American conservatism cite Reagan (the guy who actually replaced Jefferson's portrait in the East Wing of the White House with Coolidge's) as the paragon of conservative virtues. But they seem to forget that it was on Reagan's watch that Medicare expenditures tripled, that Social Security expenditures and defense spending doubled, that SS payroll taxes went up by around 30%, and that a tight money policy was maintained obsessively in order to curb inflation but in complete defiance of the principles of supply-side economics. If by conservative you mean _what conservatives often claim to be_ in discussions about policy -- namely, economic libertarians -- you will be hard pressed to find nearly as many of them holding high office since 1960 as you'd expect to given their own claims about their numbers.
Why persist with the term without quotation marks? Because it refers to more than just economic policy or ideology. The deepest meaning of American conservatism is, I think, much closer to a pathological sense of nostalgia. In the interest of saving time let me quote the historian Peter Gay on "nostalgia" and ask that every time you read that word you substitute "American conservatism": "Nostalgia runs deep in the human [let's say here "American"] psyche; it is almost irresistible, all the more so because it generally masquerades as rational criticism of the present (where there is always much to criticize) and rational praise of the past (where there is always much to praise). But nostalgia drives reasonable criticism and reasonable praise to unreasonable lengths: it converts healthy dissatisfactions into an atavistic longing for a simpler condition, for a childhood of innocence and happiness remembered in all its crystalline purity precisely because it never existed. Nostalgia is the most sophistic, most deceptive form regression can take."
For the conservatives in this country at the beginning of the 21st century, who are more nostalgic than ever, apparently no amount of money is too great and no spending policy too irrational to preserve a way of life they relentlessly treasure.
Bush's policy on Social Security... WTF indeed! Social Security was intended as a safeguard against unhampered capitalism. If you tie it to the market, where some must lose for some to win, then you risk exposing it to vagaries against which it is supposed to protect people. Social security ceases to be "security." And for that matter it ceases to be "social." The focus of Bush's plan is (at least in theory) the individual.
If you're not persuaded by the argument based on principle, just look at what the actuaries have been quoted as saying about all this in print and on the internet. Or, I agree with the others, read Paul Krugman. He's right to say that the issue boils down to three things. 1. There is no crisis. 2. Managerial fees will negate returns even if the stock market continues to be a better investment than the bond market -- a premise no serious economist would accept. In response to this criticism Bush has said he wants to restrict investors to conservatively managed funds. But this is complete bullshit. Never mind that limiting choice in investment defeats the whole point of Bush's offer of more choice. The architects of his plan have also said that they only think choices should be limited in the short run. In the long run greater freedom will be offered. But of course that comes at the expense of greater risk, and it therefore comes at the risk of impoverishing even more of the elderly, who, once impoverished, will need to be taken care of by our taxes. Where else can this lead but to the costly reinvention of Social Security? 3. Imagining potential savings (of 30% or whatever) several decades from now as a measure against borrowing today is so speculative, and requires such superhuman foresight, that the Bush plan really falls into the realm of science fiction.