The problem here is that whatever party gains control of the government wants to expand its role in their own favorite directions, rather than shrink it. No one actually rejects an expanded role for government power, they simply like to spout such ideas because it sounds good. And the electorate doesn’t want the government to shrink either, they just want it to function more efficiently and less intrusively. Your characterization of the government as a “thug” is certainly true in some instances, but it is not the general American experience of their own government. We are not some third-world dictatorship, we are still a civil society. If we were, the elections would reflect that divide. But it does not, and those who see our government that way are confined to tiny third parties with no following within the mainstream. Instead, we see a continuing demand for more and better government, run by smarter and more capable people. That’s essentially the mandate Obama has been given, and it’s essentially the same mandate that’s been given over and over again since FDR. It isn’t going to be change in the forseeable future.

As you say, the issue is one of success and failure. The country has seen plenty of both, but people still have considerable faith in the ability of a well-run government to provide basic, essential services. Social security, for example, is highly efficient and enjoys tremendous popular support.

Now, the issue that I think is pertinent to paleo-conservatism is how to preserve local communities and cultures in the face of this large government centralization of power. I think that is the challenge that has to be met, because I don’t see any practical way of reversing that centralization of political power. However, I also don’t see why the centralization of political power has to result in totalitarianism. I use the example of the local power utilities, which enjoy near-complete authority over a centralized grid. They do not use this power, however, to actually control people’s lives, but are prevented from extending that power by specific regulations which reduce their role to a purely practical one. In the same way, it’s certainly possible for government to simply provide the kinds of basic services and support which are something like a “public utility” that cannot use that power in an authoritarian, abusive fashion. It requires an active citizenry that demands limitations on the abuse of power, without actually destroying the “grid” that makes efficient services, like an electricity grid, available to everyone at reasonable cost (taxes). That requires a political solution that emerges from the process of creating such a state, with of course many mistakes along the way, as we have already seen. But if the will of enough people is strong enough, there is no theoretical barrier to the creation of a human social-welfare government that takes a hands off approach to basic cultural values, the same way my electiric company can’t tell me what I can use the electricity it sells me for. Some people will always choose to live “off the grid” to some degree, but in most cases that isn’t necessary in order to be free of the kinds of government impositions which you seem to fear.

Furthermore, the greater threat to small scale cultures is not the federal government, but large scale capitalism itself, which ruthlessly destroys everything in its path and converts it into forms of social order that benefit its own appetites, rather than the human needs of those who are at its mercy. The best check on that power is government oversight, in the form of regulators who act like refs in a sporting competition, who make sure that everyone plays by the rules, rather than being free to abuse their power without restraint. It is “conservatives” who have been the champions of the very market forces which have all but destroyed any hope of keeping alive the intimate human cultures which paleocons seem to value. If there is to be any hope for such cultures, it is by pitting the two against one another.

“If done right”…If the aggregate benefits of welfarism for prosperity, innovation and freedom were so evident, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. You make fair points, resting on a weak assumption that discounts the main premise of conservative/libertarian fears of centralized economic control. The U.S. is not Sweden. We do not have a homogeneous culture that shares basic common values from which a consensus on the role the state plays in our lives can be extrapolated from the wishes of a vast majority. Our government is not a blurred extension of collective society. In fact, contrary to this whole cheesy national “unity” trip that’s currently in vogue, America is essentially multiple countries with wildly divergent value sets, constantly fighting over a single federal power apparatus.

This institution (yes the American State is an institution) has the ability to grant wishes unattainable and illegal if pursued privately, as well as fatally threaten certain cherished traditions and ways of life. No wonder we don’t seem to make “progress”, except through the practice of cold civil war in which political winners are determined by the legal/legislative conquest of one worldview over another.

I’m all for social experimentation…by volition. This allows new things to be attempted with less barriers to initiative, encourages the corrective function of trial and error, and steers people into making serious, grounded choices, if they are held personally accountable for their decisions, and are are committing various resources at a personal tradeoff proportional to the benefit they expect to derive from the expenditure. You are very cavalier in betting the collective farm on the belief that an expanded state, without the prerequisite fiscal and legal restraints we’d both support, will not be of a more unaccountable, authoritarian bent that will ultimately kill the goose that lays the eggs as we both fear; others of us are not willing to take that risk, which is the crux of our disagreement.

If “market”, democratic socialism came as advertised, who could credibly oppose it? Ludwig V. Mises and others took up the task of dismantling the sales pitch from a strictly technical standpoint over 75 years ago. You can disagree with their conclusions but while it’s true that through the coercive and often fraudulent powers of taxation and monetarism, the state can undertake certain economic functions that the private sector seemingly cannot, it is only because it has the special (and in my view abhorrent) ability to forcibly socialize the risk/cost of its operating expenditures. (Yes, this applies to our current state capitalism as well and why it’s so dysfunctional). Forced patronage is a business model that one might assume couldn’t possibly fail, and yet the state and its privileged private adjuncts manage to foul it up time and again…

Even supposedly public goods which the economics profession argues cannot be provided sufficient to meet demand by private industry, are supplied in ways that are grossly suboptimal to what could be possible if the monopolizing state were subject to pressures resembling a marketplace.

Statists of all parties have always maintained that their own particular twist on central planning would work beautifully if “done right”, if the “right people” were in power. Aside from being unviable on its own terms, according to the Austrians, this essential criteria of “right” stuff is rarely met, which unravels the models by which planners project sustainable success. After all this time and experience, there is still no accounting for this variable factor in the formulation of their intricate policies, as doing so would illustrate the vulnerability of the premise insofar as it rests on the (low) probability of the prerequisite criteria (“done right”, “right people”) being satisfied, and maintained, which the planners cannot anticipate.

In any other context, any venture with such a glaring flaw would be dismissed as unviable—a bad investment, considering the risk involved. Statist planners bypass this natural hurdle by employing the power of government to launch the program first, locking it in, then proceeding to distribute the risk, and cost on unwilling “investors” thereafter. The tail wags the dog. This is the exact opposite of how successful private commerce operates, and yet we wonder why, despite all its unfair and immoral advantages, this dictatorial approach has a long track-record of failure. Furthermore, regardless of its success or failure on its own terms, in all cases encroachment of the state increasingly diminishes personal liberty; over time, an incalculable cost, with terrible consequences.

At any given time, the American state is not an extension of a monolithic “society” which is somehow organically accountable to the people, as is more the case in the homogenous, insular cultures like Japan or the Nordic nations, but rather a thuggish enterprise that validates the imposition of its agents’ agenda on a largely unwilling populace, like some self-assured violator convinced “she was asking for it”. The role of predator and victim interchanges periodically in the perverse process we venerate as our modern political democratic discourse.

Nevertheless, I wish Obama the best of luck, as I’m not really concerned that his policies will be successful to the extent that he creates a real ideological realignment ex. the New Deal. I’d actually prefer a Scandinavian-style welfare state to the kelptocratic plutocracy we suffer under presently, and I’d join you in the advocacy of such a system if I really believed that the only other alternative was the current corrupt mess. But I don’t believe that.

The U.S. will not have the sustainable good governance you seek as long as we remain this intractably divided country, truly, about as divided a western nation can be without crossing a threshold of civil unrest, with all sides and disparate interests trying to seize the reins of power in a perpetual struggle to plunder each other, under the rationale made possible only by the overpowered state, that one must “conquer or be conquered” to progress in America.

The liberal netroots does not, in general, like Rahm.

The political netroots were largely forged in the fires of the Dean campaign, and endorsed a “50-state strategy” that Obama ultimately pursued with success. Rahm Emmanuel opposed that strategy, and the netroots has never wholly forgiven him. He’s also seen as a Clinonite– which is to say a tepid incrementalist. His selection sent the left-net (dkos in particular) into some minor spasms of concern.

However, the netroots adores Obama, and is on an absolute high this week, so I think the verdict appears to be giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Liberal disappointment presumes liberals have huge expectations, which they do not. They certainly love Obama, but they don’t really expect utopia to break out. On a practical level, they are a cheap date, as long as a little romance is offered.

As for Obama’s aims, he does aim big, but not the kind of big you are thinking, some sort of Scandinavian style social-democracy. He simply wants to get genuine health care, energy, economic stimulus, etc. passed. That’s pretty big, relatively speaking. On the other hand, you are right that every kind of progressive movement heads in the direction of a wider safety net for the welfare state, and will be opposed by most conservatives. But you ignore the fact that even most Republicans actually want a wider safety net, as long as it isn’t a drag on the economy. That’s why Bush spent so much money, and created huge new entitlements (for the enrichment of drug companies, of course). The gradual approach that doesn’t backrupt the country or stall economic growth is what the electorate wants, and they want Democrats to lead the way, for the most part, because they actually want to do this, and are dedicated to doing it in a responsible way. That of course is the hitch. If Democrats “progress” towards these goals irresponsibly, as they have been wont to do in the past, the electorate will vote in Republicans, or split power. But the general thrust of history is heading in one direction only, and that’s not a “conservative” direction in the sense that you want.

As for your fears of totalitarianism, this sort of thing could turn out many different ways, and not all of them are purely good or bad. Measuring “freedom” is not an easy thing to do. People in Denmark are probably a lot “freer” than in much of the U.S., if freedom means happiness. If it means being at the mercy of large corporations and their needs, and the beliefs of religious fundamentalists, which is what “freedom” means to the GOP, then perhaps freedom-loving people everwhere will vote Republican.

As for the nobility of the classical liberal principle, it’s only real salvation in the real world, I think, is progressive politics, which, once it takes care of the basic needs of the people, can allow for a much greater deal of personal freedom than any other system. This depends, of course, on continuing innovation and technological efficiency in the economy, which is the only thing which can make such a progressive state possible without crushing the very economic engine which drives it. Which is why, I think, the U.S. will get there eventually, and maybe even create a better progressive society than that found in Europe, because we have the greater capacity for economic innovation, investment, and technological invention. Obama’s long-term goal, I think, is in that direction, but he sees the need to use government in the short term to stimulate scientific and technological development, such as in energy tech, to drive us in the direction which will make a greater safety net possible. In the meantime, his safety net measures will be more modest than he would ultimately like. It won’t all happen in his two terms. It will take a few more decades, at least. But the rate of technological growth is going to continue to accelerate, and produce even more wealth than we currently have, and that will bring about a stronger social state while leaving innovation in place. A large safety net government does not have to become a totalitarian state as you fear, any more than having a large electric utility means that what you do with your power is constricted by that utility. Quite the opposite. A large safety net state can become almost invisible in its efficiencies because it simply supplies the basics that we all need at an affordable price. If done right.

Other than that, conradg is right to say that there are several political reasons why this is a smart choice for the Obama administration, having to do with the nitty-gritty of Washington. However, I disagree with him that the so called incremental approach will be more effective than the shock doctrine. Why are certain hot button issues so resistant to compromise by either side? Because those issues are zero-sum propositions and anything other than a stalemate creates momentum in one direction down a slippery slope to the logical end of one side or another, a likelihood that horrifies the opposite side.

Conradg, you will not encounter decreased resistance to a progressive agenda persued incrementally, because your opposition is horrified by your ULTIMATE goals, and the last thing they want to do is validate your positions by voluntarily ceding ground. It doesn’t help that progressivism doesn’t appear to draw any reliable line in the sand for how much statism is appropriate is a self-proclaimed free society. The general impression is that progressivism (discounting the personal preferences of individual progressives) will always find something new that the state should be doing, or subsidizing, or prohibiting and will never be satisfied until the last vestiges of free will are quashed and “everything not mandatory is forbidden, everything not forbidden is mandatory”. I’d ask you to disabuse me of this fear, but nothing you can say would do it, because everybody knows it’s largely true given the diversity of interest groups that would like to capture state power for their own devices under the progressive mantle. That said, I wish the resistance to democratic socialism was one based on the nobility of classical liberal principle, instead of the mercantilist interests of big business.

Speaking of politics though, If you have the capacity to bring overwhelming political pressure to bear on your opponents and crush their objections, why settle for small changes when you can get big ones, provided you’re confident that they will lead to a sustainable improvement in circumstances, reducing the chances of a huge backlash that nullifies all your gains? Don’t you think Obama would rather be the second coming of FDR than a Clinton redux, or heaven forbid, Carter 2.0?

Now, when Joe Lieberman gets bent 90 degrees backward and has his head shoved up his tailpipe…no one can raise charges of anti-Semitism.

Well played indeed.

Okay, Daniel, I understand you’re in deep depression ever since Baldwin failed to garner enough electoral votes on Mars to win, so I’ll let this pass. Of course Emanuel matters. The question is, does appointing him represent a betrayal of his pledge to change the tone in Washington? No, it doesn’t. CoS is an insider position, it doesn’t “set the tone” in Washington. And Rahm is not some hugely polarizing ideological figure in any case. His ideology is very centrist, if anything. He’s simply a tough character who gets things done. He doesn’t play the divides and use ideological ammunition to polarize things. He just plays strong politics to get things accomplished, which is quite a different thing.

You seem to have the false impression that Obama has somehow pledged to be an ineffectual elitist staring at rainbos who is more concerned about making sure everyone plays nice than he is in making sure something gets accomplished. Not so. He just doesn’t want to perpetuate ideological divides that stop things from getting accomplished. The whole point is “getting things accomplished”, so he wants to eliminate the kind of fighting that prevents that, and is willing to put up with the ordinary politics of opposing interests and rough and tumble that actually does end up accomplishing things. You seem to equate Obama’s “change the tone” with some sort of paradaisical utopia because it suits your interests, and allows you to condemn him every time he actually acknowledges the ordinary human nature of our politics. We will leave it to you conservatives to engage in useless ideological infighting and partisan put-downs that gets you further and further away from the real world of politics and power where stuff gets done.

Now, guys like Clemons will of course always be pushing for Obama to be more leftist than he actually is. His recent article criticizing in advance the idea of appointing Summers to Treasury is part of that push (I happen to love Summers, so I’m not too sympathetic). And that sort of pushing is simply to be expected. The idea of Obama being a “third Clinton term” is hardly something that most Democrats, or the country as a whole, would find to be a bad thing, considering the prosperity ushered in during that time. Gee, creating a big boom, ending the deficit, creating a budget surplus, etc, are not exactly things we want to avoid. But then again, admittedly there are indeed some leftists out there who would remain unsatisfied, and Clemons may be one of them. It’s not exactly going to keep most of us up late at night trying to satisfy every last socialist out there.

Um, I don’t know why you’re saying this since I never said anything like that and I certainly don’t believe that.

Daniel, I’ve asked you twice and now I’m asking you a third time: why exactly do you think Emanuel will shape policy from his position as CoS. Do you think the position of CoS is one of policy development? I mean, if Emanuel had been appointed to a policy development job, I’d agree with you that his appointment told us something about what policies Obama wanted to pursue. But my understanding of the CoS job is that is largely policy agnostic and is focused on implementing the boss’s chosen policies rather than shaping them. If you think otherwise, I’d love to hear your explanation, but I’ve asked three times now and have yet to get a serious answer. I’m especially confused since you yourself said “Of course the CoS doesn’t set policy.”

Obama’s voters don’t expect him to live up to his promises, because they pay no attention to anything that he does.

Oh, I think they do expect him to live up to his promises. I disagree with you because I think they’re far more concerned about what policies Obama implements (and how skilfully he implements them) than about the ideological traits of people he appoints to executive jobs that don’t set policy.

I realize that I had not met truly absolute cynics until I started talking with Obama supporters.

I thought cynacism involved more than simply asking to see evidence for unusual claims.

I realize that I had not met truly absolute cynics until I started talking with Obama supporters.

In 2000, Gore won the popular vote, and probably should have been put in the White House, but in 2004, Kerry did not. Kos said so, unambiguously, and mocked those who continued to push some form of conspiracy theory.

The Left today is vastly different than “the movement” of the 1960′s. Those on the right who can’t wake up to that fact may find themselves behind the curve of the electorate.

There is simply no reason to believe that these voters would react to it unfavorably. Almost no one has any idea who Emanuel is, let alone what making him CoS might mean for Obama’s bipartisan agenda. Furthermore, even if these voters do think Emanuel is too hyper-partisan, there is simply no reason to believe that the CoS dictates policy to a degree where Emauel’s hyper-partisaness matters. Finally, even if lots of Obama’s supporters are interested in bipartisan stuff, it does not follow that all Obama’s decisions must be bipartisan or even that all of his early decisions must be bipartisan. That notion is just absurd, and you’re more than smart enough to understand that even if Corn isn’t.

However, I am being told that Corn is irrelevant, so apparently it doesn’t matter what he did or didn’t say.

Huh? I certainly never told you that. What I told you is that your explanation of what Corn said was absurd because it violated the laws of physics. I also told you that Corn is trying to launder his opinions of Emanuel through a bunch of rally goers that never said anything about Emanuel and likely don’t know anything about him.