Monday, March 25

Do Republicans Need a Conservative Version of the Welfare State to Win?


Here's an interesting article on what's a welfare state from the perspective of conservatives, left and libertarian. First off all, ignore the illiterate terminology that Americans use to say liberalism is something that only the left can use. That exhibits such a shocking Lack of knowledge of history and political philosophy that its surprising. Everybody should be proud of being a liberal and as soon as somebody says that he isn't a liberal, smack his ass and call him a Neanderthal. 

But go back to the concept of welfare state. You will notice, son, that people frequently forget that there are 3 elements to a welfare state. The recipients, the administrators and the people who pay for it. If one just looks at one part of it, like this article does, then one is missing the bigger picture. 

Nobody really disputes the need for a welfare state. What people complain about is the size, shape, length of support of a welfare state. That in turn drives the size of the organisation which is required to manage this. And that in turn drives the cost of it which the taxpayers, (both now and future) pay for it. 

Then you have the issue of democracy. Remember this son, a party which robs Paul to pay Peter will always count on the support of Peter. Which is why I hate Robin Hood. He was a thief. Him robbing the taxes meant that sewers in Nottingham weren't maintained. But I digress. 

So because of this the welfare state has always expanded over the past 100 odd years, govt has expanded to administer this and the range of taxes has grown immeasurably to pay for this tottering edifice. 

Till Paul said, hold on a cotton picking second. Just how long and how much do you want me to pay? That's why there is a debate about the welfare state. Given the general lack of productivity in western nations, the only way to pay for this giant welfare state is no longer taxation but to borrow from you, our children. 

Which is why, son, my advise is for you to either make so much money that you really don't care about taxation or move to a country like Singapore or HK where tax rates are low, welfare states under control and have learnt from the shocking mistakes of the west. 

Something to think about son. In the meantime, the conservatives in the uk and republicans in the USA will continue being the stupid party. 



Do Republicans Need a Conservative Version of the Welfare State to Win? - Hit & Run :

My friend Matthew Continetti has an interesting piece in the Weekly Standard explicating the “double bind” that Republicans face in trying to become electorally competitive again. He explains:

The domestic proposals that have the greatest chance of making the Republican party attractive to the “coalition of the ascendant”​—​immigrants, members of the millennial generation, single white women​—​involve far more government intervention in the economy than the GOP coalition​—​married white people, Wall Street, the Tea Party​—​will allow. And we haven’t even mentioned changing the GOP approach to social issues, which would drive the Republican base of religious conservatives out of the party. Pursuing such proposals would break the coalition that puts Republicans close to a majority.

Continetti is not the first conservative to argue — falsely as I note in an upcoming piece for Reason magazine — that courting new constituencies such as Hispanics, Asian Americans and other minorities will require the party to give up even its pretense of limited government. Still, Continetti’s basic point that the GOP does not have a coherent ideology that will allow it to court new constituencies while hanging on to its old ones is well taken. After all, how does the party appeal to the “millennial generation” that includes gays, young foodies and indie-music listening hipsters without losing the meat-and-potato social conservatives in, say, Charleston, South Carolina?

Continetti’s answer, dusted off from a 1975 essay by Irving Kristol, is that what the GOP needs is an authentically conservative version of the liberal welfare state. To fashion such a state, Continetti argues, would require:

Republicans to revisit some of the assumptions they have held since the end of the Cold War. Maybe the foremost concern of most Americans is not the top marginal income tax rate. Maybe you can’t seriously lower health care costs without radically overhauling the way we pay for health care. Maybe a political party can’t address adequately such middle-class concerns as school quality and transportation without using the power of government. Maybe the globalization of capital and products and labor hasn’t been an unimpeachable good.

No comments: