As I've gotten more involved with the local tea party movement here in Charlottesville, I've had to explain to a few people that I do not consider myself to be a conservative. Instead, I think of myself as a liberal and a progressive.
No, really. The word "liberal" means "pro-freedom"—and you can't really be in favor of freedom unless you advocate economic freedom. Nor can you be an advocate of "progress" without recognizing the enormous, unprecedented human progress created by capitalism.
This is one of the problems I have with commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Limbaugh always refers to the left as "liberals," and Beck has been popularizing the label "progressives"—which at least has real historical roots in the proto-leftist Progressive movement of the early 20th century. But both terms give the left way too much credit. They are not liberal or progressive—they are tribalist reactionaries.
It is the American ideal of liberty that is still radical. The cause of individual rights is the real crusade for "change," historically speaking. So I don't think advocates of liberty should ever think of ourselves as merely wanting to "conserve" a historical status quo. We should think of ourselves as idealists seeking to transform the world with the radical new concept of individual rights.
Here's an example of why that mindset matters. Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan has been getting a lot of attention lately. As the top Republican on the House committee that deals with the budget, he has been sounding the alarm about the administration's runaway spending and borrowing, and he has authored his own "road map" for balancing the federal budget over the long term.
I haven't spent much time talking about Ryan's plan, because it's all pretty academic until Republicans have the votes they need—in Congress and ultimately in the White House—to attempt this kind of giant reform. But the main link below gives you an idea of how limited Ryan's plan is.
Its goal is to preserve the welfare state and the middle class entitlements, while pegging federal taxes at their "historical norm" of 19% of GDP. This really is a "conservative" plan. Its goal is to embalm the post-World-War-II mixed-economy welfare state —but a "fiscally responsible" welfare state—as if it were our new Constitution.
That's literally the case with another idea: Congressman Mike Pence's Spending Limit Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit federal spending to 20% of GDP. But this would involve writing into the Constitution the idea that it's OK for the government to take one-fifth of everything we produce. I don't remember reading that in the Federalist Papers.
I'm all for getting federal taxes and spending back below 20% of GDP. (Under Obama, both have jumped to about 25%.) But getting to 20% is just a first step toward getting to 15%, then to 10%, then below 10%, down to the very low level required to fund only the legitimate functions of government. It's just a step toward the radical, liberal, progressive vision of our Founding Fathers.
"Paul Ryan: The Roadmap Warrior," Matthew Continetti, Weekly Standard, March 10
Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America's Future would drastically overhaul the American welfare state in a free-market direction. The Congressional Budget Office says it would solve the entitlements crisis through a series of changes to Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. The Roadmap also includes a fundamental tax reform—one that Ryan says, and the CBO assumes, would bring in revenues equivalent to the long-term historical average of 19-percent of GDP….
In a statement last night, Ryan said that "the purpose of the Roadmap is to get spending in line with revenue—not the other way around." He reiterated that argument in his conversation with me today. "The point is the spending."…
The dynamic effects of Ryan's reforms are impossible to predict. Over time, government would shrink, investment would expand, and America's credit rating would improve. America would become a haven for foreign capital. Her citizens would have more individual choice and, yes, more individual responsibility. "Policies such as these," Irving Kristol wrote decades ago in his essay "The Republican Future," "have the obvious advantage of reconciling the purposes of the welfare state with the maximum degree of individual independence and the least bureaucratic coercion."
Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of "The Intellectual Activist (TIA)" and contributor to "The Freedom Fighter's Journal."
No, really. The word "liberal" means "pro-freedom"—and you can't really be in favor of freedom unless you advocate economic freedom. Nor can you be an advocate of "progress" without recognizing the enormous, unprecedented human progress created by capitalism.
This is one of the problems I have with commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Limbaugh always refers to the left as "liberals," and Beck has been popularizing the label "progressives"—which at least has real historical roots in the proto-leftist Progressive movement of the early 20th century. But both terms give the left way too much credit. They are not liberal or progressive—they are tribalist reactionaries.
It is the American ideal of liberty that is still radical. The cause of individual rights is the real crusade for "change," historically speaking. So I don't think advocates of liberty should ever think of ourselves as merely wanting to "conserve" a historical status quo. We should think of ourselves as idealists seeking to transform the world with the radical new concept of individual rights.
Here's an example of why that mindset matters. Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan has been getting a lot of attention lately. As the top Republican on the House committee that deals with the budget, he has been sounding the alarm about the administration's runaway spending and borrowing, and he has authored his own "road map" for balancing the federal budget over the long term.
I haven't spent much time talking about Ryan's plan, because it's all pretty academic until Republicans have the votes they need—in Congress and ultimately in the White House—to attempt this kind of giant reform. But the main link below gives you an idea of how limited Ryan's plan is.
Its goal is to preserve the welfare state and the middle class entitlements, while pegging federal taxes at their "historical norm" of 19% of GDP. This really is a "conservative" plan. Its goal is to embalm the post-World-War-II mixed-economy welfare state —but a "fiscally responsible" welfare state—as if it were our new Constitution.
That's literally the case with another idea: Congressman Mike Pence's Spending Limit Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit federal spending to 20% of GDP. But this would involve writing into the Constitution the idea that it's OK for the government to take one-fifth of everything we produce. I don't remember reading that in the Federalist Papers.
I'm all for getting federal taxes and spending back below 20% of GDP. (Under Obama, both have jumped to about 25%.) But getting to 20% is just a first step toward getting to 15%, then to 10%, then below 10%, down to the very low level required to fund only the legitimate functions of government. It's just a step toward the radical, liberal, progressive vision of our Founding Fathers.
"Paul Ryan: The Roadmap Warrior," Matthew Continetti, Weekly Standard, March 10
Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America's Future would drastically overhaul the American welfare state in a free-market direction. The Congressional Budget Office says it would solve the entitlements crisis through a series of changes to Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. The Roadmap also includes a fundamental tax reform—one that Ryan says, and the CBO assumes, would bring in revenues equivalent to the long-term historical average of 19-percent of GDP….
In a statement last night, Ryan said that "the purpose of the Roadmap is to get spending in line with revenue—not the other way around." He reiterated that argument in his conversation with me today. "The point is the spending."…
The dynamic effects of Ryan's reforms are impossible to predict. Over time, government would shrink, investment would expand, and America's credit rating would improve. America would become a haven for foreign capital. Her citizens would have more individual choice and, yes, more individual responsibility. "Policies such as these," Irving Kristol wrote decades ago in his essay "The Republican Future," "have the obvious advantage of reconciling the purposes of the welfare state with the maximum degree of individual independence and the least bureaucratic coercion."
Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of "The Intellectual Activist (TIA)" and contributor to "The Freedom Fighter's Journal."
0 comments:
Post a Comment