Thursday, September 27, 2007

The Essential Problem with Liberalism is Incompetence

>" posts an excellent article by George Will on Real Clear Politics:

>"In June, the Times was in high dudgeon -- it knows no other degree of dudgeon -- about the Supreme Court's refusal to affirm a far-reaching government power to suppress political speech. The court ruled that a small group of Wisconsin residents had been improperly refused the right to run an issue advocacy ad urging the state's two senators not to filibuster the president's judicial nominees....

>"...Less than three months after the Times excoriated the court for weakening restrictions on issue ads, the paper made a huge and patently illegal contribution to's issue advocacy ad. The American Conservative Union, under Chairman David Keene, immediately filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, noting that the purchaser of the ad, Political Action, is a registered multi candidate political committee regulated by the mare's-nest of federal laws and rules the multiplication of which has so gladdened the Times...

>"The Times, a media corporation that is a fountain of detailed editorial instructions about how the rest of the world should conduct its business, seems confused about how it conducts its own. The Times now says the appropriate rate for's full-page ad should have been $142,000, a far cry from $65,000, which is what the group paid. So the discount of $77,000 constitutes a large soft-money contribution to a federally regulated political committee. The Times' horror of such contributions was expressed in its enthusiasm for McCain-Feingold."

The problem with liberalism is advocacy of government solutions that require a degree of competence that does not exist. The Times imagines itself to be competent enough to understand how government programs are to be executed. In fact, the Times has trouble managing itself. What comfort level do we have that any of the programs that the Times advocates, such as national health insurance, will be better managed than the Times manages itself?

No comments: