Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater on collective bargaining

The budget crisis in Wisconsin has radicalized both Liberals and Conservatives on the issue of Collective Bargaining. While the Governor Scott Walker just wants to place limitations on the collective bargaining of government workers, some Conservatives are actually likening Unions to antitrust violations, implying that unions are inherently bad and actively harmful.

Labor unions like to portray collective bargaining as a basic civil liberty, akin to the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and religion. For a teachers union, collective bargaining means that suppliers of teacher services to all public school systems in a state—or even across states—can collude with regard to acceptable wages, benefits and working conditions. An analogy for business would be for all providers of airline transportation to assemble to fix ticket prices, capacity and so on. From this perspective, collective bargaining on a broad scale is more similar to an antitrust violation than to a civil liberty...

There is evidence that right-to-work laws—or, more broadly, the pro-business policies offered by right-to-work states—matter for economic growth. In research published in 2000, economist Thomas Holmes of the University of Minnesota compared counties close to the border between states with and without right-to-work laws (thereby holding constant an array of factors related to geography and climate). He found that the cumulative growth of employment in manufacturing (the traditional area of union strength prior to the rise of public-employee unions) in the right-to-work states was 26 percentage points greater than that in the non-right-to-work states.

While the current state of unions may be a problem, the fact is they into existence because of abuses by management. History is like a pendulum that oscillates between extremes. Let's not over-correct against the abuses of unions without recognizing their virtues.

Constitution Party picks a nominee

The Constitution Party, a third party espousing Conservative ideas which is far more isolationist than either of the two majors, has chosen their nominee: Pastor Charles "Chick" Baldwin. While I am supportive of third parties and expanding the choice of the American political system, from the acceptance speech I do not think John McCain has too much to worry about from this particular competitor.

The Problem with Conservatism?

A lot has been made about whether John McCain is a "true" Conservative, and most of the Republican debates so far have been largely about who was most devoted to Ronald Reagan. And yet, all of this jockeying for "true Conservative credentials" has not produced any real excitement from the base, who largely is trying to decide whether to compromise their beliefs by voting for McCain or to compromise their power by sitting out the election. A new commentary by Cal Thomas suggests the real problem is a movement which has stopped looking ahead, and is obsessed with the past in the form of Reagan.

Reagan engaged in an arms-for-hostages deal with Iran. As president, Reagan seldom went to church, unlike his evangelical base. If conservatives knew in advance these things about Reagan, would they have voted for him in such numbers?

Contemporary conservatism has mostly been about saying "no" to the liberal agenda. Suppose conservatives instead begin to circumvent liberals by applying better ideas to achieve ends liberals and conservatives claim to seek?

I tend to think that Thomas is right, and much of the problem in the air now is that Conservatives have allowed GWB and the War in Iraq to eat up all of their creative energies. Where are the people who lead the Contact With America which promised bold new ideas? Where are the people who championed school choice, true reform for Medicare, and voluntary term limits for Congressmen? It is not enough to say you are "optimistic" and stand for "change." You have to present ideas which show a forward-looking vision. Obama, at least, can always fall back on the fact that his very election is forward-looking, by apparently realizing Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream.

I think this sums up the fears of most Conservatives

A Perfect Definition of Conservatism and Liberalism

George Will has posted today a near-perfect discussion of the modern schools of Conservatism and Liberalism, and what divides them. While it comes down eventually on the side of Conservatism - as that is what animates Will - it does not disparage the other side nor is it filled with animosity toward Liberalism. Definitely worth a read if you are unclear what Conservative, Liberal, and Moderate mean.

Today's political argument involves perennial themes that give it more seriousness than many participants understand. The argument, like Western political philosophy generally, is about the meaning of, and the proper adjustment of the tension between, two important political goals -- freedom and equality.

Today, conservatives tend to favor freedom, and consequently are inclined to be somewhat sanguine about inequalities of outcomes. Liberals are more concerned with equality, understood, they insist, primarily as equality of opportunity, not of outcome.

Moderates, I would argue are those who try to find the best balance between liberty and equality - neither as trusting of the market as Conservatives nor trusting of the government as Liberals.