Conservatism's Fatal Flaw? Hitting the bottom hurts too much.

"Keep government out. Let the markets govern themselves. That is the way to growth and prosperity." This is the core of economic conservatism.

It sounds nice. But when the market is in a free fall, people don't want to wait for the crash when it hits bottom. It hurts too bad. So there is an incentive to aid the market. It has been that way since the 1930's.

When the depression of 1929 started, the conservative/Republican Hoover administration largely market forces continue. With skyrocketing unemployment and no safety net, the social costs were high. People did not want to pay the costs--Republicans were voted out and the Democratic era of government intervention to aid the economy, and the little guy, was introduced.

The Reagan Revolution convinced many people that free markets were the best path to renewed prosperity. But now we see that an unregulated (or misregulated) market led to a huge crash.

Alan Greenspan admitted his mistake-assuming that the markets could self-regulate.

Now the prevailing sentiment is: government intervention is needed to prevent a worse crash.

If you accept that some intervention is needed, the only issue is how much. Conservatism's central tenet--let market forces rule, free from government intervention--turns out to be (as Captain Barbossa famously said in Pirates of the Caribbean) "more of a guideline" than an "actual rule."

So conservatives and liberals agree on the fundamental principle: some government intervention is necessary and appropriate. The only question is: How Much?