Why do reporters feel the need to constantly tell us about the philosophy of politicians? Isn't it obvious that the job of politicians is to get elected? This means making deals with the people who can give you the money and the political support to get elected. They don't get elected by writing great tracts on political philosophy. The Times is once again telling us that during the period of Republican rule "conservative philosophy dominated Congress," adding that they sought to push an agenda that included deregulation. That's not the history I lived through. Is it conservative to restructure Medicare so that the government subsidizes private firms, adding to the cost of the program? Is it conservative and deregulatory to extend government granted monopolies in the form of longer and more extensive copyright protection? Is it conservative and deregulatory to make it more difficult for foreign trained doctors to come to the United States and compete with our own? These and other measures were part of the congressional agenda of the last 12 years. (For more on the government interventions advocated by so-called conservatives, see The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer [it's free].) It would be best if reporters could restrain themselves from making assertions about politicians' political philosophy. The assertions are often not true, and more importantly, they don't matter. We don't ask about the religious affiliations of dogs, we shouldn't concern ourselves with the political philosophies of politicians.
--Dean Baker
