The difference between liberalism and conservatism is really about power. Whose power do those in government serve? Do they serve the interests of corporations, or the common good. Simple as that.
Nick Kristof's column offers a case study that perfectly encapsulates that difference.
Formaldehyde is everywhere, as Kristof explains. It is almost certainly in your home, you almost certainly breathe it in every day.
To go beyond Kristof's column, there have been formaldehyde-related problems in the trailers built by FEMA for the survivors of Hurricane Katrina. After residents complained of everything from headaches to nosebleeds, the CDC performed tests and found "potentially hazardous levels of formaldehyde" in many of the trailers.
But it's not just about headaches and nosebleeds. Formaldehyde causes cancer. Cancer. The "Report on Carcinogens" is produced biennally by the National Toxicology Program (housed in the Department of Health and Human Services), and in their 12th report, issued June 10, 2011, they found that formaldehyde is:
"known to be a human carcinogen."In other words: formaldehyde causes cancer.
So, what did the chemical industry, "Big Chem" as Kristof dubs them, do about this? Do I really have to ask? I'll let Kristof answer:
The chemical industry is working frantically to suppress that scientific consensus — because it fears “public confusion.” Big Chem apparently worries that you might be confused if you learned that formaldehyde caused cancer of the nose and throat, and perhaps leukemia as well.He explains that the industry is pushing to, wait for it, whack the funding Congress appropriates to the National Toxicology Program in order to produce the Report on Carcinogens. Big Chem's strategy: Don't like the facts? Stop the scientists from reporting them. Perfect.
Kristof rightly compares this strategy to the decade-long attempts by corporations to block the truth about cigarettes and asbestos causing cancer. Although the analogy isn't perfect, I'd add climate change as well, as another example of corporations and their political allies (mostly on the right) vs. the truth.
To widen the lens, this issue illustrates the difference between liberalism and conservatism. Conservatives, following the Ayn Rand-Paul Ryan gospel, instinctively side with corporations over regulations because they view corporations, by definition, as the product of heroic innovators. Regulations are simply roadblocks thrown up by people too ignorant to understand that the marketplace will take care of any problems. If formaldehyde gives you cancer, take two marketplaces and call your doctor in the morning.
Liberals, on the other hand, understand that while most businesses are responsible, too many are not. Some businesses will take unacceptable risks with public safety, i.e., human life, in the pursuit of profit. Then, because some businesses take those risks and make big profits doing it (until, in some cases, the chickens come home to roost and people get sick or die from the company's products), honest businesses are put in a position of having to choose between taking similar risks or losing ground in the industry and going out of business. The worst actors create a race to the bottom, where responsible businesses can't compete.
Liberals don't instinctively trust corporations to do the right thing. We understand that sometimes people need rules and, yes, penalties, to stop them from doing things in the name of profit that might harm or possibly kill consumers. We recognize that, in the long run, a safe product is more profitable, but that the pressures of the marketplace might work against safety in the short and medium term. Government must be there to represent the interests of consumers, of citizens, and weigh them against the legitimate interests of businesses.
The problem with conservatism is that it doesn't balance the needs of businesses against the needs of citizens. It sees them as one and the same.
I'll let Kristof get the final word, as he deftly connects the philosophical issue to the presidential election:
The larger issue is whether the federal government should be a watchdog for public health, or a lap dog for industry. When Mitt Romney denounces President Obama for excessive regulation, these are the kinds of issues at stake.
