Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Heaven: One type of conservatism--mine

245

Comments

  • ... in evidence thereto, I adduce my workcube. I'm the only person in the building who has gone out and found cloth-of-scarlet, purple, orange and assorted other tones and draped the beige till it can no longer be seen--and topped that with Mexican tile magnets (won't THOSE knock your eyes out!), a black and mother-of-pearl triptych from Vietnam, a eight-foot tall gourd-turned-birdsnest (I call it the "idiot-catcher" for all the attention it commands) and a number of brightly colored enamel pins derived from medieval illuminated manuscripts. (and that's just the start...)

    Believe me, it attracts ALL the attention. And it makes me happy.
  • Okay. Maybe less focus on physical appearance.s:smile:

    But I would still suggest that one's politics is an extension of how we see ourselves, or how we think others see us.

    I'll try another question.

    What difference do you detect between a conservative voter willing to vote for Trump and a conservative voter, like yourself, who is opposed to Trump?
  • ... in evidence thereto, I adduce my workcube. I'm the only person in the building who has gone out and found cloth-of-scarlet, purple, orange and assorted other tones and draped the beige till it can no longer be seen--and topped that with Mexican tile magnets (won't THOSE knock your eyes out!), a black and mother-of-pearl triptych from Vietnam, a eight-foot tall gourd-turned-birdsnest (I call it the "idiot-catcher" for all the attention it commands) and a number of brightly colored enamel pins derived from medieval illuminated manuscripts. (and that's just the start...)

    Believe me, it attracts ALL the attention. And it makes me happy.

    <3 Cool!
  • Okay. Maybe less focus on physical appearance.s:smile:

    But I would still suggest that one's politics is an extension of how we see ourselves, or how we think others see us.

    I'll try another question.

    What difference do you detect between a conservative voter willing to vote for Trump and a conservative voter, like yourself, who is opposed to Trump?

    Dunno--a lack of common sense? A willingness to believe lies over the evidence of one's own eyes? A tendency to be easily beguiled? A turn for wishful thinking? (whispers: sheer foolishness?)
  • ... in evidence thereto, I adduce my workcube. I'm the only person in the building who has gone out and found cloth-of-scarlet, purple, orange and assorted other tones and draped the beige till it can no longer be seen--and topped that with Mexican tile magnets (won't THOSE knock your eyes out!), a black and mother-of-pearl triptych from Vietnam, a eight-foot tall gourd-turned-birdsnest (I call it the "idiot-catcher" for all the attention it commands) and a number of brightly colored enamel pins derived from medieval illuminated manuscripts. (and that's just the start...)

    Believe me, it attracts ALL the attention. And it makes me happy.

    <3 Cool!

    It is. Deeply, deeply cool. And best of all, I'm a creative, so HR isn't going to come around and insist I go back to beige. Because we're well known to be crazy.
  • ... in evidence thereto, I adduce my workcube. I'm the only person in the building who has gone out and found cloth-of-scarlet, purple, orange and assorted other tones and draped the beige till it can no longer be seen--and topped that with Mexican tile magnets (won't THOSE knock your eyes out!), a black and mother-of-pearl triptych from Vietnam, a eight-foot tall gourd-turned-birdsnest (I call it the "idiot-catcher" for all the attention it commands) and a number of brightly colored enamel pins derived from medieval illuminated manuscripts. (and that's just the start...)

    Believe me, it attracts ALL the attention. And it makes me happy.

    <3 Cool!

    It is. Deeply, deeply cool. And best of all, I'm a creative, so HR isn't going to come around and insist I go back to beige. Because we're well known to be crazy.

    Ah, the old "I have a right to be mad because I'm an artist/writer/musician", whatever. I've used that a few times.

    I admit my argument is a burning heap of tatters. I probably should have realised it as vast numbers of Conservative voters dye their hair pink or blue and could take someone's eye out with their pearl necklaces.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    When I was young I was enthusiastic to vote Labour. I am still willing to vote Labour but when they have a Marxist leader, I will have to vote Conservative to deny him power.

    Ah, the Ship equivalent of click-bait.
    I don't know what you are on about. I am just telling you how it is for me.
  • Okay. Maybe less focus on physical appearance.s:smile:

    But I would still suggest that one's politics is an extension of how we see ourselves, or how we think others see us.

    I'll try another question.

    What difference do you detect between a conservative voter willing to vote for Trump and a conservative voter, like yourself, who is opposed to Trump?

    Dunno--a lack of common sense? A willingness to believe lies over the evidence of one's own eyes? A tendency to be easily beguiled? A turn for wishful thinking? (whispers: sheer foolishness?)

    It is hard to see any intelligent reasons for their support given Trump is not remotely conservative. I wonder whether it isn't so much support for Trump so much as hatred of the other side and in Trump they think they have someone who can defeat the other side.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    When I was young I was enthusiastic to vote Labour. I am still willing to vote Labour but when they have a Marxist leader, I will have to vote Conservative to deny him power.

    Ah, the Ship equivalent of click-bait.
    I don't know what you are on about. I am just telling you how it is for me.

    The click-bait element is that Labour have never had a Marxist leader. And incidentally, what have your political choices got to do with LC's thread?
  • Thing is, I didn't detect that hatred, at least before Trump got elected, and I live among some of those people (relatives, God help me). The hatred is there now (to an extent), but I think it was brought into existence by Trump. Previously it was more akin to discontent, which is a far more common emotion in people across the board.
  • But we digress. Was there anything more anybody wanted to ask me while I'm er, splayed out like a dissected frog on the personal demonstration board of conservatism?
  • Thing is, I didn't detect that hatred, at least before Trump got elected, and I live among some of those people (relatives, God help me). The hatred is there now (to an extent), but I think it was brought into existence by Trump. Previously it was more akin to discontent, which is a far more common emotion in people across the board.

    The worry I have is that Trump was partly made possible (and it was by the narrowest of margins) because Obama was black. Unintentionally, that started the polarisation and then Trump exploited it and amplified it. But it is possible that the polarisation is now working against Trump following the wave of support for BLM. A policy of polarisation doesn't work when you're on the smaller pole.
  • PS. 3.15 AM here so its night night from me.
  • good night.
  • @Lamb Chopped ,

    Does your view of government change depending on whether it's state or federal government?

    From outside, US federal representatives and senators seem a lot more remote from the people they represent than UK MPs, and I could imagine that if I was American I would probably be a lot more suspicious of 'the government'. OTOH state governments (is that the right word?) do seem to reflect more closely the character of the state that elected them.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    ... in evidence thereto, I adduce my workcube. I'm the only person in the building who has gone out and found cloth-of-scarlet, purple, orange and assorted other tones and draped the beige till it can no longer be seen--and topped that with Mexican tile magnets (won't THOSE knock your eyes out!), a black and mother-of-pearl triptych from Vietnam, a eight-foot tall gourd-turned-birdsnest (I call it the "idiot-catcher" for all the attention it commands) and a number of brightly colored enamel pins derived from medieval illuminated manuscripts. (and that's just the start...)

    Believe me, it attracts ALL the attention. And it makes me happy.

    <3 Cool!

    It is. Deeply, deeply cool. And best of all, I'm a creative, so HR isn't going to come around and insist I go back to beige. Because we're well known to be crazy.

    Ah, the old "I have a right to be mad because I'm an artist/writer/musician", whatever. I've used that a few times.

    That is miles away from what Lamb Chopped said.

    BTW, I doubt very, very much that she's ever voted Conservative.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Lamb Chopped

    I’m intrigued by the biblical dimension of your conservatism. And I’m not talking here about beliefs about the nature of the Bible. That gets done to death here.

    What intrigues me is for example the way you see the social justice criticism in the book of Amos. The massive prophetic criticism of inequity found in Amos 1-5. You get an echo of this in Jesus’ swingeing criticism of scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23.

    Amos is not the only prophetic illustration of prophets speaking truth to power. How do you see such pronouncements? Are they simply an exhortation to the powerful to shape up or ship out? Or do they point to any kind of institutional responsibility in governments to deal with social inequities?

    There is a famous quote from a South American Archbishop which comes to mind here. “I fed the poor and they called me a saint. I asked why are they are starving and they called me a communist”.

    Jim Wallis contrasts the attitudes to the need for social reform by observing that the majority of Christians see the value of rescuing drowning people from rivers but are less comfortable with looking critically at who or what is throwing them into the rivers upstream.

    I think arguments about the size and scope of government seem to get entwined with these issues. How do you see them?

  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Lamb Chopped

    I’m intrigued by the biblical dimension of your conservatism. And I’m not talking here about beliefs about the nature of the Bible. That gets done to death here.

    What intrigues me is for example the way you see the social justice criticism in the book of Amos. The massive prophetic criticism of inequity found in Amos 1-5. You get an echo of this in Jesus’ swingeing criticism of scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23.

    Amos is not the only prophetic illustration of prophets speaking truth to power. How do you see such pronouncements? Are they simply an exhortation to the powerful to shape up or ship out? Or do they point to any kind of institutional responsibility in governments to deal with social inequities?

    There is a famous quote from a South American Archbishop which comes to mind here. “I fed the poor and they called me a saint. I asked why are they are starving and they called me a communist”.

    Jim Wallis contrasts the attitudes to the need for social reform by observing that the majority of Christians see the value of rescuing drowning people from rivers but are less comfortable with looking critically at who or what is throwing them into the rivers upstream.

    I think arguments about the size and scope of government seem to get entwined with these issues. How do you see them?

    More than that, it seems like some Christian conservatives oppose pulling people out of the river in any planned or systematic way for fear that they'll start expecting to be pulled out and jump in of their own volition. This is what I struggle to understand. Folk who'll move heaven and earth to help an individual but then won't vote for parties that want to help everyone in the same situation. It just seems like such a disconnect to me to be so obviously compassionate at the personal level and then to vote Republican or tory.

    I know you've said you're not voting for the GOP in November, Lamb Chopped, but can you shed any light on what, other than (I'm speculating) habit and inertia made you think they were the right choice before?
  • Thank you LC for this brilliant thread.

    I love you and your posts.

    Just to play with this tangent for a moment:
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    When I was young I was enthusiastic to vote Labour. I am still willing to vote Labour but when they have a Marxist leader, I will have to vote Conservative to deny him power.

    Ah, the Ship equivalent of click-bait.
    I don't know what you are on about. I am just telling you how it is for me.

    The click-bait element is that Labour have never had a Marxist leader. And incidentally, what have your political choices got to do with LC's thread?

    Midlands Town contribution is relevant to this thread but probably not in the way he intended. The conflation of Socialist especially in the context of democratic socialism with Communist is a stunningly good propaganda tool. European (and to a greater extent, American) left-of-centre politics spent the entire post-war period up to 1990 having to apologise for Communism. It's nonsense but it worked. Oddly it still works (as Telford demonstrated).

    In US terms, the one that always strikes me is the term Socialised Medicine - as if this is a bad thing. Two important facts here: 1) The best part of the US healthcare system is socialised and government run (Ask any member of the military or a veteran...) 2) The US spends more (per capita) on Medicare and Mediacaid than the UK spends on the entire NHS. What's my point? My point is that government-run healthcare works and if you look at the world it's the only thing that works (Germany and France, for example, have very highly regulated insurance markets). And yet some conservatives still manage to successfully demonise government involvement in healthcare whilst millions have no healthcare... What's my point? My point is that words matter. Terminology matters and the successful demonisation of the word socialist is an effective strategy and a real problem for me.

    So, I should probably have a question for LC; here goes. It comes with a massive caveat. The caveat is that whenever people ask me Why do you support x? it almost always comes from a place of complete misunderstanding what the hell x is in the first place. I am confident I am making the same error but here goes...

    You argued very cogently about the role of government needs to be justified in each circumstance. I agree with that. I would also flip it around and say the role of the private sector needs equal justification. (A major issue with the UK political scene over the past 30 years has been that we only get one side of this argument and especially with the power of supra-national corporations, this is becoming more and more of a problem).

    So I guess my question is this: What part of the Republican platform (pre-Trump) did you align with?

    Once again, thanks for the thread.

    AFZ

    P.S. Something I wrote a while back about political thinking:
    http://alienfromzog.blogspot.com/2016/04/thinking-right-and-left.html
    P.P.S. LC, are you familiar with Jim Wallis? I particularly liked his book: [url="http://"]God's Politics[/url] The subtitle is the key: Why the American Right Gets it Wrong and Why the Left Doesn't Get It


  • Robert ArminRobert Armin Shipmate, Glory
    @Lamb Chopped, I've seen you, on Church of Fools. You look GREAT!
  • BoogieBoogie Heaven Host
    edited August 2020
    Dude. If I could get away with it, without looking like the worst kind of fool, I'd dress FABULOUSLY. I mean, all out awesomeness, ALL the freaking time. But I haven't the body for it.

    It's nothing to do with my politics, and everything to do with certain emotional abuse from my childhood.


    Jo Brand is overweight and ‘unattractive’. She dresses great and looks fabulous. The one doesn’t need to follow the other.

    But that’s a whole other discussion.

    This is the Cooperative Movement and well worth a read.

    I believe every bank and business should be run as cooperative and mutual. To me that is ‘proper’ socialism.

    :)













  • Boogie wrote: »
    Dude. If I could get away with it, without looking like the worst kind of fool, I'd dress FABULOUSLY. I mean, all out awesomeness, ALL the freaking time. But I haven't the body for it.

    It's nothing to do with my politics, and everything to do with certain emotional abuse from my childhood.


    Jo Brand is overweight and ‘unattractive’. She dresses great and looks fabulous. The one doesn’t need to follow the other.

    But that’s a whole other discussion.

    This is the Cooperative Movement and well worth a read.

    I believe every bank and business should be run as cooperative and mutual. To me that is ‘proper’ socialism.

    :)













    It's where I'd like to end up to. If we believe in democracy it shouldn't stop when we go to work.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    ... in evidence thereto, I adduce my workcube. I'm the only person in the building who has gone out and found cloth-of-scarlet, purple, orange and assorted other tones and draped the beige till it can no longer be seen--and topped that with Mexican tile magnets (won't THOSE knock your eyes out!), a black and mother-of-pearl triptych from Vietnam, a eight-foot tall gourd-turned-birdsnest (I call it the "idiot-catcher" for all the attention it commands) and a number of brightly colored enamel pins derived from medieval illuminated manuscripts. (and that's just the start...)

    Believe me, it attracts ALL the attention. And it makes me happy.

    <3 Cool!

    It is. Deeply, deeply cool. And best of all, I'm a creative, so HR isn't going to come around and insist I go back to beige. Because we're well known to be crazy.

    Ah, the old "I have a right to be mad because I'm an artist/writer/musician", whatever. I've used that a few times.

    That is miles away from what Lamb Chopped said.

    BTW, I doubt very, very much that she's ever voted Conservative.

    Of course she hasn't voted Conservative. Why would you think that I think she has?

    And
    I'm a creative, so HR isn't going to come around and insist I go back to beige. Because we're well known to be crazy. isn't far from I have a right to be mad because I'm an artist/writer/musician Maybe 'right' was the wrong word but that was all.
  • Thank you LC for this brilliant thread.

    I love you and your posts.

    Just to play with this tangent for a moment:
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    When I was young I was enthusiastic to vote Labour. I am still willing to vote Labour but when they have a Marxist leader, I will have to vote Conservative to deny him power.

    Ah, the Ship equivalent of click-bait.
    I don't know what you are on about. I am just telling you how it is for me.

    The click-bait element is that Labour have never had a Marxist leader. And incidentally, what have your political choices got to do with LC's thread?

    Midlands Town contribution is relevant to this thread but probably not in the way he intended. The conflation of Socialist especially in the context of democratic socialism with Communist is a stunningly good propaganda tool. European (and to a greater extent, American) left-of-centre politics spent the entire post-war period up to 1990 having to apologise for Communism. It's nonsense but it worked. Oddly it still works (as Telford demonstrated).

    In US terms, the one that always strikes me is the term Socialised Medicine - as if this is a bad thing. Two important facts here: 1) The best part of the US healthcare system is socialised and government run (Ask any member of the military or a veteran...) 2) The US spends more (per capita) on Medicare and Mediacaid than the UK spends on the entire NHS. What's my point? My point is that government-run healthcare works and if you look at the world it's the only thing that works (Germany and France, for example, have very highly regulated insurance markets). And yet some conservatives still manage to successfully demonise government involvement in healthcare whilst millions have no healthcare... What's my point? My point is that words matter. Terminology matters and the successful demonisation of the word socialist is an effective strategy and a real problem for me.

    So, I should probably have a question for LC; here goes. It comes with a massive caveat. The caveat is that whenever people ask me Why do you support x? it almost always comes from a place of complete misunderstanding what the hell x is in the first place. I am confident I am making the same error but here goes...

    You argued very cogently about the role of government needs to be justified in each circumstance. I agree with that. I would also flip it around and say the role of the private sector needs equal justification. (A major issue with the UK political scene over the past 30 years has been that we only get one side of this argument and especially with the power of supra-national corporations, this is becoming more and more of a problem).

    So I guess my question is this: What part of the Republican platform (pre-Trump) did you align with?

    Once again, thanks for the thread.

    AFZ

    P.S. Something I wrote a while back about political thinking:
    http://alienfromzog.blogspot.com/2016/04/thinking-right-and-left.html
    P.P.S. LC, are you familiar with Jim Wallis? I particularly liked his book: [url="http://"]God's Politics[/url] The subtitle is the key: Why the American Right Gets it Wrong and Why the Left Doesn't Get It


    A good point. I tend to regard anyone who conflates socialism (however mild) with communism as either a fool or a troll without analysing what's actually going on. Yes, it is demonisation and it has proved horribly effective.

    And re the situation in the US, it's odd that no one ever refers to the socialised military when that is exactly what is is!
  • @Lamb Chopped, I've seen you, on Church of Fools. You look GREAT!

    I've seen her IRL and she looks just as good in that!
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    When I was young I was enthusiastic to vote Labour. I am still willing to vote Labour but when they have a Marxist leader, I will have to vote Conservative to deny him power.

    Ah, the Ship equivalent of click-bait.
    I don't know what you are on about. I am just telling you how it is for me.

    The click-bait element is that Labour have never had a Marxist leader. And incidentally, what have your political choices got to do with LC's thread?

    Corbyn is a marxist. I am ignoring your other daft comment.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    When I was young I was enthusiastic to vote Labour. I am still willing to vote Labour but when they have a Marxist leader, I will have to vote Conservative to deny him power.

    Ah, the Ship equivalent of click-bait.
    I don't know what you are on about. I am just telling you how it is for me.

    The click-bait element is that Labour have never had a Marxist leader. And incidentally, what have your political choices got to do with LC's thread?

    Corbyn is a marxist. I am ignoring your other daft comment.

    By what definition are you asserting that and, given that definition, what is your objection?
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Margaret wrote: »
    @Lamb Chopped, I've seen you, on Church of Fools. You look GREAT!

    I've seen her IRL and she looks just as good in that!

    :blush: :blush: :blush:

    Much thanks to the very kind and possibly blind friends! (Seriously, some crap went on in my childhood, and it's unlikely to be settled in this lifetime. We can maybe leave this so-embarrassing but comforting(!) tangent now? :lol: )
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    @Lamb Chopped ,

    Does your view of government change depending on whether it's state or federal government?

    From outside, US federal representatives and senators seem a lot more remote from the people they represent than UK MPs, and I could imagine that if I was American I would probably be a lot more suspicious of 'the government'. OTOH state governments (is that the right word?) do seem to reflect more closely the character of the state that elected them.

    Actually, the answer is "not really." It's a huge country, and different levels of government handle different things, and we get well used to coping with the various levels. At the moment I'm attempting to avoid becoming painfully and intimately intertwined with our local city government over a matter of building codes (shudder); I'm adjusting my life to reflect the pandemic orders that have come down from the county level; I'm expecting a tax refund from the federal level which has already been turned over to the state level (grrrrr), for a net benefit to us of .... about zero. Maybe we'll have enough to order takeout.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    When I was young I was enthusiastic to vote Labour. I am still willing to vote Labour but when they have a Marxist leader, I will have to vote Conservative to deny him power.

    Ah, the Ship equivalent of click-bait.
    I don't know what you are on about. I am just telling you how it is for me.

    The click-bait element is that Labour have never had a Marxist leader. And incidentally, what have your political choices got to do with LC's thread?

    Corbyn is a marxist. I am ignoring your other daft comment.

    Let me explain.
    1. Corbyn is not a Marxist. He's a democratic socialist. Like me, he probably admires some of what Marx wrote but doesn't wish to impose Marxism on anyone.
    2. LC set up this thread for people to ask her questions about being a conservative. Conservatives are rare on the forums so it was presented as an opportunity to study a rare and benighted creature. Your random remark on who you voted for and why you can't vote for Corbyn was frankly ill-mannered. If you want to talk about your voting preferences perhaps you could start your own thread. I'm sure it will be popular.

    Snide comment struck out as we appear to be in Heaven.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Lamb Chopped

    I’m intrigued by the biblical dimension of your conservatism. And I’m not talking here about beliefs about the nature of the Bible. That gets done to death here.

    What intrigues me is for example the way you see the social justice criticism in the book of Amos. The massive prophetic criticism of inequity found in Amos 1-5. You get an echo of this in Jesus’ swingeing criticism of scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23.

    Amos is not the only prophetic illustration of prophets speaking truth to power. How do you see such pronouncements? Are they simply an exhortation to the powerful to shape up or ship out? Or do they point to any kind of institutional responsibility in governments to deal with social inequities?

    There is a famous quote from a South American Archbishop which comes to mind here. “I fed the poor and they called me a saint. I asked why are they are starving and they called me a communist”.

    Jim Wallis contrasts the attitudes to the need for social reform by observing that the majority of Christians see the value of rescuing drowning people from rivers but are less comfortable with looking critically at who or what is throwing them into the rivers upstream.

    I think arguments about the size and scope of government seem to get entwined with these issues. How do you see them?

    To be sure the prophets are speaking to the powerful and saying on a personal level, "Shape up or ship out." But they are also of course speaking on a corporate level, because these are the leaders of Israel/Judah, God's chosen people, and they both stand for that people and stand as oppressors of that people, depending on which viewpoint God is looking at right now. "Like priests, like people" and all that--but also, "What have you done with my sheep?"

    Being in missions, not so much now but certainly in years gone by, I had an acute sense of "What are you doing with my sheep?" when it came to the welfare of several thousand refugees in this area, who were often and personally dependent on us for interpretation, counseling, access to services, and the like. Any leader whose role involves the oversight and welfare of people ought to have the same sense and fear (not speaking of terror, more of "Damn, I'd better not fuck this up"). IMHO very few do, but there you go. It's easy to get cozy with holy things, and government leadership is (as Lutherans say) part of God's kingdom of the left hand--just as "holy" as the church, but serving different functions. But you can get similar disasters when leadership becomes self-serving or even forgetful or stupid.

    My family gets into trouble on a regular basis of the sort that led the local resettlement agency to say to my husband, "Pastor, stick to your preaching!" This also results in threats to take away one's ministry's tax exempt status in America, not that that ever happened to us, because we are so poor it wouldn't make one whoopty-do, as we own no property and have no paid employees, including ourselves. So there's not much anyone can threaten us with. That said, God has not called us personally to (say) imitate MLK and start pushing for major political changes. He could call us that way, but he hasn't--doubtless because we've been drowning in a sea of right-here-right-now need from day one, and it's need that we're equipped to deal with (having gifts and skills that are most useful person-to-person). I have wondered why no one has emerged to take on leadership of a "don't fuck with refugees" movement. I can only conclude that whoever it was meant to be has not responded to the call--which sucks.

    So yeah, I would definitely want to see government take up at least some of the root causes (though as always, with the caveat that they a) know what the hell they're doing and don't make matters worse, b) justify the decisions they make as to what they are doing and why they themselves are the ones to do be doing it, and c) follow the no-assholes rule mentioned above. I am wary because I have seen our government "take up the root causes" of issues like poverty and the like, and totally fuck it up and make matters worse--largely, I think, because they didn't bother to talk to the people on the streets who are most affected and who have been working in that field for years. Clinton's welfare reform act really fucked with our refugees' ability to get out of the poverty trap and move forward with their lives; it resulted in a whole generation not learning English (because they were thrown immediately into all-Vietnamese factories on shifts that made it impossible for them to access what English-language-study courses existed in the community). And THAT resulted in ongoing years of poverty, as former doctors and captains stayed pieceworkers for their entire working lives, and eventually became disabled and retired on pitiful amounts of money, because your Social Security payment is based on wages earned during your lifetime--and factory work is peanuts. But the Welfare Reform Act was hailed as groundbreaking. Yeah, if the ground being broken was for coffins...

    I use that example to show why I am wary of government trying to go after the deep causes of inequity. Do it right, and it's a blessing. Do it wrong (and they so often do it wrong!) and we'll all wish we'd never been born. They'd never be born. Whatever. You get my point?

    So yeah, caution is sort of baked into me. It's bad now, but God forbid they should make it worse. And their past record of action has not exactly inspired me with loads of confidence.



  • I wasn't under the impression that welfare reform in the US was designed to improve the lives of people on welfare but in fact to punish them for needing it in the first place. More particularly, I understood the drive for it to have grown out of the "Welfare Queen" myth put about by Reagan and his chums, which Clinton then played to in order to win power. I've never taken as anything but sophistry the idea that the reforms would actually benefit people on welfare. If you want welfare policies that actually support people I again struggle to understand why you consider yourself a conservative.
  • So, I should probably have a question for LC; here goes. It comes with a massive caveat. The caveat is that whenever people ask me Why do you support x? it almost always comes from a place of complete misunderstanding what the hell x is in the first place. I am confident I am making the same error but here goes...

    You argued very cogently about the role of government needs to be justified in each circumstance. I agree with that. I would also flip it around and say the role of the private sector needs equal justification. (A major issue with the UK political scene over the past 30 years has been that we only get one side of this argument and especially with the power of supra-national corporations, this is becoming more and more of a problem).

    So I guess my question is this: What part of the Republican platform (pre-Trump) did you align with?

    Once again, thanks for the thread.

    AFZ

    P.S. Something I wrote a while back about political thinking:
    http://alienfromzog.blogspot.com/2016/04/thinking-right-and-left.html
    P.P.S. LC, are you familiar with Jim Wallis? I particularly liked his book: [url="http://"]God's Politics[/url] The subtitle is the key: Why the American Right Gets it Wrong and Why the Left Doesn't Get It


    I'm sorry, but as I tried to indicate above, I haven't done much political reading nor am I intimately familiar with political theory, at least by name. My viewpoint is from the bottom inside of the dumpster, where you get to see all the shit coming down on you! Which is why, for instance, the only thing I can tell you about "socialism" is that my strong impression is that most similarly untutored Americans are under the impression that it's communism lite--which scares the shit out of people who lived through the cold war or immigrated from truly communist places.

    As for supranational corporations, I am fast coming to regard them as instruments of the devil, as they have the power of national governments without the checks and balances. And they don't hesitate to misuse that power.

    I like the idea of making them justify their interference in some area, but can't work out who they would have to justify it TO. I assume it would have to be some form of government, since we haven't got direct, incontrovertible two-way communication with God himself. The same is true for smaller bits of the private sector--and I would be loathe to overburden someone like us, who sees a need and tries to help--with endless red tape. Truly smaller groups, like churches etc. can fuck up just as badly as supranational companies, but the amount of bureaucracy necessary to make each and every one of them justify their (say) homeless shelter or food pantry or ... Not to mention the ever-present role of assholes (sorry to harp on this), because it is entirely possible to shut down a great ministry or initiative because you're a petty asshole bureacrat and you just don't like those people. This happens often enough through misuse of housing and code regulations--on balance I'd prefer NOT to give government any more ability to screw with private initiatives.
  • Sorry, didn't address this:
    So I guess my question is this: What part of the Republican platform (pre-Trump) did you align with?

    It's basically a) fiscal nervousness (have you looked at the size of our debt lately?) and b) there are a lot of great sounding reformatory ideas put out there that exhort the government (usually the federal government) to make this or that massive change, but I'm by nature inclined to worry about losing what we have already, and not seeing sufficient insurances that government can find its butt with both hands. It's rather like seeing a doctor who says, "We can do this massive surgery that will cure your IBS, let's do it, I'm sure it will go well!" and you scurry off to get a second opinion because he's proposing opening you up from stem to stern and making major irreversible changes... I'm the kind of person who would get a third and even a fourth opinion, because I'm not naturally comfortable trusting people who get all bright-tailed and bushy-eyed about things we've never done before... I'm probably too cautious.
  • Good stuff @Lamb Chopped

    On one point, I think we are in total agreement. People are the problem... :wink:

    AFZ
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Thank you for doing this Lamb Chopped. I am not sure if you have been asked this basic question in this thread. Why would you use the word "conservative" to describe your political beliefs?
  • Because caution IMHO is the defining characteristic of conservatism prior to the Trump and Trump-like takeover. I have already lost the Republican party to that ilk, and I refuse to concede conservatism in general to them.

    My impression of liberalism (Democrats, U.S. style socialism) is the counterpart--that is, a desire to forge ahead into uncharted waters (well, uncharted by us, certainly) with great eagerness and perhaps insufficient caution. It's not a bad thing. It's just not MY thing. (FWIW, I live with a husband who is precisely this kind of "full speed ahead, and damn the torpedoes!" and sometimes it succeeds gloriously, and sometimes it winds us up over a year's salary in debt. I appreciate and need his optimism, but I can see just how much he needs my caution and tendency to see the possible pitfalls.
  • I wasn't under the impression that welfare reform in the US was designed to improve the lives of people on welfare but in fact to punish them for needing it in the first place. More particularly, I understood the drive for it to have grown out of the "Welfare Queen" myth put about by Reagan and his chums, which Clinton then played to in order to win power. I've never taken as anything but sophistry the idea that the reforms would actually benefit people on welfare. If you want welfare policies that actually support people I again struggle to understand why you consider yourself a conservative.

    As a long-term recipient of welfare in the UK I'd say its social and economic function is a little more nuanced than either support or punish. Putting aside "punish" (which really doesn't happen intentionally) "support" can take numerous forms and simply handing over lumps of money to people is probably the crudest form of support there is and is only really suitable for those who are independently minded and have their own way of dealing with being un or underemployed. The problem is that some feel that participating in "support" based activities, such as attending mock-interviews, job-training, self-employment workshops, is punishment because they'd rather be watching day-time telly.

    So supporting welfare systems that punish the recipients doesn't make you a conservative of any stripe. It makes you a nasty vindictive person.
  • Because caution IMHO is the defining characteristic of conservatism prior to the Trump and Trump-like takeover. I have already lost the Republican party to that ilk, and I refuse to concede conservatism in general to them.

    My impression of liberalism (Democrats, U.S. style socialism) is the counterpart--that is, a desire to forge ahead into uncharted waters (well, uncharted by us, certainly) with great eagerness and perhaps insufficient caution. It's not a bad thing. It's just not MY thing. (FWIW, I live with a husband who is precisely this kind of "full speed ahead, and damn the torpedoes!" and sometimes it succeeds gloriously, and sometimes it winds us up over a year's salary in debt. I appreciate and need his optimism, but I can see just how much he needs my caution and tendency to see the possible pitfalls.

    I agree that caution underpins conservatism. I also see the sometimes foolishness of full speed ahead, and damn the torpedoes! (Brexit anyone?). I also think you touched on another issue which is American exceptionalism in your comment about somethings being "uncharted by us". I doubt very much that you believe the US has nothing to learn from other countries but the concept of American Exceptionalism seems to be as hard-wired into the American psyche as their dislike of socialism.

    From an Old-Country perspective the US sometimes seems like a stroppy teenager. It has Really Strong Opinions About Everything, no life experience to speak of, and refuses to listen to its elders.
  • I wasn't under the impression that welfare reform in the US was designed to improve the lives of people on welfare but in fact to punish them for needing it in the first place. More particularly, I understood the drive for it to have grown out of the "Welfare Queen" myth put about by Reagan and his chums, which Clinton then played to in order to win power. I've never taken as anything but sophistry the idea that the reforms would actually benefit people on welfare. If you want welfare policies that actually support people I again struggle to understand why you consider yourself a conservative.

    They're not demons, Arethosemyfeet. And if welfare was truly (rather than sarcastically) meant to punish poor people, the easiest way of doing that would be simply to cut off all payments, supports, helps and etc. in full immediately. Drop the school lunches, kill Section-8 housing, tax them at the same rate as the middle class, kill food stamps, aid to pregnant women and those with small children, Medicaid for children, SSI (payments to the disabled). Just drop the whole framework and let them die. But the only people I see advocating any such thing are those who are clearly certifiable (which includes the current occupant of the White House).

    The argument between conservatives (of various stripes) and liberals (of various stripes) is not whether to help, but how to help. There are idiots proponents of the bootstrap method, who truly believe that because they managed to pull themselves out of poverty (or their grandfathers, or whatever) with minimal help, that therefore everybody else should be able to, as well. These are not sensible people, but they exist, because much of humanity is not sensible. And I have had contact with some of these within the church, and if you put them face-to-face with the uncompromising facts of a real individual person's life and ask them how to deal with it (say, the middle-aged disabled guy we had who had a heart attack on no insurance and only $700 a month total income, which is just enough to cover rent but not really food, and certainly not healthcare!), they go very, very quiet. They tend to suggest a few things ("Why not sign up for Medicaid?" only to discover from us that Medicaid in our state will not cover anyone of that age without children.) After venturing a couple of such ideas and being shot down with cold, hard facts, they stop talking. Some of them actually start helping. Because they're not demons, just ignorant. And they don't want people dead, they just fear being taken advantage of. Which is partly a pride thing and partly a case of having been burned before. (Believe me, there do exist a small minority of poor people who do not in fact behave ethically or reasonably and who even flaunt the fraud they commit against social programs--only to have it come back to bite them in the ass later. I know because I am intimately entwined in their lives during crises, and they show up on the church doorstep--as in fact one did just last week--demanding that we use our non-existent "power" to make some problem they've gotten themselves into go away. When you question them about the details of the problem, they squirm and finally admit that they did something illegal and are hoping we can twist the police/IRS/welfare investigator/immigration officer/probation officer's arm for them, and/or bribe them.

    In such cases, there is exactly nothing we can do for them except suggest they get themselves right with the law as soon as possible (which is not usually well-received). We do NOT possess the governor's ear, we are not fool enough to try to pass bribes, and while we won't report them (because a pastor ought to be someone you can trust not to betray you), we do roll our eyes hard enough for them to fall out on the floor.

    I must say that it is rarely the poorest of the poor who do such things. It tends to be the middle-poor-aiming-not-to-be-poor-soon, who have seen what they think is an easy escape from poverty and take it--only to have it bit them in the butt. But I digress. I meant only to say that some of the wariness of ordinary, run-of-the-mill conservatives is caused by encounters with such people. It only takes one sometimes to turn an idealist into a cynic. And that sucks, because we need more idealism tempered with experience.

  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Thanks for answering my question Lamb Chopped.
  • You're welcome!
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    It seems like a big difference in our perspective, is we both see the possibility of corruption and lack of accountability. But you worry more about government and I worry more about private businesses and / or that leaving things up to philanthropy allows a kind of tyranny of the majority.

    People, as you mention, can be assholes.
  • Yeah. I suppose it comes down largely to temperament and experiences. One can usually leave an abusive company, or campaign against them in the newspapers, social media, etc. It's much harder IMHO to displace someone lodged in government, particularly the federal government, as Trump's example shows.
  • Oh, and the election process here means that "tyranny of the majority" is very common via government. Don't be misled by the electoral college thing in 2016. We don't have an electoral college for any other aspect of government that I'm aware of, and it's straight popular vote for things like state governor etc., Medicaid expansion (or not), and so forth. (I'm voting again today).
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    When I was young I was enthusiastic to vote Labour. I am still willing to vote Labour but when they have a Marxist leader, I will have to vote Conservative to deny him power.

    Ah, the Ship equivalent of click-bait.
    I don't know what you are on about. I am just telling you how it is for me.

    The click-bait element is that Labour have never had a Marxist leader. And incidentally, what have your political choices got to do with LC's thread?

    Corbyn is a marxist. I am ignoring your other daft comment.

    Let me explain.
    1. Corbyn is not a Marxist. He's a democratic socialist. Like me, he probably admires some of what Marx wrote but doesn't wish to impose Marxism on anyone.
    2. LC set up this thread for people to ask her questions about being a conservative. Conservatives are rare on the forums so it was presented as an opportunity to study a rare and benighted creature. Your random remark on who you voted for and why you can't vote for Corbyn was frankly ill-mannered. If you want to talk about your voting preferences perhaps you could start your own thread. I'm sure it will be popular.

    Snide comment struck out as we appear to be in Heaven.

    Corbyn is a marxist regardless as to how often you deny it.

    I could clearly read your snide comment.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    The puzzlement of how socialism became conflated with communism in the US seems strange to me. It's not all that long since behind the Iron Curtain lurked the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

    Now we on the Ship are quite aware that there are lots of countries under various levels of socialism whose citizens live in freedom, say mostly what they want, can start businesses that grow quite well, plus getting good health care and having a safety net under them. Unfortunately there are Americans who still think "socialism", however they see it, is the slippery slope to communism, all evidence to the contrary.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    When I was young I was enthusiastic to vote Labour. I am still willing to vote Labour but when they have a Marxist leader, I will have to vote Conservative to deny him power.

    Ah, the Ship equivalent of click-bait.
    I don't know what you are on about. I am just telling you how it is for me.

    The click-bait element is that Labour have never had a Marxist leader. And incidentally, what have your political choices got to do with LC's thread?

    Corbyn is a marxist. I am ignoring your other daft comment.

    Let me explain.
    1. Corbyn is not a Marxist. He's a democratic socialist. Like me, he probably admires some of what Marx wrote but doesn't wish to impose Marxism on anyone.
    2. LC set up this thread for people to ask her questions about being a conservative. Conservatives are rare on the forums so it was presented as an opportunity to study a rare and benighted creature. Your random remark on who you voted for and why you can't vote for Corbyn was frankly ill-mannered. If you want to talk about your voting preferences perhaps you could start your own thread. I'm sure it will be popular.

    Snide comment struck out as we appear to be in Heaven.

    Corbyn is a marxist regardless as to how often you deny it.

    I could clearly read your snide comment.

    You are quite remarkable. One might almost think you were a socialist in deep cover such is your ability to make conservatism look bad.
  • Lyda wrote: »
    The puzzlement of how socialism became conflated with communism in the US seems strange to me. It's not all that long since behind the Iron Curtain lurked the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

    Now we on the Ship are quite aware that there are lots of countries under various levels of socialism whose citizens live in freedom, say mostly what they want, can start businesses that grow quite well, plus getting good health care and having a safety net under them. Unfortunately there are Americans who still think "socialism", however they see it, is the slippery slope to communism, all evidence to the contrary.

    Perhaps we expect too much when we ask people to understand something by its actions rather than by the name it calls itself. I'm reminded that many on the right argue that Nazism was left-wing because "National Socialists".
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    When I was young I was enthusiastic to vote Labour. I am still willing to vote Labour but when they have a Marxist leader, I will have to vote Conservative to deny him power.

    Ah, the Ship equivalent of click-bait.
    I don't know what you are on about. I am just telling you how it is for me.

    The click-bait element is that Labour have never had a Marxist leader. And incidentally, what have your political choices got to do with LC's thread?

    Corbyn is a marxist. I am ignoring your other daft comment.

    Let me explain.
    1. Corbyn is not a Marxist. He's a democratic socialist. Like me, he probably admires some of what Marx wrote but doesn't wish to impose Marxism on anyone.
    2. LC set up this thread for people to ask her questions about being a conservative. Conservatives are rare on the forums so it was presented as an opportunity to study a rare and benighted creature. Your random remark on who you voted for and why you can't vote for Corbyn was frankly ill-mannered. If you want to talk about your voting preferences perhaps you could start your own thread. I'm sure it will be popular.

    Snide comment struck out as we appear to be in Heaven.

    Corbyn is a marxist regardless as to how often you deny it.

    I could clearly read your snide comment.

    You are quite remarkable. One might almost think you were a socialist in deep cover such is your ability to make conservatism look bad.

    Modesty forbids me from agreeing with your first comment.

    As for your second comment I refer you to this comment made in the original post

    My goal is to demonstrate that conservatives are not all of one type, just as liberals are not, and stereotyping is a fool's game whichever way you're facing.
Sign In or Register to comment.