Since we are covering Social Security in public finance class today, and i'm reading these articles on privatization, it strikes me as the left has no counterpoint to Cato.
This article talks about how Cato has almost single-handedly advanced what was once such a radical idea that Reagan didn't even want to touch it: Soc. Sec privatization.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=19990208&s=dreyfuss
and while a lot of GOP folks still don't buy into all their white papers, Cato has done a fantastic job of little by little shifting the ideological terrain towards making what was once the unthinkable into the possible. Bravo to them.
So where is our side? where are the "big radical visionary ideas" coming from? nowhere. it's all defense. the Center for American Progress is not about advancing bold ideas, but playing defense against bad Bush policies. i see this over and over from candidates even: it's mostly about how bad Bush is and we're against him and Delay. therefore, vote for us. not many ads tout "National healthcare NOW" or what a candidate actually stands for. and the so-called "liberal" think tanks [New American, Brookings] are most hellbent on being all "nonpartisan" "Nonideological" technocrats instead of the bold, radical visionaries of Cato. For this, i am very grateful to the candidacies of Kucinich and Moseley Braun. otherwise, NOWHERE in american discourse would we even hear mention/discussion of single-payer healthcare. and the small groups that do advocate for universal health care (Physicians for Social Responsibility) just carry no political/institutional clout in Washington, unlike the heavy hitting Cato, with is closely linked to the political structure. i see this as a serious weakness in general for the left to advance its agenda.