Comments on: Towards the Good Society: A Conservative View http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2012/03/towards-the-good-society-a-conservative-view/ Informed reflection on the events of the day Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:00:00 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.4.23 By: Scott http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2012/03/towards-the-good-society-a-conservative-view/comment-page-1/#comment-24147 Sun, 04 Mar 2012 15:44:00 +0000 http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/?p=11942#comment-24147 I believe the example of Jack Kemp’s urban agenda is more complex that the author reveals, but nonetheless is an excellent point of entry to discuss the role of government and social problems. Kemp still worked within the framework of urban policy to promote home ownership, but also offered the usual tax cuts and de-regulation to promote investment in blighted neighborhoods. This policy initiative, emanating from the central government no less, was seen by the Republican establishment as an affront to their do-nothingism, and his legislative proposals were nixed as yet another “ill-conceived” government program. So this example seems to demonstrate not so much that the state should play no role in alleviating social problems, but a question of the nature of that role, and whether that role will be to go to the source of a problem and empower people by working with communities, whether it will simply try to cover up the problem via impersonal bureaucracy. Given that a democratically elected government still has a relationship with citizens whether it does nothing or not, and given the capacity of government to alleviate problems (just as much as it can make them worse); thus, looking the other was can still be considered a role, and often speaks louder than action does, as was the case when Kemp’s initiatives were shot down, not by liberals, but by conservatives.

]]> By: Michael Corey http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2012/03/towards-the-good-society-a-conservative-view/comment-page-1/#comment-24071 Thu, 01 Mar 2012 23:34:00 +0000 http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/?p=11942#comment-24071 Very interesting. I understand the theoretical interest in the terms: left/liberal, right/conservative and center (independent/pragmatic?). I find their practical application frequently muddled. Maybe that’s my problem. Personally, I prefer to deal with actions and interactions without applying an ideological label to them. I’ve always been interested in the sociology of small things. I’ve never viewed them in ideological terms.

I understand the merits of studying and “sharing stories of the American people — rich and poor, black and white, single or married — and by telling how they live their lives, manage their home economies, generate their livelihoods, preserve their customs, habits and traditions, and go about their day-to-day activities.” I suspect that this would probably help understand individuals and groups identified as liberals, conservatives and centrists. I’m not at all sure that the studies would convince anyone of the merits of the others’ belief systems and ways of life. It might enhance understanding.

I suspect that liberals, conservatives and centrists could all find problems with what they conceive to be ill-conceived government programs and regulations; however, I also suspect that all three perspectives might find governmental programs and regulations that they might favor. There probably wouldn’t be agreement, about which programs and regulations might be considered good and which were considered ill conceived.

It isn’t clear to me how you would return decision-making to the “ruled” rather than “rulers.” I suppose one mechanism might be to reduce the rule making authority of bureaucrats and return it to elected officials, but I’m not at all sure that this is what you have in mind. Would “representatives of the electorate” be a better term than “ruled?” Who do you have in mind as “rulers?” Are these unelected officials, elected officials doing things exceeding their constitutional authority, or others?

]]>