Republicans and Democrats are so firmly convinced that their ideas are in the best interest of the people they claim to serve. However, the ideas they push serve their party ideology more than the people. This is because there is no one right solution that applies to all conditions.
The most common approach to problem solving is “do x, get y result,” where x and y are usually based on ideology.
But real life doesn’t quite work like that; we usually can’t pull a lever and get a specific result when dealing with complex behaviors or situations.
Let’s look at examples in crime, the economy and international relations.
Crime
But first, would a good doctor prescribe just one remedy for all ailments? If you have a doctor who only has one solution to all ailments, you need to find a new doctor. Clearly, this isn’t how it should be done. Doctors have to diagnose the problem, find an appropriate remedy, test the remedy and measure the remedy to see if it worked. It’s the same thing with crime.
Conventional wisdom says that if we just lock up all the criminals we will get less crime. But this is not supported by crime rate and incarceration rate trends. Crime rates have fluctuated as prison population rates keep going up — there is no correlation between the two. We know that the U.S.has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, yet we are also one of the most violent societies. Laws that rely on deterrence rely on criminals to follow the law. That doesn’t make me feel safe.
The problem with relying on laws and prison to be safe is that they don’t take into account the causes of crime or most of the risk factors associated with increased crime. For example, we know that violent media, peer pressures and having been abused are three of many risk factors associated with youth crime. By targeting risk factors and having specific solutions, we can expect to prevent most crime before we have to punish it. Be wary when you hear politicians promoting one-step solutions to crime. The real world is complicated and so are the solutions. We want to incarcerate some criminals, others we should put on probation, and for some we can just fine and that is the end of it. It depends on the circumstances. There is no one size fits all.
The Economy
On the one hand, economics is a very useful discipline in analyzing the real world. On the other hand, historically economics has been too dependent on “rational behavior.” I had an economics professor once respond to a question about an economic model with “well, don’t ask questions about the real world; just let the model explain what’s going on.” This professor was knowingly making a joke about his profession; he actually taught that the most appropriate answer is usually “it depends.”
There is a lot of debate about the size of government, the amount of debt, and the amount of government spending. During a recession or a depression, government spending and tax cuts are necessary to keep an economy afloat. This doesn’t ‘crowd out’ private investment in the short run. But when an economy is good, excess government spending can ‘crowd out’ private investment and tax cuts make a deficit soar (or at least not recover after the stimulative measures used during the recession or depression.) Furthermore, a good rule of thumb for public debt not during a recession or depression is that ‘debt is OK if generations will use the commodity that caused the debt; if generations use it, generations should pay for it.” The best example is a bridge, roads, or public buildings and infrastructure. But the wrong place for debt is to bail out a budget shortage.
So, when we hear Republicans chant “tax cuts solve all ills” and government spending is amoral, remember, it depends on the context. And when we hear Democrats say we need to spend to help people, it depends on the economic condition we are operating in.
Also consider that, in theory, if we give tax breaks to big corporations and the rich, it will stimulate the economy and trickle down to the not so rich. This is usually true if the corporations and the rich invest what is not paid in taxes in sectors that will benefit the not-so-rich. But what we see in the real world right now is that corporations and the rich are saving their profits instead of investing. This means that, at present, supply-side economics (aka, trickle down economics, or what President George H.W Bush called “voodoo economics”) isn’t doing what we wish it were. Instead, corporations and the rich are saving for a rainy day, which slows economic recovery.
But does this mean saving is bad? Well, again, “it depends.” When times are good, saving is good. But during an economic recovery, such as what we are going through right now, saving doesn’t help the economy since it doesn’t stimulate the economy. You might remember early in the economic crisis in 2008, President George W. Bush told consumers to get out there and spend; Bush even pushed for the tax rebate to encourage spending.
International Relations
How do we best deal with our adversaries? Again, it depends. If Hitler had been stopped in Munich in 1939, we might not have seen World War II, but force was needed. Today, the U.S. has many enemies that are not at war with us but who would still like to see the U.S. weaker and have less global influence. Perhaps one approach is what Republican President Abraham Lincoln said, “I destroy my enemy when I make him my friend.” In the 1990s, we used an approach that blended diplomacy and force during the Dayton Peace Accords to successfully stop warring factions in Bosnia. Lessons from the past support each of these approaches but under different circumstances. The problem solving process is more important than pre-set liberal or conservative solutions.
Since there is no one size fits all approach to any public policy challenge, how should we move forward with different problems? You guessed it — it depends.
PAUL HEROUX is a public policy and administration consultant, is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations, and is a graduate of the Harvard School of Government, the London School of Economics and the University of Pennsylvania. Paul is a Democratic candidate for State Rep in the 2nd Bristol District (Attleboro). He can be reached at paul@paulforattleboro.com.
But all these debates actually take place within the Democratic Party. What Republican is arguing for a more nuanced approach to crime, any economic policy other than an unbridled free market (that is, no regulations), or any foreign policy other than having other countries worship at the altar of American military power?
“Paul Heroux, may I introduce you please to the Republican Party. Paul Heroux, this is the Republican Party. Republican Party, this is Paul Heroux. Republican Party, you’ve been campaigning against elites for years, haven’t you.”
“We certainly have, kbusch! We think the people should decide. Not experts. So-called experts lack common sense.”
“Paul Heroux, as you’re just meeting the Republican Party for the first time, let me help translate their dialect to you. ‘Common sense’ means ‘ideology’.”
“That’s right, kbusch, conservatives have common sense — something completely missing from liberals and ivory tower intellectuals.”
“As I recall, Republican Party that’s one of the things you hold against the Democrats. You think they use data and studies too much.”
“Damn right, kbusch. Democrats just don’t know what’s right and wrong and that’s why they use studies.”
“Paul Heroux, next time we get together I’d like to introduce you to the Democratic Party, too.”
May I bring you prominent conservative Brent Bozell?
Note the irony here. Mr Bozell “knows” that the “lost faith in science” study is right using his common sense, i.e., ideology. He “knows” the other studies are wrong because they’re all part of a vast liberal academic plot — or because they disagree with his common sense, i.e., his ideology.
Like Santorum, Coburn, and Bill O’Reilly, Mr. Bozell already knows what’s right and what’s wrong. He doesn’t need nuance or studies or science or anything else. This approach is simply inconceivable from similarly prominent liberals.
I appreciate the professors input in trying to frame policy questions around a framework of what works for the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. Presumably a non-ideological framework is better for policy purposes and pursue a more centrist or non ideological framework than the status quo. Unfortunately this is dead wrong.
As a great recent Washington Post opinion piece (reprinted here in the Bangor News http://bangordailynews.com/2012/04/15/opinion/liberals-and-conservatives-vote-differently-because-they-think-differently/) demonstrates, gone are the hazy lazy days of the post-war consensus when liberals and conservatives merely disagreed on the means of government and policy, we have now entered an era where even the existence of problems and the question of whether government should even attempt to solve them are now in doubt by one side of the spectrum.
The article points to health care reform. Progressives, recognizing how terrible this problem is, agreed to a watered down proposal far short of their ideological goal post but that achieves substantial policy victories including cost reductions, universal coverage, and expanded assistance to the needy. This solution, proposed by a right wing think tank enacted by a severely conservative Governor is now viewed as a socialist power grab and unconstitutional by a good portion of the other side, incidentally the same side that initially proposed the reform. Another great one is crime as you mentioned, unlike true ideologues progressive mayors have adopted the broken windows theory of a neoconservative professor and the best practices of a Republican mayor. On foreign policy we combine realism and idealism in a pragmatic balance, opting to intervene for idealism when its realistic i.e Bosnia and Libya, not when its foolhardy i.e Iraq, and not in a knee jerk way i.e conservatives under the delusion of unlimited military might allowing us to fight every enemy with brute force. On the environment progressives overcame an ideological inclination to regulate acid rain and adopted a free market cap and trade system enacted by a Republican President, using this same best practice for carbon emissions and climate change is now called ‘socialism’ and ‘ecofacism’ by the same conservatives that claim to favor market solutions to policy questions. I won’t even get into the back track on belief in evolution, global warming, and science as an abstract concept.
Krugman, who I usually disagree with, had a great piece discussing how calls for non ideological politics and centrism and America Elect by the mainstream media saints of the center (Brooks, Friedman, Cohen, Samuelson, etc) are enabling the radically conservative Ryan budget and Ryancare proposal simply because todays ‘centrist’ policy is the conservatism of the 1990s and the radical right wing extremism of the 60s-80s.
You want a non-ideological and problem solving President? His name is Barack Obama. You want a party that is like that? Its called the Democrats. You want to hang out with others who think that way? They are called liberals and progressives. There is no ideological left anymore, and there is no longer a right committed to solving policy problems. That is the true reality.
I’d like to introduce you to the Democratic Party, too.”
You’ve done my work for me. Thank you.
“Democrats just don’t know what’s right and wrong and that’s why they use studies.”
That’s priceless.
you seem like a nice enough guy–too much self-congratulations on your website–but a nice guy. Running for office, not to mention governing, is not about your resume or how smart you are. It’s about what you believe in and whether you have the chops to get any of it accomplished.
In short, “It depends” is a lousy campaign slogan.
and it’s been awful, awful, awful for the 99%.
For the prior 48 years we had, more-or-less, left-leaning policies and everyone did quite well. Very well.
When we look around the world, developed countries with left-leaning policies are generally doing quite well.
All told, the way to success for the 99% is pretty clear. We need to get the job done.
Are you thinking of Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland by chance? In case you haven’t noticed, the money tree in the back yard has dried up and the give-away socialist countries are in deep doo-doo. But I’ll let KBusch do a study on that for you. 🙂
fine and running a surplus until the housing bubble popped. It wasn’t particularly left-leaning either. Ireland was done in by its banks and ill-advised austerity. The only defense for Greece is that Germany had a lot of fun extending the country loans it couldn’t repay. Other than that, it’s never run itself well and spent a lot of money it didn’t have giving out jobs it couldn’t afford.
With the exception of Greece, it’s stupid to blame social policies for a global depression. No one is doing well. It is true, however, that the unemployed aren’t losing their health insurance or going hungry to the degree that they are here.
If, as Manny suggests, we had decided not to invest in the rich and had reformed health insurance as Truman and Nixon wanted to do, far, far fewer people would be suffering in this country.
The economy is different than economic policy.
In comparison to the US, virtually ALL of Europe is “left-leaning”. Perhaps we might start by clarifying what we mean by “left-leaning” — maybe things like:
– Effective government regulation of private business
– Publicly-funded health care
– Publicly-funded post-secondary education
– Strong and effective social “safety nets” for the unemployed, retirement benefits, profoundly disabled, and so on
You know, all those things we can’t do in America because they would be “socialist”.
But, since you asked, how about these well-performing “left-leaning countries”:
– Switzerland
– Sweden
– Finland
– Germany
– The Netherlands
– Denmark
Not interested in wading back into the dirty puddle of Neener Neener and ad hominem that constitutes an “alternative point of view”.
Germany is a great example if what America could be: a top tier Western country with a strong manufacturing base, excellent education and health care and everyone’s personal finances are in good order. Most people rent, gave small families, and live in urban and semi urban places. The suburbs and exurbs and our insistence on them contributes to the utter disregard for community we have over here. But communitarian capitalism with a human face works and their economy and quality if life is quite strong. The northern countries are poor examples since they are small and homogenous, but Germany is a great example of what to do.
Ireland was corrupted by trying to out America America wrecking the pastoral countryside made famous by John Ford and others by dotting it with McMansions and a center right party that thrived on cheap credit and deregulation. Italy, Greece, and Spain have never been wisely or openly governed and the graft, corruption, and stagnant corporate paternalism caught up with them.
“Republicans and Democrats are so firmly convinced that their ideas are in the best interest of the people they claim to serve.”
Nonsense. The Republicans hold no such belief. They don’t even pretend their agenda is in the best interest of the poor souls they’ve conned into voting for them.
From Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary, the article on Faith:
If everyone the Republican leadership were pretending to believe things, at least one would be caught in a conversation like the above.