If you meet the Buddha...

So I've just stopped watching some clips from Fox, and I realized, Rove is perhaps one of the greatest practitioners of applied philosophical relativism we've ever experienced. The man can adopt any viewpoint, and treat even the most contradictory statements as absolute truth. No matter what happens, philosophers - from now, till the day the sun grows cold - will study at his feet, so they may understand the malleability and transient nature of material truth.

Truth is only Truth to those with context. And what context do you have when We Report?

Government is a Tool.

The recent brouhaha over Bloomberg’s push (not putsch) for a third term as mayor has dug up an old question which I’ve yet to fully resolve: Is it better to construct laws with the assumption that our leaders will be terrible (thus limiting their powers, the duration of their time in office, etc) or on the assumption that some of our leaders will be the best among us (thus offering them expanded powers, relaxed term limits, etc)?

The US constitution is founded on the belief that the best politicians will be able to unite the majority around compromises and universal aspirations, and thus override the limits placed upon government action. Meanwhile, overly partisan politicians controlling a vocal and powerful minority (the Founders would label them as members of “factions”) would be hindered by strict limitations, as they would not be able to unite the majority around universal human needs or goals.

What I’ve been wondering is whether the belief that we should secure against the worst, while relying on the inherent competence of the best, has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Has this in turn has made positive government action much harder then originally intended? Perhaps the widespread assumption that government action is intrinsically negative or corrupting (thanks again, Gipper), has caused too many people to resist government when it tries to reform itself, and ignore failures of government as “business as usual”.

In short, is the decline in quality of governance due to our abysmally low standards? Are the bastards bastards, because we expect them to be so, and aren’t mobilized by surprise and outrage when they do - in fact - act like bastards? Why does, “it’s good enough for government work” carry connotations of expected, vaguely acceptable inadequacies? How come working for the government is seen as a less prestigious job then the private or academic sectors?

            Government is a tool. No one cares for tools they think inadequate, and so such tools rust from neglect. But a tool that is seen as useful, important, and worthy of respect will not fail, so long as loose handles can be replaced, edges sharpened, and frames tightened. 

You can't disown the Terrible Children

Something I’ve noticed recently is that people frequently separate the results of an ideology from the ideology itself. For example: “Those conservatives aren’t conservatives, because the government’s expanded and become less efficient, so they must be liberals.” The problem with this statement is that if people who are identified as, and identify themselves as, conservatives cause government to expand and become less efficient, they are still conservatives.

Their actions are a result of their ideology, and the values of that ideology are determined by the fruits of the ideology. In this way an ideology is different from a universally held and absolute value judgment. If a good guy kills an innocent, their status as a good guy should be held in doubt. However, if a conservative does something good or bad, he’s still a conservative, and his actions are result of his value system and beliefs.

In short, if conservatives expand the federal government and cause a budget surplus to crumble into a record budget deficit, then conservatives stand for increased debt and big government.