Comments on: But What Are You For? The Death of Modern Movement Conservatism http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/10/but-what-are-you-for-the-death-of-modern-movement-conservatism/ Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:25:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Rewriting the conservative narrative | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/10/but-what-are-you-for-the-death-of-modern-movement-conservatism/#comment-27529 Rewriting the conservative narrative | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:01:39 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=9771#comment-27529 [...] these lines, it’s good to remember what Mark has said about the three-legged stool of conservatism: social, fiscal, and defense conservatives have in the [...] [...] these lines, it’s good to remember what Mark has said about the three-legged stool of conservatism: social, fiscal, and defense conservatives have in the [...]

]]> By: Mark Thompson http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/10/but-what-are-you-for-the-death-of-modern-movement-conservatism/#comment-26000 Mark Thompson Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:50:17 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=9771#comment-26000 Those aren't scare quotes, just quotes to denote that I'm using a colloquialism. Those aren’t scare quotes, just quotes to denote that I’m using a colloquialism.

]]> By: Doug http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/10/but-what-are-you-for-the-death-of-modern-movement-conservatism/#comment-25995 Doug Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:17:43 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=9771#comment-25995 I agree with Dan, but wonder why social justice, when identified as the left's concern, is almost always scare-quoted by the right. Not social justice, but "social justice". I find this an odd tic, as it seems to me that the left and right are, at bottom, split on the content of social justice (and just international relations, and just warfare). I assume that the concern for, say, outlawing abortion or moving to a flat income tax are motivated by concerns about justice. At the least, that the concern for, say, prosperity and security has to be pursued in a just manner. Or does the right not see its concerns in that light? I would find that, and the underlying skepticism about the idea of social justice...depressing. But maybe the scare quotes just signal that what is framed as a concern for social justice is really a concern for a certain conception of it. I agree with Dan, but wonder why social justice, when identified as the left’s concern, is almost always scare-quoted by the right. Not social justice, but “social justice”. I find this an odd tic, as it seems to me that the left and right are, at bottom, split on the content of social justice (and just international relations, and just warfare). I assume that the concern for, say, outlawing abortion or moving to a flat income tax are motivated by concerns about justice. At the least, that the concern for, say, prosperity and security has to be pursued in a just manner. Or does the right not see its concerns in that light? I would find that, and the underlying skepticism about the idea of social justice…depressing. But maybe the scare quotes just signal that what is framed as a concern for social justice is really a concern for a certain conception of it.

]]> By: Mark Thompson http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/10/but-what-are-you-for-the-death-of-modern-movement-conservatism/#comment-25980 Mark Thompson Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:58:32 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=9771#comment-25980 No worries. I also misread your response, and the Internets ate my amended response, which would have noted that the current budgetary picture is so messed up that you can't square fiscal responsibility with anything other than some form of significant defense cuts. In the past, the picture was, AFAIK, much less bleak such that defense cuts were not a necessary part of fiscal responsibility. No worries. I also misread your response, and the Internets ate my amended response, which would have noted that the current budgetary picture is so messed up that you can’t square fiscal responsibility with anything other than some form of significant defense cuts. In the past, the picture was, AFAIK, much less bleak such that defense cuts were not a necessary part of fiscal responsibility.

]]> By: Liberal Jon http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/10/but-what-are-you-for-the-death-of-modern-movement-conservatism/#comment-25979 Liberal Jon Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:47:49 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=9771#comment-25979 Thompson, I was so dismayed, I overstated my case on your reaction; sorry. No, you're clearly unhappy with the way things are as well. Lemme try again. A defense wing can be squared with fiscal discipline; fiscal discipline was mainained outside real crises for most of the 200 years from Washington on, until Reagan ended it. Thompson, I was so dismayed, I overstated my case on your reaction; sorry. No, you’re clearly unhappy with the way things are as well.

Lemme try again. A defense wing can be squared with fiscal discipline; fiscal discipline was mainained outside real crises for most of the 200 years from Washington on, until Reagan ended it.

]]> By: Kyle http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/10/but-what-are-you-for-the-death-of-modern-movement-conservatism/#comment-25862 Kyle Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:14:52 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=9771#comment-25862 Was it a bad vote? Sure. However, one vote doesn't undo years of opposition and legislation he passed...not just proposed. Was it a bad vote? Sure. However, one vote doesn’t undo years of opposition and legislation he passed…not just proposed.

]]> By: Bruce Smith http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/10/but-what-are-you-for-the-death-of-modern-movement-conservatism/#comment-25841 Bruce Smith Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:26:44 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=9771#comment-25841 The conservatives, or at least the libertarian conservatives, are stuck between a rock and a hard place. With the evidence of the Financial Crash before their eyes they are being forced to confront the notion that a belief in market fundamentalism (based on a misreading of the Invisible Hand concept) doesn't actually guarantee consistent homeostasis, or self regulation, because of the Reflexivity, or Self-Feeding, argument of people like George Soros. This is where financial institutions give loans to customers for investment in things like houses, for example. The granting of these loans in sufficient quantity can have the effect of inflating the value of those investments. However, because the collateral value of those investments rise on the financial institutions books this encourages them to offer even more loans at increasing monetary value. This is how bubbles are formed which eventually have to burst because of default on loan repayments due largely to interest rate rises. Market fundamentalism accordingly has to acknowledge the propensity for malignancy within markets where cancerous growth can quickly spread and eventually severely weaken or even destroy an economy. The antidote to such malignant tendencies can only be to regulate, or restrict, the "irrational exuberance" as Alan Greenspan called it but failed to do anything about it in order to get the conservative George W re-elected in 2004. Regulation, of course, means putting coercive tools in the hands of those who'll stop you making money on the scale your greed aspires too. Traditionally this has meant "the government" and Republicans (at least the libertarian conservative majority) as P J O'Rourke once observed are people who believe that government doesn't work and get themselves elected to prove it. Of course, neither does a politically dependent and unaccountable Federal Reserve. They had the powers to stop this recession and didn't! The conservatives, or at least the libertarian conservatives, are stuck between a rock and a hard place. With the evidence of the Financial Crash before their eyes they are being forced to confront the notion that a belief in market fundamentalism (based on a misreading of the Invisible Hand concept) doesn’t actually guarantee consistent homeostasis, or self regulation, because of the Reflexivity, or Self-Feeding, argument of people like George Soros. This is where financial institutions give loans to customers for investment in things like houses, for example. The granting of these loans in sufficient quantity can have the effect of inflating the value of those investments. However, because the collateral value of those investments rise on the financial institutions books this encourages them to offer even more loans at increasing monetary value. This is how bubbles are formed which eventually have to burst because of default on loan repayments due largely to interest rate rises. Market fundamentalism accordingly has to acknowledge the propensity for malignancy within markets where cancerous growth can quickly spread and eventually severely weaken or even destroy an economy. The antidote to such malignant tendencies can only be to regulate, or restrict, the “irrational exuberance” as Alan Greenspan called it but failed to do anything about it in order to get the conservative George W re-elected in 2004. Regulation, of course, means putting coercive tools in the hands of those who’ll stop you making money on the scale your greed aspires too. Traditionally this has meant “the government” and Republicans (at least the libertarian conservative majority) as P J O’Rourke once observed are people who believe that government doesn’t work and get themselves elected to prove it. Of course, neither does a politically dependent and unaccountable Federal Reserve. They had the powers to stop this recession and didn’t!

]]> By: Mike at The Big Stick http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/10/but-what-are-you-for-the-death-of-modern-movement-conservatism/#comment-25838 Mike at The Big Stick Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:11:08 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=9771#comment-25838 Sure - and can you tell me what incentive an American manufacturer has to employ unskilled or low-skilled American workers when someone in China can do the job for half the cost? The income gap is primarily a result of low and un-skilled workers now being forced to compete with global labor. They will always lose that fight. Plus they also have to compete with illegal immigrants who depress wages. So their income shrinks. Meanwhile the folks at the top are in somewhat secure jobs because they do work that cannot be outsourced. I'll use myself as an example. I worked in light manufacturing during college for pretty crappy wages. Half of the companies I worked for all do their manufacturing overseas now. When I finished college I leapfrogged to a higher spot in the labor market. My wages there rise about 5% per year unless I get a promotion, which then bounces them around 15 - 20%. I've never seen any kind of tax-cut related jump in pay. So I'm on the north end of the income gap and I see the people on the other end getting farther and farther away. But it's not because of any of those causes you mentioned. It's because I have more marketable skills and I do a job that can't be outsourced. Sure – and can you tell me what incentive an American manufacturer has to employ unskilled or low-skilled American workers when someone in China can do the job for half the cost?

The income gap is primarily a result of low and un-skilled workers now being forced to compete with global labor. They will always lose that fight. Plus they also have to compete with illegal immigrants who depress wages. So their income shrinks. Meanwhile the folks at the top are in somewhat secure jobs because they do work that cannot be outsourced.

I’ll use myself as an example. I worked in light manufacturing during college for pretty crappy wages. Half of the companies I worked for all do their manufacturing overseas now. When I finished college I leapfrogged to a higher spot in the labor market. My wages there rise about 5% per year unless I get a promotion, which then bounces them around 15 – 20%. I’ve never seen any kind of tax-cut related jump in pay. So I’m on the north end of the income gap and I see the people on the other end getting farther and farther away. But it’s not because of any of those causes you mentioned. It’s because I have more marketable skills and I do a job that can’t be outsourced.

]]> By: Mara http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/10/but-what-are-you-for-the-death-of-modern-movement-conservatism/#comment-25820 Mara Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:39:32 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=9771#comment-25820 "How about that obscure Senator 'I was tortured and have sponsored amendments to make sure we quit doing it' John McCain. " Despite any lip-service McCain paid to the topic of torture, regardless of any legislation he proposed, the fact remains that he voted AGAINST a ban on waterboarding, putting hoods on prisoners, forcing them to perform sex acts, subjecting them to mock executions, or depriving them of food, water, and medical treatment because he wanted to *preserve* the CIA's ability to employ such interrogation methods. “How about that obscure Senator ‘I was tortured and have sponsored amendments to make sure we quit doing it’ John McCain. ”

Despite any lip-service McCain paid to the topic of torture, regardless of any legislation he proposed, the fact remains that he voted AGAINST a ban on waterboarding, putting hoods on prisoners, forcing them to perform sex acts, subjecting them to mock executions, or depriving them of food, water, and medical treatment because he wanted to *preserve* the CIA’s ability to employ such interrogation methods.

]]> By: Mara http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/10/but-what-are-you-for-the-death-of-modern-movement-conservatism/#comment-25817 Mara Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:17:29 +0000 http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=9771#comment-25817 " a Dem in the WH and Repubs in the Congress is historically the best combination over the last 50 years" I agree. Even considering the time and resources the GOP spent searching for dirt in which to bury Billary. It would behoove Republicans to quit peeping in bedroom windows and simply get down to the business of legislating for the benefit of ALL Americans...even those drasty liberals. ” a Dem in the WH and Repubs in the Congress is historically the best combination over the last 50 years”

I agree. Even considering the time and resources the GOP spent searching for dirt in which to bury Billary. It would behoove Republicans to quit peeping in bedroom windows and simply get down to the business of legislating for the benefit of ALL Americans…even those drasty liberals.

]]>