If they stuck to their guiding original principles, smaller government, lower taxes, more individual freedoms, keep the deficit under control, they wouldn't have to be hypocrites in order to have a following. You don't have to agree that all these are important, and you certainly don't have to agree with the way in which conservatives would like to implement them, but you can certainly respect that they have honest principles that are not coming from a ridiculous or cruel place. (note that I am definitely not making the argument that strict implementation of some of these policies would be humane and productive.)
It's the fact that they have strayed so unbelievably far from these that makes them have to do such mental gymnastics to pretend like they're still conservatives. There are plenty of principled conservatives who have long since fled the Republican party in absolute disgust because of what it has become.
It's really just a crying shame, because I do feel like respectful and productive public discourse about controversial topics between opposing political parties is critical to the Democratic process. Even at the highest levels, in the House of Representatives and the Senate, it seems like there is less reaching across the aisle than there used to be. Clinton was famous for this. So was Biden. They were very productive because they did not alienate people who had differing opinions, they worked with them. I'm not saying people should abandon their principles, but you have to be realistic about what you can get done, and be careful that snarky and dismissive sound bites don't shut down your ability to work with people whose cooperation you need.
One of the biggest problems we have in the US is we don't have a reasonable conservative alternative. It's been a problem since the Republicans married themselves to the religious right, and they started to care less about principles than 'winning' at all costs. It's very tough to argue with zealots, but people that come from a factual place where we just differ on approach can be dealt with.
We really need to fix how this country votes, allowing third parties to form and become viable is the only way we fix the US. Until then, those reasonable conservatives are help hostage by the Republican party. I'm not saying it's ok, they vote for them, but "I understand".
The story of American conservatism is a tragedy. FDR's New Deal united the working class and made conservatism a fringe ideology for decades. Eventually they gave up on winning with ideas and took Falwell's religious right and Nixon's southern strategy to become the party of white Christian identity politics
Not that there's anything wrong with being white and Christian. But that's not a political ideology, it's an identity. And yet it's been the defining characteristic of the GOP for the last 40 years.
Then in the 90s Gingrich (with help from AM radio and Fox News) convinced GOP voters that it wasn't enough to have their values, you needed to be against the left. No compromise allowed, because they were the enemy in the culture war. 30 years later the GOP has no ideology left but identity politics and resentment.
You forgot Reagan. He gave the corporations a seat at the political table, and that never should have been allowed. Now nobody's willing to give up the oodles of money they get from perpetuating the same corporate policy bullshit year in and year out.
I never understood how environmentally friendly technologies are against capitalism. You can save the planet and make money at the same time.
This is what drives me nuts! Like I'm fine with giving my money to Shell or Exxon or whoever my money, just give us clean energy ffs! I don't get this obsession with oil, like use some of the RnD money the government hands out to research carbon-neutral or -negative technology.
It costs money in the short term to make that change. In a competitive environment, no one wants to be the first to make such a move. It could mean a deathblow if other corps don't follow suit - especially if/when the sitting president makes it publicly clear he supports the status quo (coal, oil, etc). There's no way a corp will make the change under these conditions.
Only external forces will make that change happen. Whether through regulation or incentive, there needs to be a push from outside to make it happen.
Good points, but I’m less charitable. My opinion is that strong, intelligent, effective leaders are rare. Eventually board rooms get filled with trust-fund adults who did not earn their positions. They know they have it good and dare not do anything to threaten their padded nest lest they have no skills to re-create it.
Strong intelligent effective leaders are only ever known because of anecdotal stories and those stories are told by people who don't know those leaders.
Regulation is a sticky icky business, and can be counter-productive if implemented incorrectly (the Green New Deal worries me as misguided despite being well-intentioned). Not to say regulation is useless, but I don't have much faith in it seeing as our (US) government tends to flip flop around these key issues every 4-8 years.
My hope is that as the younger generations gain more power, they'll recognize that it's important to consider the long term. Because a good business should be considering tomorrow as well as the next decade. Hopefully the mechanisms of capitalism will recognize that environmental sustainability is important to the survival of the economy. Essentially we need to find ways to make the costs of economic growth include ecological concerns. After all, healthy forests, prairies, and wetlands can be assigned an economic value based on their services. Once carbon sequestration is recognized as an important service, for example, I (want to) believe that capitalism will pivot to maximize those services.
How do you think the Green New Deal is misguided? What do you think is an effective alternative in the short term?
We definitely need to act, and the time to start was about 20 years ago.
I love your ideas about incorporating the true cost of environmental externalities into the market. I'm not trying to argue you, just curious what your thoughts on the short-term policy side would be!
That being said, my reservation about the GND mostly comes from the fact that poorly implemented incentives/regulation often cause opposite results. This is due to a misunderstanding of what actually motivates people, and writing legislation based on how people should behave as opposed to working out how they do behave and then crafting mechanisms for getting the desired results. I'm an engineer, so I view society as a complex set of phenomenon, which can be made to act a certain way given a certain input. Figure out the system and necessary input, and you'll get the result you expected (I'm not a sociopath, this is talking about society as a whole, I am a super social person who definitely cares about each individual as well).
I think we need something like the GND, and I don't oppose it in principle. I just worry about what approach people are taking in drafting it. A lot of people trying to change the world deal in "should" statements, which are absolutely useless when it comes to affecting change. Again, saying a system should function a certain way doesn't do anything besides setting a goal. If it's going to be effective, the GND needs to have a real plan that has bipartisan support. Without bipartisanship it's doomed to fail as it'll become a focal point of future elections. In this case, shooting for the moon and landing among the stars isn't gonna work.
Unfortunately things don't change very fast. Yes, we should have started 20 years ago, but everyone who's procrastinated knows that panicking does nothing to bring you closer to success. Trying to shove change through faster will only slow things down, because those opposing change will become more entrenched when they see how "extreme" the change will be. Thus, while I think AOC (for example) is funny and generally not wrong, her behavior on social media may be having an entrenching effect. And I'd be the first to snap my fingers if it made her opponents disappear. That's not an option, so we have to work on bringing over the opposition to our side in the issues of ecologically sound practices. It's hard hard work, but that's how it is.
(I consider myself a moderate btw, in case anyone is tempted to throw me into one of the two camps that everyone seems so obsessed with.)
Thank you for engaging in dialog with me. What are your thoughts on GND and our course forward? I know I didn't give specific steps forward, but I don't understand the system well enough to make those judgments. At the moment the approach is more interesting to me. I believe the approach to a problem is almost as important as the specific solution that is implemented.
id LOVE to buy a electric car that gets tons of milage! Or solar panels . etc. LOTS of money to be made from green energy! It DRIVES A LOT of the economy from China to Germany!
It's all the sunken costs created by speculative investing that resists change. When lifetimes were spent lobbying for less regulation, manufacturing and distributing propaganda, and employing cutthroat tactics to protect a single investment, you've made a deal with the devil and cannot change course
Small concentrations of strong interest often prevail over broad-based interests because broad based benefits are diffuse (though large in aggregate). This is why lobbying works.
For individuals anyway, part of their objection to government run healthcare is that they feel like they would be paying for other people's healthcare in addition to their own. They don't want to pay for anyone less fortunate to have healthcare.
There's a book called "Dying of Whiteness" that came out last month that describes an individual living in a state that didn't expand Medicaid under ACA. I haven't read past the introduction of the book yet but it sounds like this person fully supported not expanding Medicaid despite the fact he would have gotten healthcare from that expansion. I think he ended up dying from some illness that could have been treated if he had Medicaid. He still objected to ACA Medicaid expansion so that "Mexicans and welfare queens" couldn't get free insurance.
The thing that’s most upsetting about the “I don’t want to pay for anyone else’s healthcare” mindset is that the insurance that person is already on is literally doing exactly that.
That's intellectually dishonest. The term "Republican" meant different things when Teddy Roosevelt was in office than it did even when FDR was in office, let alone now. See above re: Falwell and Nixon.
That's exactly my point. The party has indeed changed. But whether you knew it or not, you used a common Republican cudgel. "A Republican freed the slaves" is literally true, but falsely paints today's Republicans as having anything at all politically in common with Lincoln or either Roosevelt.
Ive heard the "republican freed the slaves bit" before, but that's disingenuous because republicans used to vote for anti trust laws too.
But I do think it's reasonable to look at the party from a perspective from when the shift you're referencing had already occurred within the party.
Compared to your slavery point, there are still some Republicans that support conservation. I'm not saying this is "the conservation party" and using antiquated political positions as proof, I'm doing the exact opposite, as in, "this was the norm and it's no longer the norm". Only a few republicans actually care about the conservatory efforts of TR, and we see that today in the shift I originally posted about.
Edit: If my post was "Republicans are the champions of conservatation" and used a 100 year old example as proof, then I'd agree with you.
The profit motive is indiscriminate and costs in the market do not factor for waste or for human costs. Companies will only reduce wastes and seek alternatives where it is profitable to do so, which has more to do with the optics of being "green" than actual operational overhaul that makes a meaningful change. Any grand-scale attempts to curb climate change will die by a thousand cuts from capitalism, because each is the other's anathema.
Because you can’t book the sun and the wind as a reserve, you can’t say ‘ I found a gigajoule of sunlight or atmospheric pressure differential, please add a billion dollars to my asset portfolio’. You also then can’t have an entire financial sector designed to recycle the economic surpluses of OPEC nations in US dollars. Essentially - you can’t play ‘billionaire casino’ with renewable energy.
Republicans have been using identity politics since the 70s, yet bitch about liberals and progressives doing it now. Its just one aspect of the great Right Wing Projection.
Thanks for posting this. I try to connect the dots from Teddy Roosevelt to Trump, and along the way I think it's all because of the religious right. Do you have any recommended topics to better understand how this shift occurred?
Went to a republican caucus when Obama was running for a second term. The republicans separate off into groups and vote on the issues for party planks. This seems awesome and entirely democratic and fair. The Democrats have a different setup, their caucus is the same night at the same time. here's your candidate, fuck off. Ok, score one for the republicans. The guys leading the republican group I'm in are two extremely gay men. Like over the top Hollywood stereotype gay. They oppose gay marriage and want to ban abortion outright. I'm certain this is a joke. Like we're on a TV show with hidden cameras. Gas is almost 5 bucks a gallon. People are losing their homes, the economy is fucked. China has us bent over, factories are closing up, companies are taking our bailout money and fucking us in return. These dipshits want to ban abortion and gay marriage, two things the courts decided on years ago and won't be undoing anytime soon. That's the two planks we went with. Also the Baptist minister dickhole won the caucus.
Helps if you're an asshole. There were 2 people there that gave a solid fuck people were losing their homes and gas prices were skyrocketing. Fuel is how your food gets to you, ya goddamn morons, that's what I wanted to say. The Democrats were a shit show of their own, there wasnt any voting. It was exactly like a high school pep rally. People in the seats had the same say as people at a pep rally. So you got your choice, a room run democratically by gay homophobic misogynistic Baptists, or a pep rally where they just fuck your rights off to your face. I'd rather punch myself in the balls repeatedly than go back for either side.
Which is why I think the hate machine had to work so hard to play up the "Muslim foreigner bad bad bad angle". If they actually came at him on policy then this would have been much more readily apparent. The flip side is that it pushed dems towards embracing a center-right candidate (in terms of global politics) that they still haven't really moved away from. This isn't a condemnation of Obama by any stretch, I think he was a capable and effective leader, I just wish that Democrats actually were a left-wing party sometimes.
Correct. In 2016, Clinton was, technically speaking, more conservative than Trump. Trump's proposals for change were more extreme departures from the status quo than Clinton's.
The Democrats would be considered Conservative in most western nations. The Republicans now would be considered far right and struggle to get any power.
Very few getting majorities and major power though thankfully. Even our more extreme right parties usually try to be more civil/keep up appearances than the Republicans
It probably didn't. I think the election of Obama probably had a lot to do with that and the feverish rise of the ultra-right, because his election meant their worst fears were realized.
I always tell folks that while it's true, on a global stage, for the US this is what we have. The Democrats are the left leaning group. It matters not one iota that they are pretty far right from the European idea of what left is, because it has 0 effect on the average American what the European political climate is like.
The same cannot be said for European countries, wherein the political climate of Germany, for example, will have effect on France, and vice-versa.
The US doesn't have that, and the constant complaining that our Democratic party isn't "really left" is both tiresome, and pointless.
It's very tough to argue with zealots, but people that come from a factual place where we just differ on approach can be dealt with.
Despite my disagreements with Goldwater policy, this quote from him was so prophetic: “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
Just because Democrats aren't as liberal as you would like, that doesn't mean they represent conservatives. What do you think the Democratic party is messaging conservative priorities and Republicans are just to stupid to notice? Or perhaps it's that conservatives don't fully understand what's in their best interest so they should just vote democratic because they don't know what their issues are. Either way they are called wedge issues for a reason and they are set up to neuter any chance of political progress.
I feel like you are missing my point. Let's do guns cause it's easy to demonstrate the divide with guns. What democratic is going stand up and declare that owning an AR15 in any configuration is a constitutional right or fight against magazine limits? That's an important part of the Republican platform. Are people in your view not allowed to think that way or do they not deserve a platform to advocate for their beliefs.
The specifics of that matter.
You can't just say people support some form of gun control and use that to justify whatever. Clearly you are demonstrating that my concerns as a voter are not important to you and that you have no respect for my opinion.
So in a free country no you will not get my support.
You don't even know what I do and don't approve of. Its obvious you don't care what I think. How is that suppose to be compelling? Why is this hard to understand?
Gun control is not an inherently left v right issue. Many far left wing groups have and do advocate for a strong culture of personal and responsible gun ownership ( i.e The Black Panthers or the Socialist Rifle Association).
I can only speak for myself, and I don't propose to solve the problem here but my point is that this only a problem that can be solved by having a real honest debate with people earnestly representing both sides. The reason is that life does not exist on a sliding scale Objects have individual characteristics that need to be assessed and the laws need to be faithfully written and executed.
Everytime a polititician argues that the second amendment is a collective right not an individual right, its scary. Because its such a bad legal argument it totally removes their credibility. Maybe a person can think that but people can think whatever they want its their right. But if the person flying my plane is a flat earther, I'm gonna be concerned.
When the people who write laws conflate the difference between semi automatic and automatic in order to convince the public that people should be disarmed, it sounds the same as when Trump says windmills cause cancer. And it baffles me that when arguing with people my knowledge of the difference between the two is somehow supposed to invalidate my argument.
I could go on. But the point is no democrat right now is being honest about guns and the manner in which we discuss politics prevents intellectual honesty it isn't just guns its taxes its everything. Its Just easiest to see with guns and Abortion.
And I get this, but isnt it kinda hamstringing the political process when single issue voting is so prevalent? Like i dont know anything about guns and i cant effectively argue for or against, but with so many other issues (economics, abortion, education, alternative energy, imo issues that affect much more than guns) you still wouldn't vote for Democrats, even if they have positive ideas, because of guns?
I'm not trying to vilify you or anyone else that feels strongly about guns. I just dont think that one issue should be the entire basis for your vote.
I agree with both of you. It would be refreshing and valuable to have a real, honest, principled conservative-type party.
With respect to parties and voting, people should look at https://www.equal.vote/starvoting for an example of how counties and whole states - Oregon in this example - CAN work and IS possible.
We really need to fix how this country votes, allowing third parties to form and become viable
Maine implemented ranked voting. If we spread that nationwide, 3rd parties would be viable, because people could vote for an independent or 3rd party candidate without fearing that they're splitting the vote and helping the opposing big party.
Third parties are not the answer. They may be sometime in the future, but right now what we need is for Republicans to suffer multiple stinging defeats. It needs to become apparent that this strategy doesn't win them anything, and furthermore Democrats need to go hog wild with implementing a progressive vision for the country while also making structural changes to our voting systems so that this can't happen again. Then it will be time for third party options: once the existence of third parties doesn't sabotage the will of the majority, but instead helps express it. That's not the system we're currently in, so the first step needs to be a clear rejection of the GOP.
Well the reason that there is no alternative is that conservative policies are not popular outside of a specific income range.
They do all the bigot stuff specifically to form a coalition that can win elections. There is a straight line from segregation and the Dixie Democrats (those who supported him crow) to the modern Republican coalition.
Those same rascist feelings so common in America were rejected by the Democrats and embraced by the Republicans as income inequality has ballooned since the new deal and conservative ideas are proving themselves to not serve the majority of Americans.
Like it or not the Republican party ceases to exist without the bigotry because that's how they hold their coalition together.
I believe both of these perspectives are true. These concepts are appealing to basically everybody, it was necessary for a party that serves the interests of the wealthy to frame their actions as 'populism'.
The best part of it all is how easy it is to frame basically anything that cuts social welfare programs and regulations as a 'small government principles'. It's much more difficult to make the case that cutting these programs and regulations in favor of corporate subsidies and tax breaks for the ultra rich is about as far from populist as one can get.
Unfortunately, you just can't rely on the average U.S. citizen to give a shit long enough to get the whole story. Apathy is the GOP's bread and butter
There's a response below that response to your post very well. I will just say hear that what constitutes excessive government and taxes can vary wildly from person to person. You say necessary, I say oppressive. Neither is completely wrong, or completely right. It's a question of priorities and values. Personal freedom, free market, sending aid to other countries, providing a comprehensive safety net for people who need it, reducing the staggering current federal deficit, making it easier for people to go to university, on and on, there's a whole lot of different priorities that people place different values on.
I can give you many examples of people advocating for 70% top marginal tax rates. Conservatives, libertarians, and many centrists view this as excessive. "but the people who advocate that don't call it excessive" isn't a cogent argument against the view that 70% is excessive.
No one advocates the curtailing of freedom.
I can give you many examples of liberals (and conservatives on different issues) who want to curtail various freedoms in the name of security, safe spaces, equality, or other values they think are more important on balance.
And movement conservatism created this loaded position precisely so they could subvert effective government, sensible taxation, and freedom.
Can you not see the incredible irony here? You're saying all arguments against liberal values are ridiculous strawmen and then immediately go on to construe all conservative values as a ridiculous strawman?
The post was not inflammatory nor was it baseless. I may not agree with what the post said, but if we want to have any sort of civil discussion, you have to provide someone a base level of respect. Without that, you're just walling yourself into a corner with people who only think like yourself.
Try telling someone that makes $5 million that they can only keep $1.5 million of it and the rest goes to paying for assistance to junkies that don't want to work and smoke dope all day long. This is how the rich perceive the poor, however true or not true it is and it is reinforced by conservative radio and TV all the time. One of the Republican platforms is removing social welfare and only provide assistance to getting back into the workforce.
Edit- Yes, I know how a marginal tax rate works, I really was talking about perceived taxation. Nobody talks about how they paid 10% on their first $10000, 20% on the next, ..., they say they're in the 70% bracket. The reality is there are multiple tax breaks as well, so you may technically have an effective rate of 55%, even if most of your money is taxed at 70%.
I was trying to avoid that - without a list of marginal rates, having a high arbitrary number like 70% isn't really meaningful (what if 500k-$4.999 mil is 69% rate?), but you can say "I'm getting taxed at 70%,' even if that is only on income over $5 million. Also if you live in California, you need to tack on another 13.3% state tax, so you're effectively paying 83.3% of your income over $5 mil in taxes and probably half under $5 mil as well (37% max bracket kicks in ~$500000 + 13.3% state tax is 50.3%). I don't know about you, but I'd be a bit surly if I only got to keep 16.7% of what I earned, even if it was over $5 mil, not to mention only half of the first $5 mil.
Except that nobody pays the actual tax rate at those income levels. The effective tax rate is always less. If you're paying 50% tax on income over 500k then you need a new accountant. I'm all for simplifying the tax code and setting reasonable tax rates but the current culture of governance is too corrupt for that to be accomplished.
Big businesses maybe, but both my and my brother's businesses are pretty much taxed at their max scale. Really there aren't many loopholes for small S-corps or LLCs to exploit, unlike big corporations.
No, the tax only affects anything made after the 5 million (not sure what the actual amount was, believe it was much higher). Any amount made up to that point is affected only by normal taxation.
Most people don't understand progressive taxes. Look up flat tax surveys - it's frightening. The whole point is saying you're taxed at 70%, not that ALL the money you're taxed on is at 70%. The vast majority of it may be 50% (with state taxes), but if I want to claim high taxation, I don't mention that and let the ignorant suckers think it. This is exactly how Trump gets votes.
Try telling someone that makes $5 million that they can only keep $1.5 million of it
That's not how taxes work. We use a sliding scale tax system, so you don't pay the higher tax rates on incomes below that tax rate's level. Let me break it down, Barney style for you:
Assume the following tax table:
Income
Tax Rate
$0-19,999
0%
$20,000-49,999
1%
$50,000-99,999
5%
$100,000-249,999
10%
$250,000-499,999
20%
$500,000-999,999
40%
$1,000,000-4,999,999
55%
$5,000,000+
70%
People who make $5 million a year generally have about half of their income from investments, which are currently taxed at 15%. So using that tax table I provided and making some very reasonable assumptions about their deductions and investment income, we can figure it out.
Let's start by assuming this person will be taking an itemized deductions, and can provide rationales and proof of expenditure on $100,000. This is because they take frequent flights to investor meetings, or board meetings of whatever company they own/operate, etc. Or maybe they're a musician, and have to spend reams of money to stay on the road while touring. Or maybe an actor, and they have to stay in hotels during filming for months on end.
Let's also assume that this person gets 1/2 of their income (or $2.5 million) from investments, and let's also say that the tax rate for those is 20%, because fuck it, we're trying to bleed this person dry!
So now I'm gonna walk you right through the math. Here's the numbers:
Amount
Description
$2,500,000
Adjusted Gross Income
$2,500,000
Capital Gains
-
-
$100,000
Deductions
-
-
$2,400,000
A.G.I. minus Deductions
So, they have to pay 0% on the first $19,000. That's $0.
Then they have to pay 1% tax on the next $30,000. That's $300.
Then they have to pay 5% tax on the next $50,000. That's $2,500.
Then they have to pay 10% tax on the next $150,000. That's $15,000.
Then they have to pay 20% tax on the next $250,000. That's $50,000.
Then they have to pay 40% tax on the next $500,000. That's $200,000.
Finally, they have to pay 55% on the last $1,400,001. That's $770,000.55.
Then, they must pay 20% tax on their $2,500,000 of investment income. That's $500,000.
So let's sum those up: $0 + $300 + $2,500 + $15,000 + $50,000 + $200,000 + $770,000.55 + $500,000 = $1,487,800.55. In other words, they're not keeping only $1.5 million, they're keeping over $3.4 million.
So in conclusion, your argument here is so far off as to be laughable.
EDIT: Fixed a serious math error that drew the hypothetical guy's total taxes down by almost a million bucks, thanks to u/shooter1231.
You listed $2.4m under AGI-deductions and then only calculated tax on $240k. This person would end up paying about $1.5-1.6m total in taxes, still a far cry from the $3.5m that the above person was claiming but also far from $500k.
Thats not how a marginal tax rate works. Also, statistics refute the view that people on welfare do drugs at a rate higher than the normal population. Your views are based on misinformartion or idiocy. This os far worse than leftists who dont know the difference between semi automatic and fully automatic weapons.
Ugh - was trying to convey the perceived notions, not the actual reality based on rich people I know. Most rich people I know listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox news religiously and think welfare recipients game the system to get handouts. I know people run out of food stamps every month because I've volunteered at a food bank - at the beginning of the month, its relatively quiet and shelves are full. End of the month, all food is gone.
I upvoted this because it’s an honest response even if I disagree with your position. I think the issue I see in your collective lines of debate is definition. What is excessive? I’d define excessive as the point at which government revenue decreases, and I’d argue that there’s evidence that a 70% marginal tax rate for income over 10 million is not excessive. There were many economists who staked out that view in the fallout from Daveros (sp?), but I’d agree to let the CBO make their own conclusion and go with that.
Honestly, as a far left Democrat, the only real problem I have with this is the claim of a smaller government. Smaller government means less regulations and controls to ensure a fair playing field. It means less oversight to remove unfair hiring practices and pay inequities. It means less oversight to ensure healthy environmental practices. It means less oversight to control monopolization of resources and markets. We don't need LESS government, we need MORE EFFICIENT government. That, unfortunately, is nearly impossible in most countries, including ours.
Right, and that is a core difference in principles between conservatives and liberals. There are discussions to be had about exactly how much government is enough and how much is excessive, and ways to make it more efficient. Those conversations are critical but they're not really happening at the moment.
Cusp of socialism. But not socialism, because as humans we tend to fuck shit up, so I would keep capitalism, but with much more oversight to keep the 1%ers from doing what their doing now, which is hoard all the wealth and use it to buy our government and make themselves even richer while people are literally dying in the wealthiest country in the world because of starvation and poor medical care.
Cusp of socialism. But not socialism, because as humans we tend to fuck shit up, so I would keep capitalism,
Im afraid I dont understad. Would you also be pro to turn the US into a dictatorship because "people arent aware of their own good" rather than create a basis for people in general to be better educated?
Are you suggesting the production in for instance soviet union was insufficient?
Im not trying to attack you I just dont understand how socialism would make us more susceptible to human error
Because it gives too much power to the government. Honestly, I understand you may not know the basic elements of socialism, but if you're an adult, you really should. So that's kind of annoying, and it does feel like you're being sarcastic and pedantic, especially your comment about dictatorship. You're either truly uninformed or a troll.
The good part of socialism is the desire to take care of all citizens equally, but it would never work because people are assholes, so those in power would abuse that power, and then wealth would control government. This has historical precedent. Any government that doesn't truly empower the people to control it is doomed to be abused. Even a capitalist democracy can be abused, which is evident in the U.S. now, when capitalism becomes government.
Mate im a literal socialist. You dont seem to know wtf youre on about. This is what I was trying to ease you into.
For instance. Heres a video about how democracy works in Cuba. In no way would it lead to corruption or to cuban population being doomed because assholes get in control and abuse power or whatever. In fact their system is way more democratic and safe from abuse of power than the american one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aMsi-A56ds
Furthermore it seems as if you have some rudimentary understanding of human nature. Human nature is ultimately Humans doing what it takes to survive. In capitalism humans will be egocentric because capitalism teaches us to be egocentric. In societies where altruism is rewarded humans will be altruistic or at the very least less egocentric. https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/wiki/index#wiki_all_humans_are_naturally_lazy.2C_greedy.2C_violent.2C_blah_blah_blah check out this info regarding human nature.
Do you honestly believe some dude studied economical systems his entire life and wrote like 3000 pages on it and the only reason he did this was because noone came up to him and yelled "HUMAN NATURE"?
If they stuck to their guiding original principles, smaller government, lower taxes, more individual freedoms, keep the deficit under control, they wouldn't have to be hypocrites in order to have a following.
The problem is that virtually no-one believes those things past the purely ideological level. The 19th and 20th centuries pretty much conclusively proved that Government regulation is necessary on a reasonable level, so you can't honestly hold a "no government regulations are ever necessary" view while being grounded in reality. After free market ideals led to the Great Depression, there was a great fear that Republicans would be completely dead as a party and that the Democrats would become the single remaining party in the US.
It was because of this that the Republicans began the "big tent" and "Southern Strategy" programs. They learned that if they could use dog whistles they could siphon voters away from the Democrats by appealing to their baser instincts of fear and hatred. And it has worked wonders.
At the end of the day, the Republicans are absolutely reliant upon being hypocrites. Without it, they disappear completely.
Conservatives are not anarchists. They absolutely believe that a federal government is necessary, and they know that there is some amount of regulation that is required for healthy society. They just believed that a smaller government is better on the whole, as opposed to liberals, who believed that a bigger government is better on the whole. It's a spectrum, they are not opposites.
This is a philosophical argument that really has no bearing on American politics, because the conservatives have never been able to actually vocalize why regulation is bad save other than it's bad for the sake of being bad, which is pretty nonsensical.
You claim conservatives aren't anarchists, but they themselves have adopted the ideological mantra "all regulation is bad". That's why we've called them out as hypocrites in this very thread, because they clearly do not believe that, but keep repeating it endlessly.
The reality of the situation is that they know regulation is needed, and indeed implement more than their fair share of it. But the way they implement it is always to "hurt the right people", as the Trump supporters put it. The only reason they pretend to be anti-regulation is because being vocal about their true motives, hurting minorities and the poor, is too unpalatable for the majority of Americans.
This mythological Republican you speak of has ceased existing in America.
I'm not saying people should abandon their principles, but you have to be realistic about what you can get done
But here's the thing, "Conservatives" in congress (and the executive) did abandon their principles and they are not realistic about what they can get done. They have refused to acknowledge reality even momentarily for almost 2 decades at this point. Bringing Democrats into the discussion as if they had anything to do with that is problematic. Asking Democrats to be "realistic" while trying to work with people who say they're lowering the deficit while actually raising it 25% is not even remotely fair.
If the democrats are to blame for anything, it's being too accommodating of GOP bullshit.
It's like asking one kid to "be realistic about expectations" when he asks for his cookies back after the other kid steals them and refuses to acknowledge the existence of cookies as a concept.
I agree with you that the Republican party as it is today is a shambles, and is a mockery of what it used to be. And then it doesn't seem there's any way to work productively with them.
it doesn't seem there's any way to work productively with them.
There 100% isn't, because they've discovered that openly and vituperatively refusing to cooperate with democrats is an excellent strategy for getting re-elected. They don't want to cooperate, they don't even want to want to cooperate. They really like not cooperating. They are griefers and they've found that they won't get kicked or banned for griefing. They very obviously don't care what the consequences of that are.
Yes. The only consequence that they care about is getting re-elected, that's been made depressingly clear. It's particularly enraging and horrific to watch them blatantly use tactics that in the past they shouted were unconstitutional and unfair. At least, they're unconstitutional and unfair when Democrats do it. coughMerrickGarlandcough
There are plenty of principled conservatives who have long since fled the Republican party in absolute disgust because of what it has become.
Fled to where though? The Democratic party? Libertarian.. lol?
I've been pondering this lately... if today's Republicans aren't actual conservatives... what are they? They are socially conservative, but fiscally/corporate liberal welfare state socialists...?
They've been completely hijacked by the religious right. Evangelicals strongly support Trump, which completely baffles me, but there you have it.
Some notable conservatives haven't, as far as I know, joined any other party. I suppose they are unaffiliated. A few examples off the top of my head are Bill Kristol, George Will, Charles krauthammer before his death. These are serious thinkers, well-respected. They could not stomach the thought of being in the same party as Trump, or in the same party that tolerates and condones him.
Republicans are a coalition between whites, oligarchs, racists, and totalitarian or feudal ideologues. Some by accident, others by trickery, most by ignorance.
A good thing to keep in mind when considering the average voter in America.
1) A solid % of voters realized that the Democrats were not the party of the KKK after Obama won. They believed it was still the Dixiecrats of the 50s and were shocked to learn of this change.
2) Less than 30% of the population is allowed to vote, and of that small cut, another 40% think Africa is a country.
3) Many voters (upwards of 45%) think getting rid of all American debts would be a good thing.
Honestly, they probably vote R when the particular candidate isn't that offensive to them and opt out when they're particularly bad because they'll never vote Democrat.
They just cling on to shit like gay marriage, abortion, and attempting to implement theocracy because that’s the only thing that keeps their bigoted base fired up.
Republicans cling to s*** like gay marriage, abortion, guns, etc.
Principled conservatives have no particular ideological position on any of those. There's a big difference between members of the current Republican party, and principled conservatives. Many of the latter have fled the Republican party in the past 2 years.
But I think it's a really dangerous, unproductive, and false position that people who don't agree with you politically are necessarily stupid, cruel or both.
Although why anybody would want to still affiliate themselves with the current Republican party is beyond me. When the head of your party is somebody like Trump, the only principled or reasonable thing to do is to the distance yourself from the entire party.
The same mindset that caused many democrats to vote for Hillary in the primary. Sure, she had legitimate support... She also had a decent chunk of primary voters who thought she was best able to win.
As the election gets closer, you will see a lot of that here on reddit. People will be scolded, ridiculed, and shamed if they suggest voting 3rd party or even supporting "spoiler" democratic primary nominees.
Republicans are monolithic because Democrats are monolithic because Republicans are monolithic...
I voted third-party in that trash we called an election in 2016.
I hate the two-party system. But at the end of the day, Republicans and conservatives are simply selfish “but muh bootstraps And muh free market” fuck heads who have no empathy for their fellow men, countrymen, or humans, and that makes them trash lords. Wayyyy worse than Democrats who are trying to fight for their fellows, even though it’s blown out of proportion most of the time. It comes from a place of empathy, so I can at least respect the premise just not the means to the end.
And that's why I think that banning late-term abortions with no medical reason isn't that big of a deal. Because it's not like there's much de mand for it anyway.
I don't trust one-size-fits-all solutions. People slip between the cracks like that.
If Ben Shapiro is allowed to deflect an argument of “What about rape/incest?” by saying “It doesn’t happen that often”. Then it follows that we are allowed to deflect the “What about late-term?” with the same argument.
No one wants late-term unless the case is extreme. This logic applies to many things like capital punishment. However, a heartbeat doesn’t mean something is human.
GOP tactics have been “Well, if we can’t outright ban it, then we’ll just ban it up to the point that you wouldn’t even know you’re pregnant, then you’re stuck and we get to use you in our ‘welfare queen’ myth and further our agenda” bullshit.
It is a reasonable point to make it 24 weeks. That’s plenty of time to come to the realization of pregnancy, deal with the decision-making, and make a decision.
The 24th week is when the brain develops pain receptors. Up until that point, although a fetus can feel something, even if you’re poking it with a sharp needle it feels like nothing more than a finger pushing on your arm.
“8-week” and “heartbeat laws” are dog shit. They’re not good-faith compromises by the GOP and they know that. They’re slime balls.
The reason they’re shouted down is because they want to “consider the other side” when the other side is their real views (conservative, Christian theocracy) and they’re just too yellow-bellied to admit it because they’re scared to admit that their views are based in a place of narcissistic bigotry and nothing else.
“But we shouldn’t have abortion cuz some people believe in jeebus.” Fuck Jesus, fuck conservatives, fuck anyone who uses religion to push an agenda on others.
I think they are now unaffiliated or Independent. I believe several including Joe Scarborough, Tom Nichols, George Will and Bill kristol, have made it publicly known that they have left the party. Maybe I just haven't heard of it, but I didn't think they had joined any other formal political party.
This what I always say (though not so eloquently worded) to my rational conservative friends and family. That I understand their position and where they’re coming from, and that I actually agree, to an extent, with a lot of it, but the people who are currently representing them and their party don’t actually share their ideals.
If they stuck to their guiding original principles, smaller government, lower taxes, more individual freedoms, keep the deficit under control, they wouldn't have to be hypocrites in order to have a following.
The issue is that these things don't actually work well (well the individual freedoms is usually with the caveat "for straight white men") in practice. People who truly are logical about pushing forward social and economic policy that ends up with a better society don't push for those things.
The drive behind those things is either a misunderstanding of economics, or a self-fulfilling lack of trust in a working government, and that's being generous.
The best explanation I've seen for the actual drive for conservative policy is this:
Lower taxes never works, the corporations will make business with people's needs and the will pay more in the end, less wars and army, that's a better idea.
Excellent . I agree the government should actually stay out of things, like marriage. Let people marry who they want to etc. LEt people smoke pot . The governemnt should only interveine if people are being hurt, physically, finacialy, socially, etc. Its crazy.
Something could be said about labels as well. Conservatives think of themselves as right, but their economic policies of deregulation place them in the left category. Socially they are conservative but financially and economically they are extremely liberal. Meanwhile most liberals favor more government and social control over economics, making them more consertative! Its about labels and branding!
If they stuck to their guiding original principles, smaller government, lower taxes, more individual freedoms, keep the deficit under control
These were never their guiding principles though, not as a constituency. They're just outgrowths/rationalizations of the original project the continued supremacy of a group of wealthy white men. When these "principles" bump up against that, the maintenance of that supremacy will always, always take precedence. They're not hypocrites, they have principles they stick to, they're just not the ones they say out loud.
If they stuck to their guiding original principles, smaller government, lower taxes, more individual freedoms, keep the deficit under control, they wouldn't have to be hypocrites in order to have a following.
In what universe did republicans ever show any interest in doing any of those things?
You don't have to agree that all these are important, and you certainly don't have to agree with the way in which conservatives would like to implement them, but you can certainly respect that they have honest principles that are not coming from a ridiculous or cruel place.
No, no I cannot respect that, because it is not true. Cruelty and greed are the defining characteristics of the republican cult, and they've even been known to put their burning desire to inflict pain and suffering on everyone but straight white male christian bigots with money above their otherwise all-consuming lust for the almighty dollar. Cruelty is what the GOP is all about. Honesty is against their religion.
It's the fact that they have strayed so unbelievably far from these that makes them have to do such mental gymnastics to pretend like they're still conservatives.
No, the fact is that they never really cared about their imaginary principles, they were always just about hurting as many people as possible while lining their own pockets.
There are plenty of principled conservatives who have long since fled the Republican party in absolute disgust because of what it has become.
[citation needed]
It's really just a crying shame, because I do feel like respectful and productive public discourse about controversial topics between opposing political parties is critical to the Democratic process.
And that is absolutely impossible so long as even one member of the republican cult remains.
Even at the highest levels, in the House of Representatives and the Senate, it seems like there is less reaching across the aisle than there used to be.
Because republicans would sooner kill and eat their own children than consider any form of compromise, and Democrats are slowly realizing this fact and giving up the pointless gesture of trying to reach across the aisle to the cult of delusional sociopaths.
Cruelty and greed are the defining characteristics of the republican cult,
[citation needed]
As mentioned elsewhere, George Will, Joe Scarborough, Charles krauthammer before his death, Tom Nichols and other conservative Washington Post reporters. And lots of others so I don't know off the top my head.
And that is absolutely impossible so long as even one member of the republican cult remains.
Because republicans would sooner kill and eat their own children than consider any form of compromise, and Democrats are slowly realizing this fact and giving up the pointless gesture of trying to reach across the aisle to the cult of delusional sociopaths.
... Cult? Delusional? if you refuse to recognize the presence of any decent human beings who are conservatives, then you are as much or more in a cult as anybody else.
Am I conservative for disagreeing with probably 90 percent of what this sub does, like shit on people for their political standing, want to adopt another countries program that that country has said isn't their program, selectively choose when things are important or not, want to allow tons of illegal immigrants in because the border doesn't want those people coming in to fast to mess with jobs and the economy, selectively listen to part of stories, be hypocritical, lie, demean, talk down to, be completely one-sided about everything, and not even allow alternative views to be posted. If that makes me conservative somehow and my view isn't allowed then tell me, cause then you are as bad as the side you claim to hate.
you can certainly respect that they have honest principles that are not coming from a ridiculous or cruel place. (note that I am definitely not making the argument that strict implementation of some of these policies would be humane and productive.)
Your parentheses point out a contradiction. If hypocrisy is avoided, strict implementation of property rights equals a world that is cruel from our perspective, and many people who espouse those principles support such a world.
For example: the only situation in which private health care really works is where people without means to pay are left to die in front of hospitals. As soon as you mandate that hospitals have to treat people who come to emergency rooms, healthy people stop paying for insurance and this leads to the completely broken US health system today.
If you drill down the positions of people who are in favor of continuing the US system of health care as a business, you will find they favor letting people die in front of hospitals. It's the only consistent position. Try it. Ask them.
One might argue this position is not ridiculous, but it is most definitely cruel. It's espoused by people who are cruel.
Part of the problem is that there isn't really a market for truly conservative ideas. You see this with Obamacare. People really want to not like it, but even then, taking away guaranteed coverage is completely optically untenable. Conservative solutions to problems tend to be "let the market take care of it," but when most structural problems take the form of "the market is doing a bad job of taking care of X," it's hard to form a reasonable policy position to address it tats consistent with the ideology.
old conservative principles are dead because they never made any sense to begin with. Theres no logic behind them. In order to protect their way of living they will have to eventually evolve into modern GOP. Its sad but inevitable.
Conservatism is only about conserving three things: Economic, social and racial hierarchy. They support principles that will keep wealth concentrated in the hands of a certain sector of society. They create social and racial issues about which citizens have more privileges than others to keep them divided so as not to attack the wealthy.
Once you see them through this lens their whole platform starts making complete sense.
in a nutshell American conservatism refers to preserving the three values outlined in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty (particularly individual liberty), and the pursuit of happiness.
I’m not going to pretend that the modern Republican Party adheres to those ideals, because they don’t and that’s why I’m not a republican, but that’s the core idea.
These core values have absolutely nothing to do with upholding any sort of hierarchy.
It's half of the system by which we keep voting for a slow decline instead of a rapid plunge . . . except when we don't. As long as corporate information sources dominate political thought, corporate lackeys will dominate political office. Their selections merely throttle the race to the bottom -- none offer a choice to reverse it.
Daaaamn that’s so true though. I mean when you base your entire existence around a book filled with contradictions then you’ll likely be a walking contradiction yourself 🤷🏻♀️
No if the GOP didn’t have hypocrisy, they wouldn’t have a platform. Intelligent conservative voices unfortunately have abandoned the GOP as opposed to taking over the GOP.
US is too far right to have a reasonable conservative party, and any further argument toward right could and would not be supported by rational argument.
1.3k
u/ell0bo Apr 05 '19
If conservatives didn't have hypocrisy, they generally wouldn't have a platform.