The Fall of Conservatism?

[oliegirl]

That would be a really interesting course to take...the audio download version is only $64.95, for 48 1/2 hour lectures...not too bad. Might have to get that...

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Only one problem with that analogy ... people go to jail when they can't pay their debts ... government just prints more money, which ultimately devalues the currency.

But, hey, if you think the government is entitled to your paycheck...by all means...

The analogy works because the politicians are coming fom a society that in general enjoys running up debt. The We can't send politicians to jail but we can hold them accountable. The public bitches and complains about government spending and then votes the same folks in as long that politicians spends money on what they want. The public chooses not to hold them accountable.

[Groundhog]

When you're in so much $US dollar debt, clearly the best long-term solution is just to devalue the currency in order to make the debts comparitively less and less.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

I would tend to agree with you, but am missing the broader point you're making.

Sorry, my point is that a poll that tells me "self-identified" conservatives rate Bush much more highly than self-identified moderates and liberals doesn't really tell my anything w.r.t. this topic. It really just tells me that Republicans rate Bush much more highly than Independents and Democrats. Which should be obvious.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I can understand that. The country was actually doing well during his terms in office. That's never a good thing.

Amazing how Clinton inherited "The worst economy in 40 years" and turned it around in less than a year." Obvious proof that he was in league with Satanic forces (or lying about how bad the economy was....)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I think anyone who has had to deal with the bureaucracies that inevitably grow up around government programs will recognize this to be a bit of an oxymoron. I've never known the government to do anything smarter...and it definitely DOESN'T work on market principals.

Hence the term "reform". Run on making government that way.

I think the new breed of Islamo-Fascists more than adequately feel the void.

But it obviously hasn't. The two parts of the party are seperating quickly.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Hence the term "reform". Run on making government that way.

Heh. Everybody runs on it. Problem is, nobody does anything about it once in power.

[ISiddiqui]

No one runs on making government that way. They either run on cutting taxes and cutting government (one of the two never happens... hint, it's the latter) or they run on expanding programs

No one runs on making government smarter and making it run more on market based principles. They may throw that in there when they talk about cutting government, but no one seriously has that as central to their campaigns.

[SFL Cat]

I truly don't believe a government agency can ever be made to run on market principles. First, there is no competition, they're it (think EA Sports).

Second bureacracies become too entrenched. If it comes down to a reform minded politician pushing for change or a government bureacracy fighting for the status quo...I know who my money is on.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I truly don't believe a government agency can ever be made to run on market principles. First, there is no competition, they're it (kind of like EA Sports).

Second bureacracies become too entrenched. If it comes down to a reform minded politician pushing for change or a government bureacracy maintaining the status quo...I know who my money is on.

You can run government programs using lessons of the market. For example to deal with global climate change, you use carbon trading rather than a carbon tax, letting the market decide the values of the carbon units. You can find ways to include competition or incentives in the running of government.

It isn't just a reform minded politician, but a reform minded party that can make a difference. Plenty of government departments have changed how they do things based on Congress deciding to change laws and practices. You can change the focus and how these agencies work. People seem to have this unrealistic idea that Congress can't do anything. I work for a government agency... when Congress snaps, we jump to attention... regardless of how big or small it is.

[SFL Cat]

I think the whole carbon unit thing could be the biggest scam ever, but that's another discussion.

I have family in the Department of Education, and I've seen how "effective" reform can be. Sure, people can get "outraged" about something, and the politicans in Congress start blathering about having to "do something" or "fix something" and pass new laws. The agencies will jump through the hoops to comply so they can make the people who keep the money flowing happy. However, 1-3 years down the road, suddenly the same problems that were supposedly "fixed" by all those new laws have suddenly reappeared. Obviously more new laws are needed to fix these new-old problems.

[ISiddiqui]

Since when has the DoE been reformed according to more market/conservative principles? As far as I can tell, No Child Left Behind didn't do jack shit on those attributes.

[SFL Cat]

My brother-in-law is a full tenure professor of statistics (currently on sabbatical) who was brought in to help analyze and quantify the effectiveness of various programs and reforms in the DoE on the federal level. A very market-minded approach. You do X to achieve Y...you analyze the data to see if X is indeed working to achieve Y.

His great frustration lays in the fact that he has shown statistically that certain programs are NOT achieving what they are supposed to, that they need to either be completely overhauled or scrapped...but since they are hi-profile programs that certain administrators/politicians have a lot of political capital invested in...they simply pat him on the shoulder, tell him not to make waves, and throw more money at the program in next year's budget, hoping it will fix things.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Recently someone told me that people under thirty likely have no memory of Reagan.

Too bad he isn't around anymore. It would make for great balance to have two sides that can't remember the other.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Sorry, my point is that a poll that tells me "self-identified" conservatives rate Bush much more highly than self-identified moderates and liberals doesn't really tell my anything w.r.t. this topic. It really just tells me that Republicans rate Bush much more highly than Independents and Democrats. Which should be obvious.

Probably depends on the sense in which they mean conservative, don't you think?

Fiscal conservative? Doubtful.
Small-government conservative? Not a chance.
Evangelical social conservatives? In a hold-your-nose sense, maybe. It's the devil they know, if you'll pardon the turn of phrase.

I mean, yes, he probably DOES rate higher among that group than among liberals or moderates, but I think we're starting to get into "how squashed do you think that bug is" territory there at this point.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Amazing how Clinton inherited "The worst economy in 40 years" and turned it around in less than a year." Obvious proof that he was in league with Satanic forces (or lying about how bad the economy was....)

Yes, yes, it's funny how the economy goes in the tank during a republican term and it's the democrats fault and when a democrat gets in office and fixes it, it's all the republicans doing.

[Axxon]

Anyway, that's drifting far from my premise that Reagan was evil not republicans in general.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Too bad he isn't around anymore. It would make for great balance to have two sides that can't remember the other.

lol..good one.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Now, it should be obvious that I consider myself to stand much more with the "Reform Republicans" in the article. Those that know that government is necessity for certain things, but hope to use government in conjunction with market incentives to get things done rather than govenment planning.

What's interesting is that this is almost exactly what I believe, and I certainly wouldn't call myself a Republican. Further, a good number of the more newly-elected Democrats (on a national level) agree with this concept as well.

Which I think points somewhat to part of the GOP's problem: various democrats have started to discover fiscal responsibility. Some may laugh, but look at the number of Democratic governors around the country who have balanced their states' budgets in this decade.

[quote=Huckleberry;1740649]Brian Swartz answered the question. The Republican Party is not conservative. They favor big government just as much as the Democrats, they simply favor its largesse in different arenas.[/quote

I can agree with this, but...

The Republican/Democrat dichotomy is not about conservativism versus liberalism anymore. It's simply two different sides of the same liberal coin.

If you just said "coin", I'd agree. But you're going to have to define "liberal". The "classical" definition of liberal? The more modern, pejorative term?

Originally Posted by rowech

We were at war with terrorism long before 9/11 and the Iraq war. Finally, we have put the war on their lands instead of ours.

I wasn't aware that Britain and Spain were part of "their lands". This is good to know and will inform my future vacation plans.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Yes, yes, it's funny how the economy goes in the tank during a republican term and it's the democrats fault and when a democrat gets in office and fixes it, it's all the republicans doing.

It's a dual party thing ...anything negative is always because of what the other party's guy did while in office...and anything positive becomes ammo for why the current guy should be re-elected!

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

It's a dual party thing ...anything negative is always because of what the other party's guy did while in office...and anything positive becomes ammo for why the current guy should be re-elected!

Well, maybe but for the life of me I can't remember anything positive occurring with a republican in office.

[SFL Cat]

Well, same here with Democrats...guess it depends on which set of blinders you wear.