The Rise of Republican Nihilism

As nearly as I can tell from my conservative friends, there are three commandments in the conservative creed:

1. Thou shalt not commit government. All government is bad, and deserves to be killed, regardless of whether it accomplishes a goal desired by the electorate, or not. As a corollary, nearly all change to existing government arrangements is bad, since changing them requires one to commit additional government.

2. The market is your God, and you shall put no other value before the market. If that means children starve, God gave us free will precisely so we can follow the market and watch children starve.

3. Get what you want by force, when operating outside the national borders. As a corollary, anything related to spending money on the military, and using force in the name of national interest is an exception to commandments 1 and 2.

What is utterly astonishing to me, is that even amongst people whom I know by their work to be thoughtful and capable intellectuals, those who label themselves conservatives hew to these commandments extremely faithfully. The first two in particular, have a death grip on their minds that would make the most reactionary Mullah jealous that he is unable to achieve such orthodoxy.

The only mistake here is to characterize this as the "rise" of conservative nihilism. The Republicans have been engaged in much the same thing since the end of Reconstruction. Through the Depression and WWII, their principal goals were not to revive the economy and win the war, but to defeat Roosevelt. To that end, they were just as obstructionist then as they are now. Despite their bombastic and self-declared patriotism, these people care nothing for this country or its people. They are singularly devoted to their own greed and to social conformity that prevents the public from understanding their grip on economic and social life.

This is not purely incidental or accidental. Conservatism always represents the interests of a wealthy elite. They are, by definition, far too few to constitute a majority in a democracy or some form of government meant to appear to be a democracy. Tto protect their interests, they must therefore gather around them a cadre of brown-shirts, people of moderate means who will, seemingly in derogation of their own interests, align themselves with malefactors of great wealth. To accomplish this political trick, they employ the time-honored tactics of demagoguery, tactics that go back at least to the Roman Republic. A hefty dose of lies is used to smear opponents as morally and religiously impure, threatening the public with similar impurity and the imminent loss of freedom that the public does not truly possess.

This is why conservative predictions of doom always come to naught and they manage to accommodate themselves to measures that advance the public welfare once they are enacted and become popular. Their predictions are always wrong because they were nothing but deliberate lies when they were uttered. They accommodate to popular measures because to do otherwise would jeopardize their ability to mobilize brown-shirts. Thus, having fought Medicare, they now claim to be protecting it from health-care reform. A change of heart? No, just the cynicism and nihilism that always lie at the heart of political conservatism.

The conservative movement has spent 70 years trying to undo the New Deal and, in many respects, has succeeded. Their greatest fear is another FDR, a popular and populist president who will be able to roll over their opposition. It is particularly to that end that they will continue to do whatever they can to oppose, undermine, and frustrate Obama and his agenda, regardless of the cost to the nation and regardless of the preposterous lies they have to tell to do it, lest he succeed and their game be up for another generation.

Thanks sd. I was gonna ask - what ideas? This is the party of the Laughing, er, Laffer Curve. This is the party with the ideology that its greatest practitioner, Greenspan, could only say "oops" about, but once the ideology was demonstrated to be bankrupt beyond a reasonable doubt (the rest of us could have told him so).

Catch a clue liberal parasites:)

FACT: the private sector pays for the public sector (ie. the Gov.) The public sector was created to serve the needs of the private sector. You know the whole people thing.

Republicans don't hate Gov., they just want the Gov. to provide some value for the taxes and debt payments.

Obama (and likely many of the folks here) has never created a single $ of economic value in their life. They are parasites -- feeding off the host of the private sector and helping their parasite friends feed.

At some point, the parasites cause great harm to the host.

Given that economic value is central to everyone's well-being, and Gov. mostly destroys economic value, how can anyone be in favor of greater economic involvment by Gov.?

...unless you are a parasite

(ir)rational: I'd take a bit of care throwing around the parasite label too dogmatically on this, if I were you. To give but a single example: government pays most of the cost of education in this country. The Federal Government payed for most of my higher education, through forgivable loans and grants, years ago. The payoff to society was to get an educated, productive engineer, rather than an uneducated manual laborer. That Federal "parasitism" has yielded many times in taxes what the investment cost, but still, most of the wealth my engineering has created, has accrued neither to me, or the government, but rather to the corporations for whom I've worked, and thus ultimately, to capital holders. So, in this chain whereby the government pays for my education (giving, not taking), I create value, and most of that value is sucked up by capital owners, who is the parasite?

Let's have another example: the government creates and regulates intellectual property rights - and make no mistake, unlike real property rights, these cannot exist without government regulation - thereby giving various individuals and corporate entities monopolies on ideas. Those corporations in turn manipulate those rights to their great advantage. stifling derivative creativity, and prolonging their ability to extract dollars from consumers. Again, the parasite in this scenario is which party?

As to: "Republicans don't hate Government, they just want the Government to provide some value for taxes and debt payments:" I beg to differ. Ronald Reagan famously said "Government is the Problem" and Chait's analysis of the long term fallout of that attitude is right on. The people I know who call themselves conservatives, and clearly most of the Republicans in the Senate right now, disdain government without regard to its effectiveness, or the value it renders. They would rather, to give another example, massively subsidize banks for making student loans, rather than use that money to make additional student loans through an efficiently run system. They would rather prop up insurance carriers, than improve the efficiency of our medical delivery and payment systems - and if this last is not true, then show me the evidence that the Republican party has brought a single constructive idea to the health care debate.

I'm no socialist, by a long shot, but this crap about government being inherently a parasite, and business being a virtuous creator of value is but a corrupt offspring of the sanctity of the market commandment. Both regulation and opportunity for profit are required for our system to work efficiently, but the conservative movement has demonized one side of the equation and apotheosized the other, until neither of their images are recognizable.

sdemuth, what pisses me off about what you wrote is that it isn't even hyperbole anymore, look at the one exceptionally tired response by one said Mr. Rationale, who seems to know nothing about history. He doesn't even seem to understand the meaning of the word Government. He calls it a parasite, but it is the starting point of civilization. The most effective nations had strong, effective central governments. I suppose Mr. Rationale believes that in the absence of Rome some local businessman would have paid for and built the aquaducts and Apian way. Parasites!? Astounding that anyone could believe labelling it as such is rebuttal.

OK Mr. Irrational, move to Somalia, they have no government, create your own Capitalist paradise, print your own currency, build your own roads.

Conservatives have the bizarre notion that the term We, the people does not refer to people who work in Public service. It is loathsome to refer to ones fellow citizens, who put in an honest day of work for just wages, as parasites, not even human.

An honest argument takes for granted the absolute essentiality of government in society, and then, through the consent of its citizenry, determine how much a role it plays. Anything less is just rank idiocy.

Republicans and their "conservative" majority know that they will all be dead or gone by the time any of the real climate disasters kick in, so why should they give a damn? This is the same reason they are against the "public" option in health care - they're not around, so it isn't something they will individually suffer or profit from. To be a Republican means to start from yourself, and develop policy around that core set of needs, values, and leave anything out that you can't see or is beyond your time horizon.

Anything with the word "public" in it is anathema to these (mostly) guys, such as public education (See: vouchers).

I vote to rename the party to something more fitting to their "me first" knee-jerk politics: Reprivatians. The only reason the Senate doesn't work any more is that there is no centrists. Lindsay Graham (a centrist!??) is vilified for having thought evil thoughts about climate change legislation. So can we say that they are totally irrelevant? If we wait one more generation, on their present path, there will not be even 30 in the Senate.

sdemuth -- Just curious: Why aren't you a socialist, "by a long shot." What's wrong with being a socialist? What *is* a socialist?

Also, you need government regulation for "real property rights" to exist too! It's called property law. I think this is an important point that human impersonators like mr_rationale miss. Government is everywhere, as surely as law is everywhere. Change the rules a little bit -- say, not permit the formation of limited liability companies -- and we live in a totally different world.

jhildner -- My understanding of socialism is that socialists advocate direct public ownership of all or nearly all means of production. That may be a viable way to organize an economy and government, but I am personally inclined to think that (strongly) regulated capitalism probably promotes the common welfare more efficiently. That said, I'd certainly prefer socialist-leaning policies to what we have now, and outright socialism to outright lassaiz fare economics.

You're right, of course, about real property rights. What I had in mind was that in an ungoverned society, warlords and their less brethren manage to maintain personal real property.

blackton: Unfortunately (as you note) my comments weren't intended as hyperbole. They really do think that way.

sdemuth, exactly, twelve years ago I would have rolled my eyes at that, but the Republicans did work with Clinton (when it suited them). Now outside of the military (and even then they tried to filibuster defense) they will simply be the party of no. Where is their respect for the will of the majority, or even of their own minority? As Chait observed they could easily have limited the health care bill to one far closer to their liking and by doing so upheld their duty to govern. From here on out I hope the Democrats get some cahones and block every single piece of pork in every Republican house district, make the Republicans go home to their districts not having been able to stop Obama nor bringing home any value. It will never happen of course, the essential piggishness of all of congress outweighs party loyalty.

I think there are further and deeper reasons that conservatism is continually making wrong predictions; see http://conservativesarealwayswrong.googlepages.com for more on this.

Also, while I broadly agree with Jonathan Chait's argument here, I think it risks getting things backwards to see the right as "driven" by free-market ideology. What you actually have are a bunch of interest-group positions and claims for which there isn't any one good label, so rightist ideologues and Republican politicians choose to call them "free-market" because it works as propaganda. Similarly for "federalism" and even "conservatism" itself. When the interest groups in question -- particularly big corporations -- don't benefit from policies accurately described by those terms, they'll demand that the government operate in ways that do benefit them, and will simply stick the labels "free market" and "conservative" on those policies instead. If that wasn't already clear before people came along screaming "Obama's a socialist" and "hands off Medicare!" in the same breath, it certainly should be now.

Okay sdemuth, yes, I agree entirely. If socialism means *real* socialism, then it's probably not going to be efficient. But, of course, Obama is not plausibly advocating the general state takeover of capital -- even a tiny bit, relative to private ownership -- so the charge of *real* socialism is as stupid as the Nazism or Communism charge. But, in broad outline, he does fit the social democratic stance in Europe -- selective economic intervention and state ownership for the common good -- though not to the same extent as in Europe, and if socialism includes something like Europe's version or Bernie Sanders's version, count me in.

The GOP can no longer be taken seriously. "Budget proposals" with no numbers, denial of climate change, a party of know-nothingness that ridicules excellence and expertise in the public sphere. I loved the phrase "brain-stem reaction" - tax cuts solve all ills. The GOP acts as if the world were created on Jan 20, 2009 - or at least deny the years 2001 - 2009. "Who is this 'George Bush' of whom you speak?" We have just come off an eight year tax cut binge. So where are the benefits, where is the healthy economy, the rapid economic growth, the balanced budgets, that these tax cuts were to make possilbe? Then Mr. Irrational and his anti-government screed. Yes, if government is the parasite, do move to Somalia. Create value??? Who creates more value, The Centers for Disease Control or the Home Shopping Network? Department of Defense or the Mall Cop? Environmental Protection Agency or Tom Delay, who would have accepted the extinction of the bald eagle so he could continue spraying DDT all over Texas? Government, in your view, may be a parasite, but it is the Red States that suckle (can you do that to a parasite?) disproportionately at the teat of Government.

jhildner: I think we agree almost entirely.

sdemuth, blackton, dubyadoubte, roid, et al....

What infuriates me so thoroughly about the so-called conservative free marketeers is their complete denial of reality even in the face of overwhelming, objective evidence to the contrary. We do not have anything even remotely resembling a free market economy nor do we want one based on their definition. What we have is a Political Corporatocracy that has held our economy and the welfare of the average citizen hostage to its avarice and lust for power since St. Ronnie RayGun first started spreading his religio/political propaganda.

I would add one other point to sdemuth's list. Actually, it's more of a corollary to the urban myths of #1 and 2......."Any and all taxes are theft" from the righteous and, therefore an illegitimate confiscation. This Canon of Blind Faith can also be stated in reverse as "Tax cuts are the Holy Grail".

It is perhaps this Canon of Blind Faith to the tax cut that has such an addictive power over the working class. Deep down inside they know the addiction is bad for them but the allure is just too strong. They can't think down the road a few miles to the inevitable. A buck in my pocket today trumps all other considerations for the future like education, quality infrastructure, not having to worry about bankruptcy due to medical bills or being ripped off by the local bank or land developer.

sdemoth: your examples prove my point.

1. If Gov pays for education, then who pays for Gov? PRIVATE SECTOR.

2. Another myth -- government creates and regulates intellectual property rights - and make no mistake, unlike real property rights, these cannot exist without government regulation. This is wrong on two levels:
a) you don't need gov to create and regulate -- merely a trusted third party that has ability to enforce. An IP eBay with a few tweaks for licensing would do nicely.
b) Private sector pays the Gov. to act as the third party, and as a result our patent process is an abomination.

Again the Private Sector pays for all of this. If Gov. actually created economic value then they wouldn't need private sector for funding... right. I wish that were so.

Republicans happy to pay for the part of the Gov. that helps facilitate creation of economic value by private sector, e.g., property rights, contracts. And the part of Gov that protects,defends. But not the other 80% inhabited by parasites.

Given that Gov. is paid for by Private Sector to provide services, ridiculous to argue that the provision of those 'paid for services' elevates value of Gov. beyond below-average service provider.

desertdog:

Free markets are an ideal. Not sure why that would be objectionable, unless you are a public sector parasite (PSP)

And only a PSP would believe that tax cuts are bad. The reason that working class like them is simple, they are part of the private sector that actually has to create value to survive.

To all:

Parasite merely captures the economic relationship between public sector and private sector. Nothing more.

ideally a symbiote would capture the relationship better, but alas it does not

rationale: I'd like to thank you for coming back to illustrate Chait's, and the other writer's analysis so well. You're a poster child for the clueless right, and I do appreciate your willingness to serve.

I'll limit my response to two points:

First, saying the private sector pays [for everything] is beside the point. The movement of money per se is the wrong issue: the question is where value is created. My example of education was merely to point out that government policies can create value, albeit generally in different ways than private enterprise. If you wish to argue this is not the case, fine, but you need more than a trite "private sector always pays" to have an argument. Meanwhile, I'll point to the recent financialization of the US economy - in response to less regulation, and more government deference to the market - leading to the current woes of working citizens as but a single example of how private sector can move tons of money around, and create not just zero, but demonstrably negative, value.

Second, yes, the notion of "free market" being auto-correcting and working for the common good is an ideal. So is the notion that humans are inherently peace-loving, rule-respecting creatures. Both assert without proof that something simple and profound is true (which makes them ideals); both are, however, demonstrably false. Again, if you think otherwise with respect to the free market, feel free to produce the analysis that show that it inherently works - but calling something an ideal, and those who question it parasites, isn't any argument. It's another trite sound bite devoid of content.

But first I suggest a short dip into the history of free-market societies to provide a long list indeed of of panics, depressions, bubbles, busts and other economic catastrophes, along with a veritable rogue's gallery of charlatans who have parasitized unregulated markets, and thugs who have used their unregulated economic power to impoverish, exploit, and from time to time outright murder, workers, farmers, and small business owners.

The distinction made by Mr Rationale between the public and private sectors is both a fiction and inane. First, it assumes that, absent government, the distribution of income would resemble what might loosely be called present gross personal income -- the starting place for computation of your income taxes. That is not even remotely the case. As sdemuth points out in but one example, the income stream garnered by intellectual property rights would fall to zero absent government, and a great deal of the income stream in a modern economy consists of rents to intellectual property in one form or another. Second, as pointed out by Adam Smith, erroneously thought to be the godfather of the "pure" free market, the rules of the market are constantly being manipulated by the owners of capital in their own favor.

Taxes are a response to several problems: First, mitigating a distribution of wealth that, at one extreme, leads to insurrection. Second, a moderating impact (at least pre-Reagan) on the market power of capital. Third, the externality problem: there are many "public goods," such as public education, that undeniably create value but do so without regard to the ability of the recipient to pay, which is the sine qua non of market exchange. Finally, there is the free-rider problem: certain public goods are enjoyed by everyone and cannot be practicably limited to those who can pay -- such as national security, the road system, public sanitation. In all of these cases, there is no practicable and efficient means of achieving the desired outcome via the market. Hence, we rely on government.

In each and every case, invocation of the free market as if it necessarily produced the best outcome is feckless. Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't. As a society, we need constantly to be looking at the question of which tasks should be left to the market and which to the government. The refusal to look at outcomes and the fantasy that those outcomes achieved by the market are necessarily the best available are what render inane Mr. Rationale's and the right-wing's uncritical acceptance for the pseudo-free-market. Indeed, the hypocrisy or the right is apparent that no one can imagine that it really wants a true free market -- the right-wing intervenes in the market relentlessly for the preferment of the interests of capital. Its "principles" are always for sale.

Contra Mr. Rationale, the "private sector" pays for nothing. People working pays for everything, whether the expenditure is made by individuals or collectively. The government does not "take" from private production; the government produces goods and services no less than does the private sector, sometimes more efficiently, sometimes less efficiently. The purchasing power surrendered by individuals to the government in the form of taxes reduces private expenditure and therefore reduces the size of private production, substituting public production. It does not "take" or consume any output from the private sector. This is a complete misunderstanding of the macro-economy. Typical right-wing self-imposed ignorance. They are flat-earthers, one and all.

roi: nicely said.

Thanks.

At this point I recall the stirring words of our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these rights, for-profit business enterprises are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the owner or shareholder . . ."

luis -- thanks