After a long hiatus, we return now to the occasional series, "Conversations with my Wingnut Dad," wherein we answer the age-old question, Can family members at opposite ends of the political spectrum carry on political dialogue with respect, and without resorting to name-calling or primal screaming? [Short answer: sometimes.]
This time, I need your help, Kossacks. Dad is stuck on the old conservative chestnut, "Private Enterprise is 'Better' than Gummint at Almost Everything." He's offered an opening, though: he will read, cover to cover, a book of my choosing, and be prepared to discuss it. Which ONE book shall I choose?
More after the flip....
We've had these e-mail conversations before (if you're interested, there are examples
here and
here. Little bro
Kyle B also engages in the e-mail conversation, as do other brothers.
Kyle started the latest conversation by explaining that, as a progressive, Jesus is his political inspiration. This prompted a response from Dad and some more exchange.
(NOTE: I'm posting our e-mails below. If you don't feel like reading the entire exchange, skip down and I'll post the Cliff Notes version in the comments section).
Dad: The short answer is: Conservatives also believe in helping those who need it. The difference is we don't trust the government to do it. As I think Zell Miller put it, liberals think enterprise is the problem and government the solution; conservatives think government is the problem and enterprise the solution.
sheba: Thank you, both, for continuing the conversation. I truly appreciate your taking the time to talk through these concepts.
Question for you, Dad: when is government "the problem?" Always? I am making the assumption that you believe that government is not ALWAYS the problem. Are there times when government is the solution? If so, what are examples of these?
Dad: Hiya!
To me, gummint is the solution if and only if there is no other effective way to do the job, and the job must be done. Examples are the army, the police force, maybe the fire department, the courts, the consular service, the DMV, prolly the FCC, certainly the Bureau of Standards, prolly the FDA and the FCC, though here we're getting into muddy and pressured waters. The Postal Service, OTOH, seems to be doing fine as an independent operation, and maybe other government glaciers should be warmed as well. It seems to me that government, as presently operating, is, in its legislative branch and probably the executive as well, and even in some cases the judicial, way too responsive to pressure groups from both extremes of the scale and way too little focused on the real problems of real people. I don't see that changing any time soon.
I see the civil service no longer civil, and not really service, but mainly a self-perpetuating boondoggle, whose unions raise money and donate it to legislators who do their bidding. That's the kind of thing which pretty much universally raises the hackles of conservatives.
I resist taking pot shots at teachers' unions out of respect for you and your profession and out of the knowledge that, at least there, there are brave and dedicated individuals who buck the union trend and do the best job they can, even buying materials out of their own pockets to do so. I have shopped more than once at a wonderful store which would not be there except for such individuals. My hat is off to them. They operate in spite of, not because of, the organizations, both the governments and the teachers' unions.
As I said in my first note, individuals, dedicated individuals, are where it's at. Organizations had better be responsible to the right people, and their individual members had better hold the organization's feet to the fire on that.
Cheers..
sheba: Thank you, Dad, for elaborating a bit.
I guess I'd have to press you a bit more on the definition of "effective," because it might be in this definition where we part company.
For example, if a private enterprise is producing a product and government is also producing a product, and if "effective" merely means "produced a product for the cheapest cost and/or the highest profit margin," the private enterprise is arguably better designed than government to be "effective."
On the other hand, if "effective" means something else, like, for example, providing the greatest benefit to the most people, or providing such benefit with the aim of preserving and/or enhancing living conditions for future citizens, then I'd posit that government has the edge over private enterprise precisely because it does not have the profit motive as its primary motivation.
Government exists not because it makes a buck for its shareholders. It exists because the governed consent to make it so. It is by our shared agreement that we cede powers to a central authority because that authority is much more effective than the private citizen, and the private company, at providing the greatest good to the greatest number of people, including the less powerful among us. Government is particularly much better than private enterprise at providing services to those who are typically disempowered, i.e. groups who for one reason or another are numerically in the minority (and thus have less purchasing power) and/or who are of limited financial resources (and thus have less purchasing power).
Also, while I readily admit that Big Government is less responsive to We The People than I'd like, I can't say that I prefer the alternative (Private Enterprise), which is only responsive to me if I have $$. No, make that $$$$$. At least government ostensibly is supposed to be providing certain things to allow me my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, regardless of my ability to help Big Government to make a buck. The same can't be said of private enterprise, which doesn't derive its authority from my consent and thus feels no compunction whatsoever to provide for the greatest good. Why should it? Providing for the greater good is not in Private Enterprise's Mission Statement. It is motivated entirely by Profit, which is fine as far as it goes, but is hardly conducive to protecting the weak and powerless, which group doesn't have much to spend on your products if you're Private Enterprise. Nor does the profit motive for current stockholders provide any motive for being good long-term stewards of land, water, and air, because those running Private Enterprise cannot be motivated by stockholders who will exist a hundred years from now if by their actions they anger the stockholders who exist today. Thus, for example, if destroying a wildlife refuge will yield timber today at the expense of an ecosystem a hundred years from now, Private Enterprise is by its very nature motivated to take the timber, now.
= = = =
At this point we came to a fundamental disagreement over power and politics, and he again recommended that I [ACK!] read Zell Miller's book to learn about, of all things, the influence of the K Street folks[!]. So I swallowed hard and responded,
Dad,
I have a lot to say about this "K Street" issue, so I may take a little while to respond. With the "Reader's Digest version" of a response, for now, I will simply ask: who do you think spends the most money, and has the most influence, on K Street right now? (Hint: it isn't the Democrats, NOW, ACLU, or even "big unions.")
Meanwhile, I do indeed note that you have twice recommended Zell Miller's book to me. I will make you a deal: if I promise to read Miller's book cover to cover, read it with an open mind, and prepare to discuss his writing with you, will you agree to do the same with a book of my choosing, in whatever time frame suits you?
Please let me know!
Guess what? Dad agreed. So now I get ONE shot, ONE book, that he promises to read. And for me he will do this.
Help me out, fellow kossacks. Which ONE book shall I give to the lovable, intelligent, religious wingnut Dad who thinks that the Invisible Hand of the marketplace knows best?