The Roles of Conservatives and Progressives

[carpedm9587]

Yes. But even though they are not advocating more government for the sake of more government - more government regulation is more government. More government is less liberty.

No - more government does not equal less liberty. I reject that on its face. A government can grow, or shrink, without impacting liberty. Though increases in regulation can make a government grow, a government can grow for other reasons as well. A government can also grow, or shrink, and impact liberty slightly or significantly. But the two are not equivalent; it depends on how the government grows (or shrinks), and what the growth (or shrinkage) represents.

I simply do not buy into the "government bad" mantra from the right. Government is good or bad depending on how it is structured, and what it is doing. Every nation needs a government, unless someone wants to propose that anarchy is a functional organizational principle.

[NorrinRadd]

It is taken to be correct as time goes on, Norrin. It is not initially taken to be so. The interracial movement took years to gain ground and convince people. Today, it is widely accepted. Acceptance of people with differing sexual orientations likewise took a long time, advancing then retreating. Now it is accepted by most, but certainly not all. As the years unwind, and new generations arise without the biases of the old, that tide is likely to continue to shift (assuming history is a decent predictor) into it is accepted as "right" by all. Then the next social change will begin.

I understood that was your meaning. But it doesn't change my analysis. The phrasing of your OP suggests the "braking" action of conservatism has a neutral or even positive effect, but the examples you cite -- if we assume the results really were "positive" -- suggest conservatism only imposed unnecessary delay on "good" results.

[carpedm9587]

I understood that was your meaning. But it doesn't change my analysis. The phrasing of your OP suggests the "braking" action of conservatism has a neutral or even positive effect, but the examples you cite -- if we assume the results really were "positive" -- suggest conservatism only imposed unnecessary delay on "good" results.

I don't think they were necessarily "unnecessary." In the best of all possible worlds, a change that will eventualy be seen to be good would simply happen instantly. In reality, such instantaneous change usually triggers a strong negative backlash. Most people struggle with incorporating change into their lives. This is pure speculation, I know, but I am reasonably sure that, if the same-sex marriage SCOTUS ruling had happened in the 1970s or 1980s, the backlash would have been severe and might well have set the entire process back many decades. People need time to adjust. The conservative resistance to change provides that time. The issues are surfaced, debated, and explored. Over time, the benefits of the change become harder and harder to ignore, and the change is integrated into society.

At least - that's my theory.

[Teallaura]

While I know of many people on the right who say, "less government," I do not know a single person on the left that advocates for "more government." I DO know people on the left who believe the government should be involved in areas where it is not currently involved - which is likely to increase the size of government. But they ar enot advocating for "more government." They are advocating for program that do not currently exist. Only the right, in general and AFAICT, is fixated on "size."

Self-contradictory - if they are advocating for more programs/government intervention, they are in fact arguing for more government, both in size and involvement.

Conservatives see the insanely large size as an impediment to the very intervention liberals want - government has no idea what its doing - multiple programs will address the same issue in contradictory ways. Throwing in more only spends more money more foolishly, eventually resulting in rather severe painful righting when the economics no longer support the largess.

Then there's the issue of restricting freedom - nearly half the states alone and now the Fed have laws that require the purchase of a product. At the state level, it's insurance of NON-EXISTENT assets so rich people can sue poor people. At the Fed it's some of the worst health coverage plans I've ever seen ($500+ per month for an actuarial value of 60%?!).

Public health tackling issues with no effective interventions - what the heck are they going to do about obesity that isn't available in the private sector? Where's the treatment or vaccine? How do you prevent spread? Answer - you don't - which is why it's not a public health issue. this being an example of 'mission creep' - agencies expanding outside their mandates. The EPA regulating mud puddles. Et al.

[JimL]

Who's we? If by "we" you mean white people, sure. Non-whites don't seem too eager to embrace aspects of liberalism that aren't blatantly designed to favor them though.

Obviously what I mean by "we" is progressives as opposed to conservatives.

[37818]

No - more government does not equal less liberty. I reject that on its face. A government can grow, or shrink, without impacting liberty. Though increases in regulation can make a government grow, a government can grow for other reasons as well. A government can also grow, or shrink, and impact liberty slightly or significantly. But the two are not equivalent; it depends on how the government grows (or shrinks), and what the growth (or shrinkage) represents.

I simply do not buy into the "government bad" mantra from the right. Government is good or bad depending on how it is structured, and what it is doing. Every nation needs a government, unless someone wants to propose that anarchy is a functional organizational principle.

It does depend on what government regulates. If by more government, government limits itself - then that by government, it protects liberty - such as the first of the 10 amendments to the US Constitution. "Congress shall make no law . . ."

[carpedm9587]

Self-contradictory - if they are advocating for more programs/government intervention, they are in fact arguing for more government, both in size and involvement.

That depends on how the programs are implemented. However, I agree that more programs/activities will likely lead to an increased size of government. However, it is not the size that is desired - it is the program/activity, which was my point.

Conservatives see the insanely large size as an impediment to the very intervention liberals want - government has no idea what its doing - multiple programs will address the same issue in contradictory ways. Throwing in more only spends more money more foolishly, eventually resulting in rather severe painful righting when the economics no longer support the largess.

I make no claims that our government is efficient. It is highly INefficient and needs a serious management overhaul. We need leaders with actual management experience. However, "insanely large size" is simply an unsupportable mantra from the right. The U.S. Government (all levels) is exactly in line with the average size of government on the planet, as measured by government/employees to population. Furthermore, the ratio in the U.S. peaked under Clinton and Bush, was depressed under Reagan, and began dropping in Bush's second term with the most significant drop happening since 2010 (http://www.hamiltonproject.org/chart..._to_population).

Then there's the issue of restricting freedom - nearly half the states alone and now the Fed have laws that require the purchase of a product. At the state level, it's insurance of NON-EXISTENT assets so rich people can sue poor people. At the Fed it's some of the worst health coverage plans I've ever seen ($500+ per month for an actuarial value of 60%?!).

I am just not impressed by this argument. I am "required" to buy product by multiple forces. The DMV requires me to have car insurance to put my car on the road. The bank requires me to buy home-owners insurance to give me a mortgage. The state requires me to inspect my car. Such is life. If a more equitable health insurance program requires us to all pay in so we are all served, so be it.

Public health tackling issues with no effective interventions - what the heck are they going to do about obesity that isn't available in the private sector? Where's the treatment or vaccine? How do you prevent spread? Answer - you don't - which is why it's not a public health issue. this being an example of 'mission creep' - agencies expanding outside their mandates. The EPA regulating mud puddles. Et al.

On these we will have to agree to disagree. If obesity is a pervasive problem, if it is negatively impacting the health of the population and driving healthcare costs up, then strategies to address obesity and thurn the situation around are perfectly reasonable. If the government say, "if you eat sugar you'll go to jail," I will join your "side." If the government says, "your over-consumption of sugar is negatively impacting many things, so you should pay a little extra to enjoy that vice so we can pay for the infrastructure we will need when your health collapses," I'm all for it. I don't want to be indirectly saddled with the cost of someone-elses healthcare because they choose to slop down sugar all their lives and fail to secure adequate health insurance. Everyone has the right to make choices - they just don't have the right to make choices that I will have to pay for. Requiring them to pay part of the tab themselves is fine with me.

[carpedm9587]

It does depend on what government regulates. If by more government, government limits itself - then that by government, it protects liberty - such as the first of the 10 amendments to the US Constitution. "Congress shall make no law . . ."

Agreed.

[Adrift]

I think the Progressive/Conservative distinction is a lot of hot air. There's nothing new under the sun. Progressives are not necessarily progressing towards anything, nor are Conservatives necessarily the strict traditionalists they're made out to be. Ironically, Progressives often simply retread the past. At one point in history the progressive view was that children had intrinsic worth, and that the traditionalist concepts of abortion and infanticide were to be discouraged. Today the progressive view is to dust off the ancient view that children have no intrinsic worth, that abortion is fine, and there's even progressive talk of bringing back infanticide. At one point the progressive view, contrary to many long established traditional views on the subject, was that sexual intimacy was meant to occur within the covenant between one man and one woman. Progressives today now celebrate in parades and in our media the sexual liberation found in so many ancient cults and practices. Sure, it was progressives (largely Christians) that ended the gladiatorial games, saw an end to slavery, and afforded women equal rights. It was also progressives that promoted eugenics, the prohibition of alcohol, and the Cultural Revolution in China. There is no real "Progressive" "Conservative" distinction in my opinion. In a world where just about everything has been done, there are simply people who think this way is better than that way.

[demi-conservative]

I think the Progressive/Conservative distinction is a lot of hot air. There's nothing new under the sun. Progressives are not necessarily progressing towards anything, nor are Conservatives necessarily the strict traditionalists they're made out to be. Ironically, Progressives often simply retread the past

Easy way out of confusion of yours: '''''''progs''''''' of today are regressives.

At one point in history the progressive Christian view was that children had intrinsic worth, and that the traditionalist concepts of abortion and infanticide were to be discouraged. Today the regressive view is to dust off the ancient view that children have no intrinsic worth, that abortion is fine, and there's even regressive talk of bringing back infanticide.

Fixed!

At one point the progressive Christian view, contrary to many long established traditional views on the subject, was that sexual intimacy was meant to occur within the covenant between one man and one woman. Regressives today now celebrate in parades and in our media the sexual liberation found in so many ancient cults and practices.

Fixed!!

Sure, it was progressives (largely Christians) that ended the gladiatorial games, saw an end to slavery, and afforded women equal rights. It was also regressives that promoted eugenics, the prohibition of alcohol, and the Cultural Revolution in China.

Fixed!!!

[carpedm9587]

I think the Progressive/Conservative distinction is a lot of hot air. There's nothing new under the sun. Progressives are not necessarily progressing towards anything, nor are Conservatives necessarily the strict traditionalists they're made out to be. Ironically, Progressives often simply retread the past. At one point in history the progressive view was that children had intrinsic worth, and that the traditionalist concepts of abortion and infanticide were to be discouraged. Today the progressive view is to dust off the ancient view that children have no intrinsic worth, that abortion is fine, and there's even progressive talk of bringing back infanticide. At one point the progressive view, contrary to many long established traditional views on the subject, was that sexual intimacy was meant to occur within the covenant between one man and one woman. Progressives today now celebrate in parades and in our media the sexual liberation found in so many ancient cults and practices. Sure, it was progressives (largely Christians) that ended the gladiatorial games, saw an end to slavery, and afforded women equal rights. It was also progressives that promoted eugenics, the prohibition of alcohol, and the Cultural Revolution in China. There is no real "Progressive" "Conservative" distinction in my opinion. In a world where just about everything has been done, there are simply people who think this way is better than that way.

I'll avoid getting into the details of your examples, so we don't go down a rat hole. I do agree with the (suggested?) observation that things progressives push for are not automatically "better." Eugenics is one excellent example of a progressive notion (AFAIK) that was a disaster. Social Darwinism came too close to penetrating this country, as it did in Germany and other countries. Hence the importance of the "slow down" function of conservatives.

Your last sentence is compelling. At the end of the day, it is true that there are simply people who think this way is better than that way. We humans DO tend to look for patterns (it's a function of the human brain), and that leads us to categorize people who share common "this ways" and "that ways" into groups. That very dynamic then leads to tribalism and polarization. I suspect we would be a different country (world?) if we just saw one another as individuals who think in various ways, rather than members of "group X" which can then be dismissed as "they."

[Teallaura]

That depends on how the programs are implemented. However, I agree that more programs/activities will likely lead to an increased size of government. However, it is not the size that is desired - it is the program/activity, which was my point.

Fine, but it's still self contradictory - and it's not likely, it's necessarily so. Whether or not size is desired, it is the effect and since that which is desired necessarily requires this effect, it's pretty silly to argue that they don't want larger government. Of course they do - without it, they can't get the desired outcome.

I make no claims that our government is efficient. It is highly INefficient and needs a serious management overhaul. We need leaders with actual management experience. However, "insanely large size" is simply an unsupportable mantra from the right. The U.S. Government (all levels) is exactly in line with the average size of government on the planet, as measured by government/employees to population. Furthermore, the ratio in the U.S. peaked under Clinton and Bush, was depressed under Reagan, and began dropping in Bush's second term with the most significant drop happening since 2010 (http://www.hamiltonproject.org/chart..._to_population).

Over 20000 governments and the biggest keeps growing - sanity is not part of this.

Other countries being equally stupid doesn't disprove the point - at all.

I am just not impressed by this argument. I am "required" to buy product by multiple forces. The DMV requires me to have car insurance to put my car on the road. The bank requires me to buy home-owners insurance to give me a mortgage. The state requires me to inspect my car. Such is life. If a more equitable health insurance program requires us to all pay in so we are all served, so be it.

DMV and health are the only two that matter here - a bank is NOT a governing body. The former should not be legal - guessing since I'm not up on this specific case law - this fell under 'states can but the Fed can't'. That fits with the fact that it's not universal.

The Fed cheated and called the penalty a tax. This won't fly long term - eventually the Court rights itself. Why this matters is because the Fed doesn't HAVE this power otherwise.

It'll die a death of a thousand cuts - but the plans are still crappy and overly expensive. Seriously, $500 / month for a 60% actuarial value is INSANE.

On these we will have to agree to disagree. If obesity is a pervasive problem, if it is negatively impacting the health of the population and driving healthcare costs up, then strategies to address obesity and thurn the situation around are perfectly reasonable. If the government say, "if you eat sugar you'll go to jail," I will join your "side." If the government says, "your over-consumption of sugar is negatively impacting many things, so you should pay a little extra to enjoy that vice so we can pay for the infrastructure we will need when your health collapses," I'm all for it. I don't want to be indirectly saddled with the cost of someone-elses healthcare because they choose to slop down sugar all their lives and fail to secure adequate health insurance. Everyone has the right to make choices - they just don't have the right to make choices that I will have to pay for. Requiring them to pay part of the tab themselves is fine with me.

You ignore the way that public health is chartered - what makes it legal in the first place. There's a BIG reason why you can be arrested if you refuse syphilis treatment but not if you refuse HIV treatment - and it's the crux of why public health exists.

If we can't effectively intervene, we should leave it to the private sector which is usually far more effective. Obesity cannot be effectively intervened.