How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality

[QueEx]

How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality

Illustration by Oliver Munday for TIME


TIME
By Fareed Zakaria
Thursday, June 16, 2011


"Conservatism is true." That's what George Will told me when I interviewed him as an eager student many years ago. His formulation might have been a touch arrogant, but Will's basic point was intelligent. Conservatism, he explained, was rooted in reality. Unlike the abstract theories of Marxism and socialism, it started not from an imagined society but from the world as it actually exists. From Aristotle to Edmund Burke, the greatest conservative thinkers have said that to change societies, one must understand them, accept them as they are and help them evolve.

Watching this [2012] election campaign, one wonders what has happened to that tradition. Conservatives now espouse ideas drawn from abstract principles with little regard to the realities of America's present or past. This is a tragedy, because conservatism has an important role to play in modernizing the U.S.


The Economy:

Consider the debates over the economy.

The Republican prescription is to cut taxes and slash government spending — then things will bounce back. Now, I would like to see lower rates in the context of tax simplification and reform, but what is the evidence that tax cuts are the best path to revive the U.S. economy?

• Taxes — federal and state combined — as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest level since 1950.

• The U.S. is among the lowest taxed of the big industrial economies.

• The rich countries that are in the best shape right now, with strong growth and low unemployment, are ones like Germany and Denmark, neither one characterized by low taxes.

So, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">the case that America is grinding to a halt because of high taxation is not based on facts</span> but is simply a theoretical assertion.


Many Republican businessmen have told me that the Obama Administration is the most hostile to business in 50 years. Really? More than that of Richard Nixon, who presided over tax rates that reached 70%, regulations that spanned whole industries, and who actually instituted price and wage controls?

In fact, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">right now any discussion of government involvement in the economy — even to build vital infrastructure — is impossible because it is a cardinal tenet of the new conservatism that such involvement is always and forever bad</span>.

Meanwhile,

• across the globe, the world's fastest-growing economy, China, has managed to use government involvement to create growth and jobs for three decades.

• From Singapore to South Korea to Germany to Canada, evidence abounds that some strategic actions by the government can act as catalysts for free-market growth.

Of course, American history suggests that as well. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">In the 1950s, '60s and '70s, the U.S. government made massive investments in science and technology, in state universities and in infant industries. It built infrastructure that was the envy of the rest of the world. Those investments triggered two generations of economic growth and put the U.S. on top of the world of technology and innovation.</span>


But that history has been forgotten. When considering health care, for example, Republicans confidently assert that their ideas will lower costs, when we simply do not have much evidence for this. What we do know is that of the world's richest countries, the U.S. has by far the greatest involvement of free markets and the private sector in health care. It also consumes the largest share of GDP, with no significant gains in health on any measurable outcome. We need more market mechanisms to cut medical costs, but Republicans don't bother to study existing health care systems anywhere else in the world. They resemble the old Marxists, who refused to look around at actual experience. "I know it works in practice," the old saw goes, "but does it work in theory?"


Conservatives used to be the ones with heads firmly based in reality. Their reforms were powerful because they used the market, streamlined government and empowered individuals. Their effects were large-scale and important: think of the reform of the tax code in the 1980s, for example, which was spearheaded by conservatives. Today conservatives shy away from the sensible ideas of the Bowles-Simpson commission on deficit reduction because those ideas are too deeply rooted in, well, reality. Does anyone think we are really going to get federal spending to the level it was at under Calvin Coolidge, as Paul Ryan's plan assumes? Does anyone think we will deport 11 million people?

We need conservative ideas to modernize the U.S. economy and reform American government. But what we have instead are policies that don't reform but just cut and starve government — a strategy that pays little attention to history or best practices from around the world and is based instead on a theory.

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">It turns out that conservatives are the woolly-headed professors after all</span>.




http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077943,00.html

 

[Cruise]

Without seeing the author's name & publication, I knew only a state/corporate agent could write this...

and of course, it was Fareed Zakaria, the Bilderberger.

and, of course, it is a state-run magazine, Time.

 

[QueEx]

Without seeing the author's name & publication, I knew only a state/corporate agent could write this...

and of course, it was Fareed Zakaria, the Bilderberger.

and, of course, it is a state-run magazine, Time.

Great point! No need to actually read or analyze what was said.

QueEx

 

[Cruise]

Great point! No need to actually read or analyze what was said.

QueEx

I'm surprised. You posted it. You didn't read it?

It is a great example of non-information and double-talk.

Tiny bits of truth spread among a field of blatant lies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods.

 

[QueEx]

I'm surprised. You posted it. You didn't read it?

It is a great example of non-information and double-talk.

Tiny bits of truth spread among a field of blatant lies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods.

Oh I read it; not sure you did -- since both of your comments wholly failed to address the content.

 

[Cruise]

Oh I read it; not sure you did -- since both of your comments wholly failed to address the content.

Well, first, the title implies conservatism had been in touch with reality. That automatically makes you suspicious of the writer.

Then, the writer acts as if the Federal government solves problems. It is another unsupported position of the writer.

Then, the writer trots out the unverified statistics, to try and legitimize an already weak position. An overreliance on statistics tells me the argument is not persuasive on its own merits.

The writer uses terms like "rich countries" and "fastest growing economy" and GDP which are notoriously vague terms that don't say or measure anything.

The writer is a perfect example of how you teach a mind not to think. Colleges and universities are excellent at producing non-thinking, State-accepting, bureaucrats.

I think George Orwell called it double-think, and it is why the United States is currently under collapse.

 

[QueEx]

Well, first, the title implies conservatism had been in touch with reality. That automatically makes you suspicious of the writer.

C'mon Cruise, is that what you got from the introductory paragraph?

"The title implies." Do you always judge the book, by looking at its cover ???

You could be right, but I don't think that the point was "conservatism had been in touch with reality." I read those opening words as a mere prelude to the author's thesis: present day conservatives' erroneous belief that our economy can be revived merely by cutting taxes and spending -- without investing into the nations infrastructure, i.e., education, etc., is (1) wrong; and (2) a departure from previous conservative thought.

That automatically makes you suspicious of the writer.

Perhaps lowering ones "suspicions guard" and raising ones critical analysis is in order ???

Then, the writer acts as if the Federal government solves problems. It is another unsupported position of the writer.

Is it really unsupported ??? Was the author simply in error in noting that:

"In the 1950s, '60s and '70s, the U.S. government made massive investments in science and technology, in state universities and in infant industries. It built infrastructure that was the envy of the rest of the world. Those investments triggered two generations of economic growth and put the U.S. on top of the world of technology and innovation.​

What logical fallacy did the author commit ???

Make the author wrong. I can accept it and, if you're not just talking out the side of your neck, possibly agree with you.

Ante up.

Then, the writer trots out the unverified statistics, to try and legitimize an already weak position. An overreliance on statistics tells me the argument is not persuasive on its own merits.

1. You failed to cite what unverified statistics that you're relying on; and

2. You failed to refute his unverified argument with facts/stats of your own.

If the author is unverified, then what are you ???

The writer uses terms like "rich countries" and "fastest growing economy" and GDP which are notoriously vague terms that don't say or measure anything.

Un-vague them then. Make them speak the truth, otherwise, you're just as vagure. No?

The writer is a perfect example of how you teach a mind not to think. Colleges and universities are excellent at producing non-thinking, State-accepting, bureaucrats.

Perhaps. But be careful of that hole you're digging. You may have to dig two.

 

[Cruise]

Is it really unsupported ??? Was the author simply in error in noting that:

"In the 1950s, '60s and '70s, the U.S. government made massive investments in science and technology, in state universities and in infant industries. It built infrastructure that was the envy of the rest of the world. Those investments triggered two generations of economic growth and put the U.S. on top of the world of technology and innovation.​

What did all that infrastructure achieve? Today, it leaves us with a decaying, declining, diminishing country.

It is precisely the government interventions of the 50s, 60s, and 70s that set the stage for the mess we are experiencing now.

Eisenhower created the interstate system for the military/industrial complex, which laid the groundwork for the greatest misallocation of resources known to mankind... the suburbs.

In the 60s, Johnson created the welfare state as we know it, with Medicare, affirmative action, and all manner of set asides. This effectively destroyed not only the black community, but whites as well, because now women are liberated to work and abandon their families.

In the 70s, instead of creating a workable energy policy, Nixon and Carter engaged in bank monopolization, price controls, and currency defaults.

The Federal government has a long history of making bad problems worse, and then crying about how they never had enough resources to do it right.

We now have decades of hindsight to see the decisions made then were stupid as hell.

You failed to cite what unverified statistics that you're relying on; and

2. You failed to refute his unverified argument with facts/stats of your own.

Taxes — federal and state combined — as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest level since 1950.

This is laughable garbage.

You cannot escape paying taxes on everything you purchase. There are fees, surcharges, assessments, and more. The people are being taxed to the hilt and they are increasing!

How can anyone take this clown seriously who is not a state agent?

The writer obviously is insulated from the realities of government action and surviving in the real world.

Taxes are sky-high, the government is stupid/corrupt/incompetent, and conservative/Democrat is a joke of the New York/DC elites.

 

[QueEx]

You're getting a little better; if you can only stay on without reaching for straws.

What did all that infrastructure achieve? Today, it leaves us with a decaying, declining, diminishing country.

Whats it called: Detroit ???

Now I know damn well you know that infrastructure has a limited lifespan; and that it has to be repaired and expanded, to accommodate wear and tear and population expansion.

What you didn't do, sir, is show how the investment in our infrastructure didn't "trigger two generations of economic growth and put the U.S. on top of the world of technology and innovation."

See, when you argue, the first rule is try to stay on point and not go off mixing apples and oranges and just talking outcha ass!


Speaking of out of ya ass:

What did all that infrastructure achieve? Today, it leaves us with a it leaves us with a decaying, declining, diminishing country.

In other words, you just disagree and can only come up with bullshit rebuttals. Your automobile, if you have one, has to be repaired and, eventually, replaced. In the meantime, if it took you to work today, it accomplished its purpose. If it takes you there tomorrow, again, mission accomplished. If you ignore the oil change, or for that matter, ignore the gas guage, it will leave your ass decaying, declining and, broke.

It is precisely the government interventions of the 50s, 60s, and 70s that set the stage for the mess we are experiencing now.

Eisenhower created the interstate system for the military/industrial complex, which laid the groundwork for the greatest misallocation of resources known to mankind... the suburbs.

In the 60s, Johnson created the welfare state as we know it, with Medicare, affirmative action, and all manner of set asides. This effectively destroyed not only the black community, but whites as well, because now women are liberated to work and abandon their families.

In the 70s, instead of creating a workable energy policy, Nixon and Carter engaged in bank monopolization, price controls, and currency defaults.

And they were the greatest gotdamn suburbs known to man. LOL.

You're attempting to change the subject again. Stay on point.

An old adage: if you don't have the facts on your side, argue the law. If you don't have the law on your side, argue the facts. If you have neither on your side, just try to confuse the damn issues.

I respectfully submit that your arguments here fall in the latter category.

Taxes — federal and state combined — as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest level since 1950.

This is laughable garbage.

You cannot escape paying taxes on everything you purchase. There are fees, surcharges, assessments, and more. The people are being taxed to the hilt and they are increasing!

How can anyone take this clown seriously who is not a state agent?

Once again, you're not arguing or debating; you're simply trying to confuse the issues! Hence, can anyone take you seriously ???


QueEx

 

[Fuckallyall]

THoughtone could have written this article. It contains his usual mistake for classic conservatives with the current makeup of the republican party.

The investments made in the past were not income redistributions, and they geberated debt we still not have paid for, although we could have.

Also, the tax load does not include many costs of doing business now, as well as including many financial transactions that do not add value, such as a stock sale, mortgage re-finance, or bond issues. I leave with a quote from a great president:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

He also cut the nominal tax rate by 20%. In 7 years, tax revenue rose by a third.

 

[Fuckallyall]

THoughtone could have written this article. It contains his usual mistake for classic conservatives with the current makeup of the republican party.

The investments made in the past were not income redistributions, and they geberated debt we still not have paid for, although we could have.

Also, the tax load does not include many costs of doing business now, as well as including many financial transactions that do not add value, such as a stock sale, mortgage re-finance, or bond issues. I leave with a quote from a great president:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

He also cut the nominal tax rate by 20%. In 7 years, tax revenue rose by a third.

 

[Cruise]

You're getting a little better; if you can only stay on without reaching for straws.



Whats it called: Detroit ???

Now I know damn well you know that infrastructure has a limited lifespan; and that it has to be repaired and expanded, to accommodate wear and tear and population expansion.

What you didn't do, sir, is show how the investment in our infrastructure didn't "trigger two generations of economic growth and put the U.S. on top of the world of technology and innovation."

See, when you argue, the first rule is try to stay on point and not go off mixing apples and oranges and just talking outcha ass!


Speaking of out of ya ass:



In other words, you just disagree and can only come up with bullshit rebuttals. Your automobile, if you have one, has to be repaired and, eventually, replaced. In the meantime, if it took you to work today, it accomplished its purpose. If it takes you there tomorrow, again, mission accomplished. If you ignore the oil change, or for that matter, ignore the gas guage, it will leave your ass decaying, declining and, broke.





And they were the greatest gotdamn suburbs known to man. LOL.

You're attempting to change the subject again. Stay on point.

An old adage: if you don't have the facts on your side, argue the law. If you don't have the law on your side, argue the facts. If you have neither on your side, just try to confuse the damn issues.

I respectfully submit that your arguments here fall in the latter category.




Once again, you're not arguing or debating; you're simply trying to confuse the issues! Hence, can anyone take you seriously ???


QueEx

You are so worried about the form that you ignore the function.

Are you some sort of super-bureaucrat that won't read the report if it wasn't submitted following all your rules?

The car culture was an egregious mistake.

Detroit teaches that lesson.

Detroit is a city built around trains. Most "older" United States cities are built around trains.

After World War 2, Big Oil and the Big 3 conspired with the Federal government to create the "car culture" with the result being suburbs, trucking, and "car cities" like Los Angeles, Phoenix, Atlanta, Houston & Dallas.

All of that was stupid to do for short-term profits, quick sales, and easy votes. That is conservatism in a nutshell. Sell-out the future to enjoy the present.

It never occurred to those idiots, what happens if oil gets expensive?

What you didn't do, sir, is show how the investment in our infrastructure didn't "trigger two generations of economic growth and put the U.S. on top of the world of technology and innovation."

Are you kidding? The Federal government didn't trigger economic growth.

After World War 2, all the industrial competitiors were destroyed and the United States had more oil than any other country in the world. Any idiot would thrive in that environment, and the United States was that idiot.

Once the rest of the world got back on its feet in the 60s and 70s, and the United States burned through all its oil, the Federal government promptly defaulted on its obligations in 1971 (and it keeps defaulting in new and exciting ways).

The Federal government wastes resources. It always has, and it always will.

 

[trstar]

Detroit teaches that lesson.

Detroit is a city built around trains. Most "older" United States cities are built around trains.

Detroit is a city built around cars.

 

[Cruise]

Detroit is a city built around cars.

If you have ever been to Detroit or were around before the city was devastated in the 1980s, you would know Detroit was a rail hub. One of the greatest signs of the stupidity of government, and corporations, is the Michigan Central Depot. If you know about that, you know Detroit was built as a rail city.

After World War 2, the Big 3 decided to push local, state, and Federal governments to tear up all the rail lines, electric tracks, and stations so highways, freeways, and expressways could be built instead.

Detroit went from having loads of rail to having almost no rail.

That's government for you. Destroy the forest for tomorrow to have a toothpick today.

 

[QueEx]

You are so worried about the form that you ignore the function.

Are you some sort of super-bureaucrat that won't read the report if it wasn't submitted following all your rules?

The car culture was an egregious mistake.

Detroit teaches that lesson.

Detroit is a city built around trains. Most "older" United States cities are built around trains.

After World War 2, Big Oil and the Big 3 conspired with the Federal government to create the "car culture" with the result being suburbs, trucking, and "car cities" like Los Angeles, Phoenix, Atlanta, Houston & Dallas.

All of that was stupid to do for short-term profits, quick sales, and easy votes. That is conservatism in a nutshell. Sell-out the future to enjoy the present.

It never occurred to those idiots, what happens if oil gets expensive?



Are you kidding? The Federal government didn't trigger economic growth.

After World War 2, all the industrial competitiors were destroyed and the United States had more oil than any other country in the world. Any idiot would thrive in that environment, and the United States was that idiot.

Once the rest of the world got back on its feet in the 60s and 70s, and the United States burned through all its oil, the Federal government promptly defaulted on its obligations in 1971 (and it keeps defaulting in new and exciting ways).

The Federal government wastes resources. It always has, and it always will.

More unresponsive, irrelevant and immaterial rambling. You completely failed to stay on point. Whether or not your so-called "car culture" was good or bad is not at issue. Infrastructure, i.e., transportation, education, etc., is the focal point. So, instead of addressing whether improving and maintaining infrastructure was meritorious, you went off on another obscure and totally unrelated path to no where.


BTW, if the author is wrong, hell, he's just wrong. But, address the issues.

 

[Dannyblueyes]

It was a good article until I read this

From Singapore to South Korea to Germany to Canada, evidence abounds that some strategic actions by the government can act as catalysts for free-market growth.

While I agree with the general idea of the quote why the hell would the author use Canada as an example?

Canada's "catalyst for growth" are the crown corporations. In a nutshell, the federal and provincial governments create monopolies over industries they feel that the private sector is not able to properly meet. Some times it works but for the most part it's a disaster. It makes many products needlessly expensive and delays technological growth.

 

[actinanass]

So typical...

I guess I'm going to have to shake the hornets nest with an opinion thread again.

 

[QueEx]

So typical...

I guess I'm going to have to shake the hornets nest with an opinion thread again.

. . . and you think that you've said something ? ? ?



<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bXUa6VVqq4c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Like a dull knife, just ain't cuttin;
Just talking loud, and sayin nuthin!

 

[Cruise]

More unresponsive, irrelevant and immaterial rambling. You completely failed to stay on point. Whether or not your so-called "car culture" was good or bad is not at issue. Infrastructure, i.e., transportation, education, etc., is the focal point. So, instead of addressing whether improving and maintaining infrastructure was meritorious, you went off on another obscure and totally unrelated path to no where.


BTW, if the author is wrong, hell, he's just wrong. But, address the issues.

The problem is, if it doesn't mean your narrow views of what is relevant, you attack the messenger rather than examine the message. I get the impression you resort to that because you are not qualified to address the issues raised, so you do it to make yourself feel important and relevant.

If you coud logically break down my position with logic and reason, rather than petty attacks, that would at least show you know what you are talking about. Otherwise, it is just petty.

I see right through that stuff. The State is just one big burden on society. It has never done anything, for anyone, at any time that helps anyone other than itself.

The sooner you realize this, the sooner you will stop trying to be an apologist for it (though, I get the impression the food on your plate depends on promoting the lie of "good" government).

 

[thoughtone]

So typical...

I guess I'm going to have to shake the hornets nest with an opinion thread again.

Every post you make is an opinion, devoid of facts.

BTW,

Please define what a Conservative is?

 

[actinanass]

Every post you make is an opinion, devoid of facts.

BTW,

Please define what a Conservative is?

Typical thoughtone nature...

I answer this question, he dissects it, upgrade intervene, que post another article, wash, repeat....

Not to mention, you're already to blame republicans for something the democrats could of dealt with back in 09. I would call you a wingnut, but I remember how lame Vegas sounded when he called me that...

Before I even entertain that bullshit question you asked, let me ask you one so we can get an understanding.

Are you a progressive?

I know it's a rhetorical question.

 

[thoughtone]

Typical thoughtone nature...

I answer this question, he dissects it, upgrade intervene, que post another article, wash, repeat....

Not to mention, you're already to blame republicans for something the democrats could of dealt with back in 09. I would call you a wingnut, but I remember how lame Vegas sounded when he called me that...

Before I even entertain that bullshit question you asked, let me ask you one so we can get an understanding.

Are you a progressive?

I know it's a rhetorical question.

No, I called you a wingnut.

Of course you didn't answer the question. Why would i expect otherwise.

Progressive? Always.
I answered this already! To be a progressive, you don't have to be a liberal or a Democrat. Republican President Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. In fact, when he ran for president for a third term, he founded the Bull Moose (Progressive) Party. The progressive republicans followed him, the corpitists republicans followed William Howard Taft. The party you belong to today survives as the William Howard Taft wing.

Now, What is a conservative?

 

[Gunner]

THoughtone could have written this article. It contains his usual mistake for classic conservatives with the current makeup of the republican party.

The investments made in the past were not income redistributions, and they geberated debt we still not have paid for, although we could have.

Also, the tax load does not include many costs of doing business now, as well as including many financial transactions that do not add value, such as a stock sale, mortgage re-finance, or bond issues. I leave with a quote from a great president:



He also cut the nominal tax rate by 20%. In 7 years, tax revenue rose by a third.

End Thread Please!!!!

 

[nittie]

From Aristotle to Edmund Burke, the greatest conservative thinkers have said that to change societies, one must understand them, accept them as they are and help them evolve.

This is true conservatives believe that change can be managed and maybe controlled keeping the status quo intact . That's ok if you are a rich white male in America or ancient Greece but if you are not a member of that group conservatism sucks.

 

[thoughtone]

This is true conservatives believe that change can be managed and maybe controlled keeping the status quo intact . That's ok if you are a rich white male in America or ancient Greece but if you are not a member of that group conservatism sucks.

End Thread Please!!!!

What I might add to this is as long as you are a member of the class, ethnic group or gender in power in any sociality or sovereign nation, you claim conservatism as the principle to die for. The Conservatives in Islamic theocracies or Christian dominated governments claim conservatism. The ruling classes in Stalinist Soviet Union held on to their form conservatism. Nations in Africa that have repressive female cultures want to maintain their conservative ways. Slave holding southerns based their views of slavery on conservatism.

Nittie nailed it to the wall! It is interesting that so many are on this board touting the merits of conservatism. A board by it's nature is a place for Black folks to speak their minds. Conservatism is the essence of slavery and oppression of Black folks throughout American history. Black folk that embrace conservatism actually are envious of whites and European culture and harbor a least a bit of self hate about. Stockholm Syndrome.

source: The Russell Kirk Center

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.

The fifth of Russell Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles. Father of modern conservatism.