Michael --
1) On socialism & Western Europe. Here again, I think it is important to draw a distinction between socialism (i.e., state or social ownership of the means of production) and the welfare state. Western Europe has indeed travelled further down the road of the "welfare state" than the US has, but the proportion of state-owned industry in the economies of Western Europe has generally declined in the last 50 years. And, incidentally, Western European countries, as a rule, interfere less in people's private lives than the US does.
2) Just a general point on "government intrusion." The position you outline is, of course, the classic liberal position. Less government = more freedom + more prosperity. What caused liberals to change? As the industrial revolution rolled on, making society ever more complex and aggravating the social problems that already existed, many liberals came to believe that government could actually play a positive role in increasing freedom for segments of the population that had very little (the working class, the slaves, etc.). The 8-hour day, the 5-day work week, for example, did a lot to "free" the workers. (Just as trust-busting legislation was designed to keep the market free.) And civil liberties -- in this country, I submit, the government has done more to enforce them than to violate them (although it has done that, too).
I guess what I would say is that "government intervention" in itself is a neutral concept. One needs to ask: 1) does that intervention serve to increase freedom, or to decrease it, and 2) for whom does it increase or decrease freedom? In other words, I would look at each instance of government intervention on a case by case basis.
3) Now, on the media. I must object: I am not unwilling to look beyond my assumptions. I submit that you are. :-)) For one thing, it is absolutely not true that the "slant in the major media towards the liberal philosophy by now is beyond debate." I guess I never posted to you an article entitled "The Illiberal Media" that I must have posted to just about everyone else by now. I don't entirely agree with it myself, but it certainly will show you that the alleged liberal slant is not "beyond debate":
Message 6014357
By the way, I think that you may have a canard there, with that story about the 90% of reporters who supposedly voted for Clinton. I suspect that story is a creative variation on the 1981 "study" of media workers (NOT managers) cited in the above article. (If not, I would appreciate a citation.) Besides, remember, it is not important who the reporters vote for; what counts is who the publisher (and, along with him, the editorial page) supports.
Now, to the talking heads. Frankly, I practically never watch television, and talking heads generally drive me cra-a-a-zy. Nevertheless, from what I have seen of them, I would characterize most talking heads, like most op-ed columnists, as "flabby centrists", as the author of the cited article does. What you are seeing are different wings of The Establishment. Hence, just as you will not see the Radical Right up there, you will be even less likely to see representatives of the Radical Left. Heck, you won't even see an Old Fashioned Liberal.
You have a tendency to paint in two tones, Michael: Republican/Democrat, conservative/liberal. Well, of course, unless some strong third party emerges, we are limited, at election time, to choosing between the only two alternatives -- Republican or Democrat. But in our views, we cover a much broader spectrum: from reactionary to old-fashioned conservative to new-fangled conservative to moderate conservative to moderate liberal to old fashioned liberal to radical to Marxist to whatever...But the Establishment view is right smack in the center, and it includes moderate conservatives as well as moderate liberals.
jbe
P.S. And whoever said Clinton was a "liberal", anyway?? You should read some of those manifestoes his "New Democrats" churned out, attacking the "liberal fundamentalists".....Mean stuff... |
