Political Ideology Thread: Conservatism

[wildcat09 29,556]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Troof.

I am trying to formulate what a post-GOP conservative party might look like.

"Limited government" is such a loaded term, though.  

I think the problem you’re always going to run into with that is that the majority within anything resembling a conservative political party in America, even if the explicit racism is abandoned, will always favor hierarchies. This means an American conservative party will always support and push for something that resembles feudalism in practice.

The core of conservatism isn’t really a commitment to small government or fiscal responsibility or anything. That’s not to say individuals who consider themselves to be conservatives can’t value those things, it’s just that the greater conservative project merely uses those ideas to get those people on its side. The core of conservatism is the idea that some people are naturally better than others and therefore deserve more power, money, etc. and that the purpose of the state is to reify the proper hierarchy. Hence, there must be certain people the law protects but does not bind, and certain people the law binds but does not protect.

[TXSG8R 3,362]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Troof.

I am trying to formulate what a post-GOP conservative party might look like.

"Limited government" is such a loaded term, though.  

Something something states rights until it comes to LGBTQ rights, abortion, etc.  

[Degenerate Gardner 4,132]

Conservatism is the fantasy that Republicans use to justify what they want to do anyway.

Cryptozoology is the search for animals whose existence is disputed.

One of these things sews confusion and is often exploited by hucksters to enrich themselves. The other concerns itself with the yeti and is mostly harmless.

 

[G650 14,421]

20 minutes ago, elfenix said:

fiscal responsibility is such a shitty term.  it'd be close to responsible if it manifested as "we could get more bang for the buck if we did ___" or "the societal benefit of this isn't commensurate with its cost" but it doesn't. 

I think fiscally responsible is ok, because it means what you say. I think fiscally conservative is the worse term, as it's cover for all sorts of malpractice.

[elfenix 34,658]

15 minutes ago, bernorange said:

It used to primarily mean keeping a balanced budget.  It was more important before monetary policy gave govco free reign to blow the fiat bubble until the world decides we're not worthy of our monetary privilege.

when?

[immamac 44,199]

11 hours ago, elfenix said:

i guess that depends on whether you see terminology as prescriptive as opposed to descriptive.  there's a reason we've conflated the terms. i think my post in the other thread that imma no-true-scotsmanned reagan not being a conservative prompted this thread, and there seems to be a lot of no-true-scotsman going on in this thread.

 

 

This guy gets it

[RDCanecutter 26,853]

Canecutter's Conservatism for Bicameral/Curious Readers.

(Follow this checklist and you can't go wrong! Remember to Forward as URGENT to all nieces and nephews.)

(PS: I WAS RIGHT ABOUT THE COMET!!!)

1. Religion. Religion is the foundation. Find a new church with drop ceilings and indoor/outdoor carpet like where Jesus would have lived. Avoid men in robes and/or strange languages. Hymnals are OK but nothing really beats a bouncing ball playing across the projected lyrics on the wall. Now you can sing with your arms raised in praise!

2. Money. I can't tell you what to do with your own money, unless I do, but a man can't go far wrong investing in Franklin Mint collectible series such as this Civil War Chess Set. See the detail in Robt E. Lee's authentically silver-plated brass hair. Don't let your Union pieces see what America has become or they might switch sides and help their Confederate brothers!

3. Race. There is Good and Bad in every race, and I need both hands to count the number of good friends I have of the Black, Latino, or Oriental persuasion. Any one of these good Americans is fine by me, and when you talk to them on the phone they sound perfectly normal and White. The Libs have one card, the race card, that they made up out of thin air based on nothing, and it wouldn't even work except that minorities are too lazy to wake up!

4. National Service. Every citizen should give part of their life to help the country, and so many do, in the Greek Fraternity/Sorority system. A part of every party goes to buy something or other for a wan-expression obese poor child somewhere that we hugged in this picture. We realize that not everybody is meant to go to college, so for the less motivated but still conservative, a stretch in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines will be acceptable as a substitute. Oh and I forgot the Coast Guard, that'd be fun, on boats! My Daddy has a boat!

5. Environment. Did you know that the Native Indians wiped out all the wooly mammoths before the Pilgrims even discovered America? It's true!

[G650 14,421]

10 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think the problem you’re always going to run into with that is that the majority within anything resembling a conservative political party in America, even if the explicit racism is abandoned, will always favor hierarchies.

History shows that isn't endemic to conservative parties, but rather all societal constructs that have ever existed. Some animals are more equal than others you know. Which is ok, because the uncomfortable truth is people aren't equal in ability. The issue is when artificial hierarchies are created to prop up various interest groups at the expense of others, and people pretend that these invented hierarchies accurately depict ability. Ability knows no race, class or creed.

 

Typing listening to Social D's Don't Drag me Down, which seems fitting.

[G650 14,421]

1 minute ago, RDCanecutter said:

Franklin Mint collectible series such as this Civil War Chess Set.

I wonder what the street value for one of these is these days.

[RDCanecutter 26,853]

1 minute ago, G650 said:

I wonder what the street value for one of these is these days.

There are actually people who still collect them and pay more than melt value.

[G650 14,421]

2 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

There are actually people who still collect them and pay more than melt value.

Amazing. Just thinking about the commercials makes me feel good by taking me back to a more innocent time.

[ztejas 44,114]

26 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The core of conservatism is the idea that some people are naturally better than others and therefore deserve more power, money, etc. and that the purpose of the state is to reify the proper hierarchy. Hence, there must be certain people the law protects but does not bind, and certain people the law binds but does not protect.

No dude, that's Libertarianism. /s

And I understand the bind/protect line of thinking but I think it's a bit simplistic and hyperbolic.

2 hours ago, G650 said:

Well, Joe Biden would be a good start.

Maybe if he wasn't a puppet of the DNC or the people actually running the show. (sorry - just my conspiracy theorism shining through again)

30 minutes ago, bernorange said:

It used to primarily mean keeping a balanced budget.  It was more important before monetary policy gave govco free reign to blow the fiat bubble until the world decides we're not worthy of our monetary privilege.

This is oft-parroted (parroted?) but it really has no basis in reality. It is not up to "the world" to decide that the dollar isn't our global economic standard anymore. We are far too globally intertwined and the world's major economies have been in bed with each other for far too long to try and call in the US debt (most of which is held domestically iirc, anyway) or make another currency globally fiat (above the rest) anytime soon.

Edited October 26, 2020 by ztejas

[ztejas 44,114]

10 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Canecutter's Conservatism for Bicameral/Curious Readers.

(Follow this checklist and you can't go wrong! Remember to Forward as URGENT to all nieces and nephews.)

(PS: I WAS RIGHT ABOUT THE COMET!!!)

1. Religion. Religion is the foundation. Find a new church with drop ceilings and indoor/outdoor carpet like where Jesus would have lived. Avoid men in robes and/or strange languages. Hymnals are OK but nothing really beats a bouncing ball playing across the projected lyrics on the wall. Now you can sing with your arms raised in praise!

2. Money. I can't tell you what to do with your own money, unless I do, but a man can't go far wrong investing in Franklin Mint collectible series such as this Civil War Chess Set. See the detail in Robt E. Lee's authentically silver-plated brass hair. Don't let your Union pieces see what America has become or they might switch sides and help their Confederate brothers!

3. Race. There is Good and Bad in every race, and I need both hands to count the number of good friends I have of the Black, Latino, or Oriental persuasion. Any one of these good Americans is fine by me, and when you talk to them on the phone they sound perfectly normal and White. The Libs have one card, the race card, that they made up out of thin air based on nothing, and it wouldn't even work except that minorities are too lazy to wake up!

4. National Service. Every citizen should give part of their life to help the country, and so many do, in the Greek Fraternity/Sorority system. A part of every party goes to buy something or other for a wan-expression obese poor child somewhere that we hugged in this picture. We realize that not everybody is meant to go to college, so for the less motivated but still conservative, a stretch in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines will be acceptable as a substitute. Oh and I forgot the Coast Guard, that'd be fun, on boats! My Daddy has a boat!

5. Environment. Did you know that the Native Indians wiped out all the wooly mammoths before the Pilgrims even discovered America? It's true!

You remain my favorite poster on this site. Bravo, sir, even when taking the piss out of something I try and subscribe to at a meta level.

[immamac 44,199]

So is it fair that we want to keep this on track as Conservatism (pure) or do we want to transition this thread to a discussion on American Conservatism, which apparently has it's own distinctions?

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 hour ago, G650 said:

History shows that isn't endemic to conservative parties, but rather all societal constructs that have ever existed. Some animals are more equal than others you know. Which is ok, because the uncomfortable truth is people aren't equal in ability. The issue is when artificial hierarchies are created to prop up various interest groups at the expense of others, and people pretend that these invented hierarchies accurately depict ability. Ability knows no race, class or creed.

This kinda reminds me of the Jordan Peterson worldview.  That hierarchies are naturally occurring and there’s little we can do about them. Which, as you pointed out is flawed because existing and constructed hierarchies can be used to justify injustice and inequality.  

In America it’s no surprise self identified conservatives are largely white men b/c the distribution of wealth, power, and influence was built by white men to the advantage white men.  Conservative white guys seem to think leveling the playing field takes something away from them, like they’re going to lose their built in advantage if more rights, opportunities, and power are given to minorities.  It’s also worth pointing out this kind of structural inequality can be seen in the major religions b/c the entire mythology is written and led by men. 

Edited October 26, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[G650 14,421]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This kinda reminds me of the Jordan Peterson worldview.  That hierarchies are naturally occurring and there’s little we can do about them. Which, as you pointed out is flawed because existing and constructed hierarchies can be used to justify injustice and inequality.  

 

Close, but not quite. Hierarchies are naturally occurring. This is not disputable. How we deal with them is. You can't make everyone equal. Beyond being offensive by telling everyone they are the same, it's just a fairy tale. Creating a just society with a strong floor allows differentiation to occur naturally while still taking care of the populace, which is the overriding goal.

 

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

In America it’s no surprise self identified conservatives are largely white men b/c the distribution of wealth, power, and influence was built by white men to the advantage white men.  Conservative white guys seem to think leveling the playing field takes something away from them, like they’re going to lose their built in advantage if more rights, opportunities, and power are give to minorities.  It’s also worth pointing out this kind of structural inequality can be seen in the major religions b/c the entire mythology is written and led by men. 

Lot of truth in there. There's plenty of non white and non male conservatives though, they aren't unicorns.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

2 minutes ago, G650 said:

Close, but not quite. Hierarchies are naturally occurring. This is not disputable. How we deal with them is. You can't make everyone equal. Beyond being offensive by telling everyone they are the same, it's just a fairy tale. Creating a just society with a strong floor allows differentiation to occur naturally while still taking care of the populace, which is the overriding goal.

I’m not disputing that hierarchies are naturally occurring.  I’m pointing out that this observation can be exploited and why it can be an easy justification for injustice.

Like a King coming out and saying to his peasants, “Look folks, we’ve learned that hierarchies are naturally occurring, I’m the King b/c that’s god will and you are my subjects, there’s nothing we can do about it, it’s nature.” 

12 minutes ago, G650 said:

There's plenty of non white and non male conservatives though, they aren't unicorns.

Yeah, people work against their own political self interests all the time, often for money and security. 

[G650 14,421]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m not disputing that hierarchies are naturally occurring.  I’m pointing out that this observation can be exploited and why it can be an easy justification for injustice.

Like a King coming out and saying to his peasants, “Look folks, we’ve learned that hierarchies are naturally occurring, I’m the King b/c that’s god will and you are my subjects, there’s nothing we can do about it, it’s nature.” 

Yeah, people work against their own political self interests all the time, often for money and security. 

Yeah, we quite agree there. And I probably should clarify that it's my personal belief that giving a hard floor to society is the best way forward, that's not a defining feature of conservatism or anything, though it can be at times.

[ztejas 44,114]

47 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Conservative white guys seem to think leveling the playing field takes something away from them, like they’re going to lose their built in advantage if more rights, opportunities, and power are give to minorities.

I'm at the point where I think the playing field is largely level and am now advocating for myself to not be disenfranchised like we have sadly done to so many minority groups in the past. I mean, for starters, outside of abortion rights which seem like the last bastion standing, I think white women have been more privileged than white men for a long time now. 

But a lot of people don't see it that way for whatever reason, and I think the divisive nature of the MSM and social media is a big reason why. 

(this is obviously starting to get off topic)

[G650 14,421]

Hmmm.

[ztejas 44,114]

2 minutes ago, G650 said:

Hmmm.

Too hot? I can mix some cold water in.

Part of the reason I beleive that is because in my age demographic I mostly see people treating each other equally and not denying opportunities to others based on ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation etc. I know that that isn't the case EVERYWHERE with EVERYONE in this country - but I remain positive in choosing to beleive that prejudice and disenfranchisement are being increasingly snuffed out with each generation in this country. 

And when I say "advocating for myself" I mean that you don't get to tell me that I'm part of the problem or racist or "don't understand" just because I'm a white male. That's bullshit cross-sectionalism that can borderline on censorship. (You can go back to my first post where I espoused the inalienable rights outlined in the constitution - rights that I beleive apply to EVERYONE)

[G650 14,421]

1 minute ago, ztejas said:

but I remain positive in choosing to beleive that prejudice and disenfranchisement are being increasingly snuffed out with each generation in this country. 

I don't disagree with that, but I do disagree with your conception of the proportion of the populace this applies to.

[ztejas 44,114]

5 minutes ago, G650 said:

I don't disagree with that, but I do disagree with your conception of the proportion of the populace this applies to.

Yeah I'm not saying it applies to the majority in a big picture sense. Just that people try and push it in that direction sometimes.

But there are concrete examples of it already existing. University admissions is a good one. (Corporate board seats is another one - that's a fun topic)

Edited October 26, 2020 by ztejas

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

18 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I think white women have been more privileged than white men for a long time now. 

Not sure where to start with this one, maybe a photo of all our women presidents, or the gender pay gap, or the burden of being a single mother, or the fact that abortion rights are still being constantly threatened.

I can understand there might not be much legislatively that can be done to level the playing field but our society does not give white women an advantage over white men and women have a long history of economic and political oppression in this country. 

[ztejas 44,114]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Not sure where to start with this one, maybe a photo of all our women presidents, or the gender pay gap, or the burden of being a single mother, or the fact that abortion rights are still being constantly threatened.

I can understand there might not be much legislatively that can be done to level the playing field but our society does not give white women an advantage over white men and women have a long history of economic and political oppression in this country. 

You and I disagree on a lot of this - and that's fine, I'm not sure I'd even tell you you're wrong. But this is clearly off topic and not a debate I have the capacity to get into today. Maybe some other time on a different thread.

Oh and by "long time" I meant like 20ish years ic anyone is getting the wrong impression.

Edited October 26, 2020 by ztejas

[washparkhorn 9,967]

2 hours ago, elfenix said:

when?

Reagan set the standard for blowing the budget. Everyone after Reagan followed his lead. The beginning of MMT for the wealthy and austerity for everyone else. Horrible policy. 

[G650 14,421]

9 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Reagan set the standard for blowing the budget. Everyone after Reagan followed his lead. The beginning of MMT for the wealthy and austerity for everyone else. Horrible policy. 

I don't think it was horrible. It was actually pretty necessary to jump start the economy after the nightmare of the 70's. It was handled pretty well with HW reining it in gradually, which you can see in the arc of the first years of the Clinton administration (this was effects of Bush policies, not some Clinton magic) and Clinton continued them. If you want to look at where the wheels came off, it was W's administration.

[bernorange 8,385]

2 hours ago, elfenix said:

when?

Prior to Bretton Woods.

[hayden_horn 11,401]

21 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Conservatism is a tool of the powerful. Slowing down change keeps them in power longer. It is not an ideology because no one actually practices conservatism or adheres to its values. It's only used in todays world as a talking point, as most people who say they're conservative don't actually know what it means, and they sure as shit don't adhere to it in their actions. It's just used to limit other's attempts to get resources. 

i haven't read the whole thread, just the first page, so i might have other thoughts in subsequent posts, but this...this is something i've recently realized. i used to be conservative, maybe i still am. i used to vote republican. i think what i've realized over the past 5 years or so is that it is all a fucking sham. it's snake oil. the republicans and other self-styled conservatives are the haves who want to continue having and they rig the game so that can be the case. race is an element, but it's less so than status and position. it's really just a bunch of selfish assholes wanting to hold onto their wealth. the lincoln project is a great example of this. they have correctly identified donald trump as a possible end to their country club, but that doesn't mean they aren't still old school conservatives who want to ensure that their club is exclusive and extraordinary.

[elfenix 34,658]

6 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Prior to Bretton Woods.

this feels like retconning.

[washparkhorn 9,967]

20 minutes ago, G650 said:

I don't think it was horrible. It was actually pretty necessary to jump start the economy after the nightmare of the 70's. It was handled pretty well with HW reining it in gradually, which you can see in the arc of the first years of the Clinton administration (this was effects of Bush policies, not some Clinton magic) and Clinton continued them. If you want to look at where the wheels came off, it was W's administration.

Bush I/Clinton ramped up austerity for the masses, but left in place socialism for the wealthy. Austerity gutted the working class and now the middle class. Infrastructure is now beginning to collapse. Neoliberalism (socialism for the wealthy/austerity for the masses) is horrible policy. It buried Great Britain. And it is now swamping the US' ability to compete as the world's preeminent economic power. We are eating the seed corn. 

[hayden_horn 11,401]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Noteworthy in this thread is how conservatives like to think of themselves vs how conservatives behave when they acquire power.

The playbook is really simple:

1. Espouse noble principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, and accountability to acquire power. 

2. Betray espoused principles to retain power. 

 

3 hours ago, ndawg said:

There’s another component I’d throw in there: they make the very wrong assumption that inaction can sustain the status quo. They don’t realize that inaction is just failing to govern, which brings about regression as a consequence.

I see people in the corporate world make this same simple-minded mistake all the time. They fail to strategize entirely, because they want to “stay the course.” They don’t get that staying on course requires constant action.

but he's right - it is all about retention. retention of wealth, of social class, of a fucking way of life. there's a reason "make america great again" appealed to so many people. 

you are also right, staying on course is steering the ship through the storm, not just pointing the bow toward the destination. 

[G650 14,421]

13 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Bush I/Clinton ramped up austerity for the masses, but left in place socialism for the wealthy. Austerity gutted the working class and now the middle class. Infrastructure is now beginning to collapse. Neoliberalism (socialism for the wealthy/austerity for the masses) is horrible policy. It buried Great Britain. And it is now swamping the US' ability to compete as the world's preeminent economic power. We are eating the seed corn. 

You are ascribing components of economic policy to the entire policy, which is erroneous. I know it's all trendy to bemoan neoliberalism blah blah blah, but clearly the key issue was not fortifying the bottom of the economic ladder with things like universal healthcare and stronger social programs such as enhanced unemployment and job retraining which would eventually have to morph into UBI (which we desperately need now in fact). The explosive wealth creation of that era was unquestionably good. Our inability to spread it around was very bad.

[washparkhorn 9,967]

15 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Bush I/Clinton ramped up austerity for the masses, but left in place socialism for the wealthy. Austerity gutted the working class and now the middle class. Infrastructure is now beginning to collapse. Neoliberalism (socialism for the wealthy/austerity for the masses) is horrible policy. It buried Great Britain. And it is now swamping the US' ability to compete as the world's preeminent economic power. We are eating the seed corn. 

"Neoliberalism" - I mean economic policy (think Chile and now the western world).

Spoiler

While a number of recent histories of neoliberalism[135][136][137] in the United States have traced its origins back to the urban renewal policies of the 1950s, Marxist economic geographer David Harvey argues the rise of neoliberal policies in the United States occurred during the 1970s energy crisis,[138] and traces the origin of its political rise to Lewis Powell's 1971 confidential memorandum to the Chamber of Commerce in particular.[64]:43 A call to arms to the business community to counter criticism of the free enterprise system, it was a significant factor in the rise of conservative and libertarian organizations and think-tanks which advocated for neoliberal policies, such as the Business Roundtable, The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academia and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. For Powell, universities were becoming an ideological battleground, and he recommended the establishment of an intellectual infrastructure to serve as a counterweight to the increasingly popular ideas of Ralph Nader and other opponents of big business.[139][140][138] On the left, neoliberal ideas were developed and widely popularized by John Kenneth Galbraith, while the ideas of the Chicago School were advanced and repackaged into a progressive, leftist perspective in Lester Thurow's influential 1980 book "The Zero-Sum Society".[141]

Early roots of neoliberalism were laid in the 1970s during the Carter administration, with deregulation of the trucking, banking and airline industries,[142][143][144], as well as the appointment of Paul Volcker to chairman of the Federal Reserve.[21]:5 This trend continued into the 1980s under the Reagan administration, which included tax cuts, increased defense spending, financial deregulation and trade deficit expansion.[145] Likewise, concepts of supply-side economics, discussed by the Democrats in the 1970s, culminated in the 1980 Joint Economic Committee report "Plugging in the Supply Side". This was picked up and advanced by the Reagan administration, with Congress following Reagan's basic proposal and cutting federal income taxes across the board by 25% in 1981.[146]

During the 1990s, the Clinton administration also embraced neoliberalism[128] by supporting the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), continuing the deregulation of the financial sector through passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act and implementing cuts to the welfare state through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.[145][147][148] The neoliberalism of the Clinton administration differs from that of Reagan as the Clinton administration purged neoliberalism of neoconservative positions on militarism, family values, opposition to multiculturalism and neglect of ecological issues.[127]:50–51[disputed – discuss] . . .  Historians Andrew Diamond and Thomas Sugrue argue that neoliberalism became a "'dominant rationality' precisely because it could not be confined to a single partisan identity."[152]

 

 

[G650 14,421]

Just now, washparkhorn said:

"Neoliberalism" - I mean economic policy (think Chile and now the western world).

  Reveal hidden contents

While a number of recent histories of neoliberalism[135][136][137] in the United States have traced its origins back to the urban renewal policies of the 1950s, Marxist economic geographer David Harvey argues the rise of neoliberal policies in the United States occurred during the 1970s energy crisis,[138] and traces the origin of its political rise to Lewis Powell's 1971 confidential memorandum to the Chamber of Commerce in particular.[64]:43 A call to arms to the business community to counter criticism of the free enterprise system, it was a significant factor in the rise of conservative and libertarian organizations and think-tanks which advocated for neoliberal policies, such as the Business Roundtable, The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academia and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. For Powell, universities were becoming an ideological battleground, and he recommended the establishment of an intellectual infrastructure to serve as a counterweight to the increasingly popular ideas of Ralph Nader and other opponents of big business.[139][140][138] On the left, neoliberal ideas were developed and widely popularized by John Kenneth Galbraith, while the ideas of the Chicago School were advanced and repackaged into a progressive, leftist perspective in Lester Thurow's influential 1980 book "The Zero-Sum Society".[141]

Early roots of neoliberalism were laid in the 1970s during the Carter administration, with deregulation of the trucking, banking and airline industries,[142][143][144], as well as the appointment of Paul Volcker to chairman of the Federal Reserve.[21]:5 This trend continued into the 1980s under the Reagan administration, which included tax cuts, increased defense spending, financial deregulation and trade deficit expansion.[145] Likewise, concepts of supply-side economics, discussed by the Democrats in the 1970s, culminated in the 1980 Joint Economic Committee report "Plugging in the Supply Side". This was picked up and advanced by the Reagan administration, with Congress following Reagan's basic proposal and cutting federal income taxes across the board by 25% in 1981.[146]

During the 1990s, the Clinton administration also embraced neoliberalism[128] by supporting the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), continuing the deregulation of the financial sector through passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act and implementing cuts to the welfare state through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.[145][147][148] The neoliberalism of the Clinton administration differs from that of Reagan as the Clinton administration purged neoliberalism of neoconservative positions on militarism, family values, opposition to multiculturalism and neglect of ecological issues.[127]:50–51[disputed – discuss] . . .  Historians Andrew Diamond and Thomas Sugrue argue that neoliberalism became a "'dominant rationality' precisely because it could not be confined to a single partisan identity."[152]

 

 

No shit sherlock

[washparkhorn 9,967]

Just now, G650 said:

You are ascribing components of economic policy to the entire policy, which is erroneous. I know it's all trendy to bemoan neoliberalism blah blah blah, but clearly the key issue was not fortifying the bottom of the economic ladder with things like universal healthcare and stronger social programs such as enhanced unemployment and job retraining which would eventually have to morph into UBI (which we desperately need now in fact). The explosive wealth creation of that era was unquestionably good. Our inability to spread it around was very bad.

Not really. But some do - I agree.

The explosive wealth transfer to the wealthy is a systemic problem - and it was intentional as part of the theory that the wealthy would take care of those less wealthy (trickle down). That did not happen. The wealthy embrace austerity for the masses and socialized losses for the wealthy. That's the design. Wealth protection > economic suffering. That is a conservative point of view. 

[washparkhorn 9,967]

3 minutes ago, G650 said:

No shit sherlock

Good - we are on the same page then.

[G650 14,421]

1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

That is a conservative point of view. 

Republican.

 

It is instructive to look at late 19th century Britain for good examples of conservative economic policy.

3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The explosive wealth transfer to the wealthy is a systemic problem

Wealth creation =/= Wealth transfer

[washparkhorn 9,967]

3 minutes ago, G650 said:

Wealth creation =/= Wealth transfer

Financialization says hold my beer.

Spoiler

In the United States, the size of the financial sector as a percentage of gross domestic product has grown from 2.8 percent in 1950 to 7.9 percent in 2012. Financialization has also caused incomes to increase more in the financial sector than in other sectors of the economy. Individuals working in the U.S. finance sector have experienced a 70 percent increase in their incomes relative to workers in other sector since 1980.

As such, since the 1980s, the financial industry has chased short term financial returns over long term goals, which would require investment in technology and product development. One of the biggest reasons for this was simply a matter of Wall Street following its capitalistic instincts, which told them there was more profit in making money from money rather than in engineered products. Financial instruments provided quick returns with little fuss. They invested in software that facilitated this approach rather than investing in costly brick and mortar needed to build factories. They were also supportive of products that could be sold at Wal-Mart and manufactured overseas. As a result, the financial industry has played a major role in the decline of manufacturing in the U.S. for a variety of reasons.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financialization.asp

 

[washparkhorn 9,967]

14 minutes ago, G650 said:

Republican.

Clinton/Obama not Republican. They followed conservative neoliberal policies. 

[ztejas 44,114]

14 minutes ago, G650 said:

Wealth creation =/= Wealth transfer

In theory, sure. In the economy as currently structured it absolute does equal that. Which is why your stance on bolstered welfare, healthcare and maybe UBI (probably have an issue with that last one until we're father down the road of automation) is the right one and should be a no brainer. 

[washparkhorn 9,967]

2 minutes ago, ztejas said:

bolstered welfare, healthcare and maybe UBI (probably have an issue with that last one until we're father down the road of automation) is the right one and should be a no brainer

Agree. 

However - neoliberalism has already destroyed millions of jobs. No need to wait for further automation/efficiency. We are already there in most sectors. The longer we let the despair linger, the tougher the climb out of the hole. We need consumers consuming in this economy. The US business cycle is FUBAR without the American consumer. China has its consumers clicking on all cylinders and they are burying us.

Chinese Communist Capitalism > United States neoliberalism

[G650 14,421]

12 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Financialization says hold my beer.

  Reveal hidden contents

In the United States, the size of the financial sector as a percentage of gross domestic product has grown from 2.8 percent in 1950 to 7.9 percent in 2012. Financialization has also caused incomes to increase more in the financial sector than in other sectors of the economy. Individuals working in the U.S. finance sector have experienced a 70 percent increase in their incomes relative to workers in other sector since 1980.

As such, since the 1980s, the financial industry has chased short term financial returns over long term goals, which would require investment in technology and product development. One of the biggest reasons for this was simply a matter of Wall Street following its capitalistic instincts, which told them there was more profit in making money from money rather than in engineered products. Financial instruments provided quick returns with little fuss. They invested in software that facilitated this approach rather than investing in costly brick and mortar needed to build factories. They were also supportive of products that could be sold at Wal-Mart and manufactured overseas. As a result, the financial industry has played a major role in the decline of manufacturing in the U.S. for a variety of reasons.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financialization.asp

 

Not arguing against that? Wealth creation and distribution are two different concepts which move in step some times but are not inherently tied to each other.

 

8 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Clinton/Obama not Republican. They followed conservative neoliberal policies. 

Oof, you are a beating man.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

32 minutes ago, G650 said:

I know it's all trendy to bemoan neoliberalism blah blah blah, but clearly the key issue was not fortifying the bottom of the economic ladder with things like universal healthcare and stronger social programs such as enhanced unemployment and job retraining which would eventually have to morph into UBI (which we desperately need now in fact).

The “let the market decide/deregulation worship” neoliberalism of the Reagan and Thatcher Era was a roadblock to your key issue.

[elfenix 34,658]

26 minutes ago, G650 said:

Republican.

churchill returning to the high gold standard price for the pound says hi

[washparkhorn 9,967]

1 minute ago, G650 said:

Oof, you are a beating man.

Party affiliation when we have two center-right parties means little when it comes to policy.

[Wulaw Horn 19,560]

On 10/25/2020 at 12:48 PM, washparkhorn said:

According to Russell Kirk - a leader of conservative thought and ideas - the six core tenants of conservatism are:

https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Russell-Kirk-Selected-Essays/dp/1933859024

 

I don't know Russell Kirk but other than half of #3 he basically jumped directly into my head in writing all of that.  Really good description imo of what it means to me, as a matter of first principles,  when I say I'm conservative and why I am a conservative.  

 

[G650 14,421]

1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

Party affiliation when we have two center-right parties means little when it comes to policy.

The USA has been under various flavors of liberal economic policy for the entirety of our lives. No one here has lived under conservative economic policy. It's like if you live in a Victorian, and your neighbor does too, and you tell him he has a totally different house because he has different color curtains. Meanwhile an actual different house would be a Bauhaus block.

[G650 14,421]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The “let the market decide/deregulation worship” neoliberalism of the Reagan and Thatcher Era was a roadblock to your key issue.

I'm pro airline and public utility regulation myself with a good bit of financial regulation thrown in.

[Wulaw Horn 19,560]

On 10/25/2020 at 1:16 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Part of me wants to say, let’s be real, conservative in America means white patriarchal supremacy.  

On some level, sure, if you want to ignore the idea of equality before the law that was talked about, or equality of access- in Washpark's spoilered link. The question isn't, as a conservative, whether that's tolerable or ok (it's not) but what's the extent of the problem- what remedy can help make it better- what will the cost (financial and other) be- and what downstream affects that will have on society.