« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Dead End of Liberalism

Why progressives can?t govern

There are a great many conservative journalists, a seemingly endless array of pundits and a gazillion bloggers opining this days. No offense, and present company excluded, but few rise above the occasionally interesting and far too few are able to bring the desired combination of detailed and useful facts and a talent for writing to their craft.  The editors (past and present), however, have a quip that highlights our respect for one such writer who does achieve this skill level: “Don’t Mess with Ramesh.”

I am not sure there is a more devastating or more succinct political polemicist on the Right than Ramesh Ponnuru. When the foolish leftists rise up to question something he has written or a point of debate I sit back and enjoy the ruthless and yet witty way in which he counters leaving the debate settled in his favor (and me frequently wincing a bit thinking: that’s gonna leave a mark.)

All of this long winded introduction is simply to point you to another must read from Ramesh. This one is from NRODT (although it can be found in the digital version if you have a subscription). If you are looking for a calm and deadly explanation of the failures of modern liberal governance, look no further.

Since it is subscription only, allow me to point out two paragraphs that should cause you to go out and get a copy for yourselves:

Contemporary liberalism both presupposes and desires a government that is flexible, competent, energetic. It wants and needs a government that can mobilize society’s resources to accomplish a long list of difficult tasks, including the reduction of economic inequality, the education of children, the protection of the environment, the elimination of unjust discrimination, and the safeguarding of consumers — to name just a few. Yet in operation, it weighs down the government with interest groups that first make it inefficient and inflexible and then make it impossible to reform.

Another one after the break.

At the risk of being anti-climatic, allow me to quote the conclusions which is equally devastating:

“No menace of socialism threatens the United States,” conservative scholar Michael Greve has grimly written. “Socialism implies a seriousness of purpose and a willingness and ability to impose order, none of which is in evidence.” Again, the health-care overhaul has shown the pattern. What began as an effort to reorder important parts of American society became a series of bargains and shakedowns in which progressives could not tell which groups would be their clients and which their targets from week to week. The progressive project remains obnoxious to liberty, and it retains, in some sense, its ideals. But it lacks a coherent and determined purpose. More and more, liberalism has become a grift.

Yep, that is going to leave a mark …

COMMENTS

  • Gunny_Highway

    NM!

    • spinoneone

      but what he omits is the fact that the progressives believe they are entitled to rule, not merely govern. That is a major difference. Ramesh says it [the progressive movement] lacks “a coherent and determined purpose.” I respectfully disagree. Its purpose is to completely change America from a free country where one can succeed or fail on his or her own merits to one where no one is allowed to either succeed or fail. Once in power these folks believe everyone else, except, of course, for their own “elite”, should be reduced to some inchoate level of mediocrity. If they could do that with one last “free” vote they would do so in a heartbeat.

      • Vannek

        This is the key to progressive mentality: they believe they are entitled to rule. No humility, no self-reflection tells them that “maybe” they are not entirely, absolutely right and that other people should have a say.

        Case in point: the NCAA basketball tournament pool at the University Dept. that I work in. The progressive, diversity-loving men in the unit opened the pool to female staff because not enough men wanted to participate. The righteous, progressive liberal men running the pool wanted more $$$ in the payoff pool. Now, two of the top ranking members are women (#1 and #3). The men who started the pool are squealing like stuck pigs, and they’ve already said that only men will be invited to play next year.

        If you think these twits will ever resist Islam and Shariah (which allows for institutionalized subjugation of women) you are making a major strategic error.

        • wgsampson

          Progressive do believe they are entitled to rule, but they have to get elected in order to do so. That is why every two years they paste together their coalition of victims, start the violins and begin with the sob stories. But, I think that they have crossed the line this time. First, they have sacrificed one of their victims ? seniors. Unfortunately for them seniors are loyal, they vote, and they are about to switch teams. Additionally, I think that young voters are already turned off by the complete lack of principles and Democratic idealism in the Democrat Party. Furthermore, while black and Hispanic voters won’t abandon Obama and his minions, they are also realizing that he ain’t ?All That.? Win or lose tomorrow, the worm is turning.

  • DFLer

    Theodore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Cublic Authority (WW Norton, 1969).

    Maybe Ponnoru read it in college.

    • http://kevinholtsberry.com Kevin Holtsberry

      If you could summarize the book/ideas as effectively I would write a post praising you.