5 ms·

Conservatives generally only want to limit the power of government when they feel those limits are in their interest. There are tons of examples of conservative

Conservatives generally only want to limit the power of government when they feel those limits are in their interest. There are tons of examples of conservatives wanting to expand or maintain the power of government relative to the left.

kortilla 5y ago
> Conservatives generally only want to limit the power of government when they feel those limits are in their interest. This is in the same category of “liberals only want immigration to expand their voter base”. It’s so lazy and reductionist that the only reason to post it is to collect claps from people who already agree with you. What’s the point? Seriously. How can you expect any kind of productive or inquisitive conversation to come from telling “the other side” they don’t actually believe what they believe? Why waste all of our time like this?
- pjc50 5y ago
  > telling “the other side” they don’t actually believe what they believe Their actions, in the form of legislation, conflict drastically with the stated beliefs, and trying to discuss that never gets anywhere. See other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29457639 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29457639 (Manifesto hypocrisy is not at all exclusive to the right! But for some reason it doesn't get used as an attack line in the same way in the other direction) Is the Texas abortion ban "limited government"? Show your working.
  - ybessyehsyehs 5y ago
    Most Texans see abortion as murder. This issue, to them, has nothing to do with "limited government" but human rights
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 5y ago
    You’re attacking a straw man. Conservatives aren’t and don’t purport to be anarcho-libertarians. To a first order approximation, conservatives believe in cabining government to functions it has historically performed in the American tradition. That includes defense and internal security. It includes the protection of human life. At the state level—remember, state governments are not ones of enumerated powers—it includes a pretty broad intrusion into “the public welfare and morals.”
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      > You’re attacking a straw man. Conservatives aren’t and don’t purport to be anarcho-libertarians. It's not uncommon for prominent GOP politicians to portray themselves this way. And I've seen similar declarations from rank and file GOP members. It's a motte and bailey fallacy: when progressives want some new regulation, conservatives declare that they're the party of the government not intruding into your business, of the government being hands off. When they want some new regulation, or to maintain a currently intrusive one, then suddenly they're the faction of balance after all.
      - xyzzyz 5y ago
        You are talking about GOP politicians and members. The comment you are replying to is talking about conservatives. Membership in these two groups is not exactly coincident. I hope that your comment is just based on confusion stemming on completely misunderstanding the right in the US, instead of deliberate attempt to identify the two groups as convenient for argument.
      - rayiner 5y ago
        Motte and Bailey is shifting positions on the same issue. Regulating abortion but not corporations isn’t motte and bailey, it just reflects an ideology where some things are more appropriate for government intervention than others. Liberals are the same way—they talk a lot about “freedom” when it comes to sex, but not so much when it comes to participating in the economy. Neither party claims to be about “freedom” for its own sake as the highest value—that’s libertarians.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  Look at the comment I was responding to.
rayiner 5y ago
“Conservatives” are a coalition of different factions, just like “liberals.” Historically, the GOP is a fusion party of social conservatives, economic libertarians, and defense hawks. Like with liberals, there’s give and take among those factions about their view of the proper role of government (where it should be involved and where it shouldn’t be).
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  Right. And the idea that this coalition often pushes that they’re the party or faction of the government not intruding isn’t really accurate.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    Different parts of the coalition have different views of government intrusion on different things. It's not the libertarian party that views less "intrusion" as an end in and of itself.
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      That's exactly how the party frequently chooses to portray itself, though.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - random314 5y ago
    Small government is a fig leaf primarily focused on gutting social programs while allowing expensive wars.
- random314 5y ago
  Superficial differences exist between factions, but their fundamental core moral position remains the same. Conservatives believe in a hierarchical society with the elite at the top who must be pampered, and the bottom feeders who must be ignored and kept quiet lest they try to upset the apple cart. Feudalism was deemed to be too rigid, leading to its downfall in the French Revolution. Capitalism exists as an acceptable alternative, where some one with sufficient IQ and talent from the bottom is allowed to float to the top and prevent unnecessary mutinies. Conservative factions differ in only who they think should be at the bottom. Social conservatives think it should be gays and other minorities. Economic conservatives believe it should obviously be poor people. Defense hawks believe it should be people of other countries because the home country is racially and culturally superior. A huge percentage believe in all 3 of them. This is why we see apparently contradictory stances such as 1. Small government folks against cheap food stamps but for expensive wars 2. Railing against cheap universal health care to support an expensive insurance industry 3. Republican devout christians opposed to helping the poor and immigrants The apparent contradiction exists because conservatives never spell out their belief in a hierarchical society outright instead go round and round about in circular arguments - avoiding a statement about their core moral position. And it can also create hilarious dissonance such as gay republicans or Jewish white nationalists like Stephen Miller supporting Nazis. Stephen Miller is a classic example of a person from an ethnicity that was genocided gleefully cheerleading racism. He is a text book example of an all round conservative who hates all minorities, except perhaps Jews :) https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/08/stephen-miller-and-his-wife-found-love-in-a-hateful-place https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/08/stephen-miller-and-h...

kortilla 5y ago

> Conservatives generally only want to limit the power of government when they feel those limits are in their interest. This is in the same category of “liberals only want immigration to expand their voter base”. It’s so lazy and reductionist that the only reason to post it is to collect claps from people who already agree with you. What’s the point? Seriously. How can you expect any kind of productive or inquisitive conversation to come from telling “the other side” they don’t actually believe what they believe? Why waste all of our time like this?

pjc50 5y ago
> telling “the other side” they don’t actually believe what they believe Their actions, in the form of legislation, conflict drastically with the stated beliefs, and trying to discuss that never gets anywhere. See other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29457639 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29457639 (Manifesto hypocrisy is not at all exclusive to the right! But for some reason it doesn't get used as an attack line in the same way in the other direction) Is the Texas abortion ban "limited government"? Show your working.
- ybessyehsyehs 5y ago
  Most Texans see abortion as murder. This issue, to them, has nothing to do with "limited government" but human rights
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 5y ago
  You’re attacking a straw man. Conservatives aren’t and don’t purport to be anarcho-libertarians. To a first order approximation, conservatives believe in cabining government to functions it has historically performed in the American tradition. That includes defense and internal security. It includes the protection of human life. At the state level—remember, state governments are not ones of enumerated powers—it includes a pretty broad intrusion into “the public welfare and morals.”
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    > You’re attacking a straw man. Conservatives aren’t and don’t purport to be anarcho-libertarians. It's not uncommon for prominent GOP politicians to portray themselves this way. And I've seen similar declarations from rank and file GOP members. It's a motte and bailey fallacy: when progressives want some new regulation, conservatives declare that they're the party of the government not intruding into your business, of the government being hands off. When they want some new regulation, or to maintain a currently intrusive one, then suddenly they're the faction of balance after all.
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      You are talking about GOP politicians and members. The comment you are replying to is talking about conservatives. Membership in these two groups is not exactly coincident. I hope that your comment is just based on confusion stemming on completely misunderstanding the right in the US, instead of deliberate attempt to identify the two groups as convenient for argument.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      Motte and Bailey is shifting positions on the same issue. Regulating abortion but not corporations isn’t motte and bailey, it just reflects an ideology where some things are more appropriate for government intervention than others. Liberals are the same way—they talk a lot about “freedom” when it comes to sex, but not so much when it comes to participating in the economy. Neither party claims to be about “freedom” for its own sake as the highest value—that’s libertarians.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
Look at the comment I was responding to.

rayiner 5y ago

“Conservatives” are a coalition of different factions, just like “liberals.” Historically, the GOP is a fusion party of social conservatives, economic libertarians, and defense hawks. Like with liberals, there’s give and take among those factions about their view of the proper role of government (where it should be involved and where it shouldn’t be).

TulliusCicero 5y ago
Right. And the idea that this coalition often pushes that they’re the party or faction of the government not intruding isn’t really accurate.
- rayiner 5y ago
  Different parts of the coalition have different views of government intrusion on different things. It's not the libertarian party that views less "intrusion" as an end in and of itself.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    That's exactly how the party frequently chooses to portray itself, though.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- random314 5y ago
  Small government is a fig leaf primarily focused on gutting social programs while allowing expensive wars.
random314 5y ago
Superficial differences exist between factions, but their fundamental core moral position remains the same. Conservatives believe in a hierarchical society with the elite at the top who must be pampered, and the bottom feeders who must be ignored and kept quiet lest they try to upset the apple cart. Feudalism was deemed to be too rigid, leading to its downfall in the French Revolution. Capitalism exists as an acceptable alternative, where some one with sufficient IQ and talent from the bottom is allowed to float to the top and prevent unnecessary mutinies. Conservative factions differ in only who they think should be at the bottom. Social conservatives think it should be gays and other minorities. Economic conservatives believe it should obviously be poor people. Defense hawks believe it should be people of other countries because the home country is racially and culturally superior. A huge percentage believe in all 3 of them. This is why we see apparently contradictory stances such as 1. Small government folks against cheap food stamps but for expensive wars 2. Railing against cheap universal health care to support an expensive insurance industry 3. Republican devout christians opposed to helping the poor and immigrants The apparent contradiction exists because conservatives never spell out their belief in a hierarchical society outright instead go round and round about in circular arguments - avoiding a statement about their core moral position. And it can also create hilarious dissonance such as gay republicans or Jewish white nationalists like Stephen Miller supporting Nazis. Stephen Miller is a classic example of a person from an ethnicity that was genocided gleefully cheerleading racism. He is a text book example of an all round conservative who hates all minorities, except perhaps Jews :) https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/08/stephen-miller-and-his-wife-found-love-in-a-hateful-place https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/08/stephen-miller-and-h...