Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated Pundit Round-up (98 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It really depends on the objective, right? (12+ / 0-)

    If the consensus objective is to provide the maximum collective "good" at minimum "cost," I could get behind a great deal of so-called "fiscal conservatism." But far too often, "fiscal conservatism" in Villager practice means minimizing costs without any regard to "good." Well, at least not good for "the little people."

    When on holiday visits, I occasionally read through some of my mother in law's reference books from earlier days as a Social Work Grad Student and Professor (she seldom discards books, and the guest rooms have a number of social theory and commentary from the 60s and early 70s). I am fascinated by the range of assertions of what to do about poverty from a number of perspectives (long story very short: it's the same discussions with pretty much the same themes, if different vocabulary, as we have now), but I find the criticisms about the "failure" of the Great Society written in 1966 (because, y'know, that's more than sufficient time to definitively assess the efficacy of a set of programs just being rolled out...or something) are not very different from Romney's derision of "free stuff." It's not that the programs are not working or could not work. It's NEVER REALLY that. It's that the programs are simply "wrong" because they seek to lessen income inequality and acute access disparities.

    When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 05:32:00 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site