- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
AmSpecBlog
Pinkerton Redefines Conservatism
Earlier this week I criticized Bobby Jindal for writing a health care op-ed in the Washington Post in which he endorsed a requirement that insurers cover those with pre-existing conditions, among other big government proposals. Because the requirement would also drive up the cost of insurance and lead to a federal mandate forcing individuals to purchase insurance or pay a tax, I argued that this was inconsistent with conservative principles. I wasn’t alone in thinking this. Ramesh Ponnuru also criticized Jindal’s proposal, and liberal blogger Ezra Klein wrote a post titled, “Bobby Jindal Embraces the Democratic Plan for Health-Care Reform.” Yet surprisingly, Jim Pinkerton writes that he was "surprised" by my negative reaction:
Why the surprise on the Spectator’s attack on Jindal? Because while the libertarian Cato Institute can always be expected to uphold ivory-tower free-market purity--completely abstracted from the chore of actual governance--conservatives, for the most part, have given themselves the task of forging a “governing conservatism.” Libertarian heroes are figures such as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and Ayn Rand, none of whom ever ran for office, much less were ever in charge of anything. Indeed, the great value of libertarian thinking is its purity; Cato, for example, provides an enormous service to the country by consistently upholding the “gold standard” of ideological purity.By contrast, conservatism is a lumpier and more organic philosophy. Conservative heroes include Edmund Burke, Abraham Lincoln, Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan, all of whom not only won elections, but sought real change through the legislative and political process. Jindal is in that category, a conservative actively involved in governance. And so for conservative intellectuals who wish their side to win elections and then go on to make real policy changes, they might conclude that they need to work with Jindal and others like him, in order to hammer out art-of-the-possible solutions. Or maybe not.
Libertarianism and conservatism have a much more nuanced relationship with one another than Pinkerton lets on. It’s true that on social issues and national security matters, there are lots of divisions between conservatives and libertarians, but when it comes to economic issues and free markets, there is less daylight.
The “libertarian heroes” Pinkerton mentions all played an influential role in conservatism. Hayek and Friedman are revered within the conservative movement, and Friedman’s economic ideas formed part of the foundation of Reaganomics. Due to her extreme atheism, Rand is more controversial among conservatives, but her moral defense of capitalism has been influential too. And this year, all of the talk of “going Galt” as well as the anger at the tea parties directed at government bureaucrats mooching off of their productivity is Randian in nature.
Also, if he's going to make a case for pragmatic governing conservatives, it’s odd that Pinkerton would use the example of Barry Goldwater, who is best known for getting absolutely clobbered in a presidential election because he wanted to run a campaign based on principles. As Goldwater wrote in the Conscience of a Conservative:
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents" interests,' I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause, I am doing the very best I can."
Robert Poole, one of the early editors of Reason magazine, has called Goldwater “20th-century America's first libertarian politician.”
And as for Ronald Reagan, he himself declared that, “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism… The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is… I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”
While Pinkerton acknowledges that a government insurance mandate is “un-libertarian,” he asks, “Is it really un-conservative?”
Well, a mandate means that lawmakers in Washington would be forcing every breathing individual in America to purchase a product. Government bureaucrats would define what constitutes an acceptable version of that product. Every year when they file their taxes, Americans would have to submit documentation to the Internal Revenue Service proving that they have an acceptable version of that product. If they don’t abide by the requirement, they will be forced to pay a tax to the federal government.
Thus, the mandate violates just about every conservative principle that there is. It’s a violation of individual liberty. It's unconstitutional if you were to strictly interpret the document the way most conservatives would prefer. It would infringe on states’ rights. And it would be a tax increase.
As a policy matter, I don’t accept Pinkerton’s false premise that in order to be serious about health care, conservatives have to embrace big government solutions such as Jindal is offering. As it happens, I have written on numerous occasions about alternative solutions to the health care crisis that involve getting government out of the way (see here, here, here, here, and here).
Ultimately, I think, Pinkerton makes a mistake by conflating conservatism with Republicanism. Republicans thought that passing the largest expansion of entitlements since the Great Society in the form of the Medicare prescription drug plan was a good example of practical politics and good governance. But most conservatives saw it as a betrayal of small-government principles.
UPDATE: Cato's Michael Cannon responds that "Hurting the Sick Is Not Good Politics."
Comments
Leave a Comment
John - TMF| 10.7.09 @ 8:45AM
cough... er um ...cough
Jindal is RIGHT... You sir, on this issue are (and you have rarely been on most topics) WRONG.
IF your path is taken, then there WILL be Nationalized Healthcare, and this time the cycle of return will be much less than then 15 years between Hillarycare and Obamacare...
Individual Mandates for coverage of prexisting conditions is a lie propagated by the insurance industry to provide an unpalatable false choice.
Group plans provided by businesses are already required to accept most pre-existing conditions by most(if not all state laws). They manage just fine.
The insurance industry thrives on playing government off against its policy holders, even up to and including a rather nasty relationship between insurance companies and government on mandates for other types of insurance, assigned risk pools, etc.
Jindal has put his finger right on the magic button of actually ginning up the public support necessary to A) Stop the drive for some form of universal socialized medicine and B) provide the breathing room necessary to actually reform the rules by which all insurance policies are written.
A long time ago, we were headed in the right direction with Blue Cross/Blue Shield as non-profit corporations (it should have been a nation wide non-profit with floating risk pools and nationalized benefit groups) but instead of writing that reform, the Democrats wanted Socialized Medicine, and the Republicans just wanted the issue to go away.
Unless the GOP comes up with a proposal for viable, reliable, universally available under all conditions, purchasable health insurance, then Obamacare or son of Obamacare WILL eventually win out.
You see, sir, if given a choice between crappy socialized medicine, and the real risk of personal bankruptcy with no means to pay for medical care... PEOPLE WILL CHOOSE the FORMER.
Jindal is way smarter than you give him credit for. Those of you falling for insurance industry/Democrat supported agitprop because you believe the insurance industry is "capitalist" will end up in the K Street Clinic with the rest of the Obamacare queue.
Cheers... The Mighty Fahvaag
PS: Obama and his minions are up off the floor his poll numbers are up... the mess in the Senate is likely to pass... the mess in the house will pass, and the Bamster will sign it...
Red Phillips| 10.7.09 @ 8:48AM
I usually like Pinkerton, but this is a joke:
"Conservative heroes include ... Abraham Lincoln ..."
No Mr. Pinkerton, conservative heroes do not include Lincoln who was a radical who conserved nothing. If a "conservative" counts Lincoln as a hero then he doesn't understand conservatism.
Otherwise, Pinkerton is normally more libertarianesque than most conservative commentators. I'm not sure I understand what motivates this new found embrace of political pragmatism.
Randy Evans| 10.7.09 @ 9:28AM
John TMF has it exactly right, but I doubt the Republicans will understand this. Klein is usually good, but he doesn't seem to get where things are going on Capital Hill.
Nick| 10.7.09 @ 10:09AM
I had this epiphany in another thread yesterday:
A libertarian is a conservative who grew up in a dysfunctional family.
This explains their praise for the "individual" above all, rather than understanding that the family is the "cradle of civil society."
These are generalizations, all you libertarians. Don't flame me.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.7.09 @ 10:33AM
Mr. Klein
Thanks for the provocative article.
I really appreciate your excerpt from Goldwater.
I was a voter at the time, and as I recall, him being clobbered so bad was the "cut off the east coast" remark, and the (false) fear that he would start throwing nukes around wily nilly. I remember that one nuclear commercial vividly.
I do think Jindal has some good ideas...that will never be passed anyway. At least he threw some out there to be sharpened and polished.
I also think you might not be fully aware of our mood out here in fly over country. In fact I have been hammered by our membership to write an article about..."REPEAL EVERYTHING SINCE 1962. JUST THROW IT OUT AND START OVER."
OKOK, (smile) pick your own year.
Sir, I honestly believe that 2010 is our last ditch as a constitutional republic. If we repealers cannot gain at least a majority in congress (both houses), I fully expect a future none of us wants to see unfold.
Wendy| 10.7.09 @ 10:46AM
Philip Klein is exactly correct. Excellent work.
What Pinkerton, Jindal, and the rest of the RINO crew need to understand is that WE DON'T NEED YOU. GET OUT. You contribute nothing to the movement but bulls**t. We the people don't want your "help." We don't need any government "favors" from you. We don't need you to make sure that health insurance companies cover our pre-existing conditions, that I buy health insurance, or that some government bureaucracy is looking out for our preventive wellness.
The "real policy changes" you are talking about are nothing more than statism with free market lipstick, and you know it. You think you can hide the truth if you disguise it with euphemisms like this? We don't need or want more statism, of any kind. Even if we accepted your idea that it is necessary to move toward more statism to win elections, we still would not want it. Why would I want us to win elections to implement the same thing the left is calling for, my further enslavement?
We want our freedom back! Got it? We want our freedom, and nothing else from you. We have no personal loyalties toward you. If you adopt statism, you will be taken out with the rest of the trash. You think the morally pure way is impractical and only targeted statism can be practical? That is what the neocons preached. It has been tried under Bush and it catastrophically failed, as it had to. Such is always the consequence when force is introduced against the human mind. Freedom is eminently practical. And now we mean to achieve it.
I am tired of having you jerks take away everything from me. You take away our freedoms, our opportunities, our lives, our money, our ability to pursue happiness. You think human lives are just pieces on a chess board for you to tinker around with until you achieve some collective moral-aesthetic outcome you like? How many professions and industries does the government directly or indirectly control? Pretty much everything but the tech and railroad industry, and even some there. How much of our money and would-be wages get routed to the government to blow on entitlement spending with a few constitutional functions thrown in? Well over half. We are slaves, and we want our freedom, not masters with an (R) behind their name.
Conservatism means to conserve the Founding Fathers' ideals, and those ideals were the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which means freedom from government interference. Your ideal of conservatism, with its left-right compromise, nanny state do-gooding, and pragmatism, is illegitimate. You do not represent true conservatism. We are its true representatives, and we are taking our rightful place back: In charge of this movement.
Don't think it can ever be "business as usual" again for you. We seek to roll back the state, and we mean business. No longer is it your way or the Democrats. This time, it is OUR way or the highway. Adapt or perish.
perlhaqr| 10.8.09 @ 1:24PM
Wendy@1046: Hallelujah.
Pingback| 10.7.09 @ 11:20AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Pinkerton Redefines Con links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
S.L. Toddard| 10.7.09 @ 12:13PM
"The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom"
Reagan was wrong. The basis of conservatism is the urge to conserve - to protect those practices and institutions that have been hallowed by the passage of time, the value of which have been proven by long usage. Generally speaking, small gov't is valued by conservatives because small government is less likely to destroy those institutions (family, say) and practices (self-reliance) conservatives value, and because small gov't allows for conservatives to better protect these things. Libertarians generally embrace individualism to a degree that conservatives don't. Conservatives reject that all men are atomized individuals, and recognize the importance of communal institutions, and that man is a social being who needs tradition, family and community to keep him anchored and grounded. Libertarians generally believe a man should rely first and foremost on his individual reason when choosing a course of action - that individual man is wise enough to chart his own course. Conservatives generally believe that the individual is foolish, but the species is wise, to paraphrase, and will therefore defer to the wisdom of the species as it manifests itself in tradition, in conventional wisdom and morality, and let these inform his decision. Conservatives and Libertarians both value personal liberty, but for different reasons.
TennesseeVolunteer| 10.7.09 @ 12:23PM
Wendy, you're not Sarah Palin are you? You are my new posting hero!
We love conservative (or libertarian women) BECAUSE THEY FIGHT!
Red Phillips| 10.7.09 @ 12:57PM
SLT is entirely correct. Everyone should read his last post again to make sure they understand it.
Heather Robinson| 10.7.09 @ 5:16PM
Personally, I believe the health insurance industry should be subject to some regulation, but I acknowledge that is a "liberal" position. Klein's analysis of conservatism and libertarianism is fascinating and serves to inspire as well: whatever one's position on an individual issue, it is good to be reminded that historically, conservatives and libertarians have shared a healthy skepticism of big government--a skepticism to which our President paid lip service, but in no way honored, in his recent speech on health care.
Pingback| 10.8.09 @ 8:43AM
James Pinkerton: "Most Republicans Are Not Libertarian," So Deal With it - Hit & Run links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
LibertyMark| 10.8.09 @ 10:48AM
I'm with Klein, and his rebuttal is very good, but you don't need to go to such effort to refute Pinkerton.
In Pinkerton's article, he said this: "but the majority has rights, too."
I don't think I have ever heard a person who is not a socialist/"progressive" utter such nonsense. After saying such a thing, Pinkerton loses all credibility as a person who could be speaking for either conservatives OR libertarians.
rhenderson58| 10.8.09 @ 1:34PM
Red Phillips, S.L. Toddard,
But what do you think of Pinkerton's/Jindal's idea? Is is conservative?
electgogo| 10.29.09 @ 10:41AM
The contents of article are wonderful!!!Great!
brand new discounting Laptop Batteries
brand new discounting Laptop cpu fans
Pingback| 12.15.09 @ 4:38PM
A Defense of Erick’s Endorsement of Rand Paul - Chieftain1776’s blog - RedState links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.15.09 @ 4:41PM
A Defense of Erick’s Endorsement of Rand Paul - Chieftain1776’s blog - RedState links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
zone| 1.17.10 @ 4:41AM
nike outlet
adidas outlet