How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality

[blueapplepaste]

"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 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.

I thought this was a pretty good read, pointing out how today's Republicans have a major disconnect from ideology and reality. I wish a level-headed person would emerge from the Republicans to lead their party back to sanity and reality. It would be WONDERFUL for the country to have a healthy Republican party.

Party Politics: How Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality - TIME

 

[Gishin]

I agree.

 

[oldbetang]

I thought this was a pretty good read, pointing out how today's Republicans have a major disconnect from ideology and reality. I wish a level-headed person would emerge from the Republicans to lead their party back to sanity and reality. It would be WONDERFUL for the country to have a healthy Republican party.

Party Politics: How Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality - TIME

Fareed Zakaria? He thinks that the US constitution should be scrapped and that Facebook and Twitter should be used to create 21st century one. Just who is out of touch with reality here?

 

[BondiHarry]

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.

Apparently the belief in human liberty and the morality and efficacy of free markets is considered just 'theory' and reforms which bring the government back under the Constitution so that it again protects our inalienable rights rather than tramples them are equivalent to cutting and starving government.

What a sad misrepresentation of conservatism.

 

[Received]

Sam Tanenhaus' "Death of Conservatism" (short book, easy read) has helped me more than any other media in understanding what conservatism actually is (which literally no conservative I've spoken to has given me a coherent definition) and how it therefore is lacking in today's neoconservative atmosphere.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Apparently the belief in human liberty and the morality and efficacy of free markets is considered just 'theory' and reforms which bring the government back under the Constitution so that it again protects our inalienable rights rather than tramples them are equivalent to cutting and starving government.

What a sad misrepresentationof conservatism.

A tad ironic perhaps?

 

[Tim the Plumber]

the morality and efficacy of free markets

As a British person on this forum (and a non-religiuos one) I find it strange how free markets are though of as "moral" in the USA. I am very anti-communist but beyond that I want an ecconomic system which works well. Allthough our cultures may be very close on many things we are very alien from one another.

In the UK we spend 9% of GDP on universal healthcare. You can pay for extra if you want but the basic is fairly OK. The figure is 16% in USA and it's great if you are rich but it's desperate if you are poor. Is that because the Christian church is more powerful in America? Ecconomics seen through the lense of morality?

 

[BondiHarry]

As a British person on this forum (and a non-religiuos one) I find it strange how free markets are though of as "moral" in the USA. I am very anti-communist but beyond that I want an ecconomic system which works well. Allthough our cultures may be very close on many things we are very alien from one another.

In the UK we spend 9% of GDP on universal healthcare. You can pay for extra if you want but the basic is fairly OK. The figure is 16% in USA and it's great if you are rich but it's desperate if you are poor. Is that because the Christian church is more powerful in America? Ecconomics seen through the lense of morality?

The statist mindset is one that says 'I have a RIGHT to the wealth and labor of my fellow man' and I wonder what ever gave you that idea. The moral man will labor to provide for his needs, will not initiate the use of force or fraud against his fellow man and will in short, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for his life.

The irony is that statism increases the costs of life for everyone and particularly for the poor from food and gas to health care because it limits competition and the resulting inefficiency leads to higher costs for the thnigs we need and shortages as well. The free market is not perfect but one advantage it has over statism is that people in the free market, if they make bad decisions, have only a limited ability to hurt others by their mistakes. In statism, when the leadership makes bad decisions, it can have a far greater impact on a nation. Conversely, in a free market the competition between millions of people allows good ideas to come forward from the most unexpected quarters which, by the way, is how God often works, using the lowly to humble the powerful.

 

[szechuan]

The statist mindset is one that says 'I have a RIGHT to the wealth and labor of my fellow man' and I wonder what ever gave you that idea. The moral man will labor to provide for his needs, will not initiate the use of force or fraud against his fellow man and will in short, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for his life.

The irony is that statism increases the costs of life for everyone and particularly for the poor from food and gas to health care because it limits competition and the resulting inefficiency leads to higher costs for the thnigs we need and shortages as well. The free market is not perfect but one advantage it has over statism is that people in the free market, if they make bad decisions, have only a limited ability to hurt others by their mistakes. In statism, when the leadership makes bad decisions, it can have a far greater impact on a nation. Conversely, in a free market the competition between millions of people allows good ideas to come forward from the most unexpected quarters which, by the way, is how God often works, using the lowly to humble the powerful.

Limited ability to hurt each other? Understatement of the year. I guess you forgot about Lead Poisoning, all the issues with the food industry and the way they treat animals. By others I'm also going to assume all living beings.
And look at China's Slave labor sure it isn't as bad as people say it is but the fact that it is happening and people have died due to suicides and depression caused by it, saying it is limited is quite Hilarious.
Oh I didn't realize god wanted us to force feed Cows Corn instead of grass quite unnatural.

the driving competitive force of certain companies doesn't always mean it is good either. Do the majority of companies truly provide better services? I'm going to use the food industry as a sample. Do you think that any of the leading soda companies want to use anything aside from High Fructose Corn Syrup? they can't use Sugar which is a healthier alternative because they need to compete in the market. It's all about maximizing profits, not improving products. this is just one of many examples.

Good Ideas can come, I'm not going to say which is worse as they are both bad in extremes. However a nice combination of both would be nice.

 

[citizenthom]

In the UK we spend 9% of GDP on universal healthcare. You can pay for extra if you want but the basic is fairly OK. The figure is 16% in USA and it's great if you are rich but it's desperate if you are poor.

Our health care system is a good example of a system that no longer works because we lack a true market system; and we lack that system because of ever-increasing government intervention. Federal income tax incentives helped the health insurance industry explode and turn near-universal, which led to doctors' negotiating and competing for patients with the insurers and not the patients themselves; and the insurance companies for their part only had to compete for employers' business and not individuals. The result is that the true consumer (the individual) is at least two levels removed from the supplier (the physician).

Now into that system we add government regulations which make certain insurance provisions (e.g., pregnancy coverage, pre-existing conditions coverage, coverage for children up to 26 under ObamaCare) mandatory, so that all consumers must pay for them even when they don't receive them. The price goes up for everyone; there is no affordable plan for consumers who need more basic coverage because everyone must pay for the premium coverage mandated by law.

When the U.S. did have a freer market for health care, we were spending closer to 10-12% of our GDP on it--much more in line with your system. And that's the reality conservatives see and remember that leads us to argue against even more government intrusion into the system like ObamaCare/RomneyCare.

That's one example from which you can extrapolate our basic premise: government involvement in the market system has been disastrous in most industries in the United States. Socialism just doesn't work here. I can concede that it seems to satisfy people in your country and elsewhere in Western Europe, but it just is not compatible with our culture and our system of government.

 

[szechuan]

Now into that system we add government regulations which make certain insurance provisions (e.g., pregnancy coverage, pre-existing conditions coverage, coverage for children up to 26 under ObamaCare) mandatory, so that all consumers must pay for them even when they don't receive them. The price goes up for everyone; there is no affordable plan for consumers who need more basic coverage because everyone must pay for the premium coverage mandated by law.

LOL assuming that the reason why is because of Obamacare and not at all because of Inflation or the recession.
It's not like Health Insurance was already raising in price before Obamacare /sarcasm

That's one example from which you can extrapolate our basic premise: government involvement in the market system has been disastrous in most industries in the United States. Socialism just doesn't work here. I can concede that it seems to satisfy people in your country and elsewhere in Western Europe, but it just is not compatible with our culture and our system of government.

Yes and no, depends in which market. But on the upside the government is still providing jobs for people even though it isn't as profitable as they would like assuming that one of the disasters you mention is the post office.

 

[Umaro]

Now into that system we add government regulations which make certain insurance provisions (e.g., pregnancy coverage, pre-existing conditions coverage, coverage for children up to 26 under ObamaCare) mandatory, so that all consumers must pay for them even when they don't receive them. The price goes up for everyone; there is no affordable plan for consumers who need more basic coverage because everyone must pay for the premium coverage mandated by law.

So then how come all those nations that have government run healthcare pay less than we do? They're paying for all those "extra coverages," and they still pay less than the US does.

 

[szechuan]

So then how come all those nations that have government run healthcare pay less than we do? They're paying for all those "extra coverages," and they still pay less than the US does.

Actually they pay A LOT less with the NHS system, Children and seniors get free medication at the pharmacy. In the rest only pay a flat rate of 7pounds. the same goes for eye physicians. they pay substantially much less than we do.

Overall the system depends on how much you actually earn, but for the most part at-least when it comes to the less privileged and the middle class they are much better off.

Also in most developed countries they have both Private and Public.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The free market is not perfect but one advantage it has over statism is that people in the free market, if they make bad decisions, have only a limited ability to hurt others by their mistakes.

Are you serious about that statement? Really? Even after the global financial crisis where 'bad decisions' in the marketplace had consequences that rippled throughout the worldwide economy and society in general?

 

[BondiHarry]

So then how come all those nations that have government run healthcare pay less than we do? They're paying for all those "extra coverages," and they still pay less than the US does.

Perhaps it is because American statists are just more incompetent than statists in some other countries, adding even dumber regulations and costs than their counterparts in say the UK do. On the other hand, there are the waits, the doctor shortages and the brain drain as doctors move from high regulation countries to countries where they can ply their trade as they deem wise rather than following the dictates of some politician or bureaucrat who knows diddly about health care ... or human rights.

 

[szechuan]

Perhaps it is because American statists are just more incompetent than statists in some other countries, adding even dumber regulations and costs than their counterparts in say the UK do. On the other hand, there are the waits, the doctor shortages and the brain drain as doctors move from high regulation countries to countries where they can ply their trade as they deem wise rather than following the dictates of some politician or bureaucrat who knows diddly about health care ... or human rights.

Waits because they have to take care of everybody and cover everything unlike the U.S.
Doctor Shortages? HA! lol the NHS is not Short of Doctors in fact they hired too many. In fact they actually have quite a lot of Doctors in the NHS.

Oh you mean MalPractice regulations that were invented by Businesses?

the funny and the ironic thing is that many people in Britain Complain about the lack of regulation at the hospitals.

 

[BondiHarry]

I'm still amazed that there are people who look at the failures of mixed economies where some businesses are granted perks and protection by government from free market competition and put the blame on market forces which government is preventing from working rather on the government where it belongs ... and then demanding yet more government regulation and control to fix the problem. Simply amazing.

 

[szechuan]

I'm still amazed that there are people who look at the failures of mixed economies where some businesses are granted perks and protection by government from free market competition and put the blame on market forces which government is preventing from working rather on the government where it belongs ... and then demanding yet more government regulation and control to fix the problem. Simply amazing.

Really? so it's the government who prevented the Auto Industry from working even when they bailed them out? interesting. /sarcasm.

But I guess you never heard of Lobbyists who normally want more deregulation of certain Businesses.

the government who deregulates and gives to the corporations have the power to also control and fix the issues. Simply amazing how that can work too.

 

[BondiHarry]

Waits because they have to take care of everybody and cover everything unlike the U.S.
Doctor Shortages? HA! lol the NHS is not Short of Doctors in fact they hired too many. In fact they actually have quite a lot of Doctors in the NHS.

You were saying? Just a quick Google search brings your assertion into question: UK Doctor Shortage worsened by UK Immigration Rules

Oh you mean MalPractice regulations that were invented by Businesses?

Or lawyers

the funny and the ironic thing is that many people in Britain Complain about the lack of regulation at the hospitals.

There is even more irony how people complain about their needs and then scream for the government to take care of them. As the saying goes, be careful of what you ask for, you may get it.

 

[DaisyDay]

Fareed Zakaria? He thinks that the US constitution should be scrapped and that Facebook and Twitter should be used to create 21st century one. Just who is out of touch with reality here?

Besides being an ad hom, that's not really what he said.

So we could use the ideas of social media that were actually invented in this country to suggest a set of amendments to modernize the Constitution for the 21st century,” he continued. “Such a plan is not unheard of in American history. After all, the delegates in Philadelphia in 1787 initially meant not to create the Constitution as we now know it, but instead to revise the existing document, the Articles of Confederation. But the delegates saw a disconnect between the document that currently governed them and the needs of the nation, so their solution was to start anew. I’m just suggesting we talk about a few revisions.”

He is not the kook you are suggesting he is. I agree with him about today's conservatives and the need to be grounded in reality and pragmatism.