Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Big government conservatives are more electable than libertarians – just ask Rick Santorum


Last night I found myself discussing Canadian politics with the talk show host, Charles Adler. The subject was a new poll that reflects on the profound political changes sweeping North America.  L’Actualite reports that 37 percent of respondents feel that their country is more Right-wing than it was ten years ago, while just 15 percent say it was more Left-wing. Certainly the popularity of Stephen Harper’s Conservative government would appear to validate that opinion. Now in his seventh year as Prime Minister, Harper has pursued “severely conservative” policies that have kept recession at bay. One liberal commentator called Harper “George Bush without the warmth and intellect.”

But there’s a paradox within L’Actualite’s findings: Canadian voters might accept that the Right has won the philosophical argument but they still like aspects of social democratic policy. The newspaper reports that “56 percent of respondents agreed that the federal government has 'an important role' in redistributing wealth and intervening in the economy 'even if it means increasing taxes.' On the other hand, 36 per cent disagreed, while eight per cent were unsure.” Men were more supportive of federal intervention than women and opposition varied from region to region. But the bottom line is this: regardless of its increasingly conservative values, Canada still wants government goodies.

Compare these findings to a Washington Post poll on the US race. Respondents seem to think that Mitt Romney would be better than President Obama at handling the two biggest issues facing the electorate: the economy and the deficit. The two run pretty much even on jobs and taxes. But, respondents also say that Obama would do a better job than Romney at “protecting the middle class” – by 56 to 37 percent.

As in Canada, the conservative candidate has already won the intellectual argument. Most Americans concede that they need to cut their deficit in order to safeguard the economy. But they are obviously nervous about the things a Republican would do in order to achieve that. Obama offers them greater access to cheap healthcare and a short-term payroll tax cut. Social Security checks will keep on coming. In contrast, Romney offers them austerity and the hope that this will jumpstart the private sector.

One way of reading this is that Americans are not yet ready for a libertarian form of conservatism – a “go it alone” kind of free market fundamentalism that will leave the middle class to look out for itself. One might argue that government intervention has created the very economic mess that so hurts the middle class, but the point is academic. It doesn’t change the fact that people are nervous about deconstructing the welfare state or floating the economy on the free market.

The savviest conservatives understand that. Back when he was running for the Senate, in 2012, Florida’s Marco Rubio pledged to defend the Social Security system – because his own mother lives off it. In 2012, Rick Santorum has called himself a “Supply Sider for the working man.” Supply Side economics tries to increase productivity through tax cuts. Ordinarily, it benefits business elites but Santorum believes that this kind of activist conservatism can create manufacturing jobs and restore the blue collar class. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he admitted that his previous support for privatising Social Security had been a mistake: “Today he favors entitlement reforms that are phased in gradually and don't affect current retirees. He suggests means-testing beneficiaries and raising the early-retirement age of 62 by one month each year. He has also learned from the Bush experience the importance of having a national discussion that builds consensus for reform.”

Call it activist conservatism or even big government conservatism, but it remains more electorally viable than pure libertarianism. And it fuses much more easily with a hawkish foreign policy and social conservatism.

All of which, Stephen Harper gets. In addition to cutting corporate taxes, Harper has also pledged to rebuild the armed forces and safeguard traditional marriage. Big government conservatism satisfies the emotional need to feel secure, economically and culturally. That’s why it continues to dominate North American politics.

Original Article
Source: telegraph
Author: Tim Stanley 

No comments:

Post a Comment