IMO, at least one big reason that we don't have a strong contingent of conservatives* is that their political positions are inherent less caring.
I think that this prejudice is what the various right wingers are trying to call out when they object to the ship's current overton window - firstly this view, and secondly that expressing it in this manner (with the implicit criticism of anyone who holds these views) is considered basically fine.
From a left wing perspective (which I certainly have the perspective of American politics, less so UK) the problem I have is that whilst I know it is theoretically know compassionate conservatism is possible - the idea is tainted by David Cameron's misappropriation of the term and the fact that most of the louder right wing commentators don't make those arguments.
I read once that Theresa May was shocked by the rise of Corbyn because she thought the argument that the free market is the best engine to lift people out of poverty had been won and she was therefore surprised by the critiques of capitalism gaining prominence again.
But when I see people arguing about capitalism and socialism on the ship - the right don't make those arguments: we hear instead that basically if you are poor it is your own fault, you can escape poverty by your own efforts, and you can be motivated to work only by want.
IMO, at least one big reason that we don't have a strong contingent of conservatives* is that their political positions are inherent less caring.
I think that this prejudice is what the various right wingers are trying to call out when they object to the ship's current overton window - firstly this view, and secondly that expressing it in this manner (with the implicit criticism of anyone who holds these views) is considered basically fine.
It is not a prejudice to evaluate a POV based on its effects. It is prejudice to assign attributes to people.
From a left wing perspective (which I certainly have the perspective of American politics, less so UK) the problem I have is that whilst I know it is theoretically know compassionate conservatism is possible
The difference between UK politics and US politics has been steadily diminishing. Trump's deviations not currently withstanding.
I read once that Theresa May was shocked by the rise of Corbyn because she thought the argument that the free market is the best engine to lift people out of poverty had been won and she was therefore surprised by the critiques of capitalism gaining prominence again.
May's understanding of politics mightn't be the strongest platform from which to evaluate...
Compassionate conservatism is on its way out as the Tories head rightwards. The diminishing of the financial middle class is strong proof that the party has little practical compassion.
But when I see people arguing about capitalism and socialism on the ship - the right don't make those arguments: we hear instead that basically if you are poor it is your own fault, you can escape poverty by your own efforts, and you can be motivated to work only by want.
I think there are a few factors for this. One is the presence of prominent gadflies. The other being the Conservative party's movement towards this ideology and the Republican Party's already being there.
IMO, at least one big reason that we don't have a strong contingent of conservatives* is that their political positions are inherent less caring.
I think that this prejudice is what the various right wingers are trying to call out when they object to the ship's current overton window - firstly this view, and secondly that expressing it in this manner (with the implicit criticism of anyone who holds these views) is considered basically fine.
From a left wing perspective (which I certainly have the perspective of American politics, less so UK) the problem I have is that whilst I know it is theoretically know compassionate conservatism is possible - the idea is tainted by David Cameron's misappropriation of the term and the fact that most of the louder right wing commentators don't make those arguments.
A random list of shit from the right wing in the US:
1. All but one Texas Republican voted against disaster relief after Hurricane Sandy because it affected left-leaning New York and New Jersey. (NY and NJ Democrats later did the normal, human thing in the wake of Hurricane Harvey in Texas, voting in favor of disaster relief for that right-leaning state.)
2. The GOP has for decades preferred to balance the budget on the backs of the poor rather than the rich, giving tax cuts to the rich and championing cuts to things like welfare and food stamps.
3. The Koch brothers have been doing their level best to get rid of public education for years. The idea is to cut taxes, making public school crappy, and use that crappiness as an excuse to put education money toward charter schools, religious schools and private schools. People in poor areas already suffering because of under-funded schools will suffer more; people with means will benefit.
4. The GOP opposes making healthcare affordable and accessible to all Americans.
5. Conservatives think the poor deserve to be poor -- they are among the 47% of "takers," as Mitt Romney put it in 2012. They think people who have more have it because they deserve to have it; they think affluence comes from hard work, and that one's personal circumstances don't factor into it.
6. The White House pandemic task force worked hard in March and April to come up with a plan to address the crisis, and scrapped it once they realized that the virus was prevalent mainly in blue states and that their best plan from a political standpoint was to not have a national plan and make governors deal with it.
The right in the US is trying to make a sizeable number of people miserable, and they're fine with a significant number of people dying preventable deaths. So yeah - their positions are inherently less caring.
However, I also think that given the Ship's current political leanings, escalation of the kind I've referred in some of the subsequent posts here is likely to increase that leftward list, and that this is not a good thing. It's not going to attract moderates and may cause some to leave.
The options are not just escalate or de-escalate - one can also respond at the same level as the original provocation.
There are other things to do besides take it to Hell and trying de-escalation. There is asher's passive aggressive style, for instance. Talking about things that diminish people in terms of himself was a sly way to say that another person has done that, but it didn't fool anyone. We all know what he meant, bless his heart.
Now that is how to insult someone. (Sorry Ruth, that phrase takes me back to Sine Nomine and ice cream forks)
My job (not important but them's the rules) means that I need to keep some political impartiality in public and I know how hard it is to resist a sharp response to a political opposite. I felt that the recent arrivals were not looking for discussion but an argument, and there is only one place for that on the Ship. After about 20 years here, I'm much more a lurker than a poster so it's easy for me to counsel patience - but I don't see that the H&As had much choice in the cases above. As for whether new posters stay: with so much history on the Ship, like many churches, people look for similar views. If they don't find them, many/most move on. That is just how people are and there is no point in saying that they should be different.
IMO, at least one big reason that we don't have a strong contingent of conservatives* is that their political positions are inherent less caring.
I think that this prejudice is what the various right wingers are trying to call out when they object to the ship's current overton window - firstly this view, and secondly that expressing it in this manner (with the implicit criticism of anyone who holds these views) is considered basically fine.
From a left wing perspective (which I certainly have the perspective of American politics, less so UK) the problem I have is that whilst I know it is theoretically know compassionate conservatism is possible - the idea is tainted by David Cameron's misappropriation of the term and the fact that most of the louder right wing commentators don't make those arguments.
A random list of shit from the right wing in the US:
1. All but one Texas Republican voted against disaster relief after Hurricane Sandy because it affected left-leaning New York and New Jersey. (NY and NJ Democrats later did the normal, human thing in the wake of Hurricane Harvey in Texas, voting in favor of disaster relief for that right-leaning state.)
2. The GOP has for decades preferred to balance the budget on the backs of the poor rather than the rich, giving tax cuts to the rich and championing cuts to things like welfare and food stamps.
3. The Koch brothers have been doing their level best to get rid of public education for years. The idea is to cut taxes, making public school crappy, and use that crappiness as an excuse to put education money toward charter schools, religious schools and private schools. People in poor areas already suffering because of under-funded schools will suffer more; people with means will benefit.
4. The GOP opposes making healthcare affordable and accessible to all Americans.
5. Conservatives think the poor deserve to be poor -- they are among the 47% of "takers," as Mitt Romney put it in 2012. They think people who have more have it because they deserve to have it; they think affluence comes from hard work, and that one's personal circumstances don't factor into it.
6. The White House pandemic task force worked hard in March and April to come up with a plan to address the crisis, and scrapped it once they realized that the virus was prevalent mainly in blue states and that their best plan from a political standpoint was to not have a national plan and make governors deal with it.
The right in the US is trying to make a sizeable number of people miserable, and they're fine with a significant number of people dying preventable deaths. So yeah - their positions are inherently less caring.
This is of course part of the problem of labelling a whole spectrum of stuff “right-wing”. Corruption is at some level ideologically neutral. Social conservatism, fiscal conservatism and other things are an overlapping Venn diagram. Libertarians often support mainstream right wing parties but in theory at least, the Tories are not libertarians. Or only some of them.
Authoritarianism can occur on the left or the right.
It seems to me that both GOP, and our current crop of prominent U.K. conservatives want to set up functioning oligarchies; with a fig leaf of democracy to cover them, using xenophobic and other socially conservative dog whistles to garner support and a phalanx of libertarians for donations and intellectual cover (both constituencies useful idiots to be ditched as soon as they become inconvenient).
All that said, the sort of people who see themselves as “one nation” conservatives do exist in the U.K. There are many people who vote conservative who appear to be motivated go and do altruistic things in the community. That conservative voice must exist somewhere - but we are not hearing it, perhaps it’s the ship’s atmosphere, or perhaps it is because that generation don’t socialise on bulletin boards.
It's because virtually all of us who are conservative of any stripe- (NOT Trumpistas) have learned to say nothing on the Ship. Because it doesn't make a fucking bit of difference whether we've given our lives to work (at our own expense, even) with the poor, oppressed and immigrant. Nor does it matter that "conservative" is not all one thing. We are still "uncaring" and forever will remain, world without end, amen.
I've given up on this. (Except, I suppose, for being idiot enough to even answer in this post. Fuck me.)
Individual philanthropy is a good thing.
Individual philanthropy is not enough, however. So an individual who gives of their own, but still supports the government stepping back, will still face criticism.
The comments directed to @Lamb Chopped are exactly why I started to ask about bias on the Ship. I am pretty left wing, but it seems to me simple observation that all political parties contain good AND bad people, kind and cruel, principled and corrupt etc. To deny this, and keep all the virtue in groups we agree with, seems very dangerous to me.
I think we need to distinguish between people and policies.
It is one thing to say that a particular party's policies are uncaring; it is another to say that anyone supporting that party is.
Within that, why a caring person would support a party with policies which seem uncaring is a reasonable question, beyond the general answer that people are complicated.
The comments directed to @Lamb Chopped are exactly why I started to ask about bias on the Ship. I am pretty left wing, but it seems to me simple observation that all political parties contain good AND bad people, kind and cruel, principled and corrupt etc. To deny this, and keep all the virtue in groups we agree with, seems very dangerous to me.
I'm not denying that there are good people in all political persuasions. But the fact is that policy has an effect. Being nice or not changes this in absolutely no way, shape or form.
It is a bullshit to pretend that it does.
BTW, I began this line of thought on this thread directing it to the thread, before LC had yet participated. Projection is not helpful.
Within that, why a caring person would support a party with policies which seem uncaring is a reasonable question, beyond the general answer that people are complicated.
IMO, the action of the group one supports has no clean separation from the people who support the party. It can be more complex than this, politics are a compromise at their very best. However, the individual has the onus of addressing and working to change party policies they do not support.
It isn't limited to conservative parties, the Labour Party is undergoing this in regards to anti-Semitism and even more so transphobia. And the Democrats supported policies which contributed to the injustices that BLM is protesting.
This is of course part of the problem of labelling a whole spectrum of stuff “right-wing”. Corruption is at some level ideologically neutral.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US at the national level, there is nothing being pushed by people on the left side of the aisle -- liberals, progressives, moderate Democrats -- that even comes close to the evil being pushed by people on the right. Are there shitty individuals who vote with me? Absolutely. Is there corruption among Democrats? Of course there is. But misery and death for marginalized people are public policy for powerful people on the right. Anyone who supports them is complicit in their evil.
It's because virtually all of us who are conservative of any stripe- (NOT Trumpistas) have learned to say nothing on the Ship. Because it doesn't make a fucking bit of difference whether we've given our lives to work (at our own expense, even) with the poor, oppressed and immigrant. Nor does it matter that "conservative" is not all one thing. We are still "uncaring" and forever will remain, world without end, amen.
I've given up on this. (Except, I suppose, for being idiot enough to even answer in this post. Fuck me.)
I know you do a lot of work with the disadvantaged, and I would not describe you as uncaring.
Conversely, I’ve been on the ship for over a decade, at one point I think I even hosted purg for a bit - so I have read *alot* of threads over the years - and have no memory of, or any sense of, why you identify as a Republican pre or post Trump.
It's because virtually all of us who are conservative of any stripe- (NOT Trumpistas) have learned to say nothing on the Ship. Because it doesn't make a fucking bit of difference whether we've given our lives to work (at our own expense, even) with the poor, oppressed and immigrant. Nor does it matter that "conservative" is not all one thing. We are still "uncaring" and forever will remain, world without end, amen.
I've given up on this. (Except, I suppose, for being idiot enough to even answer in this post. Fuck me.)
I know you do a lot of work with the disadvantaged, and I would not describe you as uncaring.
Conversely, I’ve been on the ship for over a decade, at one point I think I even hosted purg for a bit - so I have read *alot* of threads over the years - and have no memory of, or any sense of, why you identify as a Republican pre or post Trump.
I am no Republican now, because I could not face my eventual grandchildren and say I did nothing when Trump came to power. Well, I have done quite a bit, but I would not expect them to make fine distinctions, and I am not in the habit of bragging, at least in real life. So I needed one symbolic action that will assure them, some day, that I saw the evil and responded properly. They can discover what else I have done--or not--as time and fate fall out.
As for how I became Republican... Well, I suppose it was the usual facts of birth and location, plus a general tendency toward fiscal wariness and a desire to be prudent--perhaps the more understandable when you understand the relative poverty I grew up in. But I'll say no more of that.
It never had anything to do with being anti-immigrant, or anti-minority, or any of that shit. I myself am part Indian, married to one Vietnamese and mother of another, daughter to the son of a Mexican immigrant, sister-in-law to a Jew...
The Republican Party has changed since I was 'born' into it. But the Republican Party is not identical with conservatism. And that, in my opinion, is the mistake that is being made very commonly here. As well as the ... dare I call it a mistake, anymore, when it has been called out so often, and continues on almost a daily basis? ... the identification of individuals with any connection to a vilified group--whether that connection is past or present, chosen or inescapable--the lading of such individuals with responsibility, guilt and shame for all the sins of the group.
You present this as some sort of persecution.
All I am talking about is basic responsibility. A political party is a choice. Supporting a political party has inherent associations. Those associations have responsibility. Nothing radical, strange or persecuting about that.
Yeah, I understand about social pressure, but I also do not accept that as excuse. We do not progress as a society by acquiescing.
Is this easy? No, neither is it fair. But is the truth none the less.
Judging an individual as worthy or not by what party they are in is not right. But it is not what I am talking about. And it is frankly offensive to imply that it is.
I think it is - but the Styx is NOT the place in which to discuss it. I'll be happy to meet you in Hell, which is the proper place, if you'd care to pursue it.
Thanks @Lamb Chopped but I suppose my point is - we rarely see people making arguments *for* any variant of conservatism based on compassion / improvements in people’s lives.
At best, what I pick up from what I read tends to be a combination of we are worried suggestion x will bankrupt the state and we are worried about free-loading / dependence.
But both of those are largely explanations about why some other proposal is *not* a good idea.
Last night, as I was falling asleep, I came over all Martin Luther King.
I have a dream that one day the ancient ruins will be rebuilt. That one day the Conservative Party and the Republicans will again uphold all that is truly good in traditional values. That they would again be places of respect and integrity. That they, their officials, supporters and policies would care and respect for those less fortunate. That one day parties of all descriptions would nip each other's toes to keep them honest, but would work together for the common good. One day!
Thanks @Lamb Chopped but I suppose my point is - we rarely see people making arguments *for* any variant of conservatism based on compassion / improvements in people’s lives.
At best, what I pick up from what I read tends to be a combination of we are worried suggestion x will bankrupt the state and we are worried about free-loading / dependence.
But both of those are largely explanations about why some other proposal is *not* a good idea.
I AM worried about "bankrupting the state," which makes me conservative, but not because I think there's a helluva lotta freeloaders out there. Truthfully, if they put me in charge (as if!) the first thing I'd do is start hunting down the corruption and waste *within* the government departments and agencies--not running around trying to fine-tune a means test or some such yecch. I'm very much convinced that if we got rid of half the corruption and idiotic waste, we'd be able to provide all the services we do now, and more, at the same cost.
Thanks @Lamb Chopped but I suppose my point is - we rarely see people making arguments *for* any variant of conservatism based on compassion / improvements in people’s lives.
At best, what I pick up from what I read tends to be a combination of we are worried suggestion x will bankrupt the state and we are worried about free-loading / dependence.
But both of those are largely explanations about why some other proposal is *not* a good idea.
I AM worried about "bankrupting the state," which makes me conservative, but not because I think there's a helluva lotta freeloaders out there. Truthfully, if they put me in charge (as if!) the first thing I'd do is start hunting down the corruption and waste *within* the government departments and agencies--not running around trying to fine-tune a means test or some such yecch. I'm very much convinced that if we got rid of half the corruption and idiotic waste, we'd be able to provide all the services we do now, and more, at the same cost.
Could you go for THAT kind of conservatism?
Corruption is bad. However, "waste" is subjective. There is waste that can be trimmed, but most isn't as straightforward as people think or posit. And the size of government is both it strength and weakness. A lean government is either toothless or easy to bend. If Trump had the small government conservatives claim to want, the US would be in worse trouble.
I AM worried about "bankrupting the state," which makes me conservative, but not because I think there's a helluva lotta freeloaders out there. Truthfully, if they put me in charge (as if!) the first thing I'd do is start hunting down the corruption and waste *within* the government departments and agencies--not running around trying to fine-tune a means test or some such yecch. I'm very much convinced that if we got rid of half the corruption and idiotic waste, we'd be able to provide all the services we do now, and more, at the same cost.
Could you go for THAT kind of conservatism?
No. My experience of government spending for the most part is that it is a lot leaner than private spending. The real waste in government is in politicians shoveling money at corporations, which does not show up as corruption in most studies. Requiring corn to be used in gasoline for no environmental benefit, but a huge boon to ADM, is not nearly the source of outrage that mythical Cadillac welfare queens and thousand dollar toilet seats seems to be.
I AM worried about "bankrupting the state," which makes me conservative, but not because I think there's a helluva lotta freeloaders out there. Truthfully, if they put me in charge (as if!) the first thing I'd do is start hunting down the corruption and waste *within* the government departments and agencies--not running around trying to fine-tune a means test or some such yecch. I'm very much convinced that if we got rid of half the corruption and idiotic waste, we'd be able to provide all the services we do now, and more, at the same cost.
Could you go for THAT kind of conservatism?
No. My experience of government spending for the most part is that it is a lot leaner than private spending. The real waste in government is in politicians shoveling money at corporations, which does not show up as corruption in most studies. Requiring corn to be used in gasoline for no environmental benefit, but a huge boon to ADM, is not nearly the source of outrage that mythical Cadillac welfare queens and thousand dollar toilet seats seems to be.
We're closer than you seem to think, then, because shoveling money at corporate buddies is precisely what I'm thinking of.
Glad to have you! (God knows, if this were real and not a fantasy, I'd need all the advice I could get on spotting this shit.)
Would you consider moving this discussion to Purgatory? It seems like you mean something substantially different by conservatism than any iteration I've actually seen in practice, and I think it would be useful to explore those differences.
Sure, but I've just told my kid that for blood pressure reasons I was going to take a break from the Ship, so I probably won't be back on till tonight. I will say, though, that I'm not going to start a thread about "conservatism" per se, because everybody has a different opinion of what exactly that is, and it'll just end in tears. I don't mind being asked about my particular stance, though.
We're closer than you seem to think, then, because shoveling money at corporate buddies is precisely what I'm thinking of.
Sign me up too. But I don't think this is a conservative or liberal or even moderate position.* I think it's a powerful vs. the rest of us thing, and it happens at every level: federal, state, local. The Democratic machine mostly owns the city I live in, and they shovel money at developers just as much as the Republicans do.
I lived in Cook County, Illinois, owned for generations by the Chicago Democratic Machine, and am, as a result, incapable of believing much good of any political party. I still believe it's important to act as though you believe that redemption is possible, and vote in every election that roles around, because sometimes we can make a difference, whatever the party label.
Comments
I think that this prejudice is what the various right wingers are trying to call out when they object to the ship's current overton window - firstly this view, and secondly that expressing it in this manner (with the implicit criticism of anyone who holds these views) is considered basically fine.
From a left wing perspective (which I certainly have the perspective of American politics, less so UK) the problem I have is that whilst I know it is theoretically know compassionate conservatism is possible - the idea is tainted by David Cameron's misappropriation of the term and the fact that most of the louder right wing commentators don't make those arguments.
I read once that Theresa May was shocked by the rise of Corbyn because she thought the argument that the free market is the best engine to lift people out of poverty had been won and she was therefore surprised by the critiques of capitalism gaining prominence again.
But when I see people arguing about capitalism and socialism on the ship - the right don't make those arguments: we hear instead that basically if you are poor it is your own fault, you can escape poverty by your own efforts, and you can be motivated to work only by want.
The difference between UK politics and US politics has been steadily diminishing. Trump's deviations not currently withstanding.
May's understanding of politics mightn't be the strongest platform from which to evaluate...
Compassionate conservatism is on its way out as the Tories head rightwards. The diminishing of the financial middle class is strong proof that the party has little practical compassion. I think there are a few factors for this. One is the presence of prominent gadflies. The other being the Conservative party's movement towards this ideology and the Republican Party's already being there.
A random list of shit from the right wing in the US:
1. All but one Texas Republican voted against disaster relief after Hurricane Sandy because it affected left-leaning New York and New Jersey. (NY and NJ Democrats later did the normal, human thing in the wake of Hurricane Harvey in Texas, voting in favor of disaster relief for that right-leaning state.)
2. The GOP has for decades preferred to balance the budget on the backs of the poor rather than the rich, giving tax cuts to the rich and championing cuts to things like welfare and food stamps.
3. The Koch brothers have been doing their level best to get rid of public education for years. The idea is to cut taxes, making public school crappy, and use that crappiness as an excuse to put education money toward charter schools, religious schools and private schools. People in poor areas already suffering because of under-funded schools will suffer more; people with means will benefit.
4. The GOP opposes making healthcare affordable and accessible to all Americans.
5. Conservatives think the poor deserve to be poor -- they are among the 47% of "takers," as Mitt Romney put it in 2012. They think people who have more have it because they deserve to have it; they think affluence comes from hard work, and that one's personal circumstances don't factor into it.
6. The White House pandemic task force worked hard in March and April to come up with a plan to address the crisis, and scrapped it once they realized that the virus was prevalent mainly in blue states and that their best plan from a political standpoint was to not have a national plan and make governors deal with it.
The right in the US is trying to make a sizeable number of people miserable, and they're fine with a significant number of people dying preventable deaths. So yeah - their positions are inherently less caring.
The options are not just escalate or de-escalate - one can also respond at the same level as the original provocation.
Now that is how to insult someone. (Sorry Ruth, that phrase takes me back to Sine Nomine and ice cream forks)
My job (not important but them's the rules) means that I need to keep some political impartiality in public and I know how hard it is to resist a sharp response to a political opposite. I felt that the recent arrivals were not looking for discussion but an argument, and there is only one place for that on the Ship. After about 20 years here, I'm much more a lurker than a poster so it's easy for me to counsel patience - but I don't see that the H&As had much choice in the cases above. As for whether new posters stay: with so much history on the Ship, like many churches, people look for similar views. If they don't find them, many/most move on. That is just how people are and there is no point in saying that they should be different.
This is of course part of the problem of labelling a whole spectrum of stuff “right-wing”. Corruption is at some level ideologically neutral. Social conservatism, fiscal conservatism and other things are an overlapping Venn diagram. Libertarians often support mainstream right wing parties but in theory at least, the Tories are not libertarians. Or only some of them.
Authoritarianism can occur on the left or the right.
It seems to me that both GOP, and our current crop of prominent U.K. conservatives want to set up functioning oligarchies; with a fig leaf of democracy to cover them, using xenophobic and other socially conservative dog whistles to garner support and a phalanx of libertarians for donations and intellectual cover (both constituencies useful idiots to be ditched as soon as they become inconvenient).
All that said, the sort of people who see themselves as “one nation” conservatives do exist in the U.K. There are many people who vote conservative who appear to be motivated go and do altruistic things in the community. That conservative voice must exist somewhere - but we are not hearing it, perhaps it’s the ship’s atmosphere, or perhaps it is because that generation don’t socialise on bulletin boards.
I've given up on this. (Except, I suppose, for being idiot enough to even answer in this post. Fuck me.)
Individual philanthropy is not enough, however. So an individual who gives of their own, but still supports the government stepping back, will still face criticism.
It is one thing to say that a particular party's policies are uncaring; it is another to say that anyone supporting that party is.
Within that, why a caring person would support a party with policies which seem uncaring is a reasonable question, beyond the general answer that people are complicated.
It is a bullshit to pretend that it does.
BTW, I began this line of thought on this thread directing it to the thread, before LC had yet participated. Projection is not helpful.
It isn't limited to conservative parties, the Labour Party is undergoing this in regards to anti-Semitism and even more so transphobia. And the Democrats supported policies which contributed to the injustices that BLM is protesting.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US at the national level, there is nothing being pushed by people on the left side of the aisle -- liberals, progressives, moderate Democrats -- that even comes close to the evil being pushed by people on the right. Are there shitty individuals who vote with me? Absolutely. Is there corruption among Democrats? Of course there is. But misery and death for marginalized people are public policy for powerful people on the right. Anyone who supports them is complicit in their evil.
I know you do a lot of work with the disadvantaged, and I would not describe you as uncaring.
Conversely, I’ve been on the ship for over a decade, at one point I think I even hosted purg for a bit - so I have read *alot* of threads over the years - and have no memory of, or any sense of, why you identify as a Republican pre or post Trump.
I am no Republican now, because I could not face my eventual grandchildren and say I did nothing when Trump came to power. Well, I have done quite a bit, but I would not expect them to make fine distinctions, and I am not in the habit of bragging, at least in real life. So I needed one symbolic action that will assure them, some day, that I saw the evil and responded properly. They can discover what else I have done--or not--as time and fate fall out.
As for how I became Republican... Well, I suppose it was the usual facts of birth and location, plus a general tendency toward fiscal wariness and a desire to be prudent--perhaps the more understandable when you understand the relative poverty I grew up in. But I'll say no more of that.
It never had anything to do with being anti-immigrant, or anti-minority, or any of that shit. I myself am part Indian, married to one Vietnamese and mother of another, daughter to the son of a Mexican immigrant, sister-in-law to a Jew...
The Republican Party has changed since I was 'born' into it. But the Republican Party is not identical with conservatism. And that, in my opinion, is the mistake that is being made very commonly here. As well as the ... dare I call it a mistake, anymore, when it has been called out so often, and continues on almost a daily basis? ... the identification of individuals with any connection to a vilified group--whether that connection is past or present, chosen or inescapable--the lading of such individuals with responsibility, guilt and shame for all the sins of the group.
That is bullshit. It is also deeply indecent.
All I am talking about is basic responsibility. A political party is a choice. Supporting a political party has inherent associations. Those associations have responsibility. Nothing radical, strange or persecuting about that.
Yeah, I understand about social pressure, but I also do not accept that as excuse. We do not progress as a society by acquiescing.
Is this easy? No, neither is it fair. But is the truth none the less.
Judging an individual as worthy or not by what party they are in is not right. But it is not what I am talking about. And it is frankly offensive to imply that it is.
Fiscal responsibility ≠ fiscal conservatism, BTW.
At best, what I pick up from what I read tends to be a combination of we are worried suggestion x will bankrupt the state and we are worried about free-loading / dependence.
But both of those are largely explanations about why some other proposal is *not* a good idea.
I have a dream that one day the ancient ruins will be rebuilt. That one day the Conservative Party and the Republicans will again uphold all that is truly good in traditional values. That they would again be places of respect and integrity. That they, their officials, supporters and policies would care and respect for those less fortunate. That one day parties of all descriptions would nip each other's toes to keep them honest, but would work together for the common good. One day!
I AM worried about "bankrupting the state," which makes me conservative, but not because I think there's a helluva lotta freeloaders out there. Truthfully, if they put me in charge (as if!) the first thing I'd do is start hunting down the corruption and waste *within* the government departments and agencies--not running around trying to fine-tune a means test or some such yecch. I'm very much convinced that if we got rid of half the corruption and idiotic waste, we'd be able to provide all the services we do now, and more, at the same cost.
Could you go for THAT kind of conservatism?
No. My experience of government spending for the most part is that it is a lot leaner than private spending. The real waste in government is in politicians shoveling money at corporations, which does not show up as corruption in most studies. Requiring corn to be used in gasoline for no environmental benefit, but a huge boon to ADM, is not nearly the source of outrage that mythical Cadillac welfare queens and thousand dollar toilet seats seems to be.
We're closer than you seem to think, then, because shoveling money at corporate buddies is precisely what I'm thinking of.
Would you consider moving this discussion to Purgatory? It seems like you mean something substantially different by conservatism than any iteration I've actually seen in practice, and I think it would be useful to explore those differences.
Sign me up too. But I don't think this is a conservative or liberal or even moderate position.* I think it's a powerful vs. the rest of us thing, and it happens at every level: federal, state, local. The Democratic machine mostly owns the city I live in, and they shovel money at developers just as much as the Republicans do.
What's the socially accepted tipping rate?
What you offering?
On the other hand by evening you'll be freezing.