If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Steve Inskeep asks "conservative intellectual" Yuval Levin why he has written a book that argues modern liberalism is a conservative position and why modern conservatives are batshiat insane; let's see if he notices   (npr.org) divider line 36
    More: Ironic, Yuval Levin, Steve Inskeep, modern liberalism, Thomas Paine, Edmund Burke, intellectuals, posters, Morning Edition  
•       •       •

2123 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2013 at 9:28 AM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-03 08:38:33 AM
I listened to this on the way in this morning.  It concentrated on Edmund Burke, and ignored Thomas Paine for the most part.  It did  mention that Thomas Paine was a big advocate of the French Revolution, they kind of skipped the part about him very nearly being executed by the Montagnards, with a simple quirk of fate that saved his life.

Now, I have a copy of both Common Sense and The American Crisis on my bookshelf, wedged between the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers*, and "Democracy in America" by de Tocqueville, and if you were to categorize me, I'd probably lean more towards conservative, at least in the sense of "limited government".  Certainly, I have liberal (in the classic sense) social views, in that I don't really care what you do, so long as it doesn't pick my pocket or break my bones.  Today, I guess that is more along the lines of "small L" libertarianism, with the appellation of "liberal" being hijacked sometime in the last 100 years by the progressives.


*I sometimes wonder why the Federalist Papers are accorded more weight in jurisprudence then the Anti-Federalist papers:  The whole reason the Bill of Rights was adopted was to ease the fears of the Anti-Federalists who were rightly afraid of an all-powerful central government.  Seems to me to be a significant reason to pay attention to them.
 
2013-12-03 09:38:39 AM

dittybopper: I listened to this on the way in this morning.  It concentrated on Edmund Burke, and ignored Thomas Paine for the most part.  It did  mention that Thomas Paine was a big advocate of the French Revolution, they kind of skipped the part about him very nearly being executed by the Montagnards, with a simple quirk of fate that saved his life.

Now, I have a copy of both Common Sense and The American Crisis on my bookshelf, wedged between the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers*, and "Democracy in America" by de Tocqueville, and if you were to categorize me, I'd probably lean more towards conservative, at least in the sense of "limited government".  Certainly, I have liberal (in the classic sense) social views, in that I don't really care what you do, so long as it doesn't pick my pocket or break my bones.  Today, I guess that is more along the lines of "small L" libertarianism, with the appellation of "liberal" being hijacked sometime in the last 100 years by the progressives.


*I sometimes wonder why the Federalist Papers are accorded more weight in jurisprudence then the Anti-Federalist papers:  The whole reason the Bill of Rights was adopted was to ease the fears of the Anti-Federalists who were rightly afraid of an all-powerful central government.  Seems to me to be a significant reason to pay attention to them.



Well that's all well and good, but it's still ignoring the central thesis in that liberals want to preserve and improve the status quo, except rather than a king and parliament, it's the New Deal and Medicare, while "conservatives" are angrily demeaning to bring the house down on their own heads with a Gadsden flag and quotes about watering the tree of liberty.

That's generally why I don't think broad generalizations about political belief fit into neat historical narratives -- I'd say Mr. Levin here is trying to contort history to his own idealized mythology.

Since Reagan, conservatives have been anything but prudent.  They've been on a radical campaign to redefine society, politics, and economics -- often blindly in the pursuit of ideology rather than effectiveness.
 
2013-12-03 09:42:39 AM
While listening to that, I had a hard time getting this picture out of my mind.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-12-03 09:46:21 AM
Conservatives are liberals and Liberals are conservatives..... yes we get it.
 
2013-12-03 09:53:02 AM
I listened to that guy's argument, and tried to read between the lines and what I came up with is that he was commissioned by some CON ThinkTank to creat an impression other than reality because the Right in America is being exposed for what they are, which is are petty closet fascist and sharkers.

In the end I concluded that his argument was yet another game of 3 card monty brought to the listener by Cato,or Heritage, or Hoover or AEI or some other sad excuse for a "Think"Tank. Strange how we rarely hear such unabashed ideological drivel coming from the Left.

The Right's always screaming about the Liberal  LSM is just another Rovian technique of accusing to other of the sins you yourself are woefully guilt of. Conservatives today embrace Politics as a Dirty Business and revel in it, while Liberals claim, at least to still be  trying to solve societies problems... and today's"Conservatives" have a real problem with THAT.

Ever since that towering figure of GOP Intellection, Newt Gingrich used his so called PHD to CONvince GOPers that CONservatism is the New Radicalism the GOPers have been talking out of both sides of their assholes.

The real  backstory of the NPR piece is about the Right's  attempt at staunch the tide that is going out on Gingrich's so called radical Conservatism. A tide that should have gone out twenty years ago if not for  Rightward predisposition of the MSM. Call it the CNN effect or Gannet effect or NewsCorp effect.
 
2013-12-03 09:55:43 AM
It's always Burke's fault. I even heard he and Samuel murdered Chancellor Gorkon.
 
2013-12-03 09:58:06 AM

DrD'isInfotainment: I listened to that guy's argument, and tried to read between the lines and what I came up with is that he was commissioned by some CON ThinkTank to creat an impression other than reality because the Right in America is being exposed for what they are, which is are petty closet fascist and sharkers.

In the end I concluded that his argument was yet another game of 3 card monty brought to the listener by Cato,or Heritage, or Hoover or AEI or some other sad excuse for a "Think"Tank. Strange how we rarely hear such unabashed ideological drivel coming from the Left.

The Right's always screaming about the Liberal  LSM is just another Rovian technique of accusing to other of the sins you yourself are woefully guilt of. Conservatives today embrace Politics as a Dirty Business and revel in it, while Liberals claim, at least to still be  trying to solve societies problems... and today's"Conservatives" have a real problem with THAT.

Ever since that towering figure of GOP Intellection, Newt Gingrich used his so called PHD to CONvince GOPers that CONservatism is the New Radicalism the GOPers have been talking out of both sides of their assholes.

The real  backstory of the NPR piece is about the Right's  attempt at staunch the tide that is going out on Gingrich's so called radical Conservatism. A tide that should have gone out twenty years ago if not for  Rightward predisposition of the MSM. Call it the CNN effect or Gannet effect or NewsCorp effect.



I waffle between whether these people believe the nonsense they divine from their own bellybutton, or if it's purposely obfuscating.  One thing is for sure however, there's lots of money in touring the right wing 'intellectual' circuit.   NPR certainly takes it seriously.
 
2013-12-03 10:14:20 AM

DarnoKonrad: Well that's all well and good, but it's still ignoring the central thesis in that liberals want to preserve and improve the status quo, except rather than a king and parliament, it's the New Deal and Medicare, while "conservatives" are angrily demeaning to bring the house down on their own heads with a Gadsden flag and quotes about watering the tree of liberty.


I've noticed that the ideologies tend to work like this:

Problem: People are doing X when it would be better for them to be doing Y.
Liberal solution: Let's make Y better
Conservative solution: Let's make X worse
 
2013-12-03 10:22:35 AM

DarnoKonrad: I waffle between whether these people believe the nonsense they divine from their own bellybutton, or if it's purposely obfuscating


I think it's a bit of both.  Or as Upton sinclair put it:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

Those  "think tanks" and the conservative lecture circuit pay quite well as long as you say the things that they want to hear.  My guess is that what starts out as just a little embellishment to gain  attention turns into full fledged belief once their fame and fortune depends on it.

IOW, they know that they are bullshiatting, but come to believe their own bullshiat.
 
2013-12-03 10:23:25 AM
Take your leftiest lefty to Europe and ask them what he is and they will all say "conservative."

We have no idea what a liberal is in this country anymore.
 
2013-12-03 10:24:01 AM

DarnoKonrad: DrD'isInfotainment: I listened to that guy's argument, and tried to read between the lines and what I came up with is that he was commissioned by some CON ThinkTank to creat an impression other than reality because the Right in America is being exposed for what they are, which is are petty closet fascist and sharkers.

In the end I concluded that his argument was yet another game of 3 card monty brought to the listener by Cato,or Heritage, or Hoover or AEI or some other sad excuse for a "Think"Tank. Strange how we rarely hear such unabashed ideological drivel coming from the Left.

The Right's always screaming about the Liberal  LSM is just another Rovian technique of accusing to other of the sins you yourself are woefully guilt of. Conservatives today embrace Politics as a Dirty Business and revel in it, while Liberals claim, at least to still be  trying to solve societies problems... and today's"Conservatives" have a real problem with THAT.

Ever since that towering figure of GOP Intellection, Newt Gingrich used his so called PHD to CONvince GOPers that CONservatism is the New Radicalism the GOPers have been talking out of both sides of their assholes.

The real  backstory of the NPR piece is about the Right's  attempt at staunch the tide that is going out on Gingrich's so called radical Conservatism. A tide that should have gone out twenty years ago if not for  Rightward predisposition of the MSM. Call it the CNN effect or Gannet effect or NewsCorp effect.


I waffle between whether these people believe the nonsense they divine from their own bellybutton, or if it's purposely obfuscating.  One thing is for sure however, there's lots of money in touring the right wing 'intellectual' circuit.   NPR certainly takes it seriously.


I wrote the NPR Ombudsman this weekend about Mara Liassen's CONstant harping on Obama "plummeting "poll numbers which  had actually gone from a 37-39 approve to on the day she was report  , 44 approve. I have not heard back. I begin to think that what Mara's reporting is "Pay to Play" Imbedded Advertising without any disclosure from NPR. Have things really gotten that corrupt in the "News" business?
 
2013-12-03 10:31:38 AM

DrD'isInfotainment: DarnoKonrad: DrD'isInfotainment: I listened to that guy's argument, and tried to read between the lines and what I came up with is that he was commissioned by some CON ThinkTank to creat an impression other than reality because the Right in America is being exposed for what they are, which is are petty closet fascist and sharkers.

In the end I concluded that his argument was yet another game of 3 card monty brought to the listener by Cato,or Heritage, or Hoover or AEI or some other sad excuse for a "Think"Tank. Strange how we rarely hear such unabashed ideological drivel coming from the Left.

The Right's always screaming about the Liberal  LSM is just another Rovian technique of accusing to other of the sins you yourself are woefully guilt of. Conservatives today embrace Politics as a Dirty Business and revel in it, while Liberals claim, at least to still be  trying to solve societies problems... and today's"Conservatives" have a real problem with THAT.

Ever since that towering figure of GOP Intellection, Newt Gingrich used his so called PHD to CONvince GOPers that CONservatism is the New Radicalism the GOPers have been talking out of both sides of their assholes.

The real  backstory of the NPR piece is about the Right's  attempt at staunch the tide that is going out on Gingrich's so called radical Conservatism. A tide that should have gone out twenty years ago if not for  Rightward predisposition of the MSM. Call it the CNN effect or Gannet effect or NewsCorp effect.


I waffle between whether these people believe the nonsense they divine from their own bellybutton, or if it's purposely obfuscating.  One thing is for sure however, there's lots of money in touring the right wing 'intellectual' circuit.   NPR certainly takes it seriously.

I wrote the NPR Ombudsman this weekend about Mara Liassen's CONstant harping on Obama "plummeting "poll numbers which  had actually gone from a 37-39 approve to on the day she was report  , 44 approve. I have not heard back. I ...



Liassen is really the worst.  I couldn't understand firing Juan Williams while keeping that beltway regurgitating sycophant around.
 
2013-12-03 10:33:38 AM

uh_clem: DarnoKonrad: I waffle between whether these people believe the nonsense they divine from their own bellybutton, or if it's purposely obfuscating

I think it's a bit of both.  Or as Upton sinclair put it:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

Those  "think tanks" and the conservative lecture circuit pay quite well as long as you say the things that they want to hear.  My guess is that what starts out as just a little embellishment to gain  attention turns into full fledged belief once their fame and fortune depends on it.

IOW, they know that they are bullshiatting, but come to believe their own bullshiat.


http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reali ty -based-community/
 
2013-12-03 10:34:00 AM
We're ignoring the entire spectrum when we discuss "conservativism vs liberalism" while we choose to ignore the Y-axis of Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism.  Both Stalin and Gandhi were left-wing radicals, but clearly the two were not the same. You could easily call Stalin a conservative, but he certainly was no libertarian. I'm fairly left-wing, but get along nicely with right-wingers who are more on the social libertarian side, whereas I have no interest in lefties who have their sights set on more authoritarian rule.

//Socialist Libertarianism ftw.
 
2013-12-03 10:35:04 AM

DrD'isInfotainment: I wrote the NPR Ombudsman this weekend about Mara Liassen's CONstant harping on Obama "plummeting "poll numbers which had actually gone from a 37-39 approve to on the day she was report , 44 approve. I have not heard back. I begin to think that what Mara's reporting is "Pay to Play" Imbedded Advertising without any disclosure from NPR. Have things really gotten that corrupt in the "News" business?


Mara Liassen is definitely a problem and you are right to complain to the ombudsman.  She's basically a Fox News employee and NPR should identify her as such. Something like:

"And now we have Mara Liassen from Fox News to present the conservative talking points of the day.  Mara?"
 
2013-12-03 10:40:24 AM

dittybopper: Certainly, I have liberal (in the classic sense) social views, in that I don't really care what you do, so long as it doesn't pick my pocket or break my bones.


"Liberal" (in the classical sense) meant generous. As in, generous to the the poor. As in, generous in ensuring a good education for all. Not giving a flying fark about something as long as it doesn't affect you is not liberal in any classical sense. It's isolationist.
 
2013-12-03 10:49:52 AM

DarnoKonrad: DrD'isInfotainment: I listened to that guy's argument, and tried to read between the lines and what I came up with is that he was commissioned by some CON ThinkTank to creat an impression other than reality because the Right in America is being exposed for what they are, which is are petty closet fascist and sharkers.

In the end I concluded that his argument was yet another game of 3 card monty brought to the listener by Cato,or Heritage, or Hoover or AEI or some other sad excuse for a "Think"Tank. Strange how we rarely hear such unabashed ideological drivel coming from the Left.

The Right's always screaming about the Liberal  LSM is just another Rovian technique of accusing to other of the sins you yourself are woefully guilt of. Conservatives today embrace Politics as a Dirty Business and revel in it, while Liberals claim, at least to still be  trying to solve societies problems... and today's"Conservatives" have a real problem with THAT.

Ever since that towering figure of GOP Intellection, Newt Gingrich used his so called PHD to CONvince GOPers that CONservatism is the New Radicalism the GOPers have been talking out of both sides of their assholes.

The real  backstory of the NPR piece is about the Right's  attempt at staunch the tide that is going out on Gingrich's so called radical Conservatism. A tide that should have gone out twenty years ago if not for  Rightward predisposition of the MSM. Call it the CNN effect or Gannet effect or NewsCorp effect.


I waffle between whether these people believe the nonsense they divine from their own bellybutton, or if it's purposely obfuscating.  One thing is for sure however, there's lots of money in touring the right wing 'intellectual' circuit.   NPR certainly takes it seriously.


Well hey, basic capitalism.  Scarcity increases value.
 
2013-12-03 10:53:12 AM

DarnoKonrad: DrD'isInfotainment: I listened to that guy's argument, and tried to read between the lines and what I came up with is that he was commissioned by some CON ThinkTank to creat an impression other than reality because the Right in America is being exposed for what they are, which is are petty closet fascist and sharkers.

In the end I concluded that his argument was yet another game of 3 card monty brought to the listener by Cato,or Heritage, or Hoover or AEI or some other sad excuse for a "Think"Tank. Strange how we rarely hear such unabashed ideological drivel coming from the Left.

The Right's always screaming about the Liberal  LSM is just another Rovian technique of accusing to other of the sins you yourself are woefully guilt of. Conservatives today embrace Politics as a Dirty Business and revel in it, while Liberals claim, at least to still be  trying to solve societies problems... and today's"Conservatives" have a real problem with THAT.

Ever since that towering figure of GOP Intellection, Newt Gingrich used his so called PHD to CONvince GOPers that CONservatism is the New Radicalism the GOPers have been talking out of both sides of their assholes.

The real  backstory of the NPR piece is about the Right's  attempt at staunch the tide that is going out on Gingrich's so called radical Conservatism. A tide that should have gone out twenty years ago if not for  Rightward predisposition of the MSM. Call it the CNN effect or Gannet effect or NewsCorp effect.


I waffle between whether these people believe the nonsense they divine from their own bellybutton, or if it's purposely obfuscating.  One thing is for sure however, there's lots of money in touring the right wing 'intellectual' circuit.   NPR certainly takes it seriously.


Sounding like what a stupid person thinks smart people sound like is both easy and remunerative.
 
2013-12-03 11:07:30 AM
Political labels are largely meaningless since no one seems to agree on their meaning.

Most people would consider me liberal or progressive, but my support of national policies and priorities that radicals are seeking to tear down makes me a de facto conservative.

And while I will curse the names Cheney and Rumsfeld until the day I die, I'm more hawkish than your average liberal. Combine that with my progressive views on domestic policy and you have the textbook definition of a neo-con.

/proud Hamiltonian developmentalist
 
2013-12-03 11:31:23 AM

Fast Moon: DarnoKonrad: Well that's all well and good, but it's still ignoring the central thesis in that liberals want to preserve and improve the status quo, except rather than a king and parliament, it's the New Deal and Medicare, while "conservatives" are angrily demeaning to bring the house down on their own heads with a Gadsden flag and quotes about watering the tree of liberty.

I've noticed that the ideologies tend to work like this:

Problem: People are doing X when it would be better for them to be doing Y.
Liberal solution: Let's make Y better
Conservative solution: Let's make X worse Let's burn the whole farking thing down!


Fixed to reflect what passes for modern conservative thought.
 
2013-12-03 11:32:05 AM

dittybopper: I listened to this on the way in this morning.  It concentrated on Edmund Burke, and ignored Thomas Paine for the most part.  It did  mention that Thomas Paine was a big advocate of the French Revolution, they kind of skipped the part about him very nearly being executed by the Montagnards, with a simple quirk of fate that saved his life.


Did he give a coin to the blind man at the gate?
 
2013-12-03 11:32:39 AM

Saiga410: Conservatives are liberals regressives and Liberals are conservatives..... yes we get it.


FTFY.
 
2013-12-03 12:04:25 PM

DarnoKonrad: DrD'isInfotainment: I listened to that guy's argument, and tried to read between the lines and what I came up with is that he was commissioned by some CON ThinkTank to creat an impression other than reality because the Right in America is being exposed for what they are, which is are petty closet fascist and sharkers.

In the end I concluded that his argument was yet another game of 3 card monty brought to the listener by Cato,or Heritage, or Hoover or AEI or some other sad excuse for a "Think"Tank. Strange how we rarely hear such unabashed ideological drivel coming from the Left.

The Right's always screaming about the Liberal  LSM is just another Rovian technique of accusing to other of the sins you yourself are woefully guilt of. Conservatives today embrace Politics as a Dirty Business and revel in it, while Liberals claim, at least to still be  trying to solve societies problems... and today's"Conservatives" have a real problem with THAT.

Ever since that towering figure of GOP Intellection, Newt Gingrich used his so called PHD to CONvince GOPers that CONservatism is the New Radicalism the GOPers have been talking out of both sides of their assholes.

The real  backstory of the NPR piece is about the Right's  attempt at staunch the tide that is going out on Gingrich's so called radical Conservatism. A tide that should have gone out twenty years ago if not for  Rightward predisposition of the MSM. Call it the CNN effect or Gannet effect or NewsCorp effect.


I waffle between whether these people believe the nonsense they divine from their own bellybutton, or if it's purposely obfuscating.  One thing is for sure however, there's lots of money in touring the right wing 'intellectual' circuit.   NPR certainly takes it seriously.


The GOP has invested a lot into radicals. It has done this for some time. NeoCons got in with Reagan, and they immediately realized that they could NOT keep up the momentum without securing the means to production. In their case, without having journals, magazines, and think tanks to continue the push. They invested heavily into publishing, and into media, and THAT, coupled with an alliance with the Religious Right, they've turned the party--and are keeping the party--from turning back from the precipice of radicalism.

It's NOT Conservatism, which the GOP is campaigning with. Calling it that is part of the process that the NeoCons have engaged in, by redefining terms. It is an Ivory Tower approach to governance, and that has always been my issue with the NeoCons, is that they are Ivory Tower types who think that games theory and a willful misreading of the concept of subjective reality can make for public policy. And we're reaping the "benefit" of this intellectual dishonesty at this point. I will give them credit for selling it well though to their target audience. They have sold the sad fact, that the NeoCons were relegated to the kiddie table for years, and have transformed their position of being the radical fringe, and redefined terms so well in the public mind, that folks tend to forget that Republicans used to stand with labor, used to stand for rights for minorities, and even environmentalism. And the party itself has forgotten that as well. Well, much of the rank and file at least.

The GOP is NOT a Conservative party in the least--or rather, the bulk of the party is backing folks who are radicals who wish to tear down the establishment. Mind you, I understand the rage that is fueling the efforts. Years of watching jobs flee, watching an increased intrusiveness by the government, and a shift in public policy that has decreased savings, flushed retirements, and the problem is, that the very folks who have been championing these shifts, have to keep the rubes looking far and away from the folks who engineered this. The ACA is an example. It was originally a Republican idea, and implemented in Massachusetts first as the pilot program, and signed into law by Mitt Romney. Yet, now folks rage on about it as the worstestest thing EVAR. Despite being their own idea. US PATRIOT was signed into law with resounding support, and now folks are realizing it was maybe not such a great thing, and NOW that the powers are exercised by a Democrat, it's a horrible, no good, bad idea. Let's not even get into the undercutting of liability, bailing out banks, softening the regulations on exchanges and the like. The track record has been to point fingers AFTER support, and ignore the fact that they have been the authors of the very issues that they're pointing fingers at. The rage is real, and even understandable. What is amazing, is that the GOP is using it, and keeping folks pointed away from the policies that they've advocated and authored, and doing ANYTHING and saying ANYTHING to keep folks from looking closer.

Look at the recent flap with the embassy moving in Rome. Big story about how the Administration is cutting ties with the Vatican. Despite the fact that the embassy is actually moving closer. The flap was made, the accusations fly, and even when proven false, the issue has already done its damage by painting a narrative. And THAT is really the issue that I have with the NeoCons and their ilk: they have invested the bulk of the party into narrative not policy. So long as the story sounds good, then the policies themselves don't matter. They can vote for policies that are against long held Republican values, but so long as they can spin the story, that doesn't matter. Civil rights? They can campaign on the long term record, while voting to strip those rights and keep the "wrong" people from having them. You know. For kids. And freedom. And against socialisms. The problem with the NeoCons has always been that they have been not grounded in firm policy, but rather coming up with justifications for policy. Their investiture into a misreading and willful misunderstanding of subjective reality as a basis for philosophy means that they are committed to simply massaging the messaging, without having to change policy. It is intellectually dishonest, and it opens the door for a LOT of misconduct and malfeasance, which is perhaps why so many folks support their platform, because they realize that they can get away with murder, and be lauded for it.

And it's NOT Conservative in the least. It's a bunch of marginalized radicals who finally got their shot, and now they're rewriting history to make themselves out to be the heroes. And it's working as education is gutted, as the media is defanged. But let's not call it Conservatism: it's revenge porn writ large on the public for marginalizing folks who think that Ayn Rand was a hero because she intellectually fellated folks when hating Commies was more important than anything else.
 
2013-12-03 12:16:13 PM
Today's GOP are reactionaries trying to change America into their vision of what it should look like, and today's Democrats that are in the seats of power are largely right of center trying to maintain the status quo.

The rank and file of both parties seem to not reflect what they end up electing (my own observation).
 
2013-12-03 12:36:14 PM

meat0918: Today's GOP are reactionaries trying to change America into their vision of what it should look like, and today's Democrats that are in the seats of power are largely right of center trying to maintain the status quo.

The rank and file of both parties seem to not reflect what they end up electing (my own observation).



Because nobody with any ability to reasonably govern will receive campaign donations. The only people who get elected are those who pander the most or give the most electrifying speeches... rarely those with a demonstrated ability to govern.
 
2013-12-03 12:43:26 PM

Thrag: Fast Moon: DarnoKonrad: Well that's all well and good, but it's still ignoring the central thesis in that liberals want to preserve and improve the status quo, except rather than a king and parliament, it's the New Deal and Medicare, while "conservatives" are angrily demeaning to bring the house down on their own heads with a Gadsden flag and quotes about watering the tree of liberty.

I've noticed that the ideologies tend to work like this:

Problem: People are doing X when it would be better for them to be doing Y.
Liberal solution: Let's make Y better
Conservative solution: Let's make X worse Let's burn the whole farking thing down!

Fixed to reflect what passes for modern conservative thought.


There was a news item from a while back the showcased to me the difference between conservatives and liberals (or at least what passes for liberal in the US).

It was about a school lunch program for low in come kids, and it had come to light that some of the children who were being given lunch didn't qualify, because their parents made to much money, or some reason.

The liberal side was disappointed, but knew that it's impossible to completely get rid of the problem, and that a few kids getting lunch wasn't the end of the world.

The conservatives wanted to end the program. Apparently they thought it's better for several hundred children to go hungry, then for a few to get something they don't 'deserve.'
 
2013-12-03 12:48:54 PM

rustypouch: Thrag: Fast Moon: DarnoKonrad: Well that's all well and good, but it's still ignoring the central thesis in that liberals want to preserve and improve the status quo, except rather than a king and parliament, it's the New Deal and Medicare, while "conservatives" are angrily demeaning to bring the house down on their own heads with a Gadsden flag and quotes about watering the tree of liberty.

I've noticed that the ideologies tend to work like this:

Problem: People are doing X when it would be better for them to be doing Y.
Liberal solution: Let's make Y better
Conservative solution: Let's make X worse Let's burn the whole farking thing down!

Fixed to reflect what passes for modern conservative thought.

There was a news item from a while back the showcased to me the difference between conservatives and liberals (or at least what passes for liberal in the US).

It was about a school lunch program for low in come kids, and it had come to light that some of the children who were being given lunch didn't qualify, because their parents made to much money, or some reason.

The liberal side was disappointed, but knew that it's impossible to completely get rid of the problem, and that a few kids getting lunch wasn't the end of the world.

The conservatives wanted to end the program. Apparently they thought it's better for several hundred children to go hungry, then for a few to get something they don't 'deserve.'


That's it in a nutshell.
 
2013-12-03 02:00:27 PM

limeyfellow: It's always Burke's fault. I even heard he and Samuel murdered Chancellor Gorkon.


Also, he tried to slip a xenomorph through quarantine by having Ripley and Newt impregnated.
 
2013-12-03 02:17:17 PM

DeaH: dittybopper: Certainly, I have liberal (in the classic sense) social views, in that I don't really care what you do, so long as it doesn't pick my pocket or break my bones.

"Liberal" (in the classical sense) meant generous. As in, generous to the the poor. As in, generous in ensuring a good education for all. Not giving a flying fark about something as long as it doesn't affect you is not liberal in any classical sense. It's isolationist.


Wrong.

Classical Liberalism is grounded in limited government and individual rights.  Individual rights like free speech, freedom of religion, but most importantly, property rights.  To the extent it's about being generous, it's about being personally generous through voluntary charity, not having it forced upon you by the power of the state.  The word "liberal" has the same root as "liberty", and that's how it was understood.
What you are talking about isn't Classical Liberalism, it's New Liberalism.
 
2013-12-03 03:08:08 PM

hubiestubert: But let's not call it Conservatism: it's revenge porn writ large on the public for marginalizing folks who think that Ayn Rand was a hero because she intellectually fellated folks when hating Commies was more important than anything else.


I didn't quote the full analysis, but it was brilliant.
You're missing one huge piece of it, even though you hint at it in your very last sentence.
Don't call them neocons. Call them neoCon(federate)s. Their outlook is that of landed plantation owners combined with the worst aspects of the Robber Barons. That this horrific nonsense took root in Ike's America and thrived is just mind-boggling.
 
2013-12-03 03:21:59 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: hubiestubert: But let's not call it Conservatism: it's revenge porn writ large on the public for marginalizing folks who think that Ayn Rand was a hero because she intellectually fellated folks when hating Commies was more important than anything else.

I didn't quote the full analysis, but it was brilliant.
You're missing one huge piece of it, even though you hint at it in your very last sentence.
Don't call them neocons. Call them neoCon(federate)s. Their outlook is that of landed plantation owners combined with the worst aspects of the Robber Barons. That this horrific nonsense took root in Ike's America and thrived is just mind-boggling.


The NeoCons--and I use the term that they themselves claimed--we're mostly marginalized for many years. Reagan's win was huge for them, and they included many in his Cabinet and his staunchest of advisors. They were a primarily academics, and that insulation shows in the policies that they've advocated over the years.

They folded in many who felt abandoned by the Southern Strategy, and the Gingrich Revolution gave many a voice--and chances like David Duke to burn out--but the NeoCons have had to have allies in their fight for control of the party. Their coalition is in control, but it's tenuous. And the Rovian tactics to cement their success in certain demographics have led them to court the Crazy Train in the TEA Party nonsense. That is the kicker: the NeoCons were marginalized and outsiders, and they are courting the dissatisfied in the party, forgetting WHY those folks have been in the wings...
 
2013-12-03 03:34:33 PM
The main problems with the GOP platform, and the reason they end up sounding either 'off-their-meds' or like complete assholes:

- They want government to stay out of their personal lives, but are perfectly willing to insert it into their mother's uterus, and their own bedroom
- The claim to be about 'controlling spending' and then get elected and double and triple spending.
- They claim to be the 'party of personal responsibility' but happily support pedophiles and convicted tax cheats for public office.
- They claim to be the party of 'strong defense' and then turn around and push the most hawkish, war-starting policies imaginable, making every concerted effort to offend as many of our remaining allies as possible.
- They claim to be the 'party of generosity' then turn around and try to repeal child labor laws, and minimum wage laws, and completely eliminate programs that feed the poor.
- They claim to be the only party that understands money, then tries to imply that none of 'their' lobbyists have any impact on their decisions
- They claim to be the party of accountability, then turn around and sponsor groups like ALEC.

This list could go on for a whole page...but that's a good start.
 
2013-12-03 05:01:16 PM

rustypouch: Thrag: Fast Moon: DarnoKonrad: Well that's all well and good, but it's still ignoring the central thesis in that liberals want to preserve and improve the status quo, except rather than a king and parliament, it's the New Deal and Medicare, while "conservatives" are angrily demeaning to bring the house down on their own heads with a Gadsden flag and quotes about watering the tree of liberty.

I've noticed that the ideologies tend to work like this:

Problem: People are doing X when it would be better for them to be doing Y.
Liberal solution: Let's make Y better
Conservative solution: Let's make X worse Let's burn the whole farking thing down!

Fixed to reflect what passes for modern conservative thought.

There was a news item from a while back the showcased to me the difference between conservatives and liberals (or at least what passes for liberal in the US).

It was about a school lunch program for low in come kids, and it had come to light that some of the children who were being given lunch didn't qualify, because their parents made to much money, or some reason.

The liberal side was disappointed, but knew that it's impossible to completely get rid of the problem, and that a few kids getting lunch wasn't the end of the world.

The conservatives wanted to end the program. Apparently they thought it's better for several hundred children to go hungry, then for a few to get something they don't 'deserve.'


I've often lamented on fark that our nation, which was founded on principles like:

"Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned"

has sadly changed to notions like:

"Better millions go without access to health care than one deadbeat get his twisted ankle wrapped up on the my dime!"
 
2013-12-03 05:14:28 PM

hubiestubert: demaL-demaL-yeH: hubiestubert: But let's not call it Conservatism: it's revenge porn writ large on the public for marginalizing folks who think that Ayn Rand was a hero because she intellectually fellated folks when hating Commies was more important than anything else.

I didn't quote the full analysis, but it was brilliant.
You're missing one huge piece of it, even though you hint at it in your very last sentence.
Don't call them neocons. Call them neoCon(federate)s. Their outlook is that of landed plantation owners combined with the worst aspects of the Robber Barons. That this horrific nonsense took root in Ike's America and thrived is just mind-boggling.

The NeoCons--and I use the term that they themselves claimed--we're mostly marginalized for many years. Reagan's win was huge for them, and they included many in his Cabinet and his staunchest of advisors. They were a primarily academics, and that insulation shows in the policies that they've advocated over the years.

They folded in many who felt abandoned by the Southern Strategy, and the Gingrich Revolution gave many a voice--and chances like David Duke to burn out--but the NeoCons have had to have allies in their fight for control of the party. Their coalition is in control, but it's tenuous. And the Rovian tactics to cement their success in certain demographics have led them to court the Crazy Train in the TEA Party nonsense. That is the kicker: the NeoCons were marginalized and outsiders, and they are courting the dissatisfied in the party, forgetting WHY those folks have been in the wings...


I see your point, but I disagree: It is still very much the neoCon(federate) view - taken to its illogical extreme - that is driving Republican politics.
 
2013-12-03 05:25:44 PM

hubiestubert: It's NOT Conservatism, which the GOP is campaigning with. Calling it that is part of the process that the NeoCons have engaged in, by redefining terms. It is an Ivory Tower approach to governance, and that has always been my issue with the NeoCons, is that they are Ivory Tower types who think that games theory and a willful misreading of the concept of subjective reality can make for public policy. And we're reaping the "benefit" of this intellectual dishonesty at this point. I will give them credit



You're getting two key things crossed up in your treatise, one of which has really become a thorn in my side, because it ends up causing liberals do a big alley oop and lob the ball to conservatism.

The first, though... is that neo-conservatism is NOT the bible-thumping, knuckle-dragging, big-business-fellating shiatheads that currently run the Republican Party... They overlap sometimes, but neo-conservatism is chiefly a foreign policy philosophy embodied by the PNAC crowd.

It's typical adherents are highly-educated academics who chiefly embrace the notion of American Empire. They want us to use our military might vigorously and without restraint to take control of the globe and make it safe for American (business) interests.

It's a common mistake that took hold during the "with us or against us" Bush era when hawkishness for military adventurism was a movement-wide feature of conservatism.

----

Now, the one that sticks in my craw...

"Conservatism" as a description of political ideology in modern America has ALWAYS meant the batshiat crazies. Conservatism as term for political ideology has always meant reactionary, paranoid, classist, nationalistic, and xenophobic. It has -NO- bearing on the dictionary definition of the general word "conservative."

Eisenhower, Rockefeller, even Nixon... these guys were moderate Republicans or even "Rockefeller Republicans." They were NOT conservatives. Conservatives were the John Birch Society, Father Coughlin, Barry Goldwater.

Goldwater was conservative firebrand at the heart of the first major coup in the ongoing battle between "establishment Republicans" and "conservatives," "RINO's" and "True Believers."

When we play the "These nuts aren't 'conservatives'" game, we're essentially playing into the notion that "Conservatism cannot fail. It can only be failed." We're saying that it's a fine and noble philosophy whose name is being abused by pretenders.

It's -NOT-. This -IS- conservatism. This is exactly what it looks like. This is exactly what it's always been. And this is most likely exactly what it's always going to be.

We need to stop inadvertantly apologizing for conservatism as if we're going to shame conservatives into becoming more moderate. We're not. They won't. It's not how they're built. They're hard-wired to double-down. It's part of their farked up firmware somewhere between "fear the other" and "knowledge-schmowledge, I got my gut."
 
2013-12-03 08:25:33 PM

technicolor-misfit: hubiestubert: It's NOT Conservatism, which the GOP is campaigning with. Calling it that is part of the process that the NeoCons have engaged in, by redefining terms. It is an Ivory Tower approach to governance, and that has always been my issue with the NeoCons, is that they are Ivory Tower types who think that games theory and a willful misreading of the concept of subjective reality can make for public policy. And we're reaping the "benefit" of this intellectual dishonesty at this point. I will give them credit


You're getting two key things crossed up in your treatise, one of which has really become a thorn in my side, because it ends up causing liberals do a big alley oop and lob the ball to conservatism.

The first, though... is that neo-conservatism is NOT the bible-thumping, knuckle-dragging, big-business-fellating shiatheads that currently run the Republican Party... They overlap sometimes, but neo-conservatism is chiefly a foreign policy philosophy embodied by the PNAC crowd.

It's typical adherents are highly-educated academics who chiefly embrace the notion of American Empire. They want us to use our military might vigorously and without restraint to take control of the globe and make it safe for American (business) interests.

It's a common mistake that took hold during the "with us or against us" Bush era when hawkishness for military adventurism was a movement-wide feature of conservatism.

----

Now, the one that sticks in my craw...

"Conservatism" as a description of political ideology in modern America has ALWAYS meant the batshiat crazies. Conservatism as term for political ideology has always meant reactionary, paranoid, classist, nationalistic, and xenophobic. It has -NO- bearing on the dictionary definition of the general word "conservative."

Eisenhower, Rockefeller, even Nixon... these guys were moderate Republicans or even "Rockefeller Republicans." They were NOT conservatives. Conservatives were the John Birch Society, Father Coughlin, Barry Goldwater.

Goldwater was conservative firebrand at the heart of the first major coup in the ongoing battle between "establishment Republicans" and "conservatives," "RINO's" and "True Believers."

When we play the "These nuts aren't 'conservatives'" game, we're essentially playing into the notion that "Conservatism cannot fail. It can only be failed." We're saying that it's a fine and noble philosophy whose name is being abused by pretenders.

It's -NOT-. This -IS- conservatism. This is exactly what it looks like. This is exactly what it's always been. And this is most likely exactly what it's always going to be.

We need to stop inadvertantly apologizing for conservatism as if we're going to shame conservatives into becoming more moderate. We're not. They won't. It's not how they're built. They're hard-wired to double-down. It's part of their farked up firmware somewhere between "fear the other" and "knowledge-schmowledge, I got my gut."


The first point: I was attempting to correct our Beamish Boy from conflating NeoCons with the factions that they've allied with. They are not the same. Not in any shape or form. Use them? Certainly. Ape their messaging for short term gain? Absolutely. But nowhere near the same thing.

As for the second...there is perhaps a divide between us as for what the Grand Old Party has been, and part of that can be attributed to the cohering of the inescapability of Conservatism and the Republican platform. The current incarnation is the bastard love child of Goldwater and the AEI when they invited the Religious Right in. They tussled on a bed of Zionism and fighting the dirty Commies, and found Enlightenment in the No Tax and Still Spend days of Reagan, and made Trickle Down economics their catechism. It is a climate fostered by the Rovian tactics that got folks elected, and coupled with a money train that the flattening of the corporate landscape to a tiny number of real players pulling strings in local as well as national elections. It isn't an ideal based Conservatism. It uses the rhetoric, it uses idiots who provide words and ardent support, but at it's heart it has transformed to a form of Corporatism that liked to use Jesus and Freedom as cover.

It's not about beliefs. It's not about politics. It is about money, and a LOT of it that remains in the plebes' hands...
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report