No, of course not. They’re socialists who hate capitalism because that economic model requires you to work and they want everything for free.
I’m not particularly interested in a debate on the wide gap that would exist between drawn lines on the difference between the size and cost of govt from a traditional view, particularly between a post-FDR govt and its policy set that was for the most part broadly accepted by Eisenhower and Nixon to Movement Conservatism’s deep desire for an unregulated white oligarchy (aka a 2nd Gilded Age), but wind mill tilting aside we can all agree the modern Right has gone spectacularly off the rails. As I told a co-worker who picked a political argument with me several weeks ago, in the last 25 years I went from a moderate, registered Republican to a far Left Euro-socialist and yet my political beliefs have not changed much (I supported gay marriage by the early 90s, mainly because govt should not be intruding in the private decisions of individual citizens, even though I knew this put me outside the party norms at the time).
I literally had a Trumper on local media on FB tell me I was insane to suggest American law was founded in large part on the legal tradition of English common law and not the Old Testament just a week ago here in lovely SW Ohio. I asked for book and verse for where an entire legal framework was derived and of course didn’t get an answer, but instead the usual accusations of godlessness and liberal scorn for daring to suggest otherwise.
I honestly think we’re fucked as a nation. I think the House flips in 2022 and there’s a damn good chance Trump wins in 2024, and red states really crimp voting rights and go full white Christian theocracy. Hopefully I’m wrong.
I’m not sure there is any difference at all in those views on the proper size of government. Government is no smaller under movement conservatism than it was under Eisenhower Republicanism. It is no smaller under conservative government than it is under liberal government. The difference seems to be mostly in what each think government ought to be large about:
You can’t look at that chart and say that the difference between conservatism and liberalism is their views on the size of government, or even that the difference between movement conservatism and traditional conservatism is their views on the size of government. If anything, conservatism of both kinds uses size of government as a way to attack government activity they don’t like, in favor of government activity they do like.
This is why I wrote post-FDR presidencies like Eisenhower and Nixon accepted the inherited policy set, whereas Movement Conservatism wants what would look like a 2nd Gilded Age, which predates FDR/modern era governance.
Sure, but none of that has anything to do with simply thinking that there damn well should be limitations to the size, cost and intrusiveness of govt as a distinction from the other side. I’m saying that’s a poor definition of conservatism, because you can’t actually use it to reliably distinguish conservatism from anything else. Conservatives, movement conservatives and liberals all seem to think that government should be about the same size, with the same cost.
Alstein
4052
I really think we should use the term fascist rather than movement conservative, it’s more accurate.
Conservatism is about preserving the status and privileges of in-groups against the encroachments of progressive liberalism. Conservatism was against expanding the franchise to women and minorities, it was against establishing regulations to limit the exploitation of labor, it was against equitable treatment of minorities under the law, it is against progressive tax rates, it is against taxing capital or capital gains the way ordinary income is taxed. There is a pattern there! There really isn’t a better definition of it.
There’s an argument that traditional conservatism was slightly less open and rabid about it than movement conservatism, I guess, but there has been no time in my own lifetime when this is not clearly what conservatism means, and I’m 60.
I disagree, not when Modern Conservatism is the main driving philosophy of today’s conservatives, though most don’t use that label to express it but rather the typical yargle-bargle Quixote rhetoric. These people don’t want a Dept of Education, an EPA, an IRS, a USPS, etc. Modern Republicanism would love to abolish programs like SS and Medicare, they just can’t figure out how to do so without triggering a massive electoral backlash against them.
On the flip side, I met fellow students in the 80s who wanted vastly increased govt regulations on everything. A sort of EU-style approach.
I’m sure they would, but in that, they’re no different than the traditional conservatives who have opposed both those programs from the very start. I’m not saying conservatives don’t oppose some things government does. I’m saying they would use government to do other things instead. The argument about the size and cost of government is a posture they use to oppose the government things they don’t like. E.g., they don’t like giving tax money to poor people, but they’re quite happy to give tax money to rich petroleum companies or armaments manufacturers or ranchers.
I think we’re talking in circles here because you just acknowledged that cons would love to get rid of SS and Medicare and when we’re talking cost and size of govt differences here those are glaringly huge. And one would argue Medicare intrudes upon the free market’s ability to provide solutions for the elderly and their health care (I wouldn’t argue it, but Paul Ryan suggested state-based ACA-style solutions as a replacement for Medicare while House Speaker, a spectacularly stupid, hypocritical idea Bartlett was mocking on Twitter at some length).
I don’t think this ‘acknowledgement’ ought to come as a surprise to you. I don’t think I was hiding it. My point remains that this:
…is not any sort of meaningful definition of conservatism, because it hides the very nature of the ‘limitations’ conservatism would impose, and it ignores that you can make the same bland meaningless statement with equal accuracy for just about any ‘ism’.
‘Conservatives don’t like paying taxes to feed hungry people or shelter homeless people or care for sick or old poor people’ would be a lot more accurate and meaningful, don’t you think?
Well, the conversation took a twist there and my initial post was written late at night. And my statement was in response that there can be no good form of conservatism, something I disagree with. I think a healthy conservatism that constrains size/cost/etc of govt can be a good thing if it does so in good faith, in pursuit of practical, beneficial results for the population. The convo evolved into commentary on what actual conservatism in America has endorsed under the Republican party.
For all the havering conservatives do over liberals wanting free shit, I tend to throw that back in their faces when they claim all taxation is theft (a silly proposition, but it seems to play well as a talking point with the base) by stating that they want roads, bridges, national security, etc., for free since they apparently don’t want to have to pay for any of it.
Had Armando written there is no moral justification for the Republican party we would’ve had a very different conversation here.
Fair enough. My problem is not being able to point to any period of actual conservative governance that looks very good. I won’t say that there has never been any such conservative governance, but I will say I can’t recall any, on balance.
antlers
4061
I recall things going pretty well under Bill Clinton.
You mean with the gutting of the welfare system?
I somehow missed this (I blame Scott ), but, yes, that was sarcasm.
The 90s were such an amazingly missed opportunity in so many ways.
Heh, I put a smiley there after my parenthetical blaming but the board removed it. I now blame Tom.
Calelari
4066
I think the prudent course of action would be to blame Canada.
tomchick
4067
Of course you are. Your definition of conservative is “anyone who conserves white privilege”, and you’re happy to derail any discussion to make sure we know it. The only difference between you and Armando on this front is that you use more words. But you’re both saying the same thing and it slams a door shut on any conversation.
Some people aren’t interested in accuracy. They’re interested in indulging their anger, even if it means normalizing the radical right.
-Tom
EDIT: Ha, called it! I typed all that before even seeing your reply to John.
