I knew you'd have a rant going about that stuff. I'm surprised you didn't also object to Tierney using Indians as the example to prove that Big Gubmint is bad--in that romanticized, nativist, oversimplified way people often discuss Indian issues.
I don't have too much of a problem with that. Indian policy is a good example of government power gone totally haywire. Take alook at the history of Supreme Court decisions concerning tribes... in the event that the thought of another conservative nutjob on the Court doesn't already scare the living shit out of you.
This little dust up almost makes me feel compassion toward conservatives. However flawed his analysis may be, Tierney actually hit the target in identifying one of the biggest obstacles tribes face in developing their economies. But rather than discussion of that problem and potential solutions, we get a sidebar deconstruction of his (lack of) historical analysis. Argh.
This is interesting, also, w/r/t the question I got in a comment thread about conservative feminists. Obviously I'm not a conservative, but there is a case to be made for (old-style) conservatism on the grounds that "enlightened paternalism" or wtfever is more of a pain in the ass than just getting the hell out of the way and letting people take care of their own shit...
This is one area where I definitely support the "less is more" model of government. Most of the really successful agencies on reservations are directly run by the tribes themselves. I'm not sure there is such a thing as enlightened paternalism, but I'm heavily conditioned to see paternalism as inherently bad.
Commenting by HaloScan
