Thursday, November 4, 2010

George Will on the elections

George Will, with some help from Don Beaudreaux, summarizes the message of this week's elections perfectly:

Liberalism's ideas are "about replacing an unimaginably large multitude of diverse and competing ideas . . . with a relatively paltry set of 'Big Ideas' that are politically selected, centrally imposed, and enforced by government, not by the natural give, take and compromise of the everyday interactions of millions of people."
This was the serious concern that percolated beneath the normal froth and nonsense of the elections: Is political power - are government commands and controls - superseding and suffocating the creativity of a market society's spontaneous order? On Tuesday, a rational and alarmed American majority said "yes."


David Leto said...

I always liked George Will's sensible take on issues. He's the only rational one on Sunday news shows. For the comment it's right on. Trouble is the other side never will see the sense in it. What voters have to do and do every voting cycle is get the deadwood out. As soon as we let our guard down these dopes wiggle their way back in. Citizens must be ever vigilant, sadly, of our own representatives.

John said...

Will's take is pure horse manure (actually horse manure is worth more). Obama wasn't on the ballot. About 90 million people voted Tuesday. 131.1 million voted in 2008. It's a different sample this year than 2008. It will be a different sample in 2012.

Is it fair to say California has turned hard left?

Thank you Sarah Palin!

John said...

Portside John,

I think you are correct about the turnout. However, McCain was not a candidate most repubs could get excited about. So I would say some of your point, at least, applies to '08 as well...from the other side. '12 will be interesting.

BTW, I don't think Calif needed SP to 'turn' hard left. They've been there awhile now. Looks like the trend of businesses leaving the state will continue.

Douglas said...

Will's comments are not even as fertile as horse manure. Horse manure can at least be put to good use in providing some food for the body. Will's comments are simply empty of nourishment for the mind, void of useful content.

Here are a couple of articles which I think have more nutritive value:

The beauty of an election is that once elected the office holder must DO. Rhetoric butters no parsnips. I predict a different outcome in 2012, though I consider both parties to be entirely clueless about what is needed or will be needed in the time ahead.

Douglas said...

As a follow-up on my comment, and to illustrate how truly vapid Will's piece really is, is submit a truly fertile piece for your consideration:

Scott Grannis said...

I read each of those articles carefully and I'm left with an empty feeling. Lots of words, little meaning. Is meaning only in the eye of the reader?

John said...

About that "unimaginably large multitude of diverse and competing ideas", could someone please direct me to that vast cornucopea of conservative ideas? Do they have a website?

I got the part about cut taxes, cut regulations, cut spending, bust the unions and small government. Is there more?

Douglas said...

LOL! I guess it is, Scott.

Scott Grannis said...

John: There is no vast collection of conservative ideas, because conservative ideals are relatively few and straightforward. E.g., Limited government, individual liberty, the rule of law, free markets, respect for private property and contracts, and I don't want the government telling me how I should live or think.

John said...

I think I'm pretty much with you on that set of values. Now, can you tell me whether the following policies are liberal or conservative?

1. No Child Left Behind?
2. No-bid contracts for Haliburton?
3. Petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the Florida recount?

Scott Grannis said...

No Child Left Behind was one of the reasons libertarians and many conservatives were very upset with Bush. The other policies do not follow from any party's principles.