This may shock some of you, but I've been reading some pieces written by neoconservative, Francis Fukuyama. One that intrigues me is America in Decay appearing in his magazine Foreign Affairs. Full disclosure: This site is a paid subscription; therefore, I haven't been able to read the full article. I have been reading reviews/reactions to his piece, and I must say that I'm finding them very interesting. To my own surprise, I'm finding myself agreeing with his assertions. Or at least the assertions that I have been able to read directly due to the pay restriction and/or through the discussions of others about his article. Please don't dismiss the following link due to the name of the site. I found this particular link to be a pretty good yet brief summation of the original article that I haven't been able to read in full as of yet. The assertions have really made me take a hard look at what I believe. I agree with the vast majority of Fukuyama's points. The one I still struggle with is the more state control issue. In my eyes, our current state govt here in Tennessee is overran with extremist idiots. I'm looking at you and your politicizing of EVERYTHING in the state, Ron Ramsey. I could be persuaded to go along if I didn't have such a negative view on the current state of our state's govt. Check out the points Fukuyama makes moreso than any commentary by the author of the response piece. I tend to agree with those points. If anyone can find the full article or a better/more detailed summation of them, please post them. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4887409
This is an homage to his teacher and mentor Samuel Huntington, who wrote a book by a similar name in the 1960s. Huntington was a Harvard professor and served in the Johnson administration some, before retiring full time to academia. Huntington was right then, and Fukuyama is right now, but it's a point that's lost when we champion democracy as an end in itself. And though it may be true that Fukuyama is a neocon of a sort (he did support the invasion of Iraq) it's because he thought democratizing that place would lead to stable political institutions. He well admits he was wrong about this now. The problem people like Fukuyama face is he is clearly not small government -- he believes strongly in institutional power -- but the left hates him because he's stridently anti-socialist, champions markets, and believes that political culture matters. SO... no one listens to him like they should, save the handful of people that still read and care about his contributions.
America is heading toward socialism like a freight train in the night. Some might say we are already there. In my humble opinion, socialism is just a hop, skip, and a jump to communism and at last the Left will be happy. Thank God , I'll be dead by then.
His point about Congressional/Judicial interference in the govt agencies made sense to me. He uses the example of the Forestry Service. When it was created, they placed highly regarded professionals in charge. This was a change from the patronage system to a merit based system for appointees to run govt agencies. It worked splendidly so long as those that knew best what to do were allowed to run the agency. It was a resounding success that is until elected officials that had been bought by interest groups and overzealous judges started mucking up that system to the point of the dysfunctional quagmire it is today. The politicians and the courts turned a well functioning and effective agency into a completely dysfunctional one that many now want to eliminate. The politicizing of ever aspect of our lives by bought and paid for legislators that don't know half a damn about anything other than what they're told by their sugar daddies that bankroll their campaigns and special interest groups with more money than they know what to do with engaging in a never ending quest to find a judge that will side with them has rendered any form of effective govt as impotent as a eunuch. They don't even have an opportunity to be effective anymore.
I'm going to have to look at this. I am agreeing with what has been said in this thread, sans woodshed (no offense woodshed, we're just different).
If that means politicians setting up the agencies then letting folks that know what they are doing execute them, I'm all for that. If nothing else, this article has helped me better explain what I feel but had trouble expressing. I'll never be for a free-for-all in anything. I still firmly believe that too many folks will not do the right thing if no one is watching. However, my poor attempts to explain oversight has made it seem like I wanted politicians to perform that task. Maybe I was saying that. But now I have a more clear explanation. A govt agency isn't inherently bad simply because it's a govt agency. So long as the folks running it are qualified and aren't beholden to ANY group, political, corporate or anything in between. Experts in the field should be doing that job not politicians whose lone goal is to perpetuate their gravy train. Make more sense now?
Real communism, in the end, is the elimination of government because we've reached some kumbaya equilibrium, so, yes, a certain sect of lefties would be happy. However, I don't get the sense that you were getting at that idea.
Unfortunately the MSNBC and FoxNews crowds are both getting the government they (we) deserve. A decade and a half of polarizing half truths and demonizing rants have zapped any and all IQ from the political discourse.
Communism can't exist, but statism will do horrible things in the name of leading the population to that goal.
libertarian isn't a free for all. It's just a reduction in government, so we don't get the gravy train.
Libertarian comes in many flavors. There is definitely Libertarian anarchists. I find libertarian feudalists oddly charming.
as we've discussed before the star trek economy is so absurd that their own writers chose to ignore it over and over again when it suits them.
I think your delusional if you don't think a good percentage of the left would love for the govt to privatize all businesses like communists have done over and over again in other countries.