Maybe we have been spared the rhetoric but the beliefs were always there, bubbling below the surface. Nothing has changed. Bill Clinton in particular would be comfortable with such if he believed he could benefit politically. This 'third way' stuff is bunk, much like Keyneseism which is nothing but a rational for empowering the bureacratic, administrative state at the economy's expense. Always better than working for a living.

The Third Way eviscerates the State--that's its genius.

That's the theory, I suppose. The experiment is still being run and your confidence is misplaced, premature at best.

Hasn't actually started yet. when either SS accounts or HSAs are made mandatory and/or school vouchers universal we'll see if it works.

Yup, and when the experiment fails we can always try something else. What makes you different from the social engineers of the left who created the problem? Radical solutions (radical in the original sense) are called for. Third way nonsense is entirely dependent on those who hold power. The state will continue to expand unless retired to it's rightful role.

Please define 'third way' in thirty words or less. What are the first two, freedom and social statism?

The Third Way recognizes that the desires for freedom and security compete with each other and tries to steer the middle course between them, using free market methods for state programs.

That's why its bunk. Recognizing the obvious while leaving the door wide open for evil to triumph. Demagogues and political opportunists will always be with us. Honesty requires an acknowledgemnt of the limits to government competence as well as limitless human folly. There is no happy medium. The 'third way' merely defers realty. The state will always evolve toward tyranny if it has the means. Depending on the circumspection and good will of those in power is a losing bet. The 'invisible hand' and the (mainly) self-regulated pursuit of happiness is more practical and realistic. (Exactly 31 words! You're good!)

Tom:

To the contrary, there's only the medium. Absolutist fanatics like you can bitch and moan all you want and end up with the welfare state. Your purity gets you nowhere.

here is how i define the third way:

a genuine social contract between the state and
the citizen. if the individual fulfills their
side of the bargain, they get help from the
state (when needed). in return, the state gets
better behaved citizens and a stronger human
capital.

the main flaw in the welfare state is it makes no demands on recipients; the flaw with capitalism is it offers no support to those who are in need of assistance, regardless of how much they may have contributed over time.

I'm a realist while this discussion is all about theory although human nature is fixed. The devaluation of our organic, cultural institutions will probably leave us no choice but your 'third way'. It is a temporary fix with a high probability of unforseen consequences. President Bush is a reformer and his attempt to change the relationship of the state to the people should be supported. He is apractical politician practicing the art of the possible and he knows how fast he can go. I support his proposals without reseravtion. Having said that without real, fundamental reforms in the tax and regulatory regime any changes in our bureacratic, administrative state and its relationship with the productive sector may be short lived or 're-reformed' (at any time) beyond any recognition.

oj-

Just curious.Do you think Justice Scalia an absolutist or fanatical?

Taxes have to encourage savings too--it's all one continuum.

Tom:

No, he joins other people's opinions.

oj-

The 'third way' is not meant to eviscerate the state. It rationalizes statism 'with a human face'. The socialists have lost the ideological battle while attempting to maintain the rational for an extensive statist infrastructure wacthed over by their imaginary friends in the intellectual elite. The 'new deal' was the first American 'third way'. Dressing up the same pig doesn't change anything. It's still a pig.

Not if it's a chicken.

The difference between SS and privatized SS is massive even if both violate your vision of no mandated retirement system whatsoever. And it has the advantage of being realistic, which yours doesn't. In effect you end up supporting the worst of the three options in a fit of pique over not getting your own.

It's all in the tax structure. If it can be taxed away ownership is tenuous at best. The tax on traditional savings is insane. If the reforms are dependent on the whims of majorities or judges they are not reforms, just changeable legislation. Increase the personal and dependent exemptions to reflect economic reality and encourage traditional, unrestricted saving through sane tax rules. Encourage the formation of private social intermediaries and local charitable and religious organizations. Forget about the fedreal government filling a role as an efficient provider of anything close to meaningful solutions for individual economic hardship. The costs far outweigh any real benefits. Nothing is more counterproductive or unrealistic in it's advertised goal of economic'justice' than the current 'income' tax system. The tax on traditional savings, as one example among many, is clear proof that government will enact insane policies if left to its own devices. Sorry for the pique but government outside it's competencies does not tend to take a consistent and sensible approach to anything. It's the nature of the beast.