RIP Conservatism?

[kalm]

I don't think so. I think it's a reflection of the two party system. The country is too evenly divided for either democrats or republicans to actually stick to their convictions.

There is widespread cognitive dissonance on the right when it comes to social welfare, a social safety net, and the redistribution of wealth generally. Self-described conservatives often articulate their first principles as if they oppose all welfare spending. But they don't actually think food stamps or welfare checks for impoverished families should be eliminated, which helps explain why redistributive social-welfare spending exists in red states as well as blue states, in red counties as well as blue counties, across Republican as well as Democratic majorities.

Conservatives talk tough. They're convinced the system has a lot of waste and fraud. The idea of freeloading hucksters on welfare outrages them to a degree far out of proportion to other government waste, sometimes for discreditable reasons. They're not all talk on welfare cuts, but their bark is worse than their bite...

Most movement conservatives would be loath to eliminate social welfare spending. No elected Republican has tried to do it in memory, and none ever will. Conservatives seldom rally around actual anti-statists. Yet they are loath to admit, even to themselves, that they favor some degree of redistribution of wealth.

What's silly is suffering a portion of that hit for the ability to pretend you'd return to a pre-New Deal America if you could. Lots of conservatives do that.

It's as if they're afraid that if they admit it's legitimate for Uncle Sam to redistribute a portion of their income, they'll have no way to object if he comes for all of it. Ironically, free-market icons like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek were much more comfortable endorsing the legitimacy of a social safety net. And they were no less able to defend the market and private property!

If rank-and-file conservatives actually believed that social-welfare spending ought to be eliminated (or much more far-fetched, that the next Congress ought to implement an Objectivist policy platform), it might make sense to suffer the consequences of holding positions that are very unpopular with the electorate. What's silly is suffering a portion of that hit for the ability to pretend you'd return to a pre-New Deal America if you could. Lots of conservatives do that.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ed/361292/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ASUG8]

I think most people regardless of party affiliation would agree that there should be some safety net for those who are truly in need, be it permanently for some disability or temporarily in the case of unemployment or underemployment. It's a sliding scale on just how much each individual believes that safety net should cover.

The Tea Party and the extreme left have nearly ripped the country apart over the last few years when most people classify themselves somewhere closer to the middle in their politics. You can be conservative without being a batshit crazy Tea Partier just as you can be liberal without hugging the bark off every tree within 100 yards.

IMO, a recession of the depth that we've experienced over the last few years has contributed to a perception of an increased welfare state (maybe not incorrect) which riles the right and emboldens the left. I don't recall feeling this disheartened and apathetic about our government's ability to do the right thing as I have been the last few years, and that falls on both parties in power.

[AZGrizFan]

Imagine how many truly needy people could have been helped with their healthcare (without blowing up the system) if there wasn't so much waste in the other "safety net" programs.

[ASUG8]

Imagine how many truly needy people could have been helped with their healthcare (without blowing up the system) if there wasn't so much waste in the other "safety net" programs.

That's really the crux of it...the efficiency and effectiveness of the government to distribute safety net funding. If it costs $5 to issue $1 of aid (I'm just making that up) then we truly have a problem. No doubt there is a lot of needless bureaucracy that exists in all government, but they have no incentive to downsize.

[DSUrocks07]

I think most people regardless of party affiliation would agree that there should be some safety net for those who are truly in need, be it permanently for some disability or temporarily in the case of unemployment or underemployment. It's a sliding scale on just how much each individual believes that safety net should cover.

The Tea Party and the extreme left have nearly ripped the country apart over the last few years when most people classify themselves somewhere closer to the middle in their politics. You can be conservative without being a batshit crazy Tea Partier just as you can be liberal without hugging the bark off every tree within 100 yards.

IMO, a recession of the depth that we've experienced over the last few years has contributed to a perception of an increased welfare state (maybe not incorrect) which riles the right and emboldens the left. I don't recall feeling this disheartened and apathetic about our government's ability to do the right thing as I have been the last few years, and that falls on both parties in power.

We need more Libertarians and Blue Dogs in government.

But they are considered "traitors to the cause" by the extremists we have right now.

[kalm]

I think most people regardless of party affiliation would agree that there should be some safety net for those who are truly in need, be it permanently for some disability or temporarily in the case of unemployment or underemployment. It's a sliding scale on just how much each individual believes that safety net should cover.

The Tea Party and the extreme left have nearly ripped the country apart over the last few years when most people classify themselves somewhere closer to the middle in their politics. You can be conservative without being a batshit crazy Tea Partier just as you can be liberal without hugging the bark off every tree within 100 yards.

IMO, a recession of the depth that we've experienced over the last few years has contributed to a perception of an increased welfare state (maybe not incorrect) which riles the right and emboldens the left. I don't recall feeling this disheartened and apathetic about our government's ability to do the right thing as I have been the last few years, and that falls on both parties in power.

We need more Libertarians and Blue Dogs in government.

But they are considered "traitors to the cause" by the extremists we have right now.

Blue dogs are corporatist lackeys...aka RINO's. Agree on the libertarians though.

[89Hen]

We need more Libertarians and Blue Dogs in government.

libertarians, maybe. Libertarians, NO.

[CID1990]

What an annoying article.

"Lots of conservatives do that." blah blah blah

The author is working from under a number of misunderstandings (more like prejudices, actually)- a big one being that conservatives somehow want to go back to the pre-New Deal America, RATHER than simply make sure the safety net we DO employ does not encourage permanent residence in social programs.

As long as there are people who believe the government should handle their lives from cradle to grave, there will be a conservative voice.

[OL FU]

What an annoying article.

"Lots of conservatives do that." blah blah blah

The author is working from under a number of misunderstandings (more like prejudices, actually)- a big one being that conservatives somehow want to go back to the pre-New Deal America, RATHER than simply make sure the safety net we DO employ does not encourage permanent residence in social programs.

As long as there are people who believe the government should handle their lives from cradle to grave, there will be a conservative voice.

That one is the key. I am sure there are some folks out there that would wipe it all out. I know that there are some that use rhetoric that sounds that way. But I honestly don't know a single person that calls them self conservative that doesn't think the bolded portion above is the key. I also know quite a few people that call themselves liberal that would say the same thing.

[Chizzang]

The laws of Social and Political Entropy in action... only with an unlimited supply source
(our citizenry's personal finances)

Ever expanding and becoming more random, larger and less organized - creeping into every aspect filling every corner - and instead of dissipating naturally into nothingness it is continually supplied and re-invigorated so as to never stop it's gradual suffocating expansion...

That ^ is what we have today gentlemen
(I just wrote that up off the top of my pointy head, if you'd like more enigmatic hyperbole stay tuned)

[BDKJMU]

I think most people regardless of party affiliation would agree that there should be some safety net for those who are truly in need, be it permanently for some disability or temporarily in the case of unemployment or underemployment. It's a sliding scale on just how much each individual believes that safety net should cover.

The Tea Party and the extreme left have nearly ripped the country apart over the last few years when most people classify themselves somewhere closer to the middle in their politics. You can be conservative without being a batshit crazy Tea Partier just as you can be liberal without hugging the bark off every tree within 100 yards.

IMO, a recession of the depth that we've experienced over the last few years has contributed to a perception of an increased welfare state (maybe not incorrect) which riles the right and emboldens the left. I don't recall feeling this disheartened and apathetic about our government's ability to do the right thing as I have been the last few years, and that falls on both parties in power.

And you can be a conservative while being a rational, level headed Tea Partier.

I agree with most everything else you wrote. We need a social safety net, but it needs to be trimmed back a good bit.

[CID1990]

The laws of Social and Political Entropy in action... only with an unlimited supply source
(our citizenry's personal finances)

Ever expanding and becoming more random, larger and less organized - creeping into every aspect filling every corner - and instead of dissipating naturally into nothingness it is continually supplied and re-invigorated so as to never stop it's gradual suffocating expansion...

That ^ is what we have today gentlemen
(I just wrote that up off the top of my pointy head, if you'd like more enigmatic hyperbole stay tuned)

You better not let the boys down at your homo coffee shop hear you saying that

they'll pull your honorary homo socialist card

[OL FU]

The laws of Social and Political Entropy in action... only with an unlimited supply source
(our citizenry's personal finances)

Ever expanding and becoming more random, larger and less organized - creeping into every aspect filling every corner - and instead of dissipating naturally into nothingness it is continually supplied and re-invigorated so as to never stop it's gradual suffocating expansion...

That ^ is what we have today gentlemen
(I just wrote that up off the top of my pointy head, if you'd like more enigmatic hyperbole stay tuned)

Why do I feel like I just smoked a joint

[kalm]

So everybody pretty much agrees we need a social safety net with greater efficiency!

[Ivytalk]

We're all RINOs now!

[89Hen]

It's as if they're afraid that if they admit it's legitimate for Uncle Sam to redistribute a portion of their income, they'll have no way to object if he comes for all of it.

The key word for me is "portion" as I think the word is only a part of the real problem... it's when it becomes "disproportionate".

[ASUG8]

So everybody pretty much agrees we need a social safety net with greater efficiency!

The problem is that once you open the welfare tap it's hard to begin to taper it off when things improve. I don't think anyone of us who are taxed to provide these benefits want to see people living their entire lives off of the generosity of Uncle Sam.

I'd couple better efficiency with term limits. If these guys know they won't be in office forever then they might be more likely to vote their conscience and the wishes of their constituency instead of trying to remain elected. Probably a pipe dream, but it couldn't hurt.

[OL FU]

So everybody pretty much agrees we need a social safety net with greater efficiency!

Greater Efficiency is probably impossible. We need a social safety net where those who aren't premanantly incapable of caring for themselves or in retirement or whatever other appropriate classification exist, are not incentivized to remain within that safety net. In fact the safety should be devised to incentivise leaving it within a reasonable time frame.

[CID1990]

So everybody pretty much agrees we need a social safety net with greater efficiency!

Greater Efficiency is probably impossible. We need a social safety net where those who aren't premanantly incapable of caring for themselves or in retirement or whatever other appropriate classification exist, are not incentivized to remain within that safety net. In fact the safety should be devised to incentivise leaving it within a reasonable time frame.

Welfare camps

I'm serious

If you want food, go to the chow hall. Shoes? Go to the clothing warehouse. Report for work at 0730.

And before anybody calls me some kind of fascist I am simply suggesting a new CCC. Libs love themselves some New Deal so here you go.

[ASUG8]

Greater Efficiency is probably impossible. We need a social safety net where those who aren't premanantly incapable of caring for themselves or in retirement or whatever other appropriate classification exist, are not incentivized to remain within that safety net. In fact the safety should be devised to incentivise leaving it within a reasonable time frame.

Welfare camps

I'm serious

If you want food, go to the chow hall. Shoes? Go to the clothing warehouse. Report for work at 0730.

And before anybody calls me some kind of fascist I am simply suggesting a new CCC. Libs love themselves some New Deal so here you go.

In today's society, it would be perceived as unfair in some manner by unfairly targeting groups of people. A lot of good came from the CCC and to your point it's a feather in many Dem's hats, but that crap wouldn't fly in today's entitlement society.

[kalm]

Greater Efficiency is probably impossible. We need a social safety net where those who aren't premanantly incapable of caring for themselves or in retirement or whatever other appropriate classification exist, are not incentivized to remain within that safety net. In fact the safety should be devised to incentivise leaving it within a reasonable time frame.

Welfare camps

I'm serious

If you want food, go to the chow hall. Shoes? Go to the clothing warehouse. Report for work at 0730.

And before anybody calls me some kind of fascist I am simply suggesting a new CCC. Libs love themselves some New Deal so here you go.

I like this.

[JohnStOnge]

Well, he's certainly not talking about me as I certainly AM in favor of eliminating all social welfare programs. If I had my way there would be no programs designed to ensure some minimum level of well being for individuals.

But I'll say that I do realize that there are plenty of people who claim they are for minimal government yet won't go there. Like the Tea Party. I've seen polls on what people in the Tea Party movement would do and not do. Like for instance they would not eliminate the Social Security system.

Don't tell me you're really for going back to original Constitutional principles if you're not in favor of eliminating the Social Security system because you're not.

[houndawg]

I think most people regardless of party affiliation would agree that there should be some safety net for those who are truly in need, be it permanently for some disability or temporarily in the case of unemployment or underemployment. It's a sliding scale on just how much each individual believes that safety net should cover.

The Tea Party and the extreme left have nearly ripped the country apart over the last few years when most people classify themselves somewhere closer to the middle in their politics. You can be conservative without being a batshit crazy Tea Partier just as you can be liberal without hugging the bark off every tree within 100 yards.

IMO, a recession of the depth that we've experienced over the last few years has contributed to a perception of an increased welfare state (maybe not incorrect) which riles the right and emboldens the left. I don't recall feeling this disheartened and apathetic about our government's ability to do the right thing as I have been the last few years, and that falls on both parties in power.

And you can be a conservative while being a rational, level headed Tea Partier.

I agree with most everything else you wrote. We need a social safety net, but it needs to be trimmed back a good bit.

No, you can't. Tea Partyists are by definition histrionic wackjobs.


What we need to do is to shit can our form of government and replace it with a Parliamentarian form of government.

[houndawg]

The laws of Social and Political Entropy in action... only with an unlimited supply source
(our citizenry's personal finances)

Ever expanding and becoming more random, larger and less organized - creeping into every aspect filling every corner - and instead of dissipating naturally into nothingness it is continually supplied and re-invigorated so as to never stop it's gradual suffocating expansion...

That ^ is what we have today gentlemen
(I just wrote that up off the top of my pointy head, if you'd like more enigmatic hyperbole stay tuned)

Why do I feel like I just smoked a joint

A rhetorical bong hit..

[houndawg]

Greater Efficiency is probably impossible. We need a social safety net where those who aren't premanantly incapable of caring for themselves or in retirement or whatever other appropriate classification exist, are not incentivized to remain within that safety net. In fact the safety should be devised to incentivise leaving it within a reasonable time frame.

Welfare camps

I'm serious

If you want food, go to the chow hall. Shoes? Go to the clothing warehouse. Report for work at 0730.

And before anybody calls me some kind of fascist I am simply suggesting a new CCC. Libs love themselves some New Deal so here you go.

Not only is it a good idea, something similar should be mandatory for a year right after high school.