What ideological labels would you use to describe your politics?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, I have no f**king clue what Mikado is talking about. The idea that modern public policy has a bias toward action is laughably false.

Given how much % of national GDP/GNP any government just to keep the apparatus of state going, this claim of yours looks very questionable.

How so? If anything, that confirms it.

[ingemann]

I'm a unique snowflake who define myself with labels.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Yeah, I have no f**king clue what Mikado is talking about. The idea that modern public policy has a bias toward action is laughably false.

Given how much % of national GDP/GNP any government just to keep the apparatus of state going, this claim of yours looks very questionable.

How so? If anything, that confirms it.

Umm.. How so? The high rate of government expenditure is to keep a very active apparatus going in health, education, social services and all the things governments do. If they are perceived to be lacking in pro-activity then it might be that this definition of 'pro-activity' is very hard to meet.

Then there is the issue of whether any extra intervention will actually work

[traininthedistance]

Yeah, I have no f**king clue what Mikado is talking about. The idea that modern public policy has a bias toward action is laughably false.

Given how much % of national GDP/GNP any government just to keep the apparatus of state going, this claim of yours looks very questionable.

How so? If anything, that confirms it.

Umm.. How so? The high rate of government expenditure is to keep a very active apparatus going in health, education, social services and all the things governments do. If they are perceived to be lacking in pro-activity then it might be that this definition of 'pro-activity' is very hard to meet.

Then there is the issue of whether any extra intervention will actually work

The question is not so much "high levels of government expenditure" vs. "low levels of government expenditure", it is "maintain the status quo" vs. "try a new approach".

Cutting military spending, for instance, is going to be perceived as action since it is a departure from current practice, even if doing so would lessen the "apparatus of state".

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Yeah, I have no f**king clue what Mikado is talking about. The idea that modern public policy has a bias toward action is laughably false.

Given how much % of national GDP/GNP any government just to keep the apparatus of state going, this claim of yours looks very questionable.

How so? If anything, that confirms it.

Umm.. How so? The high rate of government expenditure is to keep a very active apparatus going in health, education, social services and all the things governments do. If they are perceived to be lacking in pro-activity then it might be that this definition of 'pro-activity' is very hard to meet.

Then there is the issue of whether any extra intervention will actually work

The question is not so much "high levels of government expenditure" vs. "low levels of government expenditure", it is "maintain the status quo" vs. "try a new approach".

Cutting military spending, for instance, is going to be perceived as action since it is a departure from current practice, even if doing so would technically decrease the amount of things any government is actually doing.

Ok, in that case we are in a debate about the semantics of action, as military expenditure is certainly that as I would define it.

It is true that governments are conservative when it comes to spending plans and to public policy approaches but that in itself is not necessarily unreasonable (though many of the competing interests in trying to divert resources to their 'thing' might be).

[traininthedistance]

Ok, in that case we are in a debate about the semantics of action, as military expenditure is certainly that as I would define it.

It is true that governments are conservative when it comes to spending plans and to public policy approaches but that in itself is not necessarily unreasonable (though many of the competing interests in trying to divert resources to their 'thing' might be).

Apparently. :/

Mikado was talking about "reshaping society", I was talking about "status quo bias"... redefining action to be all about percentage of government spending just muddies the waters.

What word would you use for my definition of "action" instead?

...

I would argue that the structural conservatism of governments with regards to spending and policy is inevitable more than anything. While there are indeed good reasons to not rashly jump into each and every new fad, trying to build an intellectual framework that specifically valorizes scleroticism for its own sake is unnecessary and counterproductive.

And, besides, there's a lot more to "change" than just budget negotiations– the shape of regulation, and mechanism by which politics and/or scholarship becomes policy, are important as well.  Take, for example, the history of the filibuster in the Senate, or FPTP vs. PR, or the competing moves towards making voting easier (in Oregon) or making it harder (in many other states).  Or perhaps I bore everyone with the nuts and bolts of parking policy– if I want to eliminate parking minimums from the zoning code (and, oh yes, I do want to do that) does that make me a wild-eyed activist, or am I shrinking government and therefore being a prudent conservative?

Let me put it this way: status quo government policy gave us this.  Does that strike you as reasonable?

[traininthedistance]

Also:

I'm sure Mikado would be more than happy to point out how slashing military spending would cause very real harm to employees of Lockheed Martin and their families.  I'm sure he'd be happy to point out that prison guards and cops need to eat, too.  Some towns, the jail's the only big employer around. They need our harsh drug laws to stay afloat, man.

Just something to think about.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah I was referring to Antonio's comment that government have a bias against action, my point in response is that all that governments do costs so money already that there isn't frequently room for innovation and further innovation (which isn't to say that isn't room). I was defining action as pretty much anything a government does which is proactive, which includes military expenditure especially as that plays in a key role in American industry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agree.

My point was basically that government's aren't biased against what I termed action, what they are biased against is radical change.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, of course not. But that policy was very much part of a plan to radically change society (one which has been successful for the most part).

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah I was referring to Antonio's comment that government have a bias against action, my point in response is that all that governments do costs so money already that there isn't frequently room for innovation and further innovation (which isn't to say that isn't room). I was defining action as pretty much anything a government does which is proactive, which includes military expenditure especially as that plays in a key role in American industry.

My comment was a direct response to Mikado's argument, so I understood "action" in the same way as he did. I guess change vs. status quo would be a best way to frame the issue.

[traininthedistance]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, of course not. But that policy was very much part of a plan to radically change society (one which has been successful for the most part).

Well, "successful".  And of course there is the difficulty, which is what I was trying to raise with my talk of fixing past mistakes, that any attempt to re-orient government policy towards something more humane and durable will now be read as "radical change" itself.  Even, apparently, more gradualist re-orientations.

And, of course, there's the question of where exactly the line is for "radical" change.  We can all agree that the French Revolution was radical.  We can, most of us at least, agree that sudden shocks and bloodshed are to be avoided whenever possible.  What I'm pushing back against, more than anything, is Mikado's apparent insinuation that commonsense reforms like a carbon tax or an urban growth boundary are beyond-the-pale speculative revolutions that ought to be thrown in that same bin.

[WalterMitty]

Progressive