So what is the fusionist replacement for the Iran nuclear deal? For Obamacare?
There is none. Conservatives know how to foam at the mouth in response to anything with the name Obama. Beyond that, they have no solutions to anything.
Today's conservatives are like 1950s anti-Communists. They stand for nothing of any use.
There is none. Conservatives know how to foam at the mouth in response to anything with the name Obama. Beyond that, they have no solutions to anything.
Today's conservatives are like 1950s anti-Communists. They stand for nothing of any use.
20
Many Republican congresspeople are unenviable humans, uncharitable, miserly and hypocritical. They are glad to have a President who gets so much attention as to distract from their actions and words. They have not changed; they just have the benefit of temporary cover.
12
A "magnet next to a compass"? No, Goldberg and Troy, Covfefe is a magnifying glass above the GOP's homemade sedition roadmap.
Far from getting the GOP lost, he's helped them immensely with Thief Justice Gorsuch and Two-Kinds-of-Justice Sessions, while bringing their hideous plans and views to the clearest focus yet. They were blind, but now, they see.
They only disagree on whether to drive the country off a pier or off the Grand Canyon.
Far from getting the GOP lost, he's helped them immensely with Thief Justice Gorsuch and Two-Kinds-of-Justice Sessions, while bringing their hideous plans and views to the clearest focus yet. They were blind, but now, they see.
They only disagree on whether to drive the country off a pier or off the Grand Canyon.
9
There they go again -- The Party of Ideas. I'm trying to remember what these Big Ideas of Reagan's time were. Let's see: Tax cuts for the wealthy more than pay for themselves; Deficits don't matter; Military meddling in Nicaragua and Granada are Defenses of Civilization. There may have been others. Please remind me.
17
Trump represents traditional conservatism very well. Until the seventies, conservativism was about defending the "natural" order: gender, ethnic/racial and economic hierarchies. It grudgingly made room for civil rights, but was never happy with the deal. Now it is openly - once again - for white, male, wealthy power. The idea of "reasonable" conservatives who were not for these hierarchies was always a creation of newspapers like the NYT, which could, in its editorials, support centrist-right Democrats, but donated lavish op ed acreage and mucho thumbsucking to the proposition that moderate conservatives had seen the light. This made it easier to snuggle up to the establishment in power in DC and Wall Street. But it was always a delusion. One that will continue to be entertained by a newspaper that believes giving space to a climate change denialist is engaging in dialogue. Whereas giving space to, say, a socialist would just be irresponsible.
13
The problem with having purportedly "conservative" think tanks defining conservative policy, as the author suggests, is that many are philosophical courtesans; loving ideas repulsive to Edmund Burke style conservative thought for the right price
3
Really? Conservatism is about "ideas"?
It doesn't appear that way to it's required enemies. It more appears a virulent, compulsive tribalism sharing only it's love of hatred of others. Good at rationalization, though, and self-aggrandizing, self-congratulating, pseudo-victimhood.
Wish they wore a uniform so they could be avoided easier. Like they did in the German '30's.
It doesn't appear that way to it's required enemies. It more appears a virulent, compulsive tribalism sharing only it's love of hatred of others. Good at rationalization, though, and self-aggrandizing, self-congratulating, pseudo-victimhood.
Wish they wore a uniform so they could be avoided easier. Like they did in the German '30's.
7
Listen to Trump's speech in Poland and you will realize that Conservatives have indeed "found their way." Trump went to Poland and to the G20 meeting and the essence of his remarks (especially in Poland) had to do with the proposed superiority of specific "Western" social norms. His entire speech was about the virtue of western whiteness, the virtue of western religion and the virtue of creating a world in the west where "outsiders" are treated as such. This message has been at the core of Conservative thought since Buckley attempted to add moral legitimacy to Conservatism by bringing a hint of English diction and rhetorical eloquence to it during the mid to late 20th century.
Trump did NOT extol the virtues of what REALLY makes the West an attractive place to live. He said nothing of the right of every human being to be treated with dignity and respect. Trump never mentions the West's perspective about tolerance, human rights, the desire for each citizen to be secure in their person, free to speak their minds. Most of all, our President never suggests governments who derive their right to govern from the CONSENT of the people, govern most justly.
Yes. Conservatives have indeed "found1 their way." They have found their way to unapologetically trumpeting the ethnocentric world view they hold dear, in the person of Donald J. Trump.
Trump did NOT extol the virtues of what REALLY makes the West an attractive place to live. He said nothing of the right of every human being to be treated with dignity and respect. Trump never mentions the West's perspective about tolerance, human rights, the desire for each citizen to be secure in their person, free to speak their minds. Most of all, our President never suggests governments who derive their right to govern from the CONSENT of the people, govern most justly.
Yes. Conservatives have indeed "found1 their way." They have found their way to unapologetically trumpeting the ethnocentric world view they hold dear, in the person of Donald J. Trump.
7
Consider the compilation of conservative thought edited by Jerry Z. Muller, or the more analytic volume on 'conservatism' by Kieron O'Hara. A genuine conservative would have to start by acknowledging reality, in the spirit of scientific Founders like Franklin, Jefferson and others. That would entail recognizing climate change and the limitations of marketization regarding provision of public goods. To say nothing of political values that were once recognized as arising from moral sources, whether religious or secular. I'm still waiting for a conservative 'idea' that isn't simply a buzz-phrase without content or principled alternative (e.g. 'repeal Obamacare!').
7
The Republican Party has lost its way. Let us speak plainly about the racism that has been the foundation of Republicanism since the Nixon years. The Southern Strategy he launched was design to benefit from Southern State backlash to the civil rights movement. It was a watershed period in creating the Red State phenomenon that is the base of the Republican Party, particularly when Christian fundamentalism is added to the mix. The election of our first black president charged the Republican base with the hatred that the Republican leadership used to great effect launching 8 years of rock-solid Congressional obstructionism that no white presidential opponent had ever experienced.
The Republican Party survives by trickery and voter suppression. One of the most insidious anti-democracy schemes, REDMAP, was launched after the 2008 election by the Republicans under the leadership of Karl Rove. The plan involves systematic capture of state legislatures and governorship financed by Citizen's United dark money for the sole purpose of sophisticated computer-driven gerrymandering that suppresses voting by likely Democrats.
The GOP has used its mixture of racial and religious bigotry and voter suppression to great advantage. The Republican Party is willing to let the American people die in the streets on behalf of their rich donors. Yes, they have lost their way. Conservatism as a philosophy is no longer relevant, just raw greed.
The Republican Party survives by trickery and voter suppression. One of the most insidious anti-democracy schemes, REDMAP, was launched after the 2008 election by the Republicans under the leadership of Karl Rove. The plan involves systematic capture of state legislatures and governorship financed by Citizen's United dark money for the sole purpose of sophisticated computer-driven gerrymandering that suppresses voting by likely Democrats.
The GOP has used its mixture of racial and religious bigotry and voter suppression to great advantage. The Republican Party is willing to let the American people die in the streets on behalf of their rich donors. Yes, they have lost their way. Conservatism as a philosophy is no longer relevant, just raw greed.
17
the "shared concerns" may be shared among the conservatives, but are not shared among the acolytes of the Republican Party. the Party is an unholy alliance of conservatives [of various stripes], libertarians (who object to the Republican Party only somewhat less than to the Democrats), the religious right (a mix of anti abortion and prosperity Gospel believers), and of the Donald's base of anti-elitists (who would not have been impressed by Mr Buckley's pedigree). Thanks why the Conservatives don't know what to support-they have little in common with most of what is a governing coalition.
Oh, and as for broken windows. That's not why crime is down-it was dropping long before the NYPD adopted it.
Oh, and as for broken windows. That's not why crime is down-it was dropping long before the NYPD adopted it.
7
There seems to be total amnesia regarding the savings and loan crisis that happened under Reagan. The taxpayers bailed out the savings and loan industry because "they were too big to fail" . I believe that cost each tax payer around $200 which meant something back in the 80's.
Deregulation, a Republican battle cry, means no oversight on the financial industry, which creates corruption and greed. When the bubble bursts the ones hurt the most are the very folks who vote Republican.
The whole party is a fully owned subsidiary of the wealthy who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars turning citizens against eachother so we will be distracted by the fact that they have taken over the government.
The Democratic Party has been passive and allowed this to happen. The only hope is that ordinary citizens become involved and vote in politicians not fully owned. And that's on both sides, Republican and Democrat.
Deregulation, a Republican battle cry, means no oversight on the financial industry, which creates corruption and greed. When the bubble bursts the ones hurt the most are the very folks who vote Republican.
The whole party is a fully owned subsidiary of the wealthy who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars turning citizens against eachother so we will be distracted by the fact that they have taken over the government.
The Democratic Party has been passive and allowed this to happen. The only hope is that ordinary citizens become involved and vote in politicians not fully owned. And that's on both sides, Republican and Democrat.
14
Carol, you are spot on. I would add that the Republican Party has accomplished what no other political party in American history has accomplished. Over the last 37 years they have made of themselves a TRIBE. The Republicans rightly determined that tribalism will trump any aversion among many "certain" White Americans to unfair public policy, stagnant or falling wages, deteriorating quality of life, increasing levels of stress related to the demands to be more "productive" for the same or less pay. They knew that their minions would remain united based mostly on who is NOT made to feel welcome in the Republican Party. It is sad commentary on our body politic that this strategy has succeeded
5
Conservatism has pretty much devolved from an actual form of thinking to simply being a reactionary tool to bop their opposition over the head with. Rod Dreher's reaction to Trump's speech was a good example - he blew off the odd tone of it and its "Consider the Source" hypocrisy to let Trump slide and just fuss about what he thought generic horrible people, aka" "liberals" were squawking about.
There is never anything that actually warrants consequences. No one has to actually embody any of their beliefs- they just have to heartily hate their devilized opposition.
That aint conservative.
There is never anything that actually warrants consequences. No one has to actually embody any of their beliefs- they just have to heartily hate their devilized opposition.
That aint conservative.
12
Conservatism: If you're not rich it's your own fault. You're not trying. Maybe if we make your life painful enough, you'll try harder.
29
Well said.
5
conservatives must lack morals or else how do they make the strongest support base for a well documented liar, lecher, fraud, con and scoundrel Trump. Please someone explain.
5
Trump is what ultimately happens when conservatives achieve power.
8
There is nothing unique or even interesting about this. Many rightist commentators are trying this tack; tiptoing around the evil of trumpism that they themselves helped create, while repeating the same old rightist lies and distortions. These are usually couched in invocations of their rightist "saints" Reagan and Buckley. Transparent, and pathetic now that they have damaged the republic they claim to love by playing midwife to fascism in the US.
10
It is hard to swallow the line here that conservatives has a decision to make being "conservative" whatever that means today, or sticking to King Trump no matter what. Whatever happened to progressing our nation? Whatever happened to listening to the people? Conservatives will die along with King Trump's administration and will only be a line in the history books. And it should be this way, they are a past that refuse to change into the 21st century. But unfortunately, they are hanging on and the rest of us will need to drag this ball and chain until we decide to cut it.
3
Go back and listen to Buckley's televised debates and discussions. There was little, to nothing, to admire in the man or his ideas. He may have spoken more eloquently, but his ideas, and their implications, were every bit as horrible as anything modern Republicans are proposing.
10
Absolutely correct. Delights me to no end that Gore Vidal outlived Buckley, and that Noam Chomsky has as well. I only wish Buckley could have lived long enough (ditto for Jesse Helms) to have gritted his teeth after watching a black man get elected U.S. president in November 2008. Buckley died in February of that year, Helms in July. Though very different in personality and temperament, Buckley and Helms had in common an intense dislike of blacks (or at least a dislike of what blacks were trying to do, i.e. end Jim Crow and drag all of the USA kicking and screaming into the 20th century on race-related issues).
6
Buckley was an avowed racist who publicly explicitly espoused the doctrine of black racial inferiority until that position became politically untenable. He then retreated into the implicit dog whistle racism of the Republican Party. The policies remained the same, only the rationale was softened or changed.
Meanwhile, his cohorts, especially Russell Kirk railed against the New Deal because it created a strong middle class that had the temerity to challenge the absolute God given right of the rich to rule as they saw fit without interference. There were to be only two classes: the ruling aristocracy and the subservient workers.
Saint Buckley was a racist and a fascist in conservative clothing. There was little in him to admire.
Meanwhile, his cohorts, especially Russell Kirk railed against the New Deal because it created a strong middle class that had the temerity to challenge the absolute God given right of the rich to rule as they saw fit without interference. There were to be only two classes: the ruling aristocracy and the subservient workers.
Saint Buckley was a racist and a fascist in conservative clothing. There was little in him to admire.
5
If fighting the Communist state, lower taxes and hard on crime you have the framework for what we have today with a little adjustment. Replace Communist with Islam. Then replace lower taxes with 'negative' taxes for a few families. An lastly keep hard on crime but define crime as 'non-white' offenders (e.g. Opioids is crisis, stree heroin is crime). So this nonsense that being a conservative is cause an identity crisis is a bit much. Conservatives are winning the day and they know it. Just need to own up to the reality of selfishness of their movement.
4
Beginning with Jimmy Carter, and continuing with the Clintons, the Democratic Party reduced its progressive tendencies, and embraced the center-right, conservative attitudes of 1960's Rockefeller Republicans.
Beginning with Barry Goldwater, and increasingly with Reagan, both Bushs, Trump, McConnell and Ryan, the Republican Party reduced its reasonable center-right, conservative tendencies, and embraced reactionary, neo-fascist (alt-right), disgraceful, attitudes, so destructive to American economics, democracy and morality.
The GOP is now in a death sprial, and has to eject its reactionary, neo-fascist politicians and policies, letting that drift to a minor Party, or the Republican Party will soon cease to influence American government.
Likewise, the Democratic Party must again become a beacon of progressive economics and policies that benefit most Americans.
Beginning with Barry Goldwater, and increasingly with Reagan, both Bushs, Trump, McConnell and Ryan, the Republican Party reduced its reasonable center-right, conservative tendencies, and embraced reactionary, neo-fascist (alt-right), disgraceful, attitudes, so destructive to American economics, democracy and morality.
The GOP is now in a death sprial, and has to eject its reactionary, neo-fascist politicians and policies, letting that drift to a minor Party, or the Republican Party will soon cease to influence American government.
Likewise, the Democratic Party must again become a beacon of progressive economics and policies that benefit most Americans.
7
Conservatives fail to realize that it was "the growth of government here at home" in the form of New Deal laws, civil rights laws, OSHA laws, etc that kept communism from ever developing strong roots among America's working class.
12
"It is the work of conservative thinkers at magazines and think tanks, who need to debate, argue and ultimately agree or disagree on whether it is possible once again to develop a conservative vision for the future and what that vision might look like."
Hopefully, for them, it doesn't end up looking like the obviously conflicted Sarah Huckabee Sanders parting out her innocent soul real time in front of an equally worried nation.
Trump is her Dorian Grey portrait in the attic, but in this horror story actually walking around. What she appears to be challenged by is the things she has to accept and defend to please her elders, mostly on the Supreme Court thing, which is just code for overturning Roe v. Wade.
Sarah, it's just your soul. The rest of the GOP have clearly sacrificed theirs...
Hopefully, for them, it doesn't end up looking like the obviously conflicted Sarah Huckabee Sanders parting out her innocent soul real time in front of an equally worried nation.
Trump is her Dorian Grey portrait in the attic, but in this horror story actually walking around. What she appears to be challenged by is the things she has to accept and defend to please her elders, mostly on the Supreme Court thing, which is just code for overturning Roe v. Wade.
Sarah, it's just your soul. The rest of the GOP have clearly sacrificed theirs...
2
Maybe conservatism could find its way if articles began with a definition of the problems that need to be addressed. I no longer know what the words conservative and liberal mean when applied to political thought. The vast majority of people in this country sense that their lives are not what they should be and that there are big problems that need to be solved. Why is it that we spend almost no time time talking about our problems before launching into detailed discussions of abstract ideologies that apparently live in a universe of there own with no bearing on what is happening in this country and to the people who live it?
6
I think this piece underestimates USSC appointments as a unifying factor in conservatism. The power to appoint supreme court justices is absolutely the power to remake society, and everyone know it. There need not be agreement over much more than this single aspect of our political system for voters to coalesce around a candidate, or, what has the same result, against another. More nuanced consistency may be an aspirational goal, but not a necessity to maintain power.
3
"Can Conservatives Find Their Way?"
In the 21st century, for the sake of non-rich people, let us hope not. The central problems with "conservatives" in the United States are as follows: They demonize taxation as a form of modern-day slavery. This is no exaggeration; anti-tax fanatic and lobbyist Grover Norquist has stated that just as abolitionists had to stick around until slavery was abolished in the USA, people like him will have to stick around until taxes are abolished. If you just threw up in your mouth a little at the thought of Norquist (a Harvard-educated guy who grew up in Weston, the richest town in Massachusetts) equating taxation with slavery, I don't blame you.
At the same time, however, these "conservatives" support the existence of a massive, bloated military-industrial complex and defense budget in order to keep fat and happy their defense contractor constituents. You want a trillion dollar per year defense budget? OK, tax the living daylights out of corporations and ultra-rich people to raise the revenue needed for that. If you don't want to do the latter, don't demand the former.
You simply can't advocate these two things at the same time--cutting taxes on those who have the bulk of the income and assets (the One Percent) down to the bone while funneling cash 24-7 from the Treasury to the Pentagon. And as for citing the 44% number regarding people who don't pay federal income taxes--isn't Troy aware this is now the #1 complaint among "conservatives?"
In the 21st century, for the sake of non-rich people, let us hope not. The central problems with "conservatives" in the United States are as follows: They demonize taxation as a form of modern-day slavery. This is no exaggeration; anti-tax fanatic and lobbyist Grover Norquist has stated that just as abolitionists had to stick around until slavery was abolished in the USA, people like him will have to stick around until taxes are abolished. If you just threw up in your mouth a little at the thought of Norquist (a Harvard-educated guy who grew up in Weston, the richest town in Massachusetts) equating taxation with slavery, I don't blame you.
At the same time, however, these "conservatives" support the existence of a massive, bloated military-industrial complex and defense budget in order to keep fat and happy their defense contractor constituents. You want a trillion dollar per year defense budget? OK, tax the living daylights out of corporations and ultra-rich people to raise the revenue needed for that. If you don't want to do the latter, don't demand the former.
You simply can't advocate these two things at the same time--cutting taxes on those who have the bulk of the income and assets (the One Percent) down to the bone while funneling cash 24-7 from the Treasury to the Pentagon. And as for citing the 44% number regarding people who don't pay federal income taxes--isn't Troy aware this is now the #1 complaint among "conservatives?"
8
Mr. Troy,
This confuses me. I have followed American politics for six decades, so I have watched the rise of the Right from a portion of the GOP to its whole. Your consideration covers some of it's elements, but ignores those most significant, in my observation. Eisenhower, holding his nose, reached into the paranoid midden of the Right to pluck forth Richard Nixon, who in his turn embraced racism. Smiley Ron preached irrationality; George Bush the President called it "voodoo economics." "Tax cuts for the rich' is the slogan; It's Mammon worship. The GOP health plan eliminates coverage of abortion, birth control and pregnancy; because misogyny.
Wealth worship; union busting, rejection of reason or moderation, racism and misogyny: those are the central values of the American Right, based on GOP conduct in my lifetime.
And if they have lost their way, they need only follow their nose.
Other than that, I kinda agree with your piece.
Good day.
This confuses me. I have followed American politics for six decades, so I have watched the rise of the Right from a portion of the GOP to its whole. Your consideration covers some of it's elements, but ignores those most significant, in my observation. Eisenhower, holding his nose, reached into the paranoid midden of the Right to pluck forth Richard Nixon, who in his turn embraced racism. Smiley Ron preached irrationality; George Bush the President called it "voodoo economics." "Tax cuts for the rich' is the slogan; It's Mammon worship. The GOP health plan eliminates coverage of abortion, birth control and pregnancy; because misogyny.
Wealth worship; union busting, rejection of reason or moderation, racism and misogyny: those are the central values of the American Right, based on GOP conduct in my lifetime.
And if they have lost their way, they need only follow their nose.
Other than that, I kinda agree with your piece.
Good day.
8
There is no "conservatism" anymore, or, rather, the movement that appropriated that name has become empty. The same holds of what was called the Republican party. Now on the right there is only Trumpism and the Trumpian party. Insofar as there is a philosophy, it is a philosophy of government used for personal profit for the political and donor class.
Those who were attracted to a coherent philosophy of conservatism--and I count myself among them--are rudderless at the moment. The movement long went astray, and is backing more and more into mere Trumpism.
Those who were attracted to a coherent philosophy of conservatism--and I count myself among them--are rudderless at the moment. The movement long went astray, and is backing more and more into mere Trumpism.
5
I cannot remember the last time I read an essay in the Times that was factually wrong on so many counts, way too many to reply to here.
I would recommend to the author to obtain the November, 1981, copy of The Atlantic Monthly and read David Stockman's essay (written when he was still Reagan's budget director) on the failure of Reagan's signature achievement, "Reaganomics."
The part about the "floating asterisk" was particularly illuminating. This was the essay that famously go Stockman "taken to the woodshed" by the Gipper himself.
And can we STOP referring to conservatism as some type of laboratory of ideas? What good is a laboratory if all the experiments were and still are total failures?
I would recommend to the author to obtain the November, 1981, copy of The Atlantic Monthly and read David Stockman's essay (written when he was still Reagan's budget director) on the failure of Reagan's signature achievement, "Reaganomics."
The part about the "floating asterisk" was particularly illuminating. This was the essay that famously go Stockman "taken to the woodshed" by the Gipper himself.
And can we STOP referring to conservatism as some type of laboratory of ideas? What good is a laboratory if all the experiments were and still are total failures?
20
Failure can be a good thing. Ask any researcher. It can be a good thing if we learn from our failures.
Modern conservatives have no interest in learning. The Republican Party pulled itself up from the Goldwater disaster by adopting the "Southern Strategy." It abandoned Lincoln and became the party of dog whistle racism. It continued to be the party of the rich and large corporation and it has staunchly maintained both positions ever since.
There is no longer a philosophical underpinning for the allegedly "conservative" Republican party: Its only goal is to win elections by any means and pay back their donors. Edmund Burke is not coming back.
goldwater d
Modern conservatives have no interest in learning. The Republican Party pulled itself up from the Goldwater disaster by adopting the "Southern Strategy." It abandoned Lincoln and became the party of dog whistle racism. It continued to be the party of the rich and large corporation and it has staunchly maintained both positions ever since.
There is no longer a philosophical underpinning for the allegedly "conservative" Republican party: Its only goal is to win elections by any means and pay back their donors. Edmund Burke is not coming back.
goldwater d
4
Conservatives have no unifying principles. It's arguable whether they ever have.
They claim they're for small government, except when it comes to things like privacy rights, LGBT and womens' equality, military spending.
They claim they're pro-life, yet are voraciously pro-gun, pro-death penalty, pro-torture, and currently salivating over the prospect of stripping healthcare from tens of millions of poor people.
How much longer will Americans continue to tolerate these peoples' shameless hypocrisy until they remove them from power?
They claim they're for small government, except when it comes to things like privacy rights, LGBT and womens' equality, military spending.
They claim they're pro-life, yet are voraciously pro-gun, pro-death penalty, pro-torture, and currently salivating over the prospect of stripping healthcare from tens of millions of poor people.
How much longer will Americans continue to tolerate these peoples' shameless hypocrisy until they remove them from power?
18
It seems that the Nixon wing of the Republican Party has re-taken control. Recall that, like Trump, Nixon had no real principles other than winning. In economic policy, among other things he imposed price controls on gasoline and milk. In foreign policy, he helped oust a democratically elected president in Chile. On social policy, he dog whistled racists with his odious Southern Strategy. His defense legacy was to secretly invade Laos without Congressional authorization. None of these policies has a shred of conservative basis to it.
6
This essay is a well-written, thoughtful, and succinctly expressed trope fest featuring continual use of oxymorons such as: conservative "ideas," conservative "think" tanks, conservative "future" to mention a few. At least you didn’t claim conservative wisdom.
Conservatism is stasis. The universe is dynamic. Conservative philosophy is Philistinic and primitive, not progressive in terms of enlightenment and human development. Most conservatives reside in The Confederacy and in their allied western states (like Utah). The election of 2016 proved, unequivocally, that conservative voters are less gifted, less educated and more emotional. Amygdalated, if you will.
Of course, one could go on endlessly, picking apart their words, actions, and results. Like shooting rats cornered in a gated alleyway. What's the benefit?
Mr. Troy: When the Neocons want to dialogue with the Iranians to solve disagreements, do they seek out their "own," as in the conservatives of Iran (mirror image of myopic thinkers) or the less religious, more worldly, more sophisticated citizens (writers who haven't been exiled, jailed, or worse) and the like? Just wondering.
Conservatism is stasis. The universe is dynamic. Conservative philosophy is Philistinic and primitive, not progressive in terms of enlightenment and human development. Most conservatives reside in The Confederacy and in their allied western states (like Utah). The election of 2016 proved, unequivocally, that conservative voters are less gifted, less educated and more emotional. Amygdalated, if you will.
Of course, one could go on endlessly, picking apart their words, actions, and results. Like shooting rats cornered in a gated alleyway. What's the benefit?
Mr. Troy: When the Neocons want to dialogue with the Iranians to solve disagreements, do they seek out their "own," as in the conservatives of Iran (mirror image of myopic thinkers) or the less religious, more worldly, more sophisticated citizens (writers who haven't been exiled, jailed, or worse) and the like? Just wondering.
7
Ronald Reagan was a fair to middling actor who was a front man for the radical right-wing forces that have wreaked havoc on the large majority of the American people since the 1980's. The "conservative" ideas he touted have been pushed further and further by the Republican party over the years. The wealthy have reaped great gains from these policies, while the rest of Americans have suffered from stagnation and even regression. The continuing tax cuts for the rich have led to more debt, public and private. Our infrastructure is crumbling because government doesn't have the money to maintain it, much less improve it. Income taxes have been reduced, but the payroll taxes paid by working Americans have increased, with the proceeds going to fund the deficits caused by the tax cuts on the wealthy. Now that Social Security and Medicare will need the money back to pay benefits, Republicans say they are no longer viable and must be privatized and cut. And they want more tax cuts for the wealthy. Cuts or elimination of taxes on capital gains and dividends, elimination of estate taxes, more fees on infrastructure use. They mask the results of their policies with Laffer curves, school prayer, abortion, and rants about guns, gays and God. Racism and anti-immigrant are courted openly. They don't care about the earth, the air, the water. Regulations expanding workers' rights, the environment, voter's rights, civil rights must be abolished. It's all about the money now. Greed is good.
15
They always intended for us to be here. As far as I could tell it hasn't been happening fast enough for them. Of course if you remember much of the rhetoric reagan used was very literally directly from Thatcher's mouth. Most of his policies were direct echos of her policies for destroying British Unions. Part of de-reg was to allow the removal of money from the US that went along with removal of protections from their consumer victims.
1
Keep it Simple. Conservatism = less government. Less government = less taxes. Less taxes = greater individual utility of earned income.
1
Nope. "Conservatism"= no more United States of America.
4
Conservatism is a philosophy that can be boiled down to a couple of phrases: "I've got mine..."and "Every man for himself". Those phrases cover domestic economic policy. As for social policy: Government should control who can get married , adopt children, and continue a pregnancy or not. Also, guns and the death penalty are high on the list. Conservatives tend to have an authoritarian mindset and a nativistic, anti-global mindset as well. To Conservatism, I say "No thank you".
2
It is never (that) simple.
Pfft. Reagan was a hypocrite, possibly because he was senile and possibly because tribes don't need coherent philosophies to hang together, only thinking people do. Since Nixon, the Republican tribe hangs together around the Southern strategy, with no coherent ideas at all. Religious veneer, perfidious behavior - no problem. Free markets and handouts to favored industries - no problem. No taxes, except on those people - no problem. Don't tread on me and state imposition of religion - no problem. Anti abortion and pro ak 47 - no problem. Right to work, compassionate conservatism - no problem. Give me a break. Trump fits right in with most of your incoherent package, he's just not trustworthy to the tribe because of his extreme narcissism.
20
Articles like this mystify me. Which reminds me of an anecdote.
FDR (somewhere along the line) was reproached for not having "an ideology"--a "philosophy of government." Whatever. The President (like me) was mystified. "An ideology?" he asked. "A philosophy of government? I'm a Christian--and a Democrat. What else do I have to be?"
Mr. Troy, I don't care a hang about conservatives per se. I care a whole lot about the United States of America. That is--the PEOPLE of the United States of America. Indeed I do! Cross my heart and hope to die!
What will benefit the PEOPLE of the United States of America? What would be right? Or fair? Or (dare I say it?)--GENEROUS? So many of us (as Dr. King observed half a century ago) bask in undreamt of opulence and plenty. How can this opulence, this plenty be shared around?
Does that make me a conservative? I don't know. Does it? Or a liberal? I don't know. Does it? I'm for whatever works. I really am.
Years ago, future Interior Secretary Ickes (back in the '30's) saw respectably dressed matrons--and their children--foraging in dumpsters for food. "Have we come to this?" he asked himself. "Has America really come to this?"
He perceived in other words--"There's a PROBLEM here. Let's fix the PROBLEM." That, of course, led to the New Deal.
Which is where I am. Our country has problems right now. How about we fix them? Or try at least?
Liberal? Conservative? I don't know. Does it matter?
FDR (somewhere along the line) was reproached for not having "an ideology"--a "philosophy of government." Whatever. The President (like me) was mystified. "An ideology?" he asked. "A philosophy of government? I'm a Christian--and a Democrat. What else do I have to be?"
Mr. Troy, I don't care a hang about conservatives per se. I care a whole lot about the United States of America. That is--the PEOPLE of the United States of America. Indeed I do! Cross my heart and hope to die!
What will benefit the PEOPLE of the United States of America? What would be right? Or fair? Or (dare I say it?)--GENEROUS? So many of us (as Dr. King observed half a century ago) bask in undreamt of opulence and plenty. How can this opulence, this plenty be shared around?
Does that make me a conservative? I don't know. Does it? Or a liberal? I don't know. Does it? I'm for whatever works. I really am.
Years ago, future Interior Secretary Ickes (back in the '30's) saw respectably dressed matrons--and their children--foraging in dumpsters for food. "Have we come to this?" he asked himself. "Has America really come to this?"
He perceived in other words--"There's a PROBLEM here. Let's fix the PROBLEM." That, of course, led to the New Deal.
Which is where I am. Our country has problems right now. How about we fix them? Or try at least?
Liberal? Conservative? I don't know. Does it matter?
16
You're a "pragmatist." So am I. So is Barack Obama, who correctly stated that the American people were sick of ideology. "When I became a man, I put away childish things," Obama quoted from scripture. Unfortunately, American conservatives and the media obsess about childish things.
3
Conservatives stand for whatever benefits the very rich at the expense of everyone else.
Nothing else to add.
Nothing else to add.
16
I agree. That's what it comes down to now. Find one thing on the current Republican agenda that helps only the people who need help, or who aren't rich, or cronies/financial "peers" of the current occupant. I can't, and can't believe there more than a half dozen of the s0-called public servants who can or try to care about others. Certainly not the so-called prez.
3
To be Conservative is to believe that anyone, anywhere can overcome any obstacle to achieve any goal. There will be hurdles, obstacles, and forceful headwinds, to be certain. But, it is in that belief - to which we all own an opportunity to persevere, is an equal right. A right so granted to every race, religion, sex, and creed... and as you highlight, every income level.
Ignore institutional racism and the fact that not everyone is born mentally, intellectually and physically capable of achieving at a high level. The common good, from which our democracy stems, allows our taxes to be spent on helping those mentioned above. Conservatism is an unrealistic ideal that borders on cruelty and disdain for the less fortunate among us.
3
Conservatism lurched in the wrong direction with Nixon's Southern Strategy, the election of Reagan sealed the deal. To ensure power the GOP would embrace the racism and bigotry that seemed to invigorate their base with each successive electoral win. With the election of the orange one they dispensed with any pretenses of decency and now wallow in the muck of racism, bigotry, and misogyny. One can only hope this is the final chapter of the GOP and its demise is close at hand. The survival of your country and democracy depend on it.
14
Mr. Trump is defining conservatism and Republicanism in his personhood with principles like wealth as the highest good, dishonesty, bombast, arrogance, gnorance, and ME ME ME. He is institutionalizing those principles with his tactics of (1) using power to gain personal wealth, (2) lying, (2) adopting police state tactics, (3) undermining our elections (with help from Mr. Putin), (4) imperiling the planet, (5) undermining the free press and, thus, freedoms, (6) ignoring science and research, and (7) (unbelievably) tweets.
Neither William F. Buckley nor Ronald Reagan would give Donald Trump's "principles" the time of day. If there are any true conservatives left, they don't dare show themselves in public, especially in public office, and they are no counterweight to Trumpism.
Neither William F. Buckley nor Ronald Reagan would give Donald Trump's "principles" the time of day. If there are any true conservatives left, they don't dare show themselves in public, especially in public office, and they are no counterweight to Trumpism.
6
This article is worthless. After rehashing well-trod history, the article basically calls for definition and unity around the word "conservative." The article would have been much more relevant if it had taken the widely differing policy prescriptions of what is now called "conservatism" and shown how they can or may not be able to come together. How do nationalist and liberal internationalists, libertarians and social conservatives, supply siders, budget balancers, and government program supporters coexist under one ideology? Seems difficult to me. But that discussion would have been eminently more worthwhile than this tripe.
5
The only 'true' conservatives are the Democrats who show fiscal responsibility when they control the White House. The Republicans, on the other hand, run up the deficit as if they 'were drunken sailors on a weekend leave', irrespective of what they claim is their belief system. I find the Republicans to be completely phony about their so-called 'small government' beliefs. It's rubbish and is used only when they are out of power and want to block Democratic legislation. They couldn't balance a budget if their lives depended on it.
So, please, none of this nonsense about 'conservative fiscal responsibility'. The Republican conservatives are nothing but a bunch of greedy, self-motivated opportunists who will trash the Federal government for their own personal gain and who want to appear pious to their less educated supporters.
So, please, none of this nonsense about 'conservative fiscal responsibility'. The Republican conservatives are nothing but a bunch of greedy, self-motivated opportunists who will trash the Federal government for their own personal gain and who want to appear pious to their less educated supporters.
15
You left out the part where racial discrimination and outright animus were used as well, the right wing bigot coalitions. Conservatives intentionally stoked it, and have continued to do so, blaming all the world's ills on "those people." While going down this pathetic rosey memory lane, I notice no mention of having stolen the land from native Americans, building wealth on the backs of slaves and ignorant immigrants and having demeaned and exploited women from day one. Saying conservative is just another way of saying wealthy WASP men should still own and control everything.
5
Given that at least 85% of Republicans voted for Trump, I'm not sure what "great sorting" this author is expecting. Those few conservatives who appeared to manifest some principles and not join the Trump bandwagon have already been replaced by the racists and sexists who have firm proof that they are welcome in the GOP.
9
Liberals, on the other hand, have as their fatal flaw their disrespect for other people's hard earned money, spent without a sense of the consequences.
They have put us into irredeemable debt, and vastly burdened the next generation, all in the name of good intentions.
This invalidates the world view of liberals, as it is essentially just another form of dishonesty, programs promised to gain re-election, creating a massive debt for someone else to pay.
They have put us into irredeemable debt, and vastly burdened the next generation, all in the name of good intentions.
This invalidates the world view of liberals, as it is essentially just another form of dishonesty, programs promised to gain re-election, creating a massive debt for someone else to pay.
Quiz: Which president increased the national debt, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton? Which president balanced the budget?
4
"Liberals" didn't occupy the White House from 1981-89, 1989-93, or 2001-2009. In each of those periods, the national budget deficits exploded due to unnecessary tax cuts, and out of control spending, especially on foreign wars, with a major recession occurring in each of those periods. In the most recent, the entire economy of the world was almost plunged into a second Great Depression because of "conservative" economic policies. From 1993-2001, the annual budget deficits shrank until the country actually had a budget surplus. and from 2009-2017, despite the national debt increasing, the annual deficits decreased incrementally each year. Were you around while all of this was going on? Looks like you missed a lot.
6
The opposite is true. Fact: the Democrats are better in handling the budget. Reagan and Bush were financial disasters. Clinton and Obama worked to restore our economic health.
2
The GOP latched on to Conservatism because they thought it would help them win elections. When one's only driving force is to win elections, this is what you get.
2
What is a conservative when they can't even conserve "Truth", "Justice"?
5
There is no longer a Republican Party. The ex Republicans belong to two new parties---the For Trump and the Against Trump parties.
5
You don't need a compass to know that Trump is detrimental to this country.
6
It is so funny I was just thinking about "Conservatives".
I was thinking about how "The Donald" gave himself that name (think George Costanza trying to get himself called T-bone) and if anything seems less mature and developed as a man now than he did when he thought that was a fine idea.
Then I meandered into the territory of how it is that "Conservatives" never got past the childhood habit of creating stories that justify their perceptions to making sure that what one perceives is actually real and progressing beyond that into in depth thought. For them the childish feeling of certainty about their unconfirmed perception is enough. I suspect this is why they mainly target the "faithful" with their campaigns.
It gets trickier when you come to see that some of these "Conservatives" are well aware of these things but use the dogma for their own ends. Mr. McConnell and Mr. Sessions, Mr. Cruz come to mind. There are a lot more than you might think who know they are doing this but choose to do it anyway. This leads one to ask "how does one distinguish?" yada yada yada here is the result: The effect of what they do is the same in both cases so motivation should not be a factor in your thinking about it at election time. The solution is to make them stand still and defend these positions. They do not have the right to say no and walk away. If they do that should tell you they have no defense for the position so know in themselves that they are wrong. and so on.....
I was thinking about how "The Donald" gave himself that name (think George Costanza trying to get himself called T-bone) and if anything seems less mature and developed as a man now than he did when he thought that was a fine idea.
Then I meandered into the territory of how it is that "Conservatives" never got past the childhood habit of creating stories that justify their perceptions to making sure that what one perceives is actually real and progressing beyond that into in depth thought. For them the childish feeling of certainty about their unconfirmed perception is enough. I suspect this is why they mainly target the "faithful" with their campaigns.
It gets trickier when you come to see that some of these "Conservatives" are well aware of these things but use the dogma for their own ends. Mr. McConnell and Mr. Sessions, Mr. Cruz come to mind. There are a lot more than you might think who know they are doing this but choose to do it anyway. This leads one to ask "how does one distinguish?" yada yada yada here is the result: The effect of what they do is the same in both cases so motivation should not be a factor in your thinking about it at election time. The solution is to make them stand still and defend these positions. They do not have the right to say no and walk away. If they do that should tell you they have no defense for the position so know in themselves that they are wrong. and so on.....
1
I could lay out a course for conservatives in America on principles and policy, but I choose not to.
Whatever "conservative" once meant, at the moment it means nothing at all except being against taxes and against government. That's not enough even to chat your way through a dinner party.
I want to say this to the author of this op-ed: "Hey, Dude, this ain't the 1950s." The conservative movement was hijacked by AM talk radio, Fox News and a thousand little websites. When the Republican party embraced Limbaugh not just as a commentator but part of the movement, they lost their soul. Then, it threw loving arms about Newt Gingrich and his politics of search and destroy which lastly manifested itself during the Obama years as "No cooperation, never", an attitude and a way of life that continues to this day, except now the Republicans are refusing to cooperate with themselves.
The so called conservative party in America is no longer conservative. The goals are revolutionary or, if you please, counter-revolutionary, the permanent and near complete crippling of the federal government. Each piece of legislation or the development of policy is measured against this standard: does it move us closer to that ultimate goal? If not, why are we doing it?
The first thing the Republicans need to do is grow up and face responsibility, realizing that in a nation of 340+ million no matter how righteous you think you cause is, you don't get your way all of the time.
Whatever "conservative" once meant, at the moment it means nothing at all except being against taxes and against government. That's not enough even to chat your way through a dinner party.
I want to say this to the author of this op-ed: "Hey, Dude, this ain't the 1950s." The conservative movement was hijacked by AM talk radio, Fox News and a thousand little websites. When the Republican party embraced Limbaugh not just as a commentator but part of the movement, they lost their soul. Then, it threw loving arms about Newt Gingrich and his politics of search and destroy which lastly manifested itself during the Obama years as "No cooperation, never", an attitude and a way of life that continues to this day, except now the Republicans are refusing to cooperate with themselves.
The so called conservative party in America is no longer conservative. The goals are revolutionary or, if you please, counter-revolutionary, the permanent and near complete crippling of the federal government. Each piece of legislation or the development of policy is measured against this standard: does it move us closer to that ultimate goal? If not, why are we doing it?
The first thing the Republicans need to do is grow up and face responsibility, realizing that in a nation of 340+ million no matter how righteous you think you cause is, you don't get your way all of the time.
8
Oh come now, you're ignoring the, ahem, elephant in the room. Or in this case, the lobbyist in the room.
All legislators, but more so Republicans, have lost their independence in the wake of the re-entry of corporate money into campaigns and elections.
For example, until the late 90s there was a significant swath of Republicans and Democrats that were at least skeptical about globalization and the ease of moving investment and human capital.
There was an active environmental wing of the GOP that is now, ahem, extinct. There were even some that, gasp!, as "law and order Republicans", were publicly in favor of some types of common sense gun control.
Corporate and rich donor money has washed all that away. Now they just collect their legal bribes, wait for the ALEC-written to cross the transom, put their letterhead over it and vote for whatever's in there!
And this is the bunch that boasts of being "self made." Ha!
All legislators, but more so Republicans, have lost their independence in the wake of the re-entry of corporate money into campaigns and elections.
For example, until the late 90s there was a significant swath of Republicans and Democrats that were at least skeptical about globalization and the ease of moving investment and human capital.
There was an active environmental wing of the GOP that is now, ahem, extinct. There were even some that, gasp!, as "law and order Republicans", were publicly in favor of some types of common sense gun control.
Corporate and rich donor money has washed all that away. Now they just collect their legal bribes, wait for the ALEC-written to cross the transom, put their letterhead over it and vote for whatever's in there!
And this is the bunch that boasts of being "self made." Ha!
3
Can conservatives find their way? You mean, like over the cliff? Wherever they are headed, the problem is they are taking humanity with them.
5
There is a unifying principle for Conservatives, which this article misses. Conservatives may or may not support governmental involvement in healthcare or in "Climate Change", but Conservatives are 100% against allowing women the option to kill the developing human Fetus, as a human right. Conservatives are 100% in support of FCC's 2/26/2015 Network Neutrality order. Conservatives are generally embarrassed to have had to support Trump in order to protect SCOTUS against the human right to kill any Fetus. 0% of Conservatives support the female "Right to Choose" as an unqualified human right but a growing number of Conservatives agree the female "Right to Choose" must exist "For a Time" in order to allow human authorities to agree with the Creator or nature and protect free-will as an existential human value.
1
Keep your religious views on a woman 'a right to exercise control over her own body private and practiced in your own life. Separation of church and state is the hallmark of our democracy. Women will continue to excercise that right no matter what the law says, and they always have.
2
Troy glides past a crucial factor in the previous development emergence of the GOP as a serious governing party. Just as important as bringing together the "various elements of the respectable right" was Buckley's leadership in exorcising the "lunatic fringe" - the John Birchers, the KKK, etc. Today's GOP welcomes today's equivalents of those groups, panders to them, and feeds them with dog-whistle soundbites, glib tweets, and invocations of a cartoon version of American history and values.
5
NB. There is no evidence that broken windows policing drives down major crime rates. It does incarcerate brown bodies for selling single cigarettes and jaywalking though.
4
Conservatives have had a consistent philosophy for years - it is called "Opportunism" Build up your base by taking away the social safety net; denigrate the role of government and reinforce with ignorant and incompetent candidates for office; Let corporate funded think-tanks do the thinking for them; play on racism and ignorance in order to stoke people's fears; make stopping abortions the priority over everything else, including achieving universal healthcare; Help the Rich get richer and the poor get poorer, capitulate to Big Oil and the Fossil Fuel Industry.... so many ways to sell one's birthright for a mess of pottage - that's Conservatism.
5
How in the world do you condemn judicial activism but praise Neil Gorsuch in the same thought? The man is the poster child for unreasoned judicial prejudice. I'm tempted to dismiss the remaining argument as intelligent sounding sophomoric drivel. That's the problem anyway. Conservatism was only briefly intellectual and only by limited degree. The Republican party became more concerned with winning than promoting intelligent policy. The G.O.P. is the party of power for power's sake. No wonder they don't know how to govern effectively.
7
"Conservatives" have been exposed as enablers of racism and profiteering from government whenever they control it. That IS their way.
3
Modern conservatives are a one trick pony. They see the world through the lens of money. Free market, lower taxes, no social responsibility, I got mine, remove death taxes so my trust fund genes can maintain control, and the many other perturbations of the same basic philosophy.
They are bound to relive the past because they live in the past. The future has passed them by and they don't recognize it. Science, technology, growth through education, mutual trade agreements are all areas that will leave them in the dust. If they are in power for any length of time, we in the United States will join them and watch the world leap ahead of us.
They are bound to relive the past because they live in the past. The future has passed them by and they don't recognize it. Science, technology, growth through education, mutual trade agreements are all areas that will leave them in the dust. If they are in power for any length of time, we in the United States will join them and watch the world leap ahead of us.
3
The very idea of "conservative progress" is an oxymoron. Buckley himself described the goal of conservatism as "standing athwart the tide of history yelling "stop.' " liberals are not perfect, but at least by definition they tend to look for ways to ensure the progress of liberty and justice, not just to prevent change.
4
There are no principled conservatives in public life any more. If there were, they would be calling for a return to the policies in place under Eisenhower, who was the last true conservative president. Those policies would include much higher taxes on corporations and the rich, protection of Social Security, and a healthy degree of care before invading foreign countries.
Reagan would have more credibility as at least a principled man if his campaign in 1980 hadn't struck a treasonous and illegal deal with Iran to help get elected.
And don't even get me started on Fox News, right-wing talk radio, and the huge network of think-tanks funded by the Koch Brothers whose only aim is to weaken government and the democratic process.
Conservatism is dead, killed by love of money and love of power.
Reagan would have more credibility as at least a principled man if his campaign in 1980 hadn't struck a treasonous and illegal deal with Iran to help get elected.
And don't even get me started on Fox News, right-wing talk radio, and the huge network of think-tanks funded by the Koch Brothers whose only aim is to weaken government and the democratic process.
Conservatism is dead, killed by love of money and love of power.
5
It's this simple
Conservatism - as in fiscal conservatism - is about limited government, for essential services, regulation, and enforcement
We look at libertarians, and wish we could live in their world - ours has bad actors of many different kinds, and people in genuine need
Conservatism - as in social conservatism - is a Faustian construct, borne out of fear and loathing of expansive government
This fear and loathing of expansive is somewhat justified, but social conservatism attacks recipients of expansive government largesse - rather than expansive government itself
This isn't just a cop-out...It lets "Conservatives" enjoy the perqs of expansive government, while pretending to try to limit it
As in repealing Obamacare somewhere between six and sixty times, when there was no chance that it'd be signed into law
True conservatism engenders a pride of public-sector craft - even as it looks to the private sector as the economic engine
Anybody remember when NYC K-12 teachers were as respected as physicians - and the teachers themselves saw their role and responsibility in society as important and profound as those in medicine
I do - and remember several such teachers
True conservatives understood that private monopolies could be as de-stabilizing as unlimited government
Anybody remember a regulated monopoly sometimes simply called "The Phone Company"...And the number of Nobel Prizes their scientists won
I didn't - but looked it up...8
Exceptional
American
Conservatism - as in fiscal conservatism - is about limited government, for essential services, regulation, and enforcement
We look at libertarians, and wish we could live in their world - ours has bad actors of many different kinds, and people in genuine need
Conservatism - as in social conservatism - is a Faustian construct, borne out of fear and loathing of expansive government
This fear and loathing of expansive is somewhat justified, but social conservatism attacks recipients of expansive government largesse - rather than expansive government itself
This isn't just a cop-out...It lets "Conservatives" enjoy the perqs of expansive government, while pretending to try to limit it
As in repealing Obamacare somewhere between six and sixty times, when there was no chance that it'd be signed into law
True conservatism engenders a pride of public-sector craft - even as it looks to the private sector as the economic engine
Anybody remember when NYC K-12 teachers were as respected as physicians - and the teachers themselves saw their role and responsibility in society as important and profound as those in medicine
I do - and remember several such teachers
True conservatives understood that private monopolies could be as de-stabilizing as unlimited government
Anybody remember a regulated monopoly sometimes simply called "The Phone Company"...And the number of Nobel Prizes their scientists won
I didn't - but looked it up...8
Exceptional
American
2
"...[Conservatives] argue over whether it is the duty of conservatives to support him [Trump] or the duty of conservatives to oppose him.'
I have a suggestion. Forget the mantra of party over all else, and dispense with blind loyalty to any so-called president who happens to adopt the party label. Having thereby achieved a form of personal freedom, try doing what is the (a) correct thing to do.
Does this not solve the conservative dilemma put forth above?
I have a suggestion. Forget the mantra of party over all else, and dispense with blind loyalty to any so-called president who happens to adopt the party label. Having thereby achieved a form of personal freedom, try doing what is the (a) correct thing to do.
Does this not solve the conservative dilemma put forth above?
2
Unlike much of the rest of the Western Industrialized World, what is quite unique to America is the majority of conservatives and especially conservative politicians, strangely are unwilling or cannot separate conservative, particularly economic ideology from "social" ideology, hence the obvious strong linkage with Christian religious sects that ultimately can influence policy, something that would NOT be tolerated in the vast majority of these other countries where separation of church and state is strictly observed.
While this current crop of Republicans wish to deprive citizens of individual rights and destroy the environment, there are a number of states, including those like Texas, whom in order to cater to their large religious constituency, strive to turn the clock back to the late 1800s. It seems they are getting their way.
While this current crop of Republicans wish to deprive citizens of individual rights and destroy the environment, there are a number of states, including those like Texas, whom in order to cater to their large religious constituency, strive to turn the clock back to the late 1800s. It seems they are getting their way.
3
This kind of whitewashing of Reagan has got to stop. His nine "most terrifying" words--"I'm from the government and I'm here to help"--have just by themselves done more damage to our polity than any other glib slogan I have ever encountered. Would that he had coined something as memorable, but innocuous, as "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too."
Prior to Reagan even conservatives had broad notions of the positive role that an active government could play in our society and economy. Liberals and Conservatives could at least talk civilly (most of the time, anyway), and generally viewed the other side as public servants who genuinely had the good of the citizenry at heart. But government became the enemy under Reagan and facts and truth became expendable in the project of concentrating ever more wealth and power at the top. Under Trump, we have now reached the nadir of the long-term effort that began in earnest under Reagan. Resist!
Prior to Reagan even conservatives had broad notions of the positive role that an active government could play in our society and economy. Liberals and Conservatives could at least talk civilly (most of the time, anyway), and generally viewed the other side as public servants who genuinely had the good of the citizenry at heart. But government became the enemy under Reagan and facts and truth became expendable in the project of concentrating ever more wealth and power at the top. Under Trump, we have now reached the nadir of the long-term effort that began in earnest under Reagan. Resist!
12
Reagan was 100% correct and the scope and purpose of government was upended when FDR brought us the nanny state.
Until Trump, Reagan was the worst President in modern history. The destruction of what made our country great -- widespread prosperity -- started on his watch. Yet after 40 years of abject failure, "conservatives" still insist that Reaganomics works. Why? Because Reagan, that's why. And for them, that's apparently enough. No rational examination of history can come up with the conclusion that Reaganomics "works" for anyone other than the .5%. I guess that's OK with "conservatives." Unfortunately for them, the rest of the country is pretty darn tired of subsidizing the rich.
Trump is the inevitable and ultimate conclusion to Reagan worship.
Trump is the inevitable and ultimate conclusion to Reagan worship.
2
Of course, FDR led our nation out of the depths of a great economic depression caused largely by capitalism run amok.
While I voted twice for President Reagan, I would suggest that there was much he was wrong about (if he were still here, he would agree), his apparent canonization by Republicans in recent years notwithstanding.
While I voted twice for President Reagan, I would suggest that there was much he was wrong about (if he were still here, he would agree), his apparent canonization by Republicans in recent years notwithstanding.
1
If one considered conservatism in the U.S. before the election of 1964, it was a minority and unpopular political perspective. Even William F. Buckley while appreciated by both conservative and liberal college educated people was usually advocating unpopular positions. So what happened between 1964 and 1980 when Reagan won with a strong popular vote, and whose ideas dominated the national debate afterwards?
The beginning of a cultural divide which began with the Supreme Court rulings with respect to segregation and prayer in schools and the right for women to have abortions strongly alienated a large proportion of the electorate who really considered having government reflect their religious views to be their right. This was the first factor. The second factor was the presence in the Democratic Party of whites who believed in white supremacy and who rejected the Democratic Party after the civil rights acts and the Party's support of that legislation. The third was the issue of attitudes towards the conduct of the Vietnam Conflict after the Tet Offensive of 1968, where the issue because whether to continue the policies which were not working or not. Those who were inclined to accept the authority of elected officials over those of dissenters, dissenters were seen as traitors. The fourth factor was Reagan's ability to cloak the fundamental pessimism about human nature with the representation of optimism that he took from liberals.
The beginning of a cultural divide which began with the Supreme Court rulings with respect to segregation and prayer in schools and the right for women to have abortions strongly alienated a large proportion of the electorate who really considered having government reflect their religious views to be their right. This was the first factor. The second factor was the presence in the Democratic Party of whites who believed in white supremacy and who rejected the Democratic Party after the civil rights acts and the Party's support of that legislation. The third was the issue of attitudes towards the conduct of the Vietnam Conflict after the Tet Offensive of 1968, where the issue because whether to continue the policies which were not working or not. Those who were inclined to accept the authority of elected officials over those of dissenters, dissenters were seen as traitors. The fourth factor was Reagan's ability to cloak the fundamental pessimism about human nature with the representation of optimism that he took from liberals.
3
I think "...a large proportion of the electorate who really considered having government reflect their religious views to be their right" is a profound statement. Thank you.
1
Conservatives have found their way. It's just centered on getting government out of the way to business with fewer responsibilities to the populace without offending too many voters.
I can't believe that "broken windows" policies and reducing the number of people on the tax rolls was brought up as positive. Yes, enough Democrats went along, but that's hardly an endorsement of what are considered failures.
Conservatives have found their way alright. The shared enemies of the Cold War going away, etc., have unmasked the what the GOP is all about (not that the Democrats are innocent, either). This, from a voter that used to vote Republican more often than not.
I can't believe that "broken windows" policies and reducing the number of people on the tax rolls was brought up as positive. Yes, enough Democrats went along, but that's hardly an endorsement of what are considered failures.
Conservatives have found their way alright. The shared enemies of the Cold War going away, etc., have unmasked the what the GOP is all about (not that the Democrats are innocent, either). This, from a voter that used to vote Republican more often than not.
5
Conservatives suffer intently from the need to justify conservative values, and for good reason. Their voter base depends on two major pillars and a lot of sleight-of-hand. The two pillars, fundamentalist religion and corporate America, are showing signs of weakness among young people. The sleight-of-hand, lately manifested by scapegoating immigrants, isn't fooling enough people enough of the time. At its core, today's conservatism features two issues, lower taxes (for corporate America) and conservative judges (who will hopefully roll back Roe vs Wade, for fundamentalist religion). Everything else conservatives have to offer is oppositional. They are against everything Democrats propose, but have nothing to offer themselves other than the two core issues. Trump managed to invoke ongoing anger about those left behind in the new economy, but chances he will address their problems are virtually nil. For pundits, spin doctors, and those who think of themselves as the intellectual wing of conservatism, the essential vacuity of conservative philosophy is disturbing. For the rest of us, it's nothing new.
10
They have no rational or reasonable argument to justify any of the positions they take. This is why public discourse has been so degraded especially in the intellectual content and process of it and why they needed Fox news to help perpetrate that de-education never mind the slight of hand to out maneuver an alert Congress seeking to block him and reagan;s interference to get Murdoch citizenship so he could perpetrate this crime against us. It was so obviously heinous a crime that even our filthy rich home grown "conservatives" would not fund the propaganda network Ailes conceived of.
2
In reading Mr. Troy's commentary, he and other so-called conservative thinkers are what is wrong with the conservative movement. There is no recognition of community, the common good, equality, both social and economic, only a pursuit of a political ideology which seems to translate into "we hate everything and everyone who we do not view as exactly like ourselves".
12
Conservatives have a lot bigger problems than just Trump. They've been a shill for money for so long, they think there's a justifiable philosophy attached to simply being rich and keeping it from anyone else. Ideas that once championed free enterprise and small government have long been replaced by simple greed and government largesse for the few. General Bullmoose lives on.
6
"At a surface level, some issues do appear to unite current conservatives: disdain for anticonservative and anti-Republican bias in the mainstream media; support for conservative judges like Neil Gorsuch, who joined the Supreme Court in April; and support for Israel...."
These are not principles for governing; they are barely even "issues" per se. They are reactions to current political environmental expediencies, and cannot provide any vision for a future, conservative or otherwise.
As for the quote from Jonah Goldberg, it gets to the crux of the current trouble with the conservative movement: they have confused "duty" and loyalty to a person with duty or loyalty to a vision of governing.
That said, if conservatives cannot clarify their vision, but continue to gerrymander the political landscape, we will have only fragmentation and division ahead for the country.
These are not principles for governing; they are barely even "issues" per se. They are reactions to current political environmental expediencies, and cannot provide any vision for a future, conservative or otherwise.
As for the quote from Jonah Goldberg, it gets to the crux of the current trouble with the conservative movement: they have confused "duty" and loyalty to a person with duty or loyalty to a vision of governing.
That said, if conservatives cannot clarify their vision, but continue to gerrymander the political landscape, we will have only fragmentation and division ahead for the country.
7
The problem with seeking philosophical direction from a supposed compass of conservative value is larger than deviation caused by local distractions like Trump, however repulsive he may be. The problem is that there is no conservative iron deposit up north. The responsibility of philosophers and policy makers does not begin and end with following some immutable pull.
The word "conservative" has not lost its universal meaning; it never had one. William Buckley was himself magnetic enough to pull the needle. Much more so was Ronald Reagan. Both serve as examples of the way that personality pervades politics. But their ideas are in turn reflections of their times, not geological iron.
Self-described conservatives are always and everywhere engaged in trying to mold the label to their particular political times and motives. This by itself would not be a problem if they didn't insist upon assuming they hold moral high ground because of some grand connection to an unshakable past. All one need do is recall Buckley's opposition to civil rights or Reagan's refusal to recognize aids or even the overt racism of conservative founding fathers to observe that there can be no permanent righteousness based upon the past.
The word "conservative" has not lost its universal meaning; it never had one. William Buckley was himself magnetic enough to pull the needle. Much more so was Ronald Reagan. Both serve as examples of the way that personality pervades politics. But their ideas are in turn reflections of their times, not geological iron.
Self-described conservatives are always and everywhere engaged in trying to mold the label to their particular political times and motives. This by itself would not be a problem if they didn't insist upon assuming they hold moral high ground because of some grand connection to an unshakable past. All one need do is recall Buckley's opposition to civil rights or Reagan's refusal to recognize aids or even the overt racism of conservative founding fathers to observe that there can be no permanent righteousness based upon the past.
5
Conservatives have found their path. I hope they stay on it - all the way out of town. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. It won't take long to replace the last six decades of misplaced ideology. At this point, just about any change will be an improvement. Fortunately, our political landscape is large enough to have a buffering effect on even the most hideous apparitions. I know that is but little consolation for those who have been injured or even killed by disenfranchising policy. I sincerely hope that when we do clean house, most people will, like me, not forget the injustices that have been perpetrated on the weak. I hope that people will realize that the good things about this fractured Nation should not go to the credit of conservative action. Most of our bounty comes from abundant resources and the work of the generations leading up to the one that is currently exiting the stage. Out technological advances, toys, good luck, and isolated international status have helped to mask what has been going on.
4
I am not a conservative but having grown up in Bergen County NJ, I knew A LOT of them. The conservative ideal would seem to be best encapsulated in the maxim, "Those that govern least, govern best."
That maxim has unfortunately been used to establish personal liberty over egalitarianism. And personal liberty was equated with economic liberty. Debasing the concept altogether and turning our tax rates into a tool for building wealth for a few rather than a better society for all.
Ronald Reagan, the prototypical conservative president was nothing close to conservative (though he played one TV). Any President who triples the national debt from $1T to $3T cannot hope to be considered a conservative. His administration was 8 years of stimulus spending and giving the Already Have's ever larger pieces of the national economic pie. The downfall of the middle class was accelerated during his term.
If you look closely at the graph of the U.S. poverty rate on page 12 of the Census Dept's report on income and poverty (p60-256.pdf) you will see how shamefully the nation has traded eliminating poverty for creating a few more Rich. All of it made worse when you super-impose the growth in per capita GDP from $3,000 to $56,000 over the 60 years shown in the graph. There are three key inflection points, 1966, 1969 and 1974. During that span, the poverty rate is turned from negative to POSITIVE! How does such a rich nation do that? Can anyone explain?
That maxim has unfortunately been used to establish personal liberty over egalitarianism. And personal liberty was equated with economic liberty. Debasing the concept altogether and turning our tax rates into a tool for building wealth for a few rather than a better society for all.
Ronald Reagan, the prototypical conservative president was nothing close to conservative (though he played one TV). Any President who triples the national debt from $1T to $3T cannot hope to be considered a conservative. His administration was 8 years of stimulus spending and giving the Already Have's ever larger pieces of the national economic pie. The downfall of the middle class was accelerated during his term.
If you look closely at the graph of the U.S. poverty rate on page 12 of the Census Dept's report on income and poverty (p60-256.pdf) you will see how shamefully the nation has traded eliminating poverty for creating a few more Rich. All of it made worse when you super-impose the growth in per capita GDP from $3,000 to $56,000 over the 60 years shown in the graph. There are three key inflection points, 1966, 1969 and 1974. During that span, the poverty rate is turned from negative to POSITIVE! How does such a rich nation do that? Can anyone explain?
5
The "Conservatives" might be able to find their way, but who cares. A more powerful new Political Party will, or already is in the process of forming. There is still hunger and homelessness, and that needs to stop. Also, the education level of USA citizens needs to improve. The USA needs to keep-up with the World, and certainly not roll-back.
4
At their cores, what should liberalism and conservatism be?
The philosophies in their ideal forms are very simple and should not be defined by specific policies.
If we could start by recognizing that change is the one inevitable thing in our world, then we could get on with both sides functioning in a constructive manner.
Liberals: People who want to make a better world and are impatient for it to happen. They push ahead sometimes without enough study and without enough regard for the good things that are already working in our society.
Conservatives: People who want to slow the rate of change for more study, with an eye to conserving the good things that are already working in our society.
Then we could reach compromises made in good faith and determine the shape of change together.
Unfortunately, conservatives currently will not accept that change is inevitable and believe it is rarely good, except for going back to the way things used to be. So here we are, screaming at and past each other.
The philosophies in their ideal forms are very simple and should not be defined by specific policies.
If we could start by recognizing that change is the one inevitable thing in our world, then we could get on with both sides functioning in a constructive manner.
Liberals: People who want to make a better world and are impatient for it to happen. They push ahead sometimes without enough study and without enough regard for the good things that are already working in our society.
Conservatives: People who want to slow the rate of change for more study, with an eye to conserving the good things that are already working in our society.
Then we could reach compromises made in good faith and determine the shape of change together.
Unfortunately, conservatives currently will not accept that change is inevitable and believe it is rarely good, except for going back to the way things used to be. So here we are, screaming at and past each other.
2
The two "philosophies" do not naturally exist of themselves. They are a political invention or racists resentful of the march of human progress taking away their hobby horse of black/white dichotomy they used to divide and conquer for votes and holding black people down to continue stealing most of what they produced. It is insidious just as the psychological manipulations necessary to keep people enslaved for 160 years and then terrorized for another 150, it relies on misconception of the meaning of the two words then conflating that misconception with ones self image.
We are all of us both and neither depending on the circumstance and the topic. Often changing positions when circumstances are different.
This false political dichotomy was created for the purpose it has been effectively been put to for 50+ years. Too bad no one cared/s that the only possible end point for chasing this false path is total destruction of the nation. Our current president is an perfect reflection of the movement and the damage it has done this nation so far. The end of total destruction is a lot closer than most realize. The Soviet Union was whole and strong for all too see until one day we woke up and it had collapsed. Now the GOP have foreign assistants helping them though they do not realize the help is intended to bring that ultimate result which they see too, faster.
We are all of us both and neither depending on the circumstance and the topic. Often changing positions when circumstances are different.
This false political dichotomy was created for the purpose it has been effectively been put to for 50+ years. Too bad no one cared/s that the only possible end point for chasing this false path is total destruction of the nation. Our current president is an perfect reflection of the movement and the damage it has done this nation so far. The end of total destruction is a lot closer than most realize. The Soviet Union was whole and strong for all too see until one day we woke up and it had collapsed. Now the GOP have foreign assistants helping them though they do not realize the help is intended to bring that ultimate result which they see too, faster.
1
The author seems to think 44% of America not paying Federal Income taxes is an accomplishment to be proud of. When almost half of the jobs in America pay less than $37k/yr, when a quarter of the jobs pay less than $25k/yr, when real incomes for Americans w/o a college degree have fallen since 1979 (the authors magnificent Reagan years), when according to the Department of Agriculture half ad all SNAP beneficiaries are working poor where is the accomplishment? All cutting taxes did was benefit the corporate 1% while pushing costs born by government or companies on to the states. States unable to bear the weight pushed it down to the W2 paying class. A classic example of corporate socialism where wealth is privatized and risk is socialized. America is poorer thanks to the disaster this author praises and that addled old felon set in motion. If a party that controls all the levers of governmental power can lose their way let's hope the get a move on it.
8
Yeah, I don't know why I read drivel like this column. People who pay no income tax are people who make so little money they are exempt from federal income tax. Most of the people are working poor, followed by the elderly, and students. I wish some of these people would, just for a minute, envision themselves living on 25K a year, but they won't because they just don't care.
Then, when Obama tries to at least give these poor people some health care and Republicans fight him tooth and nail.
This country is spiraling the drain.
Then, when Obama tries to at least give these poor people some health care and Republicans fight him tooth and nail.
This country is spiraling the drain.
1
It seems to me that the goal here is to keep conservatism alive, not to clarify the reason conservatism is alive. Communism failed (there are remnants, but they are impure and dying), and I celebrate that because communism was despotic. There really is only one reason for conservatism now, and that is the "conserve" part. Conserve my wealth. Conserve my power. Conserve my privilege.
5
It seems to me that the conservative agenda is clear:
1. Protect and preserve the wealth of the ultra wealthy at the expense of middle class and the poor.
2. Restrict people's reproductive rights and sexual expression.
3. Support the continued dominance of industry and commerce over environmental concerns.
4. Scapegoat immigrants for any problems in the system to distract from the above.
5. Slow down the inevitable path towards racial justice.
6. Diminish checks and balances by attacking the media, gerrymandering, and legislative brinksmanship fueled by massive amounts of corporate cash.
And while they're at it:
6. Fail to develop coping strategies for a very different world marked by technological, demographic and cultural change.
1. Protect and preserve the wealth of the ultra wealthy at the expense of middle class and the poor.
2. Restrict people's reproductive rights and sexual expression.
3. Support the continued dominance of industry and commerce over environmental concerns.
4. Scapegoat immigrants for any problems in the system to distract from the above.
5. Slow down the inevitable path towards racial justice.
6. Diminish checks and balances by attacking the media, gerrymandering, and legislative brinksmanship fueled by massive amounts of corporate cash.
And while they're at it:
6. Fail to develop coping strategies for a very different world marked by technological, demographic and cultural change.
27
Great, you elite institutional academics can debate all you want about whose ideological position is the purest expression of conservative thought. For the rest of us, the American people, we're looking forward to solutions that will deliver a better country to our children. Some of those practical solutions can be delivered by the private sector, some not, but ideology alone does not produce anything but more debate.
We want our children to have clean air and water. Universal health care. Quality public education through college. Modern roads, bridges, airports and mass transit. A strong, growing middle class. 21st-century technology and jobs. And a government that works hard on our behalf, not that of the wealthiest donors or corporations and their lobbyists.
For now, the US is the wealthiest country on earth and if anyone can do all of these things, we can. If we continue to look backward instead of forward, the Chinese or someone else will take advantage of our weakness and pass us by.
We want our children to have clean air and water. Universal health care. Quality public education through college. Modern roads, bridges, airports and mass transit. A strong, growing middle class. 21st-century technology and jobs. And a government that works hard on our behalf, not that of the wealthiest donors or corporations and their lobbyists.
For now, the US is the wealthiest country on earth and if anyone can do all of these things, we can. If we continue to look backward instead of forward, the Chinese or someone else will take advantage of our weakness and pass us by.
20
In your list of 'wants' you forgot lower taxes.
1
I don't believe our most urgent problem is that taxes are too high. I'm much more concerned about widening income disparity and slow or no wage growth, a fast-evolving global economy making us less competitive, and a declining infrastructure. The 'Great Recession' left us drained of resources and now we need a 'Great Reset' to get all of us back on track.
1
I thought of myself as conservative in my young days, but I was actually following the example of my elders. My views changed over time to incorporate liberalism in my thinking. The truth is, I don't know what conservatism (politically speaking) is any more. One thing that it is not is a cautionary influence to proceed with care.
This is possibly a reflection of our culture of instant gratification. Immediate results are desired without taking the time to think things through. Republicans want to repeal ACA so badly that no one considered what comes next. There is no sign of a conservative appeal to proceed with caution lest we make things worse.
Conservatism has been hijacked by its radical components. There is nothing conservative in the behavior of the Right Wing these days. They want the Volvo Driving, Latte Swilling Liberals to leave the country right now. Small Government Conservatives have allied with Corporate Conservatives and Anti-Tax Conservatives to "drown government in a bathtub" in order to insure that there will never be any force strong enough to prevent them from doing whatever they want, even if they cause real harm. Religious Conservatives are only saying, "Let God do it," while they try to establish a theocracy that will achieve its ends only through spiritual tyranny.
Under the current circumstances, I will not identify as conservative or liberal. American will suffice.
This is possibly a reflection of our culture of instant gratification. Immediate results are desired without taking the time to think things through. Republicans want to repeal ACA so badly that no one considered what comes next. There is no sign of a conservative appeal to proceed with caution lest we make things worse.
Conservatism has been hijacked by its radical components. There is nothing conservative in the behavior of the Right Wing these days. They want the Volvo Driving, Latte Swilling Liberals to leave the country right now. Small Government Conservatives have allied with Corporate Conservatives and Anti-Tax Conservatives to "drown government in a bathtub" in order to insure that there will never be any force strong enough to prevent them from doing whatever they want, even if they cause real harm. Religious Conservatives are only saying, "Let God do it," while they try to establish a theocracy that will achieve its ends only through spiritual tyranny.
Under the current circumstances, I will not identify as conservative or liberal. American will suffice.
18
Raising the minimum wage (should be $20 per hour according to increases in productivity since Reagan) bypasses any handling by the Federal or state governments, and sends money DIRECTLY into LOCAL communities. Not to China via the rich.
It is the very BEST way to support the economy and thwart Republicans.
It is the very BEST way to support the economy and thwart Republicans.
4
Traditional conservatives in the U.S. were also supporters of liberal democracy, they often opposed right wing groups like the Southern Planters whose need to sustain slavery ultimately placed them against a strong national government which conservatives supported. The Republican Party is not all right wingers but it needs the right wingers with highly authoritarian preferences to stay in power so it dances to their tune. Now the Republican President is not a conservative but a right wing autocrat, the embodiment of what the right wingers in the Republican Party have been steering that Party towards for decades. To extract themselves from the right wing reactionaries could lose the Republicans their political power and so Trump is the future for the Republican Party.
5
Those 'needy interest groups' are American citizens, particularly the historically disenfranchised and underserved, who put their leaders into power to guide the country and better their lives. Your dismissal of them as people worthy of attention from their elected officials tells us everything we need to know about 'compassionate' conservatives.
33
Then, when it comes right down to it, why would they consistently vote for those that don't really care about them?
Conservatives view the rich the way Donald Trump views Vladimir Putin.
11
Fusionism is as vague in its actionable premises as Structural Marxism. Lofty ideals whether it be for the lifting up of individualism over the social stagnation produced by over-governing or wresting control of the forces of production from the city dwellers, are always difficult to implement. Ronald Reagan was no philosophical thinker, held a very romantic notion of supply-side economics which assumed the wealthy would reinvest in their economies. This Functionalist notion, like all others in consensus theories overlooks the resulting hegemony from the elite investing in their own strict interests which gives us the new Feudalism we're experiencing under a feckless, ignorant sovereign in an orange comb-over at the present.
10
DEAR LEAVE CAPITALISM ALONE,
I can never decide whether you are doing satire, self-parody or writing honestly form that atrophied space where you used to have a heart.
Traditional Republican conservatism lost its moral compass decades ago and has since sailed into those regions mapped: "Here There Be Monsters." Is it any wonder that we are now in Trump Territory? In the region of those twin monsters Greedy Plutocracy and Shameless Kleptocracy?
Back in 1803 Reverend Thomas Malthus, a free-market fundamentalist, recommended that wise and prudent officials alleviate the conditions of the "underclass" by increasing the mortality rate. Society's wise leaders should construct crowded housing, locate rural villages near polluted sites, and discourage the development of remedies for diseases.
If you are writing honestly from that space where once your heart did dwell, why don't you go full bore Malthusian-free-market-fundamentalist and Social Darwinist on us? That would be so bracing when compared to the evasiveness of so many in today's GOP.
It is sad, so sad, to believe, as you do, that the laws of the market place are every bit as inviolable as the law of gravity. It is also unfortunate to believe that we have no parachutes, other than golden, to counter the negative consequences of those laws.
I can never decide whether you are doing satire, self-parody or writing honestly form that atrophied space where you used to have a heart.
Traditional Republican conservatism lost its moral compass decades ago and has since sailed into those regions mapped: "Here There Be Monsters." Is it any wonder that we are now in Trump Territory? In the region of those twin monsters Greedy Plutocracy and Shameless Kleptocracy?
Back in 1803 Reverend Thomas Malthus, a free-market fundamentalist, recommended that wise and prudent officials alleviate the conditions of the "underclass" by increasing the mortality rate. Society's wise leaders should construct crowded housing, locate rural villages near polluted sites, and discourage the development of remedies for diseases.
If you are writing honestly from that space where once your heart did dwell, why don't you go full bore Malthusian-free-market-fundamentalist and Social Darwinist on us? That would be so bracing when compared to the evasiveness of so many in today's GOP.
It is sad, so sad, to believe, as you do, that the laws of the market place are every bit as inviolable as the law of gravity. It is also unfortunate to believe that we have no parachutes, other than golden, to counter the negative consequences of those laws.
10
The liberal mantra that everyone is owed something, even where that something is a bare existence denies the fact that while we may be equal in the eyes of the law, the fact is we each have different levels of ability. Those who have great ability, as Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Cornelius Vanderbilt, shouldn't be hampered by those within the same and certainly not by those who have no ability. Furthermore, what's the point of achieving if others may ride on your coattails? High achievers like Elon Musk have earned the lifestyle that befits his achievements. How much should he have to pay for the labor that goes into maintaining the landscaping that goes with a home that fits his stature? Why should someone who mows lawns for a living benefit from Musks success? When I started with my employer nearly forty years ago, he taught me some brutally harsh lessons. Since he had the wherewithal to start the business, he got things in life that his employees don't. This is both because he has achieved them AND because he shouldn't have to fund them for others. He does everything in his power to keep non family members from attending college. He feels, correctly, that his own money (wages) should not be used in a means (tuition) that is detrimental to his business interests (turnover).
3
He should pay the workers who allow him to maintain his lavish standard of living a generous enough wage to provide a decent playing field for their children. I have no problem with meritocracy, but why should the gardener not to have the opportunity to achieve more for himself and his family? Would Elon Musk mow his own lawn? He depends on his gardeners. Why should his gardeners be penalized for performing physical labor ? IT 's fear of loss of upward mobility and family security that Trump has used to woo his voters, by convincing them that he alone will save their jobs, homes, and healthcare, which,we see, he willnot.
If LCA is writing parody, she's a master at it.
Missing from this piece is any mention of the many things that animated social conservatives, viz., unfettered access to abortion, same-sex marriage, the secularization of society, the general coarsening of the culture. These factors united social conservatives with other elements of the conservative movement (although, in some cases, putting them at odds with libertarians).
Many of these battles have been lost. But causes like religious liberty (e.g., defending the rights of small business owners not to be required to service same-sex weddings; see Masterpiece Cakeshop) may still be enough to keep social conservatives in the fold.
jasper
Many of these battles have been lost. But causes like religious liberty (e.g., defending the rights of small business owners not to be required to service same-sex weddings; see Masterpiece Cakeshop) may still be enough to keep social conservatives in the fold.
jasper
1
Perhaps conservatives could tolerate social liberalism if they believed that their homes, churches, jobs family structure were safe.
There is another issue that plays large in the present day lack of conservative unity.
Back in the 1980's the most prominent conservative leaders, like William F. Buckley and George Will, were intelligent, highly educated, erudite, and dealt in the realm of facts. These conservative leaders were people I could respect, even if I disagreed with them at times.
Today's most prominent conservative voices are a collection of pathological liars, con artists, idiots, bigots, hate mongers, moral reprobates, and all around despicable people. Think Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity, Trump, Palin, Gingrich, etc. Why would any person with conservative values and a sense of integrity want to be associated with that pack of jackals ?
Back in the 1980's the most prominent conservative leaders, like William F. Buckley and George Will, were intelligent, highly educated, erudite, and dealt in the realm of facts. These conservative leaders were people I could respect, even if I disagreed with them at times.
Today's most prominent conservative voices are a collection of pathological liars, con artists, idiots, bigots, hate mongers, moral reprobates, and all around despicable people. Think Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity, Trump, Palin, Gingrich, etc. Why would any person with conservative values and a sense of integrity want to be associated with that pack of jackals ?
35
Yes. Trump is like a magnet. But he does not attract … he repels!
5
Seeking purpose or a vector?
2
The GOP and modern conservatism are as morally bankrupt as Marxist-Leninist thought is today. If you ever had a discussion with a former Stalinist, you can hear a similar refrain from members of the American Conservative Union. Both live in the past and both have no basis in reality. American conservatives on the other hand blindly support Israel, cut taxes on the richest of the rich, and deny healthcare to millions of Americans. They offer nothing viable in return. The GOP, and more directly American conservatives, have conumed too much of the Kool-aid without addressing the principal flaws of Reaganism of offering too much in reducing government, while delivering too little on those promises. By doing that, they open the door to the well-funded Koch machine in order to corrupt our politics, which is fine by them, since it only further degrades our system.
13
Close, but off by a hair. At least Communists,back when they existed, read books.
What does "21st Century Conservatism" policy aim for? To bring society back to the 19th Century.
10
I think you mean the 16th century?
1
This country achieved a lot in the 19th century.
American conservatism always has been an abomination. True north would take them to Antarctica, where they would find the kind of country they want -- and deserve. "Conservatism" is not the name for this movement. It should be called only "barbarism."
5
Mr. Troy makes a attempt to explain and rationalize Movement Conservatism. But he left out a few things.
The contemptuous and seditious mind set that all things Federal are inherently evil.
The deeply held belief that American is a whites only country and all citizens of color are only there to serve the Grand Old Pirates and White Supremacy.
America is the only hegemon and all should bend knee before us.
Wealth is the province of Movement Conservatism and all other Americans should just be satisfied with what little they have.
But most of all they have no moral or guiding principles other than 'win at any cost' & 'your on your own'. It's always them against all the rest of us. We are just a collection of "needy interest groups".
Sorry Mr. Troy but it would seem that most of the rest of us are not interested in the snake oil your selling.
The contemptuous and seditious mind set that all things Federal are inherently evil.
The deeply held belief that American is a whites only country and all citizens of color are only there to serve the Grand Old Pirates and White Supremacy.
America is the only hegemon and all should bend knee before us.
Wealth is the province of Movement Conservatism and all other Americans should just be satisfied with what little they have.
But most of all they have no moral or guiding principles other than 'win at any cost' & 'your on your own'. It's always them against all the rest of us. We are just a collection of "needy interest groups".
Sorry Mr. Troy but it would seem that most of the rest of us are not interested in the snake oil your selling.
10
What unites conservatives seems to be obvious to all except conservatives like Troy. What unites them is resentment of elites (as defined by Rush Limbaugh & Sean Hannity, the contemporary replacements for William F. Buckley). It is resentment of immigrants whose first language is not English. It is resentment of anything it takes more than a 5- or 6-second sound byte to explain; it resentment of anything that cannot be said in a hectoring tone with the word 'liberal' thrown in as an expletive. It is resentment of RINOs like George Will and James Comey. It is resentment of anyone who complains about anything Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and the hosts on Fox and Friends do not complain about. It is resentment, resentment, resentment. Policy has nothing to do with it.
18
It is fear of "elites" and immigrants .
The analogy is not correct.
Trump is not like a magnet pointing true North
rather Trump is more like a cow pie attracting flies.
And I am sure all of Trump's rural supporters know
what a cowpie is and what flies are.
Loud and brash spouting doctrine doesn't make you real---
that only means you have a big mouth and are dumb enough to use it.
Demagoguery and false populism are not conservatism.
And while Trump may have pure doctrine as his message
when you get down to the real world and people start losing health care
or coal doesn't come back like Trump promised or many of his
staunch supporters are lost in a pain killer induced haze that
seriously effects their judgement and remain hopeless pill junkies
then we'll see how great Trump has made America when in fact
Trump will only have made himself greater and richer.
Too bad me and millions of other honest Americans who
don't like Trump and don't support his agenda will have to put up
with dysfunction, lies, conflicts of interest and organizational chaos
along with brutish displays of military might around the world to show
"how strong America is" and how much of a "Great Leader" Trump is.
America becomes more and more like Russia and North Korea every day.
No wonder Trump admires Putin. Putin is Trump's role model.
America ruled by a tin pot junior league despot and aspiring strongman.
Trump is not a true conservative---Trump is a far right fanatic and future dictator. A big mouth with an empty head and bad orange hair.
Trump is not like a magnet pointing true North
rather Trump is more like a cow pie attracting flies.
And I am sure all of Trump's rural supporters know
what a cowpie is and what flies are.
Loud and brash spouting doctrine doesn't make you real---
that only means you have a big mouth and are dumb enough to use it.
Demagoguery and false populism are not conservatism.
And while Trump may have pure doctrine as his message
when you get down to the real world and people start losing health care
or coal doesn't come back like Trump promised or many of his
staunch supporters are lost in a pain killer induced haze that
seriously effects their judgement and remain hopeless pill junkies
then we'll see how great Trump has made America when in fact
Trump will only have made himself greater and richer.
Too bad me and millions of other honest Americans who
don't like Trump and don't support his agenda will have to put up
with dysfunction, lies, conflicts of interest and organizational chaos
along with brutish displays of military might around the world to show
"how strong America is" and how much of a "Great Leader" Trump is.
America becomes more and more like Russia and North Korea every day.
No wonder Trump admires Putin. Putin is Trump's role model.
America ruled by a tin pot junior league despot and aspiring strongman.
Trump is not a true conservative---Trump is a far right fanatic and future dictator. A big mouth with an empty head and bad orange hair.
15
"Another problem is that these issues unify mainly in opposition to forces conservatives dislike: liberal journalists, judicial activists and Israel bashers."
No wonder these people need to 'refocus on why they need a GOP', they don't live in the real world, but in a cave of victimhood.
No wonder these people need to 'refocus on why they need a GOP', they don't live in the real world, but in a cave of victimhood.
4
William F. Buckley, Jr., in his mission statement in the first issue of “National Review (1955), clearly stated that his mandate was to stand “athwart history, yelling Stop.”
“We conservatives know this old quip so well that we rarely stop to take it seriously. And we know, too, that simply stopping the Left was never the sum of Buckley’s ambitions, and could never be enough for us. But although it was not all that modern conservatism was born to do, defying the notion that the arc of history bends left has always been an important part of our mission on the right, and it matters today as much as ever.”
Yuval Levin, “National Review”, November 3, 2015
“We conservatives know this old quip so well that we rarely stop to take it seriously. And we know, too, that simply stopping the Left was never the sum of Buckley’s ambitions, and could never be enough for us. But although it was not all that modern conservatism was born to do, defying the notion that the arc of history bends left has always been an important part of our mission on the right, and it matters today as much as ever.”
Yuval Levin, “National Review”, November 3, 2015
The conservative movement has brought us a Republican Party that is easily the most backward looking and reactionary in the democratic world, an alt-right media machine that is well into the process of tearing our country apart and, last but by no means least, Donald Trump, easily the most unqualified and ignorant man to ever occupy the White House not to mention a reprehensible human being. In 6 seemingly interminable months our country stands greatly diminished in the eyes of the world as well as our own - at least those of us who still have a functioning brain.
This is where the path of American conservatism has led us. And, unfortunately, it's not done yet.
This is where the path of American conservatism has led us. And, unfortunately, it's not done yet.
11
The lionization of conservatives past paints a false picture of an era of conservative intellectual and ethical integrity. Buckley deserves credit for pushing out the violent and conspiratorial fringes, but racism was baked in deep, in crime policy, voting rights, and countless other areas. When LBJ muscled civil rights legislation through, the outraged Dixiecrats were welcomed into the conservative Republican fold. Moving to the 80’s, Reagan’s openly racist “welfare queen” trope was a smash hit with conservatives, as was his “supply-side economics” and Laffer curve, just like GW Bush’s “By far the vast majority of my tax cuts will go to the bottom end of the spectrum” and now Trump’s “We’re the most highly taxed nation in the world” and “this American carnage.” The lack of intellectual integrity, dismissal of experts as “elitist,” bigotry toward blacks, gays, Muslims, and others (often couched in religious terms), and obsequious service to the wealthy have hardly changed over the years.
Lionization inevitably elevates to sacred status the most extreme actions and rhetoric of our false idols. Reagan is celebrated for massive tax cuts and “Government is the problem.” No conservative today dares emulate his more moderate actions, such as his repeated tax increases when he saw that supply-side wasn’t working and the deficit was ballooning or his considerable expansion of government. Instead, emulating his extremes, the extreme is now central and the fringe is back in the fold.
Lionization inevitably elevates to sacred status the most extreme actions and rhetoric of our false idols. Reagan is celebrated for massive tax cuts and “Government is the problem.” No conservative today dares emulate his more moderate actions, such as his repeated tax increases when he saw that supply-side wasn’t working and the deficit was ballooning or his considerable expansion of government. Instead, emulating his extremes, the extreme is now central and the fringe is back in the fold.
96
Unity for conservatives was a triumph of marketing over substance.
The reality is that Republican policy proposals -- tax cuts for the rich, suffering for the poor and middle class -- are remarkably unpopular.
Once voters see what's actually on offer, the run the other way. Exhibit A is the polling on ObamaCare. Republican voters hate the law, but love all of its important pieces.
The reality is that Republican policy proposals -- tax cuts for the rich, suffering for the poor and middle class -- are remarkably unpopular.
Once voters see what's actually on offer, the run the other way. Exhibit A is the polling on ObamaCare. Republican voters hate the law, but love all of its important pieces.
8
Mischaracterizing conservative principles to be pro-rich and anti-poor hasn't fooled anyone and is ineffective given that Democrats have lost both houses of Congress, the Presidency and the majority of the State governorships.
1
Which is a condemnation of the political structure itself more than anything.
As a life long independent that has never missed a vote, although in the past 20 years mostly voted Democrats. I am now at a crossroads where I feel I can never vote for a Republican again. In my view the Republican Party has unabashedly become the party of big money and anti-labor. They stand for three things. Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans irregardless of what or who it would hurt. Manipulating and suppressing the vote of the most vulnerable Americans citizens , basically win by cheating. And most frightening, blatantly wanting to turn America into a Christian theocracy. In every instance I disagree. I no longer can understand a working-class person willingly voting against their own best political and economic interests.
22
The definition of conservative has changed over time. Conservatives, until the 1960s, were the party of slow change. No more. Today, conservatives, no longer traditionalists, fight the Supreme Court to limit abortion, limit the ability of Blacks to vote, anything to take America back to its White beginnings. They believe the Constitution is an exclusionary law. They deny the American history is, in actuality, a series of events that has made it the most inclusionary country in the world. William Buckley, an exclusionist if ever there was one, fought the notion that America had a big tent the let everyone participate. Mitch McConnell and President Trump just do not understand that the long, slow wave of inclusionism is still there, eventually to drive them out of office.
5
The GOP must take responsibility for foisting Trump on the US and the world. If Mr. Troy isn't nervous about that, he's not paying attention.
7
"Conservatives" have just about destroyed this country. Yet the media they incessantly whine about continues to give their hare brained notions better than equal treatment, simply because conservatives have been so effective at pushing the myth of "liberal media bias." This myth persists despite the fact that conservatives have at their backs an entire media empire in Fox News and right wing radio.
10
If this kind of self-congratulation and muddled thinking is showing the true north to conservatives, we liberals should be elated. "Traditionalism" in the form of celebrating western civilization is just code for white nationalism and racism/Islamophobia. It is utterly incompatible with the individualism and implied egalitarian stance of libertarians, properly understood. Let those trying to fuse these continue to wander in their confusion.
2
Conservatives know exactly who they are. And they have a respectable calling.
What they need to find is not their way, but how the GOP became so completely divorced from them. Conservatives not only lost their party , they lost all ability to make their voices heard by any large part of the population.
The GOP has become, not a conservative voice, but a mindless vindictive creature of a few very peculiar billionaires. Can conservatives do anything about that? It is a problem even greater than the Dems trying to shake off corporate shackles.
What they need to find is not their way, but how the GOP became so completely divorced from them. Conservatives not only lost their party , they lost all ability to make their voices heard by any large part of the population.
The GOP has become, not a conservative voice, but a mindless vindictive creature of a few very peculiar billionaires. Can conservatives do anything about that? It is a problem even greater than the Dems trying to shake off corporate shackles.
2
It's extremely difficult to articulate conservative goals if one is sub-literate. Bill Buckley would whirl in his grave at the thin-skinned, vindictive, and grossly inarticulate President Trump.
Like many. I desperately want the nation to find its misplaced sanity of fiscal conservatism, smaller government, and world respect. I'd like to see proposals based on common sense and common decency.
I suspect middle of the roaders are hybrids: fiscal conservative social liberalism. Both Reps and Dems are screaming at us!
Like many. I desperately want the nation to find its misplaced sanity of fiscal conservatism, smaller government, and world respect. I'd like to see proposals based on common sense and common decency.
I suspect middle of the roaders are hybrids: fiscal conservative social liberalism. Both Reps and Dems are screaming at us!
3
The word is "illiterate" not sub-literate.
What is conservative about political Conservatives (it is really brand name, not a descriptor or classifier) is a longing for feudalism updated. Corporate lords and corporations replacing land lords and principalities. Together with the myths of (a) divine right--perhaps updated to natural right--depending on the god-story market--and (b) government as the devil--the least is best.
Otherwise, the brand pushes whatever sells and keeps the electorate preoccupied and brainwashed.
1. Big government is evil, but huge corporations are a blessing (like Enron).
2. Freedom is not free-from foreign government, but free-from government itself
3. Thus without protection from those big corporations--controlling polities--as in Banana Republics.
4. Religious freedom is the right to impose your religion on others--even controlling women's reproductive health.
5. "Right to life" means the duty to gestate, regardless of the quality of life of mother or child.
6. Fair property tax and labor law is in effect feudalism.
And so on. These dogmas must be confronted head on--otherwise the its the Dark Ages--just around the corner.
Otherwise, the brand pushes whatever sells and keeps the electorate preoccupied and brainwashed.
1. Big government is evil, but huge corporations are a blessing (like Enron).
2. Freedom is not free-from foreign government, but free-from government itself
3. Thus without protection from those big corporations--controlling polities--as in Banana Republics.
4. Religious freedom is the right to impose your religion on others--even controlling women's reproductive health.
5. "Right to life" means the duty to gestate, regardless of the quality of life of mother or child.
6. Fair property tax and labor law is in effect feudalism.
And so on. These dogmas must be confronted head on--otherwise the its the Dark Ages--just around the corner.
4
No, conservatives cannot find their way. Mr. Troy holds up Reagan as a hero, which is proof enough that conservatism is a dogmatic myth. It is abundantly clear that "trickle down" economic policy was, and continues to be, a sham. Yet conservative think tanks continue to brainwash people with their intellectual game of smoke and mirrors, seeking to enrich themselves at the expense of others. The photo accompanying this op-ed is very powerful, revealing the evil intent in William F. Buckley's eyes.
2
Since conservatism has become less and less intellectual, and more and more ideological, it won't survive in its current iteration. I think Crabby Appleton Mitch McConnell is finding this out, right now, along with the working class Republicans who have been injured most by their beloved party.
2
oh, I see the problem. You are confusing conservatives with Republicans.
Conservatives pay the bills. They maintain the property, pay the help and compromise with liberals to make incremental policy changes in case they need to go back. And they adhere to traditional economic and foreign policy alliances.
Republicans are all about winning election and cutting taxes for the donor class. They view politics as territorial conquest and compromise as weakness. They have no demonstrated propensity for governance. And they tolerate the insufferable for partisan advantage.
We benefit from liberal-conservative cooperation, but Republicans only obstruct.
Conservatives pay the bills. They maintain the property, pay the help and compromise with liberals to make incremental policy changes in case they need to go back. And they adhere to traditional economic and foreign policy alliances.
Republicans are all about winning election and cutting taxes for the donor class. They view politics as territorial conquest and compromise as weakness. They have no demonstrated propensity for governance. And they tolerate the insufferable for partisan advantage.
We benefit from liberal-conservative cooperation, but Republicans only obstruct.
4
Compromise has gotten us FDR, LBJ and BO and their tax and spend policies that have wasted trillions, yet poverty, which is a natural feature of capitalism, still remains at about 15%.
When a writer sets out to discuss philosophy and then discusses marginal tax rates, do we need to look further for the problem in the GOP today? A political philosophy is first and foremost about how people live, not about how they spend and consume. Vin Weber may be right about the question: why do you have a GOP, but he's proven himself blind to the forces of life and of contentment (not to mention happiness).
To me, Buckley Jr. was someone very familiar from my past, a dilettante entertainer, suave and cynical. Add his influence to that of Reagan and then read Susan Jacoby's account of American Anti-Intellectualism. As for Spartacus... Reagan is good example of someone elected on perception rather than policy content: how many Reagan voters knew anything about the systemic effects of tax manipulation? No, they loved the avuncular Uncle Ronnie! Just as Trump voters love their ill-mannered, ignorant idol.
To me, Buckley Jr. was someone very familiar from my past, a dilettante entertainer, suave and cynical. Add his influence to that of Reagan and then read Susan Jacoby's account of American Anti-Intellectualism. As for Spartacus... Reagan is good example of someone elected on perception rather than policy content: how many Reagan voters knew anything about the systemic effects of tax manipulation? No, they loved the avuncular Uncle Ronnie! Just as Trump voters love their ill-mannered, ignorant idol.
2
"the Democrats’ warring coalition of needy interest groups."
Let's see. That warring coalition delivered "The New Deal", Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and a host of other programs. Serving all citizens, both Republicans and Democrats.
"conservatives need to identify a new, modern fusionism"....
The conservatives have been developing this fusionable material for years now. It all culminated in Trump!
Let's see. That warring coalition delivered "The New Deal", Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and a host of other programs. Serving all citizens, both Republicans and Democrats.
"conservatives need to identify a new, modern fusionism"....
The conservatives have been developing this fusionable material for years now. It all culminated in Trump!
3
The GOP ended with the nomination of Sarah Palin. Once the party caved to the anti-intellectual, racist demagogues in their midst it was all over. She gave voice to angry white man who has been shouting ever since. Her nomination was a cynical ploy to get the "woman" vote as if women vote for each other regardless of policies. The rest is history with a straight line to Trump.
5
What trash! Who can rationalize this baloney.
The conservative philosophy is straightforward. Reduce taxes on the wealthy. Don't do anything for anyone else, and call it "freedom to make their own decisions." Follow the money.
The conservative philosophy is straightforward. Reduce taxes on the wealthy. Don't do anything for anyone else, and call it "freedom to make their own decisions." Follow the money.
5
Follow the money is right! It's being taken under the threat of force to redistribute to favored groups. When Republicans are accused of acting in the interest of their supporters like the Koch brothers, it's a terrible abuse of democracy. Yet when Obama, Hillary or Bernie panders to the 47% with their. hands out, that's democracy in action.
This was almost unreadable. If you want to be Reagan you don't have Trump off giving our American elections to foreign powers by flipping off concerns about hacking and asking the hacker on TV if he did it. Trump trusts the KGB over our own intelligence agencies. He blabs gibberish about The West "writes symphonies" while rolling his eyes at protecting our elections.
FYI: People do not want to go broke when they get sick- that seems to be so difficult a concept for the GOP that all the king's think tanks and all the king's men hide out on the 4th of July from voters.
FYI: People do not want to go broke when they get sick- that seems to be so difficult a concept for the GOP that all the king's think tanks and all the king's men hide out on the 4th of July from voters.
3
Hmmm ... I don't see that the North Star for "conservative" elites has changed all that much. It really took off with Nixon's so-called Southern Strategy (not Reagan) and hasn't changed all that much since. Same strategy: rile up or distract people who hold *socially* conservative views on one hand while the conservative elites (rich) rob them blind with the other hand.
Reagan: Watch out for the (Commies, then Berkeley Hippies, then Welfare Queens) while my Voodoo Economics works its magic. Trump: Obsess over my National Enquirer-worthy tweets while McConnell & Ryan help the .5% rip you off. It's the same strategy pickpockets have used for centuries; bump into someone to distract them while your confederate steals his wallet.
Nixon used the distraction strategy for political gain; post-Reagan, it's been for economic gain. One can argue if Reagan was an architect of this deception or a well-meaning (in his mind) dupe of conservative elites (rich). Please remember, the conservative compass was much different in the 1950s under Eisenhower, where the country as a whole prospered (and the top tax bracket was around 90% vs. Mitt Romney's shameful 14%).
I hope the author reads and thinks about these observations - are you working for the American People or the GOP (obscenly rich)? Are you an Eisenhower Republican or a Reagan Republican?
Or is all this too distracting?
Reagan: Watch out for the (Commies, then Berkeley Hippies, then Welfare Queens) while my Voodoo Economics works its magic. Trump: Obsess over my National Enquirer-worthy tweets while McConnell & Ryan help the .5% rip you off. It's the same strategy pickpockets have used for centuries; bump into someone to distract them while your confederate steals his wallet.
Nixon used the distraction strategy for political gain; post-Reagan, it's been for economic gain. One can argue if Reagan was an architect of this deception or a well-meaning (in his mind) dupe of conservative elites (rich). Please remember, the conservative compass was much different in the 1950s under Eisenhower, where the country as a whole prospered (and the top tax bracket was around 90% vs. Mitt Romney's shameful 14%).
I hope the author reads and thinks about these observations - are you working for the American People or the GOP (obscenly rich)? Are you an Eisenhower Republican or a Reagan Republican?
Or is all this too distracting?
3
The labels conservative and liberal have been so debased that alphabet named groups all believe their "rights" are worthy and should be center stage.
Human rights should not depend on DNA, or any manufactured differences including religion. You are what you are and the diminution of others or elevation of you and yours because you want more is sad but universal. As long as merit takes a back seat to self service and ego, what they call themselves is immaterial as the names they use.
Human rights should not depend on DNA, or any manufactured differences including religion. You are what you are and the diminution of others or elevation of you and yours because you want more is sad but universal. As long as merit takes a back seat to self service and ego, what they call themselves is immaterial as the names they use.
Trump is both the zenith and nadir of the " conservative movement".
And hopefully, the poison that will finally kill the beast.
And hopefully, the poison that will finally kill the beast.
3
A compass, by definition, has a spindle. Think of it as a backbone. If the GOP had one, Trump would never have been nominated.
Conservative tax cuts and unfunded wars have starved this country of the the funds and programs needed to drive growth, maintain our infrastructure and educate our youth.
A strong middle class is what makes a civil society successful.
Conservatism has hollowed out the middle class for the benefit of a few very wealthy people that now want to take away our right to vote.
Conservatism is fraud. It is morally and ethically bankrupt and i plan to wear a red dress to its funeral.
A strong middle class is what makes a civil society successful.
Conservatism has hollowed out the middle class for the benefit of a few very wealthy people that now want to take away our right to vote.
Conservatism is fraud. It is morally and ethically bankrupt and i plan to wear a red dress to its funeral.
4
Take a good, long, hard look around you. Do it at work. Try it while commuting. Continue it at the mall, the supermarket, the gym and the oil change place. Do you ready believe that even half of your fellow citizens belong anywhere near a voting booth. I know I don't because I don't have the fiscal exposure to protect from liberals.
Nope, but they can stay in power though. Not bad at all.
1
Part of the problem I believe lies in the idea that complex problems have simple solutions and the tendency of the media and much of the public to put people in a box "If you believe A, then you must also believe B & C." I'm sorry, but people are more complex than that, and failure to adhere to someone else's agenda is not a betrayal. It may in fact indicate a lack of intellectual capacity on those who feel betrayed.
I can therefor believe in fiscal responsibility AND want a social safety net. I can want to help our friends in the world AND believe that Israel is the cause of much of their own problems. I can see that a free press is absolutely essential to a vibrant democracy AND deplore their self serving actions and hypocrisy in supporting Trump's bid for the Presidency because it was good for business and then ripping the very person they supported.
If conservatives and progressives build a wall around their world and demand a 'loyalty test' before admittance, they are setting themselves up for failure. The world and people, are more complex than that.
I can therefor believe in fiscal responsibility AND want a social safety net. I can want to help our friends in the world AND believe that Israel is the cause of much of their own problems. I can see that a free press is absolutely essential to a vibrant democracy AND deplore their self serving actions and hypocrisy in supporting Trump's bid for the Presidency because it was good for business and then ripping the very person they supported.
If conservatives and progressives build a wall around their world and demand a 'loyalty test' before admittance, they are setting themselves up for failure. The world and people, are more complex than that.
4
The mere existence of a social safety net is itself fiscally irresponsible. No one should be taxed to underwrite those who are less successful.
So you are against corporate welfare? Subsidies? No bid contracts?
More holes that cheese in this Swiss slice of conservative thinking. Missing is any talk about economic and political equality, legal and social justice, a concept of a robust society capable of adjusting to modern technologies and their effects on society and individuals, and much else. Nothing is said about race, sexism, immigration, climate change, environmental degradation--and the list goes on. Aside form naming a few countries, the author has no ideas about America's role in the world of international relations and of interconnected economies.
As a sign of astigmatic vision, "Crime remain an issue"--that is, crime as a code-word cover for racism. Violent crime disproportionately committed by the disadvantaged, white as well as minority, gets attention; crime by white collar whites like those who precipitated the criminal abuses of the Great Recession gets no attention from conservatives. On the contrary, they are busy at work trying to repeal legal protections against a repetition of their abuses.
As a sign of astigmatic vision, "Crime remain an issue"--that is, crime as a code-word cover for racism. Violent crime disproportionately committed by the disadvantaged, white as well as minority, gets attention; crime by white collar whites like those who precipitated the criminal abuses of the Great Recession gets no attention from conservatives. On the contrary, they are busy at work trying to repeal legal protections against a repetition of their abuses.
2
Hogwash. Conservatism is a disease of the old and ignorant who are afraid of the future and closed to the need for the change it demands. Conservatism is a program that gives comfort to those with power and money. And in the US in particular, conservatism is about arguing over issues that are long settled in the civilized world's nations.
4
"Regardless of where one stands on Mr. Trump." I'm sorry but that sentence renders the rest of the article worthless. I can no longer accept that any serious thinker anywhere on the ideological spectrum does not see the folly and danger in supporting Donald Trump. William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan would have ridiculed Trump (as Bret Atephens recently pointed out, Buckley did so in one of his last published articles).
Trump is a chronic, pathological liar. He has been involved in more lawsuits in his lifetime than all other presidents combined (and it's not even close). He mocks the very institutions he is charged with leading. He degrades the office of the presidency.
It is laughable that Trump gave a speech in Poland warning of threats to Western Civilization (and that this author cites it). The greatest existential threat to Western Civilization is that the nation which has served as leader of that civilization for the past 70 years is now being led by a man-child disrupter who almost daily demonstrates a disdain for the values and traditions that have held guided it.
Trump is a chronic, pathological liar. He has been involved in more lawsuits in his lifetime than all other presidents combined (and it's not even close). He mocks the very institutions he is charged with leading. He degrades the office of the presidency.
It is laughable that Trump gave a speech in Poland warning of threats to Western Civilization (and that this author cites it). The greatest existential threat to Western Civilization is that the nation which has served as leader of that civilization for the past 70 years is now being led by a man-child disrupter who almost daily demonstrates a disdain for the values and traditions that have held guided it.
6
Wow, sorry for typos, it was 6;30 on a Sunday morning.
Trump didn't pull conservatism in a direction, having none beyond his personal aggrandizement. He whipped up a personality cult, an enormous fad, to get out and deliver the angry, racist, lo-info, easily manipulated vote. That is the margin conservatives need to find an electoral majority for a political outlook that is antiquated, unpopular and based on transparent deception. The effects of gerrymandering are also huge. More people have voted D than R in the last five elections, while the Dems hemorrhaged seats. The clear majority of Americans support Planed Parenthood, gun safety, LGBTQ rights, a decent social safety net (including Obamacare or single payer), and loathe the GOP budget, and consider Trump to be incompetent and dishonest. With 9% of the House, the "Freedom" caucus blocks anything non-plutocratic or non-backward. Sounds to me like they have a little too much freedom at the expense of everyone else's. The GOP is a minority party that has created a coalition between thieving liars, ideological extremists, and angry, misinformed clods to sell a flawed and obsolete political position. The Republican Party will find its way when it stops using conservatism as a strategy for their backers to loot the citizenry, or as an indelible brand demanding fealty, and dumps the right-wing nut jobs who have gained such disproportionate power. They will lose elections, but they may find their soul, as happened to the Democrats when they came out for Civil Rights.
2
Conservatism is defined as the social tendency to celebrate the predatory instincts of the tiny minority who nearly monopolize power and privilege. it survives by distracting, demoralizing, and dividing the rest of us.
To conservatives the concept of "value" is equivalent to being "open to exploitation". This is true of land, capital, and humanity. It's also the most insidious way they divide us.
Consider their intentions towards people they cannot exploit: people who have no value (for conservatives or the business elite!). They would leave us to die in wretchedness, alone, exposed to polluted winds and the tearing teeth of starving rodents. In their puffed righteousness, they'd abandon us to the elements without the slightest semblance of moistness in their crocodile eyes.
To conservatives the concept of "value" is equivalent to being "open to exploitation". This is true of land, capital, and humanity. It's also the most insidious way they divide us.
Consider their intentions towards people they cannot exploit: people who have no value (for conservatives or the business elite!). They would leave us to die in wretchedness, alone, exposed to polluted winds and the tearing teeth of starving rodents. In their puffed righteousness, they'd abandon us to the elements without the slightest semblance of moistness in their crocodile eyes.
2
If someone can't earn their way out of such conditions, it isn't anyone else duty to prop them up.
Guess what?
Capitalism will leave you alone once you're no longer useful to it.
But, you've prepared yourself. Haven't you?
Capitalism will leave you alone once you're no longer useful to it.
But, you've prepared yourself. Haven't you?
I suspect that your "think tanks" can successfully define policy and political approaches that would shape a new conservatism. It would make conservatives happy but it would also cause the GOP to lose elections. Just take a look at how Trump won. He challenged all institutions, including Washington "think tanks". His supporters are over joyed that the establishment has been put in it's place by the "forgotten man". His supporters voted for him, not conservative principles. There is no conservative policy agenda that could bridge the gap between his supporters and true conservatives. Trade is a good example. It appears that healthcare may be another. So, if the GOP still wants to win elections and get those tax cuts, conservatives will have to suck it up again a vote for Trump and Trump like figures.
Republican "conservatism" will never become conservatism so long as it is anchored -- as it is today -- to the retrograde Old South, where only one issue reins and rejection of anything from the rest of the nation is reflexive, just as it was in my youth there 75 years ago.
1
No disrespect to Mr. Goldberg, who I actually respect, but those "conservative think tanks" are simply storage bins for a lot of dusty ideas and less-than-honorable, less-than-honest political types sucking off the wealthy donors. Proof is in the people who drift into their leadership. Free market capitalism is a principle not a prescription for healing all that ails an aging democracy in the 21st Century.
1
It's not clear that the Republicans' warring coalition of greedy interest groups is inherently better than the "Democrats' warring coalition of needy interest groups." However, the line between the needy and the greedy is clearly drawn these days.
The reformation of (both) 20th century political parties will begin when they begin to address 21st century issues. William F. Buckley? He was born nearly a hundred years ago. Irrelevant. Ronald Reagan? Born more than a hundred years ago. He does deserve a footnote for his greatest attribute - the only politician who was both conservative and likable. From Barry Goldwater to Ted Cruz the conservatives have served up one miserable guy after another. You have to really want your taxes lowered to like these guys.
Oh, the author neglected to mention lowering taxes as one of the three issues unifying conservatives. In fact it has always been the only issue unifying the conservatives. I bet they stick with that.
The reformation of (both) 20th century political parties will begin when they begin to address 21st century issues. William F. Buckley? He was born nearly a hundred years ago. Irrelevant. Ronald Reagan? Born more than a hundred years ago. He does deserve a footnote for his greatest attribute - the only politician who was both conservative and likable. From Barry Goldwater to Ted Cruz the conservatives have served up one miserable guy after another. You have to really want your taxes lowered to like these guys.
Oh, the author neglected to mention lowering taxes as one of the three issues unifying conservatives. In fact it has always been the only issue unifying the conservatives. I bet they stick with that.
2
Nonsense. Under Reagan, there was compromise. Perhaps the last great show of it. Then Gingrich and his ilk, along with Norquists dumb pledge, decided it was better to simply win. Win with abysmally poor candidates, abandoning real governing over wanting to control social norms, and attacking the rights of individuals, esp.women. From then on the GOP focused on its lethality in legislation to destroy and deconstruct, and give more to the already wealthy at the expense of the middle-lower classes. Trickle down was not just about $$, it was about everything they deemed acceptable. The GOP and their benefactors would decide what was best for the nation, and it mostly meant making the GOP a tool of legislative destruction, for the benefit of Corporate America!
Authors like this fail to notice the themes Reagan, and the GOP inserted into the nation. Unions bad! Collective bargaining of any sort, evil. Rich getting richer, and doing it unfettered by regulation - Divine Right. Attacks on anything that hinted at entitlement programs. Racism reared its ugly head in the ranks of the GOP, albeit more subtly, in their attacks on programs aimed at helping the disadvantaged. Sexism found a comfortable hand-hold. And many more.
All of which didn't help move the nation forward to a more civilized and whole nation, but divided and tried to conquer by demographic shenanigans and vile propaganda attacks on any opposition. All of which have been disastrously playing out the last two decades...
Authors like this fail to notice the themes Reagan, and the GOP inserted into the nation. Unions bad! Collective bargaining of any sort, evil. Rich getting richer, and doing it unfettered by regulation - Divine Right. Attacks on anything that hinted at entitlement programs. Racism reared its ugly head in the ranks of the GOP, albeit more subtly, in their attacks on programs aimed at helping the disadvantaged. Sexism found a comfortable hand-hold. And many more.
All of which didn't help move the nation forward to a more civilized and whole nation, but divided and tried to conquer by demographic shenanigans and vile propaganda attacks on any opposition. All of which have been disastrously playing out the last two decades...
2
This piece is only slightly less bad than the concurrent op ed by Ross Douthat.
The modern Republican Party's position on healthcare is spend less and give the wealthy a tax cut. Their position on taxation is that there should be less of it (summarized in one page of bullet points). Their view on infrastructure is that we should sell this off to investors who will take care of it. In short, they are pretty devoid of ideas.
Confronted by this the conservative commentariat is reduced to inane debates about history.
The modern Republican Party's position on healthcare is spend less and give the wealthy a tax cut. Their position on taxation is that there should be less of it (summarized in one page of bullet points). Their view on infrastructure is that we should sell this off to investors who will take care of it. In short, they are pretty devoid of ideas.
Confronted by this the conservative commentariat is reduced to inane debates about history.
3
Evangelical Christians and their infusion of dogma, distortion,and demonization, have destroyed pragmatic politics, and created gridlock in both the nation and the Republican Party. The idea that compromise was somehow evil, as opposed to the "consensus" envisioned by the Founding Fathers, was disastrous for the legislative process. Christian conservatives were apparently ignorant of the fact that the Constitution was a document of compromises and that empirical evidence, not unreasoned conservative dogma, should guide policy. They brought biblical demonization to politics by satanizing Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Finally they adopted the method of biblical hyperbole to distort facts, reject science, and attempt to impose their medieval religious beliefs on our secular society.
4
Not once does Mr. Troy allude to the diverse needs of us as citizens, or what unifying principal may unite our country. He speaks in the abstract, as if all that matters is cohesion on the Right of vote grabbing messages, no matter how hollow or misleading.
After a stunning loss to Obama, the R's got together to perform an autopsy on the GOP's still smoking failure. The ideas that were discussed edged close to those of the progressives the R's had lost to - inclusiveness, smoother edges to social issue policy, and appealing to the burgeoning Hispanic demographic.
What was the upshot of this broad discussion ? Exactly what we are seeing today in the Trump presidency.
After a stunning loss to Obama, the R's got together to perform an autopsy on the GOP's still smoking failure. The ideas that were discussed edged close to those of the progressives the R's had lost to - inclusiveness, smoother edges to social issue policy, and appealing to the burgeoning Hispanic demographic.
What was the upshot of this broad discussion ? Exactly what we are seeing today in the Trump presidency.
1
I find the notion of "conservative" extremely odd. The word seems to be the entirely wrong term for the people whose actions belie another idea.
More apt would be the term "extremists" - people like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan whose thirst for power far exceed any "conservative" ideals. In their zeal, "conservatives" have shown that is the last thing they are.
They don't stop spending money and approach it "conservatively" - that is, to "conserve" it. No, they cannot "spend" enough on the benefits of kissing the posteriors of the super rich, and they cannot "spend" enough on warfare (whether real or imagined).
It is not enough for them to monitor governmental benefits we cumulatively call the "safety net" - no, they not only have to reduce or eliminate them, but actually come out swinging, with their elected officials making claims that "people with pre-existing conditions should not have insurance" and "22 million people do not want health care, so we are giving them the 'freedom' to not have that 'benefit'".
Today's "conservatives" are no such thing; they are devoid of all "Christian" characteristics to which they self-righteously point, showing no compassion, no pity, no empathy, no love...just an obstinate, and relentless, thirst for control, with no real idea what to do with that control, except to clamp down on any who would question their sordid "beliefs".
The proper term is EXTREMIST, not "conservative".
More apt would be the term "extremists" - people like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan whose thirst for power far exceed any "conservative" ideals. In their zeal, "conservatives" have shown that is the last thing they are.
They don't stop spending money and approach it "conservatively" - that is, to "conserve" it. No, they cannot "spend" enough on the benefits of kissing the posteriors of the super rich, and they cannot "spend" enough on warfare (whether real or imagined).
It is not enough for them to monitor governmental benefits we cumulatively call the "safety net" - no, they not only have to reduce or eliminate them, but actually come out swinging, with their elected officials making claims that "people with pre-existing conditions should not have insurance" and "22 million people do not want health care, so we are giving them the 'freedom' to not have that 'benefit'".
Today's "conservatives" are no such thing; they are devoid of all "Christian" characteristics to which they self-righteously point, showing no compassion, no pity, no empathy, no love...just an obstinate, and relentless, thirst for control, with no real idea what to do with that control, except to clamp down on any who would question their sordid "beliefs".
The proper term is EXTREMIST, not "conservative".
2
Tevi Troy’s issues that unite current conservatives do no such thing. There is no clear agreement by Trump supporters that the media is biased, that Neil Gorsuch was properly appointed to the Supreme Court, that Reagan provided halcyon days, that Israel support is folly, that the Cold War against the Soviet Union should continue, that there should be some sort of “tougher stance” on crime, or that the survival of the west is the fundamental question of our time.
Currently our federal government’s one consistent objective is to lower taxes on the rich, which has nothing whatever to do with the opinions of the electorate and everything to do with the unlimited anonymous bribes to politicians created by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision of January, 2010.
Currently our federal government’s one consistent objective is to lower taxes on the rich, which has nothing whatever to do with the opinions of the electorate and everything to do with the unlimited anonymous bribes to politicians created by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision of January, 2010.
Trump may be titularly the head of the Republican party but he is not a conservative. He's a populist who has no defining philosophy other than winning.
1
What is this guy talking about? Is this a joke or is he serious? The Republicans control the Presidency, both House of Congress, the Supreme Court, the majority of state legislatures, Governorships, & important local offices. Republicans control the agenda in the House & Senate. All they need in 2018 is six seats to have a veto-proof majority in the Senate. They have gained about 1,000 seats in state legislatures in the past nine years. In 24 states, Democrats have almost no political influence at all. Republicans are now in control of a record 67 (68 percent) of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers in the nation, more than twice the number (31) in which Democrats have a majority. That’s more than at any other time in the history of the Republican Party. They also hold more total seats than they have since 1920. well over 4,100 of the 7,383. Which means they control redistricting. In the process, they have created super majorities for conservative policies in otherwise blue & purple states. They have turned a looming demographic disaster into legislative majorities so unbreakable, so impregnable, that none of the outcomes are in doubt until after the 2020 census. What's left? The Republicans are engaged in one of the biggest political routs in American history. Far from easing their foot off the accelerator, they are looking to pad their lead. What am I missing? Tevi enjoy the moment. This is as good as it will ever get for Republicans or conservatives in your lifetime.
2
Considering the devastation of the American middle class, the drastic increase in fiscal disparity, stagnation of workers wages in buying power, and the unfettered destruction of our environment extraction companies are encouraged to commit are all the creation of the Reagan philosophy put into action, let us hope we don't see any return to fusionism.
2
I grew up being a Buckley disciple. It all seemed so simple. Keep the government out of my house, fight the bad guys.
But then I really grew up. I asked myself if I believed that we were all in the same boat or not. I looked at the lives of the disenfranchised and asked myself: what if I had been born in that neighborhood? How would I know that it was even possible to lift myself up? Who would teach me?
Then as I aged, I looked at the costs of "conservative" or "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" policies. The ER as a health care delivery system? Imprisoning drug users? Deferring infrastructure maintenance over a budget problem? Educating the affluent and not the poor? The list is endless and a "simple" philosophy had collapsed before me.
So, I eschew most labels. The original meaning of the word "conservative" commands respect. The current application is revolting.
And now, "conservatives" have aligned themselves with a morally repugnant monster. Somewhere in that time from Buckley to through the 90's, conservative strategists embraced "family values" as a weapon against progressive thinkers. Well, that is over now, isn't it? The GOP is THE SWAMP of greed and discrimination encouraging hate crimes and bigotry.
But then I really grew up. I asked myself if I believed that we were all in the same boat or not. I looked at the lives of the disenfranchised and asked myself: what if I had been born in that neighborhood? How would I know that it was even possible to lift myself up? Who would teach me?
Then as I aged, I looked at the costs of "conservative" or "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" policies. The ER as a health care delivery system? Imprisoning drug users? Deferring infrastructure maintenance over a budget problem? Educating the affluent and not the poor? The list is endless and a "simple" philosophy had collapsed before me.
So, I eschew most labels. The original meaning of the word "conservative" commands respect. The current application is revolting.
And now, "conservatives" have aligned themselves with a morally repugnant monster. Somewhere in that time from Buckley to through the 90's, conservative strategists embraced "family values" as a weapon against progressive thinkers. Well, that is over now, isn't it? The GOP is THE SWAMP of greed and discrimination encouraging hate crimes and bigotry.
190
The new conservatism may already be in development by the likes of Steve Bannon and even Donald Trump. The basic scheme of market capitalism regulated by perfect supply and demand remains the elusive ideal. Getting an edge and beating the system remains as the businessman’s passion.
What has changed in the last 20 years, is the growth of intellectual property monopolies, internet computing power, and the growing wealth gap. Economists and Wall Street focus on the growing concentration of wealth in the 1% but the more significant problem relates to the 70% loss of net worth for the poorer 50% of the population. Too many young adults can no longer afford to marry and raise children. Why is it that two adults must generally work to support a middle class life style when a man with a high school education could support his family 50 years ago? It is hard to imagine that the government should have to tell a business that employees need time off to care for a new baby.
The future of the conservative movement can learn from our biblical roots. The Good Stewards who risk and profit should be rewarded while the idle rich pay a bit more for the government services (and intellectual property rights) that preserve their wealth. Taxing wealth and income inversely can give an edge to the risk takers and the workers while making sure that the timid and the renters pay a larger share. Where no fair market exists, such as perscription drugs, even conservatives may elect single payer.
What has changed in the last 20 years, is the growth of intellectual property monopolies, internet computing power, and the growing wealth gap. Economists and Wall Street focus on the growing concentration of wealth in the 1% but the more significant problem relates to the 70% loss of net worth for the poorer 50% of the population. Too many young adults can no longer afford to marry and raise children. Why is it that two adults must generally work to support a middle class life style when a man with a high school education could support his family 50 years ago? It is hard to imagine that the government should have to tell a business that employees need time off to care for a new baby.
The future of the conservative movement can learn from our biblical roots. The Good Stewards who risk and profit should be rewarded while the idle rich pay a bit more for the government services (and intellectual property rights) that preserve their wealth. Taxing wealth and income inversely can give an edge to the risk takers and the workers while making sure that the timid and the renters pay a larger share. Where no fair market exists, such as perscription drugs, even conservatives may elect single payer.
2
Troy isn't interested in conservatism finding its way. He's concerned about the Republican Party, which has at most a distant historical link to conservatism.
What is the problem the Republican Party has to face? It's easy to state the issue, but hard to solve the problems. The issue is simply that it has become obvious that the Republican Party is commanded by a few narrow minded, rigid billionaires with a fundamentalist bent. That's a problem because the ideas of these Oligarchs are unpopular, largely because they are not in the public interest.
Attempting to popularize these anti-social programs is reduced to the proven but stupid processes followed in selling snake oil and get-rich-quick schemes. So far it's been pretty successful, but healthcare seems likely to be its undoing. Thank goodness!
What is the problem the Republican Party has to face? It's easy to state the issue, but hard to solve the problems. The issue is simply that it has become obvious that the Republican Party is commanded by a few narrow minded, rigid billionaires with a fundamentalist bent. That's a problem because the ideas of these Oligarchs are unpopular, largely because they are not in the public interest.
Attempting to popularize these anti-social programs is reduced to the proven but stupid processes followed in selling snake oil and get-rich-quick schemes. So far it's been pretty successful, but healthcare seems likely to be its undoing. Thank goodness!
101
One can only hope. The GOP is colluding with Russia so they can be oligarchs too. This has become so obvious one wonders what there is to "investigate". The smoking gun is their stated agenda.
Conservatives are like the baker who said if a teaspoon of sugar is good, a pound must be better. Defending Western civilization could be a unifying political force, but support for personal freedom is useless without common sense protection from the powerful. This has always been the core dilemma between conservatism and Classic liberalism. A strong conservative party must return to traditional liberalism and, like Buckley, shun these illiberal elements in Trumpism, health care reform and the party at large.
The supposed "republican" and "conservative" parties around the world have been taken over by The International Mafia and they intend to try to take over the world and "reign" over the rest of us.
Once people understand that crime and corruption are winning around the world, and the totally negative consequences it has for 99% of the people on the planet, they will figure out a way to defeat them. Today would be a great day to admit it and get to work.
Once people understand that crime and corruption are winning around the world, and the totally negative consequences it has for 99% of the people on the planet, they will figure out a way to defeat them. Today would be a great day to admit it and get to work.
3
The broken windows theory of crime reduction has been thoroughly debunked, as crime fell equally in cities whether or not they adopted the theory. Healthy economy = reduced crime. It isn't rocket science.
4
It's not just a healthy economy that reduces crime, though that obviously helps. To a great degree it is a question of demographics. Crime goes up and down with the size of the young male cohort. That cohort was smaller for a couple of decades. It is now larger again and to make matters worse underemployment is high amongst this cohort. Sure enough, crime is now going up and it will continue to do so for at least the next decade.
1
The victory for conservatives a generation ago happened in a specific context. Part of it was the result of postwar prosperity. The baby-boomers grew up in an environment of unprecedented equality and opportunity. The urgency of prewar reformers who promoted the rights of workers and social justice diminished. The consensus on FDR's social programs lulled people into thinking there was no need to defend them.
There was also some overreach in the War on Poverty along side the guns and butter approach during the Vietnam War. The hippies and yippies disgusted a lot of people who flocked to elect Richard Nixon and then he betrayed the nation leading a lot of people to conclude that the federal government was indeed corrupt. And then there was the backlash to the Civil Rights movement and the disappointment among our black citizens that discrimination and derogation didn't disappear.
It wasn't just a defense of Western civilization and personal freedom that built a base for contemporary conservatism. It was also dog-whistling racism, sexism and xenophobia.
When the Soviet Union fell apart, there was celebration that "capitalism" won. The power of free markets became an article of faith, and not just among the most conservative.
Those think tanks made conservatism more and more rigid until ideological purity became the beacon for the Republican party. And let's not ignore the influence of big money that funded those efforts.
There was also some overreach in the War on Poverty along side the guns and butter approach during the Vietnam War. The hippies and yippies disgusted a lot of people who flocked to elect Richard Nixon and then he betrayed the nation leading a lot of people to conclude that the federal government was indeed corrupt. And then there was the backlash to the Civil Rights movement and the disappointment among our black citizens that discrimination and derogation didn't disappear.
It wasn't just a defense of Western civilization and personal freedom that built a base for contemporary conservatism. It was also dog-whistling racism, sexism and xenophobia.
When the Soviet Union fell apart, there was celebration that "capitalism" won. The power of free markets became an article of faith, and not just among the most conservative.
Those think tanks made conservatism more and more rigid until ideological purity became the beacon for the Republican party. And let's not ignore the influence of big money that funded those efforts.
4
Crazy idea: Maybe the GOP's problem is that most conservative policy ideas are demonstrably bad, harmful, and justly unpopular?
Reagan? He may have lead a united GOP, but 'trickle' down economics was a failure under Reagan and it's a sham today (since we all know it failed). GWB? Took him eight years, but he very literally drove our nation to the brink of economic collapse and destroyed our standing in the world. Trump? I think the tweets speak for themselves.
The greatest shock to me of the 2016 election, including its lead-up and its aftermath (which we are still living through), is just how bankrupt the Republican party is in every conceivable way. Here in my 'liberal bubble,' I had truly believed that most Republican politicians indeed had the best interest of the nation at heart, even if I might disagree with them on policy.
How naive! It is now clear that Republicans have literally nothing to offer America. No good policy ideas and no workable path forward on almost any subject. As far as I can tell, the most cogent aspects of the GOP vision include guns everywhere, healthcare only for the worthy (wealthy), and restrictions on women's bodies. Oh, and an endless transfer of wealth to the wealthiest.
And now, it appears that the GOP won't even defend America's sovereignty against a clear hostile foreign power. The GOP, collectively, cannot even be motivated to protect democracy itself. I can't imagine how more think tanks are going to help here. Good luck.
Reagan? He may have lead a united GOP, but 'trickle' down economics was a failure under Reagan and it's a sham today (since we all know it failed). GWB? Took him eight years, but he very literally drove our nation to the brink of economic collapse and destroyed our standing in the world. Trump? I think the tweets speak for themselves.
The greatest shock to me of the 2016 election, including its lead-up and its aftermath (which we are still living through), is just how bankrupt the Republican party is in every conceivable way. Here in my 'liberal bubble,' I had truly believed that most Republican politicians indeed had the best interest of the nation at heart, even if I might disagree with them on policy.
How naive! It is now clear that Republicans have literally nothing to offer America. No good policy ideas and no workable path forward on almost any subject. As far as I can tell, the most cogent aspects of the GOP vision include guns everywhere, healthcare only for the worthy (wealthy), and restrictions on women's bodies. Oh, and an endless transfer of wealth to the wealthiest.
And now, it appears that the GOP won't even defend America's sovereignty against a clear hostile foreign power. The GOP, collectively, cannot even be motivated to protect democracy itself. I can't imagine how more think tanks are going to help here. Good luck.
14
Troy conflates conservatism, the political philosophy, a once respectable position with almost no current visible followers, with Republicanism, which is focused on branding for the political party, and more about attracting and retaining members, whatever the means, than about having a cogent political view.
Because Troy overlooks that distinction, he elevates Reagan, a philosophical dunce but advertising genius, and Buckley, a political provocateur, heavily focused on tribalist instincts, as its most important current ideological forebears.
The once respectable political philosophy that traces back to Edmund Burke was more about preserving long-established political power systems, not because they were all that great, but because any radical re-engineering tended to be more dangerous than what it aimed to replace. This was one of the main reasons it was not only against communism, but also libertarianism. Both were viewed as radical re-engineering schemes that disrupted the reliability and stability of traditional order. Similarly, Burkean conservatism was for limiting how much outsiders mucked with local custom and culture, and so, why Burke was against English governance of both colonies in India and the U.S.
Because the word 'conservatism', as a result of Buckley and Reagan, was more about having an attractive brand name than about anything, the word is now almost meaningless, and those who call themselves conservatives no longer conserve much of anything.
Because Troy overlooks that distinction, he elevates Reagan, a philosophical dunce but advertising genius, and Buckley, a political provocateur, heavily focused on tribalist instincts, as its most important current ideological forebears.
The once respectable political philosophy that traces back to Edmund Burke was more about preserving long-established political power systems, not because they were all that great, but because any radical re-engineering tended to be more dangerous than what it aimed to replace. This was one of the main reasons it was not only against communism, but also libertarianism. Both were viewed as radical re-engineering schemes that disrupted the reliability and stability of traditional order. Similarly, Burkean conservatism was for limiting how much outsiders mucked with local custom and culture, and so, why Burke was against English governance of both colonies in India and the U.S.
Because the word 'conservatism', as a result of Buckley and Reagan, was more about having an attractive brand name than about anything, the word is now almost meaningless, and those who call themselves conservatives no longer conserve much of anything.
11
Excellent.
"...the main reasons it was not only against communism, but also libertarianism. Both were viewed as radical re-engineering schemes that disrupted the reliability and stability of traditional order."
Traditional Order - translates to select white men controlling everything, and doling out the scraps to those they deem worthy. No women need try to join that Order.
"...the main reasons it was not only against communism, but also libertarianism. Both were viewed as radical re-engineering schemes that disrupted the reliability and stability of traditional order."
Traditional Order - translates to select white men controlling everything, and doling out the scraps to those they deem worthy. No women need try to join that Order.
3
Troy raises some good points. However, the dichotomy he points out is not unique to the GOP. Since Obama's "upstairs downstairs" strategy, Dems have had a tough time reconciling the preference of the rich on environmental issues but disdain for high taxes and the poor who focus on redistribution. Republicans are dealing with something similar as the party moves down-ticket. Trump's retreat from immigration and free trade is simply the result of this pursuit of the middle class.
Beyond this, the main change for the GOP is dealing with "wins" against the Soviet threat and taxes. Sure, there's still the pariahs of Iran and N. Korea. But these simply aren't the culture-defining opponents that led to Reagan's "red menace". The decline of the neo-cons is best illustrated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 where the GOP was willing to put $600 bn in defense cuts on the table.
Instead, the GOP is trying to balance its nationalistic and libertarian strains. Rather than unifying Americans (as the threat of communism did), some aspects of the new GOP focus are inherently more contentious. In the past, the right reluctantly agreed to allow the left to increase social spending as long as the right could expand the defense budget. But now, the libertarian focus on reducing spending has ended that detente. Likewise, historic corporate desire for free immigration and trade (to reduce labor costs) has given way to the working class who wants less of both.
Beyond this, the main change for the GOP is dealing with "wins" against the Soviet threat and taxes. Sure, there's still the pariahs of Iran and N. Korea. But these simply aren't the culture-defining opponents that led to Reagan's "red menace". The decline of the neo-cons is best illustrated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 where the GOP was willing to put $600 bn in defense cuts on the table.
Instead, the GOP is trying to balance its nationalistic and libertarian strains. Rather than unifying Americans (as the threat of communism did), some aspects of the new GOP focus are inherently more contentious. In the past, the right reluctantly agreed to allow the left to increase social spending as long as the right could expand the defense budget. But now, the libertarian focus on reducing spending has ended that detente. Likewise, historic corporate desire for free immigration and trade (to reduce labor costs) has given way to the working class who wants less of both.
3
GOP also has to balance its fundamentalist Christian Libertarian wing which is very powerful in DC and Congress and has been for 70 yrs.
They're a big part of why Putin is viewed so positively withing GOP. The fundamentalists embraced Putin as a fellow social conservative post gay marriage & it's vastly under covered in media. Richard Engel's Friday special on MSNBC is the only time I think I've seen TV cover it.
They're a big part of why Putin is viewed so positively withing GOP. The fundamentalists embraced Putin as a fellow social conservative post gay marriage & it's vastly under covered in media. Richard Engel's Friday special on MSNBC is the only time I think I've seen TV cover it.
I'm a liberal but have always recognized the need for a conservative voice, if for no other reason than to keep liberals from running amuck. The Democratic party always had its "interest groups." As Will Rogers said, "I'm not in an organized political party, I'm a Democrat."
But Dems always had the interest of the US and the citizenry at heart. I think Republicans once, long ago, had these interests, but not anymore. Conservatism has it's place and it's at heart of what conservatism - the word, not the political group, party or whatever they call themselves - means. Conserving what is good about our society, including the environment, protecting our basic freedoms, respect for individual liberties, improving education, reasonable taxation, etc.
Now when these people call themselves conservatives, they mean members of a reactionary cult with no purpose other than opposing made up boogymen who someone told them to hate.
But Dems always had the interest of the US and the citizenry at heart. I think Republicans once, long ago, had these interests, but not anymore. Conservatism has it's place and it's at heart of what conservatism - the word, not the political group, party or whatever they call themselves - means. Conserving what is good about our society, including the environment, protecting our basic freedoms, respect for individual liberties, improving education, reasonable taxation, etc.
Now when these people call themselves conservatives, they mean members of a reactionary cult with no purpose other than opposing made up boogymen who someone told them to hate.
20
The historically recent flip-flop of the two parties - the Dems were once dominated by really bad white men - has left the two parties without any real governing ideology.
Then the GOP was taken over in the 80's by Gingrich and his win at any cost, and Norquist and his absurd no-tax pledge. Compounded by the GOP's perverse obsession with pleasing the Xtian Right, and its perverse obsession with abortion, and the vilification of gays, etc as social diseases themselves. All of which boils down to votes. Who can bring the most votes most often. Dems bring the votes on the national level, but not so much anymore at the State and Local levels.
Which IS according to the GOP plan. Take over at the local State levels, and the WH - won by a Dem has no wiggle room. Their WH win last year caught them by surprise too. Trump was not the guy they wanted sitting in the Oval. They wanted someone birthed and high on their historically recent ideology.
Now they have a petulant and uncontrollable teenager in the seat, and due to their general lack of actual governing for so long, they have nothing to offer. No substance.
The GOP let the Tea Party run amok dividing the party even more, and the Dems thought they'd won the social conscience vote - which would never abandon them.
Neither has a plan to move the nation forward. And the GOP is stuck with a guy with no viable plans at all, but to randomly speak off the cuff and pick fights with credible US institutions and the media.
Then the GOP was taken over in the 80's by Gingrich and his win at any cost, and Norquist and his absurd no-tax pledge. Compounded by the GOP's perverse obsession with pleasing the Xtian Right, and its perverse obsession with abortion, and the vilification of gays, etc as social diseases themselves. All of which boils down to votes. Who can bring the most votes most often. Dems bring the votes on the national level, but not so much anymore at the State and Local levels.
Which IS according to the GOP plan. Take over at the local State levels, and the WH - won by a Dem has no wiggle room. Their WH win last year caught them by surprise too. Trump was not the guy they wanted sitting in the Oval. They wanted someone birthed and high on their historically recent ideology.
Now they have a petulant and uncontrollable teenager in the seat, and due to their general lack of actual governing for so long, they have nothing to offer. No substance.
The GOP let the Tea Party run amok dividing the party even more, and the Dems thought they'd won the social conscience vote - which would never abandon them.
Neither has a plan to move the nation forward. And the GOP is stuck with a guy with no viable plans at all, but to randomly speak off the cuff and pick fights with credible US institutions and the media.
Conservatives can find their way and hopefully it will be out of governing altogether. At some point, probably long before Ronald Reagan someone convinced the conservative movement that government was bad. The United States government is bad? Really? Clearly this idea didn't involve any critical thinking about conservative policies that are perhaps bad. Like their position on healthcare, or tax cuts for those who need them the least at the expense of the majority of the middle class or the poor. Deficits should also be mentioned here since every single Republican President since Ronald Reagan has run the deficit up and that's okay until a Democrat is in office and then the deficit is suddenly of the utmost importance. The conservatives that embrace unrestrained capitalism made a deal that enriched them, not their constituents as privatizing prisons, healthcare and even military with private contractors for hire in no way strengthens democracy but instead injects for profit entities where they have no place. These conservative policies along with the alliance with religious organizations erode the very foundations in which the country was built. If conservatives had their way every social program including social security would be privatized leaving those that depend on them to rely on market based retirement provisions that enrich the wealthy and bankrupt the poor. Conservatives should find their way to the door and let people who actually care govern.
16
The reason conservatives are lost is that they believe in myths. I have been post a list of 10 such myths. Here they are again. Please read them carefully.
1. Significantly (say, no deficits for more than 4 years) paying down the federal debt has usually been good for the economy.
2. The single payer health care systems of other developed countries produce no better results at not much lower costs.
3. The very high top tax rates after WWII combined with high real (ratio of taxes actually paid to GDP) corporate taxes stifled economic growth.
4. The devastation of WWII caused the output of Europe to stay low for many (>10) years.
5. A small ratio of federal debt to GDP has always insured prosperity.
6. Inequality such as we have today (Gini about 0.50) has usually encouraged entrepreneurship thus helping the economy.
7. Our ratio of our corporate taxes actually paid to GDP is among the highest of all developed countries.
8. Since WWI, the cause of severe inflation in developed countries has usually been the printing of money.
9. As a percentage of GDP, today's federal debt service is the highest in many years.
10. Inequality such as we have today is an aberration; the history of capitalism has shown that periods like 1946 - 1973 with low inequality are the norm.
1. Significantly (say, no deficits for more than 4 years) paying down the federal debt has usually been good for the economy.
2. The single payer health care systems of other developed countries produce no better results at not much lower costs.
3. The very high top tax rates after WWII combined with high real (ratio of taxes actually paid to GDP) corporate taxes stifled economic growth.
4. The devastation of WWII caused the output of Europe to stay low for many (>10) years.
5. A small ratio of federal debt to GDP has always insured prosperity.
6. Inequality such as we have today (Gini about 0.50) has usually encouraged entrepreneurship thus helping the economy.
7. Our ratio of our corporate taxes actually paid to GDP is among the highest of all developed countries.
8. Since WWI, the cause of severe inflation in developed countries has usually been the printing of money.
9. As a percentage of GDP, today's federal debt service is the highest in many years.
10. Inequality such as we have today is an aberration; the history of capitalism has shown that periods like 1946 - 1973 with low inequality are the norm.
7
"Conservative" nostalgia for the days of Buckley and Reagan has become a constant theme in editorial pages. I simply note that none of the burning issues of the day (climate change, income inequality, globalization, cyber-warfare, and of course, Islamic radicalism) seem to be mentioned while they pine away about tax cuts, limited government, and a well defined enemy (communism). Maybe they should forget the "conservative" label and what it meant to them 40 years ago and take a fresh look at the world today, as it is.
27
Mr. Troy leaves out the two greatest accomplishments of Reagan-era conservatism: 1) making the US number one in the world in terms of incarceration rates and 2) initiating the largely successful drive to create the greatest degree of wealth disparity in this country since the Gilded Age.
43
A disparity in wealth is a natural feature of capitalism. The post war period that liberals pine over was an aberration. We should simply be grateful that it lasted as long as it did.
Piketty's book provides tons of data supporting LCA's assertion. But he thinks it should be possible to recreate the aberration by increasing the role of government which is just what happened after WWII. This could be done simply but not practicality by a world wide tax on wealth.
On the other hand, why not simply follow the policies of that period:
Return to much more progressive tax rates to encourage the Rich to leave more of their profits in their companies & their companies to pay their workers more, & to discourage the Rich from wild speculation.
Strengthen unions by requiring workers to pay for the union benefits they receive & by enforcing rules on coercion by companies against organization. Follow Germany & require union representation on the boards of large companies.
Strongly regulate speculation, e.g. require the buyer of a futures contract to take delivery, require banks to get a court order to sell its end of a mortgage contract, outlaw naked credit default swaps.
5. Stop worrying about the debt & invest in America--fix our crumbling infrastructure, build a better power grid, increase support for education at all levels, fund research, etc. If we grow the economy, the debt will fade into insignificance as in 1946 - 1973. On the other hand we can balance the budget. All 6 times we balanced the budget for more than 3 years and paid down the debt by 10% or more, we got a major depression.
On the other hand, why not simply follow the policies of that period:
Return to much more progressive tax rates to encourage the Rich to leave more of their profits in their companies & their companies to pay their workers more, & to discourage the Rich from wild speculation.
Strengthen unions by requiring workers to pay for the union benefits they receive & by enforcing rules on coercion by companies against organization. Follow Germany & require union representation on the boards of large companies.
Strongly regulate speculation, e.g. require the buyer of a futures contract to take delivery, require banks to get a court order to sell its end of a mortgage contract, outlaw naked credit default swaps.
5. Stop worrying about the debt & invest in America--fix our crumbling infrastructure, build a better power grid, increase support for education at all levels, fund research, etc. If we grow the economy, the debt will fade into insignificance as in 1946 - 1973. On the other hand we can balance the budget. All 6 times we balanced the budget for more than 3 years and paid down the debt by 10% or more, we got a major depression.
6
The "conservatives" have been fighting poor people forever. When Communism intervened (remember they began as a fight for the poor people), it became a useful foil.
When the embodiment of Communism, the Soviet Union, died, the attack on the poor continued via the destruction of unions, the killing of a minimum wage, the attacks now on Government supported health insurance (for the poor, the rich don't need it), and the coming renewed attacks on Social Security and Medicare, public education, and any other program designed to provide something for other than the wealthy. Conservatism is alive and well.
When the embodiment of Communism, the Soviet Union, died, the attack on the poor continued via the destruction of unions, the killing of a minimum wage, the attacks now on Government supported health insurance (for the poor, the rich don't need it), and the coming renewed attacks on Social Security and Medicare, public education, and any other program designed to provide something for other than the wealthy. Conservatism is alive and well.
8
The fight against poor people is simply a push back against the takers war on the makers.
To call it a "conservative success" that "44 percent of Americans pay no federal income taxes" belies twin realities.
(1) Excepting retirees who have their own problems with lack of income, most of the 44 percent are Americans struggling to make ends meet in a system the wealthy have rigged wholly in their favor. Fact: One half of all income in the US was earned by twenty percent of the population, meaning that the other half of total annual income is divided among the remaining 80%. With absurdly low wages, most of us simply can't make enough to pay federal taxes.
(2) That we don't pay taxes is certainly not due to the largesse of conservatives! They impugn our poverty as due to moral weakness or laziness despite the fact that many work multiple jobs where the hours are irregular because the employers are determined to maximize their own profits at the expense of providing workers a livable wage.
Well, actually, I guess that IS a conservative success.
(1) Excepting retirees who have their own problems with lack of income, most of the 44 percent are Americans struggling to make ends meet in a system the wealthy have rigged wholly in their favor. Fact: One half of all income in the US was earned by twenty percent of the population, meaning that the other half of total annual income is divided among the remaining 80%. With absurdly low wages, most of us simply can't make enough to pay federal taxes.
(2) That we don't pay taxes is certainly not due to the largesse of conservatives! They impugn our poverty as due to moral weakness or laziness despite the fact that many work multiple jobs where the hours are irregular because the employers are determined to maximize their own profits at the expense of providing workers a livable wage.
Well, actually, I guess that IS a conservative success.
33
Furthermore, when conservatives mention those statistics regarding taxes, they always leave out payroll taxes that everyone who gets a paycheck pays. How convenient.
14
These attempts to separate American conservatism from the Republican party are always amusing. They usually involve the elevation of Buckley as if he was ever anything other than a drummer for the mix of Republican ideologies that are present today (racism, supply side economics, climate science denial, de-regulation, neo con foreign policy, etc. etc.). If you don't believe me just read some back numbers of the NR from every decade from the 1950's to the 2000's. To cut through all this blather by Troy you have to understand that the fundamental agenda of the Republican party (low taxes for the wealthy and protecting big business at all costs) doesn't have majority support. Thus in order to find the coalition of votes to support this approach they have had to conjure up all kinds of other issues which for brevity I'll call identity politics and they have been very effective at doing this. However, every so often stresses appear in this coalition as it becomes blatantly obvious that the real Republican agenda is at odds with the interests of the voters they have been able to hoodwink. The classic case here is Obamacare. There are potentially many others (clean air, financial regulation) but they get lost to view because the impact is less immediate on the mass of Republican voters. Of course when it becomes immediate (eg. Flint or the financial crash) an instant reaction occurs which the Republican party tries to obscure by smokescreens. That's the explanation.
57
Given that capitalism isn't directly "good" for anyone except those with capital, voting shouldn't be decided based on what's good for oneself but rather what is best for the nation, like a soaring Dow. Your point of view begets things like Occupy Wall Street, Bernie Sanders and trillions spent on welfare taut hasn't made a dent in poverty (which is a natural state for a certain percentage of the population).
@Leave Capitalism Alone
Long Island NY
Actually, capitalism is good for everyone since it's the only economic system that is capable of producing at reasonable cost the mass of goods and services that modern mass societies require. However, it's not perfect and needs to be restrained because all the incentives that produce the goods that society needs also encourage fraud and corruption. As Isaiah Berlin pointe out liberty and equality are contradictions and thus a balance has to be struck. Your simplistic point of view begets the financial crashes of 1929-33 and 2007-9 when the state had to step in and rescue capitalism; fiascoes like the invasion of Iraq or the Madoff Ponzi scheme; physical disasters like Flint or the Shell oil rig explosion.
Long Island NY
Actually, capitalism is good for everyone since it's the only economic system that is capable of producing at reasonable cost the mass of goods and services that modern mass societies require. However, it's not perfect and needs to be restrained because all the incentives that produce the goods that society needs also encourage fraud and corruption. As Isaiah Berlin pointe out liberty and equality are contradictions and thus a balance has to be struck. Your simplistic point of view begets the financial crashes of 1929-33 and 2007-9 when the state had to step in and rescue capitalism; fiascoes like the invasion of Iraq or the Madoff Ponzi scheme; physical disasters like Flint or the Shell oil rig explosion.
5
Under Ronald Reagan, "conservatives" helped remove the kind of restraints on capitalism that are necessary to protect communities and preserve a sense of tradition. What we got was coast-to-coast shopping malls and the more-or-less explicit worship of money over anything that any traditional society on earth would have recognized as divine.
Here in Freiburg, Germany, there is a strong sense of community, frequent festivals that draw together people from every segment of society, and repeated celebrations of all of the bonds that hold a society together. If an item is lost on a tram, one can anticipate that it can be picked up in the transportation department's lost-and-found. If one wakes up in the middle of the night, one can walk through publicly accessible vineyards, in order to sit in a chapel and pray. Churches keep their doors open, with the full expectation that they will not be vandalized. And, no, there are not crowds of angry young Muslims wreaking havoc. Muslims here are far better integrated than one might expect on the other side of the big ocean,
What is the secret to this idyllic paradise, the dream of "conservatives" in the USA?
It's called democratic socialism. For a variety of reasons, the only viable form of conservatism in the modern world has to come from the left. As for myself, an American living now in Germany, I grew up on a small family farm in Kentucky, have always been proudly conservative, and have never voted for a Republican in my life.
Here in Freiburg, Germany, there is a strong sense of community, frequent festivals that draw together people from every segment of society, and repeated celebrations of all of the bonds that hold a society together. If an item is lost on a tram, one can anticipate that it can be picked up in the transportation department's lost-and-found. If one wakes up in the middle of the night, one can walk through publicly accessible vineyards, in order to sit in a chapel and pray. Churches keep their doors open, with the full expectation that they will not be vandalized. And, no, there are not crowds of angry young Muslims wreaking havoc. Muslims here are far better integrated than one might expect on the other side of the big ocean,
What is the secret to this idyllic paradise, the dream of "conservatives" in the USA?
It's called democratic socialism. For a variety of reasons, the only viable form of conservatism in the modern world has to come from the left. As for myself, an American living now in Germany, I grew up on a small family farm in Kentucky, have always been proudly conservative, and have never voted for a Republican in my life.
122
Joseph,
I appreciate this eloquent statement. The only thing I would question is the description of democratic socialism. I don't think it's really socialism as much as capitalism in a society that recognizes the need for some redistribution. Germany is one of the most successful--if not the most successful--capitalist countries in the world. I think Germany and other European countries show us the way forward.
I appreciate this eloquent statement. The only thing I would question is the description of democratic socialism. I don't think it's really socialism as much as capitalism in a society that recognizes the need for some redistribution. Germany is one of the most successful--if not the most successful--capitalist countries in the world. I think Germany and other European countries show us the way forward.
I think Mr. Troy analyzes the "conservative" policy successes and comes to the wrong conclusion. For example as the marginal income tax rate has declined the share of national income for the lower 80 percentile has declined.
I could handle conservative (Republican) government if they actually did what they profess to believe in, less government interference in my life and promoting free enterprise but their conservative government always wants to tell me what to believe and passes laws which protects predatory businesses and ensures profitable duopolies.
I could handle conservative (Republican) government if they actually did what they profess to believe in, less government interference in my life and promoting free enterprise but their conservative government always wants to tell me what to believe and passes laws which protects predatory businesses and ensures profitable duopolies.
39
Markets are self-regulating but personal conduct will need supervision as long as we continue to come up with things like Occupy Wall Street and millions cast votes for Sanders.
Mr Trump comes to power, over invasion by 20M people mostly from or across our southern border, and refusal to call it invasion
Conservatism starts with rule of law at our borders
=
American conservatism continues with an older vision of our country, unified, not fragmented into identity politics
=
And conservatism is love of country
=
you are free to define it otherwise
=
National Review devoted an entire issue, and en entire campaign season, to #never trump
National Review is on the ash heap of history and belongs there, or underneath it
=
conservatism means undo the Obama years and erase them down the memory hole
=
not for everyone, your mileage may vary
and many of these values are anathema
=
I also favor a much stronger Christian freedom presence in our value structure, we come out of a judeo christian English heritage, and deference in the public square to private conscience
as I say your mileage may vary
=
and we have the 1950s red menace McCarthyism, back in full force, now from the Dem side
what was old is new
viva conservatism
Conservatism starts with rule of law at our borders
=
American conservatism continues with an older vision of our country, unified, not fragmented into identity politics
=
And conservatism is love of country
=
you are free to define it otherwise
=
National Review devoted an entire issue, and en entire campaign season, to #never trump
National Review is on the ash heap of history and belongs there, or underneath it
=
conservatism means undo the Obama years and erase them down the memory hole
=
not for everyone, your mileage may vary
and many of these values are anathema
=
I also favor a much stronger Christian freedom presence in our value structure, we come out of a judeo christian English heritage, and deference in the public square to private conscience
as I say your mileage may vary
=
and we have the 1950s red menace McCarthyism, back in full force, now from the Dem side
what was old is new
viva conservatism
3
We need immigration to offset the entitlement mentality that leads to fast food workers feeling they're owed $15 when their labor might be worth as little as a buck or two.
Mr Trump comes to power, over invasion by 20M people mostly from or across our southern border, and refusal to call it invasion
It's America's history, how your forefathers got here, and proceeded to slaughter (or "Christianize") the native people.
Conservatism starts with rule of law at our borders
As crafted by the sons of those "Pilgrim-type" invaders.
=
American conservatism continues with an older vision of our country, unified, not fragmented into identity politics
As in "white makes right", for example
=
And conservatism is love of country
In the above-crafted image
=
you are free to define it otherwise
Who says?
=
National Review devoted an entire issue, and en entire campaign season, to #never trump
And Breitbart?
National Review is on the ash heap of history and belongs there, or underneath it
Ditto + Fox News
=
conservatism means undo the Obama years and erase them down the memory hole
By any means, it would appear
=
not for everyone, your mileage may vary
and many of these values are anathema
Gibberish . . .
=
I also favor a much stronger Christian freedom presence in our value structure, we come out of a judeo christian English heritage, and deference in the public square to private conscience
Religion(s) are the roots of all evil
as I say your mileage may vary
=
and we have the 1950s red menace McCarthyism, back in full force, now from the Dem side
Come up for air, quickly ...
It's America's history, how your forefathers got here, and proceeded to slaughter (or "Christianize") the native people.
Conservatism starts with rule of law at our borders
As crafted by the sons of those "Pilgrim-type" invaders.
=
American conservatism continues with an older vision of our country, unified, not fragmented into identity politics
As in "white makes right", for example
=
And conservatism is love of country
In the above-crafted image
=
you are free to define it otherwise
Who says?
=
National Review devoted an entire issue, and en entire campaign season, to #never trump
And Breitbart?
National Review is on the ash heap of history and belongs there, or underneath it
Ditto + Fox News
=
conservatism means undo the Obama years and erase them down the memory hole
By any means, it would appear
=
not for everyone, your mileage may vary
and many of these values are anathema
Gibberish . . .
=
I also favor a much stronger Christian freedom presence in our value structure, we come out of a judeo christian English heritage, and deference in the public square to private conscience
Religion(s) are the roots of all evil
as I say your mileage may vary
=
and we have the 1950s red menace McCarthyism, back in full force, now from the Dem side
Come up for air, quickly ...
1
Conservative intellectuals, please meet the healthcare debate. This is where the Trump base meets your core idea of less government. The House passed a plan approved by a small minority of the American people. Even Trump has characterized it as "mean." The Republican bill in the Senate is no better.
Americans enjoy having big government in healthcare. Medicare provides health insurance to millions; Medicaid does the same and supports granny in a nursing home. Millions of veterans and their spouses rely on the Veterans' Administration. Trump's base is not really appreciative of the remedies proposed by conservative intellectuals, His base may dislike mandates because they cannot grasp the concept that universal coverage requires universal participation which even Romney understood.
Indeed, to meet Trump's campaign pledge of more covered, at less cost, with better care, the most practical remedy would be single payer, anathema to movement conservatives. As I do not expect the film flam man in the White House to keep his promises, it is possible that his base will realize that they have been suckered by a president who is captive of that conservative movement.
Americans enjoy having big government in healthcare. Medicare provides health insurance to millions; Medicaid does the same and supports granny in a nursing home. Millions of veterans and their spouses rely on the Veterans' Administration. Trump's base is not really appreciative of the remedies proposed by conservative intellectuals, His base may dislike mandates because they cannot grasp the concept that universal coverage requires universal participation which even Romney understood.
Indeed, to meet Trump's campaign pledge of more covered, at less cost, with better care, the most practical remedy would be single payer, anathema to movement conservatives. As I do not expect the film flam man in the White House to keep his promises, it is possible that his base will realize that they have been suckered by a president who is captive of that conservative movement.
22
You're far to optimistic that Trump's base will ever admit they've been suckered by another con man. They'd rather go to their grave than finally admit Trump is a fraud.
1
Friedrich Hayek favored universal health care and a guaranteed minimum income. Republican Hayekians misrepresent him:
"There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need descend. To enter into such an insurance against extreme misfortune may well be in the interest of all; or it may be felt to be a clear moral duty of all to assist, within the organised community, those who cannot help themselves. So long as such a uniform minimum income is provided outside the market to all those who, for any reason, are unable to earn in the market an adequate maintenance, this need not lead to a restriction of freedom"
"Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance ... the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.... Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken."
"There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need descend. To enter into such an insurance against extreme misfortune may well be in the interest of all; or it may be felt to be a clear moral duty of all to assist, within the organised community, those who cannot help themselves. So long as such a uniform minimum income is provided outside the market to all those who, for any reason, are unable to earn in the market an adequate maintenance, this need not lead to a restriction of freedom"
"Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance ... the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.... Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken."
38
Thank you for the quote. I also often remind conservatives that Adam Smith would have condemned the ideological extremism that goes by the name of conservativism today. Not only did he (in the Wealth of Nations) support a myriad of laws restraining business and funding the public good, he adamantly opposed businesses being allowed to lobby or bribe politicians--2 forms of corruption that today's conservatives champion as "freedom of speech."
29
That makes no more sense in a competitive, modern economy than it does for us to prevent bears from catching salmon swimming upstream or to outlaw mountain lions from downing antelope. Capitalism is a system of survival of the fittest taut approximates nature. Those who have the aggressive nature to succeed shouldn't be hamstrung to benefit those who do not.
This article fails to ask 2 crucial questions. First, have conservative ideas lost their connection to reality? I would argue that, to a degree, they have: neo-liberalism, trickle down, etc. only go so far before they become meaningless slogans that don't add up to policy - unless your only goal is to cut taxes for the 1%. Just look at the argument in favor of Trumpcare: freedom = losing health care? It makes no sense. Second, do the policies that do emerge help or hurt society? I think we are witnessing a gigantic, immoral dismantling of safeguards and systems designed to protect all of us. You may disagree, but the question needs at least to be posed.
68
I think what has been revealed by the rise of Trump is that most conservatives have no core values beyond lower taxes and punishing poor minorities; everything else is easily dispensed with, so there is unity after all. 90% of Republican voters voted for Trump, all of which would describe themselves as conservatives of some stripe. I'm surprised at this kind of GOP elite handwringing, as Trump and his pliant Congressional majority will give conservatives all they want, although it might tank the economy and/or entail the deaths of millions. Given the author's service in the Bush Administration, such things would seem to be acceptable.
50
A quick reaction/observation regarding one of your statements : " 90% of Republican voters voted for Trump ....." upon which you base the statements that follow all odf which would describe themselves as conservatives of some stripe" upon which you then base your observations that follow. Let me assure you that a large % if not a majority of those 90% of Republicans were not voting "for Trump" as much as they were voting "against Hillary". While some may say that is a difference without a distinction, and in some ways that may be so, I would maintain when trying to define the views those who consider themselves "conservatives" it is a major and significant distinction. There is no question that there is a significant difference in the views of longtime conservative Republicans and those of the segment of Trump voters that were probably ultimately responsible for the surprising election result. Those of us who consider ourselves true traditional conservatives are of course happy we did indeed avoid electing the candidate we were voting against. And we are delighted with the significant difference that has already made by assuring that the SCOTUS will at least maintain and perhaps move even more back to its Constitutionally defined purpose of interpreting rather than making law. However, we certainly do not accept that a 90% vote in the Trump column was a vote FOR Trump as a true representative of conservative values.
3
"Regardless of where one stands on Mr. Trump, conservatives need to identify a new, modern fusionism, with both a unifying concept as well as a corresponding set of shared policy ideas tailored to our current era. This is not the work of politicians..... It is the work of conservative thinkers at magazines and think tanks, who need to debate, argue and ultimately agree or disagree on whether it is possible once again to develop a conservative vision for the future and what that vision might look like."
The article should not be called "Can Conservatives Find Their Way", but rather can "Conservative Intellectuals Find their Way"? The relationship between intellectuals of any political persuasion and politics, hands-on politics, has always been rather vague and ineffective. Intellectuals theorize and suffer; politicians talk, seek photo-ops and occasionally, for better or for worse, do. Conservative intellectuals have no place in Trumpism and the modern-day Republican party. Will they change that party? Doubtful, at least in the short run.
David Brooks has suggested the establishment of a new centrist party. Doubtful that will happen.
But as long as somebody is willing to buy the magazine at which these intellectuals write of fund the think tanks in which they think, they can continue to search for the light while politicians go about their business of career building.
The article should not be called "Can Conservatives Find Their Way", but rather can "Conservative Intellectuals Find their Way"? The relationship between intellectuals of any political persuasion and politics, hands-on politics, has always been rather vague and ineffective. Intellectuals theorize and suffer; politicians talk, seek photo-ops and occasionally, for better or for worse, do. Conservative intellectuals have no place in Trumpism and the modern-day Republican party. Will they change that party? Doubtful, at least in the short run.
David Brooks has suggested the establishment of a new centrist party. Doubtful that will happen.
But as long as somebody is willing to buy the magazine at which these intellectuals write of fund the think tanks in which they think, they can continue to search for the light while politicians go about their business of career building.
11
If other conservatives exhibit the same confusion as Mr. Troy, then any hope of restoring a measure of consistency to their outlook will remain elusive. On the issue of taxation, for example, Republicans emerged from the Reagan years fixated on the notion that rates always exceeded the optimal level. This mindless idea, wholly foreign to conservatism, led many officials to pledge never to raise taxes and contributed also to a tendency to discount the importance of the national debt, except when Democrats held power.
Conservatives had never celebrated taxes, but they defended them as necessary to prevent the greater evil of deficit spending, routinely denounced as an unfair burden on future generations. But the new doctrine that current rates, especially on businesses and wealthy Americans, always damage the economy left Republicans without a coherent defense of any level of taxation.
This absurd intellectual cul de sac fosters the widespread suspicion that conservatives have degenerated into unprincipled defenders of wealthy Americans, who buy their support by funding lucrative jobs in rightwing think tanks. If Troy wants conservatives to regain a reputation for integrity and thoughtful analysis, he needs to stop pining for the Reagan years. Republicans must drop their ridiculous hostility to science and start listening to the ideas of independent thinkers among conservatives.
Conservatives had never celebrated taxes, but they defended them as necessary to prevent the greater evil of deficit spending, routinely denounced as an unfair burden on future generations. But the new doctrine that current rates, especially on businesses and wealthy Americans, always damage the economy left Republicans without a coherent defense of any level of taxation.
This absurd intellectual cul de sac fosters the widespread suspicion that conservatives have degenerated into unprincipled defenders of wealthy Americans, who buy their support by funding lucrative jobs in rightwing think tanks. If Troy wants conservatives to regain a reputation for integrity and thoughtful analysis, he needs to stop pining for the Reagan years. Republicans must drop their ridiculous hostility to science and start listening to the ideas of independent thinkers among conservatives.
74
This article reminds me of Jim Stark (James Dean) in Rebel Without a Cause:
"If I had one day when I didn't have to be all confused and I didn't have to feel that I was ashamed of everything. If I felt that I belonged someplace. You know?"
Maybe Conservatism doesn't mean extremism in the pursuit of liberty, or ripping out laws by the roots. Maybe it doesn't mean freedom at all costs. Maybe it means slow thoughtful progress while preserving what's good from the past. Instead of redefining Conservatism, why not become conservative.
"If I had one day when I didn't have to be all confused and I didn't have to feel that I was ashamed of everything. If I felt that I belonged someplace. You know?"
Maybe Conservatism doesn't mean extremism in the pursuit of liberty, or ripping out laws by the roots. Maybe it doesn't mean freedom at all costs. Maybe it means slow thoughtful progress while preserving what's good from the past. Instead of redefining Conservatism, why not become conservative.
69
Good analogy. Now we have Donald Trump (Donald Trump) in Rebel Without a Clue.
Conservatism is, at its core, a political philosophy rooted in maturity, in knowing what human beings can achieve and what they cannot. It acknowledges what Kant knew to be the flawed and "crooked" nature of humanity. It tries to make do with that premise and avoid the worst that follows from utopian fantasies, from both the left and the right. It tries to avoid the worst by making the best of what is possible. That path is to allow human liberty to flourish whenever possible. To allow individuals to make their own choices whenever that it possible and to prohibit the government from making those choices for them, even when--and especially when--the government believes that it knows better. These days, given we live in a culture that is largely juvenile and driven by pop cultural norms, it is a political philosophy mainly unrepresented by Republicans, because they know that it is a losing proposition. Democrats, unfortunately, have accepted the juvenile position as their basis. They will offer themselves as parents, guides, and leaders for the people. They will assist, aid, and enable...So conservatism has no role in a culture such as ours which is childish and driven by instant gratification...But there is hope...Many people are beginning to see that this childish culture--and that is what mass culture is--fails to provide what it promises...When it collapses, perhaps human beings will regain their own maturity and find a way toward independence and self-reliance
7
Nostalgia for a time when conservatives were thought to be the sane adults in the room. Those days are long gone. The current for sale to the highest bidder political process has been driven by the very conservatives that bemoan the changes to our culture that mindless capitalism has wrought.
7
I agree with the premise that conservatism accepts humanity's basic deficiencies, and I also acept the premise that progressivism is more often than not naive in framing human potential. However, I would argue to supplant the author's use of maturity and juvenality with more elemental descriptors of "venality" and "aspiration".
I think often of the good Sisters and Christian Brothers who dedicated their lives to teaching me to think past the end of my nose ... and I wonder how conservatism can compete with such powerful commitments and convince me to forego aspiration and exalt venality as the only way forward.
I think often of the good Sisters and Christian Brothers who dedicated their lives to teaching me to think past the end of my nose ... and I wonder how conservatism can compete with such powerful commitments and convince me to forego aspiration and exalt venality as the only way forward.
2
Well, I divide the country into realist who value facts data, and history and fantasists who value ideology and faith. I think it is clear that today most realists are progressives and most conservatives are fantasists.
For example, conservatives has a rock solid belief in federal fiscal responsibility. By that they mean the government should spend less than it takes in and use the surplus to pay down the debt. They completely ignore the relentless historical fact that EVERY time we tried this for a while the country fell in a terrible depression. Here are the dates and figures:
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years, and paid down the debt more than 10% in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. The debt was paid down 29%. 100%, 59%, 27%, 57%, and 38% respectively. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
For example, conservatives has a rock solid belief in federal fiscal responsibility. By that they mean the government should spend less than it takes in and use the surplus to pay down the debt. They completely ignore the relentless historical fact that EVERY time we tried this for a while the country fell in a terrible depression. Here are the dates and figures:
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years, and paid down the debt more than 10% in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. The debt was paid down 29%. 100%, 59%, 27%, 57%, and 38% respectively. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
3
There is a war going on in Syria; Assad is determined to remain in power. If he stays in power what sort of country will he rule over? His population is decimated; all Syria's cities are ruined. The GOP had better start supporting the Constitution and Democracy or they will be in charge of a hollow country.
1
The election and canonization of Reagan was a reaction to the social & political upheavals & the leftist surge of the 1960's & 70's. The Republican party has been trapped in the 1960's ever since. They define themselves solely by their virulent hatred for an enemy that hasn't existed for decades. They demonize as "extremists" & "socialists" politicians like Obama and the Clintons who would have fit comfortably within the GOP just 20 years ago (or less!). They structure all their "ideas" around an opposition between "big government" and the private marketplace that doesn't even make sense under the corporate capitalism & corrupt government we have created.
When their drive to demonize the political opposition meets up with their religious devotion to an undefined "free market" we get something like their recent health care bills, exercises in idiocy that could have been avoided if they had accepted the ACA as the conservative victory that it was and tried to improve it. Instead they turned it into a political tool, and then when they got the power to change it their only thought was how to make it more ideologically pure without exposing the falseness of the ideology. One would think that it would occur to politicians, if not to voters, that a generalized hatred of one's fellow citizens--let alone a hatred of government itself--is not a qualification for successful governing.
When their drive to demonize the political opposition meets up with their religious devotion to an undefined "free market" we get something like their recent health care bills, exercises in idiocy that could have been avoided if they had accepted the ACA as the conservative victory that it was and tried to improve it. Instead they turned it into a political tool, and then when they got the power to change it their only thought was how to make it more ideologically pure without exposing the falseness of the ideology. One would think that it would occur to politicians, if not to voters, that a generalized hatred of one's fellow citizens--let alone a hatred of government itself--is not a qualification for successful governing.
243
"The Republican party has been trapped in the 1960's ever since."
You are too generous to them, by a century or so.
You are too generous to them, by a century or so.
Traditional conservatism lost its moral compass decades ago and has since sailed into those regions mapped: "Here There Be Monsters." Into Trump-Territory.
"Conservative" now chiefly describes "someone committed to free-market fundamentalism--one who uses short-term economic efficiency as the justification for all socio-economic policies irrespective of the consequences for persons." For today's "conservatives," short term capital accumulation and profits are the be all and end all of "social interactions." For such "conservatives" all "human" relations are transactional and fungible, whatever is legal is moral, and "justice" is the inevitable outcome of supposedly laissez faire "free"-market exchanges.
"Conservative freedom" is "the opportunity to expend one's time, talent and resources in any way one deems conducive to the pursuit of one's self-interest--whether one's self-interest is 'enlightened' or 'unenlightened.'" Indeed, blessed be those who pursue "unenlightened" self-interest, for they are so readily manipulated and victimized by their more astute "betters."
There was a time when conservative civic and religious institutions truly conserved--rather than obstructed and demolished--and to at least some extent provided moral curbs on the greed inherent to America's brand of "laissez faire" capitalism. Now politicized, some of these institutions and a number of their leaders are among the cheerleaders of that economic system and celebrants of its gospel of greed.
"Conservative" now chiefly describes "someone committed to free-market fundamentalism--one who uses short-term economic efficiency as the justification for all socio-economic policies irrespective of the consequences for persons." For today's "conservatives," short term capital accumulation and profits are the be all and end all of "social interactions." For such "conservatives" all "human" relations are transactional and fungible, whatever is legal is moral, and "justice" is the inevitable outcome of supposedly laissez faire "free"-market exchanges.
"Conservative freedom" is "the opportunity to expend one's time, talent and resources in any way one deems conducive to the pursuit of one's self-interest--whether one's self-interest is 'enlightened' or 'unenlightened.'" Indeed, blessed be those who pursue "unenlightened" self-interest, for they are so readily manipulated and victimized by their more astute "betters."
There was a time when conservative civic and religious institutions truly conserved--rather than obstructed and demolished--and to at least some extent provided moral curbs on the greed inherent to America's brand of "laissez faire" capitalism. Now politicized, some of these institutions and a number of their leaders are among the cheerleaders of that economic system and celebrants of its gospel of greed.
128
Jonah Goldberg asks whether it is the duty of conservatives to support Trump or to oppose him. There is only one duty when the Country's institutions are in jeopardy and election processes imperiled by a foreign adversary, and that is to the USA.
Mr. Goldberg makes the choice of pro or anti Trump sound so difficult.
The choice is not about policy but about survival of the institutions of our democracy.
There is only one decision to be made on this score.
And that decision should be easy, be it conservative or liberal.
Mr. Goldberg makes the choice of pro or anti Trump sound so difficult.
The choice is not about policy but about survival of the institutions of our democracy.
There is only one decision to be made on this score.
And that decision should be easy, be it conservative or liberal.
165
The fact that conservatives are so conflicted and torn over that decision reveals the extent of how un-patriotic they are. The orange one and them are a mirror, they are only concerned with their own well being, no one else's.
Upon the demise, in the House, of the first Republican attempt to replace the ACA, Paul Ryan claimed that these were inevitable growing pains of going from an opposition party to a governing party. That statement, lame of a defense as it is, does expose much of the GOP's pathologies. They have wasted 8 solid years operating only as a foil to President Obama.
Over five dozen attempts at repealing Obamacare, without anything like a viable alternative. Setting out on election night, 2008, to make Obama a one-term president never mind that his failure would be America's failure, too. Undermining the Iran nuclear deal without their own plan for containment. And so on.
Even an opposition party has to stand for, not simply against, a vision. And a minority party's leaders still hold power, for whose use they are responsible. What the GOP is experiencing is not part of maturation, it is the outcome of failed leadership.
Over five dozen attempts at repealing Obamacare, without anything like a viable alternative. Setting out on election night, 2008, to make Obama a one-term president never mind that his failure would be America's failure, too. Undermining the Iran nuclear deal without their own plan for containment. And so on.
Even an opposition party has to stand for, not simply against, a vision. And a minority party's leaders still hold power, for whose use they are responsible. What the GOP is experiencing is not part of maturation, it is the outcome of failed leadership.
65
When your vision is that freedom means the ability to have whatever you can afford, it's kind of predictable that there will be some problems.
1
I feel for the plight of conservative intellectuals, unwanted as they seem to be in their own tribe. The Republicans' domination of government in United States derives less from anyone's cerebral cortex than from the brain stems of the party faithful and voters. Trump, who distains political philosophy and, indeed, reason-based argument, does not represent a departure from the traditional Republican messaging as much as it does an elevation of the pure visceral elements of that messaging. The "conflict" between Republicans in Congress is less about philosophy than how far and how quickly they can cut taxes, reduce environmental protection and other regulation corporations oppose, and dimantle social insurance programs, while not risking electoral consequences. Conservative intellectuals can no more help resolve these conflicts than can Karlheinz Stochhausen resolve a dispute among heavy metal musicians about how fast to play and how high to turn up the amplifiers.
29
Conservatives won't have much opportunity to flex their muscles, a la the Reagan years, until the tax burden necessary to support the welfare state becomes too oppressive, as it did in the 1978 California tax revolt.
At the moment 55 million people receive Medicare benefits, and 73 million receive Medicaid. For all his accomplishments, Reagan failed to repeal a single New Deal or Great Society program.
It is very hard to end an entitlement once it has taken root. It will take an implosion of the 21 billion dollar debt to bring this about. But, as interest rates eventually rise, it will happen. Conservatives, like gut bacteria, are necessary for life - the life of the republic, in this case
At the moment 55 million people receive Medicare benefits, and 73 million receive Medicaid. For all his accomplishments, Reagan failed to repeal a single New Deal or Great Society program.
It is very hard to end an entitlement once it has taken root. It will take an implosion of the 21 billion dollar debt to bring this about. But, as interest rates eventually rise, it will happen. Conservatives, like gut bacteria, are necessary for life - the life of the republic, in this case
2
But the debt resulted from Reagan proving deficits don't matter.
And all the tax cuts have failed to make workers better of since Reagan's election. All the deregulation has failed to create lots more jobs because the reason for deregulation is eliminating the costly requirements to pay workers to provide safety to the public, workers, the children. All the right to work and anti-union efforts have not made workers better off because the entire point was cutting pay and benefits to 90% of workers.
The lost wages from tax cuts cutting investments in infrastructure were much bigger than the pittance the "tax cuts put in your pockets". somehow the workers saving $1 a week in gas taxes do not invest it more wisely paying workers to replace old bridges. The wage cuts to make food cheaper are bigger than the price reduction in food for the tens of millions of food workers.
TANSTAAFL
Reagan, Newt, et al promised lots of free lunches and failed to deliver. yep, they have blamed liberals, Democrats, Pelosi, Obama, but today they can't deliver better, cheaper, expanded medical services to more people as Trump took from implied free lunch health care to explicit free lunch health care.
All the replacement of pensions with tax exempt 401Ks and IRAs has failed to make all older workers millionaires as promised back in the 80s, so boomers are turning 65 in desperate need of Medicare and Social Security because they have neither pensions nor savings.
TANSTAAFL
And all the tax cuts have failed to make workers better of since Reagan's election. All the deregulation has failed to create lots more jobs because the reason for deregulation is eliminating the costly requirements to pay workers to provide safety to the public, workers, the children. All the right to work and anti-union efforts have not made workers better off because the entire point was cutting pay and benefits to 90% of workers.
The lost wages from tax cuts cutting investments in infrastructure were much bigger than the pittance the "tax cuts put in your pockets". somehow the workers saving $1 a week in gas taxes do not invest it more wisely paying workers to replace old bridges. The wage cuts to make food cheaper are bigger than the price reduction in food for the tens of millions of food workers.
TANSTAAFL
Reagan, Newt, et al promised lots of free lunches and failed to deliver. yep, they have blamed liberals, Democrats, Pelosi, Obama, but today they can't deliver better, cheaper, expanded medical services to more people as Trump took from implied free lunch health care to explicit free lunch health care.
All the replacement of pensions with tax exempt 401Ks and IRAs has failed to make all older workers millionaires as promised back in the 80s, so boomers are turning 65 in desperate need of Medicare and Social Security because they have neither pensions nor savings.
TANSTAAFL
92
Ed, do you know that $3 TRILLION of that $19.85 TRILLION debt is owed to the FED which returns the interest on it to the Treasury?
Do you realize that about 5 TRILLION of it is owed to other branches of the federal gov, so that that debt is merely an accounting fiction. (Actually the whole debt is merely an accounting fiction since we can create as much money as we want, but I won't live long enough to explain that to you.)
Ed, do you realize that a million dollars in today's economy means a lot less than a million in 1946 or 1835? If you want to impress us with how big the debt is, you have to look at the debt ratio, debt/GDP. The debt ratio outside the federal gov is about 75%.
It was 109% in 1946. 47% higher than today's.
Did that rob the next generation of their future? No, in the next 27 years have GDP growth averaged 3.8% and real median household income surged 74%. (If you want to raise the "Europe was Rubble Myth,". look at http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/pdf/F1.1.pdf which shows that the output of Europe was about the same as the US in the Great Prosperity 1946 - 1973).
Did we pay down that enormous debt? No, we had deficits for 21 years out of the 27 and INCREASED the debt in dollars 75%.
Well, what happened to that huge debt? Since we invested in America, the economy grew so much, the debt became insignificant.
PS And when the debt becomes insignificant, so does the debt service.
Do you realize that about 5 TRILLION of it is owed to other branches of the federal gov, so that that debt is merely an accounting fiction. (Actually the whole debt is merely an accounting fiction since we can create as much money as we want, but I won't live long enough to explain that to you.)
Ed, do you realize that a million dollars in today's economy means a lot less than a million in 1946 or 1835? If you want to impress us with how big the debt is, you have to look at the debt ratio, debt/GDP. The debt ratio outside the federal gov is about 75%.
It was 109% in 1946. 47% higher than today's.
Did that rob the next generation of their future? No, in the next 27 years have GDP growth averaged 3.8% and real median household income surged 74%. (If you want to raise the "Europe was Rubble Myth,". look at http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/pdf/F1.1.pdf which shows that the output of Europe was about the same as the US in the Great Prosperity 1946 - 1973).
Did we pay down that enormous debt? No, we had deficits for 21 years out of the 27 and INCREASED the debt in dollars 75%.
Well, what happened to that huge debt? Since we invested in America, the economy grew so much, the debt became insignificant.
PS And when the debt becomes insignificant, so does the debt service.
8
(1) Today's "conservatives" (i.e., Republican Party) want power; they don't care really about any particular policy. All is well, for now, at the 18th green and the 19th hole.
(2) What they do stand for, along with many of their supporters, is a world that is still dominated by this country club set, with still very tight rules of admission for certain numbers of "minorities," "women," and (very grudgingly) "liberal cousins." They have zero interest in a broader, "diverse" vision of a country and a world dedicated to "cooperation" and "win-win" agendas, clinging instead to notions of "individual competition" and "market forces" as the driving forces for human destiny. I'd also throw in "Christianity" given the religious right's embrace of Republicans (and fear of secular society).
That about wraps it up.