The Failure of Antigovernment Conservatism

[marmar]

from The American Prospect:


The Failure of Antigovernment Conservatism

Issues like children's health insurance and maintaining our infrastructure offer progressives the opportunity to finally say, without fear of disastrous political consequences, that sometimes government is not the problem, it's the solution.

Paul Waldman | August 8, 2007 | web only


Visiting the site of the Minneapolis bridge collapse on Saturday, President Bush used the opportunity to get in a standard-issue Republican dig on government -- you know, the entity in charge of things like making sure bridges are safe. "There's a lot of paperwork involved with government," he said, promising to "cut through that paperwork, and to see if we can't get this bridge rebuilt in a way that not only expedites the flow of traffic, but in a way that can stand the test of time."

But don't expect too much. "I make no promises on the timetable," the president then said, bringing down the mood a bit. He did, though, go on to say that the tragedy might lead to something positive. A pledge from his administration to push for greater investment in infrastructure, perhaps? Or a promise to repair crumbling roads, bridges, and utilities? Fat chance.

"Out of these tragedies can come a better life," he said. "And I, having visited with the people here, believe that not only are they committed to a better life, not only are they committed to turning something ugly into something good, but it's going to happen."

So our government may not do much beyond rebuilding this particular bridge, but President Bush is relieved to find that the people directly affected by this tragedy are "committed to a better life." Perhaps he should have also encouraged them to eat more fruits and vegetables.

When Bush glides into the scene of a tragedy, floating in the molasses-thick bubble of banality that surrounds him at all times, the results can be painful to watch. But the tone-deafness of Bush's response to the bridge collapse offers yet another illustration of how far the national debate has moved away from the Republicans. As hard as it may be for many progressives to accept it, scarred as they are by years of GOP abuse and the tepid, apologetic stance of their own allies, the time has finally come for them to defend, without reservation, the idea of a vigorous, engaged government. They can finally say, without fear of disastrous political consequences, that sometimes government is not the problem, it's the solution. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_failure_of_antigovernment_conservatism

[pinto]

1. Excellent piece. I'm firmly in the camp of a 'vigorous, engaged government'

From health care and education to a heightened awareness of infrastructure, It's clear to most Americans what a limited government agenda has wrought. Yes, it is time to say once again, government isn't the problem, it's the solution.

[marmar]

4. Agreed.....

A big country needs a big government. It can't function without one.

[crud76]

7. It's NOT Clear

"It's clear to most Americans what a limited government agenda has wrought"

I heard on Thom Hartmann's program yesterday that something like forty per cent of Americans believe that the reason our infrastructure is crumbling is that the money is being siphoned off by the "welfare state,"

[unpossibles]

2. I think, unknown to Bush himself, that the reason he was propped up into power by the GOP

was as a shining example of the incompetence of government, to make failed government a self-fulfilling prophesy. It kills me when people use FEMA, Katrina, etc. as examples of why government doesn't work.

My response: "no, that is just an example of why we should never elect morons to office. The power and responsibility in our government, per the US Constitution, lies with the People, therefore it is our responsibility to ensure that we elect people who are capable and willing to be good representatives of the wishes of the People tempered by the Bill of Rights."

[Puzzler]

3. Or another response...

... is to point out that, as a corporation, Enron didn't exactly work. So, by that logic, maybe we should do away with corporations.


-P

[marmar]

5. Yup.....

End government by wrecking it.

[unpossibles]

6. exactly.

I have to wonder if these folks, when their car/bike/house breaks down just abandon it instead of fixing it.

[Felix Mala]

9. That's always been the Grover Norquist plan -- peel down government

small enough that you can drown it in its bathwater...

[Felix Mala]

8. defend, without reservation, the idea of a vigorous, engaged government

That pretty much sums up the Clinton Presidency. The thing is, when Clinton went to these sorts of things he always seemed more sincere. I guess because, unlike Bush, he didn't spend the rest of his time trying to figure out how to get out of paying what he promised to pay.