I admit it’s not as impressive as I’m not going to explain what I’m talking about because we smart people learned better in college, what happened to you? But hell, I’m offering to pay.
I think if it is an effect it’s an unacceptable one in a way that “higher taxes” is not for “liberal” policies. Other unacceptable side effects would be: increasing concentration of wealth, a hollowing out of the middle class, the creation of a permanently struggling working class, increasing authoritariansim, police unaccountability, military fetishism, gun fetishism, science denial… hm this is turning into a long list.
Strollen
4090
There are conservative parties in very homogenous (90% white) countries so I don’t think racism is inherently conservative. I do think there is an inherent need to single out some group as thread, for most populist conservative parties. It is often hard to distinguish populism from other idealogies.
CraigM
4091
Part of the problem here, as Ii see it, is one of self definition versus action. While you can certainly make the case that the intellectual elites of American conservatism held certain values or precepts. You may make. the argument that groups like the Federalist Society and such made their central thesis around things like lower government spending or taxes.
However
In actual on the ground governance you would be hard pressed to earnestly claim that conservative principles lead to lower spending. That lower taxes for the not rich are an actual end goal is very much in dispute. And thus the problem, the rhetorical and self definitions of American conservatism very much do not align with the actual in effect governance. To that end I find @scottagibson more right than not here. If you look at actual conservative governance, as it actually looks in the real world and not think tanks, what is the driving forces and underpinning actions? And I do not think an argument for ‘lower taxes and smaller government spending’ holds water. It may be the rhetorical flourish they wield, but it is a thin veneer, worthy of scorn and derision.
So if the rhetoric is inaccurate and the self descriptions deceptive at best, then using an argument predicated on objections based on self definition or rhetoric is not effective. It is giving far too much credence and credulity to the veneer plastered over their actual means and goals. And that credulity has been excessively applied over the decades in both the media and ‘serious’ intellectual circles. For too long the actual modus of power acquisition has been ignored and downplayed. Accurately calling out what conservative governance is rather than what it claims marks you as a. firebrand or agitator. How dare you call out the American conservative project out as really being about punishing the poor and minorities, of pining for a modern serfdom. Or for claiming that the unifying theme of conservative politics is harnessing hatred to give cover for their actual goals.
So I personally have no interest in giving air to what conservatives say they are. It has been a shell game my entire life, a means to disguise the actual goals and policy. So saying flatly that conservative ideology is about conserving privilege may not match what they claim, it does rather more closely track to what they do.
Doric FTW you uncultured heathen!!!
Ha ha. It’s 25 years since that song was released. Have you been holding onto that pun for 25 years waiting for the right situation to use it?
tomchick
4096
I’ll read your link when you do me the courtesy of reading my posts. But we’re not getting anywhere when you ignore my explanations and then repeatedly berate me for “not explaining myself”.
Political principles are, by nature, vague. That’s why they’re principles and not policies. I know you’re not this dense, Scott. Furthermore, calling it “conventional wisdom” doesn’t beg any questions; I’m trying to set a baseline for my counter-argument, at your insistence. You’re the one who demanded that I “challenge your point”.
Well, at least we agree on something.
-Tom
tomchick
4097
Corinthian, Doc, and Comet are the ones I always forget.
-Tom
tomchick
4098
Of grievances against the Republican party! Which I share, so feel free to keep them coming. But this gets to my point that there’s nothing “conservative” about America’s modern Republican party. They’re an opposition party that has no idea how to govern and no principles to guide them.
-Tom
I think this is probably right. The question is whether those conservatives mean what they say. In practice, no government has succeeded and few have even tried to substantially reduce the size of government. I suppose you could count Bush’s trial balloon of privatizing Social Security, but of course he did that only after substantially increasing the size of Medicare, so it’s a bit schizophrenic. I don’t really grasp the political philosophy that says funding health care for seniors is a critical federal government function and we should do more of it, but funding pensions for seniors is out of bounds sorry.
I think this is also true, and it’s a good thing. If it were politically easy to return to a federal government which was 5-10% of GDP, the social consequences would be catastrophic; and I doubt that the prospect of that catastrophe would give conservatives in power much pause at all, so long as they didn’t have to pay political consequences for it.
Matt_W
4100
QFT.
I think “conservative” is useful as a label for an axis regarding preference for particular shades of economic or social policy, i.e. I am more conservative on economics than most of my social group in that I think markets work, free trade is good, and public sector unions are bad. But I’m more liberal than most Americans in that I think the national debt isn’t a problem and that we should have public provisioning of healthcare, pensions, education, and childcare. There are particular policies or policy directions that are labelled either “conservative” or “liberal”. (And it’s somewhat arbitrary, e.g. pro-choice being the liberal position makes no sense from most understandings of “conservative”.) So it can be useful to signal preference for particular policies or relative position along an axis.
I do think the reversal is hilarious though. Back in the late 90’s/early 2000’s conservative talk radio effectively made “liberal” a dirty word. We started using “progressive” out of a desire to rebrand. And now the tables are turned–it’s conservative that is tarnished. And it’s not because of a liberal propaganda campaign or anything we did at all. It’s because when you get in bed with Satan, that stink don’t come off. Maybe true conservatives should start calling themselves “traditionalists” or “cautionmongers” or something.
Strollen
4101
I’m going for neo-liberal myself :-)
Alstein
4102
That’s basically how I see them.
Also Third Way, Problem Solvers Caucus.
I am shocked, shocked I say, to learn that Republicans will refuse to raise the debt ceiling.
It is important to raise the debt ceiling but we won’t do it and insist that the other guys do without our help is the epitome of adult, responsible governance from the party of adults.
KevinC
4104
I feel like this hasn’t worked out too well for Republicans when they’ve pulled this stuff in the past. Is this like the club scene in Knocked Up when one of his friends is wondering why he keeps doing the dice dance move and the other friend replies with “It’s the only move he’s got!”?
Menzo
4105
Yup, this is a repeat of 2012 (right?) when Obama said enough is enough and shut the government down. That’s the only choice for Biden now.
Alstein
4106
There’s another choice- the infinite money coin gimmick. Or say the debt limit is unconstitutional under I think the 15th amendment (says public debt must be upheld) and ignore it completely.
Well, the simple solution is to raise the debt ceiling, or eliminate it, in the budget reconciliation bill. Probably the former, but the latter would certainly be better long-term.
I can’t see why it wouldn’t be eligible for reconciliation. It’s certainly a budget / spending matter. People were surprised when the Dems didn’t call to put it in there in the first place.
