The Republican Party is increasingly dominated by extremist voices who claim government is always bad and that every problem is better solved by God and the free market (two invisible hands often comingled, contra Scripture and Adam Smith). In my online conversations, representatives of this GOP free-market fundamentalism often project their extremism and claim that I want government to solve every problem. Such accusations misrepresent my practical politics, as my opposition to President Obama's and Governor Daugaard's education policies, Madison's proposed tax-subsidized thrift store, and a big central sewer for Lake Herman make clear.
These GOP extremists want to justify their absolutism with a false dilemma against an opposing absolutism. But they are fighting their own fantasies, not the reality of my or most Democrats' politics. There is no comparable extremism on the Democratic side of the aisle. Dems are the pragmatists, like Adam Smith, seeking the best use of government where it has a proper role to ensure maximum liberty for all. Republicans are the absolutists, seeking to drown government in the bathtub and free their richest friends to do whatever they want. But they ignore the liberty everyone loses when government shuts down:
Who will build bridges, provide sewage systems, national defense, roads, airports, water systems, and so on if not the government? Who will force internalization of all costs of production if not the government? Who else can overcome adverse selection, information, and moral hazard problems in health and retirement markets? Conservatives can come up with stories about how the private sector will overcome these problems and provide goods in each case, but historically these goods simply haven't been provided, at least not at the scale and breadth needed. That's why government stepped in to begin with. To think it will somehow be different this time if government stepped out of the way is highly wishful thinking [Mark Thoma, "Extreme Politics Will Make the U.S. the Biggest Loser," The Fiscal Times, 2012.06.19].
Government doesn't do everything well, but it provides a number of vital public services more effectively and affordably than the free market ever will.
Note that Republican anti-government absolutism usually can't withstand clear self-interest. Consider the furor in Hot Springs over the proposed closure of the Department of Veterans Affairs health care facility there. The VA could save $26 million a year by moving a large portion of its operations from Hot Springs to a new facility in Rapid City. But in Fall River County, where Republicans outnumber Democrats by more than 2 to 1, crowds rally to demand that, beyond its mission to provide the best health care in America, the VA keep spending more money than its mission requires in order to provide government jobs that the free market apparently will not bring to Hot Springs.
Supporters of the Hot Springs VA, just like those who boost Ellsworth Air Force Base and increased federal spending on pine beetle mitigation, show the fragility of the Republican free-market extremism. Show regular folks, even hard-core West River conservatives, that the government is us, working together in our common interest, and they become pro-government activists really quickly.
No comment.
The whole idea that corporations will naturally do what's best for people, to me, is completely baffling and wantonly ignorant. It's as if the entire financial crisis didn't happen. Bank regulations disappeared, and suddenly the banks were tripping over themselves to rip people off and get their money, and boom! Suddenly the economy is in recession.
I can't actually think of an example when regulations on corporations have been lifted to the profit of everyone.
Here's something to chew on, right-wingers: How will the CEOs, etc, of corporations make more money, faster? A) Carefully managing their business and economy to create a stable economic situation for everyone in which all people have the means to buy the product from the company, or B) Rip off as many people as fast as you can for as much as you can, and if the company starts going down, abandon ship for another position elsewhere where you can continue to get loads of money?
The idea that corporations can and will provide for the world because its in their best interests is only supported by the idea that a corporation is itself an entity choosing what happens. This is false. A corporation is composed of many individual people who are looking out for themselves first. Corporations are not run with the interests of the corporation first, but the interests of the CEOs, Presidents, VPs, etc, first. If something that makes the CEO $10,000,000 will also help the corporation, that's great for the corporation. If it doesn't help, or even hurts the corporation, then that's just too bad for the corporation.
Well said Carter. It's kind of fun watching Rep. Noem do a little jig when she's called on to explain how her balancing the budget rhetoric jives with her tax cuts for the rich and more federal spending for SD positions. But are people really that ignorant to buy into all of the convoluted explanations that come out of her mouth? ... Yeah, I think so too. Their eyes glaze over long before she finishes talking. And she sure do have a purty mouth.
Who will build the roads if the government doesn't ?
Better question: Short of borrowing 100% of what it needs, how can the government build ANY roads without first extorting taxes from the private sector ?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Why not let the people of the community pool their money together if they need a road and hire a contractor to do the work ? (After all, the state or local government would hire a contractor to do the work anyway)
That way the taxpayers would have the added bonus of not having to waste a good portion of their tax dollars on paper-pushers and bureaucrats - and could funnel 100% of their money toward the construction of the road.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The history of our country is replete with numerous examples of privately funded road construction (which, of course, folks like Herr Heidelberger would rather you not know about)
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/private-highways-in-america-1792-1916/
Better question: Why is everyone so damned selfish?
Jack, people of the community already do pool their money to carry out such projects... through community government.
Jack
And the taxpayers would also have the added bonus of paying for the extra share of the road for their neighbors who will not pay anything because they deem a road unnecessary. They will say "if Jack wants a road let him pay for it ". In your private road building scheme how would you insure that everyone pitches in and the road gets built?
"show the fragility of the Republican free-market extremism. " Not sure if the fragility is the main point. Their incredible hypocrisy is what burns me the most.
The irrelevance of their economic mythology is what voters should be most concerned about. Obama, Democrats, and economists offer medicine, and Republicans want to add more poison to the market place.
Meanwhile...South Dakota's two senators voted to strip $4.5 billion from food stamps to make sure that Kristi Noem's family could still profit from the sale of crop insurance subsidized by all taxpayers.
GOP = privatize profit and socialize risk.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/06/19/152858/congress-shouldnt-pass-farm-bill.html
No bill is perfect by any stretch of the imagination...but I'm guessing that when all is said and done with the farm bill, more will be said and done for those with money than for those without.
Senators Johnson and Thune...care to weigh in on this one?
It would be difficult to compare yourself to Adam Smith, while calling Republicans "extremists," if your Socialist beliefs were acknowledged to the world. So it is understandable, considering your political tactics, that you didn't want Carter pointing out your political views quite so loudly to the entire classroom.
So Matt and Kristi are mixing it up a little on KELOLAND.
For me the money quote is:... "My fingerprints are all over this farm bill and they'll continue to be because that's how we're going to get the best bill that's good for South Dakota," Noem said.
Thanks Kristi, we'll keep that in our memory. Any sneak peaks on subsidized crop insurance that your husband sells at a very handsome profit?
http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm/Varilek_Questions_Noems_Participation/?Id=133285
Sheer fabrication by Bree. My politics are quite public. I do not trumpet my politics in the classroom, but I do not punish any students for discussing theirs. And Adam Smith is on my side: government has proper roles to check the excesses and mitigate the failures of powerful profiteers.
Not only sheer fabrication, Cory. Not even related. Once again we see an attempt to redirect a conversation that puts pressure on her right-wing beliefs. It seems to be an innate reaction since most of the posts (except Jana's) were completely unsourced. I wouldn't think it would be that hard for anyone who understands their own ideology to come up with some refutation for what previous posters said. Troy could do it.
Sorry, Bree. You're going to need to come up with a better defense for Tea-Partiers (or even just regular old Republicans) than personal attacks.
This topic reminds me of the song Scatman's World, particularly the line "Everybody's born to compete as he chooses/But how can someone win when winning means that someone loses?"
To quote Carter:
"Bree, I had Cory for Speech. That’s Language Arts, right? He didn’t jump up and down with his socialism. In fact, he didn’t seem altogether pleased with my pro-socialism speech, although that was more likely because it was terrible speech than because it was about socialism. So I wouldn’t say that language arts teachers are going to shove socialism down your throat."
https://madvilletimes.com/2012/06/daugaard-not-conservative-contend-2014-minded-howie-pals/#comment-61085
First you call me a liar, and then you put words in my mouth. At what point did I ever say you punished your students for discussing their political views?
Carter, my eyes tend to glaze over when I read your posts. And then when I'm done reading, I yawn and ask myself "okay, now where was the point in the middle of all that B.S.?"
You bring up comments from another thread to insult Cory here? I didn't even say you weren't responding to my post. I couldn't care less if you don't respond to my post. You weren't responding to anyone's post. You were just insulting Cory.
And as for my comment about Cory punishing me for expressing my beliefs in class, I was more or less joking. I've been well aware since he said it several years ago that his problem was with the fact that I essentially switched topics mid-speech, which doesn't make for a very good speech. The only reason I remember it is because it was the first speech I did where I said, "I bet I can do this without preparing!", and it turned out about as well as one can expect from not preparing fora speech.
"Extremism" or "extremist" appears 5 times in this blog post in reference to Republicans. "Absolutist" or "absolutism" appears 4 times also in reference to Republicans. Meanwhile Cory refers to his politics as "practical" and then calls Democrats "pragmatists, like Adam Smith.."
And meanwhile, in another blog post, the pragmatic liberals attempt to come up with a marketing tag line for HB 1234.
Here's another attempt by Carter to move this conversation away from a logical debate of any issues by using inappropriate language with the wrong connotations for descriptors. I am "fabricating" while "insulting" Cory apparently. Who knew.
I'm curious why Noem takes all the heat for the move in the Farm Bill away from price supports to crop insurance when Thune, Johnson, Noem and Varilek have virtually the same position. If it is because Noem's family sells insurance? Since her family's commission pales in comparison to what an average farmer gets, no South Dakotan who has family in agriculture should serve in Congress. And, no spouse of a teacher should serve in the legislature.
From a liberal perspective, there is much to criticize Noem for with regard to her views. Let's debate those. But, c'mon. The focus on a policy position which has unfailing support from the Farm Bureau and Farmer's Union, the entire delegation and those who aspire to be in Congress, and Obama/Romney is a blatant ad hominem attack.
Come on, Troy. She takes the heat because she courts the Tea Party anti-government vote but then votes to protect exactly the big-government corporate welfare payments that have kept her farm afloat. My calls for increased support for education, for example, are at least consistent with my communitarian politics and the lifetime commitment I've made to working in education.
To use the word "anti-government" in reference to any Republican is simply incorrect. That word could only logically apply to anarchists or possibly pure libertarians.
Cory, basically what you are saying it is all about ideology. I'm for governing. This is a good Farm Bill. JT, TJ, and KN all had there role in making it better. MV isn't there so he had no effect but even if he were there, at best, would have accomplished the same thing.