This Explains Everything
In the Wall Street Journal, the "Weekend Interview" discusses the "Occupy Wall Street" movement with Fried Siegel, the great scholar of American cities. An excerpt:
[Siegel] links the liberalism of the 1960s, not any excess of the free market, to today's crisis. The Great Society put the state on growth hormones. Less widely appreciated, the era gave birth to a powerful new political force, the public-sector union. For the first time in American history there was an interest dedicated wholly to lobbying for a larger government and the taxes and debt to pay for it.
For the first time in American history there was an interest dedicated wholly to lobbying for a larger government.
I'd never thought of it that way, but this single observation illuminates pretty much everything, doesn't it?
- Comment (23)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: This Explains Everything
The fact that FDR himself thought that Public Employee Unions were too dangerous to be allowed speaks very very loudly. Siegel is right to trace our present difficulties back to this turning point.
May '10
Re: This Explains Everything
It certainly makes the "enemy" clear.
Dec '10
Re: This Explains Everything
Peter Robinson
For the first time in American history there was an interest dedicated wholly to lobbying for a larger government.
I'd never thought of it that way, but this single observation illuminates pretty much everything, doesn't it? ·
Wasn't this exactly the focus of discussion throughout the Wisconsin kerfuffle? That the fleebaggers were in thrall to an interest dedicated wholly to lobbying for larger government, to wit, Wisconsin's public employee unions?
Mar '11
Re: This Explains Everything
For anyone interested in the development of public sector unions, I highly recommend Collision Course: Ronald Reagan, the Air Traffic Controllers, and the Strike that Changed America, by Joseph A. McCartin. It's a fascinating look at the political machinations that brought collective bargaining to the federal sector, and from there to state and local governments.
Dec '10
Re: This Explains Everything
Maybe, but maybe not. Gov. employee unions do spend a lot, but how much of that translates directly to influence? I contend that the amount of spending on the left simply keeps modern liberalism in the race. Without it, liberals would only have the effect any other 21% minority could expect. As Andy McCarthy notes this weekend, Republicans are as big a part of the problem as dems. Codevilla thinks it's the whole ruling class problem. My take is that the Constitution does not empower congress to have this much influence to peddle, at least it didn't until the 16th and 17th amendments (pdf). Sorry for all the links. This really is an enormous topic.
Jan '11
Re: This Explains Everything
Don't ignore the fact - Siegel doesn't - that the moral preening of Democrats stems exclusively from the civil rights struggles of the 1960's and the subsequent abject failure of conservatives and Republicans to call them to account for the human and civic disasters that followed, and which are still very much with us.
Notice how in the GOP debates no one mentions Detroit, or Camden. Democrats fail and there is no penalty. In fact, they continue to rule, unfazed by the catastrophes they have created.
Even our black Republican heroes (Scott, West) represent predominantly white, not minority, districts. Conservatives refuse to cultivate righteous anger and capitalize on Democrat failure in the center cities, just like we refuse to channel America's rage at Washington. We are like an army that refuses to invade the enemy's home ground - no wonder we are always reacting.
So the public sector unions have self-interest on their side, coupled with unchallenged moral superiority and absolutely safe areas of political refuge.
Tell me, Peter, how do you expect to defeat that? With vouchers, tax breaks and empowerment zones? Not likely.
Jan '11
Re: This Explains Everything
Freesmith:
Tell me, Peter, how do you expect to defeat that? With vouchers, tax breaks and empowerment zones? Not likely. · Nov 27 at 12:35pm
I know that you were asking Peter but I'd like a stab at this. Through subtle ridicule in the form of satire or parody. It's the only thing that gets through to younger people -- the ones who are bright but have short attention spans and have already been indoctrinated at public schools. It's these people who we're going to need to reach.
Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck do very well with parody when they've deployed it. Bill Whittle and Andrew Klavan do it very well, too. Ann Coulter is/was good at this but I wouldn't know since I stopped following her. When Jon Stewart pokes fun at Leftist ideas it's he's absolutely hilarious. Humor, I believe, is the key and 'gotcha' moments are very effective. Any time you can point out hypocrisy it should be done; that's why social conservatives of the culture war variety [activists] get lambasted so often by the Left as they -- the SoCons -- simultaneously try and champion for limited government
Nov '10
Re: This Explains Everything
These people wholly dedicated to ever greater government have no will of their own. The Founders saw clearly where this leads. Tom West explains:
Edited on Nov 27, 2011 at 1:23pmNov '10
Re: This Explains Everything
Public employee unions are simply a variant, or mirror image, of the poor who are destitute of a will of their own. And needless to say one, one needn't be destitute of a will of one's own just because one is poor.
Dec '10
Re: This Explains Everything
LowcountryJoe
Freesmith:
Tell me, Peter, how do you expect to defeat that? With vouchers, tax breaks and empowerment zones? Not likely.
I know that you were asking Peter but I'd like a stab at this. Through subtle ridicule in the form of satire or parody. It's the only thing that gets through to younger people -- the ones who are bright but have short attention spans and have already been indoctrinated at public schools. It's these people who we're going to need to reach.
(...). When Jon Stewart pokes fun at Leftist ideas it's he's absolutely hilarious. Humor, I believe, is the key and 'gotcha' moments are very effective. Any time you can point out hypocrisy it should be done; that's why social conservatives of the culture war variety [activists] get lambasted so often by the Left as they -- the SoCons -- simultaneously try and champion for limited government.
I couldn't agree more. Any conservative wanting to affect today's youth should take notes while watch Stewart lambaste John Corzine. I disagree with Stewart about...well most everything, but he is one of the most influential political voices in America today for a reason.
Dec '10
Re: This Explains Everything
Beasley
I disagree with Stewart about...well most everything, but he is one of the most influential political voices in America today for a reason. · Nov 27 at 1:41pm
The reason I would submit probably violates the CoC.
Oct '10
Re: This Explains Everything
From the same article: Other countries have managed to find a way out. During its own "lost decade" after 1993, Canada shaped up its finances and it has weathered the latest economic crises well. New Zealand's Roger Douglas in the 1980s and Germany's Gerhard Schröder in the early 2000s cut into expensive welfare states. In all these cases, Mr. Siegel notes, center-left parties carried out painful reform. "They did this out of necessity."
Maybe Pat Caddell is right. Maybe Hillary is the right candidate for 2012.
Dec '10
Re: This Explains Everything
The King Prawn
Beasley
I disagree with Stewart about...well most everything, but he is one of the most influential political voices in America today for a reason. · Nov 27 at 1:41pm
The reason I would submit probably violates the CoC. · Nov 27 at 1:44pm
I would not doubt agree.
His unmatched popularity still ought to be a lesson to conservatives. Method and delivery matter. While they should never replace substance, it wouldn't hurt to be correct and clever simultaneously.
Jan '11
Re: This Explains Everything
Humor and mockery are wonderful weapons, and the Democrats certainly give conservatives plenty of opportunities to wield them against Democrats - right up until the time the black single mom or black civil rights leader steps to the microphone.
Then the witty conservatives roll silently over into the fetal position.
Jon Stewart can poke fun occasionally at liberals, warming the lovelorn hearts of young conservatives everywhere. ("He likes us! He really likes us!") But when push comes to shove - and it always comes to shove, friends - Stewart and Colbert and Leno and Letterman know which side of the political spectrum occupies the commanding moral heights of the culture.
And it is from that vantage that they will aim their barbs at us and those whom we support.
Until conservatives are willing to contest the black vote where it lives, the majority of humorists are going to stay on the "bullet-proof" side. It's in their self-interest to do so.
Jan '11
Re: This Explains Everything
Freesmith:
Until conservatives are willing to contest the black vote where it lives, the majority of humorists are going to stay on the "bullet-proof" side. It's in their self-interest to do so. · Nov 27 at 2:27pm
If one has funny material that exposes fundamental truths, it knows no sides and it is funny regardless. AlfonZo Rachel is pretty damned funny, don't you think?
May '11
Re: This Explains Everything
I think there is a naive hope amongst many of the commenters that all we need to do is elect a Repulican president even if it is Romney and get a majority in the house and Senate and we'll greatly reduce the power of the administrative state. The problem is were fighting against an entrenched power that has been on steroids for the last 40 plus years. Even under Reagan the government grew by leaps and bounds. Republicans and conservatives have the rhetoric down pat but when push comes to shove they cowtow to bigger government. The real question is does 60% of the electorate want to greatly reduce the size of government and reduce the influence of the administrative state? This mainly includes reform to medicare and social security. Not popular amongst the majority of voters. Do we as conservatives realize that we can't maintain our current military spending? Homeland security has become a huge boondoggle for government largesse. My long winded point here is we wont suddenly seize power and majestically become a utopian libreterian state anytime soon. Let's not underestimate the powers we're up against.
May '10
Re: This Explains Everything
What may save us is that, to date, the public sector unions are state level, not federal. Federalism, then, can put a check on those states that get completely out of hand -- CA, MI, NY, IL, OH -- as their residents flee to Texas or the Carolinas or wherever.
Also, for the most part, the tax war has been won. For instance, here in OH Kasich lost the battle with public sector unions but won a victory by holding the line on taxes, thus denying municipalities more state funds. So we wake up the morning after our failed Issue 2 and -- hah! -- we're still broke. Gov't workers must take cuts in compensation, or they will suffer cuts in their ranks, collective bargaining be damned. Heads we win; tails they lose -- so long as we're steadfast on taxes.
Oct '11
Re: This Explains Everything
I think is fair to say that no matter who Republicans elect to the presidency we have a big life long fight on our hands. This fight started before I was born and will out live me I'm confident. Un-entrenching the power bases of the left seems such a humongous task that most of us can only shrug when contemplating it.
Re: This Explains Everything
Scott Reusser: What may save us is that, to date, the public sector unions are state level, not federal. Federalism, then, can put a check on those states that get completely out of hand -- CA, MI, NY, IL, OH -- as their residents flee to Texas or the Carolinas or wherever.
Also, for the most part, the tax war has been won. For instance, here in OH Kasich lost the battle with public sector unions but won a victory by holding the line on taxes, thus denying municipalities more state funds. So we wake up the morning after our failed Issue 2 and -- hah! -- we're still broke. Gov't workers must take cuts in compensation, or they will suffer cuts in their ranks, collective bargaining be damned. Heads we win; tails they lose -- so long as we're steadfast on taxes. · Nov 27 at 3:16pm
Very, very interesting. So push will come to shove anyway.
Re: This Explains Everything
Gee, I hadn't thought of that, either. Between you and Fred Siegel, Scott, I figure we here at Ricochet have enjoyed two really brilliant insights in a single thread.
Not bad for a Sunday.