Comments on: The Worse, The Worse http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/04/07/the-worse-the-worse/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-worse-the-worse n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:25:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Daniel Larison http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/04/07/the-worse-the-worse/comment-page-1/#comment-9966 Daniel Larison Tue, 08 Apr 2008 04:11:27 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/04/07/the-worse-the-worse/#comment-9966 I think the unsustainability of Social Security in its current form will create a constituency for its repeal, since tens of millions of voters will have no stake in perpetuating it. Other aspects of the New Deal will be much harder to repeal. It is possible that curtailment of immigration will pave the way for the expansion of the welfare state. That does seem to have been one result of the midcentury freeze on immigration, but ultimately mass immigration will bring something much more like a social democratic model to the U.S., so immigration restriction is still preferable even if it makes removing the welfare state much more difficult. As for health care, I'm not sure whether we will see some government subsidy for it. My guess is that its proponents can either have that or shoring up entitlements, and there are a lot more constituents who are interested in the latter than in getting a new entitlement. I think the unsustainability of Social Security in its current form will create a constituency for its repeal, since tens of millions of voters will have no stake in perpetuating it. Other aspects of the New Deal will be much harder to repeal. It is possible that curtailment of immigration will pave the way for the expansion of the welfare state. That does seem to have been one result of the midcentury freeze on immigration, but ultimately mass immigration will bring something much more like a social democratic model to the U.S., so immigration restriction is still preferable even if it makes removing the welfare state much more difficult. As for health care, I’m not sure whether we will see some government subsidy for it. My guess is that its proponents can either have that or shoring up entitlements, and there are a lot more constituents who are interested in the latter than in getting a new entitlement.

]]> By: jaloren http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/04/07/the-worse-the-worse/comment-page-1/#comment-9965 jaloren Tue, 08 Apr 2008 04:00:13 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/04/07/the-worse-the-worse/#comment-9965 Considering you and Mr.Gottfried believe that an integral part of the paleo agenda is the roll back of the New Deal, what do you think the electoral prospects of opposing the New Deal are? From my admittedly liberal perspective, it seems that there is no viable constituency to oppose the New Deal now or in the future. Moreover, the question isn't whether we will have a welfare state but how large that welfare state will be. The answer from the American public, based upon demographics among other things, seems to be much, much larger. And as Matthew Ygleasias pointed out, if you managed to implement a restrictionist immigration policy, then you would create a more coherent demand for an expanded welfare state. For example, do you think that in the next 20 years we won't have universal health care funded by the federal government? I should add the unpopularity of your position is not meant to be pejorative. Mass democracy usually only arrives at good positions by chance. I, after all, have a raft of unpopular positions--albeit liberal ones. Considering you and Mr.Gottfried believe that an integral part of the paleo agenda is the roll back of the New Deal, what do you think the electoral prospects of opposing the New Deal are?

From my admittedly liberal perspective, it seems that there is no viable constituency to oppose the New Deal now or in the future. Moreover, the question isn’t whether we will have a welfare state but how large that welfare state will be. The answer from the American public, based upon demographics among other things, seems to be much, much larger. And as Matthew Ygleasias pointed out, if you managed to implement a restrictionist immigration policy, then you would create a more coherent demand for an expanded welfare state.

For example, do you think that in the next 20 years we won’t have universal health care funded by the federal government?

I should add the unpopularity of your position is not meant to be pejorative. Mass democracy usually only arrives at good positions by chance. I, after all, have a raft of unpopular positions–albeit liberal ones.

]]> By: clarkstooksbury http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/04/07/the-worse-the-worse/comment-page-1/#comment-9960 clarkstooksbury Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:51:49 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/04/07/the-worse-the-worse/#comment-9960 With that post, I bow out of the paleobama wars. Here's something I think we can agree on--whoever wins in November will make us long for the days of Gerald Ford. Now I have to go and watch my law Alma mater whip Caleb Stegall's. With that post, I bow out of the paleobama wars. Here’s something I think we can agree on–whoever wins in November will make us long for the days of Gerald Ford. Now I have to go and watch my law Alma mater whip Caleb Stegall’s.

]]>