AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

One might just as well say that the Democrats and Republicans together have a permanent electoral majority in the US.

Yeah, and that really frosts my behind.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

How is he wrong? Is he wrong that Canadians, even those who are less than satisfied with the way things are, would be resistent to giving up their government provided benefits and would probably not vote for somebody who threatened those benefits in any way?

How did the Conservatives in Canada manage to win recent elections? Why don't the Liberals or New Democrats win every election in Canada (both federally and provincially)?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Rockhead wrote:

I'm glad to hear it.

will you join a valid debate at some point?

I'm debating the issue of whether Steyn made a valid point about voters and government dependency now. Why don't you change your mind and join it?

I'm trying to debate ya on this issue, but you won't respond. Did you see my posts?

Cycloptichorn

Yes, I saw them, but they were irrelevent to the point being made. Whether people LIKE a program is irrelevent to the issue.

The issue is whether increasing the bureaucracy and the dependency of the peole on government programs, salaries, benefits, or contracts is the best way to ensure the future and security of those in power.

Please address that and then we can discuss it.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Would people receiving any government benefits or who depend on government salaries or government contracts vote for anybody who campaigned on an intent to reduce or eliminate those benefits, salaries, or contracts?

If this had any basis in reality, the New Democrats would win every election up here. They don't.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Do you think anybody could get elected President in this country who the people thought would significantly change Medicare or Social Security?

In my dreams! It's the only viable answer.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
How is he wrong? Is he wrong that Canadians, even those who are less than satisfied with the way things are, would be resistent to giving up their government provided benefits and would probably not vote for somebody who threatened those benefits in any way?

How did the Conservatives in Canada manage to win recent elections? Why don't the Liberals or New Democrats win every election in Canada (both federally and provincially)?

Did the Conservatives in Canada win recent elections by stating that the would reduce the size, power, and scope of government, reduce or eliminate government contracts, and scale back or eliminate the Canadian welfare and healthcare system? If so, then you have a point.

Steyn was not addressing ideology or political parties or semantics. He was describing a way that a political class keeps itself in power.

Convince me that those Conservatives got elected in spite of threatening to privatize benefits and/or the way many Canadians support themselves that would affect large numbers of Canadians.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Yes, I saw them, but they were irrelevent to the point being made. Whether people LIKE a program is irrelevent to the issue.

The issue is whether increasing the bureaucracy and the dependency of the peole on government programs, salaries, benefits, or contracts is the best way to ensure the future and security of those in power.

Please address that and then we can discuss it.

No, what I wrote does directly address the point. Whether people like a program IS relevant to the issue, because there is absolutely nothing wrong with leaders passing popular programs in order to keep their majorities - at all.

If people want to live in a country with more socialistic programs (Medicare and SS as an example), then it isn't some nefarious effort or sign of duplicity on the part of lawmakers who create those programs - it's good governance.

Now, I know your philosophy says that people should not want these things, and shouldn't be happy with these programs; but they do seem to be. This isn't a problem with the programs, but with your ideology not matching the reality of the situation.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

The issue is whether increasing the bureaucracy and the dependency of the peole on government programs, salaries, benefits, or contracts is the best way to ensure the future and security of those in power.

Please address that and then we can discuss it.

Can you provide examples of where this has happened?

It has not happened in Canada, so you'll have to look elsewhere.

2 Replies

@JPB,

We agree on that. So would you say that Mark Steyn was essentially on target in that paragraph I referenced?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Did the Conservatives in Canada win recent elections by stating that the would reduce the size, power, and scope of government, reduce or eliminate government contracts, and scale back or eliminate the Canadian welfare and healthcare system? If so, then you have a point.

The Conservatives' consistent position is reduction of size/power/scope of government, reduction/elimination of government contracts, and significant changes to welfare/healthcare (insofar as there are federal components - most of that is dealt with provincially and locally, not federally).

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Yes, I saw them, but they were irrelevent to the point being made. Whether people LIKE a program is irrelevent to the issue.

The issue is whether increasing the bureaucracy and the dependency of the peole on government programs, salaries, benefits, or contracts is the best way to ensure the future and security of those in power.

Please address that and then we can discuss it.

No, what I wrote does directly address the point. Whether people like a program IS relevant to the issue, because there is absolutely nothing wrong with leaders passing popular programs in order to keep their majorities - at all.

If people want to live in a country with more socialistic programs (Medicare and SS as an example), then it isn't some nefarious effort or sign of duplicity on the part of lawmakers who create those programs - it's good governance.

Now, I know your philosophy says that people should not want these things, and shouldn't be happy with these programs; but they do seem to be. This isn't a problem with the programs, but with your ideology not matching the reality of the situation.

Cycloptichorn

Mark Steyn was not referring to what people like or don't like.
Mark Steyn was not referring to what is or is not nefarious.
Mark Steyn was not referring to my philosophy or what people should or should not want or what does or does not make people happy.

Try again and see if you can discern what he actually said. And then see if you can rebut that with an argument targeted at what he said, not what you want him to have said.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The issue is whether increasing the bureaucracy and the dependency of the peole on government programs, salaries, benefits, or contracts is the best way to ensure the future and security of those in power.

Please address that and then we can discuss it.

Can you provide examples of where this has happened?

It has not happened in Canada, so you'll have to look elsewhere.

Tell me how it hasn't happened in Canada. Steyn seems to believe that it has. Convince me that it hasn't. (This directly relates to questions in my immediately previous post to you.)

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

so here's what Steyn "actually" said

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
The end-game is very obvious. If you expand the bureaucratic class and you expand the dependent class, you can put together a permanent electoral majority.

the problem is - no evidence

1 Reply

"And then see if you can rebut that with an argument targeted at what he said, not what you want him to have said. "

priceless

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Mark Steyn was not referring to what people like or don't like.
Mark Steyn was not referring to what is or is not nefarious.
Mark Steyn was not referring to my philosophy or what people should or should not want or what does or does not make people happy.

Try again and see if you can discern what he actually said. And then see if you can rebut that with an argument targeted at what he said, not what you want him to have said.

I am directly addressing what he wrote and discussing the actual issue with you. If you don't want to discuss the issue, it's fine with me. I think it is perfectly clear that Steyn is wrong, and that's not surprising, given the source.

Why don't you state exactly what it is you want to discuss? You seem to be longing for a discussion of political philosophy or something; don't outsource it to Steyn, say what YOU think is true. That way, we don't have to put up with any of these 'you aren't addressing the topic' bullshit posts.

I see that you state:

Quote:

The issue is whether increasing the bureaucracy and the dependency of the peole on government programs, salaries, benefits, or contracts is the best way to ensure the future and security of those in power.

The best way to ensure the future of those in power, is to pass programs that people approve of. If the Dems can continue to pass programs people LIKE and WANT, they will likely stay in power. This is basic stuff.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

"And then see if you can rebut that with an argument targeted at what he said, not what you want him to have said. "

priceless

Thank you. Numbnuts and some others on Left have a really difficult problem reading and comprehending a concept. But a few are able to break out of that fog. Perhaps you would be one who did if you decided to join the debate, once you decide there is a debate of course.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

No, because he's talking about an electoral majority within a competitive model. Here our competitive model is the two party system. There's no current competition on overthrowing entitlement programs within our two party system. Those of us who would like to do so can bitch and moan all we want but until the writing on the wall gets filled in with bright red lipstick (so as to be obvious) it's not going to happen. Change comes slow. Slower than I would like in this case, but it's only a matter of time before the next generation says, "What a minute, all you folks taking from and no longer putting into the system..." Then, and probably only then, will we see the major overhaul that I think is necessary.

I've yet to hear anyone with any plan or explanation as to how a smaller workforce can support the needs of an aging demographic with an increased life expectancy.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

so here's what Steyn "actually" said

Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:
The end-game is very obvious. If you expand the bureaucratic class and you expand the dependent class, you can put together a permanent electoral majority.

the problem is - no evidence

Okay, to return to the previous questions.
The evidence would be what is necessary to be elected to high office in Canada. You seemed to infer that the 'conservatives' who were recently elected dispute Steyn's thesis.

So again. Do you say that those conservatives ran on a platform of intending to reduce the size and power of government, reduce or eliminate some or a lot of the benefits or programs or projects that many Canadians depend on? Or did they simply promise more efficiency and effectiveness but didn't presume to privatize much?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Tell me how it hasn't happened in Canada.

What party/group has a permanent electoral majority in Canada?

You seriously need to look elsewhere. You're not going to make the point you're hoping to make using Canada as an example.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The issue is whether increasing the bureaucracy and the dependency of the peole on government programs, salaries, benefits, or contracts is the best way to ensure the future and security of those in power.

Please address that and then we can discuss it.

Quote:
Can you provide examples of where this has happened?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

not real good with irony or sarcasm, huh...

that's ok, i'm sure you have other very redeeming qualities.

we already know about your fights against formal racism.

for the record, informal racism bothers me more...

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know