https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...and-do/548738/
Interesting article that's provoked many thoughtful responses. Thought some of you might enjoy it.
Can American conservatism survive intact & unadulterated?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...and-do/548738/
Interesting article that's provoked many thoughtful responses. Thought some of you might enjoy it.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
QTWAIN.
Nothing ever survives intact and unadulterated, there will be changes and hopefully for the better. I thought there was little imaginable worse for American conservativism than Dubya-style born again evangelicism, but Trump's xenophobia is far worse. He needs to fail and fail hard at which point conservativism can reform for the better.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Interesting take on ideological asymmetry in the US (can't comment on quality of work):
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...598353E93272AC
Researchgate version:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...rty-System.pdf
Most Americans support liberal policies on the Social Welfare agenda, the
dominant policy cleavage in American politics. Yet, a striking feature of the
American party system is its tendency to equilibrium. How, then, does the
Republican Party minimize defection on the Social Welfare agenda? There is, our
results show, a deep ideological asymmetry between the parties. Republican
identifiers are ideologically aware and oriented to a degree that far exceeds their
Democratic counterparts. Our investigation, which utilizes cross-sectional,
longitudinal, and experimental data, demonstrates the role of ideological
awareness and involvement in the Republicans’ ability to maintain the backing of
their supporters even on issues on which the position of the Democratic Party is
widely popular.It also exposes two mechanisms, party branding and the use of
the status quo as a focal point, by which Democrats retain or rally support on
those issues on the Social Welfare agenda on which the position of the
Republican Party is widely popular.
[...]
The objective of this study has been to establish the actuality of a profound
partisan asymmetry in ideological awareness.Some broader implications therefore
deserve mention.To begin, a striking feature of the American party system is its
tendency to equilibrium.As Stokes and Iversen53observed a half century ago, despite
dramatic ups and downs in party fortunes over the short term, a longer-term view
shows that party competition seldom strays outside a fairly narrow competitive
range. What accounts for this equilibrium?
On the face of things, it is a bit of a mystery.The Social Welfare agenda has
been the most electorally consequential cleavage in American politics over the last
eight decades at least; and has become has become more, not less, consequential
over the last several decades.54But the liberal position on the Social Welfare agenda
has dominated the conservative, brief periods aside, and usually by wide, not a
narrow, margin.How has the Republican Party maintained itself when the winds of
policy fortune have blown against it so strongly and for so long?
Our results point to an equilibrium-reinforcing mechanism.If the Democratic
Party has had the advantage of markedly more popular policies on the primary
agenda of American politics, the Republican Party has had the advantage of more
ideologically aware adherents, and ideological awareness has, our results show,
adhesive power.Ideologically aware and oriented Republicans stick with their
party’s programmatic commitment to cutting social welfare benefits on the bulk of
policies that are broadly popular in the electorate and on their face hardly
unappealing to them; and they do so in large measure by virtue of their being
ideologically oriented and aware.
To make ideological awareness a centerpiece of a study of public opinion
may seem to be waving a red flag.The conventional view, after all, is that citizens are
“innocent of ideology.”55In fact, our results complement rather than contradict the
“conventional wisdom.”For one thing, this is a study of partisans, not of the mass
public as an undifferentiated whole.For another, having a political ideology typically
has been equated with having a political cosmology: that is, an interconnected
system of abstract beliefs that purport to give an understanding of the dynamics of
politics and the economy.In contrast, we have set out a down-to-earth view of what
it means to be ideologically aware and oriented, namely, to identify with the same
political outlook that one’s party is identified with; to know the ideological positions
of the parties relative to one another; grounding one’s attachment to one’s party in
substantial measure in ideological and policy concerns.
Both parties have identified themselves with a consistent view about the
scope of governmenton social welfare issues.In turn,substantial numbers in both
parties are prepared, able, and often do discuss, indeed, argue about the direction
that government policy should take.Most generally, then, our results point to the
utility of distinguishing between studies on ideology in the electorate take as a
whole and research on levelsof ideological awareness among political
partisans.Ideological considerations take on life in the clash of partisan politics and
our results suggest that asymmetries in ideological awareness between Republicans
and Democrats is a telling feature of the clash between the parties.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It's only going to get worse. The GOP have been poisoning their voters' minds for decades now. There's no quick way (if any) to reverse that.
Hope is the denial of reality
I've been waiting for Conservatives to become more like Rand Paul for awhile now. To me the biggest issue should be how much power do you want to give to the government when you know the cyclical nature of politics means you'll have your political enemies in power.
Trump is a step backward *in some areas* and a step forward in others. He has slashed regulations in spectacular fashion (though its gone mostly unreported).
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tr...rticle/2629177
He's a step back on how he wants to handle trade but there really doesn't seem much appetite to tackle that in congress anyway so there isn't much he can do about it. All in all the complaints about Trump have almost everything to do with how he acts personally (which lets face it is rather childish and un-presidential).
In the end, I'm still happy he's the President over Clinton. He put a conservative on the supreme court. He lowered taxes (including corporate tax rate). I even applaud several of his foreign policy moves like finally moving the embassy in Israel.
IF you like conservatism and bread and butter Republican initiatives you should be relatively pleased with Trump's first year. If you like liberal/Democrat policies you should really dislike him.
Well now I have some train reading.
You might be a Conservative, but you sure as hell aren't a conservative. Conservatism is primarily focused on preserving institutions. Trump has tried to destroy one American institution after another (luckily, he hasn't been competent enough to succeed, yet). Conservatism is at least as interested in procedure as in results. You just have a disjointed list of policy preferences, most of which you hold simply because "conservative" talking heads tell you to, and are willing to sell your soul to achieve them. Burke would have been horrified.
Hope is the denial of reality
Procedure matters in so far as a stable form of rules and government is important however doing something 'just because we've always done it that way' is ridiculous. Times change. This is why government should have more power locally than at the federal level because Alaska is different than New York. And North Dakota is different from Texas. What worked in the 1850's isn't going to be ideal for this decade. The entire purpose of the conservative notion that there should be less centralized federal power is that local governments can perform better since they are more agile and region specific. HOWEVER certain rights and should require incredible effort to be circumvented (constitutional amendment). Is that a conservative position or a liberal position? In today's politics it would be decidedly conservative since I don't want 5 justices having more authority than the bill of rights.
If you want to get pedantic, sure the idea that things should change is liberal as opposed to conservative but now we are arguing about definitions instead of what matters.
I'm curious to see what 'institutions' you think Trump has attempted to destroy. Again barring his incredible obnoxious demeanor his actions haven't been bad for the country if you like conservative things. (Tax cuts, less regulation, conservative justices etc). It doesn't surprise me that you as a liberal don't like him - this makes perfect sense because he isn't pushing liberal policy.
Lewk's boot-licking Conservative hero:
Twitter Link
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Another of Lewk's heroes:
Twitter Link
Hope is the denial of reality
Aimless do you think it is possible that Obama ranking officials broke the law? And if they did break the law should they be held accountable? Rand Paul has access to testimony and information that you don't. He's also one of the more level headed senators in the GOP.
https://arcdigital.media/conservativ...m-f64ad146bec2
That's a pretty damning indictment of GOP senators
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
How is that a damning indictment of GOP senators? Paul is great.
On to your link...
"Right-wing populists reject most of that, except for a selective reading of individual rights — 2nd amendment absolute, 1st and 4th not — and a version of “traditional values” that makes modern Burkeans cringe. They support entitlements, as long as those entitlements go to “us” and not “them.” They’re comfortable with attacks on individual freedom, such as Trump’s threats against the press and peaceful protesters. And they like government intervention into the economy, so long as it’s in favor of industries they consider “theirs,” such as coal mining or certain types of manufacturing."
Strawman of epic proportions. I don't know what right wing populist thinks protest shouldn't be allowed. I'm sure you can dig someone up however the issue with 'protest' is that simply by declaring you are doing a protest should not entitle you to break other laws. You can't just punch people and call it a protest. Or block people from getting to their place of business. Or throw bottles of piss. Trump's 'threats' about to a molehill. Not letting the press travel with him? Potentially looking at slander/libel (laws already on the books)? Calling them fake news? Not issues. Here is real threats to the free press:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lled_in_Russia
I would say the entitlements for 'us' and not 'them' is a fair charge... and not at all new in American politics. Just look at the fucking corn subsidies that have been around for some time.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
"It also exposes two mechanisms, party branding and the use of
the status quo as a focal point, by which Democrats retain or rally support on
those issues on the Social Welfare agenda on which the position of the
Republican Party is widely popular."
Lewk reminds me how well Republican branding has worked: cut taxes (even tho it's not paid for, and raises the debt and deficit); give more power to states (but maybe not so much for disaster relief or expensive infrastructure); subsidies are bad (except when they benefit your own state), etc.
oh yeah, and claim that you're concerned about protecting civil liberties/personal freedoms, as a conservative principle, with constitutional validation, while also wanting a SCOTUS judge that might overturn Roe v Wade. That kind of duplicity and hypocrisy is rampant in the New Republican Party "ideology".
Most conservatives think Roe v. Wade is bull shit.
Do you think killing infants should be OK? I assume you don't. Well most conservatives believes a fetus and infant are interchangeable terms. It isn't difficult to understand that position just like it isn't difficult to understand liberals who think fetus != fetus. Quit making it sound like its somehow hypocritical to be in favor of personal liberties while also believing it is OK to restrict the murder of infants.
Like I said, you're a good example of how Republican Branding has been effective, even when it's not really libertarian or conservative.
I don't know why you think fetus and infant are interchangeable terms, because they're not. I don't know why you're conflating abortion with murder, but I suspect it's because you've bought into the PRO LIFE agenda that's part of the Republican Party Propaganda (and branding) that's been co-opted by Christian Evangelicals.
The same dilemma occurs within the "Liberal Democratic Party", that usually aligns itself with the Catholic church, where even birth control is taboo. So don't feel bad about your conflicts. Just stop making it sound like right or wrong is party specific.
That depends on how you define terms, especially what 'conservative' means. If you think a conservative government shouldn't be telling people how to conduct their reproductive lives, or dictate medical procedures, then Roe v Wade makes perfect sense.
I have no idea how the Christian Coalition, the Moral Majority, Faith and Family voters, CPAC, or any other right wing Republican group that's glommed onto abortion as their celebrated political cause....has convinced voters that electing Trump was a good thing, just because he can tilt the Supreme Court in a more authoritarian direction. Branding is just another word for propaganda
I literally just told you why abortion is conflated with murder. You can feel free to disagree but burying your head in the sand is just ignorant.
For God's sake GGT Lewk believes the world was created in 6 days around 6000 years ago and humans hung out with dinosaurs until all dinos perished in a global flood that millions of animals survived thanks to some dude with a giant boat.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No, you just threw out a statement that "most" conservatives think Roe v Wade is bullshit...when many conservatives believe that the government shouldn't dictate what women do with their reproductive organs (or men, for that matter). You conflated embryo with fetus, and fetus with infant; you didn't distinguish between spontaneous abortion (a miscarriage) or chemically induced or surgical termination, or even selective termination (after IVF).
You've bought the "pro-life" propaganda disseminated by the Christian Coalition, hook line and sinker, without putting much thought into the modern complexities of reproduction, or birth control....let alone the males' undeniable role.
He also claims to support maximum individual freeeeedoms and a small, non-intrusive government. Maybe he really wants a New-Age Evangelical Christian Theocracy, who knows? I suppose that's the big question for American Conservatism as a whole.....and whether the Republican Party can be the Big Tent they promise
Damage assessment: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...d87_story.html
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Incredibly well-written article and one that any so-called "conservative" like Lewkowski should read and take seriously.
Trump and his kin are an unmitigated disaster for conservativism.
Basically he spends all of his time whining about 'he makes America look bad!'
I care about policy and the policy actions have been heavily in favor of conservative policies of less government regulation, anti-obamacare (killing the mandate), lower taxation and conservative justices on the supreme court and lower courts. Optics change all the time, public opinion and world opinion often sways wildly from administration to administration. However the courts are generational. The lasting impact of Trump over Clinton will be felt in court rulings for decades to come.
That being said I'm not happy with Trump's character. He's a narcissistic liar. But I don't like Hillary Clinton's faux persona and constant lies either. Character wise they are both deeply flawed individuals. I'd rather have Rand Paul or Marco Rubio or even Ted Cruz over Trump. But I will continue to content that a bad Republican is still far better than a Democrat of any stripe who will turn the judiciary to the left.
http://www.ajc.com/news/national/tex...Xh36tyLmf0RdP/
Lewk's dream judge.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
No, that guy should be off the bench.
One day, this might be the GOP:
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/gop...ery-night/amp/
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote