tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post6482384829297436328..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: The NYT Should Be Ashamed of Itself (Again)Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger103125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-44996959995031914232011-11-21T03:41:22.723-06:002011-11-21T03:41:22.723-06:00I think you lefties are making a huge mistake........<i>I think you lefties are making a huge mistake.....</i><br /><br />Anon, there's no one I'm more inclined to take advice from than someone who prefaces his remarks with "you lefties."Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-19080828345473671132011-11-20T18:58:12.423-06:002011-11-20T18:58:12.423-06:00I think you lefties are making a huge mistake swal...I think you lefties are making a huge mistake swallowing anything this 233 guy rants about, re his evil Faux News enemies, the scourge of mankind. This is exactly why there is no liberal bloc in this country, the comtemporary Left has embraced this Koz Kid ranting as mainstream. You can read one sentence, and get all you need to know. It's pure tribalist, and accomplishes nothing. And as this same mindset spreads across the political spectrum, it means we also have no conservative bloc in this country. As it's a plain blog about politics, the plain truth is 80-85% of voters are now pure tribalists, who will vote for their tribe no matter if it sends up Adolf Hitler. But that pure tribalism makes for nearly impenetrable blocks, which stunts debate and freezes politics. <br /><br />Bloomberg put down the OWS the other day. So will any other lefty, ultimately. They can't afford to have those folks interrupting the Left's Wall Street gravy train and crony corporatism, much like the contemporary R's buy votes with taxpayer cash, even as they bleat "conservative". This is where the tribalism breaks down. Once you abandon principles, as all seem to have done, you're lost. This is why the people hate politics and politicians, they know everybody's unprincipled, and the process is driven by unprincipled, careerist political hacks, who paint their faces and square off against the other tribe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-30776233806695775022011-11-20T15:50:37.520-06:002011-11-20T15:50:37.520-06:00What entitlements are these, CSH? Truly. As a tax ...What entitlements are these, CSH? Truly. As a tax paying American, I get nothing in the way of these entitlements you speak of. Certainly the poor aren't getting anything - 30 million kids in the US go to bed hungry. Are you talking about Social Security? That is not an entitlement but a run of the mill, conventional pension plan. I pay in money whle I'm young and handsome and productive so that when I am old and ugly and worthless, I won't go out and die in the street. Hell, public pensions have been with us since Bismarck put them into Europe at the turn of the last century. Further, Social Securoty is not even broke. Everyone agrees that simply requiring Warren Buffett and Donald Trump to pay in at the same rate as the cashiers at Home Depot and your problems are solved for the foreseeable future - and beyons. Are you talking about Medicare? Pace Michael Moore, Americans spend more and get less for their dollar on health care than any other developed country because we have a for profit health care apparatus that skims 10% profits and awards middle men like Big Insurance and Big Pharma and the HMOs. What is costing us so much money on health care is not the poor slob who can't make his co pay so he forgoes his check up and so, dies of heart disease, nor the crafty Mexcun who checks into the emergency room to get an aspirin, but the complete corruption of the system by profiteers. So where are these entitlements? Unemployment insurance paid to people who lost their jobs due either to corporate malfeasance or the Recession brought on by the policies of the 1 percent? Really? Food stamps to the poor? Would you rather these people starved to death in the street? You'd still have to pay taxes to get sanitation workers to collect the bodies - or should we leave them there to decompose naturally? Sheesh, what baloney, especially at a time when defense spending outstrips what we were spending at any time since WW2 - Big Government and Keynesian economics indeed!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-4575064664598681472011-11-20T13:08:40.457-06:002011-11-20T13:08:40.457-06:00CSH, I was 7 years old when Medicare passed Congre...CSH, I was 7 years old when Medicare passed Congress, but I'm sorry about whatever's wrong with it. :-) I suppose I played my little part by making my first visit to DC that year on a trip with my folks. Maybe they mistook us for part of some pro- Great Society rally, and that's what put things over the top. ;-)<br /><br />Seriously, though: My understanding is that the social programs are sustainable for decades to come if we just went back to Clinton-era tax rates, which were already low by historical standards, and maybe made a couple other little tweaks. The need to contain health-care inflation is not specific to Medicare, it's a problem that has to be solved regardless, and anyway the ACA includes cost-containment measures that at should at least be tried for a few years before we decide it's all hopeless.<br /><br />About Luther, this is a bigger discussion that probably doesn't interest anyone else here, but: I see him as conservative with respect to values but progressive with respect to institutions. That is, his beliefs were not meant to be innovations but a return to the original Gospel message and to what the Scriptures actually said, particularly Paul's teaching (and later Augustine's) about God's grace. (Leave aside for now whether he got that right.) But in promoting this message, he was happy to make use of the latest technologies, as you point out, and he had no interest in defending existing institutions (like the Papacy) just because they were powerful or for the sake of keeping things stable. Hence his defiant responses ("Here I stand") to the powers-that-be of his day. I suppose one difference between contemporary (Burkean) conservatives and progressives is which you think is the bigger problem, too many people in the world like that or too few. I tend to think too few.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-67354457981705659602011-11-20T11:57:40.248-06:002011-11-20T11:57:40.248-06:00If I only voted for Bush 1 out of 2 times, can I g...If I only voted for Bush 1 out of 2 times, can I get away with a half an apology? In all seriousness, I can see the argument where a conservative, by association, has some 'splainin to do, but in the context of a forum like this, I'm not sure why any of us has an obligation to each other beyond accurately reflecting how we feel about things. Apologizing feels a bit onerous.<br /><br />This is because, to your list of conservative sins that have led us to this unhappy place, I suppose I would add this liberal one: liberal utopianism where Great Society programs are concerned grossly underestimated the sense of entitlement they would bring, which is a huge driver of the $1 T/annual deficits that are threatening to drown our country.<br /><br />That sense of entitlement is played upon by conservatives as much as liberals these days, as it is incresingly the source of power in DC. But while our side is guilty of fanning the flames, we sure as hell didn't start the fire. If you're looking forward and seeing a dismal dystopia, you may need to look no further than the increasingly impossible math needed to reconcile popular demand for entitlements and resources to deliver them. Both sides are responsible for that situation now, but (in the spirit of playground taunts) liberals definitely started it.<br /><br />So liberals are utopian idealists whose utter failure to account for the second definition of "entitlement" (a feeling of a right to something) led them to create an entitlement state that can't possibly stand up over time. <br /><br />But why in the world should a guy like Jeff apologize to me over that? If I'm right, is that Jeff's fault? And what if I'm wrong?CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-54421563545245886532011-11-20T11:14:38.016-06:002011-11-20T11:14:38.016-06:00Hi CSH and thanks. I do think the disowning Bush ...Hi CSH and thanks. I do think the disowning Bush thing is a dodge not an apology since I do not believe, having watched pretty closely, that the right wing has any coherent principles to defend. Bush was a big C Conserrvative anti Washington outsider who campaigned on deregulating industry, cutting taxes, strong defense, family values, restoring honor to Washington, the fact that he was simply a better man, Jesus was his favorite philosopher, blah blah. He was The Man - everything said he was more Reagan than Reagan. Go back and look at the profiles of him, from Bill Sammon to Frum, to National Review, to Time Magazine, and all the amen chorus who pumped his braying jackass into the White House and gave him a soaring right wing mandate to gut regulations, shred the EPA, walk away from Kyoto, trash our cheese eating surrender monkey European allies, give $1 trillion in tax giveaways to his rich friends, hand the keys of our Energy policy over to his contributors and start a couple of wars so we could fight some bad guys. This was Brit Hume's - and the nascent Tea Parties - wet dream. And oh, how he loved to stick it to libruls. Now you say the Tea Party types don't talk about Bush anymore and that I should accept that as an apology because to ask for more would be to expect them not to be conservatives anymore? That is exactly my point. I could care less about Bush the man, a lazy and arrogant opportunist who probably did the best he could. I;m talking about those conservative policies he enacted - all of em, from crony giveaways to the elites, to deregulation and tax cuts to the rich. These have been tried (since Reagan did em, Bush simply doubled down) and the results are in. I want accountability for those policy failure. I want one honest Republican to come up and say well those Bush tax cuts produced no jobs and sent the economy over the edge; squandering the Clinton surplus was a disastrous idea; we need to reorient what it means to be conservative. Small government ok, but a government by, for and on behalf of the rich to the exclusion of everyone else, never again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-63780355183243590422011-11-20T07:27:12.502-06:002011-11-20T07:27:12.502-06:00I wonder if that explains some sort of deeper cong...<i>I wonder if that explains some sort of deeper congeniality in our worldviews, immediate politics notwithstanding</i><br /><br />As you no doubt know, Jeff, one of the major proximal innovations of Luther's life was bringing the gospel to the masses, using Gutenberg's new printing press to publish numerous mini-encyclicals explaining the faith to the unwashed masses. (This activity probably also saved his life, at least in getting the devoutly Catholic but politically shrewd Frederick the Wise to overrule St. Cajetan's certain order to have Luther turned over for burning at the stake (post-Worms), choosing instead to sequester him for two years).<br /><br />To this conversation, how should we think about Luther's bringing the faith to the masses, either through his many published sermons, or later, translating the bible to German while sequestered in Frederick's castle?<br /><br />Is it conservative? Yes, insofar as it brought the locus of religious power, for the first time, down to the common man. Is it liberal? Yes, if we think of it as a sort of spiritual safety net for the masses.<br /><br />The more you think about these things, the murkier they get. Part of the reason I stick with conservatism as skepticism; its about the only sure distinguishing factor vs. liberalism in a modern, complicated world.CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-62467310445420655732011-11-20T04:43:43.340-06:002011-11-20T04:43:43.340-06:00233 -- let me echo others' call for you to sti...233 -- let me echo others' call for you to stick around. And yes, I agree with a lot of what you say, too. Viz.: the maybe-imminent, maybe-in-progress environmental apocalypse/ in general the call of "this time it's different." And the strangeness of our current ideological-partisan alignments (though we may differ as to whether there's any "natural" way for them to fall, which I doubt). And that it's quite important to note that temperamental conservatives (CSH's Burkeans) have little power in the contemporary GOP. And that there's a whole strand of fiscal liberalism that was available to my parents (and to Nixon -- ?) that isn't there for me. (I was born in Reagan's first term.)<br /><br />I just think that when you say "disowning Bush is an excuse, not an apology. They didn't disown him at the time" -- well, no. They changed their minds, which is what you're asking of them. They said "we got that wrong. It doesn't mean we were wrong about everything, but we were deceived there, and that sucks." It's not fair to ask for more of an apology than that. Changing your mind -- or finally expressing long-simmering doubts -- is, or can be, looking back in regret. Asking for apologies makes it sound as though you thought particular conservatives or GOPers owed you something. But I'm sure you don't think that. You think they owe the country shame and restitution. So, fine -- but accept that they'll express shame and offer restitution as they see fit, not as you do.<br /><br />*background: speaking as someone who's done a fair bit of peacekeeping between my liberal husband, not-very-pragmatic-liberal father-in-law, socially liberal and fiscally conservative parents, reactionary brother, faithless-in-politics liberal little sister, and idealistic civil rights-oriented anti-imperialist Republican (!) baby sister. Seriously. It can be done, if you try really hard not to let it get too personal. Of course it <i>is</i> personal, as anything that's important to us is. But lord knows I've changed my mind on enough important things over a short life to guard me from taking this all to be (primarily) about integrity.<br /><br />And: thanks for writing back to me, besides for your other interesting comments.<br /><br />CSH: mayhap this is a low bar, but if you're open to thinking it through partly in public discussion, that's congenial enough for me.<br /><br />There's also that time you won second place in our beauty contest .....the classicisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08691196845661570282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-26408144710819911892011-11-20T01:43:19.030-06:002011-11-20T01:43:19.030-06:00Well Jeff, as a Conservative once said, I believe ...Well Jeff, as a Conservative once said, I believe in accountability. Exonerating the Reagan Revolution for the state of our current economy (and our politics) is like those mythological 'libruls exonerating murderers and rapists on account of poverty and big social trends outside their control. Where's the outrage, as another great conservative heavyweight used to tell us (before he was exposed as another complete mountebank). I believe that elections have consequences: that Reagan did, in fact, change everything (or at least a lot). I believe that declaring war on unions, as he did, destroyed the middle class. I do not believe that it was inevitable that the American Dream of owning a home, a car, two kids in college etc. should go the way of the hula hoop. After all, we now see middle class societies all over the globe. Scandinavians especially and most Europeans generally, live much better than we do. I think we are somewere around 19th on an internationally, top 3 in terms of social inequality, lower teens in terms of education and number one in arrogance and hubris. What happened? Did the other guys get lucky, or did we simply do the wrong things? And if we did the wrong things, who is responsible for all that? The answer is simply: those in power.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-34592905678904823302011-11-20T01:16:11.450-06:002011-11-20T01:16:11.450-06:00Lots more to talk about here, which I hope we'...Lots more to talk about here, which I hope we'll all have time to do in coming months. For now, 233's fears are well-taken -- everything could go blooey before the progressive utopia arrives, I agree -- and so is CSH's reference to Jared Diamond. I guess I come down in between somewhere: I think there are broad forces at work independent of particular political actors and movements, but I also think that it's important for progressives to keep the pressure up. I'll have to think more about how I would reconcile those two beliefs.<br /><br />But hey! You're a Lutheran, CSH? Me too! And product of a solid Lutheran education. I wonder if that explains some sort of deeper congeniality in our worldviews, immediate politics notwithstanding.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-32480008771800526872011-11-19T22:57:50.835-06:002011-11-19T22:57:50.835-06:00Today's Conservatism, as labelled, has nothing...<i>Today's Conservatism, as labelled, has nothing to do with Burke or limited government or any of that junk, it is simply about power.</i><br /><br />Which is why the Right sucks in the 21st century. Which is why their Presidential Primaries increasingly resemble clown shows. But therein lies the rub: as an anonymous nobody on some blog I can describe the Big Tent pretty much however I like, but in the real world, the tent holds sway. Not a tent, an elephant. A big fat fucking elephant devouring everything in sight.<br /><br />These are things I think out there in normal world, these are the thoughts in my mind when I encounter the big tent. Its good to discuss them here because it is somewhat more stable than doing so in the tent. If this makes me a coward, so be it.CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-49005222398879854782011-11-19T22:46:37.791-06:002011-11-19T22:46:37.791-06:00One other thought pops into my head, for Jeff and ...One other thought pops into my head, for Jeff and all those that see progress as resulting from agitation among 'progressives':<br /><br />If you haven't done so, check out Jared Diamond's Pulitzer-Prize winning Guns, Germs and Steel. Diamond's book (occasionally subtitled "A Short History of Everybody for the Past 13,000 Years") makes a pretty compelling case for the whole of human development on the simple concept of trade and all the wonders it brings.<br /><br />Its been a while since I read it, but I'm pretty certain there's not a progressive, a leaflet or a bullhorn anywhere in Diamond's comprehensive narrative.CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-69642876317412719552011-11-19T22:43:21.155-06:002011-11-19T22:43:21.155-06:00That's a lot to get my head around, CSH. Not ...That's a lot to get my head around, CSH. Not sure I follow you. After a certain point, all these labels get blurry and whenever someone starts citing Burke, as some right winger or other used to say, I go for my gun. Today's Conservatism, as labelled, has nothing to do with Burke or limited government or any of that junk, it is simply about power. They are the party of entrenched power and they will do what ever it takes to maintain it, or in the case of the Black Dauphin, take it back. No one is going to go back to Burke or any of that lovely nonsense anytime soon, so let's not pretend we're sitting in a lab looking at specimens and deal with what exists in the here and now. Most Conservatives I know only start talking about how the GOP has strayed from true Conservativism as a means to duck accountability. 5 years ago, Bush was the embodiment of true Conservatism, the Right Man, in Frum's phrase. 95% of Conservatives supported him. Cheney said Reagan told us deficits don't matter. Now, rather than own up to the mistake, right wingers say Bush strayed and wasn;t Conservative enough. this is where labels get meaningless. And really, you blame LBJ for the state of today's world? Are you kidding? That is some eccentric rationalization, for shizzle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-47911726678155508472011-11-19T22:22:13.473-06:002011-11-19T22:22:13.473-06:00It gets better. Per Jeff's comment @9:12 PM: ...It gets better. Per Jeff's comment @9:12 PM: suppose we separate modern conservatism from its power-hungry madness (that 233 rightly decries), and return it to something like its Burkean philosophical roots, that is, full enfranchisement for all citizens together with a rational system of national internal (government) controls, in principle if not practice similar to what a thriving corporation might have.<br /><br />Which of your beloved 'progressive' innovations would such a conservative stand athwart? Women's rights? Gay rights? Minority rights? Quest for knowledge? No way. That the (so-called) conservatives you witness do indeed stand athwart such things has real-world impact, but in this realm of ideas, it becomes a bit of a straw man.<br /><br />Which gets to the heart of 233's point, and one that I concur with most strongly: how the hell did American conservatism stray so far from cherished principles like those espoused by Burke? I think the answer, which probably needs a new thread or two, is that the upshot of the Great Society is a Great Amount of Power concentrated in DC, and ain't no one (except maybe Ron Paul...but even that's a big maybe) can stand athwart the accumulation and exercise of such power.<br /><br />Which, coming full circle a second or third time, is why I agree with 233s sentiment about supporting the powerless: perhaps not for the religious reason (but don't tell my Lutheran pastor that), but rather because the individual, the tiny hopeless individual, is the proper locus of power in a truly conservative society.CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-66367300584993294632011-11-19T22:06:19.348-06:002011-11-19T22:06:19.348-06:00Still here, Anonymous Righty? Still waiting for t...Still here, Anonymous Righty? Still waiting for that apology for lying about how Obama said Americans are lazy. Getting sleepy, though. Think it will be soon?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-59813699481619933532011-11-19T21:59:42.091-06:002011-11-19T21:59:42.091-06:00And again, I am not concerned with social conserva...And again, I am not concerned with social conservatism - the anti gay, anti black, anti women, anti everything nativism that has always been part of the American conservative psyche. I absolutely agree with you that Karl Rove won an election by putting gay marriage on state ballots and 8 years later, most people give gay marriage a pass as passions cooled. Americans are mostly a pretty tolerant group, though they can be rallied by bullies to pick on the weak and defenseless by skillful demagogues, as Mexicans replace blacks as the whipping boys; as gays replace uppity women and Herman Cain and Michelle Bachman profit handsomely from a cynical political party that rushes them forward to prove that lefties are the true sexists and bigots. But these are absurdisms, and not really what I'm talking about. I'm talkiing Big Picture. I'm asking those who championed Reaganomics to honestly assess the results of those wicked policies. I want them to account for the results of that berserk religion. I want them to explain their fantasy that tax cuts fr the elites create jobs, as every single one of the GOP candidates asserts, as Hannity asserts, as Kudlow and Cavuto and all the think tanks asserts, and then explain the record of the Bush tax cuts The results are in, folks. We've had 30 years of this particular experiment. You guys won and we did what you wanted, though some of us complained and doubted you. But we let you try it. So what happened as a result? Honestly, now. If Trickle Down theory benefits the middle class, why has standard of living flatlined since 1980?, In 1980, when Reagan came to power, the average middle class American could own a home, a car, send his kids to college, take a vacation to Europe or somewhere, all without debt. Our middle class was the envy of the world. After Reagan, and Reagan's very specific policies - de-regulation, cutting taxes, war on unions (40% of our workforce was unionized in 1980, less than 7% is now) the average Ameircan is upside down in his house, has little or no job stability; has massive debt, can't afford college for his kids, plus his wife, if she is lucky enough, needs to work full time. Accident? Bad luck? The result of historical trends that no one could control? Not a chance. These are the results of choices made.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-24575525644216343272011-11-19T21:58:53.041-06:002011-11-19T21:58:53.041-06:00Interesting, Jeff, and in an odd way, hopeful, ass...Interesting, Jeff, and in an odd way, hopeful, assuming, however, that there will be succeeding generations around to hang out together and have a good chuckle about the folly of Trickle Down and the principles of Eternal War for Eternal Peace which have so contaminated our era. My fear is that the world, assuming it's still here, and the country, the next generation will inherit, will be nothing like what we experienced, and as a result, their politics will be very strange indeed. Here is what I legitimately fear: a global economic catastrophe coinciding with a global ecological catastrophe that are the byproducts of our wicked political choices. (In a way, I consider myself the true conservative, because I would like my kids to have a country to live in like the one I lived in, with water and clear air and all that other nice stuff.) In the last 18 months we have sat by while BP contaminated a vast ecosystem and the coastlines of three states; a nuclear meltdown in Japan the consequences of which may be incalculable. Not only are these disasters not simple accidents, but both are the results of specific policies, decisions that our political class (our in the sense of ours and Japan's) has enacted over other decisions which they might have made instead. The Bp spill was a function of our corrupted politics, in other words. And what is more alarming still is that we have no political will to stem the forces that caused it. Elsewhere, Italy's debt now exceeds Italy's entire GDP. According to Krugman, the new PM thinks his mandate is to rein in inflation! A busted Eurozone, a bankrupt US with social inequities that outstrip the feudal oligarchies in South America for God sake. And a political class in Washington so hopelessly corrupt that a guy like Grover Norquist can actually hold the entire Congress hostage. Holy Nightmare, Batman! I don't think I'm being alarmist -- maybe you will think I am. But I am looking at a 3 alarm fire and I see Obama, Mr. Cool, as thoroughly paralyzed. All he can do is run for office... So I hope there is time for the long arc of justice to do its thing, but I'm not so sure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-77793597451515175122011-11-19T21:29:45.467-06:002011-11-19T21:29:45.467-06:00...horror at much of the conservative leadership a...<i>...horror at much of the conservative leadership and what's happened under conservative control.</i><br /><br />.<br /><br />A welcome post, classicist. <br /><br />I'd quibble by saying that there hasn't been what I'd call conservative leadership in our governing class for quite some time. Certainly, we haven't seen fiscal conservatism in some time, with Bush almost immediately jacking spending from Clinton/Gingrich levels of less than 18% of GDP to 20-21% of GDP and beyond. And there really was no limited government conservative zeitgeist either. Medicare Part whatever, NCLB, Department of Homeland Security, nation building on tap, and all the rest of it.<br /><br />I think we're currently stuck with an incumbent bloc that wants to harness a New New Deal and play Winnie and Franklin warlord games, and that bloc is "opposed" by a reactionary Left that's pissed off that their historical turf is being encroached, and blindly thirsts to up the ante and reclaim their rightful station, with a New New New Deal, even bigger warlord games and all the rest. Nothing liberal or conservative in sight, anywhere. And they'll all stay on message 'til the bond yields go to +8%, and the whole house of cards collapses. <br /><br />If you ask me, there is no liberal party in the US, and there is no conservative party in the US. And as I'm a liberal-conservative, I'd say I'm one who might know. YMMV.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-960164354649718102011-11-19T21:12:23.407-06:002011-11-19T21:12:23.407-06:00Damn, thought I had managed to sign off this one g...Damn, thought I had managed to sign off this one gracefully, but here I am again. 233, I think you're looking for something that basically never happens. Ideas do change over time, in every field: politics, the sciences, religion, etc. But the process is generational: the people committed to the old paradigm don't typically stand up and say they were wrong, they just get old and die. Then the next generation just no longer includes people who want to defend the old ways or ideas. The bishops who prosecuted Galileo don't say, oops, we were wrong. What happens is, their immediate successors decline to prosecute people for claiming the earth goes around the sun -- and their distant successors sometimes will, if pressed, admit that the earlier guys were wrong (as the Church has done in that case). <br /><br />I've been reading a lot lately about the history of racial thinking in America, going back to the 19th and early 20th centuries. The vicious, outspoken racists of those days mostly didn't back down. But they did die out, and their successors, while still backward compared to what liberal-thinking people would like, no longer defend the old positions -- that, say, black men should be killed if they even think of having sex with white women. It just becomes first difficult, then uncool, then ridiculous to hold such a view (or at least to hold it in public and/or act on it or try to have it written into legislation). If you want to see a similar process unfolding right now, in real time, check out gay rights: As recently as the '70s, majorities of people wanted gays barred from professions like schoolteaching; now the children of those people (and in a few cases, the people themselves) show up at gay weddings. Twenty or thirty years from now, it will be hard to find any conservative who even remembers the old anti-gay hysteria. Even the righties, who still quote Leviticus today on the issue, will forget that Leviticus was once read as anti-gay, just as today's conservatives have forgotten that the Bible was once read as insisting that the sun goes around the earth, that vaccinations are evil, that mental illnesses are the work of demons, that women shouldn't vote, etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />Of course, at any given moment, certain unsettled questions will be at issue, and there will always be people on one side of those issues arguing for the wrong, stupid, backward, unreconstructed, antideluvian position. That is, there will always be "conservatives" in relative terms. But the conservatives of today are, on a wide range of issues, so far left of the conservatives of yesteryear that they don't even realize that the old positions ever existed -- and I think the same will continue to happen: The conservatives of Jean-Luc Picard's stardate will already take for granted most of what you and I are fighting for now (although they'll still be a massive nuisance to enlightened people of their own time). That has been, with some fits and starts and occasional backsliding, the basic pattern for centuries, and I don't see why it would change -- which I think is what ML King was getting at when he said, "The moral arc of the universe is long [repeat: lo-o-o-o-ng], but it bends toward justice."Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-19589791790005954492011-11-19T20:20:50.646-06:002011-11-19T20:20:50.646-06:00Thanks, CSH, for this warm response. I appreciate ...Thanks, CSH, for this warm response. I appreciate it sincerely and in this fine spirit of comity, I bet we would agree about many, if not most things. For what it's worth, I don't consider myself a liberal either and I;m not reflexively partisan. I hate power and its abuses, and if I have any bias, it<br />s to ally with the powerless against the powerful, as Jesus teaches us. Which is why I despise the radical right, since they have held power, and abused power, for most of my adult lifetime. The fact that they simultaneous pretend to be victims all the time simply cinches it for me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-73056787883056996942011-11-19T20:06:00.236-06:002011-11-19T20:06:00.236-06:00What a fascinating discussion. First of all, want...What a fascinating discussion. First of all, wanted to echo what Jeff said earlier, that I hope that 233 sees fit to become more of a regular back here, as s/he has made quite a contribution to this thread. Then I should digress with a thanks to the classicist for the flattery of being grouped with the genial conservatives, though I should note that when I informed my wife that someone referred to me as genial on the intertubes, she laughed, though I suspect you would probably not refer to said laughter as "genial" :).<br /><br />Finally, to the substance of 233's last point: I think you're probably right about many of the changes for the worse that you've seen on the American right. Somewhat contra the classicist, I don't think you need to worry too much about being offensive with those opinions; after all, if we conservatives want self-affirming puffery from the blogosphere, lord knows there's an infinite number of other places we can go find it.<br /><br />From here I think this gets to what it means to be "tribal", to borrow a term from your last post. I can only speak for myself. I am a conservative because I am a skeptic. I don't believe in the little people running big government or big companies or big whatever. I don't trust them. I don't trust you. I don't (entirely) trust me. AFAICT, this principle is at the core of traditional conservatism, even if it has been somewhat lost in the wash with the changes you note above.<br /><br />But again, speaking only for myself, that principle of skepticism probably captures my political philosophy whole cloth, it causes me to caucus (hesitantly, these days, with the right), and beyond it, I make no assertions. Apologize for Bush? Can't recall endorsing him. And so on.<br /><br />I bring all this up because one of the neat things about this community is trying to see beyond what you rightly described as "tribalism" implicit in being in this big tent or that. What do you really believe? An interesting question, and I hope you stick around for the answers as they develop.CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-43543561487348295352011-11-19T19:48:13.613-06:002011-11-19T19:48:13.613-06:00Further, I don't see ARRA as liberal policy, s...Further, I don't see ARRA as liberal policy, since it was basically the second half of TARP which was put in place by W and Paulson, endorsed by all the conventional wisdom types because it was a response to an unprecedented emergency. The far lefties (and a few hard righties) were the ones yelling about letting the corporations fail, not the Reagan Revolutionary vanguard (at least until the die had been cast and all that was left for them to do was use it to bash Obama.) Oh, and I like Bartlett and even like Ron Paul and wish somebody would get him a better tailored suit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-78514296806933631832011-11-19T19:29:02.942-06:002011-11-19T19:29:02.942-06:00I am not a regular to these posts, Classicist, I a...I am not a regular to these posts, Classicist, I am only reflecting on what has been my personal experience. No right winger has ever apologized to me for any of the immense harm their wicked ideology has done to this country and its democracy - and that is simply a fact, and I know lots and lots and lots of them. They always make excuses - WMD, everyone believed the intelligence; Bush was not a Conservative; Reagan taught us deficits don't matter; this guy Anonymous Righty above never apologized when I caught him out for simply lying about Obama calling Americans lazy. To me, it is part of a specific right wing pathology, and obviously I'm generalizing and there may certainly be exceptions and I am happy there are exceptions on this board and am eager to converse with them. I like David Frum -- I find I can actually read him and respect him. But if you think there are truckloads of conservatives who are deeply refretful of their support for Bush, I have never met a single one. And that's the truth. Never met one to be able to make an honest appraisal of Reagan, either. Or Clarence Thomas, for that matter. I have nothing against Republicans in the old Eisenhower/Nixon/Garry Wills traditions. My in laws are fine Arizona Republicans who hate the hard right's immigraton demagoguery. I like and admire them -- almost all. And I can humbly point to lots of mistakes the democrats have made -- I don't think abortion is a great thing; I think Clinton contributed hugely to the conditions that set up The Great Recession; I think Robert Rubin was a disaster and am appalled that Jon Corzine seems to have gone all Madoff with that crazy investment firm he ran. I'm not a tribalist. But I have also felt in a distinct political minority now for 30 years, while the GOP took the wheel and steered the country very sharply right. I have been on the defensive, or as Wm Buckley may have said, found myself athwart history yelling STOP, or whatever it was. And I find it embittering now that the results of the great Reagan Revolution are in that the very people who voted for it and egged it on are all whining and playing the victim card, pretending that deregulation and tax cuts for the rich and all that other Trickle Down junk was just empty rhetoric and none of it really did much damage. Much like Germans in the late 40's and 50's famously pretended they had no role in what happened there. So that is what I mean about none of these bozos having the strength of character to own up to it. I'm speaking in the abstract and would love to hear from your friends hear how they have revised their views not that history is in. But the right wingers who dominate the debate - and they are the ones I hear non stop are very different. They are simultaneously the bold Revolutionaries who reversed the New Deal and ushered in The Conservative Era of 1980 and at the same time, the helpless victims of liberal perfidy. Hilarious -- and they all go silent when you point this out to them. Anonymous Right Winger is a case in point.<br /><br />And yes, I agree that we must respect a diversity of viewpoints, and Conservatives (or at least some of them) come to their positions honorably. They believe that an economy grows and jobs are created when you cut taxes on the rich despite the fact that Bush's tax cuts cratered the ecoomy and destroyed jobs. They believe that when a Republican chases hookers or gets busted in gay trysts that what matters is that he paid lip service to God and lip service is what matters since we're all sinners. I get it. I listen to Limbaugh and Hannity and those guys and understand its all programmatic and self reinforcing worldview. It's not my worldview, just as I don't ascribe to Stalinism or Maoism or Confucius. But it is an -ism, or has become an -ism. Hell, compare a character like Santorum or Palin to Eisenhower or Nixon or any of the Conservatives I grew up with and maybe you will see what I mean.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-9093576247441489002011-11-19T17:55:12.446-06:002011-11-19T17:55:12.446-06:00233 -- when you say "no right winger has had ...233 -- when you say "no right winger has had the nerve to apologize for anything ever," you're being a little out of line.<br />(1) Have you ever heard of David Frum? Bruce Bartlett? How about of all people David Stockman?<br />(2) You mentioned Alan Greenspan yourself -- and of course it's unsatisfying that he then went back to his platitudes from on high about how all is well "with notably rare exceptions" like right now (have you seen this, btw: http://crookedtimber.org/2011/03/30/with-notably-rare-exceptions/ ? Some of those are classic). But if you want him to change that, you're not asking for an apology: you're asking for right-wing people to stop being right wing.<br />(3) In general it's just uncool to say that kind of thing about ~150 million Americans.<br />(4) Especially when there are people <i>in this thread</i> who disprove your point! Forget our extremely genial conservatives like CSH and Mercer and Couves -- right-wing Anon has ALSO expressed horror at much of the conservative leadership and what's happened under conservative control. I mean -- Marco Rubio has given the "pox on both their houses" speech. And truckloads of conservatives have expressed deep regret about the Bush Presidency. Yes, so most of them prescribe more conservatism. That's not because they have no integrity. It's because THEY'RE CONSERVATIVE.<br />(5) Seriously, how annoyed are you when a conservative complains about how ARRA was a terrible waste of money and all liberals have to say in response is that the government should waste more money? It's pretty irritating, right? Yeah, I think so, too. Similarly it was irritating when conservatives spent a lot of time tut-tutting the moral decay of rampant abortion and single motherhood and rising crime rates liberals hadthrown the country without having the decency to apologize or to become conservatives. No, some liberals said "some of those things aren't even problems," and some liberals went on about how the solution was even more humane/indulgent policies, and that liberalism looked bad only because it hadn't been tried, and others blamed tactical bungles and problems in execution. But they mostly stayed liberals. Fancy that!<br /><br />So, I probably sound harsher than I mean to (again). Obviously this isn't really a response to you individually so much as to the widespread casual bitterness one hears against the blindness of other people (of other religions/regions/politics/countries/genders/body types/what have you). It really doesn't do anyone any good to express reasonable frustrations in aggressive ways. ;/the classicisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08691196845661570282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-66280360301229888832011-11-19T16:09:38.829-06:002011-11-19T16:09:38.829-06:00Of course you stopped reading because no right win...Of course you stopped reading because no right winger has ever shown the required integrity to apologize for anything, ever. You tossed a lazy Fox news lie into the mix, giving up the game, and then, when busted on it, couldn't find the necessary honor to cop to it. It's not hard to do when one is wrong, but it is a reflexive piece of right wing pathology that to ever admit error, ever, is a sign of capitulation and weakness. This is why right wing orthodoxy is more like a religion than a coherent set of principles or political philosophies. If Herm Cain tries to bag women, the women are all liars and trailer trash. When it's Clinton, it's a Constitutional crisis. When Bush creates massive deficits, that's great -- 80% of Conservatives gave him high marks for the economy until he limped off the stage - and when he balloned the size of government with Homeland Security and all his other nonsense, that was sound governmental policy. Yet when Clinton shrunk government, that was tax and spend big government liberalism. We all have a tendency to root for our team, but with you guys its gotten all infected with religious zealotry. And yeah, I'm pretty sure I nailed you by your lame pretense of not having the discipline to read the full Obama quote. Typical, and frankly, not value added for me either. Just typical right wing horseshit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com