What it means to be a conservative going forward and how to sell it to the next generation

[seven 1,367]

Just a "few" racists in the gop... Lol, what an understatement 

[Tom 2,959]

28 minutes ago, slorch said:

The denial of socialism being socialism is a weird dynamic.  Just own who you are  The dodges are telling... and contribute mightily to the mistrust. Then add in politically convenient rape accusations and bomb threats, and I’d say the left is doing what they can to drive away part of its own constituency.

Wanting fewer restrictions on immigration is what it is. How bout we enforce the current laws and see where it goes? Stop trying to go thunderdome on evrything... 

Who is denying socialism?  It has it's place in certain sectors of the economy that shouldn't be motivated by profit.  Everyone seems to have agreed on that much outside of health care.

If by fewer restrictions on immigration you mean not kidnapping kids from their parents or spending billions of dollars we don't have on a wall that will have 300 tunnels under it in two months, yeah we will have to agree to disagree.

[AtticusFinch 155]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Also excellent points.

The economic folly of the Party of Trump is what's truly flabbergasting.  The "Liberal" world order -- the thing that has created 75+ years of unprecedented global peace and prosperity, to the GREAT benefit of the USA, is the enemy now.  Free trade -- the enemy.  Working with our allies in mutually beneficial ways (as opposed to treating them as adversaries in a zero-sum game) -- the enemy.  Passing massive one-sided tax cuts for no good reason, creating a massive deficit in the process, and also removing a tool of fiscal stimulus that is good to have on hand in the event of the next downturn....breathtakingly dumb.  When the economists and wonks who used to be nearly 100% in line with the GOP's platform and actions are now the ones saying "WTF are these morons doing?", that tells us a lot.

The liberal world order was a creation in Europe and you can argue it helped maintain the peace but WWII and its aftermath also kept the peace.  The cold war and fear of communism also kept Europe allied and at peace.  It didn't in the rest of the world.  If NATO and the EU completely dissolved, you still wouldn't have nationalistic nations ready to do battle again.  Society has changed in the West.  

[WhatTheBuck 28,783]

I'm dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Is that a conservative value or a liberal value? It was a Republican value at one time. It isn't anymore. Hasn't been in half a century. 

[Biff Tannen 45,688]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

When the economists and wonks who used to be nearly 100% in line with the GOP's platform and actions are now the ones saying "WTF are these morons doing?", that tells us a lot.

Very much this.  I don't pretend to know a ton about the workings of high levels of government, economics, and public policy, but when I see the lifers giving the Jackie Chan meme in reaction to this bullshit, I gotta raise my eyebrows a bit.

[Brisketexan 105,143]

Just now, AtticusFinch said:

The liberal world order was a creation in Europe and you can argue it helped maintain the peace but WWII and its aftermath also kept the peace.  The cold war and fear of communism also kept Europe allied and at peace.  It didn't in the rest of the world.  If NATO and the EU completely dissolved, you still wouldn't have nationalistic nations ready to do battle again.  Society has changed in the West.  

I'd argue that the liberal world order had some lag time in other areas of the globe, but hell, look at Vietnam -- now an eager player in that order (as just one example).

And while the folks we think of as big players in nation-state warfare -- the UK, Germany, France -- aren't likely players in the near future, other European nations just a step different may well be.  Poland, Hungary, the Baltics, all are at rising risk of being a player in an armed conflict (stoked and enjoyed by Russia, which benefits from European discord).  Society has changed, but not nearly as much as you think.  We're just in a different phase of the long-standing European conflict.  Ask folks in Ukraine how that's been working out for them.  We have a real-live battlefield in the greater European conflict (Ukraine is absolutely a battlefield between Russian influence/strength and Western European influence/strength).

The GOP I grew up with believed in a strategic long game, and knew the value of treating allies as partners (mutually beneficial policies are an easier sale, and easier to maintain, than zero-sum adversarial actions).  And that approach yielded bushels of fruit.

[High Plains Drifter 11,049]

18 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Here's me: socially about as liberal as they get, fiscally I just want the government to work like it's supposed to - spend what it needs and not a penny more. I don't know what label you have for that, but stick one on it if you want.

I look at the current political climate and the clear division in the platforms of those on the right and the left. Assuming we can restore some sense of sanity after the midterms, I think both major parties and the gaggle of smaller parties behind them need to have some serious inner dialogue about their message for the future.

In my eyes, the Dems - even as prone as they are to trip on their own dicks as they are - have a message that resonates with a lot of young people. Especially those who are modelling their message after Bernie. Sorry, if that's shocking news to you, but it's the truth.

So, in the next few years what you are going to have is the Dems veering toward the message of Bernie and the democratic socialist agenda. On the right - what? Is it still going to be the message of fear and division? I hope not. I think about a young person growing up a rural area and whose tendencies and thoughts would fit into the category of conservative. When they look for guidance on what it means to be a conservative, who will be their role models. More Trumps? More Cruz's? Who then?

I'll be honest because I was that person. I grew up in the sticks outside of Dallas. There were a lot of blue-collar people there. I was very conservative growing up. Catholic household and whatnot. My first voting-age election was Bush Jr. I voted for him. At the time it didn't sting my conscience one bit. Fast forward to 2008 and you find the same me campaigning and primarying for Barack Obama. Republicans, I got away (but then again, I do not identify as a Dem either).

You may not like their policies, but the crop of candidates being put up right now by the Dems have a much more compassionate tone to their rhetoric and that is driving young people to them. Look at what's happening in Florida. I bet Gillum wins, and I bet we'll discover it was because people under 30 got out and voted. Maybe not, but it seems like a good bet right now.

So, surly friends who call themselves conservative - honestly - how do you keep the next me from getting away?

 

tldr: "How do I explain this to my kids."

 

 

 

[F250 28,777]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

The GOP I grew up with believed in a strategic long game, and knew the value of treating allies as partners (mutually beneficial policies are an easier sale, and easier to maintain, than zero-sum adversarial actions).  And that approach yielded bushels of fruit.

The GOP supported post WII Liberalism up until the Tea Party populist movement took control of the party and ousted the "RINOs". Now that the true conservative Republicans are in control with Donald Trump at the helm, the GOP will MAGA with real conservative principles. The question is, since Trumpism isn't in any way closely related to traditional Republican conservativism how does the party of Trump define Republican conservativism now?

Based on what I've seen so far, I'd say the GOP is turning to early 20th century Europe as a guide.

 

 

 

[UTDD 362]

8 hours ago, EuroHorn said:

Translation:

Socially, I want the government to spend tons of money on social programs. Fiscally, I want the government to spend tons of money on social programs, but not a penny more.

 

 

I don't get that vibe at all but that may be true for some people -- I think one can easily mean that the Republican platform of spending money to try and enforce social conservatism is a key problem for a fiscal conservative.  (which it is for me)  The government could leave people alone both fiscally and in general on social issues like sexual orientation, religion, bathroom use, contraception, etc.  Money better spent elsewhere solving real problems.

[Brisketexan 105,143]

The GOP supported post WII Liberalism up until the Tea Party populist movement took control of the party and ousted the "RINOs". Now that the true conservative Republicans are in control with Donald Trump at the helm, the GOP will MAGA with real conservative principles. The question is, since Trumpism isn't in any way closely related to traditional Republican conservativism how does the party of Trump define Republican conservativism now?
Based on what I've seen so far, I'd say the GOP is turning to early 20th century Europe as a guide.
 
 
 

Bingo.

Let’s find a horrific example, and follow that!

It’s amazing - and horrifying - to watch.

[David Dennison 18,860]

3 hours ago, slorch said:

The denial of socialism being socialism is a weird dynamic.  Just own who you are  The dodges are telling... and contribute mightily to the mistrust. Then add in politically convenient rape accusations and bomb threats, and I’d say the left is doing what they can to drive away part of its own constituency.

Wanting fewer restrictions on immigration is what it is. How bout we enforce the current laws and see where it goes? Stop trying to go thunderdome on evrything... 

That would be great. Why isn't the administration doing that?

[horn4life 3,760]

First Republicans are NOT fiscal conservatives and their tax cut schemes that primarily move into the hands of the richest have a much lesser economic stimulus effect that would giving those same dollars to those with much less disposible income. Giving tax cuts to the upper class would have had a decent stimulaus effect that WOULD have trickled down 50 years ago. Now the mobility of money and investment mean the trickle can be anywhere and thus not as effective in stimulating the US economy and job growth.

I used to be a Republican when civil liberties, a belief in science, and fiscal conservatism actually were allowed to stand side by side. Unfortunately the blind unsubstatiated belief that giving millionaires, billionaires and corporations the lion's share of deficit increasing tax cuts is the ONLY plan of economic stimulus. Thus far the plan has never, ever, ever produced more revenue than deficits.  What's even more crazy is that this "plan" is always implemented in times of relative plenty inherited by a GOP President.  Not to say Obama didn't spend a shit ton, but that was because the economy he inherited was in shambles.  It is also important to note that the GOP refused to pass the full stimulus package needed so that after Obama was elected they could lay the remaining stimulus debt at his feet, rather than those responsible for it.  

I am basically a fiscal conservative because I like the math to work.  I would rather invest is a poverty ridden kid's college education than spend $35,000 a year for 40 years of incarceration for example.  I would rather have pot legal for the same reasons, it is much less harmful that alcohol and it's stupid to spend 35,000 a year in incarceration costs.

I'm not pro-abortion, but the fact of the matter is an abortion is a lot more fiscally conservative than the cost of foster care and perhaps prison over a lifetime.  But more importantly men simply do not pay a price for an unwanted pregnancy beyond PERHAPS some monetary cost.  Of course the same folks that love babies in the womb are not so fond of taking care of them on the public dime once they are actually born.  Something I have always found fascinating in the hypocrisy.

When times are good you should work to pay down the debt, not blow monster holes in the budget.  When times are disasterous you borrow and invest in INFRASTUCTURE not tax cuts for millionires and beyond.  Now this is not to say the Dems are a hell of a lot better, but they tend to err trying to help middle class and lower, or the bulk of the popluation. To blame Dems for all entitlements and then ignore the Medicare part D that SPECIFICALLY PREVENTED the biggest buyer of drugs to negotiate drug prices is fucking crazy.  

Right now I guess if you are "selling conservatism" from the right all you need do is have no principles, blind loyalty to tax cuts no matter the actual cost, and the ability to ignore anything morally offensive in order to try and overturn Roe V Wade.  Past that I honestly have no idea what today's "conservatism" represents politically other than the repetition of a fiscal lie. 

 

[Monster 219]

7 hours ago, slorch said:

It rewards sloth, lack of effort, and unwillingness to take on responsibility.

It will always be that way.

I agree with this completely.  It's a solid argument and the reason I'll always hang around the middle of the political spectrum.   With a few exceptions, people  create their own predicament.    

however, the consequential question, pushes me back to the left....

What do you do with those Americans who lack ambition?  Or your neighbors, who aren't as goal driven as you?   Or the lady with 6 kids down the street, doing the minimum to get by?   Do you kick 'em all out of the country?  Or let them starve to death, because that will help us build a super race of elite Americans?    Or do you work out a  compromise, maybe kick in a tiny fraction of your own resources, because, lazy people are still human beings  with families and dreams and maybe, if shown a little compassion, they'll wake up one day and start participating more in the community. 

Edited October 26, 2018 by Monster

[David Dennison 18,860]

3 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I'm dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Is that a conservative value or a liberal value? It was a Republican value at one time. It isn't anymore. Hasn't been in half a century. 

Classical liberal value.

[elfenix 34,243]

9 hours ago, Tom said:

If only the left were for open borders you might have something mildly resembling a point.  But you seem to have fully embraced the right wing scare tactics.

As far as socialism, it has its place in some areas and should be rejected in others.  Nobody conservative or liberal minds that we have socialized military, police, fire fighters, libraries, schools, postal service, roads, etc.  But I guess doctors and medicine is a bridge too far.  Nobody is suggesting all industry be handed over to the government, only that other nations have figured out that putting a profit motive on people's livelihood doesn't produce the best of results and we should emulate them.

 

What i think Biff Tannen was referring to was the tactic Republicans use to proclaim something like single payer will turn us into some socialist/communist country where all industry will be controlled by the government.  It won't.

 

school "choice," the attempt to crater the post office, and all the toll roads popping up 'round here say otherwise.

[jettrink 40]

10 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

 

The CR definitely leans left. They do chase out opposing views. However, in my view the Republican Party of 20 or 30 years ago is very different from today’s party.

Three of the data points for me were: 1) the constant bashing of Obamacare, but when given the opportunity to propose something different or better they completely failed; 2) continuing to accelerate outrageous deficits; and 3) becoming too extreme on policies to help big business. They used to be sensible.

 

Today's Republican party is farther left than JFK would ever conceive of the Democrats being, if he only had a brain.  It's fucking LBJ that took up the FDR torch that ruined Democrats forever.  There is no conservative party anymore, if there ever was one.

[Slacks 6,821]

So, uh, can I ask for fiscal conservative / social liberal? (Liberal meaning, mind your own business.)

You know, limited government spending... And not spending on trying to legislate morality and whatnot?

I think most people would be ok with that.

[David Dennison 18,860]

1 minute ago, tjhooker said:

I always thought this would be a perfect candidate.  Maybe selfishly because it is much like my views.  Problem is that candidate at this point could not win in the Republican or Democratic primary.  Someone like a Ron Paul but more marketable would be awesome.

And less insane.

[gmr548 16,580]

10 hours ago, slorch said:

The denial of socialism being socialism is a weird dynamic.  Just own who you are  The dodges are telling... and contribute mightily to the mistrust. Then add in politically convenient rape accusations and bomb threats, and I’d say the left is doing what they can to drive away part of its own constituency.

Wanting fewer restrictions on immigration is what it is. How bout we enforce the current laws and see where it goes? Stop trying to go thunderdome on evrything... 

The denial of racism being racism is a weird dynamic. Just own who you are. The dodges are telling... And contribute mightily to the mistrust. Then add in politically convenient nutjob conspiracies and denials of objective reality, and I'd say the right is doing what they can to drive away part of its own constituency.

[gmr548 16,580]

1 minute ago, tjhooker said:

I always thought this would be a perfect candidate.  Maybe selfishly because it is much like my views.  Problem is that candidate at this point could not win in the Republican or Democratic primary.  Someone like a Ron Paul but more marketable would be awesome.

It depends by what we mean on fiscal conservative - are we talking about the shit the Tea Party spouts? Cut revenue and spending to the absolute bone, consequences be damned? Or are we talking fiscally responsible but willing to use the tools available to the federal government to make good targeted investments in society while being willing to say no and take on the excesses where necessary?

[David Dennison 18,860]

Just now, tjhooker said:

Well, we cant continue to spend on the rate we are on so cuts need to be made to a lot of programs.  You could tax the top 1% right now at 100% and it wouldn't put a dent in the deficit.  I think that tells you we have a severe spending problem.  Cant continue on the path we are on.  Eventually that bill is going to come due and it will make Greece look like a cakewalk.

Good luck. Those cuts are never coming. Ever.

[elfenix 34,243]

6 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

It depends by what we mean on fiscal conservative - are we talking about the shit the Tea Party spouts? Cut revenue and spending to the absolute bone, consequences be damned? Or are we talking fiscally responsible but willing to use the tools available to the federal government to make good targeted investments in society while being willing to say no and take on the excesses where necessary?

based on this:

21 hours ago, tjhooker said:

Dear Lord.

it's definitely the former. 

i mean, this isn't even fucking correct:

  You could tax the top 1% right now at 100% and it wouldn't put a dent in the deficit. 

before trump's irresponsible tax cut we were projected to run deficits of $500 billion.  now we're running deficits of double that.  but "we have a fucking spending problem."  bullshit. based on some simple math and less than a minute googleing, the top 1% have about $1.544 trillion in income, which is less than even trump's deficit.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by elfenix

[David Dennison 18,860]

Just now, tjhooker said:

I edited my post to say exactly that.  We agree on something at least.

We're going to have to raise taxes. It's as simple as that.

[David Dennison 18,860]

1 minute ago, tjhooker said:

It's sad because everyone can see what is coming.  No one is willing to deal with the pain now so put it off.  Let another generation deal with it.  It will be really bad one day.

What? That tax cut was ill-conceived?

[David Dennison 18,860]

Just now, tjhooker said:

Wont even get you close to where you need to be.  

Where, exactly, do we need to be?

[David Dennison 18,860]

1 minute ago, tjhooker said:

LOL you think this is about a tax cut Trumo got passed?  Tax Rev is projected this year is projected to be the biggest haul ever.  It isnt about the Tax cut.

This is how we can tell you aren't serious about the things you say you are serious about.

[Continental Op 3,934]

11 hours ago, tjhooker said:

The left for as long as I can remember which goes back into the mid 80s for me have said the Republicans are controlled by the Christian right, hate the poor, racists, hate gays, hate education and only care about the rich. I am sure I left some of the other talking points out but that's the MO.  How is that different 30 yrs later from what I am hearing on this thread?  It's the same identity politics.  Just funny seeing it thrown up in such volume on Surly.

Well of course... The mid-80s is when the Moral Majority was hitting its stride. 

[David Dennison 18,860]

2 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

The mid 80s is as long back as I remember probably been going on longer.  The left's identity politics probably stretch back much longer.

The right's identity politics stretch back even further.

[Continental Op 3,934]

"Well I admit I have have no basis in fact for saying this thing but I'm going to say it anyway and act astounded when people say Republicans have a disdain for learning and knowledge.  IDENTITY POLITICS!!!" 

[Continental Op 3,934]

Holy shit FCHorn hacked tjhooker's account! 

[David Dennison 18,860]

Just now, tjhooker said:

Well, the Dem's go back to the KKK and Jim Crow laws so...

True. And then the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts passed and all of those racist Democrats became Republicans. The polarity of the parties switched and the Republican Party became the party of aggrieved white people. It's been that way ever since.

[Dbeasy 15,051]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Good luck. Those cuts are never coming. Ever.

Oh they are coming, but not in a traditional format that people think about. They will come in the form of an implosion of the whole system.

[David Dennison 18,860]

1 minute ago, Dbeasy said:

Oh they are coming, but not in a traditional format that people think about. They will come in the form of an implosion of the whole system.

Thus ends the great experiment, not with a bang but a whimper, not unlike the former Soviet Union.

[DixonHur 11,305]

2 hours ago, tjhooker said:

Well, the Dem's go back to the KKK and Jim Crow laws so...

Guys, did you know Lincoln was a republican?  

[RPM 26,321]

17 hours ago, tjhooker said:

Shocking.  Most on this CR board believe Republicans are dead and the only future they can see is Democrats taking over.  I wouldve never guessed that being the outcome after 65 replies.

No. Some of us old coots remember actual, for real, honest to God conservatives like Barry Goldwater who spoke out against letting religion take over the Republican party.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,190]

On 10/26/2018 at 4:39 AM, tjhooker said:

Dear Lord.

It has a lot better track record than lowering taxes on the rich.

[happyfunball 481]

Thinks marketing is the issue not the fact conservatives are now synonymous with racist, sexist, homophobic, shitheads