Yuval Levin is one of my favorite commentators and writers on the scene today. Everything he produces, I pay attention to because he’s a master at the deep, multilayered style of writing that appeals to me so much. Yesterday, Jim Manzi from National Review reviewed a profile of Paul Krugman written in New York magazine, and Mr. Levin then responded with one of his own. Both Manzi’s and Levin’s commentaries were insightful and thought-provoking, and the gem of Levin’s is found in the fifth paragraph … which crystallizes and defines as nothing else the left’s views towards our monetary and financial problems:
This helps to explain the left’s attitude toward the increasingly obvious fiscal implosion of the welfare state. Liberals have so far responded almost exclusively with reactionary denial and with a doubling down on the very ways of thinking that created the problem. They yearn for the glorious energy of the Great Society era, unwilling to see that its consequences are the very source of our troubles. They really seem to believe that leaving Medicare just as we have it is essential to guarding the American dream. And to oppose conservative attempts at reforms of various programs, they appeal to an almost blind fear of change, and to the segments of our population most inclined to such fear—ignoring the plain fact that the status quo is unsustainable and the question is only what kind of change will come.
In your conversations with liberals – and when listening to them in media or reading their words in print – don’t you hear the same responses? They tend to deny that a state of emergency even exists, and then immediately leap into a boilerplate solution that always seems to shout: “Throw more money at it! Do more of what we’ve been doing! That’ll solve the problem-if it even exists!” Instead of viewing issues with a sober eye, and with a willingness to consider ALL causes and ALL possible solutions, they’d rather flee from any substantive decision on an issue or problem. And for anyone who differs with them, the initial reaction is almost always, “Why do you want to change what’s been done? What will (fill in the blank of the name of a special interest group or gathering of constituents who’ve supported them) think of what you’re proposing … do you think they want to change? Why do you want to hurt them?”
Are these folks misguided about what’s really happening? You bet. Are they products of a liberal education and indoctrination that has closed their minds to true critical thinking? No doubt. Do they see themselves as guardians of power and protectors of privilege? Oh, yes.
Should they be running this country?