3 ms·

Yeah, to your point: The EPA was an obstacle for Marc Edwards during the DC water crisis, but then was one of his biggest advocates during Flint.[0] Examples

Yeah, to your point: The EPA was an obstacle for Marc Edwards during the DC water crisis, but then was one of his biggest advocates during Flint.[0] Examples like this are common enough. So it surprises me that most ideological debates are about whether government is good or harmful. It's both. There are failure modes both with it and without. Agencies are made up of people, who sometimes do great work and save lives, sometimes learn from past mistakes, and sometimes make new ones that are incredibly costly to society. I guess "We should study the areas where unintended consequences are most likely to dominate and limit government overreach in those areas, but recognize we still have real problems to solve where it might be the best tool for the job, so avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater" doesn't make a great bumper sticker. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Edwards_(civil_engineering_professor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Edwards_(civil_engineerin...

JamesBarney 10y ago
Most ideological debates aren't about that. There is no side arguing that government for the sake of government is good. A gross over simplification of the current party lines would look like this. Libertarians argue that government is always the problem, and never the solution. Conservatives argue that markets rarely fail, and the government is so terrible of a solution that most of the time the cure is worst than the disease. But is useful in some limited cases of market failure. Liberals argue that markets fail pretty often and so we need government a little more often than what conservatives suggest. Of course this ignores the building of the evangelical and populist branches of the Republican party which don't fall as neatly into the abstraction as the old guard business Republicans.
- brownbat 10y ago
  > Most ideological debates aren't about that. There is no side arguing that government for the sake of government is good. You can always add more nuance. Ehrenreich had a great piece 20 years ago, "Confessions of a Recovering Statist" with arguments from the left for skepticism of government power. Some people follow that mold and consider themselves liberal-tarians. Some on the right are more hawks, nationalists, or law and order types who prefer strong state institutions. But speaking in broad swaths, the impression that I get is that most people have a pretty shallow understanding of political theory, and go with the simplest heuristic possible. No fault of their own, it doesn't interest them. They have lawns to mow and bills to pay. Given that, a better simplification of the current party lines might not drill down into subfactions of parties, but to capture most people, you could get away with something like "I'm on team red" vs. "I'm on team blue." Short of that, I'm not convinced pro-G / anti-G is that bad of a model for most people though.
  - JamesBarney 10y ago
    Labeling a team pro-G is similar to labeling pro-lifers anti-choice. Or pro-choice people as pro-abortion. It using one sided proposed narrative to create a caricature of the other. It's a very common stereotype on the right, that members of left are interested in more government for the sake of government. And labeling a side pro-government perpetuates this misperception.
    - brownbat 10y ago
      I'm not on the right criticizing the left though, and it strikes me as melodramatic to say this "perpetuates a misperception." Let's talk about perceptions and misperceptions. Most Americans have no idea who is in power, or how their government is structured: http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-many-americans-dont-know-basic-facts-about-government-2014-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-many-americans-dont-know... Given that, I'll grant that it's probably a mistake to think that people's political ideologies have anything to do with a theory of government at all. Most people's political ideologies are probably about as refined as a blue/red color preference.

JamesBarney 10y ago

Most ideological debates aren't about that. There is no side arguing that government for the sake of government is good. A gross over simplification of the current party lines would look like this. Libertarians argue that government is always the problem, and never the solution. Conservatives argue that markets rarely fail, and the government is so terrible of a solution that most of the time the cure is worst than the disease. But is useful in some limited cases of market failure. Liberals argue that markets fail pretty often and so we need government a little more often than what conservatives suggest. Of course this ignores the building of the evangelical and populist branches of the Republican party which don't fall as neatly into the abstraction as the old guard business Republicans.

brownbat 10y ago
> Most ideological debates aren't about that. There is no side arguing that government for the sake of government is good. You can always add more nuance. Ehrenreich had a great piece 20 years ago, "Confessions of a Recovering Statist" with arguments from the left for skepticism of government power. Some people follow that mold and consider themselves liberal-tarians. Some on the right are more hawks, nationalists, or law and order types who prefer strong state institutions. But speaking in broad swaths, the impression that I get is that most people have a pretty shallow understanding of political theory, and go with the simplest heuristic possible. No fault of their own, it doesn't interest them. They have lawns to mow and bills to pay. Given that, a better simplification of the current party lines might not drill down into subfactions of parties, but to capture most people, you could get away with something like "I'm on team red" vs. "I'm on team blue." Short of that, I'm not convinced pro-G / anti-G is that bad of a model for most people though.
- JamesBarney 10y ago
  Labeling a team pro-G is similar to labeling pro-lifers anti-choice. Or pro-choice people as pro-abortion. It using one sided proposed narrative to create a caricature of the other. It's a very common stereotype on the right, that members of left are interested in more government for the sake of government. And labeling a side pro-government perpetuates this misperception.
  - brownbat 10y ago
    I'm not on the right criticizing the left though, and it strikes me as melodramatic to say this "perpetuates a misperception." Let's talk about perceptions and misperceptions. Most Americans have no idea who is in power, or how their government is structured: http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-many-americans-dont-know-basic-facts-about-government-2014-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-many-americans-dont-know... Given that, I'll grant that it's probably a mistake to think that people's political ideologies have anything to do with a theory of government at all. Most people's political ideologies are probably about as refined as a blue/red color preference.