The way liberals and conservatives view their fellow Americans is markedly different. And this differing perspective leads directly to many of the political differences between the two groups.

Liberals tend to view most of their fellow citizens as children. Children largely incapable of taking care of themselves. They are not to be trusted with their health care, their retirement planning, their personal protection, their children's education, their safety, their charitable giving, their well being, etc. Rather than allowing people to make their own decisions in these areas (and live with the consequences), liberals believe that since people can't take care of themselves, the government must do it for them. For their own good of course. This belief leads to the liberal embrace of maternalistic state policies designed to ensure the well-being of the citizenry.

Conservatives on the other hand tend to regard most their fellow Americans as mature adults. They are rational, competent, self-reliant grown-ups perfectly capable of analyzing available information and reaching decisions that serve them best. If the government would only get out of their way and quit interfering where it isn't needed, people could run their own lives and make their own decisions. And live with the consequences. This leads to the conservative impulse for limited government, individual freedom, and personal responsibility.

The reality is that neither group's understanding of the American people is accurate. While the majority of Americans certainly aren't children, they haven't really reached the threshold of adulthood either. When you really think about it, the American people are for the large part teenagers.

Like teenagers, they will loudly proclaim their independence and their ability to stand on their own two feet. You're not the boss of me, I can take care of myself. Until they need gas money for the car. Or they get in trouble on their mortgage. Or when they need money to buy books for the semester. Or help pay to send their kids to college. Then, they present an open palm to Mom, Dad, and Uncle Sam and aren't shy about borrowing the credit card, receiving a farm subsidy, or getting government help having their home rebuilt after a hurricane, wildfire, flood, etc. whether they had the proper insurance in the first place or not.

Teenagers want the independence without the responsibility. Americans want the government to leave them alone unless THEY really need help. They may be against government spending in general, but when it comes to their pet programs, they feel its justified.

As Ramesh Ponnuru observed a few weeks ago in National Review (sub req):

And it's not just recent history that calls the administration's political premises into question. Spending restraint has rarely rallied conservative voters, and the GOP's reputation for it has never been much of a political asset. Polls have not recently been showing a public desire for less spending. But even when they have indicated such a desire, it has melted away when people were asked about particular spending initiatives. As long as spending programs benefit people who "work hard and play by the rules," as former President Clinton put it, the public supports them.

This idea of American adolescent came up a few weeks when my wife and I were discussing health insurance. She has a great deal of experience in the area and was telling me about a local company that is trying to migrate to a program where their employees would be responsible for their own insurance. Instead of the company paying the premiums, the employees will pay them and then be reimbursed by the company. It's the first step toward a system that would remove the company from the process altogether with employees being allowed to choose the health care plan they want and pay for it themselves with the additional income they would receive that the company now uses for health insurance. Sounds great, right?

To conservative ears, yes. Get the employer out of the picture. Give us the money, let us decide. The problem is in the execution. How many Americans do you really think are capable of managing under such a system? While conservatives would like to think nearly all Americans are, I have my doubts about many of my fellow citizens. It's not that they couldn't manage it if push came to shove, it's a question of their desire to if given the choice. People are busy. Or at least they like to think they are. For many, having to manage their own health care wouldn't be viewed as an opportunity, but a burden. And for instance, if they missed their premium payments and ran into problems with coverage, they'd scream bloody murder and blame the insurance companies.

I believe that this is one of the reasons that President Bush's push for Social Security reform never made much headway. While the idea of allowing individuals to have more control over their Social Security again rings the conservative bells, it probably was viewed as merely another hassle to fret about by others. You mean I have to decide where the money is invested? What happens if it doesn't pan out as I hoped? Meh. Easier to just let the government worry about it for me.

Coming to terms with this reality and accepting the unpleasant truth of Adolescent America is a pre-condition for conservatives if they harbor any hope of a resurgence in future elections. As Jonah Goldberg pointed out at National Review Online:

But the ideal conservative program of a federal government strictly limited to constitutional responsibilities and nothing else would fare miserably at the polls. Almost as badly as an ideal socialist program.

Like it or not, pushing messages of personal responsibility, an "ownership" society, and small government (as appealing as they may sound) is simply not going to play in an America that just doesn't seem quite ready to grow up.

Labels: Politics-National (05-07)

Posted by Chad--Link