Why have conservatives become so incredibly dumb?

[Zordar]

Yeah, justice is really retarded.

(I'm not a leftie, and I agree that "social justice" is usually code for something else entirely, and many of their solutions for these issues are wrong. But let's not knock people who genuinely want justice.)

We both know what it is code for, and I've never knocked concepts like equal access or accountability, so feel free to stop with the faux outrage any time.

Zordar, how would you answer your question? I don't think you've given an answer yet, have you?

My suspicion is really boring, actually.

I think the movement is simply exhausted. Intellectually, structurally, psychologically. And because of this, I think the smart conservatives (and they are out there) are just keeping quiet or pretending they're libertarians right now.

This is kinda like what started happening with the Democratic party in the late 1960s. As it decayed, only the crazies remained passionate, and they began to represent the movement. The normals, despite numerical advantage, weren't the ones pounding pavement, making phone calls, getting press time, etc. The once-great coalition became a collection of grievance-burdened minority interests: soft socialists, feminists, racial minorities, no-nukers, pacifists, etc...

Modern conservatism began its decline about thirty years later -- around the time Newt Gingrich started sniffing Clinton's panties, and it's suffering the same fate: normal/moderate conservatives don't care or are embarrassed to be associated with the freaks, and the movement is becoming represented more and more by soft corporatists, birthers, dittoheads, racists, religious zealots, etc...

Since the Kerry/Scumbag debacle, the Dems have more or less become a big tent. Not to the extent they were in the 1930s-1960s, but big enough. They've managed to do it by appealing to the values of normals, while giving the crazies just enough gristle to keep them from revolting. The nuts are no longer steering the ship. And I have to say it's really impressive, given the cat-like nature of the Democratic party.

This is not the case with conservatism, where the lunatics, if not running the asylum, are at least controlling the dialogue. To me, this is incredibly depressing, because a party that champions capitalism (not corporatism), strong defense (not nation building), a less intrusive government (even in the *gasp* bedroom!), and fiscal responsibility (not just in words, but action) would be hugely appealing. But American conservatism isn't offering anything close to that right now. It's gonna take time, patience, and a firehose enema before there is any hope for the movement.

I fail to understand the comfort so many on the left have with the government mandating the purchase of health insurance. Whats next?

The left only believes in slippery slopes when it comes to social issues it opposes. Otherwise, they're a fallacy or "fear mongering."

I voted for Obama, and probably will again in 2012, but I do have problems with him on health care and his Supreme Court selections. The way I see it is: those are two incredibly important issues, but they are only two out of a hundred. If I agree with him 50% of the time, that's still twice as much as the next closest candidate -- might as well cut my losses, rather than not vote at all.

[Truth Teller]

lol, I mean, he was an asshole, but he was smart. You don't agree?

Once in a blue moon,but most times he was incredibly stupid ,and he said things about me and to me that I can't forgive.

Fuck him!

Motherfuck him while we're at it.

[kellyb]

I am aware that Romneys mandate preceded the ACA. But the ACA was created and passed solely by Democrats. Its their "child".

The individual decision making authority I was referring to does not only take into account multi-national health insurance companies that have screwed things up way too much for you to care. What have I or any of the other several hundred million citizens done to you that you want to curtail their freedoms? What about the business owners- have they also wronged you to the extent that you would limit their choices? The liberties you would have eliminated are shared by the citizenry, the business community, and the multi-nationals that have wronged you so. And all of us are having our freedoms curtailed in very significant ways by the desires of some who place no value on those liberties.

No, the choice between an insurance plan that does or doesn't cover contraceptives is pretty much a non-issue. We have way more important shit to be arguing about.

[Pho King]

No, the choice between an insurance plan that does or doesn't cover contraceptives is pretty much a non-issue. We have way more important shit to be arguing about.

but there soon will be no choice. that is the issue.

[kellyb]

but there soon will be no choice. that is the issue.

The contraceptives debate is a terrible example, IMO. It's mostly just political BS that distracts people from the really important stuff.

[Pho King]

The contraceptives debate is a terrible example, IMO. It's mostly just political BS that distracts people from the really important stuff.

I would agree, if it wasn't a mandate. With no religious exemptions. In a plan that will, in spite of covering everything under the sun, reduce costs. A plan we must all purchase. It is all part and parcel of the same thing.

[kellyb]

Thinking some more about the original question, part of the problem might be that the elites of the Republican party (Bush et al) completely abandoned the principals of traditional conservatism and somehow wrapped it up in conservative rhetoric. Running up deficits in the name of fiscal responsibility. Warrantless wiretapping in the name of freedom. The MSM was very, very good at demonizing Bush over all that, and incessantly. I think we'd be seeing more nuttiness coming from Democrats if the MSM treated Obama by the same standards, maybe.

[Chachma v'Oz]

Thinking some more about the original question, part of the problem might be that the elites of the Republican party (Bush et al) completely abandoned the principals of traditional conservatism and somehow wrapped it up in conservative rhetoric. Running up deficits in the name of fiscal responsibility. Warrantless wiretapping in the name of freedom. The MSM was very, very good at demonizing Bush over all that, and incessantly. I think we'd be seeing more nuttiness coming from Democrats if the MSM treated Obama by the same standards, maybe.

The GOP was highjacked by the John Birch Society.

[kellyb]

I would agree, if it wasn't a mandate. With no religious exemptions. In a plan that will, in spite of covering everything under the sun, reduce costs. A plan we must all purchase. It is all part and parcel of the same thing.

The contraceptive thing is only a mandate for insurance companies. Health care is already so over-regulated and micromanaged that this is like a grain of sand on a beach of coverage issues that people could but don't get outraged about (all insurance covers abortions for ectopic pregnancies, for example, by virtue of the ER coverage and yes, by law.)

I just think it would be way more useful to discuss the actual core problems with health care in the US. I really, really don't think this is an example of what's gone wrong.

[kellyb]

The GOP was highjacked by the John Birch Society.

Sorta. But the Burchers HATE the Bush neocon/neoliberal economics.

[antiquity]

The GOP was highjacked by the John Birch Society.

WTF?

[Chachma v'Oz]

Sorta. But the Burchers HATE the Bush neocon/neoliberal economics.

Everybody does. That's not exclusive to them.

[antiquity]

Chachma, you hate a liberal agenda economy? I am shocked.

[Šñøü†ê®]

Once in a blue moon,but most times he was incredibly stupid ,and he said things about me and to me that I can't forgive.

Fuck him!

Motherfuck him while we're at it.

Teller, I get the sneaking suspicion you do not realize how incredibly stupid you are and what a liar you are!

[Chachma v'Oz]

Chachma, you hate a liberal agenda economy? I am shocked.

Deregulating, under-regulating, cutting taxes then borrowing to the hilt is not long-term economic policy anyone but a conservative could love.

[Truth Teller]

Teller, I get the sneaking suspicion you do not realize how incredibly stupid you are and what a liar you are!

Fuck you too.

[kellyb]

Deregulating, under-regulating, cutting taxes then borrowing to the hilt is not long-term economic policy anyone but a conservative could love.

So you agree that Obama is a "conservative" on economics, then, yes?

[kellyb]

Do you disagree with any of this, Cha?



http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/...beral-ostrich/

"Obama, writes Dionne, “is the candidate defending the modestly redistributive and regulatory government the country has relied on since the New Deal, and that neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush dismantled.” But Obamanomics is not merely “modestly redistributive,” it is massively so, and in the opposite direction intended by Dionne. We’ve experienced the greatest transfer of income to the very rich from the rest in human history. Is Dionne unaware that Obama, in The Audacity of Hope and in multiple interviews, has described the liberalism of FDR and LBJ as “the old-time religion”? He’s averred that of all postwar presidents, his greatest admiration goes to Ronald Reagan, who understood that in a commercially globalized world economic policy must follow “a fundamentally different path.” He’s repeated the mantra that government may respond to severe unemployment only by offering bribes to companies (tax breaks) and banks (injections of liquidity) to hire and lend. Hiring and production are the business only of the private sector.

In the FDR/LBJ tradition, Social Security was refered to as “the third rail” of American politics. It was inconceivable that any Democrat would consider touching it. Your political career, be you Democrat or Republican, would be over were you to suggest either reducing benefits or extending the retirement age. Even the Tea Party seems to be in step with that. But Obama isn’t. Recall, it wasn’t the Republicans who “put Social Security on the table” during the silly debt ceiling controversy. How could Dionne and many other Democratic stalwarts think of Obama as a champion of the New Deal legacy? Whether Obama is a liberal in the post-Depression pre-Carter sense of the term is not a matter of theory or ideology. It is a matter of fact that he is not. Dionne and others of his kidney must know this, in the cognitively attenuated sense of ‘know’ required by the self-deceptive psychodynamics described above. But paying attention to it would wipe out the framework they depend on to think about politics at all."

[lily]

So you agree that Obama is a "conservative" on economics, then, yes?

Please don't confuse "conservative" with corporatist/fascist...which is a form of collectivism, btw. That's the opposite of what true conservatives believe in.

[Šñøü†ê®]

Fuck you too.

Calm down Teller, I am this close to reporting your misconduct! Watch it.