AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

My proble is the use of terms which is elsewhere clearly defined, but obviously used totally different here: either you are a libertarian (with or without capital 'L') or a conservative.

But again:

Quote:

Outside of the United States, where the term originated, however, libertarianism is understood to refer to radical, leftist currents of anarchism. Thus, there arises a disparity between the usage of the term in the United States and elsewhere.

Though I studied Political Sciences, I didn't study it at an US-American university. And since my studies and (political) life outside the USA coined my thinking - I'm out here.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

My proble is the use of terms which is elsewhere clearly defined, but obviously used totally different here: either you are a libertarian (with or without capital 'L') or a conservative.

But again:

Quote:
Outside of the United States, where the term originated, however, libertarianism is understood to refer to radical, leftist currents of anarchism. Thus, there arises a disparity between the usage of the term in the United States and elsewhere.

Though I studied Political Sciences, I didn't study it at an US-American university. And since my studies and (political) life outside the USA coined my thinking - I'm out here.

In America 'libertarianism' is generally defined as supporting and defending individual liberties. This generally translates to fiscal conservatism (smaller less intrusive government, less taxes, more private sector initiative) and social liberalism (less government intrusion into the private choices of citizens.) Conservative libertarians will generally support local ordinances reflecting community values--an adult video store or tavern shouldn't be placed next to a school, etc.; prohibition of certain harmful substances; and similar laws but prefer these be at the local rather than the federal level. Liberal libertarians will want fewer such constraints in the community but will nevertheless support a more conservative approach to fiscal restraint in government. Both will support a strong national defense but may differ in what form that will take.

0 Replies

fox

I'm not just sure why you linked to the Mamet piece. I notice that real life linked the same piece. I'd guess neither of you read The Voice on a regular basis (I certainly don't) so assume that you both bumped into a link to it from a conservative source.

Any piece, particularly when written by someone with a high profile in the culture, which has as its title "...Why I'm No Longer A Brain-dead Liberal" is going to receive a happy welcome (and an enthusiastic dissemination) in modern conservative movement world.

But you do realize, I trust, that what this serves is that "First Premise" I mentioned earlier... conservatism is right and other stuff (particularly 'liberalism') is wrong. There's really little if any reflection here on why the GOP and conservative movement are now in the position where they find themselves.

The piece itself, as an essay on political theory, is disappointingly shallow and pedestrian and uneducated. And I consider Mamet, as a writer of plays and screenplays, close to genius.

But of course it is a logical fallacy to grant him authority status in the political realm (as contrasted with writing or directing plays where that fallacy wouldn't apply). For exactly the same reasons, I would be guilty of the fallacy of appeal to authority if I were to now paste in some piece written by Mamet's greatest influence, Samuel Beckett, who would, if he could, take the entire present republican administration out back and shoot them.

I do understand that in trying to think through what the conservative movement or the Republican party ought to do now, you have to retain some confidence that your principles and ideas are valid. And that will just necessitate some degree of 'the other fella is wrong because...'. But I'd advise you to be wary of merely trying to more deeply entrench certainties. When you find something which begins in the manner of "Liberalism Stinks!", then pass it up for something more challenging.

Or you could, in the manner of a scientific approach, take some piece of data which contravenes a modern conservative certainty and investigate that, holding open the possibility that the certainty is possibly in error.

For example, the modern rate of taxation for the top 1% of income earners is presently at 23%. Do you know what it was under Ike? It was 91%. You and I were around then and we lived through the slow and steady economic growth through the post-war period. Eisenhower's Republican Treas Sec, a former steel exec, when a collegue complained about this rate, replied, "I pay 91%, and yet I don't complain and you do all the time." Interesting change between then and now in republican thought as to our social obligations, isn't it?

0 Replies

Blatham,

I don't think either I or Foxfyre cited Mamet as an 'authority' on anything but his own experience and attitudes. Which is what the piece is about.

I don't care if he has a 'high profile' or not. It's his ideas as expressed in the piece that I found interesting.

His struggle with his rabbi's admonition to 'hear the other guy out' is something all people can relate to.

His realization that his politics didn't match up with his interactions on a daily basis is at once humorous and challenging.

His summary of the separation of powers as a consequence of the Founders' desire to counter the excesses of human nature is a classic for it's brevity and accuracy.

Does that make him an 'expert' in my eyes, or in any others?

No.

Your cringing at the title of the piece is what I find the funniest, and I imagine Mamet was a bit tongue-in-cheek when he wrote it.

If you think Americans ought to go back to paying up to 91% in taxes, just come out and say so, that way we'll all know to keep our back pockets buttoned when around you.

How much above and beyond your tax liability do you donate to the government, blatham?

Just how 'seriously' do you see your social 'obligations' ?

0 Replies

Just enough to know he's been through the theory.

0 Replies

RL and I are in complete agreement on the Mamet piece which I also saw as nothing but a testimony of a person who knows who he has been and who he is now. It is certainly authoritative in that person's assessment of his own point of view. It was not claimed to be authoritative about anything else; however there is something to be learned from the testimony for those sufficiently open minded (i.e. not 'brain dead') to hear what he is saying.

He also unintentionally but effectively nailed some of the problems that I see with the GOP and its current difficulties:

a) The presumption of moral superiority while their behavior demonstrated virtue no better than those they criticized.

b) The dictate of principles that they failed to uphold.

c) Failure to understand that Republicans are as human as anybody else in their propensity to put personal ambitions, prestige, hopes, wants, needs ahead of any higher purpose, and it is because people are that way that it is necessary to limit the power that some use to order the lives of others.

The top tax rate both for individuals and corporations is actually 35% instead of 23%--our corporate taxes are the 4th highest in the world with only Japan, Belgium, and Italy having slightly higher rates. Now Bernie may think 91% is a better rate but the American conservative point of view is that the more money left in the hands of those who earned it is the better way for reasons of individual freedom, economic prosperity, and incentives for achieving excellence.

That certainly is a matter that is subject to difference of opinion and debate, however.

0 Replies

real life said

Quote:

If you think Americans ought to go back to paying up to 91% in taxes, just come out and say so, that way we'll all know to keep our back pockets buttoned when around you.

Well, you wouldn't be included there, would you?

It's not a matter of what I think. It's a theoretical question regarding an existing certainty popular (if not universal) within the modern conservative movement...economic growth will be dependent upon reducing any tax burdens on the wealthy who are (the idea goes) the ones upon whom growth depends.

But economic health and growth were sustained during that period.

0 Replies

fox said:

Quote:

RL and I are in complete agreement on the Mamet piece which I also saw as nothing but a testimony of a person who knows who he has been and who he is now. It is certainly authoritative in that person's assessment of his own point of view. It was not claimed to be authoritative about anything else; however there is something to be learned from the testimony for those sufficiently open minded (i.e. not 'brain dead') to hear what he is saying.

So I could paste in an account from a Safeway clerk who had changed his notions from a set of conservative givens over to positions more liberal and that would be as relevant or worthy of notice?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

real life said
Quote:
If you think Americans ought to go back to paying up to 91% in taxes, just come out and say so, that way we'll all know to keep our back pockets buttoned when around you.

Well, you wouldn't be included there, would you?

It's not a matter of what I think. It's a theoretical question regarding an existing certainty popular (if not universal) within the modern conservative movement...economic growth will be dependent upon reducing any tax burdens on the wealthy who are (the idea goes) the ones upon whom growth depends.

But economic health and growth were sustained during that period.

Not really because it all hit the fan during the Carter Administration with stagflation coupled with oil shortages, long lines at the gas pumps, high unemployment, double digit inflation, and double digit interest rates all dumped on high taxes. Few Americans felt this was an acceptable situation and that paved the way for Reagan to bring down the rates.

Result? The rich actually paid more in taxes than they did before even though they were paying at a lower rate, and economic health and growth were sustained.

It is not a conservative principle to punish success that results in prosperity. That smacks of class envy. It is a conservative principle to create conditions in which all people can aspire to become one of the envied rich. Why should the government confiscate more of the people's property when the same results can be accomplished by confiscating less?

0 Replies

Bernie is used to the demand side.

The supply side is taken as an Aladdin's Lamp.

0 Replies

Quote:

Not really because it all hit the fan during the Carter Administration with stagflation coupled with oil shortages, long lines at the gas pumps, high unemployment, double digit inflation, and double digit interest rates all dumped on high taxes. Few Americans felt this was an acceptable situation and that paved the way for Reagan to bring down the rates.

Result? The rich actually paid more in taxes than they did before even though they were paying at a lower rate, and economic health and growth were sustained.

It is not a conservative principle to punish success that results in prosperity. That smacks of class envy. It is a conservative principle to create conditions in which all people can aspire to become one of the envied rich. Why should the government confiscate more of the people's property when the same results can be accomplished by confiscating less?

Everything you've written here is conservative movement economic theory boilerplate.

Like I said earlier, I don't expect you folks to figure out what you're doing wrong and why your party/movement are in the shape they are in. You pay some dutiful lip service to reflection and intellectual humility (see your points above re what Mamet's experience might reveal to a conservative too) but there's no real activity in this direction. The activity remains a repetition of all the old stuff and why it simply must be correct.

I thought I'd at least give you a chance.

0 Replies

Ah well. Actually exchanging points of view with civility is a beautiful thing. Some grasp the concept. Some don't.

0 Replies

Bernie wrote-

Quote:

Like I said earlier, I don't expect you folks to figure out what you're doing wrong and why your party/movement are in the shape they are in.

What shape is that Bernie?

Mr McCain is only 6 to 4 to win the election. He isn't 33-1 or anything.

And he's not broken sweat yet.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

real life said
Quote:
If you think Americans ought to go back to paying up to 91% in taxes, just come out and say so, that way we'll all know to keep our back pockets buttoned when around you.

Well, you wouldn't be included there, would you?

It's not a matter of what I think. It's a theoretical question regarding an existing certainty popular (if not universal) within the modern conservative movement...economic growth will be dependent upon reducing any tax burdens on the wealthy who are (the idea goes) the ones upon whom growth depends.

But economic health and growth were sustained during that period.

The competitive environment for America was far different then.

Much of Europe's economic infrastructure was still being rebuilt after the war.

And the Asian economic competition which we experience today was virtually non-existent.

American assistance to Japan and Korea had a lot to do with creating that competition. But that was yet to come into full bloom during the Eisenhower admin.

0 Replies

rl-

The cause is a poor second to your ego.

0 Replies

And a few other psuedo conservatives.

0 Replies

Quote:

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Ah yes, they better take a step backwards from their fascist platform. For the present, they have become irrelevant; and, I must add, I hope soon to be criminal. A few Bushes, Cheneys and other NeoCons in prison pin strips would be fully fitting.

0 Replies

BillW wrote:

Quote:
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Ah yes, they better take a step backwards from their fascist platform.
For the present, they have become irrelevant; and, I must add,
I hope soon to be criminal. A few Bushes, Cheneys and other NeoCons
in prison pin strips would be fully fitting.

Fascism is inconsistent with the US Constitution.
Therefore, to the extent that anyone is fascist,
he is NOT conservative.
To the extent that anyone has deviated from the Constitution
into fascism ( or into anything else ) he is liberal.

The Sons of Liberty did not enact a fascist constitution.

0 Replies

BillW wrote:

Quote:
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Ah yes, they better take a step backwards from their fascist platform. For the present, they have become irrelevant; and, I must add, I hope soon to be criminal. A few Bushes, Cheneys and other NeoCons in prison pin strips would be fully fitting.

Biiiillllllllllllllll !!!!!!!

Where the hell have you been for all these years? Lola and I were reminiscing two weeks past about you and your wife and our visit to the O'Henry house. My heart soars like a Canadian eagle (a more manly species than the puny little yank eagle)

0 Replies

BillW wrote:

Quote:
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Ah yes, they better take a step backwards from their fascist platform. For the present, they have become irrelevant; and, I must add, I hope soon to be criminal. A few Bushes, Cheneys and other NeoCons in prison pin strips would be fully fitting.

Vague charges of 'fascism' with no substance.

Meanwhile, the Democratic frontrunner is facing increased scrutiny over the very real and very documented racist views of his mentor and pastor of over 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.

You'd think if I guy didn't agree with what his church taught that he'd find a different one.

Why is it that 'Present' Obama couldn't seem to make the decision to leave TUCC when it is apparent to all that the church is a racist organization?

TUCC gave an award recently to Louis Farrakhan, prominent racist. And 'Pastor' Wright's sermons are filled with so many examples of racial hatred and bigotry that there isn't room to include them all -- '9-11 was a wakeup call to 'white' America for ignoring blacks' , ' God d*** America, not God bless America' , 'we must promote a black value system' , etc

In 1992 Bill Clinton was forced to apologize and forsake frequenting a country club that had a racist policy.

Why is it that Dems are not concerned that their wunderkind is a dues paying member ($22,000 last year) of a racist organization?

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know