SlyFrog
5911
My Constitutional Law professor in law school very specifically said that the Thomas hearings were over when he said that.
Taking individual donations from whoever supports you (except maybe the truly odious like David Duke) is fine. Meeting with them in private or giving them any other special access in exchange for those donations or for other support is problematic. But even if Mayor Pete is purely on the up and up with these donations (which he is to the extent I can tell), it’s still a clear sign that his plan is the one these Big Pharma or health insurance interests prefer. If that’s the case, it makes me skeptical of his plan, though YMMV.
Corporations are made up of individuals, individuals who often leave companies. These individuals have widely divergent political views. It is mistake to say that the only or even the primary reason somebody would give a contribution is because of their view on policies that effect a company.
Imagine Tulsi Gabbard came out in favor of banning violent video games, while Senator Warren proposed legislation that was favorable to game industry, making it easier for developers to unionize, cracking down on piracy, encouraging high schools to form E-sports teams. Would you assume that the QT3er, who work professional in the industry, who gave contributions to Senator Warren just did that because of they were in the tank for “Big Gaming” Or would be be more likely that they contributed to Senator Warren because they like her policies more than Tulsi, including on gaming?
ShivaX
5914
That’s more or less what the French do and they have an amazing system by most accounts.
There’s a big difference, though, between “people who work in the industry” and the owners and C-level types in that industry. Plenty of engineers and other Silicon Valley employees are donating to Warren, but if the leadership of those companies was mostly for her you would have to look twice at why. Same is true for Mayor Pete - it isn’t immediately disqualifying, but if it’s a trend then you want to look for the smoke that’s causing the fire.
Imagine it the other way around, though. To actually have some proof based only on the donation patterns you would have to find a statistically significant trend where the industry someone works in (or owns a company in) has a strong influence when you control for other demographics. So yeah, if a lot more game developers were voting for Tulsi than would be expected, I would think it meant Tulsi was promising something that helps game developers. Again, it’s a warning sign that makes you ask “Why?”
I dunno, Tom, but it strikes me that there is a basic distinction you’re eliding here. The Republican Party claims to be the party of conservatism, while the Democratic Party makes no such claims about socialism or communism. Similarly, Republicans themselves, in large numbers, claim to be conservatives, while almost no Democrats claim to be socialists or communists.
I readily grant that there are people who call themselves conservatives yet aren’t members of, even oppose, the current incarnation of the Republican Party. But for every one of them, there are many many more who call themselves conservative and are members of, or supporters of, the current incarnation of the Republican Party. A definition of ‘conservative’ in American politics that rules out e.g. Lindsey Graham strikes me as a poor definition.
But to take this back to the original point, the term “conservative” is over-applied in these cases. Conservative values are things like limiting government, promoting traditional social structures, maximizing individual liberty and correspondingly relying on community and individual responsibility. There’s also a vein in there of respecting authority and being uncomfortable with democracy
Those values have been corrupted beyond recognition by the GOP and it’s media ecosystem, to the point where they expect individuals to act responsibly by, say, not getting pregnant, or else face the consequences, while they expect corporations to act in whatever way gets the most money the fastest. They figure that the market can sort out misbehaving corporations, but they think it’s wrong for people to boycott a corporation that promote bad things, and they think the market solution to unwanted pregnancies should be banned. They claim that’s because they don’t want people (fetuses) to die, but they are OK with that when the dying is caused by lack of health insurance. So, to sum up, since I think we all agree the GOP positions suck, when you are arguing that something won’t be supported by conservatives, you are either arguing that conservatives means Republicans or you need to actually be talking about how the thing violates conservative principles.
I can understand how Citizen’s United upholds conservative principles by allowing people to spend their money how they wish, though it also violates them by allowing individuals with money to oppress those without it - I believe they would be far less comfortable with this if all the money in politics came from progressive tech entrepreneurs, so it’s less principled and more mercenary. A small-donor matching scheme also doesn’t particularly excite them, because of that stance on money in politics. Changing the Supreme Court to be less political should be good from their point of view, though, since a politicized Supreme Court is exactly the kind of thing that disrupts traditional social structures. Same is true of an independent redistricting commission - there’s no reason for a conservative to balk at that since it preserves the intent of the Constitution against abuse and it is more in line with how things have traditionally been done (that is, most districts are mostly fair). Statehood is also something that should be fine with conservatives - having vast populations that are under our rule but not able to have a voice in government should not sit well with anyone. National popular vote vs. the EC would primarily be unpopular with conservatives because it isn’t how things have ever worked in this country.
So, while the GOP won’t support any of these policies, conservative principles are really only solidly against one of them and would really argue for most of them if you took the mercenary us vs. them mentality out of it.
KWhit
5918
I guess it depends on how you define conservatism. This seems to fit Trumpists pretty well, especially as you consider the fact that the power of the white majority is the primary traditional value and idea they are committed to.
This is a good example: there is no historic conservative principle which holds that people of wealth cannot use their wealth to their advantage in the political arena. If you think there is, then point to the real historic (or contemporary) body of conservatives who espouse that principle.
I’m willing to grant that some conservatives are worse than others, and that some of the better conservatives are appalled by what the Republican Party has become, but there is an element of No True Scotsman here which strikes me as quite silly. If virtually all of the current prominent members of the Republican Party say they are conservatives, and if prominent members of the party have said so for more than 40 years, and if all the institutions of American conservatism (e.g. Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, etc) agree with that assessment, then who am I to say they aren’t conservatives?
Not if it is politicized so as to enforce conservative values.
There is if a fair districting mechanism would deny conservatives power.
There seems to be an element of argument here that conservative principles are so fine and pure that True Conservatives would rather eschew conservatism in power than compromise on them. Does anyone actually believe this is true, that such conservatives exist in any significant numbers at all?
I think most Trumpists fall more into the ‘reactionary’ description, which I would define as: rejecting the new, embracing the old without evaluating the merits of either.
That’s true, but there are conservative principles that hold that government should not be made to advantage one group at the expense of another. I suppose you could argue that those principles always meant that the mob can’t oppress the nobility, though, rather than the other way around.
This might be true also - ultimately it isn’t very helpful to be for things that conservatives should be able to compromise with if there aren’t any conservatives. “I’m for things that Disraeli would have supported” is not really a statement about bipartisan appeal. However, I had also explicitly said that Mayor Pete isn’t trying to put forward policies that are currently bipartisan, but rather ones that promote a more functional system. That is, the policies don’t inherently repress conservatives they simply shift the balance of power back towards the middle.
I started replying before you added this, but my statement above addresses it too - the point isn’t to be bipartisan but to be fair. To change the country so neither side has an inherent advantage and so that the currently-exploited systems are corrected.
I would certainly argue that.
There is no substantial conservative constituency for that, because so-called conservatives benefit from the exploitation. Why were conservatives against the Civil Rights Act, if not because they were opposed to ending a system of exploitation of which they were the beneficiaries? And this is an example where ‘conservative’ is surely the right word, rather than ‘Republican’, because many of those conservatives in opposition were Democrats.
a) North Korea calls itself a people’s republic and a democracy. That doesn’t make them any of those things, and I trust that when you talk about North Korea, you don’t call them those things. b) The term “conservative” has a meaning beyond American politics. Why do you want to make it a meaningless term when you could instead use the words for what you’re actually talking about: Republicans/Trump supporters? c) You’re dignifying Republicans and Trump supporters by suggesting they have a meaningful political ideology, when they have no such thing. They are not conservative or liberal, socialist or capitalist, hawks or doves. They are whatever they need to be to jealously defend whatever power they can muster to enrich themselves and pander to the reprehensible people who support them. That’s not a conservative principle any more than North Korea’s authoritarianism is a people’s republic.
-Tom
It does, but there is little correlation between any European conservative parties and any American conservative party or coalition which exists now or has existed in our lifetimes. American conservatism is different than European conservatism, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any such thing as American conservatism.
Was the Republican Party never a conservative party? Or did the stop being one at some point? And when was that point?
Conservatism exists to preserve the privilege of those who have privilege. That is why it exists. ‘Small government’ means a government that doesn’t tax me or restrict my freedom. ‘Respect for tradition’ means preserving my elite status and doing nothing to diminish it. I’m not making this up, Tom.
ShivaX
5925
Not fundamentally. That’s how it’s worked out for the most part, but that isn’t the bedrock of the ideology by any means.
Also you seem to be saying “a government that doesn’t… restrict my freedom” is a bad thing.
Yes, fundamentally. And what does it matter, if that is invariably the result?
Those elipses are doing a lot of work. And a government that restricts no freedoms is, indeed, a bad thing.
You wrote that, and you’re saying I’m reducing things to absurdity?
I’m pretty sure a government that restricts no freedoms…isn’t actually a government at all.
ShivaX
5930
Sure. The question is always where to draw the line.
Conservatism would historically say: “your rights end where your fist meets my face”.
Liberalism would say: “your rights end when your words offend me”.
