To celebrate my kid’s last day of Kindergarten, we rode the bus into NYC and took the train back to New Jersey. While waiting for our transfer in Secaucus, I picked up a castoff Post. One of the best thing about public transportation is free reading material. The Opinion section had an excerpt of Rove’s speech to the New York State Conservative Party Dinner on Wednesday. The liberal bloggers have probably run this topic into the ground, but I don’t have time to search around.
Rove:
Let me know say a few words about the state of liberalism. Perhaps the place to begin is with this stinging indictment:
“Liberalism is at greater risk now than at any time in recent American history. The risk is of political marginality, even irrelevance… [L]iberalism risks getting defined, as conservatism once was, entirely in negative terms.”
These are not the words of William F. Buckley, Jr. or Sean Hannity; they are the words of Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a leading liberal publication.
There is much merit in what Mr. Starr writes — though he and I fundamentally disagree as to why liberalism is edging toward irrelevance. I believe the reason can be seen when comparing conservatism with liberalism.
Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations: they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in cutting the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don’t….
Well, no. That’s not what liberalism is about, at least my brand of liberalism. Yes, liberalism is in jeopardy, and I have been a critic of how the left is advancing its cause, but liberalism is not how Rove paints it.
The goals of liberalism are to live in a more equitable society, with most citizens living in the middle class, to live in a fair society where hard work and pluck are rewarded regardless of connections or class or gender, and to live in a free society where everyone can choose how best to reach happiness.
These goals are essential to the American democracy and imagination. We are Americans because we don’t have a class system and a college dropout can found Microsoft in a garage. Since the 1980s, there are signs that class structure is becoming more rigid and the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. This doesn’t bode well for the vitality of American democracy.
Liberalism is NOT about more taxes or government intervention or added bureaucracy. Good liberals don’t give a crap about how services are provided, just that the goals are achieved.
1.6 billion dollars were raised by Americans to aid the Tsunami victims. Hell, if we could raise money for homelessness, housing, and hunger through voluntary means rather than taxes, that would be FINE BY ME. We could have weekly televised relief efforts aimed at one particular need. Elton John could come out every week with some new version of Yellow Brick Road.
Many liberals are in favor of vouchers, not simply because the market knows all, but because they think it can be the means to help urban children.
We have nothing invested in large or small government, big or small taxes, regulation or free. What I care about is the goals of equity, fairness, and freedom.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are too caught up in the means and seem to have no goals. What is their end plan? Okay, so you’re in favor of flat taxes or small government, tell me why. What do you have to offer me?
Their unwavering belief in the free market and religious fervor in economics system rivals the Marxists.
I don’t have enough confidence that without some human control, capitalism will float all boats. I don’t believe that after a country endures a period of human slavery, it move to the next historical stage of exploitation in a Nike factory, and then it will graduate to the final historical stage of pure capitalism with flat screen TVs and Skechers for all.
Capitalism is fine and good, but we have to have some control over events. We can’t sit back and let wrongs occur and just assume that progress will improve things.
Any attempt to put some control over inequities and conservatives accuse you of being a communist. Putting economics ahead of social and political goals is leading to a revival of Social Darwinism. The poor are poor for a reason, now leave me alone to enjoy the fruits of my labor without a guilt trip, please.
Republicans claim to be helpless as the invisible hand does its work, they ignore greater goals of humanity in their promotion of an economic principle, they dismiss the needs of the poor as part of natural order of things.
Now tell me, which party is the most negative?
Apt. 11d 
Very well said, Laura.
“Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results;”
This would be funny if it weren’t so sad; they’re still arguing that the “program” in Iraq has been effective. Clearly, the results are to be manipulated until the correct measurement is achieved.
“We believe in cutting the size of government;”
Another lie. Where did the Department of Homeland Security come from, for example? A liberal administration?
“We believe in accountability…”
Stop, Karl! You’re killing me!
LikeLike
Nice post. I defintely agree that liberalism is under attack from the puritanical conservatives. I still will never understand why American makes such a big issue of being a liberal. Your point about capitalism is very well founded because without the proper infrastutcure capitalism will fail in a market that is not able to support a quality of life that employees will look for. They will simply try to work until they can leave. Look at Mexico.
I think Rowe plays up to the people that go his boss into office and with whom junior helped curb support from during his father’s term and that of the clinton years. The Bushies are worried about 2008, about the reference to LBJ that Bush will be given should insurgency in Iraq step up. Quagmire will defintely be used as a buzz word for the next several years.
I also think some of the GOP business owners are not ignorant to the fact that we have a former coke head oil baron in office who has done little to curb the $60 cost per barrel of oil by implementing new programs for renewable energy or hydrogen. I wonder what its doing to their bottom line if their operating cost are going through the roof becasue the cost of shipping is transferred into prices for parts for their goods.
Perhaps if there was a signifigant reduction in oil, Iran, Saudi, or other oil bearing nation states wouldn’t have the extra cash lying around to fund juhadists? Then again, we have a president elected to office by Enron and still serving at their command. Thank god we have liberals to put some of these idiots in check.
LikeLike
Excellent post. And gzombie is dead-on with the “small government” critique. The government has grown at an unprecedented rate under W.
Some points that Rove forgot to include:
Conservatives believe in eroding the separation of church and state. Liberals don’t.
Conservatives believe in using torture to extract confessions. Liberals don’t.
Conservatives believe in discriminating against gay and lesbian couples. Liberals don’t.
We could go on and on with this simple tit-for-tat all day – ignoring the fact that the only people who care about these pure ideological labels anyway are the pure partisans on both sides of the aisle. Most people’s political philosophies, thank the Goddess, are much more intricate than Karl Rove’s.
LikeLike
thanks, guys.
Rove may turn out to be a nice little present for the Democrats. The Michael Moore of the right. Keep talking, Rove, and put a Democrat in the White House.
LikeLike
I’d settle for leaving a Republican in the White House and having Democrats in charge of Congress. In a year and a half, that might even happen!
I do wonder what Karl’s smoking, though. The Bush Administration – and as a result, the GOP – has been for fiscal irresponsibility, government intrusion into the private affairs of citizens, and the weakening of the U.S. military as evidenced by the failures to meet recruitment goals.
Oh well. I’m sure President Bush is a nice guy to have a beer with at a barbeque. But I think the last five years of so have illustrated why he was a lousy candidate for President. Oh well, you live and learn.
Well, y’know, unless you were a U.S. or Allied service person serving in Iraq and got killed. Then you’re just dead.
LikeLike