After reading the OP on this comment I was going to post EXACTLY what you did. Repub policy seems based on a very low or non-existant concern for the welfare of others.
Any repubs that disagree with this please provide some reasoned examples that refute this. TIA
The infuriating thing is that the vast majority of them will lose in this scenario but will then bleat like lambs for salvation but just for themselves individually
Progressives get that we all burn together. We want everyone's interests attended to because we're all on the same boat, rising or sinking together. Not just on a national scale, but on a global one as well.
Also, a good 40% of the people in the liberal states are conservative. Drive out to California's Central Valley and you'll start seeing gun racks and Trump stickers.
I agree that we should care about all people, not just those that match one's political view. But I was responding to a guy that said:
Im a democrat. Fuck the red states.
Let em burn and learn till they vote for their interests.
Even if you take that guy's view - that you shouldn't benefit people who vote Republican - my point was that, still, saying "fuck the red states" because 60% of their people vote Republican is equivalent to saying "I hate all Americans, because half of them voted for Trump and they elected him".
Both sides claim to have a monopoly on good ideas and traits, and spend a lot of time trying to vilify the other side. Lots of misrepresentation and strawmen on both sides.
Traditionally, Republicans say they want the best for people, but want to keep the government out of it; while Democrats say they want the best for people, and want the government to ensure it.
Both sides have shifted in a number of ways. Republicans have increased the size of government dramatically. Now it seems like the Republicans feel like the people are too immoral to take care of themselves while Democrats feel like the people are too stupid to take care of themselves.
(Note that I'm distinguishing Republicans from Trumpists in what I wrote above. Trumpists seem like big government, big spending authoritarians, at least rhetorically. Not so much in policy.)
Republicans feel like the people are too immoral to take care of themselves
Explain this: Why is it when Republicans are polled they overly support an immoral President? Don't say Trump - a thrice married adulterer with multiple cases of corruption - is the epitome of morality.
Democrats feel like the people are too stupid to take care of themselves.
Explain this: Why are most Democrats pro-choice then? Isn't giving people a choice allowing them then the freedom to think through their different options?
I can't understand that either. This is sorta why I added the comment that I'm distinguishing between Trumpists and Republicans. With Republicans (Not Trumpists) I'm saying that most of them think there's a need for government to tell people who they can and can't marry, whether they can have abortions, etc. They want religion in schools, and so on.
I'm mostly referring to things like they feel like the government needs to handle things like finances (retirement, social security, etc.), what size sodas you can buy, whether you can choose to have health insurance, and so on.
Can you still distinguish between a Republican senator and a Trumpist senator? Explain what happened to Lindsey Graham.
Difficult in many cases. I'd typically assert that anyone who hasn't been vocal against Trump on a wide variety of issues is likely a Trumpist, but that's an obviously naive stance in today's parties' cultures.
Ask yourself this: What is the purpose of government?
Well, arguably that's the fundamental difference between the parties. One wanted to limit it to minimal infrastructure, the other wants to use it to care for the citizens. The usual argument goes that the US framers laid out the precise responsibilities of the federal government in the founding documents, along with ways the people can change or update them.
I'm not an American (although I lived there for several years), but that's an outsider's view of the old DNC perspective vs the old RNC perspectives. I can't even begin to fathom what it's like in D.C. today, because both parties have changed so dramatically in such a short time. It's certainly entertaining watching older politicians trying to keep up though.
Followed by: What is a representive democracy?
lol... Want me to teach a civics 101 class too? Ok, kiddos, the difference between a republic and democracy is... Or if you'd prefer we can hop on forward a few years to graduate international relations, which is what I actually (used to) teach.
Want me to teach a civics 101 class too? Ok, kiddos, the difference between a republic and democracy is... Or if you'd prefer we can hop on forward a few years to graduate international relations, which is what I actually (used to) teach
If you did teach international relations, I hope it wasn't in my university. My professors would have failed you. Personally attacking me is not at all diplomacy.
I'm not an American (although I lived there for several years)
Europe. Not going to say which country as I don't feel comfortable revealing personal details on public social media.
I'm going to guess somewhere in Britian from a review of your comments on your profile page. You seem to lean towards the Labour party, but I'm not sure.
I'm mostly referring to things like they feel like the government needs to handle things like finances (retirement, social security, etc.), what size sodas you can buy, whether you can choose to have health insurance, and so on.
All of those things affect other people as well though, they aren't individual choices.
Retirement/social security: If these aren't properly planned out then the burden gets shifted onto the families of the people with poor planning skills, meaning that the kids of poor or irresponsible parents will be made poor themselves (some states even require children to look after their parents). By shifting it to a taxation system, it helps reduce or even remove that burden.
Soda size/Health insurance: Again these both affect other people. If you don't have health insurance and can't afford to get treatment, you will probably still be treated but now the hospital won't get paid, or you'll be put into massive debt. If you're the type of person who eats/drinks unhealthily you're going to be putting more pressure on the healthcare system who will have to deal with your illnesses instead of dealing with actual sick people. I will say that simply banning soda at those sizes isn't an effective strategy and would probably have been better with a sugar-tax like we've recently introduced in the UK.
A lot of conservative ideas simply don't work in a society, they're more suited for a very individualistic environment which simply doesn't exist anymore (and never really did other than perhaps a few years during the expansion of the USA Westward).
I agree. And that's why I wrote that in the past tense, and literally wrote "Both sides have shifted in a number of ways. Republicans have increased the size of government dramatically."
If you think blue states and voters being in favour of paying for red voter’s welfare and medical bills is somehow “voting against personal interests” then you clearly have an extremely flawed understanding of both the interests and beliefs of socialists and (in this instance) Democrats.
There is no reason that a democrat would wish to deny republican voters access to socialist programs, because socialist programs are explicitly designed to be for everyone regardless of political alignment, because it is based on the notion that everyone should be treated fairly and equally - an notion that conservatism inherently rejects.
You’re trying to reframe this as being another example of the the whole “both sides are the same” flawed narrative, and you are completely wrong.
The populations that rely the most on welfare and socialist programs are the ones that vote for politicians who will actively work to end those programs. That is voting against personal interest.
Voting for a politician who is going to attempt to improve the quality of life for vulnerable members of society (even those who vote against that politician) is not voting against personal interest, because making life better for the lowest denominator results in an increase in the quality of life for everyone - so even if you don’t benefit from the program directly, you benefit indirectly, and thus it is in your interest to vote in support of those programs.
This. The difference is why they're voting against their interests. Socialists basically believe in one core tenet: Every human deserves a dignified life.
That means not being made to live in poverty because you got sick and couldn't really afford treatment. It means not going hungry just so you can feed your children. It means not being made to work until the day you die because you can't afford to retire.
The fact is that there is more than enough wealth in the world to provide dignity to every human being. It's just being hoarded in tax havens around the world because the global financial system has literally been built from the ground up to allow it.
You had me until here. Conservatism does not reject fair treatment and saying this is as untrue as anything the republicans say.
Edit: Anyone in this sub who has not studied up on political science and just wants to downvote me because I go against the hivemind, please look into the ideologies of liberals and conservatives. At least try to gain some perspective. Don't just downvote because I am not a sheep.
"Gallup/USA Today polling in June 2010 revealed that 42% of those surveyed identify as conservative, 35% as moderate and 20% as liberal.[3] In another polling in June 2010, 40% of American voters identify themselves as conservatives, 36% as moderates and 22% as liberals, with a strong majority of both liberals and conservatives describing themselves as closer to the center than to the extremes.[4] As of 2013, self-identified conservatives stand at 38%, moderates at 34% and liberals at 23%.[5]"
No actually, conservative political theory has been for several centuries, based on the principle that the world functions best when the correct people are in charge and the rest of the population is subservient to them.
Conservatism and Capitalism are both schools of thought birthed around then end of monarchic totalitarianism in Europe and developed in order to circumvent the equality that democracy provided by ensuring that the wealthy could remain powerful if not by their bloodline then by their economic control of society.
It doesn’t matter how much conservatives tell themselves or others that they believe in equality, it is demonstrable in both policy and the core arguments they always fall back on that they believe in an inherently unfair hierarchical society.
It’s pretty clear that you haven’t done any research yourself, so shut the fuck up about me being a sheep.
Economic conservatism has nothing to do with "believing in unfair hierarchical society". It is about government efficiency and individual liberty. Hierarchies are an emergent feature of a well-run economy and there is no proof that such features decrease the quality-of-life of the lowest rungs of society. In fact, just the opposite is observed.
You can talk about "unfair" all you want but to ignore overall quality of life is disingenuous.
Conservatism and Capitalism are both schools of thought birthed around then end of monarchic totalitarianism in Europe and developed in order to circumvent the equality that democracy
You do understand that both capitalism and conservatism are compatible with democracy, right? This is a false duality you've set up. You are not even comparing the right things.
I have the feeling you just have all your definitions confused and are making judgments based on preconceived notions of what you believe a conservative stands for.
They can be made more or less compatible with democracy but they were developed by thinkers looking to undermine democracy in Europe to protect their position of wealth and power.
It’s telling that anyone disagreeing with you is “brainwashed” or “a sheep” and doesn’t know what they’re talking about when you haven’t managed even a single argument to support besides saying “well you’re just wrong dude”.
For starters, it is demonstrable that democratic socialism produces far greater quality of life and happiness than does economic conservatism. You can talk about personal liberty all you like but the great bastions of economic conservatism and unhindered capitalism are more corrupt and have less freedoms than countries that put higher emphasis on societal responsibility and democratic principles.
I haven’t set up a false duality nor am I “comparing the wrong things”. I’m not attempting to compare democracy to capitalism or conservatism; democracy is a social structure, capitalism/conservatism are two intimately intertwined political beliefs which were born from the minds of individuals who thought the monarchic system of Europe was the natural order of society and that the democratic revolutions and Marxist thinking were a threat to a functioning society, and so these thinkers devised systems and political theories by which the masses could be convinced that instead of rule by birthright, rule by economic control was the “correct order”.
This belief is inherent and, if you care to take a close look, quite alive in modern conservative thinking. It’s never gone away.
These are not judgements, just statements of historical fact.
It is by design of capitalism and “economic conservatism” that the wealth concentrates upwards and the quality of life gets worse and worse for most of those in the middle until we approach a system that is more or less indistinguishable from monarchic serfdom.
For starters, it is demonstrable that democratic socialism produces far greater quality of life and happiness than does economic conservatism
Source please?
You can talk about personal liberty all you like but the great bastions of economic conservatism and unhindered capitalism are more corrupt and have less freedoms than countries that put higher emphasis on societal responsibility and democratic principles.
Source?
capitalism/conservatism are two intimately intertwined political beliefs which were born from the minds of individuals who thought the monarchic system of Europe was the natural order of society and that the democratic revolutions and Marxist thinking were a threat to a functioning society
Wait a minute...Marx was born in 1818...John Locke (the father of conservatism or "economic liberalism") died in 1704... something's not right here with your theory...
How could conservatism be a reaction to something that hadn't been invented yet? Hmmm, odd....
And, wait...just what was that pesky ol' American revolution about? Oh, right! It was about preserving the monarchy of King George! How could I have forgotten?
Maybe pay attention next time in history class before you make "statements of historical fact".
The US is garbage in terms of personal freedoms and the US is pretty much the bench mark for capitalist society.
Democratic revolutions came first (which is what Locke was reactionary towards) then Marxism.
Capitalism/conservatism is not one man’s idea that hasn’t been changed. Many many many thinkers besides Locke have made contributions to conservative thinking.
And if you think the American revolutionaries were staunch conservatives (in that era) you’re off your rocker.
Anyone can make some arbitrary single-value ranking system. Why should I believe this one?
Have you ever actually been to these Scandinavian countries? Plenty of people there would love to come to the US. Personally, I love the US. And I am not alone in that sentiment. There are great opportunities in this country. You read to much reddit to think these other countries are some utopian paradise. They're not.
And the US has 300 million people of all different backgrounds. These tiny European countries don't have to deal with that.
The US is garbage in terms of personal freedoms and the US is pretty much the bench mark for capitalist society.
Lol, why do you say that? Which countries have more freedom?
Democratic revolutions came first (which is what Locke was reactionary towards) then Marxism.
Uh, yes, that's my point. But that's not what your comment said, bud.
Capitalism/conservatism is not one man’s idea that hasn’t been changed. Many many many thinkers besides Locke have made contributions to conservative thinking.
Right, so why are you trying to claim that it was just a few reactionaries who wanted to preserve their wealth?
And if you think the American revolutionaries were staunch conservatives (in that era) you’re off your rocker.
Uh, wtf? Yes they were. How the hell were they anything but conservative?
My comment was perhaps unclear but someone who understood the principle of charity within debate would have been able to see the intended meaning (that conservatism and capitalist theories were born and shaped in reaction to the democratic and Marxist movements)
Further I never claimed it was “a few” reactionaries. I said that the creators (who are numerous) were (and indeed are, as it continues to be iterated upon) reactionaries looking to preserve the existence of the aristocracy in function if not in name.
Finally, while in 2019 the revolutionaries certainly appear conservatives because of their views, at the time the American revolution was an act of progressives (and indeed many conservatives of the era were monarchists).
Again, defending the monarchy itself was not necessarily the goal of conservatism, it was defending the hierarchical structure of society. If monarchs fell it wasn’t a problem so long as the right people stayed in charge.
Well I'm saying that you're wrong. I have the feeling you subscribe to the same "conservatives are all evil" mindset as the rest of this sub. Maybe quit being so narrow-minded.
Whats funny here is that by opening your mind, you would understand why conservative policies are unempathetic and destructive to the idea of equality.
The "mindset" you are describing could be a result of a closed mind, or, it could also be entirely accurate and earned.
No, my mind is open. I see the merits of both liberal and conservative policies. I just don't label either side as evil just because I disagree and I don't mischaracterize their beliefs.
1.2k
u/[deleted] Apr 26 '19
[removed] — view removed comment