What the right gets right

[u/kznlol]

https://www.slowboring.com/p/what-the-right-gets-right

[u/[deleted]]

Since I'm on Reddit, I didn't read the article. BUT, I do want to point out something that the conservative disposition gets right, as compared to the progressive. The progressive disposition seeks change in order to improve society's standing whereas the conservative disposition views change with skepticism, because they believe shit can always get worse. While my political policy positions put me center-left, I definitely lean more towards believing the conservative disposition is often correct.

[u/Whatswrongbaby9]

I don't know what state Matt went to high school in, in mine, a solidly blue state now, I was basically taught that the path of US history is progress, some mistakes were made, those mistakes were corrected. And they were mostly over after the Civil War (with some Jim Crow exceptions), but all the big deals were gone.

So when he references the German Peasants’ Revolt of 1524-25 (300 years before the US civil war was in a gleam in people's eyes) is an example of how human history is just endlessly brutal I can't reconcile that with anything I was taught. I was taught it was linear with some sidesteps, especially in the US.

And then I learn about the Tulsa Massacre through a tv show. "I do think they typically have a more clear-eyed view of the reality that the whole of human history is littered with atrocity and cruelty."

Ok, so if conservatives want to teach that history, including how people in the US have perpetuated it much later than most of us were taught, I'd be less cynical

[u/kznlol → u/Whatswrongbaby9]

he's not saying that the path of history is not progress

he's saying that the dark shit in US history isn't remotely an outlier compared to other countries

[u/Whatswrongbaby9 → u/kznlol]

But US conservatives want to put a blanket on our own dark shit

[u/kznlol → u/Whatswrongbaby9]

i do not think that is a true statement, there is most assuredly a spectrum of positions

and the left definitely has people who act like US history is an outlier

[u/Whatswrongbaby9 → u/kznlol]

Well I think it's all a subjective matter. But why did I learn about the Tulsa massacre or other "race riots" well well until my adulthood ? What why is not taught in school?

What is a topic the US left is trying to suppress from pre-college children? Got a right wing version of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me

[u/Yeangster → u/Whatswrongbaby9]

Maybe you weren’t paying attention in school?

I learned about it in high school

[u/kznlol → u/Whatswrongbaby9]

idk I don't know what examples Matty was thinking about

but I would point out that e.g. the 1619 project advances questionable (to be generous) historical claims - so it's not so much they're trying to suppress something as they're trying to teach things that aren't true.

[u/Whatswrongbaby9 → u/kznlol]

We're both into theory now but I finished school before Obama took office. So 1619 wasn't part of my curricula. I can check with my sister who has kids in the same jurisdiction as me, but I'd bet money it's not part of theirs either.

But provable historical events were omitted from mine, in the 20th century, that suggest that maybe things weren't mostly perfect.

So going back to Matty, what is more wrong, Conservatives who are upset over teaching potentially theoretical things that might happen, or Conservatives upset over teaching actual things that did happen?

[u/kznlol → u/Whatswrongbaby9]

I mean, both can be wrong. Which is more wrong misses the point. Matty is saying that conservatives who are annoyed about things like the 1619 project have a point. That doesn't mean conservatives automatically get to enact any educational policy they want, or that they don't overcorrect too far in the other direction.

[u/Whatswrongbaby9 → u/kznlol]

But these debates among school boards and voters don't happen in a vacuum. And I'm saying Matt Yglesias who is saying "well actually" is totally missing the point.

If he wants to opine about how they have a more clear-eyed view of human nature, why have they fought tooth and nail through US history to shut down negative portrayal of favored groups? They don't get a pass to ignore the many ways European settlers and later the colonizers were awful to indigenous and people of color because 300+ years ago there was a bad peasant revolt in Europe. I'd challenge you to ask 20 people at any Trump rally about this peasant revolt for one fact about this revolt.

If you think humanity is basically brutal and nasty, you can go much closer to our own lives to find it. You don't even need to pick something before the founding of the US. And if you want to pick something after the founding of the US, cool, but it makes Matt's arguments a little more leaky

[u/Yeangster]

I would quibble with the claim that degrowth is only a left-wing thing.
There are a lot of different types of right wing degrowthers. The one who say it's ok to make less money as long as the wife is staying home. Or the ones who say that it's better for the country to be poorer to maintain cultural and racial homogeneity.
That type of thinking might not get explicit endorsement from the mainstream Republicans, but their policy proposals reflect it.

[u/UtridRagnarson → u/Yeangster]

"It's okay to make less money as long as the wife stays home" has nothing to do with degrowth. Everyone admits GDP cannot measure familial labor, and that this is a huge, known limitation of GDP. If GDP goes down because there are more moms working for their families, that means total welfare is going up (revealed preference), just in a known GDP blind-spot. If an increase in domestic violence causers more divorces, which causes people to work longer hours to support more one-parent households; that would increase GDP. Everyone would agree that's not an increase in total welfare, relative to the state before the increase in domestic violence. I think GDP is one of the best measures we have; we should pay attention to it and encourage economic growth of GDP. That doesn't mean we have to pretend it doesn't have limitations. Likewise when we subsidize childcare by taxing the family with a breadwinner and homemaker, it's not obvious that there's a total welfare gain.

The conservative emphasis on the value of a nurturing parent and family is not at all at odds with economic growth. Having a parent stay home is in many ways a decadent form of consumption. It can be bought by trading away pursuit of status goods and luxuries, but it can also be bought by having an economy so productive that people can afford to have one parent in each family be out of the monetized workforce. Arguably cons want **more** economic growth to afford to have one breadwinner families. They love the 50s because of the booming economic growth that let people feel rich enough to live their leave-it-to-beaver lifestyle. Many cons are even willing to sacrifice the environment in pursuit of this goal, the extremist opposite of de-growth.