ARS on Twitter
RSS
The Progressive Tantrum
Posted by Duncan on February 8th, 2010
I’ve personally seen some of my progressive friends throw their own temper-tantrum and lament the filibuster rule in the Senate, openly proclaiming that “since when is 41 greater than 59″ and that the European’s parliamentary system doesn’t suffer from the problems our system does. Blah. Blah. Blah.
Well, Arnold Kling has a pretty good article over at the Library of Economics and Liberty entitled “The Progressive Tantrum“.
A quick taste:
Everyone agrees that the Republicans are just throwing sand in the gears of good government and not offering any ideas. What that means is that they are not offering ideas to enlarge government.
(snip)
My point here is not to champion Republicans. It is not to champion democracy. My point is that the ones throwing the temper tantrum right now are the Progressives. They think that the 2008 election gave them the right to operate like China’s autocracy, and they are lashing out hysterically at those they perceive as preventing them from doing so On the one hand, the villains are a small minority in the Senate. Or maybe the villains are the incoherent majority of the people.
The important point is that Progressives are never wrong.
Kling also has some examples of the Progressives lamentations (from a Thomas Friedman column) that we don’t have more of an authoritarian system that would allow us to bypass this troublesome system our Founders set up:
One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.
Seriously. Expect more of this, especially as the progressives start to see their greatest opportunity evaporate into a dissipating mist….
February 8th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Remind me: who was in charge of the Senate when this rule was passed?
Case closed.
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:58 pm
I think we need to make the Senate filibuster-proof majority lower, probably 51, effective 8 years from now. (When we don’t know who will be in power at the time).
Stopping reform does not stop the problem. This is not a problem that can only be seen through different ideologies.
Progressives, and independents and moderates will not see their movement dissolve but grow and all Americans will feel more of the consequences of the crisis:
1. Health care costs will still go up at an insane rate
2. People will still be uninsured
3. Far more will be uninsured
4. The vast majority of bankruptcies will still continue to be the result of Americans not being able to pay their bills.
5. Health insurance companies (not evil, part of a systemic problem) will continue to deny coverage based on annual, lifetime limits and pre-existing conditions.
That will not dissolve.
And more and more people will join the ranks of progressives wanting more drastic and extreme changes to the sytem currently in place.
What you will see, as a result, is a complete government takeover of the health care system.
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:55 pm
“I think we need to make the Senate filibuster-proof majority lower, probably 51, effective 8 years from now.”
Terri, the filibuster itself is not a constitutional creature, but created by the Senate themselves, but for good reason. It prevents a simple majority, that is, 51 percent, from prevailing against the other 49 percent. This is very important because the Senate is not intended to be a democratic institution, that’s the House. The Senate is supposed to be a check on this, and the filibuster allows that to happen. As frustrating as the filibuster is to many, I think it would be a dangerous precedent to set it so low… it ceases to be a filibuster…
“Stopping reform does not stop the problem. This is not a problem that can only be seen through different ideologies.”
When those ideologies conflict with the U.S. Constitution and our system that was set up to protect liberty, then the problem needs to be corrected with solutions that do NOT violate the Constitution and our rights.
As far as the problem as far as the costs of health care and health insurance. First of all, neither are a “right”. I know that sounds harsh, but they’re not. They are products to be purchased, unless ofcourse, you believe that you have a right to aspirin at a cheap rate because your good health is a “right”.
Second, I have the position that more government IS the problem, not the solution. i believe they are a major reason we are in the situation we are in today. Get THEM out of the way, and let the system work.
You can look at the rest of the world, watch as they come TO the U.S. for quality health care when it matters, they don’t stay at home. I like that we have the best health care in the world…
And if it gets as bad as you say it will get, with NObody able to afford health care and the U.S. in financial disaster, then the insurance companies go out of business, and the doctors won’t have any patients. Man, that’ll hurt THEIR bank accounts with nobody able to afford their services. It’d be like having Fords, Chevies, Kias costing like Ferrari’s…. nobody would be able to buy them and they’d be just as rare and just as small of companies…. ain’t going to happen. But it is scary to talk about….
“And more and more people will join the ranks of progressives wanting more drastic and extreme changes to the sytem currently in place.
What you will see, as a result, is a complete government takeover of the health care system.”
Heh. Sure. Those who realize that the progressive will play Robin Hood with other people’s money will gravitate that way. But to claim that the progressives will in any way see more growth because of this is laughable at best. You sound like the Iraqi Information Minister when you talk like that…
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:27 am
Whether the Democrats or the Republicans rule in the Senate, the problem is the people who are elected there. They should be more concerned with the welfare of the people and not just protect the interests of those who helped them be elected in their office.