Sunday, May 03, 2009
A Contrary Opinion
Having passed my 86th birthday, I have to keep proving to myself that my brain is still functioning as well as it did on my 76th birthday, my 66th birthday, etc. As you conclude when you read this blog, I belong to a class of writers who are loosely called “liberal.” In fact, my friend H considers me to be a far leftie, perhaps even more “left” than Senator Kennedy.
I plead guilty to H’s charge. H and I exchange e-mails often. We accuse each other of being set in our ways of thinking. He can not think of a single good thing to say about “liberals.” I can not think of a good thing to say about “conservatives.”
There is a reporter here in Los Angeles who writes a blog about the political doings, both above and below the board, in our city. I wrote to a friend that he seems to be concerned about inefficiency, waste, and fraud in government and that these are standard and respectable Republican issues. My friend wrote back that the reporter is actually a Democrat. Democrat or Republican, I have to approve of his task of exposing inefficiency, waste, and fraud among our civic leaders.
My thinking doesn’t always go in a straight line. This experience of guessing wrong about the reporter’s political preference led me to consider writing an essay about an imaginary debate, in the style of Galileo, with characters defending and attacking the admirable features of conservative and liberal thought. I realized that I am no Galileo, and decided instead to try to write something to justify the thinking of an honest and sincere conservative. Most of the time I think of H as honest and sincere, even though wrong.
Conservative thought in this country seems centered on the question of government. How big and powerful should government be? Should government try to stave off a severe depression by spending oodles of money to spur the economy, as Mr. Obama is doing? It seems to me that an honest conservative fears the consequences of a government powerful enough to prevent a depression as being worse than the depression itself. Hence, there is sincere conservative opposition to Obama’s economic plan.
I have to concede that there is good reason for this conservative fear. The world has been treated to countries that managed their economies. A good example is the former Soviet Union. The government not only set goals for all the various economic activities in the country, but also used its power to stifle criticism and dissent. Although many argue that Russia, as part of the Soviet Union, was a special case in that criticism and dissent were never encouraged under the previous regime of the czar, we all have to respect the saying of the British political philosopher Lord Acton, that “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Both Czar Nicholas and Josef Stalin demonstrated the validity of that saying.
One definition of conservatism is that the conservative knows that conditions are not very good, but he or she is reluctant to try to make changes because the changed condition may be worse than the original one. “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.” At present we know about the devil of depression. Or, at least we think we do. We forget that a severe depression can lead to a revolution. Franklin Roosevelt could not prevent or cure the great Depression of the 1930’s but I believe that he did save the nation from a communist revolution. A conservative probably wouldn’t share my belief.
To summarize, conservatives fear big government. They have good reasons. Liberals like me, who advocate some serious reforms in certain aspects of society, like health care and the welfare of workers, have to be able to convince conservatives to take some chances on experiments. Obama’s economic policy is an experiment. A change in our health care system will be an experiment. There are degrees to the depth of belief among conservatives. Some will agree to some experimentation, others will not. We liberals will have to make compelling arguments and be willing to accept compromises that we won’t like very much if we are going to persuade the public to try to make changes.
I’ll leave the original question to you, the reader. Is my brain (mind) operating as well as it did ten, twenty, thirty, or more years ago? Do you detect incipient mental degradation? Am I about to succumb to dementia? I certainly hope not.
I plead guilty to H’s charge. H and I exchange e-mails often. We accuse each other of being set in our ways of thinking. He can not think of a single good thing to say about “liberals.” I can not think of a good thing to say about “conservatives.”
There is a reporter here in Los Angeles who writes a blog about the political doings, both above and below the board, in our city. I wrote to a friend that he seems to be concerned about inefficiency, waste, and fraud in government and that these are standard and respectable Republican issues. My friend wrote back that the reporter is actually a Democrat. Democrat or Republican, I have to approve of his task of exposing inefficiency, waste, and fraud among our civic leaders.
My thinking doesn’t always go in a straight line. This experience of guessing wrong about the reporter’s political preference led me to consider writing an essay about an imaginary debate, in the style of Galileo, with characters defending and attacking the admirable features of conservative and liberal thought. I realized that I am no Galileo, and decided instead to try to write something to justify the thinking of an honest and sincere conservative. Most of the time I think of H as honest and sincere, even though wrong.
Conservative thought in this country seems centered on the question of government. How big and powerful should government be? Should government try to stave off a severe depression by spending oodles of money to spur the economy, as Mr. Obama is doing? It seems to me that an honest conservative fears the consequences of a government powerful enough to prevent a depression as being worse than the depression itself. Hence, there is sincere conservative opposition to Obama’s economic plan.
I have to concede that there is good reason for this conservative fear. The world has been treated to countries that managed their economies. A good example is the former Soviet Union. The government not only set goals for all the various economic activities in the country, but also used its power to stifle criticism and dissent. Although many argue that Russia, as part of the Soviet Union, was a special case in that criticism and dissent were never encouraged under the previous regime of the czar, we all have to respect the saying of the British political philosopher Lord Acton, that “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Both Czar Nicholas and Josef Stalin demonstrated the validity of that saying.
One definition of conservatism is that the conservative knows that conditions are not very good, but he or she is reluctant to try to make changes because the changed condition may be worse than the original one. “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.” At present we know about the devil of depression. Or, at least we think we do. We forget that a severe depression can lead to a revolution. Franklin Roosevelt could not prevent or cure the great Depression of the 1930’s but I believe that he did save the nation from a communist revolution. A conservative probably wouldn’t share my belief.
To summarize, conservatives fear big government. They have good reasons. Liberals like me, who advocate some serious reforms in certain aspects of society, like health care and the welfare of workers, have to be able to convince conservatives to take some chances on experiments. Obama’s economic policy is an experiment. A change in our health care system will be an experiment. There are degrees to the depth of belief among conservatives. Some will agree to some experimentation, others will not. We liberals will have to make compelling arguments and be willing to accept compromises that we won’t like very much if we are going to persuade the public to try to make changes.
I’ll leave the original question to you, the reader. Is my brain (mind) operating as well as it did ten, twenty, thirty, or more years ago? Do you detect incipient mental degradation? Am I about to succumb to dementia? I certainly hope not.
Labels: Conservatism, Czar Nicholas, dementia, Franklin Roosevelt, old age, Senator Kennedy, Stalin
Saturday, April 19, 2008
SHOULD OUR PRESIDENT BE JUST LIKE “ONE OF US” OR SHOULD HE/SHE BE SMARTER THAN I AM?
Some news pundits are dumping on Barack Obama for recent comments he has made about working-class people in small towns being “bitter.” Senator Obama, in common with Senators Clinton and McCain and, in fact, all the other ninety-seven senators, is a rich man. Does being rich and having a Harvard law degree disqualify him from being President? Mr. Obama was not born rich. He was raised by a single mother in straightened circumstances. By hard work, skill, intelligence, and good luck he was able to earn a law degree at Harvard University and go on to a successful career in Illnions politics and eventually become a United States Senator. In the process he has also amassed a personal fortune. That is to say, he is now a lot richer than I am.
Compared with Senators Clinton and McCain, it seems to me that Obama should have the best appreciation from his own life experience of what the “bitter” working-class folks in small towns are experiencing. He lived in poverty as a child. Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. McCain can make that claim. Actually, they can, but no one will believe them.
Does a childhood of poverty or near poverty qualify one to be President? Presidents Lincoln, Truman, and Nixon come to mind. Lincoln and Truman are rightly revered. Nixon is scorned for his crimes, but he was in other respects a better than average President. He managed to extricate us from Viet Nam and he created an opening to the new Mao regime in China. He tried to establish a system of universal health care. On the other hand, he spawned a school of thought, championed by Vice-President Cheney, that the President is and ought to be free of legal restraints imposed by the Congress and the Constitution.
The charge of elitist applied to Obama implies that he is not electable, not that he wouldn’t be a good President. Candidates who appear to be “elite” turn off the ordinary working-class voter, or so it is said. I don’t think that charge can be proved true by history. My recollection of Presidents and Presidential candidates goes back as far as Herbert Hoover. I recall candidates Hoover (1932), Roosevelt, Landon (1936), Willkie (1940), Dewey (1944 and 1948), Truman (1948), Stevenson (1952 and 1956), Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon (1960 and 1968), Johnson, Goldwater (1964), Humphrey (1968), McGovern (1972), Ford, Carter, Reagan, Mondale (1984), Bush I, Dukakis (1988), Clinton, Dole (1996), Gore, Bush II, and Kerry. I’m not sure of which ones should be called “elitist” because I’m not sure what the word means. However, I’ll assume that it means that the person is, either in fact or by repute, a member of the “well-born and able” class rather than an ordinary person like you or me. By this definition I would classify Roosevelt, Willkie, Dewey, Stevenson, Kennedy, both Bushes, Gore, and Kerry as members of the “elite.” Out of the nine, four of these were elected to the Presidency. Eisenhower and Truman defeated “elite” candidates Dewey and Stevenson. Non-elite candidate Clinton defeated elite candidate Bush I. Bush II defeated Gore and Kerry. All three men belonged to the “elite” or “well-born and able” class. One can argue that Bush II has taken great pains to try to distance himself from the “elite” class into which he was born by adopting the speech mannerisms of poorly educated residents of western Texas. The fact remains that if he were not a member of the “elite” Bush family he would have gotten nowhere in politics.
So, there we have it. We’ve had Presidents who experienced poverty or near-poverty in childhood, Presidents of “ordinary” parents, and Presidents who were born rich. The best one in my lifetime was Roosevelt and the worst was the present Bush. Both men were born into wealthy households and had good educations. By my definition they were members of the elite. Presidents Truman, Ford, Nixon, and Clinton could all make the claim that they grew up in either poor or lower middle class households. They were “average Americans” and better than “average” Presidents. There seems to be no correlation between a President who is “just like the rest of us poor slobs” and the achievements and benefits of his term of office. Also, there seems to be no correlation between “electability” and membership or non-membership in the “elite” class.
Compared with Senators Clinton and McCain, it seems to me that Obama should have the best appreciation from his own life experience of what the “bitter” working-class folks in small towns are experiencing. He lived in poverty as a child. Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. McCain can make that claim. Actually, they can, but no one will believe them.
Does a childhood of poverty or near poverty qualify one to be President? Presidents Lincoln, Truman, and Nixon come to mind. Lincoln and Truman are rightly revered. Nixon is scorned for his crimes, but he was in other respects a better than average President. He managed to extricate us from Viet Nam and he created an opening to the new Mao regime in China. He tried to establish a system of universal health care. On the other hand, he spawned a school of thought, championed by Vice-President Cheney, that the President is and ought to be free of legal restraints imposed by the Congress and the Constitution.
The charge of elitist applied to Obama implies that he is not electable, not that he wouldn’t be a good President. Candidates who appear to be “elite” turn off the ordinary working-class voter, or so it is said. I don’t think that charge can be proved true by history. My recollection of Presidents and Presidential candidates goes back as far as Herbert Hoover. I recall candidates Hoover (1932), Roosevelt, Landon (1936), Willkie (1940), Dewey (1944 and 1948), Truman (1948), Stevenson (1952 and 1956), Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon (1960 and 1968), Johnson, Goldwater (1964), Humphrey (1968), McGovern (1972), Ford, Carter, Reagan, Mondale (1984), Bush I, Dukakis (1988), Clinton, Dole (1996), Gore, Bush II, and Kerry. I’m not sure of which ones should be called “elitist” because I’m not sure what the word means. However, I’ll assume that it means that the person is, either in fact or by repute, a member of the “well-born and able” class rather than an ordinary person like you or me. By this definition I would classify Roosevelt, Willkie, Dewey, Stevenson, Kennedy, both Bushes, Gore, and Kerry as members of the “elite.” Out of the nine, four of these were elected to the Presidency. Eisenhower and Truman defeated “elite” candidates Dewey and Stevenson. Non-elite candidate Clinton defeated elite candidate Bush I. Bush II defeated Gore and Kerry. All three men belonged to the “elite” or “well-born and able” class. One can argue that Bush II has taken great pains to try to distance himself from the “elite” class into which he was born by adopting the speech mannerisms of poorly educated residents of western Texas. The fact remains that if he were not a member of the “elite” Bush family he would have gotten nowhere in politics.
So, there we have it. We’ve had Presidents who experienced poverty or near-poverty in childhood, Presidents of “ordinary” parents, and Presidents who were born rich. The best one in my lifetime was Roosevelt and the worst was the present Bush. Both men were born into wealthy households and had good educations. By my definition they were members of the elite. Presidents Truman, Ford, Nixon, and Clinton could all make the claim that they grew up in either poor or lower middle class households. They were “average Americans” and better than “average” Presidents. There seems to be no correlation between a President who is “just like the rest of us poor slobs” and the achievements and benefits of his term of office. Also, there seems to be no correlation between “electability” and membership or non-membership in the “elite” class.
Labels: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, Bush Family, Elitism, Franklin Roosevelt, George McGovern, Harry Truman, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, wealth of Senators, working class voters
