Lew Rockwell celebrates the coming political gridlock. While I am mostly sympathetic to his views, I’m trying to see the other guys’s point of view. I think Bush’s speech nailed it: much of what is being considered by left leaning thinkers would result in a diminishment of progress, freedom, opportunity, and human dignity. But everything is a trade-off, so what would we get for these important losses? I believe the answer is security. The security agenda consists of bailing out companies and their unions, extending unemployment, reducing the uncertainty of medical expenses, etc. The left wants to build a “warm cocoon” or an expanded social safety net. That’s understandable. The left believes that the sacrifices required to achieve this are worth it; the right believes that the price is too high. No one Hardly anyone is opposed to security, progress, freedom, opportunity, or human dignity. The issues always concern how much of one to sacrifice in order to get more of the other.


One response to this post.

  1. There’s a sad underlying premise in this entire post and the post that you cite. It’s the assumption of “gridlock” and the hyper-partisanship that it applies.

    A party-divided government provides the needed checks and balances in order to draft responsible legislation that pragmatically addresses the balance between growth and security. It doesn’t to cause “gridlock” since the capacity for compromise – least in the larger view as opposed to any single piece of legislation or government action – exists.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: