tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5332607313836227710.post2680464510532644575..comments2023-06-10T11:17:55.042+03:00Comments on The Children Of The Revolution: THE WRITING ON THE WALLCincinnatushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16902107238899822299noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5332607313836227710.post-30562693558849324472009-05-18T22:21:00.000+03:002009-05-18T22:21:00.000+03:00Maybe create a secondary system, while at the same...Maybe create a secondary system, while at the same time trying to reform what has been degraded...?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5332607313836227710.post-28640210151833515012009-05-12T19:37:00.000+03:002009-05-12T19:37:00.000+03:00Being a strong minded conservative, I found this p...Being a strong minded conservative, I found this post nearly offensive. And as far as some of the solutions proposed in these responses, my main concern is time frame. Extreme amounts of irreconcilable damage, even damage that is too costly to rectify, can be done in the time that it would take to enact such things, not to mentions measures that would be developed to slow or stop such change.<br /><br />Is there another way?Maccrocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5332607313836227710.post-70721787862745424922009-05-07T16:53:00.000+03:002009-05-07T16:53:00.000+03:00One question that has been left unanswered is how ...One question that has been left unanswered is how the democrats managed to pull moderate conservatives out from beneath the republican banner. The GOP embraced too passionately the party’s extreme end? In part, but this cannot be the whole story. By all accounts, the President (while somewhat moderate in his rhetoric) is as polarizing a figure in his political realities as any we have had in recent history. Hypothetically, the movement of moderates across party lines should have looked a little more even, expressly in an election like our last one, in which the Republican candidate (while not emblematic of the party as a whole) was by far the more moderate of the two.<br /><br />The problem lies in perceptions. Certainly Republican hypocrisy, poor decisions by the Bush administration, and an unpopular war have all had a role to play in the downfall of the GOP, but these causes are proximate in nature. The true nature of this coup has been long planned, and is structural in nature.<br /><br />The Left in the United States, and indeed around the world, have suffered over the last hundred years from a deficit of results. Leftist agenda's have failed throughout modern history to provide social and economic benefits to the constituencies they portend to serve, often times proving to be massively destructive instead (look at Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward, the last 50 years of Cuba, or even England's woefully unproductive public healthcare system). Failure does not breed confidence, and without confidence, the Left cannot maintain power. <br /><br />For my entire lifetime and before, the Left has set about to obtain legitimacy by alternative means. Radical progressives have gradually taken control of public education, universities and the media, and as such are allowed to define the basis of public debate in their terms. In fewer words, they have redefined what "middle of the road" means by teaching generations of Americans that their view is the middle ground. The Left defines the debate in this country, performance of past policy be damned.<br /><br />While I do not doubt there is an honest discussion to be had about what policy actions and platforms can and should be developed to redefine our party system, ultimately the debate is moot without addressing the structural problems as well. We need a new generation of thinkers to take back the intelligencia in this country. We need teachers and professors who educate, instead of indoctrinate. We need a media that once again embraces journalistic integrity. Our schools and news currently preach the intentions of past Leftists, experimenting to make social improvements. They never share the results, the failure of these experiments: The mediocrity of public healthcare, the subjugation of private liberties for the supposed common good, and even mass starvation in the direst of examples. <br /><br />This is one of the reasons why I personally want to reenter academia. If anyone out there reading this experienced the same educational system I did, if you were taught a point of view, instead of being given facts so you might form your own opinion, I would be honored if you join me. The Left flourishes in the current climate of intellectual stagnation. The ideology and policies of small government and personal responsibility are clearly superior morally and pragmatically, but will continue to be an uphill battle to implement until our populace is once again filled with freethinkers.Aureliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07710575615150071351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5332607313836227710.post-24016822211121865342009-05-06T22:27:00.000+03:002009-05-06T22:27:00.000+03:00Luscus,
You said too much in your post for me to...Luscus, <br /><br />You said too much in your post for me to address it all in one breath. Perhaps a future post of my own will provide some counterpoint.<br /><br />I believe I balk most at your premise that a governing party controlling the federal government is necessarily a good thing under some specific circumstances. This is perhaps partly because you make repeated references to Republicans and the GOP - both of which are defunct notions at this point in history.<br /><br />As to your claim that libertarianism fails because it requires everyone to be libertarian, I would argue quite the opposite. The beauty of a small-government, low-tax, high-liberty system is that most people can be as slothful and useless as they please, and are likely to prosper both economically and socially. <br /><br />As to your political platform, I would caution you to keep compliance costs in mind when suggesting anything involving the private sector. <br /><br />I believe neo-imperialist interference in drug-producing regions is ultimately fruitless. The economy of drugs and their distribution is one that could be flipped upside-down via legalization. <br /><br />Mexican immigrants may be GDP-boosters (for what that statistic is worth). But consider how the IRS is now catching thousands upon thousands of illegals: tax credits for children in working families are being claimed under false social security numbers. Much as the inclusion of the SSN on a federal tax return led to a dramatic decrease in illegal benefits taken during the end of the last century, now closer monitoring of tax-filing (not tax-paying) illegals is showing that illegal workers are probably a bigger drain than a boon. Most illegals, even those that file taxes, are going to fall on the low end of the income spectrum. So much so, in fact, that they get more money back in refundable credits (often claimed illegally) than they contribute to the system.<br /><br />Finally, I would say that populism is as bad as factionalism. At least with factionalism, there is less efficiency in government, which means fewer laws and higher rates of turnover. When populism reigns, we are subject to the tyrrany of the masses. If I wanted to be subject to the whims of popular opinion, I'd move to a democratic country. I like my republic, thank you very much, let's keep it that way.Hariolorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08562681760755614913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5332607313836227710.post-18962577473461948242009-05-06T21:23:00.000+03:002009-05-06T21:23:00.000+03:00The Democrats won big not by being anti-conservati...The Democrats won big not by being anti-conservative, but by being anti-Republican. Their platform was as vague and empty as Bush's was (they learned a great deal from Rove's meaningless ballet initiatives) - all populist drivel (we'll give you everything you want in grand sweeping gestures...vaguely). They openly recruited moderate Republicans and military veterans to run against Republican incumbents (seriously, Jim Webb as a democrat!?) in red states (their 50 state strategy is far more sweeping than "where they had to" - I think you undervalue their efforts in building up party infrastructure), and built their party identity on three planks: health care for everyone, green everything, and a seething hatred of Bush.<br /><br />Here are the unifying bedrock principles: limited/efficient government, personal accountability, and fiscal responsibility. To expand on your first challenge and to clarify my point, I meant that the crazies must be chased out of any decision making, policy setting, leadership or 'moral' leadership role. No more angry populists (yes, we have them too), no more insane single issue crusaders (I'm looking at you, Nancy Grace), and no more crooks. I think we're both in agreement that the party under Bush lost its way, and getting smarter about spending is critical. Control of all three branches of govt made the party lazy and greedy.<br /><br />Libertarian's major flaw is that to work, your society must be made up of grizzled and responsible libertarians. I think the era of personal responsibility (marked by tax havens, getting rich by providing neither product nor service, the financial corruption of officials and subsequent systemic rot) is waning. What effective counterbalance to human nature we need I'm not sure, but leaving people to their own devices in all situations is not viable. <br /><br />Liberalism's main flaw is that solving problems is expensive and quickly devolves into attempting flawless customer service (the customer is always right) to a customer base of 300 million.<br /><br />In order to succeed, the GOP needs a comprehensive platform, greater media savvy, and candidates that people want to vote for - this last part is the biggest and toughest task at hand.<br /><br />Your last point strikes it home - by recruiting moderate voices, the very liberal Democrat leadership can push an increasingly liberal agenda. This will break, but not before a lot of legislation is passed. This is what Republicans need to do - have a broad coalition in order to control the legislative agenda.Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08612215002520842542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5332607313836227710.post-55150542185776368272009-05-06T15:27:00.000+03:002009-05-06T15:27:00.000+03:00I think being rabidly moderate can be just as coun...I think being rabidly moderate can be just as counter-productive as being rabidly conservative. You're arguing for a big tent in one breath and then talking about chasing out "crazies" in the next. When you invite people into your movement that only agree with you 60% of the time, you're building a very fragile coalition that will not survive when the opposition cleverly applies leverage to the issues that could divide you. I'd need to hear you reconcile that first of all.<br /><br />Second, I agree that the debate to refocus the conservative movement has to be pragmatic and reasoned rather than just angry ranting. But before we move forward we have to agree on some unifying, bedrock philosophical principles otherwise you'll just end up like the GOP under Bush: a confused amalgamation of big-spending, hawkish social conservatives. <br /><br />I know you're looking at what conservatism has to do to win, which is fine and I understand that, but I think you may undervalue conservatism (of the sort espoused on this blog and others, which is more akin to libertarianism in some ways) and its broad appeal. You don't have to sell out on some issues to win voters, what you have to do is clearly articulate the conservative alternative to them directly. Right now the GOP is afraid to do that. They're only comfortable talking about fiscal conservatism (after they blew the wad from 2001-2006 as a result of moderate policies influenced by liberal premises). <br /><br />I don't think there's anything wrong with conservatism sitting a few elections out in order to get itself together philosophically and sell its ideas to the American people. There's no better opportunity than the one we have right now, with liberals in total control of the government, to show the stark contrasts between our two movements.<br /><br />Case in point: liberalism (unfettered, far left liberalism) won big in 2008. They ran some conservative Democrats in districts and states where they had to, but their platform is one of radical liberalism. They have not diluted their agenda to attract conservatives. They have just said that they are. Now why should conservatives settle for anything less than governing with a conservative agenda to the fullest extent possible?Cincinnatushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16902107238899822299noreply@blogger.com