What Does Conservatism Offer?

[rustypouch]

Next article you see about "University protests visiting speaker". Read.

I just googled that phrase.

The first hit is http://www.catholicregister.org/col...the-right-to-free-speech-in-the-public-square

No indication of "the practice of the silencing of any opposing viewpoints in universities by the "progressives" currently in control," unless students objecting to guest speakers they find offensive now counts as silencing.

 

[xjx388]

I think the current party is looking to toss #3 and #4 as "socialist".

It all depends on how you define the terms. For me, "infrastructure" means roads, building codes, fire and police protection and utility development.

"Social safety net," means basic temporary help acquiring necessities like food, shelter, clothing and basic healthcare for people having difficulty. It also includes help for the disabled through the Social Security system. Otherwise people should acquire these things for themselves.

I'm not aware of any plank in the Republican Party that advocates elimination of these things as "socialist."

 

[Tony]

I think that the road to implementation is very rough. There are too many ideologies at war with each other in the "conservative movement." Not to mention the other side of the coin - the liberal movement. So the answer to your question is no, I guess. I don't think a radical overhaul of our government is in the cards anytime soon.

If these principles are unlikely to be implemented even by a conservative president, how can they be classified as "conservative"?

However, I do believe that of the two politicians with any shot of actually getting elected, Romney would tend to a more conservative approach.

In what way?

 

[Tony]

It all depends on how you define the terms. For me, "infrastructure" means roads, building codes, fire and police protection and utility development.

Why limit to only those areas? Aren't trains and airports also infrastructure?

"Social safety net," means basic temporary help acquiring necessities like food, shelter, clothing and basic healthcare for people having difficulty.

Millions of people who aren't otherwise poor have difficulty getting healthcare. Do they get government help too?

Otherwise people should acquire these things for themselves.

That is ideal. But not always practical. What happens if people who work hard are unable to acquire these things for themselves?

I'm not aware of any plank in the Republican Party that advocates elimination of these things as "socialist."

I think he was talking less of an actual plank and more how some of these would be described by conservatives.

 

[xjx388]

Why limit to only those areas? Aren't trains and airports also infrastructure?

Sure, but the government doesn't necessarily have to build those. They often do, but it's not a "necessity." The railroads are almost entirely privately owned, after all. Airports are largely privatized in the US already in that the government might build the facilities and provide the basic infrastructure (runways, security, ATC, etc.) but the private airlines lease the space and run their businesses as they see fit.

Millions of people who aren't otherwise poor have difficulty getting healthcare. Do they get government help too?

No. If they aren't otherwise poor why do they need the help? They can choose to prioritize their budgets anyway they want to.

That is ideal. But not always practical. What happens if people who work hard are unable to acquire these things for themselves?

It depends. Why aren't they able to? Income? Then sure, they should get some help until they are able to improve their situation. I understand that some people never can and never will, but this doesn't mean that we shouldn't be encouraging them to eventually get themselves off the dole. The way to do that is to ensure that benefits are limited and not enough to enable continuous dependence.

Do you remember when Obama said something like, "at some point you've made enough money?" I think that should be flipped on it's head. If you are irresponsible (having kids you can't support, buying drugs, not budgeting correctly, etc) then, at some point, you've taken enough of my money.

I think he was talking less of an actual plank and more how some of these would be described by conservatives.

Which conservatives? That's an accusation you are making against all conservatives when only a few would actually endorse such a position. I certainly don't.

 

[Tony]

Sure, but the government doesn't necessarily have to build those.

The government doesn't necessarily have to build any infrastructure. Everything can be left to the whims of the private sector.

If they aren't otherwise poor why do they need the help?

Healthcare can still be out of someone's price range for a variety of reasons. They could have pre-existing conditions that increase the costs. They could have other financial obligations. Or they could just not make enough money.

They can choose to prioritize their budgets anyway they want to.

This is hand waving the problem away.

It depends. Why aren't they able to? Income? Then sure, they should get some help until they are able to improve their situation.

What kind of help should they get? Who will pay for this help?

Do you remember when Obama said something like, "at some point you've made enough money?" I think that should be flipped on it's head. If you are irresponsible (having kids you can't support, buying drugs, not budgeting correctly, etc) then, at some point, you've taken enough of my money.

It isn't "your" money. It is tax money that everyone (even the people receiving the benefits) have paid into.

 

[xjx388]

If these principles are unlikely to be implemented even by a conservative president, how can they be classified as "conservative"?

Just because a conservative policy is unlikely to be implemented doesn't make it any less conservative. Politically impractical, maybe.

In what way?

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending

I don't agree with every single plank of this platform, but generally speaking, it's certainly more conservative than Bush II's and Obama's spending plans. So, I think it's fair to say that Romney advocates a more conservative (the way I define it) approach than Obama and even Bush II (who may have called himself conservative but certainly didn't act like it much).

 

[Monketi Ghost]

"Scratch a conservative and you find someone who prefers the past over any future..."

~Frank Herbert

 

[rocketdodger]

"Scratch a conservative and you find someone who prefers the past over any future..."

~Frank Herbert

Exactly.

And it is important to note, that this isn't "bad" in any sense. It is just another approach to survival -- put weight in what is known to work, over things that might fail.

The only issue is that evolution sort of favors the future -- when conditions change, if life cannot adapt, it goes extinct. There are some very old species out there, but they inhabit environments that have not changed for millions and millions of years. The vast majority of life is young and quickly changing. That goes especially for us -- mammals.

So in a way, to be conservative seems to be fighting against being a mammal. The desire to be an old lizard, an alligator, a species that has been around forever. Except, we are mammals, and social mammals at that, who are advancing at an exponential rate. Conservatism makes no sense, if you ask me.

 

[Tony]

Just because a conservative policy is unlikely to be implemented doesn't make it any less conservative.

That's not what I said. I said the "If these principles are unlikely to be implemented even by a conservative president". I wasn't talking about matters of political practicality, but matters of action by people who claim to hold these principles. If they consistently choose not to pursue goals based on these principles, are they genuine conservative principles?

As one example, you mentioned "The government should get out of the way as much as possible when it comes to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the people." This makes for good campaign rhetoric, but conservatives almost always pursue policies that conflict with this. Policies conservatives champion like drug prohibition, abortion restrictions, bans on gay marriage, pornography prosecutions and even relaxed restrictions on workplace safety and labor laws all serve to put the government between the people and the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can the principle of "The government should get out of the way as much as possible when it comes to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the people." be a conservative principle if conservatives never choose to honor it?

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending

Anything more specific that relates to your definition in post #128?

I don't agree with every single plank of this platform, but generally speaking, it's certainly more conservative than Bush II's and Obama's spending plans.

A position on spending wasn't included in your post. Would you want to add a position on spending to it? If so, what would it be?

So, I think it's fair to say that Romney advocates a more conservative (the way I define it) approach than Obama and even Bush II (who may have called himself conservative but certainly didn't act like it much).

With your definition in mind, how does Romney advocate a position that better reflects it?

 

[DavidJames]

Just because a conservative policy is unlikely to be implemented doesn't make it any less conservative. Politically impractical, maybe.

Considering every Republican platform in recent memory has had similar platitudes and there hasn't been a Republican president in recent memory who reduced the budget or the size of government, what makes you think this time they mean it.

 

[xjx388]

The government doesn't necessarily have to build any infrastructure. Everything can be left to the whims of the private sector.

Sure, it could. And I wouldn't totally oppose a privatized infrastructure. For example, if American Airlines wanted to build it's own airport, I'd have no issue with that. Similarly, I have no issue with private utilities, private toll roads, etc.

But for a city's roads and the interstate highway system, I think there is a compelling public interest for the government to build and maintain it: national defense, emergency management and facilitation of business.

Healthcare can still be out of someone's price range for a variety of reasons. They could have pre-existing conditions that increase the costs. They could have other financial obligations. Or they could just not make enough money.

Under our current system, those are problems. The current system needs to change. But this does not automatically mean that we should switch to a single-payer, government provided solution. The answer is not more government, it's empowering the private sector to come up with solutions.

This is hand waving the problem away.

No it's not; it's just being real. If a person/family is acting responsibly and is not otherwise poor, there is no reason that they can't budget for their own healthcare. That they choose not to is none of my concern.

What kind of help should they get? Who will pay for this help?

Taxpayers pay for the help. We should cover the healthcare needs of the people who truly can't afford it. We need to draw realistic lines as to what that means, exactly, and I'm not even opposed to expanding the safety net a little, even if we cut the gamut of benefits it offers.

It isn't "your" money. It is tax money that everyone (even the people receiving the benefits) have paid into.

Of course it's my money. I work hard to earn my income and besides, I'm one of the people in "we the people," aren't I? And my income and spending is such that I pay substantially in income taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, etc. I want to pay less in taxes, not more. The only way that can happen is if we rein in spending.

 

[Tony]

But for a city's roads and the interstate highway system, I think there is a compelling public interest for the government to build and maintain it: national defense, emergency management and facilitation of business.

That same interest exists with rail and airports also.

Under our current system, those are problems. The current system needs to change. But this does not automatically mean that we should switch to a single-payer, government provided solution. The answer is not more government, it's empowering the private sector to come up with solutions.

What does that mean in practice?

No it's not; it's just being real. If a person/family is acting responsibly and is not otherwise poor, there is no reason that they can't budget for their own healthcare. That they choose not to is none of my concern.

What isn't real is attributing any inability to afford healthcare only to irresponsibility. There can be literally thousands of things which can tie-up peoples money in ways where they won't be able to afford healthcare. Statements like yours above are overly ideological and neglect to account for the truism in life that "**** happens".

Of course it's my money. I work hard to earn my income and besides, I'm one of the people in "we the people," aren't I? And my income and spending is such that I pay substantially in income taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, etc. I want to pay less in taxes, not more. The only way that can happen is if we rein in spending.

If you're not going to acknowledge the simple reality that virtually everyone pays taxes at some point in their life, then there really is no point in having this discussion.

 

[xjx388]

That's not what I said. I said the "If these principles are unlikely to be implemented even by a conservative president". I wasn't talking about matters of political practicality, but matters of action by people who claim to hold these principles. If they consistently choose not to pursue goals based on these principles, are they genuine conservative principles?

I don't think it's fair to say that "conservative presidents" don't choose to pursue goals based on conservative principles. Reagan pursued conservative principles -supply-side economics, lowering taxes, defense, cutting spending - these all fit in to the principles I outlined. He wasn't entirely successful and had to make a lot of concessions to political practicality, but generally speaking, he was pretty conservative.

As one example, you mentioned "The government should get out of the way as much as possible when it comes to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the people." This makes for good campaign rhetoric, but conservatives almost always pursue policies that conflict with this. Policies conservatives champion like drug prohibition, abortion restrictions, bans on gay marriage, pornography prosecutions and even relaxed restrictions on workplace safety and labor laws all serve to put the government between the people and the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can the principle of "The government should get out of the way as much as possible when it comes to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the people." be a conservative principle if conservatives never choose to honor it?

I believe that the government should be completely out of our personal lives -to a point. And that point is when it begins to affect other people.

Drug Prohibition: I favor legalization of pot and other relatively safe drugs; the ones that are really no more harmful than alcohol. What we should be punishing is when the use of those drugs affects other people: DUI, etc.

Abortion: I favor allowing people to have abortions. However, I do draw the line at the 1st trimester when the fetus is absolutely not viable. After that, it's too much of a grey area to draw firm lines.

Gay Marriage: I'm for it. None of my business who wants to get married.

Pornography: What do I care what consenting adults want to look at as long as no one is being harmed in watching or producing it?

Workplace Safety and Labor: I'm for deregulation. I believe companies should certainly pay the consequences if they create conditions where people are hurt. But you don't need complex regulations and government agencies to accomplish that. At least not at the level they are at now.

Anything more specific that relates to your definition in post #128?

Yes.

Reduce Subsidies For The National Endowments For The Arts And Humanities, The Corporation For Public Broadcasting, And The Legal Services Corporation — Savings: $600 Million. NEA, NEH, and CPB provide grants to supplement other sources of funding. LSC funds services mostly duplicative of those already offered by states, localities, bar associations and private organizations.

Those are functions that the government doesn't need to be involved in. Those agencies need to be drastically reduced or eliminated altogether.

A position on spending wasn't included in your post. Would you want to add a position on spending to it? If so, what would it be?

I should think that it's understood that if I think government should be limited to the functions that I outlined, that any spending on other functions should be greatly reduced or eliminated.

With your definition in mind, how does Romney advocate a position that better reflects it?

It should be obvious by now: He wants to reduce the federal budget by reducing/eliminating unnecessary government functions. I'm for that.

 

[Morrigan]

“Ideological bias is deeply entrenched within the current university system. Whatever the solution in private institutions may be, in State institutions the trustees have a responsibility to the public to ensure that their enormous investment is not abused for political indoctrination. We call on State officials to ensure that our public colleges and universities be places of learning and the exchange of ideas, not zones of intellectual intolerance favoring the Left.”

Page 37.

It certainly sounds like they want to silence any opposing viewpoints...

Holy crap. How can anyone support this party... well, I guess that was the question raised in the OP, heh.

 

[Tony]

I don't think it's fair to say that "conservative presidents" don't choose to pursue goals based on conservative principles.

If we're going to include the things you list, it is extremely fair.

supply-side economics

Selectively. Plus, this wasn't one of the things you listed in your original post.

lowering taxes

He raised taxes too.

defense, cutting spending

This two things contradict each other. Reagan vastly increased spending every year he was in office. Both on defense and domestic programs. Remember the big government "just say no" propaganda?

but generally speaking, he was pretty conservative.

Not by using your list as a metric. He increased spending, increased the size of government, put government in the way of the pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Drug Prohibition: I favor legalization of pot and other relatively safe drugs; the ones that are really no more harmful than alcohol. What we should be punishing is when the use of those drugs affects other people: DUI, etc.

This isn't conservative.

Abortion: I favor allowing people to have abortions. However, I do draw the line at the 1st trimester when the fetus is absolutely not viable. After that, it's too much of a grey area to draw firm lines.

Neither is this.

Gay Marriage: I'm for it. None of my business who wants to get married.

Nor this.

Pornography: What do I care what consenting adults want to look at as long as no one is being harmed in watching or producing it?

Nor this.

Yes.

Reduce Subsidies For The National Endowments For The Arts And Humanities, The Corporation For Public Broadcasting, And The Legal Services Corporation — Savings: $600 Million. NEA, NEH, and CPB provide grants to supplement other sources of funding. LSC funds services mostly duplicative of those already offered by states, localities, bar associations and private organizations.

Those are functions that the government doesn't need to be involved in. Those agencies need to be drastically reduced or eliminated altogether.

That's a paltry example. If the biggest reason you're voting for Romney is that he will reduce subsidies for The National Endowments For The Arts while ignoring that he disagrees with you on prohibition, abortion, gay marriage or pornography then you place the principle of "The government should get out of the way as much as possible when it comes to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the people" far down on your list of priorities.

I should think that it's understood that if I think government should be limited to the functions that I outlined, that any spending on other functions should be greatly reduced or eliminated.

That's fine, but if that is your goal, Romney and conservatives shouldn't have your support.

It should be obvious by now: He wants to reduce the federal budget by reducing/eliminating unnecessary government functions. I'm for that.

By your own definition, he doesn't. You think government has no role in prohibition, abortion (beyond the 1st trimester), gay marriage or pornography. Romney disagrees with you on these positions. It stands to reason that since he thinks government has a role in policing or restricting these things that he thinks tax monies should be expended on them at the same or greater levels than they currently are. How can you support Romney when he wants to spend money on things you think are unnecessary but oppose Obama for the same reason?

 

[xjx388]

That same interest exists with rail and airports also.

Maybe. But not to the same extent that it does with roads, utility development, etc. Not everyone can afford air travel; most people use the public roads in some form or another. I can't own a rail car and travel to other cities; the rail system is already private.

What does that mean in practice?

It means what it says. The private sector is best equipped to deal with the inefficiencies in the current health system. So let's work towards more free-market oriented solutions. The Singapore model is a good start. But this isn't the thread for that discussion. The OP asked, "what does conservatism offer?" In this case, I believe it offers a more efficient solution than the liberal policy which seems to be: "Let's expand the government to provide that service."

What isn't real is attributing any inability to afford healthcare only to irresponsibility. There can be literally thousands of things which can tie-up peoples money in ways where they won't be able to afford healthcare. Statements like yours above are overly ideological and neglect to account for the truism in life that "**** happens".

Oh sure, caca happens. But what happens after the poop-storm is largely a result of how well someone has planned for it. For example: If I were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow (**** happens!) I have a catastrophic insurance plan that would cover me and I've saved enough to cover the high deductible. No issue there. **** happened and I responded in kind. Responsibility means providing for your basic needs before you start providing for your luxuries. I understand that there are people out there who truly need help and I am for helping those people. But, for the most part, people should plan for the caca so they can have peace of mind after the poop happens.

Unless you are saying that the majority of people have no ability to plan for caca happening?

If you're not going to acknowledge the simple reality that virtually everyone pays taxes at some point in their life, then there really is no point in having this discussion.

Yes, I acknowledge this. "We the people," includes every American citizen. But we all need to take personal ownership of the expenditure of the tax money because it's OURS, not the government's. Would you ever give Paul Bergstrasser $25,000 so that he can take time off of his job to work on a novel? Probably not, I'm sure. So why should the government be doing it?

 

[rocketdodger]

Oh sure, caca happens. But what happens after the poop-storm is largely a result of how well someone has planned for it. For example: If I were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow (**** happens!) I have a catastrophic insurance plan that would cover me and I've saved enough to cover the high deductible. No issue there. **** happened and I responded in kind. Responsibility means providing for your basic needs before you start providing for your luxuries. I understand that there are people out there who truly need help and I am for helping those people. But, for the most part, people should plan for the caca so they can have peace of mind after the poop happens.

Well, this seems to be the typical conservative viewpoint, I guess.

You would rather take care of things yourself, because you don't accept the risk involved with allowing others to take care of things.

It isn't the only option -- many people ( they are called "liberals" ) are OK with a more social approach, in particular they tend to accept that everyone pitching in and planning for the caca in everyone else's life is a decent ( and often superior ) alternative. I don't mind spending a little effort fixing up everyone else's caca if I feel the favor will be returned.

Could it be that conservatives just tend to have less faith in their fellow man?

 

[Clayton Moore]

You mean that there is no "left", right? Because America is far more "right" than any other industrialized nation. I think all we are is, basically, right, just different shades of right. Obama sure as hell isn't left. I'm hard pressed to think of many leaders who are on the left. There are a few but they are so rare as to be statistically insignificant. Now, the right, jeez, we've had thousands of provisions impinging on women's reproductive rights. If there were as many provisions attacking gun rights the nation would be in meltdown mode.

Help me out here, are you serious?

There is no right or left, there is only Republican or Democrat.

Both are controlled by their wealthiest contributors.

Have you noticed any attempt in the the past thirty or forty years by our elected Congress to prevent/retrieve lost manufacturing jobs?

Now, the right, jeez, we've had thousands of provisions impinging on women's reproductive rights.

Do you really think they care what women do with their bodies? While people are full tilt bozo arguing over their attacks on women they are still not preventing the loss of manufacturing jobs or retrieving them.


We have an oligarchy masquerading as a two party system.

 

[RandFan]

Do you really think they care what women do with their bodies?

I only know that they are passing thousands of provisions. For people who don't care they sure act as if they do.

Um, it's not as if I don't think you have a point. I actually think you do. However, it's far more nuanced than you suggest and your point doesn't really address my argument. There really is a right-wing and people to the left of that. That's not helping, oligarchy or not, that's another thread.