Conservatism, Progressivism, and the future

I agree with Patrick on his basic premise that looking to historical precedence won't help - Industrial Age solutions are often entirely inappropriate for the Information Age. And I agree that, in many ways, the strength of the Republican Party in recent decades has been centered on the fact that it has been MORE progressive than the self-proclaimed "Progressives" - who, indeed, want to "progress" right back to some time in the late 30s.

In fact, the more I listen to the rhetoric coming from the Democratic side of the Presidential race this year, the more I am convinced that, taken as a whole, the Democratic Party has very little to do with “Progressivism” and very much to do with “Conservatism.”

Call it the natural result of poorly advised populism mixed with the the general Democratic view of the institutions they must support in order to win elections. Rather than looking for new solutions to the rising problems within America (ever higher energy prices based on global economic expansion, spiraling health care costs, and the new reality of a global talent pool), the current populist message that much of the Democratic establishment has gravitated toward looks backward and promises a return to a mythical golden age that apparently existed somewhere after the implementation of the New Deal and ended some time after the election of Ronald Reagan. But, of course, skipped the 50s (when that icky Eisenhower was in office) and the late 60s/early 70s (Nixon...more ick). Yes, it returned during the 90s (never mind the fact that much of that prosperity turned out to be illusory, built upon the faux-growth of the dot-com boom)...but, of course, vanished with the rise of the icky Bush II presidency.

By hearkening back to a system that was only feasible during the post-war years when other world economies struggled to recover from the ravages of that titanic struggle, the so-called “Progressive” movement (or at least those who jump on the mainstream Dem bandwagon), presents solutions that are infeasible given the realities of today. Reinforcing the current health care system that depends on employer coverage will not work - it will only clog the labor market.

Trying to produce a government-run program will create the same cost inefficiencies that Western European governments are currently struggling with. Money poured into health care solutions that will only grow more expensive will reduce the money available for addressing our current problems with truly progressive solutions. Progressive, AFFORDABLE, health care solutions will take a fundamentally different mindset. Most importantly, it will take greater commoditization of routine care (something that both the AMA and ADA will fight viciously). It will take much greater transparency in pricing and performance of doctors, clinics, and hospitals. It will likely take a hybrid coverage system that relies predominantly on individually purchased plans that look more like HSAs than the typical plan used by employers today combined with some degree of government-subsidized coverage for those who don’t have the cash available to fund HSA-type plans.

Unless health care is made more affordable - and I mean for the nation as a whole not merely for individuals deceived by the promise of a single payer system - there will not be enough federal money available for addressing the other problems our country is faced with today.

And I think that's where I diverge from Patrick - in two fundamental respects. Firstly, it seems obvious to me that there is a need for federal action on several fronts - even if that action is simply changing federal expectations for issues like how people will work and how they will get health care in the future. So, from that perspective, there is a need for aggressive national-level action.

Secondly, I disagree with his notion that the American workforce, as a whole, is ready to grab on to the idea of a free agent nation. Yes, the vanguard of the knowledge worker economy is heading that way or already there. But that's a small percentage of folks. It's gonna take a lot of convincing to get any sort of sizeable proportion of the population to look that far forward. And it's going to take some federal action to provide safety nets before the masses will be willing to step out into that future. I'd like to think that Mr. Brooks is addressing that fundamental truth in HIS article. He is right in stating that the price of energy is very likely not going to return to a level that will allow us, as a country, to sustain our current infrastructure. That means our current reliance on cars, our routine use of air travel, our power consumption within homes, and our reliance on large trucks as a critical node in our logistics infrastructure. Addressing this paradigm shift will take considerable federal action. It will require much greater reliance on public transportation, telecommuting, high speed rail, and individual energy conservation on a scale we have seen very little of to date. In order for any of these initiatives to advance, federal resources will be required to ensure state and local programs fit into a larger national strategy and federal power will be required to stand up to those who would defend the status quo in order to protect their current interests.