4 ms·

> You have to recognize the people who are just cargo culting, of course, and not waste time with them. That's the thing: so much of modern conservatism is jus

> You have to recognize the people who are just cargo culting, of course, and not waste time with them. That's the thing: so much of modern conservatism is just cargo-cult thinking. Lower taxes (esp. wrt the mythical Laffer Curve which is making a comeback now), deregulation, market economies as an intrinsic good as opposed to a tool (which conveniently shields them from criticism). And so on. And that's just on the economics side. If you operate according to the maxim "that government is best which governs least" the logical conclusion of that is "that government is best which governs not at all", which is basically what we're getting from conservative politics these days.

cookiecaper 9y ago
No, I disagree. You're suggesting that there's no reasonable line of thought that would allow tradeoffs in favor of market economics, low taxes, and deregulation to make sense. If you believe that, then you're the one cargo culting here. Politics is a question of wise tradeoffs, and it's perfectly reasonable and acceptable for people to draw different conclusions about where the tradeoffs should fall. Conservatives are not anarchists and, generally speaking, can be convinced that government intervention is warranted in many instances, especially when that regulation is needed to keep the market free and fair.
- kristopolous 9y ago
  I've found the connecting apolitical issue between conservatives and liberals is that nobody seems to think it's ok for those in positions of privilege and power to exploit those who are less fortunate. Instead of trying to come to agreement on the solution to this dilemma (which is where the major rift is) I instead focus on agreeing on the perpetrators and the offences - which is an easier thing to come to a consensus on. The next agreement is that what is most favorable for the exploitative party is that nothing changes and they get to continue doing whatever they have been. I think that's what needs to happen. The abusers need to be constrained by a fear of a conservative or liberal or other style response to abuse ... any of them rising and being effective. Right now they can bank on everyone arguing over it and continue doing whatever they want.

cookiecaper 9y ago

No, I disagree. You're suggesting that there's no reasonable line of thought that would allow tradeoffs in favor of market economics, low taxes, and deregulation to make sense. If you believe that, then you're the one cargo culting here. Politics is a question of wise tradeoffs, and it's perfectly reasonable and acceptable for people to draw different conclusions about where the tradeoffs should fall. Conservatives are not anarchists and, generally speaking, can be convinced that government intervention is warranted in many instances, especially when that regulation is needed to keep the market free and fair.

kristopolous 9y ago
I've found the connecting apolitical issue between conservatives and liberals is that nobody seems to think it's ok for those in positions of privilege and power to exploit those who are less fortunate. Instead of trying to come to agreement on the solution to this dilemma (which is where the major rift is) I instead focus on agreeing on the perpetrators and the offences - which is an easier thing to come to a consensus on. The next agreement is that what is most favorable for the exploitative party is that nothing changes and they get to continue doing whatever they have been. I think that's what needs to happen. The abusers need to be constrained by a fear of a conservative or liberal or other style response to abuse ... any of them rising and being effective. Right now they can bank on everyone arguing over it and continue doing whatever they want.