Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2008 - 10:34pm PT
|
"If conservatism was equally zealous about efficiency and rectitude in programs of spending that they like, I could respect it with pride."
That hits the nail on the head for the future conservatives. Fiscal responsibility is something that almost everybody agrees upon.
Social issues should take a back-seat to all the real issues. In fact, the Federal gov't should stay away from social issues with some exeptions of course.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2008 - 10:37pm PT
|
Blue, What do you mean "real" issue versus a "social" issue? Please define this.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2008 - 11:13pm PT
|
What the Moose said.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2008 - 01:05am PT
|
John Moosie,
I know that Social Security is not a retirement plan. My point was that either I impoverish my children's generation, or I get treated worse than those Social Security recipients who I've spent the last 40 years supporting. I'd given it as an example of a difficulty in applying John S's (quite useful, in my opinion) suggestion earlier in this thread.
I know my personal choice -- I'd rather work longer and recieve benefits later (in effect, receiving less), but that only works fairly if we all do that. I don't know that there's any consensus on this. I know that AARP will resist any attempt to change benefits (which is why I won't join, even though they have some good deals on real insurance).
I'd given my criticism of social security on another thread, so forgive me if I repeat myself. Social security is a very odd form of entitlement. It is not really insurance, since it pays to some who never paid in. It's not really welfare, because the entitlement is a function of what you paid in, not on your need. It is not really retirement, for the reasons you've pointed out.
And it's not really fair. Certain favored groups (educators, government workers, etc.) pay into a true retirement system and pay no FICA. Why aren't they helping to support those who never paid into social security, the way I am? I've been fortuante enough to earn more than the FICA cap much of my working life, so I've paid a smaller percentage of my income into the system than have those who earned less than me. If this is a wealth transfer, why the regressive rate?
As a conservative, I'd say that's what you get when you let the government and political system design it.
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2008 - 01:40am PT
|
I think conservatives and the internet left (as represented on ST) also differ on the components of freedom. I found very little restraint on freedom from this administration compared to certain previous ones, and the United States much freer now than 40 years ago. There was certainly no suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, nor was there anything like the extraordinary powers given President Wilson in WWI.
I felt the greatest deprivation of freedom during the 1970's. The government limited my mobility by telling me how fast I could drive, when I could buy gasoline, and what sort of vehicle I should take (those who remember the cars of the 1970's know they were some of the worst vehicles ever made.) The government limited my finances by telling me how much I could pay for certain commodities, how much my employer could pay me, and how much of the money I earned I could spend as I saw fit, and how much they would spend for me (which was a lot). They even told males over 18 for whom to work (i.e. the Army).
To add insult to injury, the government began discriminating against people of my gender and ethnicity during the 1970's. That was a particularly a delicious irony because of the discrimination my ethnic group faced a few decades before here in Fresno. If you look at the old deeds in what were then the most fashionable areas, you will find all kinds of restrictive covenants prohibiting sale or rental to us!
The government still tells me where I can live, work or play, through zoning and land use controls. It tells people what they must study in school, what medications I can take, and who can decide that for me, and a host of other minute and significant details of how we live our lives.
Also ironic, though, is that much of the economic restriction came under Nixon, not just under Carter. The wage and price controls enacted in the early seventies were bipartisan. The 55-mile national limit was enacted by a Democratic congress, with the support of a Republican president.
Of course, not all of this is bad. I do not want to go back to America before child labor laws, mandatory education, free to the public through high school, unregulated consumer labels, etc., etc. I do think, however, that every one of these restrictions of our freedom, however well-intentioned, comes at a cost. I would like to see conservatives making principled, disciplined and honest evaluations of the marginal costs and benefits of every change in freedom. Actually, I'd like to see liberals do that, too, but they're so biased toward government intervention that they lack the motivation.
Of course, in real life, we see conservatives, libertarians, socialists, liberals, and anyone else with a predisposition to proposed government actions emphasizing the costs, but not the benefits of actions they don't like, and doing the opposite for actions they like. That's why we see so many arguments here that are, essentially "Government intervention is imperfect, so it should stop," or "The market gives us imperfect outcomes, so the government should intervene." If we conservatives bring about objective, sober evaluations of marginal costs and benefits of government actions, we will do much to become relevant -- really essential -- to politics and governance. Best of all, we'll end up with a better world.
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2008 - 01:42am PT
|
LEB,
That's what I'm doing. Again, I originally used social security as an illustration of the difficulties we face in making intergenerational payment decisions.
John
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2008 - 01:55am PT
|
Interesting post John. I will have to give it some more consideration.
We do still control the speed limit. It just happens to currently be a speed that more people like.
"Actually, I'd like to see liberals do that, too, but they're so biased toward government intervention that they lack the motivation"
I would have said that it was the conservatives who have fought against any government intervention. Smaller government has been their chant for years now.
Hopefully we will one day see that government is important, but that we need to be vigilant watchdogs to keep it from going crazy. Plus we need to spend more effort educating people instead of mouthing blind rhetoric. I'm tired of hearing about smaller government or less taxes as our schools fall apart, our hospitals are overwhelmed and thus we fall behind other first world countries in education and healthcare, though we are supposedly the greatest country on the Earth.
I think that we spent too many years putting off paying for things, and we fooled ourselves about the cost of war.
I also think that one day we will see that our money system is corrupt. Basing money on debt is a fools game and robs you of your future. I hope that the conservatives will lead in this.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2008 - 03:08am PT
|
It seems to me that, in really simplified (over-simplified?) terms, some of the core values of republicans/conservatives tend to be independence, sovereignty, and freedom from the intervention of government (or anybody else) constraining what they would like to do.
Liberals, by and large, embrace the fact that there are a lot of people around, and that efforts made to support the greater good will ultimately reap benefits for all. Governmental intervention is seen as a means to this end.
When you look at the political map, it tends to bear this out: liberals/Dems gravitate towards cities; conservatives/repubs gravitate towards less populated areas where they can direct their own destinies (i.e. ID, MT, AK).
Both views have obvious merit and ring true for any person- sometimes it strikes me as curious that there is such division amongst people when we want similar things. At this point in history, as the US & the earth's population swells enormously, the ideals of being truly self-governing seem out of touch. Like it or not, this country is going to get a whole lot more crowded very soon, and the luxury of making decisions that only benefit yourself is sure to be fading.
The core ideals of conservatism worked best when the country was still largely unexplored, and the way it became explored was through the initiative and independent drive of individuals. This time has passed, and now that our physical borders are well-explored and understood, conservatives are left grasping for elements in their lives where they can still exert a similar level of control.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2008 - 11:19am PT
|
Conservatism I: When we ask for something new from the government we need to insist our taxes go up.
Conservatism II: Government never plans when it will pay off its debt. Taxes should rise sufficiently to pay off incurred debt within a period certain.
Conservatism III: Repeal child labor law.
We are training children to be indigents.
Conservatism IV: Executive orders must not take precedence over acts of Congress. We have seen what the "unitary executive" can become. Follow the Constitution a-ready!
With the implementation of the above getting anything out of the government will become more difficult than solving a problem another way. So we will stop automatically going to the Federal Government for everything.
None of the above requires a Constitutional amendment. Americans no longer understand the idea of the "common good" so amendments are supremely destructive.
After the approaching economic debacle has reached its final stages the idea of the common good will, however, be understood once more.
IMO
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2008 - 12:25pm PT
|
jstan,
At first I thought you were simply making a modest proposal regarding child labor laws, but re-reading your post makes me think otherwise. What laws prevent minors (as opposed to really young children) from working? High minimum wages, certainly, but I don't know about much else.
School schedules certainly interfere with the sorts of part-time work my generation used to do. I made enough money to buy a rope, twenty 'biners, shoes, pitons, a Yosemite hammer and acessories just harvesting crops a few weeks before school started in the mid-1960's. Now school starts three weeks earlier, so that's out.
Of course, most of today's college-prep students spend so much time trying to assemble their records for college that between studying and "volunteering" they have little time to earn money. I get sad watching them go through what, for most, ends up an exercise in dilettantism, but that's a rant for a different thread.
Again, an interesting post. I'd like to hear more.
John
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2008 - 01:25pm PT
|
JE
Sorry about being so vague on child labor, but you know being vague is sometimes best for getting thought processes going. The surest way to kill interest is to write a 1000 page tome.
I see a lot of our problems as arising from the way we train children as their neural connections are being made. It needs to start when they are five or six. Learning is deep and rapid at that age.
We have what can only be called a cultural bias against children having to work.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2008 - 01:54pm PT
|
Amen!
John
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2008 - 08:29pm PT
|
Obama says daughters will do chores in White House
By SARA KUGLER – 59 minutes ago
CHICAGO (AP) — President-elect Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, said their young daughters will still have to do chores in the White House and won't get out of doing homework just because they're the president's children. In an interview with Barbara Walters, the Obamas said Sasha, 7, and Malia, 10, will have lives as normal as possible. That means helping out around the house.
"That was the first thing I said to some of the staff when I did my visit," Michelle Obama said. "I said, 'You know, we're going to have to set up some boundaries,' because they're going to need to be able to make their beds, and clean up."
The girls, who will be attending the prestigious Sidwell Friends School, also will be expected to do their homework as usual. Although, the president-elect said, Malia has her eye on a special spot to write important papers.
When she came back from her White House visit recently, she told her dad that she plans to work at the desk in the Lincoln bedroom.
Obama said his daughter told him "I'm going to sit at that desk, because I'm thinking that will inspire big thoughts."
The president-elect also said he wants to make the White House "green."
Obama, who will be sworn in Jan. 20, plans to sit down with the chief usher for the presidential mansion and do an evaluation of its energy efficiency.
"Part of what I want to do is to show the American people that it's not that hard," Obama said.
Asked whether he'll be tiptoeing around at night, turning off the lights, Obama said he isn't going to be obsessive about it.
"But I do that in my current house," he added, "and there's no reason why I wouldn't do it in my next one."
The full interview airs Wednesday at 10 p.m. EST.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2008 - 08:32pm PT
|
You're not suggesting that the Obama family has conservative values, are you? :-)
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2009 - 11:49pm PT
|
This is from someone who was one of the founders of the Heritage Foundation and a friend and associate of Ronald Reagan.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-edwards24-2009jan24,0,3344794.story
On the premise that simple is best, many Republicans have reduced their operating philosophy to two essentials: First, government is bad (it's "the problem"); second, big government is the worst and small government is better (although because government itself is bad, it may be assumed that small government is only marginally preferable). This is all errant nonsense. It is wrong in every conceivable way and violative of the Constitution, American exceptionalism, freedom, conservatism, Reaganism and common sense.
The Republican Party that is in such disrepute today is not the party of Reagan. It is the party of Rush Limbaugh, of Ann Coulter, of Newt Gingrich, of George W. Bush, of Karl Rove. It is not a conservative party, it is a party built on the blind and narrow pursuit of power.
Not too long ago, conservatives were thought of as the locus of creative thought. Conservative think tanks (full disclosure: I was one of the three founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation) were thought of as cutting-edge, offering conservative solutions to national problems. By the 2008 elections, the very idea of ideas had been rejected. One who listened to Barry Goldwater's speeches in the mid-'60s, or to Reagan's in the '80s, might have been struck by their philosophical tone, their proposed (even if hotly contested) reformulation of the proper relationship between state and citizen. Last year's presidential campaign, on the other hand, saw the emergence of a Republican Party that was anti-intellectual, nativist, populist (in populism's worst sense) and prepared to send Joe the Plumber to Washington to manage the nation's public affairs.
American conservatism has always had the problem of being misnamed. It is, at root, the political twin to classical European liberalism, a freedoms-based belief in limiting the power of government to intrude on the liberties of the people. It is the opposite of European conservatism (which Winston Churchill referred to as reverence for king and church); it is rather the heir to John Locke and James Madison, and a belief that the people should be the masters of their government, not the reverse (a concept largely turned on its head by the George W. Bush presidency).
Over the last several years, conservatives have turned themselves inside out: They have come to worship small government and have turned their backs on limited government. They have turned to a politics of exclusion, division and nastiness. Today, they wonder what went wrong, why Americans have turned on them, why they lose, or barely win, even in places such as Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2009 - 11:59pm PT
|
It seems disingenuous of the writer to be hearkening back to Nixon and (especially) Reagan, while trying to disown Bush II. The philosophical thread from Goldwater through Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II is pretty consistent. Bush II may have been the reductio ad absurdum of it, almost a parody of their beliefs and propaganda, but there's little about his tactics and strategies that would have been strange to Reagan or Goldwater. They probably would not have been too enthusiastic about an overtly religious, "family values" aspect to their party, but otherwise the nativist, corporatist, often racist roots of the Republican party go far back.
There hasn't been a truly moderate, competent conservative national government in the U.S. since Eisenhower or perhaps Teddy Roosevelt.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2009 - 12:58am PT
|
Bluering, if you are serious, here is a place to start:
Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America's Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don't) (Hardcover)
by Michael J. Gerson (Author)
"For anyone interested in politics--this book is a must-read." -- William Kristol, Editor, The Weekly Standard
"Gerson has been hailed as the finest presidential speechwriter in fifty years and this book shows why." -- Michael Cromartie, Vice President, Ethics and Public Policy Center
"One of the brightest thinkers in America gives us a compelling conservative manifesto..." -- Chuck Colson, Founder, Prison Fellowship
"After five eventful years in the West Wing, I am convinced that the bold use of government to serve human rights and dignity is not only a good thing, but a necessary thing. I believe the security of our country depends on idealism abroad -- the promotion of liberty and hope as the alternatives to hatred and bitterness. I believe the unity of our country depends on idealism at home -- a determination to care for the weak and vulnerable. . . ."
On his initial trip to Austin, Gerson jotted down his goals, including helping the GOP articulate a message of social justice. In their first meeting, in April 1999, Bush's best and worst qualities -- his infectious optimism as well as his maddening cockiness -- were on display: This isn't a job interview, he told Gerson. I want you to write my announcement speech, my acceptance speech at the Republican convention and my inaugural address.
The shy, 35-year-old wordsmith was so nervous before the meeting that Bush's security detail feared he was having heart failure. Gerson did suffer a heart attack six years later; by then he was chief White House speechwriter and had overseen the drafting of all the speeches Bush mentioned, and many more. While recovering, he worked on Bush's second inaugural.
Gerson was also a senior policy adviser to the president. After leaving the White House in mid-2006, he joined the Council on Foreign Relations and became a columnist for The Washington Post.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!