No, You Don't...

Dick Meyers at CBS has an insightful article on a key difference between conservatives and liberals, "We Know What's Best for You." The most insightful portion of it relates to "two types of liberty" - positive and negative. Quoting Meyers:

"Negative liberty is freedom "from" things; positive liberty is freedom "to do" certain things. ... Negative liberty means simply that one is free from interference by the state and others, that one has a zone of liberty and in that zone there can be no interference so long as another's liberty isn't constrained. What you do in the zone of negative liberty is your business. Positive liberty takes a dim view of simple negative liberty, arguing that it is meaningless unless a person has a real, positive freedom - the power "to do" vital things. Being left alone, in the world view, is meaningless if you don't have the power "to do" the important things, whatever they may be – get an education, earn a fair wage, live in an alienated society."

Meyers point is that America is the proto-typical negative liberty place which I agree with whole-heartedly. "Rugged individualism" is what sets us apart from, say, France and certainly from the tyrants in the Middle East and Third World. It always has and, I believe, always will. Further, Meyers says that, while both parties have aspects of negative and positive liberties in their platforms, Republicans tend more toward the negative and Democrats toward the positive. Meyers concludes that voters can dislike positive liberty (which he says smacks of "we know what's best for you") and can sense it a mile away. And that does not bode well for the Democrats.

Paul Mirengoff of Powerline is not so sure that voters will "consistently reject" this approach. Paul is absolutely right, but it important to understand when the voters won't. I posit that voters will accept the "we know what's best for you" approach under two condition. The first is a time on emergency, such as war (Iraq, GWOT) or national disaster (Katrina). The second is when the moral foundations become so obvious as to require remedial action (the civil rights movement). The problem the Democrats face is they are offering no leadership on either of these issues. The problem the Republicans face is that faced with time of emergencies, they have botched it. (Query, if Congressional Republican would have shown more domestic leadership on spending, Social Security and taxes, would President Bush's numbers be as low. I say no.) Paul may be right that voters may swing back to the Democrats and thus accept the Dems approach, but it would be because, given the chance, Republicans have screwed up.