Anyway, Lind's current column posted over at Salon is a pretty effective description of what threatens our liberal hopes in the near-term. Honestly, I was struck by this paragraph:
"The reality as well as the perception of government incapacity threatens liberalism more than conservatism. After all, if public safety deteriorates, antisocial plutocrats can retreat into doormanned buildings and gated communities and hire their own private security forces, and rural conservatives can amass home arsenals. And if the costs of personal security reduce the room for taxes for public goods, well, then, so much the better, from the perspective of certain strains of anti-government conservatism."
The description here sounds just like things I've heard libertarian/conservative friends express in the past about a future world they actually envision. A sort-of right-libertarian utopia, if you will, where they get to sit in their fortresses like John Galt. I can't say how much I have personally railed against this tendency in the past, only to see the strength of these sentiments seemingly grow in the past couple of years, in spite of successes like the 2008 election. But, Lind lays out the essential problem why this continues to plague those of us who would put our faith in civil society:
"In contrast, America's modest and inadequate system of social democracy rests on economic growth made possible by effective government provision of basic public goods. Economic growth in turn rests on physical security — the protection of citizens against criminals in their midst and hostile or law-breaking foreigners. Libertarians to the contrary, the indispensable preconditions for the free society are effective armed forces and police forces, be they citizen militias or professionals.
"Social democracy, in the form both of middle-class social insurance like Social Security and Medicare and means-tested programs for the poor, is a luxury of countries with secure borders and advanced, functioning mixed economies. You can have a generous welfare state only after you have effective soldiers, police forces and intelligence agencies and well-run industries, infrastructure and utilities."
It's funny because when I was a little younger I used to think that it was cool and liberal to hate on authority (police, military, etc.), and since then it's seemed like growing-up meant to accept that what police and the military do in general is very necessary to the liberal/democratic/peaceful/prosperous society I believe in.With Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Bachman getting so much play in 2009, it really is starting to seem like I grew up and a lot of America hasn't yet. They want the apparatus of security, including arms, police, etc., but they don't want the other part, the part that involves any provisions beyond a base security--or at least the appearance of security. They like having things like public police, firefighters, national military, Medicare, Social Security, schools, roads, and all the rest, but decry "socialism" anywhere their keen eyes are riled enough to see anything public. Or civil. Or decent. Or diverse. I know that's not completely true. But it sure as hell feels like it sometimes.
