Asymmetrical Information

Let's not forget to add Viet Nam, Korea, the "devil made me do it" legal defense (I'm poor, therefore I can't be held responsible for my actions)...

As a start... if you're not speaking Russian, you can thank conservatives. :)

I'm exaggerating, if you couldn't tell... But I don't think the "conservatives beat the Russians" line is any less true than "liberals give you drinkable water."

Don't forget these:

If you have shut down your business or laid off workers due to red-tape and increasing regulation - thank liberals

If you your employees expect more benefits and pay for less work - thank liberals

If your business costs are rising due to government policies and not market economics - thank liberals

If you pay more for everything you buy because businesses have passed their tax increases on to you - thank liberals

And finally, if you know lots of people who want don't take responsibility for their own actions because they think the government should do something about all their problems (as opposed to solving their own) - thank liberals.

People aren't born equal. No matter how hard the liberals try to makes us all equal, some by nature or nurture will always be smarter, more attractive, in better shape, taller, slimmer, come from a wealthier family, etc. But rather than doing the best we can with what we have, liberals have taught us to be pissed off that others have more than us.

Not silly, Jane. Take a look at the history of these things.

It's a fact that conservatives strongly defended segregation, and have generally opposed environmental legislation and various labor protections.

I suppose we're going to hear the usual rant about how the market would have solved all this better, quicker, etc., but that's pure fantasy.

As far as Yak and Mev are concerned, let me point out that rich criminals seem to get away with more than poor ones, and that containment of the USSR was a bipartisan policy, initiated under Truman.

The essential point remains valid enough: "liberal" ideas move society forward by challenging the status quo. A distinction should be made between "liberal", "leftist", and "populist" These are not all the same. (the former most and latter can be of the presumed "right" or of the "left". E.g. the term "liberal" could be applied to free trade but neither of the latter two could.) When you lump the three together under one label you get an almost useless hodge-podge. Are all such "liberal" ideas necessarily good? No, of course not - leftists and populists tend to suck (pardon my French). But "liberals" (i.e. progressives / the opposite of conservatives) of their day gave us the American Revolution, ended slavery and expanded the vote to include women. (Didn't I read recently that Ann Coulter stated that it was a mistake giving women the right to vote?)

Those of us who seek liberty for all are forced to use "libertarian" since the right polluted the term "liberal" by adding groups that are not our fellow travelers. We know that an "illiberal" regime is a terrible evil, but we've lost an effective word to describe the opposite because illiberal leftists have been termed "liberal" by the right.

Jane,

And he is wrong, how, exactly?

IIRC all the things Conason mentions were, in fact, pushed by the liberals of the day and opposed by the conservatives. Over time conservatives came to accept and no longer reject them but that doesn't change the fact they originally they did.

You vote, right? And you are a woman?

Who fought to give you (or your grandmother as the case may be) the right to do so?

Liberals or conservatives?

And who fought to deny women that right?

Liberals or conservatives?

Jane, you know what Joe Conason's point was and it was in fact a true and correct point. Conservatives generally want to keep the status quo...and that's fine, while "liberals" seek to "challange" it in the hopes of improving society. Each one of Conason's statements is literally correct. No one denies that liberalism has, in fact, caused many harms. For each one of these "benefits" there has been some corresponding "harm." Some of us feel that liberalism caused more good than harm. I know others, especially people who frequent this board, disagree with me. But your flip remark about Abe Lincoln, which is obviously not what was meant and, more to the point, a fairly sad attempt in my opinion not to debate the point was beneath you.

I expect more insightful comments from you than, what is in effect, "I know you are, but what am I?" taunting.

Also note that Conason didn't say we had Democrats to thank for these things or that Republicans opposed them. He said they were all opposed by conservatives. Abraham Lincoln's policies hardly counted as conservative in the 1860s though today, of course, his views on race would be considered pretty retrograde.

"If people of all races can share the same public facilities;"

Democrats implemented Jim Crow. Democrats implemented segregation. Democrats fought integration.

if everyone has the right to vote;

Blacks gained the right to vote immediately after the Civil War. Democrats took it from them.

if couples fall in love and marry regardless of race;

Democtats created the miscegenation laws. Democrats enforced them

The huge Klan rallies of the twenties were in support of Democrat candidates

if we have finally begun to transcend a segregated society -- you can thank liberals.

You can thank Republicans. Lincoln was a Republican. Republicans helped overturn the Democrat filibuster of tyhe Civil Rights act. A Republican president implemented Affirmative action.

Simple facts that put the lie to such foolishness

It seems liberals like to claim credit for any positive change. Women's suffrage in the pioneer populist west beat the supposedly progressive east by decades. Who knew Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and Idaho could be so "liberal"?

Yo - just because Jane closes with a snarky comment, it does not mean you get to infer her position on this - some of you seem to be claiming mind-reading abilities based on a very few words.

I assumed that Jane was pointing up the rather overblown tone of the rhetoric, and was looking to the commentors to judge the merits (and possibly trolling for comments!).

But I know these to be assumptions, so I don't treat them as revealed truths - until and unless Jane tells us we DON'T KNOW what she thinks of the merits of the quote.

I find reading what you all have written to be interesting - but find your willingness to impute Jane's opinion based on your own assumptions to be unhelpful.

GT, Bernard, et al, what's wrong with Joe Conason's praise of liberalism is that it is overly simplistic. To take two examples: On civil rights, The Voting Rights Act could not have passed without Republican (conservative) support -- as a percentage, more Republican's voted for the legislation than did Democrats. On the environment, National Parks and the EPA are both creatures of Republican presidents. So, while Conason gives ALL of the credit to liberals, much of it belongs with those GT and Bernard say fought against all of these social goods.

Another problem with this type of liberal v. conservative debate is the meanings of the labels have changed. As GT points out, many of these "liberal" positions are now supported by conservatives. Does that mean the positions are no longer liberal -- particularly when liberals no longer support them? Take segregation which was opposed by liberals in the 50's and 60's. Today, many college's are being encouraged to provide dorms reserved for members of a particular race (a/k/a segregation). Since it is today's liberals that are encouraging and today's conservatives that are opposing this move, is segregation now a liberal position?

I think Conason's right. The part he forgets is that the liberals who brought us most of these advances have absolutely nothing to do with today's politics. This sort of sloppy analysis is the continuing effort of current "progressives" to claim credit for every positive movement ever organized, and at the same time taint "conservatives" guilty by association with 100 year-dead politicians who held completely different views.

GT is also wrong. Old conservatives didn't begrudgingly accept these things. They died. Different people were born who recognized these wondrous advances, yet refused to accept the changing liberal position which appears to be "these changes were good, therefore all change is good". We should argue the merits of each case, but statements like Conason's and GT's are an attempt to avoid the merits and blanket-slander entire groups based on positions they are demonstrably against.

So today, I am a classical liberal which in current American political terms makes me a conservative or libertarian.

So who fought to deny women the right to vote? Some misguided group of dead people. What relation to today's conservatives? None at all.

This is why today's liberals love group analysis. Such analysis allows them to paint their opponents guilty of supporting events which ocurred decades before our births. So Robert Byrd isn't racist because he had an epiphany. But I fought against women's rights because I'm a conservative.

When I see this crap I just have to wonder why mass murder isn't included on the liberal accomplishment list. After all, Lenin was progressive. It's interesting that the list has to be edited to remain seen in a positive light. Is it possible that liberals recognize the invalidity of this analysis but engage in it anyway? Say it isn't so.

Liberals today have exactly the same amount of guilt of Soviet mass murders as conservatives do for denying women's suffrage. Which is to say, none, unless you speak solely of individuals who expressed support for either. And liberals' credit for Conason's list is exactly the same.

We seem to generally recognize this failure of group analysis in today's society. We don't think of Jews as christ-killers, regardless of whether some small group of them were involved in his death 2,000 years ago. But there seems to be an exception for non-PC groups.

jack - read Matt Y's post above you. Political parties change ideology over time. Conason is talking "Liberal" vs. "Conservative", not Democrat vs. Republican

Democrats of the 1860s were conservative.... southern Democrats in the 1960s were conservative, in fact Democrats dominated the south for generations in response to Republican reconstructionism after the Civil War. In response to the northern democrats pushing for civil rights, the still racist, still conservative south switched from the Democratic to the Republican party (see Strom Thurmond). Republicans today owe their dominance to the racist south's switch to the Republican party.

MJ is smart.

A possibly relevant comment from the late R. A. Lafferty on political categories: "...the opposite of radical is superficial, the opposite of liberal is stingy, the opposite of conservative is destructive."

One could thank businessmen and technological and economic advance just as much for most of these advances as liberals, of course. Increasing worker productivity, increasing returns to education, and increased wealth made all of these things affordable. Many of these laws merely ratified and codified trends that had already started. Naturally, of course, since otherwise they wouldn't have passed.

Children had already started going to school in larger numbers (since it became more economic to do so) before compulsory laws were passed. Note that in poor countries children often still work. It was Henry Ford who helped institute a living wage for autoworkers, because it became profitable to do so. The work week was already shrinking for most people before the imposition of the laws. Etc. These laws helped make these trends affect everyone. (For people for whom these choices were less efficient, mainly the poor, the compensation was things like welfare.)

One might as well write a similar paean to business and capitalism instead. Or, if you like, to science and scientists.

Kate...you say "Conservatives generally want to keep the status quo...and that's fine, while "liberals" seek to "challange" it in the hopes of improving society." This is of course true of liberals and conservatives as these terms were traditionally used; however, this has little to do with "liberalism" as it is practiced today. Liberals, for instance, will defend the status quo of the public education system, regardless of how dysfunctional it is proven to be. In many ways, today's "liberals" act like Tory landowners in Jane Austin's England.

I don't question that old-style liberalism has much to its credit. But the quoted passage seems to ignore some basic realities. If we still had the technology of the 1890s...then we would still have 12-hour workdays, with incomes that would be far below "living wages" by today's standards. It wouldn't matter how many unions there were or how many laws were passed.

One problem with many of today's liberals is that they seem totally blind to the existence of forces beyond the closed political world.

Some commenters have made the claim that Conason was talking about 'liberals' as those who are 'progressive' and wanting to 'improve society'.

That might have been true of those who called themselves liberals over a hundred years ago. But it is not true of most of those who call themselves liberals today (illiberals). For example, the public school system is by most measures an abysmal failure, yet rather than allowing independence of technique and evolving strategies for education, illiberals simply want to throw more money at the same failed system. The entitlement programs that make up the bulk of govt spending are nothing more than Ponzi schemes that are going bankrupt, yet illiberals just want to maintain the status quo with more 'infusions' and 'restructuring'.

Today's liberals are not liberal at all.

I hope every Democratic officeholder in the country reads Conason's piece and takes it to heart. If they do decide to associate themselves more closely with the glories of 1960s liberalism, that will be a great thing for the country and they should be given every possible encouragement-- though the Democratic officeholders themselves may have trouble seeing it that way after the election as they look for new careers in the private sector.

Someone said that the Civil Rights Act passed with the support of "Republicans (conservative.)" Not true. It passed as a result of a coalition of liberal and moderate Democrats and liberal and moderate Republicans. Conservative Republicans and Dixiecrats opposed the bill.

I think the burden is on Jane to demonstrate how these policies weren't liberal policies. Their proponents considered themselves to be liberal. Their opponents considered the proponents to be liberal. And the conservatives of the day opposed the policies. She should also explain why conservatives of any stripe should share credit, when the conservative movement as it exists today was godfathered by Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and their contemporaries, as a result of opposition to fair labor standards and civil rights bills.

Don't forget these:

--If you lose all significant use of your land because some environmentalist noticed that the endangered spotted cockroach was living there before you could reach for the Raid (or a blunt object), thank a liberal.

--if the guy who mugged you and swiped your wallet gets cut loose because someone made a mistake on the search warrant or something got momentarily misplaced in the evidence room, thank a liberal.

--when textbooks devote more space to Sacagawea than to George Washington, and "evil" is replaced with "ethically challenged," thank a liberal.

David,

“Liberals, for instance, will defend the status quo of the public education system, regardless of how dysfunctional it is proven to be.”

There is a difference between agreeing with the contention that the public education system is this country is deeply flawed and agreeing with the way the “right” thinks the problem should be solved. Not that “lefties” came up with any better options. But I suspect you will hardly find a Democrat here in New York who wants to keep the school board here the way it has been traditionally run (except the people directly effected by it, and even then you’d be surprised how many are looking forward to change).

“I don't question that old-style liberalism has much to its credit. But the quoted passage seems to ignore some basic realities. If we still had the technology of the 1890s...then we would still have 12-hour workdays, with incomes that would be far below "living wages" by today's standards. It wouldn't matter how many unions there were or how many laws were passed.”

Is that really how it works? I don’t think so. Look at what I do for a living. I’m an attorney. If I were working 30 years ago, aside from the fact that I probably could only get a job as a legal secretary, I would have no computers, no access to electronic research. No fax machines. Anytime I wanted to redraft a document it would have to be retyped. My office might have gotten one, very expense, very slow copy machine which cost thousands of dollars. I would be unable to work many weekends or late nights. If I wanted to send a document to a client who was out of town for their review I would have to send it by personal courier or “flying tigers” or FedEx. They would get it the next day, review and make changes, and then send it back to me the same way. I would be expected to bill 1700 hours per year. A “late” night would be 7 or 8pm. Over the past few decades the legal profession has become a great deal more efficient. So why is it my minimum billables have gone up to 2200 per year? My relative salary has not increase by 20% …but I’m expected to work 20% more. Increase in productivity does not necessarily mean a decrease in hours worked or and increase in salary.

“One problem with many of today's liberals is that they seem totally blind to the existence of forces beyond the closed political world.”

I agree. I also think that one of the problems with conservatives is that they view the world the way they wish it would be and not the way it is. Examples of this are: "every family should have a mnother and a father." and "Teenagers should practise absenance." That leads to a pretty closed world in general.

Kate,

I agree. I also think that one of the problems with conservatives is that they view the world the way they wish it would be and not the way it is. Examples of this are: "every family should have a mnother and a father." and "Teenagers should practise absenance." That leads to a pretty closed world in general.

Another closed view of the world is believing that people are either liberals or conservatives. Why must politics be binary?

I also think that one of the problems with conservatives is that they view the world the way they wish it would be and not the way it is.

Nah, I think that goes for anybody who has ideas. How about "No child should be without health care?"

MJ's comments aways up mirrors mine. What Conason wants to do is to smear the conservatives of 2003 with the errors of status-quoians of 1920 or 1964. You're not going to get 10% support for banning women from voting or for banning interracial marriage today, yet Conason implies that modern conservatives would back such.

How about we all agree not to take credit or assign blame for shit that happened before we were born or that we didn't personally take part in?

Whatever happened to individual responsibility?

If you have shut down your business or laid off workers due to red-tape and increasing regulation - thank liberals

Cough. Ugh, right. I can't find a single instance of this urban legend/meme. Who's running a small business and had to close it down because of "increasing regulation"? What sort of industry is so tightly regulated? Energy? No. Manufacturing? No. IT stuff? No. I challenge others to name some of these oppressed buinesses. Posted by: azrael on August 18, 2003 02:17 PM

Whatever happened to individual responsibility?
Well, Shell, I hate to beat a dead horse, but for the loss of individual responsibility, you can thank the liberals.

The point is that Conason retroactively co-opts all successful advances in governance as 'liberal'. He doesn't use the same meaning of liberal across the time span which he cites. He defines conservatism as being opposed to each of those things. I could as easily say that he is a conservative because he wants to maintain the status quo on abortion, affirmative action, and social security, while he is reactionary because he wants to go back to the old order on welfare. Liberal Martin Luther King Jr. didn't support the kind of affirmative action you see today. Liberal John F. Kennedy didn't attack the basis of the capitalist system the way Chomsky does.

Furthermore he seems to be stating that this list means we should trust liberals now . In order to evaluate that claim you would have to weign in 'liberal' failures. I'm not even sure if he is capable of noticing them.

I’m sorry but I am compelled to to take Jane Galt to task. Joe Conason is actually half right. Liberals do indeed deserve credit for many of the things that he cites. For instance, conservatives mostly disgraced themselves during the early days of the civil rights movement. The Progressive movement did a tremendous amount of good. There is indeed a sound argument to be made that the earlier capitalists, if left alone, might have destroyed the American system. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr’s thesis concerning the Roosevelt administration cannot be ignored.

Unfortunately, today’s Liberals often do not know that they are going too far. They no longer merely distrust the business community, as did Adam Smith, but intensely hate the free market. An adversarial mindset renders them incapable of even offering sound advice.

Interesting discussion....I would like to add some more information to this statement "Someone said that the Civil Rights Act passed with the support of "Republicans (conservative.)" Not true. It passed as a result of a coalition of liberal and moderate Democrats and liberal and moderate Republicans. Conservative Republicans and Dixiecrats opposed the bill."

Hmm....80% of Republicans supported the passage of the Civil Rights Act, while a mere 38% of Democrats supported this bill. That the 80% of Republicans were Liberal/Moderates sounds like a very high number. As it was noted in the CongressLink below, it is more accurate to say:

A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success.

From:http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html or

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:OSgHQxYeXlsJ:www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html+congressLink-civil+Rights+act+of+1964&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8

The House of Representatives debated the bill for nine days and rejected nearly one hundred amendments designed to weaken the bill before passing H.R .7152 on February 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11. A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success. This same arrangement would prove crucial later to the Senate's approval of the bill.

The idea that the civil rights movement was a conservative one is simply wrong. Remember, we are talking liberal/conservative, not Democratic/Republican.

The southern Democrats who opposed civil rights were conservatives. Many, like Thurmond, later switched parties out of unhappiness with the Democratic support for civil rights, and their political heirs are today's southern Republicans. It's true that some Republicans supported civil rights legislation, but these were moderate to liberal Republicans - nothing like today's radicals.

Finally, don't forget that civil rights laws were strongly opposed by, among many others, William Buckley and Barry Goldwater. Still want to claim it was conservatives who passed them?

"--If you lose all significant use of your land because some environmentalist noticed that the endangered spotted cockroach was living there before you could reach for the Raid (or a blunt object), thank a liberal."

If can't breathe because clean air laws get gutted, thank a conservative.

"--if the guy who mugged you and swiped your wallet gets cut loose because someone made a mistake on the search warrant or something got momentarily misplaced in the evidence room, thank a liberal."

If the guy who swindled you out of your 401K doesn't get prosecuted, thank a conservative.

"--when textbooks devote more space to Sacagawea than to George Washington, and "evil" is replaced with "ethically challenged," thank a liberal."

When schools teach creationism instead of science, thank a conservative.

"--when you can't stomach reading all the comments on this blog because of the petty nun-uh/uh-huh commentary ... thank liberals arguing with conservatives."

Criminy, people.

“Finally, don't forget that civil rights laws were strongly opposed by, among many others, William Buckley and Barry Goldwater. Still want to claim it was conservatives who passed them?”

You are absolutely correct. I have done much reading concerning this era---and I’m utterly convinced that the conservatives did virtually nothing to advance the civil rights of black people. Nonetheless, the Liberals later caused enormous harm by perceiving blacks as always victims of a racist society. This resulted in the grief experienced by Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Edward Banfield when they attempted to discuss the rapid decline of the black family in our nation’s large cities. White Liberals are inadvertently responsible for high black illegitimacy rates, low educational scores, and a self pitying mindset that hinders the latter's chances for self improvement.

Conanson's article is just silly. Most of his cites are accurate, but they ignore liberal policies that didn't work or aren't now considered beneficial. ("If you have to wait in long lines to see your government-assigned doctor...")

To take an extreme example, weren't the secessionists in 1860 liberals? They couldn't be called conservatives, since the established policy was to compromise with the North and maintain the Union. So Jeff Davis et al must have been liberals (or radicals, even).

Obviously, Conanson thinks we should not only thank yesterday's liberals, but vote for today's liberals. Which makes little or no sense, as others have pointed out, since self-identified liberals have all sorts of new policies they want to implement. Because 1920s liberals supported women's suffrage, does that make nationalized health care a good idea?

If you can vote for your local, state, and national government... you can thank a Greek.

If you can buy food grown in fields, instead of having to go out and hunt & gather your own... thank a Sumerian.

Kate...if you compare your standard of living with that of a lawyer in 1900, I don't see how you can argue that the improvement wasn't primarily due to (a)technology and (b)societal accumulation of capital. The ABA could yell and scream all it wanted, but you'd still be taking your horse & carriage to work.

To the extent that the dollars-to-hours ratio has gotten less favorable in *recent* years, I'm guessing it's due to (a) corporate clients negotiating harder-line deals in an attempt to get their legal costs under control, and (b)excessive numbers of people pursuing legal careers because they think it sounds neat or profitable. Do these explanations seem to make sense?

Jeff,

Thanks for the numbers. What they show is that almost three quarters of the opposition in the House was from southern Democrats, and that 97% of non-southern Democrats supported it.

Is it reasonable to label 80% of 1960's Republicans liberal/moderate? Well, moderate maybe. This was before the Goldwater takeover, and the Republican party of the time was considerably less conservative than today's. It had no significant southern wing, and people like Rockefeller were still prominent. The party's strong conservative cast today stems from Goldwater and the massive, civil-rights motivated, party switch of southerners.

Azreal,
1.Many doctors here in Florida have packed up and moved to other states where malpractice insurance is cheaper.

2.My aunt and uncle who ran a small business that recycled electronics and chemicals, couldn't raise their prices enough to keep up with costs of complying with EPA regulations of running the business.

3.Then there is stuff like this
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1025
that may not mean shutting down a company totally, but can mean job loss, lower profits, and slower economic growth

Bernard Yomtov wrote:

The idea that the civil rights movement was a conservative one is simply wrong. Remember, we are talking liberal/conservative, not Democratic/Republican.

Since no one has defined the terms in any way to relate them to the common usage of the term today, it is both meaningless and misleading to refer to one as “conservative” and the other as “liberal.”

The southern Democrats who opposed civil rights were conservatives.

Not necessarily true. Much of the opposition to the “civil rights” legislation came from part of the New Deal coalition forged by FDR. William Fullbright for example was a signator of the Southern Manifesto and voted against some of the “civil rights” legislation as did Al Gore Sr.

Many, like Thurmond, later switched parties out of unhappiness with the Democratic support for civil rights,

A claim which makes absolutely no sense when you realize that (a) Republicans were more likely to be in favor of civil rights legislation than Democrats (and arguably still are to this day considering the Democratic support for racial preferences and setasides), (b) by the time he switched parties most of the major civil rights legislation was already passed by Congress and (c) Thurmond renounced his previous segregationist views at about the time he switched parties. Considering the timing of his switch, it seems more plausible that Thurmond switched parties when it became apparent that the Democrats were no longer a party that could be taken seriously on foreign policy since there seems nothing to be gained on issues of “civil rights.”

and their political heirs are today's southern Republicans.

Really and the evidence for this is what exactly? The old segregationist Democrats have pretty much died off except for Robert “pretty, pretty” Byrd (KKK-WV). Considering that the demise of segregation in the South correlates with that region’s equally just rejection of Democrats, it would seem more accurate to say that as the South became more enlightened on civil rights, they became more Republican.

It's true that some Republicans supported civil rights legislation, but these were moderate to liberal Republicans - nothing like today's radicals.

And the evidence for this is. . .?

Finally, don't forget that civil rights laws were strongly opposed by, among many others, William Buckley and Barry Goldwater. Still want to claim it was conservatives who passed them?

Actually Goldwater voted for most of the major civil rights legislation as a Senator that dismantled government-created segregation and only voted against one when it proposed restrictions on the behavior of private individuals. A position which is consistent with a supporter of both equal protection under the law (fourteenth amendment) and freedom of association (first amendment). In contrast though liberal Democrats like William Fullbright voted against civil rights legislation that restricted the ability of States to mistreat citizens based on skin color as did Albert Gore. LBJ also while Majority Leader of the Senate helped to delay and kill a number of civil rights bills by using his powers as Majority Leader to keep them in committee.

PJ/Maryland :

"Because 1920s liberals supported women's suffrage, does that make nationalized health care a good idea?"

By 2100, we probably will have nationalized health care, be much better off for it, and some conservative will be making the argument "Because 2003 liberals supported universal health care, does that make X a good idea?"

"Actually Goldwater voted for most of the major civil rights legislation as a Senator that dismantled government-created segregation and only voted against one when it proposed restrictions on the behavior of private individuals."

Bingo. I'm an admirer of Senator Goldwater, but I disagree with his weighing of rights in this case, as I believe firmly that the right of black citizens to be able to find public accomodations as they travel across the United States justified the (real) limitation on property rights that the Act called for. However, the veiled innuendo from the left that his vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made him a racist has always been as asinine as accusations that Hubert Humphrey's support for the Civil Rights Act made him an advocate of racial quotas.

"By 2100, we probably will have nationalized health care, be much better off for it, and some conservative will be making the argument "Because 2003 liberals supported universal health care, does that make X a good idea?""

And it will still be a lame argument. Not to deliver a basic lesson in logic or anything, but it does not necessarily follow that because A supported B and turned out to be correct (or at least successful), A is correct when supporting C. You could construct a similar chain of things that conservatives were correct about, and somehow I don't think you'd be ready to roll over and play dead on future issues in those areas.

"And it will still be a lame argument. Not to deliver a basic lesson in logic or anything, but it does not necessarily follow that because A supported B and turned out to be correct (or at least successful), A is correct when supporting C."

In this case, the argument is lamer still. The "A" (liberals) who supported the prior successes are NOT the same "A" supporting C today. To use a football analogy, in the 1970s, the Miami Dolphins were a great football team -- maybe the best ever. That fact tells us nothing about how well the Dolphins will do this year. Not the same players, not the same coach, not even the same stadium.

That's about as much as liberals of today have in common with those of yesteryear: a label that doesn't even mean the same thing it once did. What predictive value is that?

"To the extent that the dollars-to-hours ratio has gotten less favorable in *recent* years, I'm guessing it's due to (a) corporate clients negotiating harder-line deals in an attempt to get their legal costs under control, and (b)excessive numbers of people pursuing legal careers because they think it sounds neat or profitable. Do these explanations seem to make sense?"

David -- I think your part (a) is some of it. There is downward pressure on hourly rates, particularly in some practice areas. Part (b) I'm not so sure. Don't forget that this phenomenon has happened in offices everywhere, not just law offices and other "neat" professions.

Most of it can be accounted for because technology allows for complex calculations to be performed relatively easily and very quickly, documents to be drafted and redrafted without nearly the trouble of former years, perfection to be demanded, turn-around times to be much faster. All of this adds to a proliferation of documentation. (And, by the way, to increasingly complex regulation. The government's expectations are higher too because of technology. If the tax code has become unreasonably complicated, thank Bill Gates.)

The human brain and human hands are still limited in their hourly output, so it just takes more hours to take on everything that the technology churns out.

"Cough. Ugh, right. I can't find a single instance of this urban legend/meme. Who's running a small business and had to close it down because of "increasing regulation"? What sort of industry is so tightly regulated? "

Well, the personal aircraft industry isn't exactly on fire. Thank the FAA for the dearth of products or job opportunities in that area.

Actually, this question is sort of misleading. Most of the regulations in question have been in place long enough that the industries that it killed have been dead a while and mostly forgotten, and the vast majority of casualties are industries that never got off the ground, and thus also escape public notice. (For examples, just peruse science fiction from the 1950's, 1960's, and even 1970's. They tended to predict that we'd either all blow ourselves up or else continue coming up with new industries and new inventions at the same or greater pace that we did in the previous century. If you want to know why the latter prediction didn't pan out, thank government regulation).

It's interesting that you bring up IT. It is one of our least regulated industries. It's also by far the industry that's been producing the most rapid gains in quality and price of its offerings over the last few decades. I think there's definitely a connection there.

"The Progressive movement did a tremendous amount of good. There is indeed a sound argument to be made that the earlier capitalists, if left alone, might have destroyed the American system. "

There's an even sounder argument that, left alone, they'd have continued generating new inventions, new industries, and ever increasing wealth along the upward trendline established during the previous century. And by now, we'd be arguing about the advisability of beginning to use government action to rein in those evil plutocrats - and posting those arguments from our homes scattered all over the Solar System.

The more I think about it, the more I think that Conason is arguing by tautology. From a retrospective view he defines 'liberal' as an agent for what we now see as positive change. Obviously under this definition liberals will appear to be good at supporting positive change. All negative choices are non-liberal by definitional magic.

Since Conason calls himself 'liberal' it is to his advantage to trade on such a definition even if there is no unifing force to tie together all the 'liberals' which he claims as his own.

Thorley,

The evidence that you keep asking for is just ordinary history, as it happened, not as you imagine it happened.

Fo example, despite your tortured logic, southern Democrats switched precisely because the national party had become actively pro-civil rights. Aside from the southerners themselves, Democrats were more likely to support civil rights than Republicans were, as Jeff's post makes clear.

To take a more specific example, Thurmond became a Republican in 1964 to back Goldwater. He helped Nixon in 1968 by assuring southerners that Nixon would not press too hard on civil rights. he did not renounce his segregationist views until much later, when it became politically expedient to do so.

"just peruse science fiction from the 1950's, 1960's, and even 1970's. They tended to predict that we'd either all blow ourselves up or else continue coming up with new industries and new inventions at the same or greater pace that we did in the previous century. If you want to know why the latter prediction didn't pan out, thank government regulation."

Huh? Is it just possible these guys were as mistaken about new industries as they were about us blowing ourselves up?

Ever think of that?

If we haven't blown ourselves up, thank liberals.

"If we haven't blown ourselves up, thank liberals."

Ronald Reagan and Bush the Elder were liberals? You learn something new every day.

I would like to live to be 300 and have nano-processors in home to supply my every whim.

Get the liberals on it. If they can make 40-hour work weeks and pollution free rivers by sheer act of will, they can definitely pass a few laws and the technologies I want will magically appear. It's just those mean conservatives standing in the way.

Will we ever stop trying to label people? Thankfully through out history there have been people of vision and conviction who strove to make the world a better place.

One other thing..."if our air isn't black with pollution"...it just might have something to do with the transition from coal heating and power to oil+electricity. The people who explored for oil and had the vision to build pipelines are one set of people you might thank, Joe C. Those who made electricity practical on a large scale are others you might want to direct some appreciation toward.

"It's interesting that you bring up IT. It is one of our least regulated industries. It's also by far the industry that's been producing the most rapid gains in quality and price of its offerings over the last few decades. I think there's definitely a connection there."

You can not be serious. Lack of enforcement of anti-trust law has allowed Microsoft to run roughshod over the market, competitors, and consumers. The result is that now you pay almost as much for your operating system as you do for your hardware. And the quality of that operating system is abysmal. If ever there was a poster boy for government intervention to make a level playing field, IT is it.

Ronald Reagan and Bush the Elder were liberals? You learn something new every day.

Well, they favored free trade, opposed institutional racism (aka "affirmative action"), and favored reduced government intrusion in the lives of the citizenry.

So, yeah, I guess they were, at least on some issues.

The problem with Conason's claim is that he's correct, in a historical sense, but incorrect in a modern one. The people responsible for the policies in question were "liberals" in their time, but today would be placed all over the political spectrum. Modern "liberals" are what used to be called "conservatives". So are most "conservatives", of course. :) Today's true "liberals" are the people usually mistakenly referred to as "right-wing extremists" (by leftwingers) or "left-wing extremists" (by rightwingers)... namely, libertarians.

Kate wrote:

"I also think that one of the problems with conservatives is that they view the world the way they wish it would be and not the way it is. Examples of this are: "every family should have a mnother and a father." and "Teenagers should practise absenance." That leads to a pretty closed world in general."

Ironically enough, if you follow those two desires to their logical conclusions, you do tend to reduce many of the ills that present-day leftists use as an excuse to implement further social engineering. Whether or not those desires can be practically implemented (the "legislate morality" can of worms) is a separate argument, but I fail to see how this leads to a closed world.

Bernard Yomtov wrote:

"When schools teach creationism instead of science, thank a conservative."

So, when schools instead pack a shipping container full of atheistic and naturalistic philosophical pandering unsupported by any actual emprics and get to shovel that in the door under a manifest of goods labeled "science," who do I get to thank?

Or were you just attempting to derail this thread?

"You can not be serious. Lack of enforcement of anti-trust law has allowed Microsoft to run roughshod over the market, competitors, and consumers. The result is that now you pay almost as much for your operating system as you do for your hardware."

A few hundred bucks each. Definitely an improvement over what they used to cost.

And let's not forget that computer hardware is also very lightly regulated. The bureaucrats only insist that it not put out too much radio interference, and it not zap anybody who touches its exterior. Aside from that, there's really no standards that a computer has to meet, and vendors can sell any machine of any quality with any new or old features that they want to whoever will buy it, without any bureaucrat having to bless it. And the quality and price of computer hardware has been improving relentlessly, by any metric you'd care to come up with.

"And the quality of that operating system is abysmal."

By whose standard? Computer geeks will hate it, because it's not designed to appeal to computer geeks. It's designed to appeal to the millions of people that would never have willingly gone near a computer before Microsoft Windows.

As far as those people are concerned, Microsoft Windows is well worth a few hundred bucks. Otherwise, they'd install Linux or some other operating system.

"If ever there was a poster boy for government intervention to make a level playing field, IT is it."

Microsoft's competitors needed a level playing field? Netscape didn't update their browser for years. Apple kept their operating system tied to inferior, expensive hardware.

I suppose that their customers were the ones that needed a level playing field? They'd have been better off waiting until Netscape finally deigned to produce their next version (and if not for Microsoft, they might still be waiting!) They'd have been better off trying to learn Linux or shelling out big bucks for Macs? I seriously doubt it.

"Huh? Is it just possible these guys were as mistaken about new industries as they were about us blowing ourselves up?"

Of course they were mistaken. They thought that the late 20th Century would proceed pretty much like the late 19th Century, and failed to predict that massive government intervention would slow everything down to the degree that it has.

After reading the first dozen posts, it seems odd that many equate "conservatism" with "racism"; what dictionary are you reading, what definition in a self-professed conservative movement are you reading. None, you are just calling names, just like most of Conason's articles.

A better question to ask of Joe Conason is: What "advances" are the liberals of today in favor of? How do they propose to improve our lives?

1. The environment: Pass the Kyoto treaty? (Give a hundred billion dollars to Russia for their CO2 rights?)

2. National defense: Declare defeat and pull out of Iraq?

3. Health Care: Fix prices?

What exactly are our liberals for?

By 2100, we probably will have nationalized health care, be much better off for it, and some conservative will be making the argument "Because 2003 liberals supported universal health care, does that make X a good idea?"

Wallster, I don't know about you, but I'll be over 65 by 2100. So I'll be on Medicare, and have government-provided health care.

Unless there are a number of medical breakthroughs, I don't actually expect to be around in 2100. If we have nationalized health care, I doubt we'll see many breakthroughs.

Come to think of it, there's a great conspiracy theory. There already have been life-extending breakthroughs, but the Social Security Administration is keeping them under wraps to avoid going bankrupt in a few years!

Socialized medicine is the surest method of ensuring that future generations will suffer the same failings we do.

What a wonderful goal for liberals to work toward.

Ken -

"It's designed to appeal to the millions of people that would never have willingly gone near a computer before Microsoft Windows."

Those people would never have willingly gone near a computer before email and the Web. Two inventions Microsoft had nothing to do with.

"Microsoft's competitors needed a level playing field? Netscape didn't update their browser for years. Apple kept their operating system tied to inferior, expensive hardware."

Ever heard of WordPerfect? Ever heard of the illegal practice of bundling?

lefty skeptic,
Microsoft was a major contributor to the 90s productivity boom. When nearly all computers had Windows, there was suddenly a standard interface that anyone could use without being re-trained, and software developers could target almost all computer users with one program. They earned their operating system monopoly. All the questionable business practices came later, when they leveraged the success of the OS to force users to use other Microsoft programs.

And Ken is right, if Windows sucks so much, why aren't more people downloading Linux? It's free.

It pissed me off when you lefties act like we consumers are at the whim of large corporations. Actually it is the other way around. If they make us mad and we stop buying their products, most companies couldn't last 6 months. Microsoft will be surpassed, as has every other dominant company that has ever existed. Check out my post about how these same stupid arguments and worries repeat themselves. Heck, in 1980 Sears was so powerful people thought it would rule the world, now they are floundering and probably won't be in business in another 10 years.

Damn link didn't work, try this.

"I would like to live to be 300 and have nano-processors in home to supply my every whim.

Get the liberals on it."

Actually, Pete, Ken's claim was that liberals are the only thing standing in the way. According to him, if we just did away with regulations we would soon have faster-than-light transport, colonies on Mars, cold fusion, etc.

Since he obviously has a hard time telling fact from fiction, I wouldn't take anythign he says too seriously.

"Actually, Pete, Ken's claim was that liberals are the only thing standing in the way. According to him, if we just did away with regulations we would soon have faster-than-light transport, colonies on Mars, cold fusion, etc. "

Well, that would depend on what you mean by "soon".

What I was actually claiming is that if we had never started on the road to massive regulation, and had laissez-faire capitalism for the past several decades instead, we'd have a lot of those things right now. After several decades of development that we missed out on.

Quite a difference. Repealing the regulations now isn't going to undo the past century, or give us back that time. We'll have to do that development that we didn't do in the past.

> The result is that now you pay almost as much
> for your operating system as you do for your
> hardware.

And so? Is there some inherent ratio of cost between hardware/software that's being violated? If so, can you please tell us (a) what the "right" cost ratio is, and--much more to the point--(b) how you determined what the correct ratio is?

Businesspundit -

"It pissed me off when you lefties act like we consumers are at the whim of large corporations."

Never said that. Don't believe it, myself. (Although I admit, some lefties do, and I don't like it either.) Ken made a good point about hardware, where there is fierce, open competition and consumers have the opportunity to choose. We have all benefited immensely.

Operating systems, and office suites are another matter. It is noteworthy that these are the only areas in which Microsoft is profitable, and it is the only areas in which they have a monopoly they can exploit. They have been remarkably unsuccessful whenever they have to actually compete -

- Palm OS vs WinCE
- J2ME vs Win Mobile Edition
- J2EE vs .NET
- XBox vs Playstation

"And Ken is right, if Windows sucks so much, why aren't more people downloading Linux? It's free."

Microsoft's illegal practices have established their proprietary document formats as a de facto standard. However, as they keep pushing the boundaries of acceptable practice, more and more businesses are adopting Linux.

"Microsoft will be surpassed, as has every other dominant company that has ever existed."

Yes, and every murderer that has ever existed will die some day. Better, however, that they be brought to justice than die a natural death. And what about all the damage Microsoft has caused in the mean time?

And, by the way, it pisses me off when you righties worship at the altar of Corporation rather than Competition. Unfair generalization right back atcha, Businesspundit.

Typical Jane bullshit. Can't argue with what he says? Fine, then just say something outrageous and pretend that you've addressed the point.

Do you really think that anyone is fooled by this dodge?

Child labor laws - liberal. check
40 hour work weeks - unions! check
creation of the FDA - liberals. check
Medicare and SS - liberals. check.
creation of the EPA - liberals, check

Not a one of those are the result of conservatives working to make it happen. Not a one.

Oh, and by the Way, Lincoln wasn't a conservative, he was a liberal. Sure, he was a Republican, but that was back BEFORE all of the bigots and kleptocrats bolted the Democratic party and took over the Republican party.

If he were alive today, he would speak out against George Bush and his cabal. And you damn well know it.

Child Labor laws I'll give you

40 hour work week I'll give you

Keeping the unions from strangling productivity - conservatives

FDA was liberal? whatever...

Starting a Ponzi scheme that will either collapse or crush under-30s with taxes ok I'll give you that one.

Fostering an investment environment that gave us the computer and the best medical innovation rate in the world - Conservatives.

Keeping the Russians from taking over the world, liberals and conservatives, until after Vietnam, then thank the conservatives.

The Civil Rights Act was supported by equality-before-the-law Republicans.

Let me put it this way, I can see a number of good things that liberals have done. If you can't say the same about conservatives, you are defining 'liberal' to mean things I like, which is not a useful decision making catagory.

Conason preaches to his choir; just look at the love fest yesterday at dKos. The irony of his screed is that he would not have associated with the people who actually achieved most of what he claims for liberals: OSHA - was that Nixon or Ford; Child labor laws and trust busting - Teddy R; Unions - FDR, one for Conason; safe food - common law protected a small agrarian society, when food crossed borders it grew into federal pork - a wash; clean water act - Nixon; Mediscare and SS, a pyramid scam from FDR; The Civil Rights movement sprang from Religious Fanatics, John Brown and crew, and New England Bluenoses, the Abolitionists were hard-line christian zealots that would scare the crap out of Conason, and Lincoln was the conservative federalist who moderated that zeal, the Battle Hymn of the Republic was for real; That the "liberals" of the 20th century under FDR made a devil's bargain with the Southern Dems is why it took the conservative republicans to overthrow the Jim Crow regime.

So what do we get, on race, the Dems return to form after reconstruction and hold off real progress till 80 percent of Republicans join with northern Democrats who are thoroughly embarrassed of 90 years of obstruction. And Conason gives all glory to the current generation of "liberals" who currently believe in "affirmative" segregation.

On economics, we get Marxists ignoring the defects of unfunded mandates, and ignoring that social and environmental progress is paid for by capitalism's success. I'm just not persuaded or even slightly impressed - its tired, trite garbage.

The attitude of Joe Conason, like so many on the left, is that all good things must come from liberals. After all, the dictionary defines conservatives as being opposed to change, so any change must therefore have come from liberals.

The problem with this way of thinking is that the political spectrum is impossible to define as either "liberal-conservative" or "left-right." JFK was liberal on many social issues, yet he passed massive tax cuts. Johnson supported the war in Viet Nam, yet he proposed the "Great Society." Were Kennedy and Johnson liberals or conservatives? The answer is that, using today’s definitions they were both.

And that is one of the underlying problems with trying to define things from the past as either liberal or conservative. The definitions have changed over time. Yesterdays Democrats held political positions that today’s Democrats are strongly opposed to. And today’s Republicans hold positions that are significantly different from the Republicans of 100 years ago.

"Typical Jane bullshit. Can't argue with what he says? Fine, then just say something outrageous and pretend that you've addressed the point."

Typical Bones bullshit. Leap into a discussion mid-stream with insults and generalizations, then gradually retreat as the other posters pick your arguments to pieces with inconvenient facts (which has already begun, I see--nicely done, Sebastian). Kind of like your argument a while back that Bush had some sort of legal obligation to ask for a full manual recount in Florida, which became some kind of squishy moral obligation (which Gore apparently was not subject to until his back was to the wall), which became you apparently remembering you had something in the oven and vanishing like a puff of smoke. Very entertaining to observe--are you planning on topping it this time?

"Oh, and by the Way, Lincoln wasn't a conservative, he was a liberal. Sure, he was a Republican, but that was back BEFORE all of the bigots and kleptocrats bolted the Democratic party and took over the Republican party."

Ah yes, the mystical liberal process by which Lincoln becomes a Democrat and George Wallace becomes a Republican. Very eye-catching.

"If he were alive today, he would speak out against George Bush and his cabal. And you damn well know it."

You know, you'd be able to put in more hours for Miss Cleo if you did your third-rate psychic act on company time rather than here.

I'll give you the Child Labour Laws, but I'm not sure how much credit we should give them. In developing countries even now, children are, as soon as it's economical, taken out of the work force and educated. Their parents are the ones behind it, since they want a better life for their children.

One might have predicted, a la Game Theory, that the parents would continue to exploit the labour of their offspring, and reap the rewards thereof. However, the opposite is true, and we see remarkable selflessness.

The point was made above that certain laws simply codefied what was becoming common practice. I'm no fan of children throwing bobbins or what-have-you, but it has to be possible for the family to survive without their labour before such a law would be obeyed or rational. And sometimes, particularly before a society builds up its economy, it isn't.

For most of history, children were expected to be useful: to keep the fires burning, to hunt, fish, sew, tat: to work, briefly. With increasingly efficient technology, we dispensed with that, not because the laws were passed, but because we loved our children. The laws were secondary, an expression of this love.

I'll give you the Child Labour Laws, but I'm not sure how much credit we should give them. In developing countries even now, children are, as soon as it's economical, taken out of the work force and educated. Their parents are the ones behind it, since they want a better life for their children.

One might have predicted, a la Game Theory, that the parents would continue to exploit the labour of their offspring, and reap the rewards thereof. However, the opposite is true, and we see remarkable selflessness.

The point was made above that certain laws simply codefied what was becoming common practice. I'm no fan of children throwing bobbins or what-have-you, but it has to be possible for the family to survive without their labour before such a law would be obeyed or rational. And sometimes, particularly before a society builds up its economy, it isn't.

For most of history, children were expected to be useful: to keep the fires burning, to hunt, fish, sew, tat: to work, briefly. With increasingly efficient technology, we dispensed with that, not because the laws were passed, but because we loved our children. The laws were secondary, an expression of this love.

Lefty_skeptic,
True enough on the "unfair generalization." But I think you missed my point about Microsoft and operating systems. While they may use agressive business practices now, they didn't have that kind of power back when they were first growing Windows. So they didn't initially obtain the monopoly through any illegal means. It's just that once they had the monopoly, they used it wrongly. And the monopoly was actually good for us because it standardized the computer user interface. That is my main point.

Actually MS had the Carter Administration Department of Justice to thank for their current monopoly status. When the DoJ put the screws on IBM in the late 70's IBM trashed plans at buying both MS and Intel. Thanks ot Government interference we have three companies where there would have only been one.

"Child labor laws and trust busting - Teddy R;"

You forgot to write "score another one for Conason" after that. HTH. (Read what he wrote if you don't understand.)

You and Jane may be the only people in America who believe that Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln were conservatives.

Well using Conason's definition they were conservative.

TR wanted to "Conserve" his hunting and ranching areas.
Lincoln wanted to "Conserve" the union.

Both got us into wars with Lincoln overseeing the largest number of deaths of Americans in a single day, and suspended Habeus Corpus.

Anyway, if Lincoln did become a Democrat today he would have been hounded out early for telling racist jokes.

Conason's examples are unfair, especially "if your food is not poisoned and your water is drinkable" which is just plain BS. Being a liberal I got terribly upset when reading that and it was not until I reread the entire text and though "OK, I see what you want to say" that I decided to let it pass.
FWIW, I think in this paragraph Conason is concerned with resurrecting the word "liberal" as a positive attitude. AFAIK, it has lost the positive connotation and Conason's book is primarily about restoring "liberal" to something you can claim to be just as proudly as you can claim to be conservative.

"Well using Conason's definition they were conservative."

I know you're just being facetious, but Conason explicitly identified TR as a progressive. I do not think this is a controversial assertion.

Several times on this thread people have misrepresented Conason's point as being about Democrats v. Republicans instead of liberals v. conservatives. You would think that by explicitly naming liberal Republicans Conason had averted this problem.

Scott/David Walser -

The argument is not the slightest bit lame. The occurrences where liberals are correct are not independent. If liberals have been more correct than conservatives (who would have had us retain slavery, and force seniors to work until they died or rely on charity/family when they run out of resources, etc.), we can conclude that they will probably continue to be more correct.

Think of the 1978 Pittsburg Steelers, to use a 1970s football analogy as well. They finished at 14-2 on their way to the Super Bowl. When they were 10-1, and were playing a below average team, the two of you would apparently conclude that past performance is not predictive of future performance, and be willing to bet on the other team, without odds or a spread. Of course you wouldn't, but that is what you are doing by maintaining that 'because liberals were correct before does not make them likely to be correct now.'

It is more than likely that in 100 years, we will have national health care (I won't be around, PJ), gay marriage will be completely accepted, the death penalty will probably have been long abolished, and the people of that era will look back in amazement at the dark ages of 2003 the same way we look back at an era when women weren't allowed to vote and blacks had to sit in the back of the bus.

I don't understand why people keep confusing partisanship with ideology. By asserting that liberals are responsible for that laundry list of benefits, Conason wasn't saying that Democrats all through history were responsible. He's saying liberalism was responsible. The Republican party wasn't the homogenously conservative party until fairly recently. In fact moderates and liberals (on domestic policy) either strongly influenced the party, or ran it, for much of this century. Lincoln, Roosevelt, and even Taft, not to mention Nixon (in some sense) were some of the most effective liberals. So people should stop saying that liberals aren't responsible for civil rights because of the Dixiecrats. It's a logical inconsistency.

That this topic is even debatable is silly to me. As someone who largely opposes abortion "rights", I believe that the procedure will ultimately be banned in this and all other civilized countries. But how would you conservatives feel of fifty years down the road I asserted that conservatives were not responsible for the anti-abortion movement? Wouldn't it be silly? Isn't opposition to abortion one of the issues that defines modern conservatism? So for liberalism and labor and civil rights legislation.

Conservativism has also been defined -- by conservatives no less -- as opposition to labor rights and racial and gender rights for one hundred years and in support of business privileges. Those Dixiecrats that were originally only racial conservatives, but were otherwise more liberal populists, eventually abandoned their populism as they abandoned the New Deal coalition. These have been the defining characteristics of conservatism in this country. To deny that is to deny history.

And I don't believe for a moment that modern conservatives have abandoned the principles that their paleo-conservative (as TNR might call them) predecessors followed, with the exception of overt race-hatred, because modern conservatives still assert those same principles: opposition to environmental regulation (not even the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts are settled issues yet), safety regulation, social programs (not even Social Security is sacrosanct anymore, so the elderly who have worked long hours for low pay their whole lives will just have to suck it up after they finally can't work anymore), anti-trust regulation, minimum wage and other wage regulations, health provision, etc.

If you are so proud of your principles (and you should be, of course, in that conservatism has played a positive role in our history, though less of one than liberalism) stick to them. Don't co-opt the issues that battle over which your ideology has lost.

Yes I was being facetious, but that is the problem of using dictionary definitions to discuss today's policies. All of us want to conserve some things we find good in society and change things we find intolerable. To point to only data that makes your case is to fool yourself. One has to address the hidden and not so hidden costs of change; acknowledge those changes that turned out to be not so good ideas;
(prohibition and free love) and recognize the outside influences that prepare society, from the religious revival of the abolitionists to frozen dinners allowing women to work outside the home.
Change isn't always good, and it isn't always liberals who are responsible for it.

Wallster - Past performance only has predictive value if the same people (or people holding the same values) will be performing in the future. The 1978 Stealers were a great team (which is still hard to admit, since I am a Raiders fan), but that fact gives you no clue on how well the 2003 Stealers will do. Since today's liberals hold vastly different values than did the liberals of prior eras, the past success of liberal ideas is irrelevant in predicting the worth of the current crop of ideas.

This thread is a wankfest. A bunch of bloody statists, the lot of you...

Lenin and Stalin could both be charitably described as 'liberal'. How did the countries they were in control of turn out again? Oh yeah, Russia and parts of Eastern Europe are some of the most polluted areas in the entire world. Castro sure was itching to change the system, so I guess he's a liberal too. Exactly how great is Cuba nowadays. Healthcare is free, and you get what you pay for. So long as you aren't black, cause then you don't even get to see the doctor because everyone knows ALL black Cubans are stooges of the Americans. You can have a library, just don't get any of those pesky books. They live on a tropical island and have problems related to scurvy. I wouldn't have thought it was possible if someone had actually tried.

Me thinks this thesis needs a little more, ok a lot more logic and critical thinking. As has been stated before countless times, when a society grows more affluent it has the time and inclination for quality of life initiatives. It isn't a very great shock to me that after almost every economic growth period we saw agitation and acceptance for inclusion of another oppressed group or improvments in the lives of the citizenry. Industrial Revolution-Civil War, late 1890's/early 1900's growth-Progressive era, post WWII boom-Civil Rights Movement and environmental movement, post 80/90's boom-advances in GLBT agenda. I guess if you want to just thank one person, rather than a group direct it towards Adam Smith.

Businesspundit -

I think Microsoft gained their monopoly through a variety of methods, some ethical and some not. But I'll concede the general point.

However, I disagree that we have benefited overall from their monopoly. The interoperability of applications is due at least as much to the following -

- Open standards for hardware (e.g. PCI, IDE)
- Open standards for protocols (e.g. TCP/IP, HTTP, email)

Had document formats been as open and interoperable as these standards, we would have benefited from competition in the office suite category as well.

I concede that there are productivity gains from having a standard windowing interface, but don't think they are important enough to balance out the other factors.

The farther back into the past you look, the more different are the political concerns of the age and the less relevant the labels we use today. To claim FDR for the cause of present-day left-liberalism is merely
whiggish; to claim Abraham "I did not at any time say I was in favor of Negro suffrage" Lincoln for the cause of present-day left-liberalism is preposterous.

One thing that I find interesting but has not yet been mentioned is that Conason seems to be merely repackaging similar arguments that have been floating around the web for years and presumably elsewhere much longer. This sort of simplification to the point of inaccuracy argumentation is fine for Howard Dean Meetups and the like but it's unseemly that Conason actually is paid for it.

I think that the real problem behind much of the disagreements in this thread can best be described as steming from the logical fallacy of equivocation. In essence, terminolgy that is bandied about keeps shifting its meaning, especially in regard to the terms "liberal" and "conservative." Sorry folks--if you are guilty of this sin you are indulging in sloppy thinking.

I don't really think that such labels are of any worth; they tend to obscure issues rather than define or focus them. This is especially true when someone wishes to pigeonhole a contemporary or historical figure. People are complex and rarely fit into a given stereotype.

Big Lies by Joe Conason

Truth in advertising...

"creation of the EPA - liberals, check"

Richard Milhouse Nixon - tanned, "rested", ready and *gasp* liberal.

Alot of this is silly stuff. Conason just took longer to understand what Coulter has known for years. Throw red meat to the base and they will lap it up. Joe just took a look at the parallel universe of liberal hatred and felt a buck could be made. That alone should put down any notions of his being "un-american" just because he is liberal.

Is there anything more American than fleecing the stupid surrounding you?

(waving one hand in the back of the crowd) Excuse me, I forget. Which was it that gave us Prohibition, liberals or conservatives?

At the time, the Prohibitionists were part of the Progressive movement, seeing alcohol as the root of social evil, especially pathologies within the immigrant community.

Diversity = the new Segregation. Funny how the democrats are promoting that dinosaur again. They won't be satisfied until we are Balkanized into our own little subsections in each city.

If the guy who swindled you out of your 401K doesn't get prosecuted, thank a conservative.

When you're dumb enough to invest all your 401(k) in company stock, blame yourself.

What mj said. I consider myself a Hayekan aka classic liberal, and I ended up in Republican/libertarian camp.

"At the time, the Prohibitionists were part of the Progressive movement, seeing alcohol as the root of social evil, especially pathologies within the immigrant community."

I believe those pathologies were a foundation for the eugenics movement as well.

Amitava Mazumdar writes:

At the time, the Prohibitionists were part of the Progressive movement, seeing alcohol as the root of social evil, especially pathologies within the immigrant community.

Which brings us to what I think is a crucial point. I also agree that the whole "conservative"/"liberal" labelling is meaningless now, but even the dichotomy is strange: in the literal sense, conservative is not the opposite of liberal. Conservative is the opposite of progressive; authoritarian is the opposite of liberal.

Frankly, all the common political terms today are used (one may say abused) in such a way that the original meaning of the words no longer applies. We have "progressives" who are fighting to keep the status quo, and "conservatives" who want to make big changes: it's the "progressive" that wants to keep the "conservatives" from making changes to affirmative action programs, and the "conservative" who wants big changes made to them (a removal is a big change), because he believes that doing so would redress a fundamental injustice or cure a social ill. The two groups seem to have switched labels, but in terms of trying to change society, it seems like today's "conservatives" would seem to have quite a bit more in common with the progressives of yore, than would the status-quo "progressives" of today. The "progressives" of today act not at all unlike the conservatives of earlier years, warning of fire and brimstone and societal collapse that will result if changes proposed by today's "conservatives" are put into practice. The dimwits who snarled traffic in our cities and staged various sit-ins, teach-ins, and vomit-ins to prevent the invasion of Iraq called themselves "progressives," but they were really conservatives -- reactionaries, in fact -- trying to preserve at any cost the internationalist legal order that they believed Bush was violating by his "unilateral" invasion. (Of course, a good number were simply idiots, who couldn't articulate a real position if their life depended on it. They were simply "against" something -- war, Bush, whatever -- but this precludes them from being true progressives, by definition.)

It's enough to give you a headache, but I'm not done yet. The word progressive is itself a loaded term, with a presumed positive connotation that it hasn't earned. It was the progressives of the 20th century that created Marxism, communism, fascism, Nazism, eugenics and the "master race" and the Holocaust, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere... It was the progressives of Cambodia who emptied the cities and filled the killing fields, the progressives of Iran who created the Islamic Republic, and Koran-driven progressives from Araby who casually killed over 3,000 New Yorkers in the name of their progress. Yet none of these take away from other accomplishments also given to us by progressives: from the end of slavery and the instillment of principles of racial equality, to the very idea that government legitimacy derives from the governed. Progressive is a morally neutral term; it simply implies a change in society.

Conason's cheap parlor trick is to use that conflation and lack of distinction to score his points, and many people have already pointed this out. He does, in fact, claim for the "liberals" only those changes that, with hindsight, were deemed positive. (Of course, like many, he substitutes liberals for left-wing progressives; one could hardly claim that laws banning child labor or enshrining protection of the environment create a more liberal -- that is, a more free -- society.) Still, there is no shortage of other things that left-wing progressives are responsible for: where is Conason's demand that we thank his side for Stalin's collectivizations, the Great Leap Forward, or the "accomplishments" of Pol Pot? Where does he pause to thank those icky conservatives of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s for keeping the Nazi and fascist progressives from dominating the planet, and for keeping the various other far-left progressives from making their own societies too weak to resist them? Where does he thank the pro-market conservatives for keeping Western economies from ruin at the hands of the communist and far-left-socialist progressives -- that is, where does he thank them for keeping him out of bread lines and empty food stores?

The whole thing is B.S. Yes, I thank the progressives who created a government that respects my right to speak and worship as I please; yes, I am grateful to those who made education universal; yes, I am glad someone is out there to stomp on the snake-oil salesmen. But no, I won't take these achievements to mean that all progressive ideas are positive or benign; thanks, but history teaches otherwise. Nor am I about to accept that Left-wing ideas are always positive or benign: history teaches otherwise on that, too. Progressivism, conservatism, liberalism, and authoritarianism are not good or bad in and of themselves; it's the results that matter, and all sides have much to be proud of, and much to be ashamed of. Lame-ass wankery like "if your food is edible, thank a liberal" are as meaningless as they are moronic; the equal-and-opposite moronic response is, "if your food didn't require you to stand in line for three hours, thank a conservative." The ending of racial segregation no more lends no moral weight to the institution of government-paid health care, just as standing up to Communism doesn't give moral weight to reducing environmental protections. Both have to be argued on their own merits, without lame-assed references to accomplishments that are often not yours to claim.

OK, I'm done now -- I think we can all be thankful for that.

Doh.

The ending of racial segregation no more lends no moral weight to the institution of government-paid health care, just as standing up to Communism doesn't give moral weight to reducing environmental protections.

Sorry about that.

So, what would these historical figures - Teddy Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln, Martin Luther King - who have been christened "liberals" by Joe & co. say if they were alive today?

Would Teddy be in favor of raising taxes to pay for everyone's medical bills?
Would Lincoln declare, "sure, the US should be subservient to the UN, especially the ICC."
Would King say, "I don't see anything wrong with gay marriages."*
Would any of them be deeply offended by, say, a statue of the Ten Commandements in front of city hall?

HELL NO. They'd be considered conservatives, and regularly whined about by lefty commentators.

Joe takes credit for every positive change that he claims liberals brought about, but selectively forgets that CHANGE IS NOT ALWAYS GOOD. Stalin, after all, was a liberal.

*You may want to look up some of King's comments on homosexuals before answering that.

If you're feeling tyrannized, thank politicians.

Aw, now, Joey the latte liberal is just trying to schlep books, not make sense. He saw how Ann Coulter, et al, mad a bundle creaming the left, and he saw dollar signs and a little payback.

Good on'em if anyone buys the silly thing.

"Lenin and Stalin could both be charitably described as 'liberal'."

Ummm, no.

The liberal party in Russia (the Kadet party) were part of the short-lived coalition government post-February revolution (which included the Kadets, the agrarian [Right] Social Revolutionaries, and the Menscheviks), led by Kerensky (an ex-Menschevik) that Lenin & Trotsky *overthrew* in the 1917 October revolution.

The Kadets fought against the Bolsheviks in the Civil war, and established a short-lived democracy in the Crimean peninsular after the Germans withdrew, which was overthrown by the Bolsheviks in 1919. Lenin, in an order to the Cheka, declared the Kadets "enemies of the people".

Even now, Marxist-Leninists consider "liberal" a term of insult. Do a google on "bourgeouis liberals" and you'll see what I mean.

"It was the progressives of the 20th century that gave us..."

Progressives in FDR/Truman administration (Ascheson & Marshall) & the Atlee government in the UK (Ernie Bevin) gave you NATO, folks. Didn't stop Nixon & McCarthy trying to smear Acheson.

I've not read all of the comments, so perhaps this has been mentioned. But you seem to be under the mistaken impression that liberal = Democrat and it has been so throughout history. Um, no.

Stalin, after all, was a liberal.

Oh for crying out loud.

From dictionary.com:
lib·er·al·ism    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (lbr--lzm, lbr-)
n.
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

The term liberal has been manipulated in the U S in part to demonize the mainstream.

May a suggest some definitions:

The Left:
Power should ultimately rest with a State with a rational Plan, and its Experts

The Right:
Power should ultimately rest with a Nation with clear Values, and its Leaders

The Liberal:
Power should ultimately rest with the citizen.

Another good definition of liberalism:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Once upon a time "liberal" meant to support individual liberty, our right to action without interferance by others. By that definition, contemporary liberals aren't. If by "liberal" one means "generous," perhaps contemporary liberals are, but they force other people to cough up the treasure with which they display their humble generosity of spirit.
To force one person to support another against his will is known as "involuntary servitude," a fifty-dollar term for "slavery." It matters not how good one's intentions are, to do this is wrong.

Once upon a time "liberal" meant to support individual liberty, our right to action without interferance by others
Except where such action would interefer with others.

Brett, you seem to have brought into the myth that things like welfare, public education etc. are displays of consciences. They are not. It is a recognition of they fact that large numbers of poor, ignorant, desperate people deprive the economy of labor, raise crime rates and most importantly are a danger to democracy. The hope is that the wealth saved will offset the wealth taxed.

You might disagree with the execution, but dont misunderstand the motive.

If by "liberal" one means "generous," perhaps contemporary liberals are, but they force other people to cough up the treasure with which they display their humble generosity of spirit.
To force one person to support another against his will is known as "involuntary servitude," a fifty-dollar term for "slavery." It matters not how good one's intentions are, to do this is wrong.

So I guess that means you are against the invasion, occupation and reconstruction of Iraq then?

"My goodness -- how did we ever survive as a nation with Abe Lincoln sneaking out of the White House at night to poison our food?"

Do let's cut the crap, dear. Lincoln -- to put it mildly -- was the liberal of his day (he may even have had flat-out socialist tendencies, given the speeches he delivered on the exploitation of "labor" by "capital"). The Party of Lincoln ceased being the Party of Lincoln back in 1876, when it sold out Southern blacks to put Rutherford B. Hayes into the White House; and ever since then it's been moving further and further to the Right of the Democrats. Since 1964, it's officially been the Party of Jefferson Davis.

As for your commentators: my, oh, my. I had no idea there were so many self-proclaimed Ayn Randians and Social Darwinists left in the world, or that so many of them have managed to find your site.

That, of course, is not to mention the fact that it's cretinous to say that Conason was accusing Republicans of "sneaking out of the White House to poison our food" -- he was just pointing that, throughout the past century, it's been the Right that has repeatedly fought tooth and nail against even the most elementary measures to improve the living conditions of the non-wealthy if it required the wealthy making any sacrifices whatsoever. (Not that that would disturb some of your commentators; let's Let The The Poor Die And Reduce the Surplus Population, or maybe Increase The Average IQ.)

"As for your commentators: my, oh, my. I had no idea there were so many self-proclaimed Ayn Randians and Social Darwinists left in the world, or that so many of them have managed to find your site."

Hey, Bruce! Have you gotten around to suing your high school English teachers for malpractice yet?

*reads Bruce's posts*

Be sure to ask for punitive damages--the situation certainly merits it.

"it's been the Right that has repeatedly fought tooth and nail against even the most elementary measures to improve the living conditions of the non-wealthy if it required the wealthy making any sacrifices whatsoever. (Not that that would disturb some of your commentators; let's Let The The Poor Die And Reduce the Surplus Population, or maybe Increase The Average IQ.)"

And, of course, it's been the Left that has shrugged at the reports of millions being starved and shot in Communist countries and muttered something about needing to break eggs to make omlets before moving on to the next victim. . .er, I mean "liberated nation."

If you are willing to burn someone's house to the ground in the name of the environment, thank Liberals. If your schools suck thank Liberals. If your power goes out because the activists stopped all new nuclear, nat. gas, oil, or coal power plants, thank Liberals. If it is impossible to get tenure because your political beliefs are not correct, thank Liberals. If your son is made to feel like a criminal just for being male, thank Liberals......

Joe doesn't understand that today's Liberals are against liberty. Kudos for many of the things that were done in the day by both Democrat and Republican liberals. Today, most Liberals are either left-wing fascist or too stupid to realize they are facilatating them.

BTW, as soon as the Dems. become consistently pro-liberty their fortunes will reverse and the world will become a better place.

If you are willing to burn someone's house to the ground in the name of the environment, thank Liberals. If your schools suck thank Liberals. If your power goes out because the activists stopped all new nuclear, nat. gas, oil, or coal power plants, thank Liberals. If it is impossible to get tenure because your political beliefs are not correct, thank Liberals. If your son is made to feel like a criminal just for being male, thank Liberals......

Joe doesn't understand that today's Liberals are against liberty. Kudos for many of the things that were done in the day by both Democrat and Republican liberals. Today, most Liberals are either left-wing fascist or too stupid to realize they are facilatating them.

BTW, as soon as the Dems. become consistently pro-liberty their fortunes will reverse and the world will become a better place.

DUNCAN YOUNG DECIDED TO SPEW:

"The Liberal:
Power should ultimately rest with the citizen."

But isn't that EXACTLY the opposite of what Joe Conaesco is saying? All these "liberal" reforms he keeps praising ultimately take power AWAY from the individual - i.e. the Governemnt decides what healthy food is, not the farmer or the grocer.

Ah, but your definitions are sadly typical of the left - "Liberal means whatever I want it to mean, so long as it makes ME look good."

"That, of course, is not to mention the fact that it's cretinous to say that Conason was accusing Republicans of "sneaking out of the White House to poison our food" -- he was just pointing that, throughout the past century, it's been the Right that has repeatedly fought tooth and nail against even the most elementary measures to improve the living conditions of the non-wealthy if it required the wealthy making any sacrifices whatsoever."

That's because all these "sacrifices" demanded of the wealthy produced practically nothing of benefit to the non-wealthy in comparison to the relentless rise in living standards produced by the technological and material progress that free people in a capitalist system had been consistently delivering without those sacrifices. And they keep on delivering, not because of, but in spite of, all the "sacrifices" that are demanded of them.

In comparison to that, all of the benefits that Mr. Conason takes credit for are lost in the noise. (The costs, unfortunately, are not.)

"(Not that that would disturb some of your commentators; let's Let The The Poor Die And Reduce the Surplus Population, or maybe Increase The Average IQ.)"

No, it's Let The Poor Live Like Yesterday's Kings, And Let Tomorrow's Poor Live Like Today's Evil Plutocrats. That's what free people in a capitalist system can do, and they'll do it a lot faster if everyone would get the hell out of their way.

And if we stopped screwing around with the health care system, forcing pharmaceuticals to waste years playing Mother May I before they're allowed to sell what they spend billions of dollars developing to willing customers, threatening to shut down research because cloning is bad (why? just because), then maybe, just maybe, we'll live to see 2100 and beyond. But I can guarandamntee you that you won't see National Health Care in 2100... if it passes, you're screwed, cause that anti-aging treatment ain't gonna happen.

"Brett, you seem to have brought into the myth that things like welfare, public education etc. are displays of consciences. They are not. It is a recognition of they fact that large numbers of poor, ignorant, desperate people deprive the economy of labor, raise crime rates and most importantly are a danger to democracy. The hope is that the wealth saved will offset the wealth taxed."

All sorts of captial investments benefit the whole society. Investments in new factories increase the supply of whatever products those factories turn out, and make them easier and cheaper to obtain. Investments in new and improved supply chains make retail products easier and cheaper to obtain for everybody. But the government doesn't require these improvements, and it doesn't even subside them, but people make those improvements voluntarily.

Why? Because they get a return on their investment. They end up wealthier than they were before they made the investment. This is enough to induce people to make those investments.

Education is the same way. People who educate themselves are making a capital investment. That investment increases the rate at which they can produce value... every hour they work is worth $30, or $40, or $50, or even $100, rather than $8 or $10. And, as you say, when people educate themselves, the rest of us benefit from this increased value. So do the individuals in question, which is plenty of inducement to get them to make the investment. No need for government to provide or require it.

"Well using Conason's definition they were conservative...Lincoln wanted to "Conserve" the union.
Actually, Monkeyboy, Lincoln wanted to "preserve" the Union-- but that doesn't mean he kept fruits from spoiling.

"Lenin and Stalin could both be charitably described as 'liberal'."
Right, Joe-- on Bizarro World!

"It was the progressives of the 20th century that created...the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere...the progressives of Iran who created the Islamic Republic, and Koran-driven progressives from Araby who casually killed over 3,000 New Yorkers..."
So Emperor-worshipping militarists and Fundamentalist Islam fanatics are progressives, too. Certainly a creative definition, E. Nough-- but wait, he's not done!
"Where does he (Conason) pause to thank those icky conservatives of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s for keeping the Nazi and fascist progressives from dominating t