Reason.com
New at Reason
Brian Doherty visits the family plots of neoliberalism and conservatism and tries to speed up the burial date.
Most Popular Stories
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
- When Government Privileges Trump the Rights of Citizens (5.25)
- Rand Paul Amendment to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Raiding Farms Fails, 78-15 (5.24)
- Is the Ron Paul the Best Hope for Progressives? (5.25)
- Friday Funnies (5.25)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
LarryA|3.16.07 @ 10:34AM|#
There are really only two political philosophies. Either the people are supreme over the government, or the government is supreme over the people. Political labels and the movements attributed to them serve only to generate the illusion of choice in the second case.
Big government is big government. In the long run who is in charge is of minor importance, and the label they claim of even less import.
|3.16.07 @ 10:36AM|#
Trying to take an entire worldview and turn it into a movement is folly from a pragmatic perspective.
The real progress comes from developing coalitions around issues.
|3.16.07 @ 11:06AM|#
Every once in a while I read an article that actually says something, but because of the depth of the issues doesn't seem to, and most don't seem to recognize it.
Kudo's! This was a really great take on the issues. Thank you Mr. Doherty.
|3.16.07 @ 12:31PM|#
A very good piece, Mr. Doherty.
Brooks, suffers from the twin challenges of being a member in good standing of the DC chattering classes, and being a partisan of the right. The upshot is that he conflates loudness with extremism, and opposition to Bush's Iraq War as a philosophical commitment to isolationism and pacifism.
Take "Free Trade" deals: the most left-wing position on this issue to be heard in Congress today is that we should sign them, but make sure they include labor and environmental standards - and not even protections equivalent to those found in the United States. You might not agree with that position, but it's a) the one adopted towards the end of his term by neoliberal hero Bill Clinton, and b) quite a bit to the right of the genuine isolationism and international levelling of 70s-ear liberals and unionists.
What Brooks' column is, mostly, is an adult version of "I'm rubber, you're glue..." aimed at all of the pundits noting the decline of conservatism as the most significant development in American politics, and the rise of the Democrats as the center party.
|3.16.07 @ 1:02PM|#
Brooks is as good a demonstration as any of the philosophical and ideological emptiness of Washington, DC. As a pundit he issues volume upon volume of meaningless crap, but because he does so in a congenial way that doesn't upset any powers-that-be on the right *or* left, he writes for the Times and regularly appears on public television.
One big concession that would be a great first step-a concession for both modern liberals and libertarians-would be to make the welfare state actually and really just a welfare state, not a giant, confusing, horribly expensive batch of roundrobin cash transfers between and among generations and classes.
AAAAaaaa-men! I think this is a really good point that libertarians should be hitting on more often. At the same time, I'm a little dubious that we'll get anywhere with, say, reforming Social Security. The progressives seem to have figured out that buying everyone's vote gives you even more power than just buying votes from the people who actually need money. And it's the largest and most-powerful voting bloc, the middle class, that has the most to lose from such a change.