Sep 15th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
The Conservative Creed
James Robertson offered up this comment non-ironically this morning and I think it’s an excellent distillation of the conservative creed:
Yet another thing Matt is unclear on:
“Life isn’t Fair”
For Matt in particular, we need to add this:
“Attempts to make it fair result in making things worse”
It’s a statement that rings as true today as it did when coming from the mouths of slavery proponents 1860 or opponents of guaranteed retirement incomes in the 1930s or critics of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 60s or when Ronald Reagan said that Medicare would put us on a slippery slope to Communism.
59 Responses to “The Conservative Creed”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
Environment
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
Infrastructure
Intellectual Property
International Law
International Relations
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
Sweden
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 15th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Off topic a bit but at the moment the DOW is down about 230 points. What happened to the cataclysmic, life altering, market rending asunder free-for-all that was supposed to happen? There hasn’t even been a stop trade trigger. WTF?
September 15th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
James who? Is that Pat Robertson’s stupider brother or something?
I’m sorry, that was unfair.
To Pat.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Alternate James Robertson: I was born into a well-to-do family; suck it.
Or: We need not right wrongs.
Or: I’m a Republican.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Maybe contagion theories are just bs to get the financial industry taxpayer money.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I didn’t tune in to the damned race this morning just to see a checkered flag at 4PM. I was promised flames and wrecks and noise and the sound of traders trapped in burning wreckage. Too many damned caution flags for my taste……..
September 15th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
More sheer brilliance from MattY! For those who have MattY Premium, instead of smearing someone he has a 2000 word essay on “just” vs. “fair” derived from his Harvard studies.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
So, by implication, attempts to make life even less fair will make things better.
You know, that might just explain a lot about recent Republican economics.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Today of all days, you should realize: The Market Fucking WORKS, Beeee-atch!
September 15th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Lame Matt. Sometimes attempts to remedy wrongs result in the wrongs being remedied. Sometimes they don’t. The comment was obviously indicating that tryiing to achieve economic statism generally is counter-productive. Let’s play the reverse…
“Attempts to make it fair result in making things better”
A sentiment that rings as true now as it did at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution, or Castro’s rise in Cuba, or when the U.S. provided entitlement programs that incentivize illegitimacy.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Or for that matter, when armed robbery was made illegal.
Before that, when one came to authorities saying that one had been robbed at knifepoint, authorities said “Life is unfair. Any attempts to make it fair will only make things worse.”
September 15th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
9: Ok, genius, but if you read the comment thread the quote was lifted from, it was clear that James Robertson was not actually providing any other rational for why nothing could be done in this case to make things better. It’s a perfectly fair criticism of a specific policy, if you can show how that policy will actually make things worse. Nobody here is going to argue with that. But as an argument for not altering the status quo, that we shouldn’t even try to come up with ways to make things better? That’s just formalized stupidity.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
rab wrote:
Yeah, that would be a stupid thing to write. And you wrote it albeit non-seriously, just as James Robertson (apparently seriously) the original remark.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Steve: As others have pointed out, one less-than-terrible day on the stock market won’t mean a passing storm. There’s still a whole lot that’s unknown in the collapse of these firms, and it could be a slow ride to the bottom.
Me, I’m crossing my fingers for AIG. Because if AIG goes, look out.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Let’s play the reverse…
“Attempts to make it fair result in making things better”
It’s a sentiment that certainly rings true in the Nordic countries.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
“Attempts to make it fair result in making things worse”
Unless we’re talking about Iraq, where things are difficult and complicated and too hard to do. (granted the country was destroyed by of a decade of sanctions + Saddam) – In that case liberals think we shouldn’t try.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
It would be great if it were true that all of our attempts to make things fair caused more good than harm, don’t get me wrong. But there are very few unalloyed goods; every policy has tradeoffs. Notice the high level of social homogenization in the Nordic countries and the high incidence of children living with both parents makes for a much more stable society than the U.S. is currently. Not necessarily better, but more stable. Correlation isn’t causation, but this is likely a large part of the reason why such generous entitlement programs are sustainable in those countries.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
riffle says: Or for that matter, when armed robbery was made illegal.
Has armed robbery ever been just?
I’m sure some might expect a much more intelligent post from MattY, considering that Harvard philosophy degree and all. Personally, I don’t expect much more intelligent posts from MattY, but I’m sure there must be one or two people who aren’t familiar with his work.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I’d point out that Robertson made the remark in response to MY’s post about the safety net for investment banks being stronger than that for the working class. That is, one type of forceful redistribution of wealth was being compared to another. So the “justice vs fairness” issue is a red herring, unless you think that the WIC program represents tyranny, while covering the bets of the disciples of Jeff Skilling doesn’t.
One can make the argument that the government can’t fix all the accidents of birth and fortune. But that wasn’t even the question. A lot of people opposed reparations to the Japanese-Americans interned during WW2, not on the radical and noxious grounds that it was a great idea, but merely because “hey, life isn’t fair”. Robertson’s usage is almost exactly the same: imprecise, dislodged from a context in which it arguably makes sense, just a Tourette-like verbal tic.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I wonder if there are any other goals than fairness whose end turns out so obliquely. If not, what makes fairness so doggedly uncooperative?
September 15th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
rab,
Canada has the same or higher heterogeneity as the US with much higher results in nearly every aspect of a nation that is measurable.
In nearly every measure of a country available the US has numerous nations ranking above it. Your argument is that they are all doing things wrong, despite better results. Correct?
Generous entitlements are sustainable because the citizens pay for them and their governments are competent. There are fewer and fewer areas in which the US can claim competence, public or private sector.
USA: incompetent but don’t know it.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
“I don’t expect much more intelligent posts from MattY, but I’m sure there must be one or two people who aren’t familiar with his work.”
Matt’s not stupid – that’s never been his problem. What Matt suffers from is a blindness born of his political absolutism, a trait shared by his counterparts on the right.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Yglesias is making fun of the bizarrely stupid generalization in the Robertson comment. It is odd that conservatives seem to think that it follows from that that Yglesias must believe in a different bizarrely stupid generalization. It leaves the odd impression that conservatives do not realize there are positions that can be taken that are not bizarrely stupid generalizations.
Perhaps that is what is meant by saying they don’t do nuance.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Oh, it was all just a joke. That explains everything.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Crafty Lon…making a broad generalization in service of the point…wait for it…that Republicans can only make broad generalizations. It’s good that we got that settled; not only are you right, but those that disagree with you are wrong and stupid. What a subtle, nuanced take on the world.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
FoxNews ruined the word “fair;” it just doesn’t work anymore.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
“Generous entitlements are sustainable because the citizens pay for them and their governments are competent. There are fewer and fewer areas in which the US can claim competence, public or private sector.
USA: incompetent but don’t know it.”
You’re moving a little fast for me Kenneth. Wait, the U.S. government is incompetent….and your solution is to expand the size of it? I am going to suggest that you strengthen that case a bit more before agreeing with you.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
You are right. Conservatism perpetuates itself in power according to a very simple formula.
First, it uses its considerable public relations skills to deny there are any problems at all. The economy is always great. Wars are always being won. America always reigns supreme. Suggestions to the contrary are the fault of the liberally biased press.
When this absurdity manages to break through, conservatives adapt a fallback position.
Conditions may indeed be dreadful but there isn’t a damned thing we can do about it.
For two reasons:
First, to admit there are problems is blasphemy against that Virgin Goddess – the Good Old U.S. of A.
Second, to suggest there are problems in need of solutions runs the risk of turning to government for help. And that we must never, ever do.
Under conservative rule it is permissible for government to be incompetent. It is permissible for the government to be corrupt. It is permissible for government to be expensive, wasteful, and big. What is never permissible is for government to actually work.
Whatever problems we confront are solvable in one of two ways: One is by prayer to our God. The second is through the power of the free market, which, to conservatives, is pretty much the same thing.
Any talk of the issues, public accountability and responsibility, good governance, bi-partisanship, national leadership and vision, even unity falls on deaf ears.
For among conservative true believers, government is never the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem, always and in every way.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Robertson is White Flight personified: he likes his suburban insulation.
Personally, though, I don’t expect anything other than blogwhoring and bullshit from a nativist hack like Chris Kelly, and I’m sure there can’t be anyone unfamiliar with his “work”. I won’t say he’s a racist; I will say that racists think he’s just swell.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
It would be great if it were true that all of our attempts to make things fair caused more good than harm, don’t get me wrong.
This is Rab, making a bizarrely stupid generalization and putting it in the mouth of his strawman Yglesias.
(In the real world of course, neither Yglesias nor any halfway intelligent progressive has proposed that any and all attempts to make things more fair do more good than harm. That’s kind of the whole idea behind opposing the neocon program…)
And then there’s Robertson, who really did make the absolutely rock-stupid claim that ALL such attempts will make things worse.
I’ll grant that nuanced conservatives (and unicorns…) may exist, but I think we can forgive Lon for not divining their existence from the likes of Rab or Robertson…
September 15th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
(granted the country was destroyed by of a decade of sanctions + Saddam)
Well, yes. Several of your more farsighted liberals pointed out that that would pose a problem for our “Impose democracy whiskey sexy by force” project.
I have a rule of thumb, anyway, when evaluating attempts to make things more fair: Does the attempt start off by killing a bunch of people? If so, be very cautious about it.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
You seem to have misunderstood me. I certainly did not state or imply that Yglesias believes that all attempts to improve things are successfull. I was responding to Peezle in that comment, not Matt Y., and addressing his observation about the successful social welfare programs in Nordic countries.
I was only criticizing Matt Y. for setting up a strawman, obtusely reading the comment as more simplistic than it was.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Too fast? Sorry.
I did not advocate larger government.
Competence and size do not run in parallel.
Allotting fewer resources than is necessary to do a job is a good way to get a job done poorly. Treating government actions as always ignoble and inconsequential leads a nation to appoint as management the kind of people one would not select to do an important job.
Many countries act as though taxation was an act of societal purchase and debate where they want there money to go. Treating taxation this way would be a good first step should the US like to catch up.
PS. Having a small government is something many of the countries that rank above the US do well also.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Well, I can’t speak for Peezle, but I’d say the evidence from the Nordic countries is that competent interventions of certain kinds can indeed make things fairer. Again, not anywhere close to the generalization that any attempt to make things better will succeed.
You’re clearly reading it differently, but I can’t find any hidden subtlety in Robertson’s comment, it seems pretty plain.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
“I’m sure some might expect a much more intelligent post from MattY, considering that Harvard philosophy degree and all.”
Considering his Harvard philosophy degree, I expect the opposite and am rarely disappointed.
That said, Robertson is a known idiot here.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I must have struck a nerve, Matt – you simply went on a personal attack. When you have an actual response, let me know.
And to the last commenter, “known idiot” around here = “doesn’t drink the progressive koolaid”.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I was only criticizing Matt Y. for setting up a strawman, obtusely reading the comment as more simplistic than it was.
The comment is 100% as simplistic as it seems. In response to Matt’s claim that the safety net for billionaires (a deliberate policy of the US) is stronger than that for everyone else (this also being the result of deliberate policy choices) and that this is unjust, James “How Do I Even Tie My Fucking Shoes In The Morning?” Robertson made a comment that implied that any attempt to change the current system would make it worse. Any attempt.
There is not another interpretation of the absolute statement “Attempts to make [life] fair result in making things worse”. Matt pointed out that this is stupid. In doing so, he provided a FULL QUOTATION of what Robertson said, so that everyone can see that he wasn’t ripping anything out of context.
Your own statement that “Sometimes attempts to remedy wrongs result in the wrongs being remedied. Sometimes they don’t” is clearly also at odds with what Robertson said.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Poor aggrieved James Robertson. How is it a personal attack to give specific examples of attempts to make “life” fairer that succeeding in doing so, thus revealing your idiotic thesis to be, uh, idiotic? If you’re going to make a blanket assertion without any evidence other than your own unexamined articles of conservative faith that “Attempts to make [life] fair result in making things worse,” you should expect to be rightly called on the stupidity of your thesis.
Maybe Matt will offer an “actual response” when you offer an actual argument, with, you know, evidence and all that boring stuff.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I must have struck a nerve, Matt – you simply went on a personal attack. When you have an actual response, let me know.
That’s rich. Nothing in Matt’s post can legitimately be construed as a personal attack. He didn’t call you names, impugn your character, or question your motives. He took your “argument” seriously and provided several obvious counterexamples.
Take your well-deserved lesson in humility with good grace for once, why don’t you?
September 15th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I love it when the party of “If you’re hardworking and smart, you’ll succeed, no matter what; and if you haven’t succeeded, it’s because you aren’t hardworking or smart” turns around and attacks the other side for being insufficiently pessimistic about reality.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
We can all have the satisfaction of knowing that when James Robertson dies – he will wake up in Hell. And, the first person hysterically bawling: “Unfair, unfair” will be none other. Of course, in the interim, he could wind up in Sing Sing on a trumped-up child rape/murder conviction. But, how “unfair” would that be?
September 15th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
I thought the conservative credo was “If I knew it was harmless I would have killed it myself.” (Philip Dick, A Scanner Darkly). Or is that just the neocon credo?
The question of fairness or lack thereof, and what to do about it isn’t all black and white. As a self-identified liberal I believe that the attempt to enforce fairness by fiat may have unintended consequences. It may even entail well-understood tradeoffs. E.g., A completely unregulated industry may score better on some scales than a regulated one, but you just have to ask what you’re trying to optimize.
If the quoted statement is supposed to mean that attempting to improve fairness always makes things worse, then it is an extreme position, bordering on fantasy (the opposite extreme being that total egalitarianism is possible). Most people, by definition, do not possess exceptional talent, and will not benefit from winner-take-all competition. I am not entirely sure what it means to “make things worse.” Some people may assign a high utility to a lack of “attempts to make life fair” in which case it borders on a tautology (which I suspect is the case for gung ho libertarians). People who just want to attend to mundane matters without having to face new heroic challenges every day may have a very different perspective of “make things worse.” The statement is meaningless until you ask, worse for whom?
September 15th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Also very prominent in the conservative creed: lying about personal risk and the “free market”.
They constantly accuse progressives of trying to eliminate the element of risk from people’s lives and inhibit the dynamic forces that supposedly keep the market economy running. Yet, they don’t really like people who take risks, because taking real risks entails the possibility of losing and there’s nothing worse than that. That’s why conservative parents tend to push their children into careers that are considered less fraught with risk, such as law, business, engineering or medicine, and ridicule career choices that are considered risky, such as anything to do with liberal arts. And that’s also why conservatives with economic power are constantly trying to minimize risk by seeking close relationships with policy makers, consolidating companies to eliminate competition and granting themselves generous retirement packages. Of course they claim to admire risk takers, but in fact they only admire those that turned out to be winners, while those that took a risk and failed (of which there necessarily must be quite a few, otherwise the concept of risk wouldn’t make any sense) are at best ignored.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
For what it’s worth, James Robertson is one of the more reasonsable trolls here. A legit conservative with a usually respectful tone who occasionally chimes in with a dissenting viewpoint. Richard Steven Hack, mixner and others are far worse. Matt posted this because James really does represent the kind of conservative viewpoint we on the left encounter on a daily basis; a nice enough guy with kids, a house in the burbs and a (in our view) skewed perspective on how things work. I don’t think Matt quoted him to be mean, but because James tends to elucidate the traditional conservative position clearly and without bringing up robotic cars or blaming mexicans for the housing crisis. I enjoy his trolling and look forward to occasionally mixing it up with him in the future.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
I know there were slaveowners that argued slavery was OK because the Greeks and Romans did it or because slaves were treated well, but I doubt there was anybody saying “slavery is bad, but life isn’t fair and trying to fix it will only make it worse.” Present-day liberalism and conservatism don’t really extend back to the 1850s, and I doubt this talking point/ideological principle does.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
There actually was a strain of argument back then, that the economic collapse of the south that would follow after abolition would make life worse for everyone including the newly freed blacks.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:02 am
James Robertson wrote: “I must have struck a nerve, Matt – you simply went on a personal attack. When you have an actual response, let me know”
When you have some empirical evidence to back up your claim that making things fairer just makes things worse, let us know.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
White Flight? I’ve never lived in a city, so where exactly would I have fled from? I was born in a suburb, and I live in one now. The specific one I live in is way, way more diverse than many of DC’s neighborhoods, where things can be pretty balkanized by race.
The point I was trying to make about fairness was in response to Matt pondering the fate of the janitor at Lehman (et. al.), who will lose his/her job as a result of the mega-stupidity of the brokers.
For the rtecord, I’d have much preferred to see straight bankruptcy for all the firms involved (including Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae), so that the idiots who thought there was no price would actually experience some pain.
The problem here wasn’t one of the free market, because the free market was busy being distorted by multiple government actions already – which is kind of what I meant about attempts to make things fair. Unintended consequences have a way of biting people – with the best intentions – in the backside.
I don’t claim that Matt is ill intentioned – I merely claim that he doesn’t comprehend the entire notion of unintended consequences when it comes to progressive policy nostrums.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
laptop battery
laptop batteries
March 11th, 2009 at 4:47 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:30 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:20 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:27 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:16 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:07 am
ytdbv kjzm fmkqz xjgwbpyvf pkuec mxklnhycz jietp
April 9th, 2009 at 6:34 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Excuse me. Get pleasure out of life…as much as you can. Nobody ever died from pleasure.
I am from Andorra and now teach English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “htm cheap vacations, cheap airline tickets, cheap flights, cheap airfares, cheap hotels, cheap.”
Thank you very much
. Grazia.
April 19th, 2009 at 8:49 am
hIcqlR isknlbdrrdik, [url=http://hjvkbcutztjl.com/]hjvkbcutztjl[/url], [link=http://djzfdmiiqzjo.com/]djzfdmiiqzjo[/link], http://rbmfwehjgldg.com/
April 20th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Your Site Is Great!, Zolpidem, 7206, Phentermine
, 831792, Buy Klonopin, >:DD, Xanax, gpgn, Phentermine, kao,