The Oil Drum | Informal Survey of the Political Blogosphere

73 comments on Informal Survey of the Political Blogosphere

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

odograph on October 13, 2005 - 4:18pm

Well, it might be fair to say that the right-wing instinct is to trust the market and the left-wing instinct is to organize a non-market solution.

There are subsets of people at either extreme who allow their preference for a mechanism (market or non-market) to influence their perceptions of possible problems, or their attraction to a particular problem.

The problem for that extreme sort of conservative is that there isn't an easy free-market solution to PO (or GW), so they've got to recognize a problem that has a "foreign" solution.

On the other hand ;-), we could say the left has a lower bar to leap. They might be more willing to believe that industrial society has put us in a tight spot, and so on,

Some problems would surely show the opposite pattern, with conservatives quick to recognize the issue, and liberals more grudging in their response.

I'm generally more trusting of moderates, who are not typically backing a "standard play" ... which is probably why I evolved to become a moderate myself.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Yosemite Sam on October 13, 2005 - 7:03pm

"Well, it might be fair to say that the right-wing instinct is to trust the market and the left-wing instinct is to organize a non-market solution."

I think this is a myth. There are many political interventions just because "the market" just might not come up with the "correct" ansewer.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on October 13, 2005 - 8:54pm

I'm not understanding. Are you saying that the right wing has its own "non-market" solutions?

If I were to guess maybe you are talking about the right's social policies? I like those x-y graphs that plot economic freedom on one axis and social freedom on another.

What we typically call the "right" is for economic freedom with more social control, and the "left" is for social freedom with more economic control.

... or maybe I'm missing your meaning.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Yosemite Sam on October 13, 2005 - 11:51pm

I don't have much time at the moment. Briefly, markets can be circumvented when necessary and/or when opportunity presents itself. One example would be the negotiations which began the petrodollar recycling system. These actions were bilateral and secretive against all public statements by the US govt. The myth exists today that the "markets" solved the problem.

I am reading "The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony" by David Spiro who makes this case.

I guess all I am saying is that both liberals and conservatives say they trust the markets and both seek at times to circumvent them when opportunity presents itself.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

PhilRelig on October 14, 2005 - 10:01pm

How about the Texas Railroad Commission for a non-market solution to petroleum allocation, a non-market solution that undoubtedly had the enthusiastic approval of all the supposed free-market ideologues in the US oil industry? (The TRR played the role of OPEC in the domestic US until 1971, when the Peak predicted by Hubbert rendered it moot.)

Does one have to be politically on the left end of the spectrum to note the glaring hypocrisy here?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on October 15, 2005 - 10:46am

I don't think anyone, of any party, "working a deal" or "putting one hand in the til" really disproves the general philosophical theme.

I didn't invent it, it's out there.

... and I think it plays into the parties' slow acceptance of some problems.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wkwillis on October 15, 2005 - 6:49pm

The Republican party is splitting apart between the socially conservative and financially liberal southern and rural faction, and the socially liberal and financially conservative high income faction.
Socially conservative means government control of reproduction, sex, religion, etc.
Financially conservative means low taxes and/or government spending (delayed tax increases and/or spending cuts).
Socially liberal means no government control of reproduction, sex, religion, etc.
Financially liberal means high taxes and/or government spending (delayed tax increases and/or spending cuts).
The Democrats are relatively uninvolved in this argument between the Republican factions. Most antiMiers stuff is coming from the faction who liked Roberts for his implied solib/ficon stance, and disliked Miers for her implied socon/filib stance.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.