The Trouble With Conservatism

Barbara O'Brien has a nice, clear explication:

The problem with conservatism is that, when taken to extremes and logical outcomes, it turns into a nasty, brutish thing that destroys everything it touches. And the problem with the Republican Party is that, in the 1970s, it was infiltrated and taken over by hard-core ideologues who were determined to take the GOP and the rest of the country to those extremes and logical outcomes.

And once the extremists had complete control of all branches of government, with no effective counterweights, they proceeded to destroy everything they touched.

You can argue — hell, I’ve argued — that any ideology, taken to extremes, will implode and self-destruct. Ideology is a bit like medicine; a bigger dose is not necessarily a better dose. One pill every four hours might cure you, but four pills every one hour might kill you.

I really have nothing to add, save to observe that my own political philosophy is somewhat like Eliza crossing the ice: it's a constant dance from there to there as issues arise and need to be addressed, moderated by my own tendency to err on the side of compassion. I take care of people (and critters, too, but the focus here is on people). It's just something I do. I think government should do the same thing, but avoid smother love, which is why I have distinct reservations about liberal "solutions": they meet half the problem.

The best example is my reaction to poverty: yes, give people a safety net, which is what welfare was intended to be, and which conservatives don't want even to discuss, but also give them the means -- the education, the skills, the motivation -- to become self-reliant, which the liberal solution didn't address.

That's why I think any sane politician, of which there are vanishingly fiew, has to be half-and-half. It's called "pragmatism."

Stray thought: I'd like to get Grover Norquist small enough to fit in a bathtub.