What's really going on is that government has worked just fine for the norquist followers. Who it hasn't worked very well for is actual libertarians whose intellectual arguments Norquist et. al. like to mine for talking points. Or anyone who thinks that national security depends on effective alliances and an appreciation of what we do and do not have the power to achieve. Or anyone who thinks that a social safety net is more important than corporate giveaways.

Great post. This line of argument always reminds of alleged psychics who explain their inability to bend spoons or reads minds in front of a witness by saying that their mystical powers don't work when a skeptic is present because of all the negative vibes his disbelief puts out.

Joe Max,

“If your basic political philosophy is that a big government is at best a necessary evil, why would you bother to try to make it actually work and thereby invalidate your own beliefs?”

Should we also assume, then, that liberal/leftist attempts to regulate the private sector are actually intended to cause economic chaos and destruction? I suppose that would actually explain an awful lot.

Hear hear. As P.J. O'Rouke put it, Republicans are the party that says that government doesn't work, then they get elected and prove it.

I would add that the Norquist types do it deliberately, and with malice aforethought. If your basic political philosophy is that a big government is at best a necessary evil, why would you bother to try to make it actually work and thereby invalidate your own beliefs?

Your post isn't plausible and you are another blogger who can only
think in cliches.

I ask because assume a scenario where someone might opposed the Iraq war, and their dissent was broadcast on international television, and this pushes a man who was on the fringe between killing Americans or joining a death squad, into engaging in terrorism (because he now feels dissent in the US has pushed these actions into a winnable strategy). Can we not say that the dissenter is the critical factor, the catalyst for violence? That if he had just kept his mouth shut someone would be alive that wasn't? That the world would be better? Is the political discourse, and ideological diversity worth having here? I don't think it's a clear cut answer. This postmodern era complicates things. It's easy to be for discourse when arguing can only make things better or neutral. But we live in different times, where confidence, belief, symbols and ideas matter and must be weighed.

I suspect the correct answer is time and manner. There is a way to have ideological diversity, but there are times where it is inappropriate and ways that we can engage in it that make everyone worse off. As dissenters we should keep this in mind for how we show our objection.
==
It may be better to see this at the individual level rather then one of national importance. Is it best to always argue with ones significant other or family? Is it best to always disagree with one's boss? Can we not make a moral argument that it is sometimes better to not engage in dissent or to promote a diversity of ideas for the purposes of unity, solidarity, or even, in a selfless act, making the other person feel better about themselves?

If you owned a company and needed to hire executives and managers, would you be well-advised to hire people whose fundamental, stated wish is to drown your company in a bathtub?

It's possible that dedicated, decent, devoted, and hard-working public servants simply don't exist.

But if you allow that they do exist, how do you attract those type of people?

And we appreciate your pure-hearted but futile efforts, WW. Politics Isn't About Policy, as you know. That doesn't make your commitment to the impossible any less admirable, however. I do find it inspiring.

But “we wish those people who aren't my friends, the friends on behalf of whom we fought to achieve this political power so we could give ourselves candy, would just migrate to another part of the tree canopy” is in fact what democracy is about.

Why do wish that they should gild it with noble lies? The talking point schema you so dislike has at least the virtue of honesty.