Guaranteeing people a decent retirement and decent health care does more than smooth out the rough edges of capitalism. Those guarantees give people the freedom to take risks. If you know that professional failure won’t leave you penniless and won’t prevent your child from receiving needed medical care, you can leave the comfort of a large corporation and take a chance on your own idea. You can take a shot at becoming the next great American entrepreneur.
From Free Markets and Safety Nets
The progressive argument for social insurance in a nutshell.
You have people here who enjoy their existing low density lifestyles, they like the fact that said lifestyles are explicitly and implicitly subsidized through a variety of public policy measures, and they don’t like the idea of losing those subsidies. What’s more, they regard their antagonists as somewhat culturally alien. So they’re pissed off. The fact that a small government approach to land use would in fact lead to denser lifestyles, more bus commuting, and smaller homes is of absolutely zero interest to them.
From Yglesias » The Land Market
But those subsidies that allow for their life-style aren’t socialism. It’s only socialism when government helps other people. When it helps them, it’s freedom.
Fundamentally, I think Fannie and Freddie as they existed pre-crisis represented a bad implementation of the bad idea that government policy should promote the construction of large single-family owner-occupied housing. But the concept of pro-suburbanization industrial policy seems very broadly supported in American politics.
From Yglesias » The Pricey Bailout
Good point. Much of this boils down to an American love of cars and the hatred of mass transit. Cities don’t make sense without buses and trains. If you start there then the only policy than can support that is suburban sprawl.
Via John Sides, an elegant depiction from Gallup of why you shouldn’t take people’s explanations of what’s bothering them at face value:
Democrats and Republicans alike feel threatened by the idea of a government controlled by the other political party.
From Partisanship Matters Most
Amazing chart that seems to explain the tea party better than enaything I’ve seen so far.