Examples of Recent Conservative Policies With Measurable Success?

iluvatar5150 said:

Maybe "right wing" is a better descriptor? I'm thinking stuff from general Republican/conservative/American right-wing orthodoxy like: lower taxes; smaller, less-intrusive government; law & order; tighter immigration restrictions; militarism; abortion and other "family values" goals/policies; charter schools & school vouchers; gun rights. If somebody wants to toss in some far-right/libertarian/Austrian ideas regarding central banking and the gold standard, that's fine, too (though I'd really like some evidence for those claims).

I don't want to be too strict because the bounds of what's "conservative" do change over time, but at the same time, something like a giant welfare / Medicare expansion isn't a traditionally "conservative" position even if a specific example is enacted by a Republican.

Where I'm coming from: I think too much of our discussions about policy are built on dogma rather than evidence, where people advocate for ideas that they like and that they want to work, whether or not those policies have (or have had) the intended outcomes when implemented. I don't know how much of this is wishful thinking vs ignorance of the science behind the policies vs an inability to even understand how to evaluate a policy based on evidence. (for example, prior to the thread cleanup, it became clear that some respondents just fundamentally didn't understand how to answer the question).



From where I sit, I see this problem of dogma vs science being worse right now on the American right, though it's hardly exclusive to them. These days, I'm more familiar with the evidence (or lack thereof) behind the left's positions, so I thought I'd ask the right what they're up to and on what they base their ideas on.

Click to expand...

I don't know that it is actually possible to scientifically prove what a particular policy has accomplished in most areas. People often cite correlations between a policy being adopted and something happening in the real world but often other factors had come into play that might be more likely to be the cause of that real world situation. In addition it is my belief that many policies are sold to the public with a proposed outcome that the seller, i.e. the person or people proposing a policy, has no real desire to accomplish. However, Let me take your list of what you consider conservative policies and see what I can do with it in terms of either showing success or failure of the policy's objectives as stated by its supporters after it has been initiated.

Lower taxes- I assume the objective is for government to not take as large a percentage of people's income as it had previously done. The math seems to suggest that if one takes less percentage of income from people they are not giving the government as much a percentage of their income as they had before., It seems to me that if my assumption about the objective is correct then the policy must be seen as a success.

Less intrusive government- I assume the objective would be for citizens to have more freedom to act on their on behalf and more privacy. I am finding it difficult to actually remember any policy that might align with this one perhaps you could offer an example ?

Law and order- I assume the objective of any policy meant to promulgate law and order is to have a safe and prosperous society. Is this really a uniquely conservative idea? I don't think so as over the years policies purporting to support law and order have been put forward by diverse politician with conflicting POV on how to establish proper law and order. Again if you cite a particular policy that you consider a uniquely conservative law and order policy I might be better able to assess the outcome of that policy.

Tighter immigration restriction- I assume the objective of such a policy is to be better able to vette those requesting residence within the country. Which specific policy would we be looking at in that regard?

Militarism- I am not sure this is a conservative policy as you have defined conservatism but I would have to say it has failed miserably as evidenced by the fact that the US has not only not profited from military engagement but has very much been overly burdened by it both financially and in lives lost and people harmed. Perhaps you mean funding the miltary to absurd levels rather than actual militarism?

Continued. from #22

Abortion is a left wing policy. Conservatives seem to oppose it.

Family values goals- I assume any policy that had a goal of advancing family values would have the objective of inserting government into people's personal lives and be at odds with the goal of reducing government intrusiveness that was mentioned earlier. The cognitive dissonance would seem to make one or the other if not both policies doomed to failure.


Charter schools and vouchers- I assume the objective is to give those that are not independently wealthy and dissatisfied with the public school system to which their children have been assigned a way to opt out of it just like the wealthy can. Charter schools seem to have both successes and failures. Vouchers have not been tried on a national level so it is impossible to gauge whether they would fail or succeed.

gun rights- I assume the objective is to be in line with the 2nd amendment. Seeing how many citizens own guns, it seems to have been a successful policy.

Do they have to be high profile (hot button) issues that get a lot of chatter? Or can they be things that maybe weren't quite as "sexy", but had a good effect?

Also...

It gets kind of murky when we talk "liberal vs conservative" (which most people associate with "democrat and republican") because some policies, promoted by one faction, actually have underlying attributes that more closely align with what people associate with the other faction.

To provide examples:

People obviously associate republicans with being "pro-military", and republicans have passed several pieces of legislation that provide benefits to veterans, one example being the CHOICE act (as it's called)
H.R.3230 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014

It did what they said it would do, which is give eligible veterans the ability to seek care outside of the VA system, and still have the tab picked up.

However, that piece of legislation involved more government spending to provide that benefit (and more government spending is thought of as being a "liberal thing")


On the flip side, "less government intervention" is thought of as being a "conservative thing", and "more government intervention" is thought of as being a "liberal thing", yet it's largely democrats (who people see as "liberals") who pushed for removing government restrictions on gay marriage and marijuana.


So for my very convoluted answer

I'll say that legalization of gay marriage and marijuana are great conservative policies passed by liberals
And government spending on veterans benefits are great liberal policies passed by conservatives


Now, with regards to other conservative actions that could have to the potential to do a lot of good (obviously it's a hypothetical) if passed.

Deregulation bills to allow drug imports to lower costs (like introduced by Chuck Grassley), or bills to end no-knock raids (like the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act introduced by Rand Paul) could have a tremendous upside (if they could get passed)

Arcangl86 said:

No you didn't. You just said look at the NYC crime rate, which does not support your claim.

Stop and Frisk went through a major reform in 2013. That year there were 111,353 "major" felonies, 57650 other felonies, 359,350 misdemeanors, and 61031 violations. In 2020 there were in the respective categories, 95593, 41015, 214263, and 67371. So the only category that saw an increase at all were violations, which aren't crimes in the first place according to NYS. So your claim that stopping stop and frisk increased crime in NYC doesn't hold up to the evidence.

Click to expand...

The relevant data would be the trends in NYC’s crime rate before 2013.

Warp Speed was a success. Everything surrounding it was a disaster, but at least that part did it's job.

Vylo said:

Warp Speed was a success. Everything surrounding it was a disaster, but at least that part did it's job.

Click to expand...

Warp Speed was carried out by the Trump administration, but was the policy itself particularly conservative?

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Warp Speed was carried out by the Trump administration, but was the policy itself particularly conservative?

Click to expand...

If not, then it certainly says something about it being Donald's greatest success.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

The relevant data would be the trends in NYC’s crime rate before 2013.

Click to expand...

Why? Crimes rates have gone down across the country in general since the 90s. There is no indication that stop and frisk had anything to do with that. And if it reduces crime, then you should see crime going up after eliminating it.

jayem said:

Since last year, the US government has been heavily involved in the development, manufacture, and procurement of the Covid-19 vaccines. As of last Dec.,"Operation Warp Speed" had spent $12.4 billion, spread among 6 companies. That's actually small potatoes compared what the feds spend on other programs. But it's been undoubtedly successful. One can argue that government investing billions to partner with private industry (at least for non-military purposes) is not a traditionally conservative policy. But it was begun under a conservative administration.

https://time.com/5921360/

Click to expand...

"Warp speed" was not really conservative in that massive govt spending underpins the whole thing.