I thought this wasn’t too far off from the discussions that I have had here before.
I mean, the thing to do here is point out the problem with the entire quote:
Which part of that is wrong? Which is the period of time when conservatives had power and the government actually got substantially smaller?
That’s the recurring nature of our conversation on this subject. You don’t like my argument, but you don’t actually challenge it. You just insult it, as if it were beneath your dignity to consider it at all. Which is fine, but isn’t actually the high moral ground you seem to think it is.
Well, you did mention the late 90s Clintonian demolishing of the welfare state. Without which we wouldn’t have had a briefly balanced budget that GWB could campaign against and destroy his first year in office like a good fiscal conservative.
That’s fair enough. So the true definition of conservative hangs on whether government is ~19% of gdp or ~21% of gdp, and on whether the money is collected in taxes or borrowed.
tomchick
4072
Your insistence on “conservative” only ever meaning one thing. Which no conservative ever would agree it means, so you’re not different than the Republicans who tried to weaponize the word “liberal”.
Well, that’s certainly telling. I’d consider myself on semantic high ground, but what does it say about your argument that you think there’s some moral high ground involved?
And, yes, I do think it’s facile that you keep claiming there are no political principles at work beyond “conserving white privilege”. You’re just slinging absolutes and airing grievances. You know who else slings absolutes and airs grievances these days?
(Tell the truth! You wanted to reply “conservatives”! But the Semantic High Ground judges will only accept “Republicans”, “the GOP”, “Trump supporters”, or “the radical right”.)
As for whether I’m “challenging your arguent”, we can have that same back-and-forth in which you ignore me while I explain basic conservative principles that Republicans have abandoned, but you’re just going to ignore it. In another month, you’ll just accuse me again of not challenging your argument.
Is this what you would consider a “good faith argument”?
-Tom
Strollen
4073
I think it is fair to say that as a practical matter there is little difference in size of government between conservatives and liberals (or Rs and Ds). I don’t think you can say the same thing about their views. I think liberals look at the chart and compared it to the favorite Scandinavian country and say there is still room to grow government services especially if we cut the defense. Pretty much any conservative I I know looks at the chart and sees the Federal government going from 5% to 30% and say this is bad.
As we all know there are huge structural challenges with adding new programs and even larger ones to cutting existing programs. For better and worse, our system of government is designed to not allow any “ruling” party all that it wants. The natural tendency of any organization is to try and expand, and that includes anything from a business, the army, the rotary club, a forum, a university, a non-profit, and most certainly government.
Finally, I don’t know what to call the 4 years of Trumpism, but it is not conservative in any way shape or form. It is the Republican party, which is why I’m no longer a Republican.
Heh, bit of a moved goal post there, I wasn’t writing that as a means of defining conservatism itself but as a rebuttal to your claim that govt has never gotten smaller.
A bit of irony on this issue, really, since the welfare state stuff would never have happened without Clinton, and without the Tea Party we would’ve seen some cuts to SS since Obama apparently tabled that offer with Boehner, who gladly accepted but then couldn’t wrangle his caucus to take such a sweetheart deal lest it result in the general public viewing it as a win for Obama (all this during the 2011 artificial debt ceiling crisis).
I can say X isn’t a great definition of conservatism because it isn’t particularly distinctive without any insistence on whether conservatism has one or a million meanings. And when you respond to a comment along the lines that it is silly, you have some obligation to explain why it’s silly.
It is telling, but not for the reasons you suppose.
It’s what I consider a joke. Of course there is a context to the joke — nobody is really dealing with the reality of conservative governance in propounding this particular definition — but it is transparently a joke.
It was a joke.
tomchick
4076
Yes, you do. In fact, you just did!
-Tom
I gotta watch the US Open now. Later!
tomchick
4078
Your definition that conservatism is only and always about conserving white privilege is silly for a number of reasons. For starters, you’re ignoring actual conservatives who will tell you otherwise. But it’s mainly silly because you’re defining political principles by an ancillary effect. I might as well define socialism as “higher taxes” or nativism as “raising the wages of agricultural workers” or libertarianism as “subsidizing insurance companies by letting them charge higher premiums because of all the idiots who don’t wear seatbelts or motorcycle helmets”. Those might all be true in that they’re things that result from those political concepts, but they’re not definitions of those political concepts. Claiming otherwise is useless in a discussion of socialism, nativism, and libertarianism.
I mean, this is stuff we should have gotten out of our systems after our first year of college. But if you really want to discuss it at that level – I have a feeling you don’t – here’s how I’ve always thought of it: conservatives believe in institutions and liberals believe in disruption. A healthy political system – not to mention a healthy personal perspective – has room for both.
Enjoy the US Open. I don’t follow hockey, so I’m not even sure who’s playing, but I hope your team wins.
-Tom
But if preserving white privilege is an ancillary effect, that seems to me to be a pretty big indictment of conservatism.
Destroying the planet is an ancillary effect of fossil fuel use. We need to stop using fossil fuels.
Oh, yes, that’s an argument.
Not to be. The Penguins missed their chance at the calendar grand slam.
tomchick
4081
Sure, if that’s the only effect of conservative political thought. I don’t even think it’s an inherent part of conservatism, but let’s accept Scott’s definition for the purpose of this discussion. What if someone said, “if raising taxes is an ancillary effect of socialism, that seems to me a pretty big indictment of socialism.” Are they wrong? Or just being facile?
I think we all agree white privilege is an institution that should be disrupted (in terms of casting the discussion as a spectrum of institutions vs. disruption). That doesn’t mean all institutions are bad, much less that all institutions should be torn down, or even that all pro-institutional principles are morally bankrupt. Consider liberalism. If we accept that disruption – call it progress if you don’t like the negative connotation – is a cornerstone of liberal principles, that doesn’t mean all disruption is good.
But if I wanted to loudly decry how much I hate liberalism, I could just demand that we define liberalism as “a preference for disruption over stability”. Would I be wrong? Or just facile? And by repeatedly insisting that everyone adopt my definition, what kind of discussions can I expect?
-Tom
Alstein
4082
There;s defiitely room for non-racist conservatism, at least theoretically, but conservatism needs racism to be popular enough to win elections, or they’d lose just on the basis of class interest.
This is a good argument for not saying that conservatism believes in institutions and liberalism believes in disruption. Not only is it impossibly vague, it’s the mistake of confusing means with ends.
Higher taxes are not necessarily harmful. Racial prejudice built into your ideology, consciously or no, is definitely harmful.
There are many benefits to fossil fuels! Unfortunately the downside is too big.
tomchick
4085
Again, your point only holds if white privilege is the sole effect of conservative political principles. Is that what you’re arguing? Or are you just arguing that it’s inevitable and therefore the whole thing is rotten? In which case I disagree with your premise and so would most conservatives who aren’t white supremacists.
What, what? I don’t know if I’m dumb, or you’re the one being impossibly vague, or some combination thereof, but I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, or even what you’re trying to say. What is a good argument for overturning the conventional wisdom that conservatism believes in institutions and liberalism believes in disruption?
As for the definition, yeah, it’s vague and superficial, but here we are talking about what basic words mean. Like I said, most of us got this out of our system in college. Maybe we can do themes in Faulkner or the three types of Greek columns next. Just don’t expect me to do anything related to math or algebra or that stuff.
-Tom
That is the reason, and calling it the conventional wisdom really begs the question.
This sort of posturing is really tedious, Tom. So let’s let it go.
Here’s some suggested reading. If you don’t think it’s worth the money, I’m happy to pay.
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Corey+Robin&i=digital-text&ref=nb_sb_noss_2
Timex
4087
“I’m not going to clearly explain what I’m talking about, so just read this entire book,” is an impressive form of argument.
