American Conservatisim, a failure in the World Marketplace of ideas

Re: Eisenhower wept

Yes, and if I remember correctly, it's at a higher rate than during hte great depression. But, I submit to you, that that's much more of people not handling money correctly (way too much debt, no emergency savings) than it is some guys in a suit pushing pencils at a desk at some state capital or Washington.

 

I guess the rest of the world ignores the billions upon billions of dollars in aid we give a wide variety of countries, the times our military has come to their aid, etc, etc. You know Arab countries are going to hate us no matter what, until we are an Islamic "republic." China and North Korea hate us because we're one of the few threats to their ideas (Taiwan, anyone?). Europe? Some favor us and some don't. Get over it. No matter what policies we have, someone is not going to like us. It's simply amplified with us because of our standing in the world.

I don't go for this "Blame America first." I don't look over and wish we were just as "sophisticated," "progressive," and "tolerant" as Europe. Our system works. Period. It's not perfect, for sure. But how else would a few colonies with a few thousand people grow to be (one of) the greatest countries in the history of the world in a few hundred years? Europe had a hundred year head start in development of industry. Yet we passed them and more. Why? It's our system. Our government. Our policies, with have always been more conservative than the rest of the world.

 

Re: Eisenhower wept

It's also what happens when Bush's economic policies fail to address falling real wages and increased unemployment because those issues are directly connected to increased bankruptcies. In fact, Bush's economic policies are designed to increase the assault on working Americans. Look, I know this is crazy talk to Reeps, but maybe if Bush had pushed for something that would help millions of middle class Americans instead of just his few rich friends, perhaps more individuals and businesses wouldn't be going under right now. Just a thought.

Not only that, but let's say Americans had stopped spending and started saving. Do you have any idea what effect that would have had on an already stagnating economy? Economists were already worried about a deflationary spiral. If Americans had stopped spending, the economy would have been that much worse.

Even if you buy the idea that Bush inherited a bursting bubble from Clinton, the fact remains that he has had four years to try to help the American middle-class and instead has enacted policies that are hell-bent on destroying it. Bush needs to be held accountable for this failure to act in the intersts of the American people rather than his few rich buddies. Too bad Reeps don't believe in the concept of responsibility enough to demand it of their heroes.

 

"Aid" that often rendered necessary by the very workings of our Empire. And don't think we were able to fool anyone into forgetting the fact that, to add insult to injury, the "aid" that our unjust imperial system itself has often caused usually has strings attached that only further entrench the neocolonial relationships that caused the need for aid in the first place.

I assume you mean the terrorists and vicious murderous thugs we backed to prevent democracy from breaking out in those places. OK, the South Koreans should be grateful (not that we've been very grateful to France lately and without them, we'd all be singing "God Save the Queen" right now) but that, sadly, is the exception that proves the rule. I think many Americans need to take ownership of the awful, evil things our leaders have done overseas and that we as citizens of the imperial center have benefited from and face the fact that in many cases, those who "hate us" have excellent reasons for doing so. The next step is to summon the will to make sure our leaders avoid repeating those mistakes in the future. But that would require that we all grow the hell up and give up some of our imperial privileges so we as a people will prefer to stay in comfy denial.

You mean our "system" of lies, murder and theft against the American Indians that let our forefathers steal an entire continent? Or our "policy" of having oceans between us and the more developed nations which made it impractical for them to attack us with the technology available at the time? Your assertion that USA had some superior unified "system" over its 200+ year history is simply wrong. The reasons for the rise of America are too complex to discuss in this kind of format without resorting to gross oversimplifications, but they have as much or more to do with historical accident and our subsequent sheer size as a political unit as they do with anything else. Beyond that, all I can say here is that your historical outlook is insufficient to deal with the majority of the historical record and that you may want to read more balanced and detailed history books than you've apparently read so far. Eric Hobsbawm's "Age of..." series would be a good place for you to start.

At any rate, to steer this thread back on topic, your inaccurate assertions about the rise of America are exactly the type of ARR beliefs that are a failure in the world marketplace of ideas that Bob Morocco was on about in the first place.

 

Re: Eisenhower wept

"Considered" wrong and "being" wrong are entirely different things.

 

Re: Eisenhower wept

Yes. "Being" and "considered" are two different things. Yet despite the Dems best efforts to parse out government services for this group or that group they are missing some overall theme. The Dem's programs don't seem to add up to a whole. They are missing some philosophical glue that the Reps seem to have. What is it that the Dems are missing? Values? Is it values or are values just window dressing? What could Values be a code word for?

 

Re: Eisenhower wept

Obviously, it hasn't dawned on you that there is this other party in Congress and occasionally in the White House that has a large influence on "the Dems' programs". Now, who might that party be and what effects might they have on the programs originally proposed by the Dems?

Look, AM, in all seriousness, why don't you get back to us after you've actually bothered to learn something about the American political system, economics and the historical record so that you no longer embarrass yourself whenever you have to try to discuss these topics in more detail than whatever soundbites and talking points you get from Mr. Limbaugh or the Weekly Standard? You'd be doing both yourself and us a tremendous favor by educating yourself and then attempting to engage in debate.

 

Re: Eisenhower wept

Values are a code word for "us" versus "them". It is easier to be a city upon a hill when you have an enemy to help define who you are. The current incarnation of the Republican party is really good at finding enemies for everything. It isn't just the war on terror. They've been doing this for years now, with the war on drugs, immigration, etc. And the Democratic party isn't innocent of this, either.

- Paul

 

Re: Eisenhower wept

He did think redcoats would be greeted with flowers.

 

Re: Eisenhower wept

*Smacks palm against head.* Pray tell, what are these same "values" that are shared by Olympia Snowe and George W. Bush?
You've bought into talking points.

 

Re: Eisenhower wept

In all fairness to AM, it probably does save him all the time and effort he'd have to expend if he chose instead to gather diverse sources of information, judge the merits of different perspectives according to a reasonable estimation of his own interests, balance his interests against those of the nation as a whole, and then think for himself to come up with a coherent and self-consistent worldview.

Then again, AM might have a legitimate reason to hold Bush in high esteem. After all, if you're an energy company CEO, a U.S. weapons and ammunition manufactrurer, a multimillionaire living off an inheritance, a Republican congressional staffer or a member of Al Qaeda who is also a U.S. citizen, it would be perfectly rational and in your best interests to vote for Bush.

 

Re: Eisenhower wept

I don't buy into that glib "oh, he's just not interested enough" talk either. You can't talk down to people and expect them to appreciate your point of view.
Quite frankly, the Republican party has been peddling an image since the Reagan years, and has drastically failed to live up to that image. Call them pvssies if you like, but in their disogranized march in circles, the Democrats have been far more intellectually honest. Really, can anyone here stand up and reasonably say that Bush in ANY way articulates the ethos that Reagan projected? Smaller government? Less spending? (Not that Reagan came close to meeting his standards either.) Free market (we need votes in West Virginia - impose tariffs now!)? Even the supposedly right wing moral mantra that Bush and some Republicans has spouted has failed to find much headway in terms of actual policy. If the only thing they've managed to accomplish thus far is the continuation of the current stem cell policy and a lot of hot air on the gay marriage issue (which seems to be moving forward, not backward), how much control do the fundamentalists have? Very little, despite constant pandering in their direction.
Currently, despite the repeated Republican proclamations of populism, the Republican agenda is set by some neo-conservative and libertarian intellectuals who write for such papers as the Weekly Standard, and who're ably supported by tax extremists such as Grover Norquist. This ebony tower Republican set has managed to convince the traditional conservative constituency that its on their side, despite repeated gestures of stunning fiscal irresponsibility and clearly empty pandering to "traditional" issues. So AM, when you blithely say the Democrats lack values, which values do you imply the Republicans actually have? Those of the traditional conservatives, who have nothing to do with this administration, or the Norquist-Kristol-Perle cabal who've been running the show for a decade? Because I gotta tell you, I don't think the public's going to be terribly happy following the values of Grover Norquist.

 

Re: Eisenhower wept

I don't expect him to change his mind about anything no matter what I say. You see, my experience is that most often in poltical discussion/debate you're not dealing with beliefs based on a rational assessment of the situation that is subject to change in light of more or better information. You're dealing with arational (not necessarily irrational) psychology that is pretty much carved in titanium for life regardless of future information.

I know what it's like to vote Reep because you've bought into the whole macho self-image crap. As an impressionable youth of 18, I voted for Reagan because he seemed more aggressive, confident, optimistic and powerful than Mondale. And when you're a normal, none-too-self-confident 18 year old and uninformed, that kind of image counts for a lot. If it didn't, there'd be no market for super-hero comic books or Stallone/Ah-nuld movies. In due time, of course, I learned in both the classroom and in real life what effects Reagan's policies were having at home and abroad. I became more familiar with world history and U.S. actions overseas. So I ditched being a conservative and started supporting the Dems - just in time for the Dem leadership to betray almost every one of their traditional values in order to whore themselves to corporate bling. Now I'm not a fan of either the Reeps or the Dems and while Clinton was in office it quickly became apparent that the Reeps and Dems were really virtually identical with almost no substantial differences between Clinton and Dole concerning economics or much of geopolitics. I only support the Dems now because their capture of the center right has pushed the Reeps so far to the right that the Reeps have become dangerous extremists who have intensified the attack on working Americans at home and working families around the world. And I think the Bush adminstration is incompetent and I don't want to reward them for their failures. So, yeah, I understand a little about where people like AM and Alex are coming from. It's just that, frankly, they shown no signs of any desire to educate themselves. You'd think that being defeated again and again in here would have shamed them into going and educating themselves if only to avoid future drubbings, but no. At least I held up my end of a rational discussion/debate by providing facts and reasoning to both AM and Mt. Mike in this thread in response to their obvious spoonfed soundbites that had little or no substance to them and challenging them to either refute my facts or provide demonstrations of how Bush has successfully dealt with the problems I listed. So far, not surprisingly, they've not responded.

 

Re: Eisenhower wept

Oh to be the focus of so much anger, so much hate. It must be infuriating to deal with someone like me. Yet the odd thing is despite your well thought out positions which would mean so much to Americans if they worked the way you say they would, if we ran against each other for president, I would win. And you know I would.

Now why is that? What could I have on my side that would make so much difference to a majority of Americans?

 

Re: Eisenhower wept

You wish. Try "...so much pity" instead. As in "I pity you that you are incapable of responding to anything of substance in this thread". I disagreed with Colin Grabow but at least he could put the latest Cato Institute line into his own words in his responses.

 

Re: Eisenhower wept

I usually give people a chance. When they respond by throwing Deepak Chopraisms at my reasoned non-attacking posts, I get rather angry.

Sometimes, yes. I am not a parent, but this is valuable experience should I ever choose to become one.
Especially after your pride at telling me that you would not read my posts because they were too long.

Actually, I'm not certain you would. But if you did, it would no more be proof that you are in any way more correct, but rather proof that the electorate is stupid. As it has always been, of course. Your assumed electability is nothing more than a suggestion that you are more like the rest of the electorate. Kudos for you. Sadly, history shows that the mediocre rarely make their mark upon the world. If they are called to do so, the results are often catastrophic (as they may become now). Despite their unelectability.

They see themselves in you. And that comforts them. Sometimes Ibsen had excellent points.

 

Like Nicephoras alluded to, maybe we can judge if American Conservatism is a failure if we ever find anyone in the Bush administration that practices it. As opposed to Bush administration's current Plagiarism of Lyndon Johnson's foreign policy and Jimmy Carter's policy on the growth of government.

But if Reagan's policies were such failures and if Bill Clinton's free trade and deregulation were such failures; why are people still willing to live in cargo containers for 3 weeks to get here or walk through a desert unfit for human habitation?

 

Re: Eisenhower wept

Proof that the electorate is stupid . . . . . no that's not what I was thinking . . . . . . but your answer is emblimatic of your fundamental problem. Yes I do think I am 'more like' the rest of the electorate. In what way though? Can you admit it? What is it you can't fake and they take so seriously?

 

Re: Eisenhower wept

I'm well aware of that. However, you asked the question, and I merely gave the correct answer.

I'm afraid I don't have an fundamental problem.

You have black and white answers for questions that demand to be answered in shades of gray. Much like our current President. People without a deep understanding of the issues are drawn to a lack of nuance, because they believe that this articulates a forceful strategy. And plain talk that they can always understand makes them feel that they're like the candidate.
Never underestimate the "how much like me is he" factor for the populace's voting.

Your suggestion is fundamentally incorrect on several levels. First, you assume that the electorate takes a point of vision or policy seriously. They don't. The majority of the electorate rarely go beyond "I like that guy more". The other flaw is that you assume that the Republicans have something better that the Democrats would need to fake. Which, of course, they don't, unless you're talking about the mythical Reagan vision, to which they have pathetically failed to live up to.
More to the point - time for you to articulate your hypothesis rather than talk in nebulous concepts and making us guess as to what your point is.

 

Because life in the imperial center is always better than life in the exploited colonies. That's the nature of empire.

If I had to choose between living in the U.S. and living in some third world hell-hole where U.S.-backed thugs locked the nation into a neocolonial relationship and did their damndest to prevent the populations from receiving a fair compensation for their natural resources and labor and crushed basic human rights wherever they were in danger of erupting, you bet your hairy ass I'd choose to live in the U.S. just like any sane person would have chosen Athens over any of the Delain League or chosen Rome over, say, northern Britain, or chosen England over India or a Caribbean plantation.

 

Re: Eisenhower wept

Don't hold your breath. He still hasn't said anything even half-intelligent or relevant in response to my first post in here from Saturday.

 

Re: Eisenhower wept

Sadly, I'm not. I haven't had a serious discussion with a conservative in a long, long time. Mostly because most of my serious conservative friends don't have any real agreements with this administration, save the party name. :sigh:

 

Re: Eisenhower wept

Well a simple, “Okay, I give up. What is it that you understand that I don’t?” would have sufficed.

What is it that is something of a litmus test for most voters? What is it that defines voting patterns more than anything else? Faith. Religion. You and JoPak won’t admit it but you disagree with the American electorate on the most fundamental issue, i.e. a belief in something greater than our reason. If we were to run against each other, once people figure out that I believe in God and I go to church while your belief in God is at least a bit more qualified, if not opposite, and that you don’t go to church, I win. I win the vote without any of the issues being in my corner. All I need to do is find some side issue or something not very important like Heterosexual marriage and it becomes a metaphor for many other things. I can talk values while you talk issues and I win.

The Caucasian wing, the democratic wing, of the Democratic party can’t admit that they are largely secular, if not atheist, and this puts them outside the national conversation. While they may be able to cobble together a majority with talk of “economic justice” or “two Americas” most Americans see two Americas as one secular and one religious rather than have and have nots.

The Christian bastardization of conservative values spoken about in the first post is the issue. That simple main street businessman spoken about in the third post might agree with the Democrats on the need for healthcare or environmental protection. In fact, he might agree with them on most issues. Yet he still supports the Republicans because that businessman goes to church on Sunday. Those Reagan Democrats didn’t move to the Republican party because of their fond memories of Reagan but because the secularists took over the Democratic party. The Republicans unapologetically embrace the role of religion in all aspects of their lives and Democrats try to pretend there are areas where religion should not tread. It let’s the Republicans get away with a whole host of political sins. In true Baptist tradition, what they believe becomes more important than what they do.

It’s in all the poling data and has been discussed ad infinitum for more than twenty years. Yet just like in this thread, Democrats can’t admit their fundamental problem. It would have been a killer for Dean and is a killer for Kerry. They can’t fake it and it’s very important. They fundamentally disagree with the American people about their most important issue, religion.

 

Wrong yet again.

If we disagree with anyone, it's the lazy-asses who are ignorant (in the technical sense) concerning the facts and reasoned arguments surrounding very important issues because they can't be bothered to educate themselves about the issues. This makes them easy prey for demagogues, as proven by the phenomenon of dittoheads and middle-class voters who vote for radical right-wing politicians whose policies are actively to the best interests of those middle-class voters.

Now, some of those people vote in such a self-destructive way because they've been fooled into thinking that certain cultural issues are more important than their own children's future. Of course, this would not be possible if those people hadn't already given up on trying to work their way towards an informed opinion. Many of these people are "religious" but many are thoroughly secular. If there is any religious trend among the dupes, it's a leaning towards the more fundamentalist versions of whatever religion they claim to espouse because fundamentalist sects are, not surprisingly, strongly anti-intellectual because opposing their members' ability to educate themselves is the best and often only way for them to keep the believers from asking damaging questions and questioning the authority of the fundamentalist leadership. It is this kind of glorification of ignorance (remember, kids, Big Brother sez: "Ignorance is Strength"!) that has re-emerged in the secular realm (the "Know Nothings" were a secular precursor in American history but then you don't know much about American history so I wouldn't expect you to know that) and makes possible the ranting from the right-wing against "eggheads", anyone with a university degree and whatnot. I guess it's one of history's little ironines that in this supposed "Information Age", there is so much access to so much information but so few people make the effort to use it. The Founding Fathers would have been horrified by the modern ignoramuses. In their day, people did not necessarily have tons of education, but most people kept up with the current events of the day rather than retreating into the idiocy of mere private life. Oh, and they also believed in the power of human reason, btw.

As far as religion goes, you have gotten the situation 180 degrees backwards. If anyone is "faking" religion, it's the Reeps. I mean, do you really think that Jesus or the buddha would be in favor of starting wars, spreading hatred, and pissing on the poor and middle class in favor of the rich? The Bible and the sutras, at least, argue otherwise. If there is any identification of certain portions of the American populace with the Reeps on "religious" grounds, it's that, like the Reeps, a lot of people want to seem religious while doing exactly whatever they want to do regardless of what Jesus or the buddha said. They want to be perceived as "moral" or "good" without having to do the work and make the sacrifices inherent in actually being moral or good. If anything, the trouble with the Dems is that they are often perceived as demanding real the morality of helping the poor, trying to find peaceful ways to settle conflict, caring for those in need, being socially and environmentally responsible, not hating anyone even if they are gay or Muslim or tax collectors or members of any other despised group, and all the other things that the Holy Books tell us that Jesus, the buddha, etc. espoused.

If anything, the Dems have problems because they are too genuinely religious and not big enough Pharisees, flaunting their supposed religiosity while practicing the opposite of their obnoxious, self-righteous preaching as the Reeps do.