We don't need no infrastructure spending and your picture proves it, Donal.  There's a perfectly nice bridge right by the collapsed one.  People just need to not pull onto the collapsed bridge.  Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Well I got mine who cares about the rest of ya! I just got a brand new Willis Avenue bridge to go back and forth between the Btronx and Manhattan toll-free (crossing my fingers the latter stays that way.) They just finished the pavement on the widened lanes last week and boy is it nice driving on it compared to what I had been driving on for a decade! I have no idea who paid for it, whether Federal taxpayers, New York taxpayers, MTA tolls from other bridges (as I said, it is still a toll-free secret that only locals know about)--but whoever did, thank you!

Good point and post.  That is a good example of the disjuncture between the philosophical conservatism and operational liberalism of the American electorate.  People see collapsed bridges or unsafe roads and their thought isn't "oh well, I guess I just have to accept that as the price of small government."  Instead it's "where the hell is the government?"

Another example of this occurred to me when I read your 10/29 blog on Daniel Larison http://dagblog.com/politics/walking-eunomia-and-tea-party-blues-7338

[from the first excerpt] Ultimately, I see concentrations of wealth and power as the real enemies of conservatism as I understand it, and I see a lot of conservatives and Republicans aligning themselves with both in the service of getting themselves back into power, so I can’t say that I see that as conservative success.

Larison was saying that true conservatives--traditional conservatives that is, as opposed to movement conservatives--see concentrations of wealth and power, in the private as well as the public sectors as their animating concern.  Movement conservatives can see only the harms that can come about with a government that they see as too powerful (leaving aside Terri Schiavo, anti-choice, constitutional amendments defining marriage and other right-wing social issues requiring a highly intrusive government).  They don't seem to see downsides in having large private economic actors too dominant.

The distinction between movement conservatism and traditional conservativism was also made by Sam Tanenhaus in his lively, short book The Death of Conservatism.  He sees the former as revanchist and destructive and the latter as desirable and necessary.  With that I agree. 

From another part of the political spectrum there was Louis Brandeis, who identified as a Progressive.  He saw concentrations of wealth and power as the real enemies of a decent society. 

So there should be shared ground there across supposed ideological divides.  Larison, had he been alive at the time of Brandeis and Teddy Roosevelt, would have agreed on the need for antitrust activity, for reasons he would have defined as conservative and Brandeis as progressive.

In the case of the big banks, philosophical conservatism would imply support for a weak government that lets them continue to wreak havoc (it won't be long from now if we don't act, says Stiglitz, and he's one who's been right about an awful lot of things) on the rest of us. 

Again, I think this is an issue where, if you talk about this issue publicly in terms a lot of ordinary people can understand, the way FDR did, they become operationally liberal.  

You explain to them that the result of getting the government out and deregulating and allowing banks that are too big to fail to continue is the status quo that led to the most recent disaster--big banks do whatever they want, they take reckless gambles with other peoples' money, the profit is privatized, and the taxpayers have to clean up the mess when things blow up.  

The alternative is a government independent enough of the special interests and empowered by the people it is supposed to serve minimizing the risks through regulation, and breaking up the too big to fail banks to protect the taxpayers and the health of our and the global economy. 

Neither Bush nor Obama has ever had the kind of a down-to-earth, plain language, "fireside" chat with the American public to explain any of this. 

So of course the public has no idea which end is up or what their government is trying to do on all of this.  Meanwhile the public keeps hearing about big bank CEOs keeping their obscene bonuses--the bonuses they the taxpayers paid for, to people who screwed up and damn near brought the economy down!  So is it any wonder they don't feel the federal government has their best interests at heart, and doesn't share their values about rewarding productive effort instead of perfidy?