I’ve been thinking about this a lot and cogitating, and I’ve come to a conclusion. Conservatives tend to be *reactive*, while liberals tend to be *proactive*. To my mind, this doesn’t make liberals, or for that matter conservatives, better or worse, it’s just the difference.

Actually, it seems to me that if this is the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives, conservatives are always doomed to failure. Without being proactive, all you can do is wait for a crisis and throw up your hands.

A liberal thinks it is better to prevent a crisis than to willfully ignore the signs of impending disaster. That is inherently a more intelligent position, and guaranteed to be more successful in practice. It’s not about excessive government control of anything – it’s about intelligent governance that considers all the ramifications before acting, and works to correct mistakes in a timely fashion.

Liberals believe in the scientific method, and are willing to look at the evidence, construct a hypothesis, and perform the experiment. Conservatives believe in dogma, and are willing to ignore any evidence that contradicts their belief, including the complete failure of their policies.

Liberals are proactive, in that they explain this distinction before the damage is done. Conservatives are reactive, in that they react as if they had nothing to do with the damage their policies caused, and cast blame for the damage on anyone but themselves.

It’s pretty easy to tell the difference.

Peace.

DS

To elaborate on this distinction, consider these examples. You’ll never hear a conservative support a tax increase because “the voters can afford it” but you’ll often hear liberals support them on such grounds. Conservatives think that the liberal does this because he hates wealthy people, but forgets that a lot of liberals *are* wealthy. You should have seen all the Obama signs in the rich neighborhoods near my house in California. A lot of people voted to increase their own taxes. The point is that a liberal wants taxes raised because it’s possible; while the conservative wants an actual need for the tax dollars first.

Regulations are the same thing. Set up any sort of innovative enterprise, and somewhere a Democrat will see an opportunity. A new bureaucracy, a new agency, new regulators, new regulations, a new supervisor or fifty, a new cabinet position, so many new things are *needed*, because something has been set up that we need to regulate. All the people employed in these departments will be members of public service employee unions, of course, and contribute money to the Democratic party in perpetuity.

The biggest problems with the Democrats and their ideas on this subject are unintended consequences and the invulnerability of government bureaucracies. Ronald Reagan appointed a head of the Rural Electrification Administration whose brief was to shut it down, because its mission had been fulfilled. They gave up at the end of Reagan’s first term, because the opposition from Congress was just too strong. Ariana Huffington was on the Tonight Show last week talking about the government “temporarily” taking over banks. Leno actually scoffed at her, retorting that “the Government never takes anything over *temporarily*”. Nevertheless, she and others on the left feel that this is a workable solution, and I fear Leno’s pronouncement is true, also.

In sum, a liberal thinks that the government should do something, because it can, and it might help. A conservative thinks the government shouldn’t do something, until he can see a clear need.

Rosenbaum – 1, Strawman – 0

Geez, I hope you didn’t get paid for this silly drivel.

Peace.

DS

Good read BTW, I read it a while back, I think IBD posted an article on it.

Thomas, in opposition to pro-business conservative Justices Roberts, Scalia and Alito, took a longer, wiser pro-federalist, rational pro-capitalist view that the federal government shouldn’t have the right to interfere with states’ consumer protection regulatory laws

In other words, he defended the Constitution, which grants the federal government virtually no authority to regulate what goes on inside a state. The only reason that the federal government is able to do so is because of tortured reasoning on the part of ideologues on the Supreme Court in the past.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9788

And if contaminated peanut butter kills some people then the police should investigate, find out if anyone could have reasonably been expected to prevent those deaths and if so what charges can be pressed against them, e.g. – manslaughter.

Regulation needs to be applied with an eye towards overall economic first-, second-, and third-order effects. A “feel-good” law does not necessarily make things right. For example, look at gun regulation. Does it typically make people safer? No. Please observe Mexico for what happens when a gov’t limits the rights of citizens to bear arms. Does the average Joe Q. Public need a 25mm Vulcan Cannon? No. That is a sensible restriction. But, for instance, the recent law passed re: lead limits in toys and other goods is a great idea– limit lead– that will have vast and unanticipated negative side effects because it was poorly written and hastily delivered. Sarbanes-oxley: Good or bad? The act which encouraged/forced banks to issue sub-prime loans– good or bad? Statutes against embezzlement– good or bad? It goes both ways.

Regulation, like water, salt, and many other things, can have positive effects and negative effects. Conservatives are against it when it stifles innovation and economic and personal freedom.

Well seeing as you lied on this one, it throws the rest of your story and claims into doubt. Rendering you no more than a demagogue.

Anybody wonder why it is spelt “DEM- agogue” and not “REPUB-agogue”? Hmmnn.