I’m not a last wordist in general and I do appreciate that Sully replied to my comments on “makers and takers”, but I feel compelled to flesh out my objection to the notion of “makers and takers”. Andrew writes:
It’s about centering conservatism back on its individualist, free enterprise, small, transparent and effective government roots. Since I offered many details of the kinds of policies I’m against, it’s hard to see how this is “contentless.” I know it’s a very rough and ready framework. And I know too that many of us are both makers and takers. The point is to do all we can to encourage the making and minimize the taking.
I have two big problems with the idea of a “cultural divide” based on the division between “makers and takers.” First of all, such a divide is inevitably polarizing in a way that distracts from real issues. But for the grace of God, I or any of you could be a farmer receiving agricultural subsidies (one of the policies Sully courageously opposes). That’s too easy of course — I could also be working at a bank that received bail-out money. The reason to oppose agricultural subsidies or bank bail-outs is not that farmers and banksters are “takers” who are culturally inferior to the rest of us, it’s that giving money away is not a sound government policy. Mature people can vote to stop giving money away without mocking their political opponents as “takers” (the same way that mature people can support going to war without mocking those who oppose the war as “Fifth Columnists”).
The bigger problem is that doing “all we can to encourage the making and minimize the taking” has pony plan written all over it. Most real policy decisions have pluses and minuses (I support single-payer universal health care but recognize that it has drawbacks as well). The trouble with a lot of conservative thought is that it refuses to recognize this. Conservatives are so wedded to the idea of lower taxes that they claim lower taxes will actually increase tax revenue, just as they claimed that invading Iraq would so endear us to the Muslim world that we would soon see rose, cedar, and oak democratic revolutions all over the Muslim world. Christopher Hitchens may claim he is not a conservative but his notion of “a war to the finish between everything I love and everything I hate” is a perfect summation of the simple-mindedness that afflicts so much conservative thought. The same silliness plagues the Villagers who believe that opposing extramarital presidential blow jobs and supporting calls for sacrifice represent wise, brave political positions (this is why pundit thought so closely resembles conservative thought in many ways).
It’s very easy to be for makers and against takers, just as it is easy to be for freedom and against tyranny. But phrasing one’s positions with such child-like simplicity short-circuits the complex decision-making processes that result in sound policy. If conservatism is ever going to get its soul back, it’s going to have to spend more time on detailed policy prescriptions (no, saying you oppose farm subsidies and bank bail-outs does not qualify) and less time looking for new cultural divisions to exploit.
Polarization and pony plans (makers and takers, part 3)Post + Comments (100)