“Conservatives who fight this reality are tilting at windmills. Rather than fight necessary regulatory measures, it would be better to see that they work efficiently, and not be so restrictive and punitive as to threaten business enterprise itself.”

Ah, the old “just make government work *better*” canard. This has been around almost as long as the “mixed economy”. Has it occurred to our author that we know most “necessary measures” (care to *name* a few, rather than mealy-mouth it?) won’t work, and *that’s* the reason we fight it? Tilting at Quixotean windmills? How about fighting for what’s right?

“… Obama has to pump up the economy …”

By taking hundreds of billions in taxes and splaying it around as he and Washington see fit? Sure, that’s always worked.

“Decades ago, in the years of FDR’s New Deal experiments …”

Oh, is *that* what they were. Many of us windmill-tilters call them “entitlement programs”, which you claim the president will get around to *cutting* (?!?) once he’s done with this “pumping” he “has” to do. Really curious how that’s going to go over.

Again, seems like Mr. Radosh’s theme is “don’t sweat it, we’ve always done it this way and we have to press on.” To paraphrase our new erudite president (with a bit more emphasis): WE’VE TRIED IT YOUR WAY – AND LOOK WHERE IT’S GOTTEN US!

Actually, as a conservative I believe most if not all labor regulations are unnecessary. That’s just to start with. So, a more honest debate tactic on Radosh’s part would be to explain why he thinks American people should give up their freedom – instead of claiming that this submission is completely necessary.

American Liberals have a tendency to view European Social Market economics as simply a more interventionist form of American Market Capitalism. So you often see the metaphor of a continuum applied to describe their distinctions. But this is a flawed means of comparison. The European ‘Social Market’ model is fundamentally a political system w/ commercial components. It is not interventionist according to the meaning that most American writers intend – which is actually an ad-hoc Populist approach rather than a thoroughly managed, state sponsored, economy. Interestingly, though it often produces very bad economic policies, American Populism may protect the United States from the excesses of Social Market political economics. For these rely on an acceptance of permanent social stasis, rigid class hierarchy, and both psychological and existential passivity that I think is anathema to even the most Liberal Americans.

* I would advise against looking to Newsweek for economic or social commentary.

From what I can see, the so-called “stimulus plan” is short on pump priming and long on entitlements. It will be interesting to see reactions in a couple of years when those of us who still have jobs face decreasing income coupled with increasing taxes. Watch California – it is already happening here and talented people are leaving in droves. When it happens to the rest of the country, people will have nowhere to go and the only option, assuming Obama and company have not succeeded in making net tax takers (those who get more in govt. services than they pay in taxes) into the majority, will be to throw the bastards out.