Rise of USAmerican Conservative Politics [Archive]

View Full Version : Rise of USAmerican Conservative Politics

Da Lone-Warrior

May 18th 2004, 05:19 PM

Da Lone-Warrior

May 18th 2004, 07:11 PM

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/
WOULD BARRY GOLDWATER BE PROUD?....Since today is his birthday, it's only appropriate for me to agree with something Matt Yglesias writes this afternoon. Despite the rise of movement conservatism since 1964, the eventual victory of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and the conservative hegemony of recent years, what have conservatives actually accomplished in that time?

The largest Johnson-era anti-poverty program, Medicaid, is still with us, as is Medicare for senior citizens, which has only grown more generous (most recently, via a bill passed almost exclusively with Republican votes) since it's creation. Social Security, the centerpiece of the New Deal welfare state, is likewise more generous than it was in 1964. The federal government plays a larger role in funding education than it did in 1964 (and, again, it's role has gotten even larger under the Bush-DeLay regime). Abortion, illegal in 1964, is now legal, anti-sodomy laws were eliminated in the recent past, and today we have gay and lesbian couples getting married in Massacusetts, while civil unions, surely a proposal more liberal than anything Johnson dreamed of, have become the moderate plan.

I don't mean to belittle the danger of the modern conservative agenda, but at the same time Matt is right: it bears asking just what the rising tide of conservatism over the past quarter century has actually accomplished for their cause. Sure, there was welfare reform in 1996 — signed into law by a Democrat. But aside from some nibbling around at the fringes, what else?

Have they eliminated any departments of the federal government? No. Cut back entitlement programs? No. Increased the size of the military? No. Reduced the size of government? No. Outlawed abortion? Restricted gay rights? Brought back prayer in schools? No, no, and no. In fact, just the opposite for most of these things.

Among major conservative causes, then, the only thing left is tax cuts — which, serendipitously, have become to modern conservatives what the New Deal was to FDR: an ingenious way of bringing together an otherwise unlikely coalition of political bedfellows. The three main pillars of today's Republican party may not agree on much else, but they can all find common ground on taxes:

Big corporations like tax cuts because it improves their bottom line.

Rich people like tax cuts because they pay lots of taxes.

"Middle America" likes tax cuts — even though they don't pay much in income taxes and no one ever suggests cutting payroll taxes — because they're convinced their taxes are shipped directly to inner city welfare queens and they want it stopped.

However, this poses an enormous danger to modern conservatives. After all, they've taken tax cuts about as far as they can, and there's not much of anything else holding them all together — especially now that Iraq is causing cracks even in their normally solid dedication to building up the military. What will they do for an encore?

—Kevin Drum 6:17 PM

Da Lone-Warrior

May 18th 2004, 07:14 PM

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.confessore.html

Welcome to the Machine, by Nicholas Confessore.

dlw

Ryokan

May 18th 2004, 07:24 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/18/opinion/18WOOL.html

discusses how since Goldwater's unsuccessful run for president, that american conservativism has been a source of ideas and discipline that has helped them gain power, power that will not be thwarted by failing to reelect George W. Bush.

It is both the pro-active think-tanks, the alliance between economic conservatives and religious conservatives, and the discipline/accountability given to conservative politician that account for their success.

It points to how working towards a detente in the cultural wars would likely loosen the alliance between religious and economic conservatives. As of right now, I think its safe to say that the religious conservatives get the short end of the stick on most issues, except maybe abortion and homosexuality. Learning to acknowledge the limitations to making political changes in abortion law and a more nuanced positions on homosexuals would permit them to get more sway on a wider range of issues, some of which I cover in my political platform.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12664&highlight=Pragmatic+Progressive+Party+Platform

dlw

dlw
Actually, I'd say its the other way around. Economic conservatives are a minority in the party, and our issues are rarely listened to. Witness the lack of decrease in government spending under Bush 1 or 2, and the dramatic increasing in spending under the current one. The most economically conservative president in recent years was Clinton! The only thing that the alliance has netted us is payouts to big business, which isn't economic conservativism at all, and tax cuts which are irresponsible for the reasons above. Sure, economically left leaning anti abortion activist have no were to go, but it seems to me is that you are trying to tie social conservatvism in with liberal economics, reversing the current alliance, rathering than breaking the alliances all together.

Da Lone-Warrior

May 18th 2004, 07:52 PM

Actually, I'd say its the other way around. Economic conservatives are a minority in the party, and our issues are rarely listened to. Witness the lack of decrease in government spending under Bush 1 or 2, and the dramatic increasing in spending under the current one. The most economically conservative president in recent years was Clinton! The only thing that the alliance has netted us is payouts to big business, which isn't economic conservativism at all, and tax cuts which are irresponsible for the reasons above. Sure, economically left leaning anti abortion activist have no were to go, but it seems to me is that you are trying to tie social conservatvism in with liberal economics, reversing the current alliance, rathering than breaking the alliances all together.

I agree that there is a tenuous link between economic conservativism of the libertarian-form and that which is a mere apologetics for moneyed interests.

I was more referring to the latter than the former.

I also agree that in terms of percentage of voters that religious conservatives are larger than economic conservatives.

I was also referring to stuff like the renewal of the MFN status of mainland China indefinitely, since that takes away one of our main instruments to check the growth in power of the communist party and its ability to persecute religious minorities in China. On that issue, the economic conservatives won over the religious/social conservatives.

I agree that the sway of religious/social conservatives on issues has increased some. They are stalwart supporters of the state of Israel. They got faith-based programs receiving funding. They have been critical in forcing the US to give more attention to various int'l relations problems. As such, it would be natural to expect their influence to rise. I'm saying that we can't persay expect the alliance to last. Social/religious conservatives come from a variety of economic backgrounds and have different views on such things as TWeb amply demonstrates.

Although, there are many areas of natural conflict between social/religious conservatives and moneyed-interests, as my party-platform illustrates. My platform certainly endorses economic liberalism since the thrust is to expand the range of interests served by the gov't. You could say I'm willing to trust big gov't a little more than big business in some facets of governance. I'm also willing to change the rules of the game so that some activities that have negative externalities, such the porn-industry, are discouraged. And I'd be willing to set up rules that restrict advertising ability on some fronts. Freedom of $peech is not an absolute in my book. It is something we can learn about and regulate in some facets.

I don't see this though as just forging another alliance. I'm sure there will still be MMs who are just as dedicated to economic conservativism as they are to social conservativism. If anything it will break social/religious conservatives into two groups and hopefully make them more willing to be swing voters and form alliances with a wide range of interests.

dlw

Ryokan

May 19th 2004, 07:52 AM

I agree that there is a tenuous link between economic conservativism of the libertarian-form and that which is a mere apologetics for moneyed interests.

I was more referring to the latter than the former. I'll buy that. But the democrats are pro big business also, as long as they don't piss of a few giant unions or NGOs.

I also agree that in terms of percentage of voters that religious conservatives are larger than economic conservatives. Sadly.

I was also referring to stuff like the renewal of the MFN status of mainland China indefinitely, since that takes away one of our main instruments to check the growth in power of the communist party and its ability to persecute religious minorities in China. On that issue, the economic conservatives won over the religious/social conservatives. Thats true, but again we had to depend on Clinton more than anyone else to get that moving.

I agree that the sway of religious/social conservatives on issues has increased some. They are stalwart supporters of the state of Israel. They got faith-based programs receiving funding. They have been critical in forcing the US to give more attention to various int'l relations problems. As such, it would be natural to expect their influence to rise. I'm saying that we can't persay expect the alliance to last. Social/religious conservatives come from a variety of economic backgrounds and have different views on such things as TWeb amply demonstrates.

Although, there are many areas of natural conflict between social/religious conservatives and moneyed-interests, as my party-platform illustrates. My platform certainly endorses economic liberalism since the thrust is to expand the range of interests served by the gov't. You could say I'm willing to trust big gov't a little more than big business in some facets of governance. I'm also willing to change the rules of the game so that some activities that have negative externalities, such the porn-industry, are discouraged. And I'd be willing to set up rules that restrict advertising ability on some fronts. Freedom of $peech is not an absolute in my book. It is something we can learn about and regulate in some facets. I don't trust either very much. But when a big business screws up and I complain, they fix it and give me a coupon. The government makes it seem like its my fault. For alot of things, I think business are more easily made accountable by everyday people, and therefore more trustworthy. My beef with big business is that its seems to be able to weasle unfair advantages out of congress all the time, which I can't do. And I have no beef with porn or most advertisement. So we will disagree. But I am not sure you could get social conservatives on board with all those ideas, and if you did it would mostly be unrelated to there msocial conservatism.

I don't see this though as just forging another alliance. I'm sure there will still be MMs who are just as dedicated to economic conservativism as they are to social conservativism. If anything it will break social/religious conservatives into two groups and hopefully make them more willing to be swing voters and form alliances with a wide range of interests.

dlw
Maybe. Social conservatives listen to there church leaders, who right now seem to be sticking together. If they went, it'd likely be as a group.

Da Lone-Warrior

May 19th 2004, 10:48 PM

I'll buy that. But the democrats are pro big business also, as long as they don't piss of a few giant unions or NGOs.

true. Politics has always been very pro-business in the US for both parties.

Thats true, but again we had to depend on Clinton more than anyone else to get that moving.

That's also true. Amazing how much more campaign funds Dems get to run for president when they are almost identically pro-business as Republicans. The Republican Party was foaming at the mouth mad at Clinton not because his policies were so liberal, but because he was so adept at collecting the rents they traditionally had collected more of.

I don't trust either very much. But when a big business screws up and I complain, they fix it and give me a coupon. The government makes it seem like its my fault. For alot of things, I think business are more easily made accountable by everyday people, and therefore more trustworthy. My beef with big business is that its seems to be able to weasle unfair advantages out of congress all the time, which I can't do. And I have no beef with porn or most advertisement. So we will disagree. But I am not sure you could get social conservatives on board with all those ideas, and if you did it would mostly be unrelated to there social conservatism.

Well, it would require a refocus away from abortion and homosexuality and onto other issues. I've had some positive feed-back in the past. And, of course, restricting the advertising of alcohol isn't going to make people stop drinking, though it should moderate it some and give high-quality low-quantity alcohol an advantage over high quantity, low-quality alcohol, which will in turn raise the price of alchohol and moderate its consumption level.

Its just a matter of getting the message out there and getting "influentials" saying good things about these sorts of issues. http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26175&highlight=influentials

Maybe. Social conservatives listen to there church leaders, who right now seem to be sticking together. If they went, it'd likely be as a group.

There are a number of different groups that vary in a number of characteristics. I doubt once abortion and homosexuality is depoliticized that there'd be anywhere the basis for as much political unity. I believe the following article that I've posted before gets at how divisions among "evangelicals" make worries about them acting in single-step politically over-blown.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/04/04/apocalyptic_president/
dlw