"claryifying" concessions

That's always a messy business, and just bad form.

Come on man, if you want to ask me all those questions, ask them, but to restate the "conditional concession" ... oy. I didn't misread it the first time. The "realizations" , epiphany as you called it, that I spoke to in my post were simple, and what I thought you were basing your concession on: you are not a liberal because a results oriented planned economy policy does not work. You can not point to any version of such policies working before New Deal. You can not point to any working after New Deal. Hence, you could not adequately defend it (using historical examples or personal ideology); nor prove conclusively that from 1929-1945 it worked. I got it. To reiterate just because I waxed on a bit in the follow up post is, well, bad form (to me anyway, what did you think would happen at the conclusion of a decade long debate?). Concede or don't, but I got it the first time. Your "belief" that "something" must have worked (your words), despite the ability to offer "proof" (also your phrasing) has now reached an almost religious level. The conscious and rationale of an adult may have been enough to compel you're concession of the argument, but it certainly hasn't shook your "faith" in New Deal. And apparently I can no more to talk you out of that religiosity than I can Catholicism. Nor will I try.

Two points:

1.) You wrote (I'm paraphrasing): "Despite FDR's efforts, nothing fundamental has changed." It's true he didn't literally alter the Constitution, or its' process. However, his tenure did fundamentally alter the interpretation of the commerce clause (which we suffer from today in both 2nd Amendment restrictions and Obamacare); and more than that, he altered government's relationship with the individual citizen. He set the standard, used to this day, of a government concerned with "results." An ideology I contend became prominent first with Wilson. The expectations of those elected to office, and those who get the goodies they promise, have changed. In fact, I believe those expectations of, and relationship with, government fundamentally changed under FDR, forever. I mentioned this when I wrote that his "great success" to progressives like Obama is that he altered the American fabric to "expect" their government to ensure certain "results." And he did so even by the programs that failed or were tossed out. The attempts are expected now. The standard in a crisis, any crisis now, is government interventionism, typically on the federal level. THAT is a fundamental change that I ascribe to FDR. Others may disagree who is to blame, but the relaity of its' existence is clear. Now you can certainly argue that "nothing fundamental changed" if you're saying all that happened under New Deal was that legislation was passed by a duly elected congress, signed into law bu a duly elected chief executive, and declared Constitutional or not by a duly appointed Judiciary, thus he didn't alter the fabric of the process. That's fine. I don't disagree. The problem is that all those duly elected and appointed individuals are now influenced by the emphasis on "results" that FDR/New Deal embedded in American society. "The Constitution as I understand it..." versus as the Founders understood it, or at least its' plain meaning (case law precedent rather than Constitutionality, the commerce clause, just as examples), is prevalent today. I believe FDR made it so. My opinion, anyone can disagree. Although I doubt any Progressives do, the reasons I laid out against him are the very ones they worship him for.

2.) When is enough government interventionism "enough." This is a fine debate tactic, kudos. It's much like the one I've oft used on those Left of center who ascribe the need for a more punishing progressive tax code. It's a simple way to destroy their argument. Ask: "What percentage - give me a number - of a person's income is it fair for the government to take?" Typically, not knowing the top marginal rate, they'll pick a number lower than is currently in place; or they'll pick a number so high I it will reveal themselves as not serious players at best, commies at worst (ha). I can't go over the litany of 236 years of American domestic policy and say here, here, here are too far; here, here and here are just right ... I'm not a historical Goldie Locks. I can only answer specific examples. The War on Drugs? Legalization is not the answer. And no new laws need be passed. We are a sovereign nation. We have every right to enforce the boundaries of that sovereignty. I'm not being glib here, but our land border is more porous than our borders over bodies of water. Much like immigration, we must enforce our boundaries. And every president in my lifetime (including Reagan) has utterly failed in this fundamental responsibility of the Federal Government. Hezbollah agents, suitcase nukes, illegal immigrants, angel dust, or bad Tylenol, none of it should come across - its' a legitimate function of the Feds to disallow illegal crossings of humans, goods, drugs, weapons, or supplies (or anything for that matter, if it's an "illegal" crossing).

Look, I appreciate the kind words about emphasis on results versus process. It is the sea change I think Wilson started, and FDR took to its' next logical level; LBJ took up again; and Obama is attempting today. My point about FDR is he made it a standard part/expectation of American society. After Lincoln his successors didn't go around suspending state legislatures when it suited them (or AZ would be in trouble today). However, every Republican president since Eisenhower has upheld the New Deal Policies (more or less) that remained, and every Democrat has expanded on their theme with programs of his own. FDR (or any of them) didn't have to fundamentally change the process to get Americans to fundamentally focus on results; they merely had to change the focus of government from one to the other. And that's what I think FDR did "better" than any of the other names we bandied about - he made normal the American citizens expectation that his or her government should concern itself with results. And he did so within the process the Founders set in place. If you want to label him "successful", than do so for that. It was an awesome (destructively so in my estimation) achievement.