To celebrate my kid's last day of Kindergarten, we rode the bus into NYC and took the train back to New Jersey. While waiting for our transfer in Secaucus, I picked up a castoff Post. One of the best thing about public transportation is free reading material. The Opinion section had an excerpt of Rove's speech to the New York State Conservative Party Dinner on Wednesday. The liberal bloggers have probably run this topic into the ground, but I don't have time to search around.
Rove:
Let me know say a few words about the state of liberalism. Perhaps the place to begin is with this stinging indictment:
"Liberalism is at greater risk now than at any time in recent American history. The risk is of political marginality, even irrelevance... [L]iberalism risks getting defined, as conservatism once was, entirely in negative terms."
These are not the words of William F. Buckley, Jr. or Sean Hannity; they are the words of Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a leading liberal publication.
There is much merit in what Mr. Starr writes -- though he and I fundamentally disagree as to why liberalism is edging toward irrelevance. I believe the reason can be seen when comparing conservatism with liberalism.
Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations: they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in cutting the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don't....
Well, no. That's not what liberalism is about, at least my brand of liberalism. Yes, liberalism is in jeopardy, and I have been a critic of how the left is advancing its cause, but liberalism is not how Rove paints it.
The goals of liberalism are to live in a more equitable society, with most citizens living in the middle class, to live in a fair society where hard work and pluck are rewarded regardless of connections or class or gender, and to live in a free society where everyone can choose how best to reach happiness.
These goals are essential to the American democracy and imagination. We are Americans because we don't have a class system and a college dropout can found Microsoft in a garage. Since the 1980s, there are signs that class structure is becoming more rigid and the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. This doesn't bode well for the vitality of American democracy.
Liberalism is NOT about more taxes or government intervention or added bureaucracy. Good liberals don't give a crap about how services are provided, just that the goals are achieved.
1.6 billion dollars were raised by Americans to aid the Tsunami victims. Hell, if we could raise money for homelessness, housing, and hunger through voluntary means rather than taxes, that would be FINE BY ME. We could have weekly televised relief efforts aimed at one particular need. Elton John could come out every week with some new version of Yellow Brick Road.
Many liberals are in favor of vouchers, not simply because the market knows all, but because they think it can be the means to help urban children.
We have nothing invested in large or small government, big or small taxes, regulation or free. What I care about is the goals of equity, fairness, and freedom.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are too caught up in the means and seem to have no goals. What is their end plan? Okay, so you're in favor of flat taxes or small government, tell me why. What do you have to offer me?
Their unwavering belief in the free market and religious fervor in economics system rivals the Marxists.
I don't have enough confidence that without some human control, capitalism will float all boats. I don't believe that after a country endures a period of human slavery, it move to the next historical stage of exploitation in a Nike factory, and then it will graduate to the final historical stage of pure capitalism with flat screen TVs and Skechers for all.
Capitalism is fine and good, but we have to have some control over events. We can't sit back and let wrongs occur and just assume that progress will improve things.
Any attempt to put some control over inequities and conservatives accuse you of being a communist. Putting economics ahead of social and political goals is leading to a revival of Social Darwinism. The poor are poor for a reason, now leave me alone to enjoy the fruits of my labor without a guilt trip, please.
Republicans claim to be helpless as the invisible hand does its work, they ignore greater goals of humanity in their promotion of an economic principle, they dismiss the needs of the poor as part of natural order of things.
Now tell me, which party is the most negative?
Recent Comments