The crisis in conservatism

[Coughdrop addict]

Why would people run away from socialized medicine and why would it wreck their states?

Because they have been trained to hate and fear anything their masters tell them is "socialism". You could implement socialized medicine and have it be demonstrably better in every way than what they have and they'd still hate it.

[conon394]

They won't, because socialized medicine would wreck their states and lead to a mass exodus. That's why it has to be done nationally; that way, people have nowhere to escape to.

Except you actually look at fact Prodromos. You the inconvenient existence of France. Which spends less of GDP on health care than the USA (dramatically so) and has pretty better health outcomes in every possible category than the US. Also it still has secondary private insurance. But no we don't need that in the will stick with Social Darwinism so the poor die and wealth survive the way god intended.

[Prodromos]

Other countries are irrelevant, since they're all freeloading off US health care innovation and defense spending. The reason socialist countries spend less on health care is because companies make enough of a profit in America that they can afford to sell their treatments for cheap abroad. America is where the newest treatments are first developed, tested and implemented on a wide scale, thanks to the free market system which rewards innovation. If Americans started paying less for treatments, they'd just stop being profitable and companies would stop developing them entirely. The whole world is free riding on the backs of US consumers. If Atlas shrugs, it won't be pretty.

Ninety five percent of the new drugs coming on the market are developed for sale in the United States. They are paid for by American consumers, while other countries, such as Canada, Germany and France, free ride at our expense. The United States is the last major country that allows the market to set prices high enough to compensate pharmaceutical companies for their R&D investments...

The negative media pharmaceutical narrative reminds me of the boy who visited a museum noted for its dinosaurs, who afterwards could only talk about the teensy-weensy insect he saw in a glass case. Little details caused him to miss the dinosaur. The same lesson applies to the pharmaceutical industry – or “Big Pharma” as its critics call it. Yes, pharmaceutical companies do develop “me-too” drugs, use human subjects from the third world (Do you want to volunteer?), may cajole family physicians to prescribe drugs we do not need, and picture tranquil sleep, unobstructed breathing, and reliable erections in their TV spots. But these images of “Big Pharma” are the equivalent of the tiny insect that fascinates the boy who fails to notice the dinosaurs.

The “dinosaur” that we rarely hear about are the drugs that have improved, prolonged, and changed our lives. When President Eisenhower suffered a massive heart attack in September of 1955, his doctors could only inject a pain killer and prescribe bed rest. When Vice President Cheney suffered heart attacks almost a half century later, he was given powerful blood thinners, a stent was inserted, and he was released from the hospital shortly thereafter. Before acid inhibitors, ulcer sufferers had only operations that cut off ulcerated portions of their stomachs. Before AZT drugs, an HIV positive test was a death sentence. tPA saved millions of heart attack and stroke victims. HPV is an effective vaccination against cervical cancer. Anti-psychotic medications allow patients with schizophrenia to live productive lives. Viagra saved millions of men the shame of sexual dysfunction, and probably rescued thousands of marriages. The list goes on and on, but, in the future, it might get shorter and shorter.

According to the Britannica Encyclopedia, a new drug requires that 5,000–10,000 chemical compounds undergo laboratory screening for each new drug approved for use in humans. Of the 5,000–10,000 compounds that are screened, approximately 250 will enter preclinical testing, and 5 will enter clinical testing. The process from discovery to marketing takes 10 to 15 years, and only one out of every ten thousand discovered compounds gains approval. Although pharmaceutical companies routinely claim that new drugs cost an average of a billion dollars, the true figure is between $4 and $12 billion when the costs of failures are included.

Pharmaceutical companies finance new product development by devoting a higher percentage of their revenues than any other major industry (an astronomical 20 percent) to R&D. It is the American consumer who pays these costs by buying the new drugs at prices that cover these R&D expenses. Free-riding Canadian, German, French and Dutch consumers buy at much lower prices and avoid contributing to the costs of product development. China, Russia, India and most of the developing world ignore intellectual property rights and knock off the drugs for sale in domestic markets with no compensation to the developer.

In the United States, by and large, the market still sets prices of pharmaceuticals. In the United Kingdom, Canada, and Europe, the state either regulates prices or is the sole buyer, as studies by the AARP and the Senate Committee on Aging show. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finds that average prices for prescription drugs in the United States are 50 to 100 percent higher than in other industrialized nations, even though generic drugs sell for less. A single dosage of Nexium (the Purple Pill) sells for $4 in the United States and for under a dollar in France and Germany. According to OECD statistics, Americans spend $983 per capita on prescription drugs, including cheaper generics, while the Germans and French pay $680 and $634, respectively. Americans do not appear to be over medicated as Pharma’s critics charge. They just pay higher prices.

Without the hard-pressed American consumer to finance R&D costs, we would not have AZT, Cimetidine, Nexium, tPA, Beta blockers, new cancer drugs, anti psychotic drugs, and all the rest. American consumers pony up, while the rest of the world benefits without paying its share.

American consumer groups fail to understand this dynamic. If Canadians, Germans, French, and Dutch have low drug prices so should we, they naively think. Our politicians demand that we re-import our own drugs from Canada and Europe at their lower prices. Such a remedy may play well to populist emotions, but even Congress and AARP understand that we must consider, as one scholar puts it, “whether the benefits in terms of lower prices will be worth the cost in terms of lower innovation.” In other words, we must fear killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrod...hina-steps-in/

It's hard to believe that after a hundred years and hundreds of millions of deaths, there's still people who think central planning is cool. The reality is that resources are finite, and a bean counter in D.C. can't do a better and more efficient job of allocating those resources than millions of individuals making their own choices in a free market. He'd get millions of people killed.

Socialized medicine would wreck US health care, which is why even in solid blue states like California and Vermont they adamantly refuse to implement it. It's not Republicans obstructing it, it's leftist Democrats who aren't stupid enough to actually implement socialism and risk getting voted out of office for ruining their states.

[conon394]

Or maybe not:

"Results. The United States accounted for 42% of prescription drug spending and 40% of the total GDP among innovator countries and was responsible for the development of 43.7% of the NMEs. The United Kingdom, Switzerland, and a few other countries innovated proportionally more than their contribution to GDP or prescription drug spending, whereas Japan, South Korea, and a few other countries innovated less."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/

But I'm sure an un referenced assertion on Forbes is better.

The free market does poor job on things vaccines. The free market and short term wall street thinking does not reward the poor return on investment in them that won't pop your stock or you CEO stock options but making a great (not) and completely useless product like Latisse does. Because I feel so much better getting Zika virus if my eyelashes are thicker...

Or how about the Fantastically high cost of Truvada in the US compared to the world surly it was profits that drove Gilead to dive into researching it... err no that would Emory university and all funded on the US dime.

https://breakthepatent.org/wp-conten...-Cost-v0.2.pdf

Edit:

Back link one another view similar.

https://xconomy.com/seattle/2014/09/...s-complicated/

The key point is NCE that is New Chemical Entities - truly novel drugs. I am pretty sure the the ~90% number you see for the US are just say Pfizer tweeting a drug just enough to get a new patent. And as you may or may not know The patient office is not very well funded and more less is willing to hand them out easy and toss it to the courts - which means a big pharma gets to win more often than not. Also the FDA allows efficacy to often be tested against just a placebo and not say the lead on market drugs. When Academics mange to scrape of the funding and a non placebo test a lot of new drugs don't look so grand.

[Heathen Hammer]

The subject of the discussion is the crisis in conservatism, as manifested in the resurgence of tribal/far/alt/new right.

So the "crisis" of conservatism is the fact that it is no longer represented by corrupt weak McCain/Bush types, but by actual conservatives such as Trump or Le Pen. Essentially liberals think conservatism is "in crisis" because this time it is actually becoming more popular then liberalism, and liberals attempt to subvert that notion by claiming that "something is wrong" with opponent that is currently beating them.

[The spartan]

So the "crisis" of conservatism is the fact that it is no longer represented by corrupt weak McCain/Bush types, but by actual conservatives such as Trump or Le Pen.

You know Conservatism is pro-establishment, right? I have never heard of an anti-establishment Conservative.

[Love Mountain]

They're pretty anti-establishment when a Democrat is sitting in office. Try touching agriculture subsidies though, suddenly they get all touchy about how inhuman it is to take struggling farmers off government support.

[The spartan]

They're pretty anti-establishment when a Democrat is sitting in office. Try touching agriculture subsidies though, suddenly they get all touchy about how inhuman it is to take struggling farmers off government support.

Then they aren't acting like a true Conservative. I was talking about the actual ideology, not the constituents who claim it. This would be like a Liberal in the US who think certain words should be illegal to say. Conservatives are all about existing institutions and protecting them, that is the significance of the "crisis in conservatism", they have given up certain Conservative ideals.

[Heathen Hammer]

Conservatism can be anti-establishment. It just depends on the establishment. With the kind that we have in Western countries now, it makes sense for conservatism to be anti-establishment, since establishment itself clearly aligns itself with different ideology.

[The spartan]

No, I mean Conservatives prioritize existing political institutions and want to preserve them, especially the traditional aspects of the institutions. Mitch McConnell blocking a supreme court justice for Obama is one of the least Conservative things you can imagine. Harming institutions for the sake of short-term political gain is not Conservatism. Throwing the FBI under the bus for a political narrative isn't Conservatism. Wanting the president to do unilateral action without congress is not Conservatism. They are supposed to be against revolutionary attitudes and new precedents; not the current Right in the US at all.

[Katsumoto]

Came across this book from 2004 called 'What's the Matter with Kansas?' which seems to paint a picture of a Kansas in 2004 that now reflects much of the country.

According to the book, the political discourse of recent decades has dramatically shifted from social and economic equality to the use of "explosive" cultural issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, which are used to redirect anger toward "liberal elites."

Against this backdrop, Frank describes the rise of political conservatism in the social and political landscape of Kansas, which he says espouses economic policies that do not benefit the majority of people in the state.

Frank also claims a bitter divide between 'moderate' and 'conservative' Kansas Republicans (whom he labels "Mods" and "Cons") as an archetype for the future of politics in America, in which fiscal conservatism becomes the universal norm and political war is waged over a handful of hot-button cultural issues.

Not long ago, Kansas would have responded to the current situation by making the bastards pay. This would have been a political certainty, as predictable as what happens when you touch a match to a puddle of gasoline. When business screwed the farmers and the workers – when it implemented monopoly strategies invasive beyond the Populists' furthest imaginings – when it ripped off shareholders and casually tossed thousands out of work – you could be damned sure about what would follow. Not these days. Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, further to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics. Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO, and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed (unions, antitrust, public ownership), and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower.
— Frank, T. 2004 "What's the Matter with Kansas?", pp. 67-68

Instead of fighting for working class interests, the Democratic party, under the direction of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), effectively abandoned them by adopting economically conservative policies. To differentiate themselves from Republicans at the national level, Democrats also focused on socio-cultural wedge issues:

The Democratic Leadership Council, the organization that produced such figures as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman and Terry McAuliffe, has long been pushing the party to forget blue-collar voters and concentrate instead on recruiting affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues. The larger interests that the DLC wants desperately to court are corporations, capable of generating campaign contributions far outweighing anything raised by organized labor. The way to collect the votes and -- more important -- the money of these coveted constituencies, "New Democrats" think, is to stand rock-solid on, say, the pro-choice position while making endless concessions on economic issues, on welfare, NAFTA, Social Security, labor law, privatization, deregulation and the rest of it.
— Frank, T. 2004 "What's the Matter with Kansas?", pp. 243

The book also details how Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, was elected governor in conservative Kansas. By emphasizing issues such as health care and school funding and avoiding hot-button social issues, Sebelius successfully fractured the Kansas GOP and won a clear majority.

Frank says that the conservative coalition is the dominant coalition in American politics. There are two sides to this coalition, according to the author: Economic conservatives want business tax cuts and deregulation, while social conservatives focus on culture. Frank says that since the coalition formed in the late 1960s, the coalition has been "fantastically rewarding" for the economic conservatives. The policies of the Republicans in power have been exclusively economic, but the coalition has caused the social conservatives to be worse off economically, due to these pro-corporate policies. Meanwhile, the social issues that the "Cons" faction pushes never go anywhere after the election. According to Frank, "abortion is never outlawed, school prayer never returns, the culture industry is never forced to clean up its act." He attributes this partly to conservatives "waging cultural battles where victory is impossible," such as a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He also argues that the very capitalist system the economic conservatives strive to strengthen and deregulate promotes and commercially markets the perceived assault on traditional values.

Frank applies his thesis to answer the question of why these social conservatives continue to vote for Republicans, even though they are voting against their best interests. He argues that politicians and pundits stir the "Cons" to action by evoking certain issues, such as abortion, immigration, and taxation. By portraying themselves as champions of the conservatives on these issues, the politicians can get "Cons" to vote them into office. However, once in office, these politicians turn their attention to more mundane economic issues, such as business tax reduction or deregulation. Frank's thesis goes thus: In order to explain to the "Cons" why no progress gets made on these issues, politicians and pundits point their fingers to a "liberal elite," a straw man representing everything that conservatism is not. When reasons are given, they eschew economic reasons in favor of accusing this elite of simply hating America, or having a desire to harm "average" Americans. This theme of victimization by these "elites" is pervasive in conservative literature, despite the fact that at the time conservatives controlled all three branches of government, were being served by an extensive media devoted only to conservative ideology, and had won 6 of the previous 9 presidential elections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%2...with_Kansas%3F

[Heathen Hammer]

It is fair to say that given the end-result of their rule, anger with liberal elites can and should be justified by significant portions of the population. The above article reflects the "let them eat cake" mentality of modern liberal elites quite well, and such mentality in itself represents the reasons why liberalism in its current form is losing popularity.

[The spartan]

It is fair to say that given the end-result of their rule, anger with liberal elites can and should be justified by significant portions of the population.

Except, instead of that, the Republican party rushed head-long into a tax break for the mega-wealthy they claim to hate. That was the only major Republican accomplishment since they got Trump into office. As Kat's article is saying, the Republican party and Trump are not going to save the working class from the financial elite. They are going to feed the working class to them.

[Heathen Hammer]

One can make the argument that mega-wealthy don't pay taxes in either case, plenty of loop-holes exists if you are wealthy. But giving them something would make them play ball on something that could actually help the population, and we can see by current state of economy that it clearly worked. Not that I see how that is relevant to liberal left serving as ideological crusaders for wealthy elites, who use ideology as justification for letting elites parasite over population.

[NosPortatArma]

No, I mean Conservatives prioritize existing political institutions and want to preserve them, especially the traditional aspects of the institutions. Mitch McConnell blocking a supreme court justice for Obama is one of the least Conservative things you can imagine. Harming institutions for the sake of short-term political gain is not Conservatism. Throwing the FBI under the bus for a political narrative isn't Conservatism. Wanting the president to do unilateral action without congress is not Conservatism. They are supposed to be against revolutionary attitudes and new precedents; not the current Right in the US at all.

there's a hierarchy of institutions/orders to protect. sure, it's not pretty when trump violates institutions and norms, one might even call it revolutionary. But you know what's even more revolutionary? Dramatically changing the demographic makeup of the country in the span of a few generations. institutions and norms can be repaired, it's temporary if you have the will to fix it. immigration is permanent though, so if it goes wrong you are permanently ed.

[Love Mountain]

there's a hierarchy of institutions/orders to protect. sure, it's not pretty when trump violates institutions and norms, one might even call it revolutionary. But you know what's even more revolutionary? Dramatically changing the demographic makeup of the country in the span of a few generations. institutions and norms can be repaired, it's temporary if you have the will to fix it. immigration is permanent though, so if it goes wrong you are permanently ed.

This makes no sense in the context of United States. There is no "plan" to demographically change the United States. It happened, and is still happening, naturally due to economic and political shifts in the world. Immigration can certainly be a contributing factor towards civilization collapse, but it's hardly the only contributing factor. In fact, it's most often the haphazard response to immigration that contributes to negative consequences, rather than the act of immigration itself.

Finally, there's the fact that no Western European or North American state is under the danger of being significantly demographically changed within the next few decades. Demographics aren't the issue, economics are.

[NosPortatArma]

This makes no sense in the context of United States.

yes it does. A few decades ago the USA was 85+% white, and now in a few decades it will be <50% white. That's unarguably a dramatic shift.

There is no "plan" to demographically change the United States.

some people certainly seem very welcome to the change.. regardless, it's happening wheter "planned" or not, and people react to that.

It happened, and is still happening, naturally due to economic and political shifts in the world

A common belief, but it's nonsense. immigration happens when people are let into a country, and there is never a shortage of people who want to enter richer countries. This is just what people say to demoralise people who want less immigration, as if immigration is inevitable and can't be stopped. It's literally one of the easiest things in the world a country can do. Look at hungary, how many immigrants get past them now? They cut it by like 95%. no.. immigration happens because the leaders allow it, not because it's some "natural" or inevitable force of nature.

Immigration can certainly be a contributing factor towards civilization collapse

How would you know? It's never happened before, this kind of massive immigration the west is seeing today. There is literally not a single historical instance of immigration on this scale, in such a short time period, from such culturally distant places. It's something wholly new, wholly untried. why do people talk about it as if it was completely normal. NO ONE knows how this will work out, wheter good or bad. Here is the conervative instinct: maybe we shouldn't do a massive experiment on our societies, maybe it doesn't work, and then what? We can't very well reverse it.. it's permanent. Currently, we don't know for sure if quickly letting in tons of people from latin america will turn the USA into a latino country, with all the dysfunction that entails. Ditto for europe and middle east. WE DON'T KNOW, honestly no one knows. is it reasonable to gamble? I don't think so. I think it's lunacy, to be frank, utter LUNACY.

Finally, there's the fact that no Western European or North American state is under the danger of being significantly demographically changed within the next few decades. Demographics aren't the issue, economics are.

tell that to the nationalists who're on the rise in the west. It's definitely about immigration. and yes, demographic changes are happening quickly. sweden went from homogenous to like 20% foreign born in a few decades. that's quick. sweden gets more immigration per capita than USA did during the 19th century. Can you atleast acknowledge that the levels of immigration the west sees from thrid world today are historically unprecedented, and definitively not normal by any standard?

[The spartan]

there's a hierarchy of institutions/orders to protect. sure, it's not pretty when trump violates institutions and norms, one might even call it revolutionary. But you know what's even more revolutionary? Dramatically changing the demographic makeup of the country in the span of a few generations.

Cute, but irrelevant, whataboutism. Conservatism is Conservatism, either you agree with the ideals or you don't. If you don't, you aren't really a Conservative, you are something else.

institutions and norms can be repaired, it's temporary if you have the will to fix it. immigration is permanent though, so if it goes wrong you are permanently ed.

Conservatives sure as don't think that. Damage to institutions is taken very seriously and there is no assumption you can "fix" damage done. That is literally why Conservatism is a thing.

Your focus on the "permanent" status of immigration is really weird. Do you think American identity is a racial thing, or a cultural thing? If it is cultural, of course you can "fix" that. We have some intensely pro-American immigrant families that live here now.

One can make the argument that mega-wealthy don't pay taxes in either case, plenty of loop-holes exists if you are wealthy.

You could make that argument, but you would be very wrong, as is evident by reduced tax revenue and the wealthy very much wanting the tax cut. So no, it isn't a matter of "don't pay taxes in either case". That is just insanity.

[NosPortatArma]

Cute, but irrelevant, whataboutism. Conservatism is Conservatism, either you agree with the ideals or you don't. If you don't, you aren't really a Conservative, you are something else.

Conservatives sure as don't think that. Damage to institutions is taken very seriously and there is no assumption you can "fix" damage done. That is literally why Conservatism is a thing.

Your focus on the "permanent" status of immigration is really weird. Do you think American identity is a racial thing, or a cultural thing? If it is cultural, of course you can "fix" that. We have some intensely pro-American immigrant families that live here now.

conservatism is a mindset, to take things slowly and go forth cautiously, knowing that any up can have great consequences. if you ask a conservative "hey lets lets import lots of third world people so that the group that has been dominant since independence becomes a minority in a few decades, and see how it turns out!" he will reply: "no, that seems kinda stupid and unnecessary. why would you want to try that, what if you up?"

see, there is reason to be cautious... reason is you dont know if a truly multiracial society works. maybe it does maye it dont. USA has been 80-90% white since start until recently, so we cant look there for answers. I dont know of any other genuinely multiracial country either, that is, where one group doesnt dominate as in current/historical US. How can you be so certain there wont be any problems? the kind of relative "racial harmony" we see in the west now is a very recent and young phenomena. maybe it breaks down when there is no longer a dominant majority, maybe it breaks down for other reasons. i think its naive to belive the tranquility we have now will last forever, when most of human history shows that diversity, far from being a strength, is just a source of conflict. this completely unwarranted certainty you have about this great experiment... thats what strikes fear in the hearts of conservatives.

[The spartan]

conservatism is a mindset, to take things slowly and go forth cautiously, knowing that any up can have great consequences. if you ask a conservative "hey lets lets import lots of third world people so that the group that has been dominant since independence becomes a minority in a few decades, and see how it turns out!" he will reply: "no, that seems kinda stupid and unnecessary. why would you want to try that, what if you up?"

I am not really interested in playing in the loaded language Olympics. "Import lots of third world people." C'mon, if you are going to just act like an ideologue, then this is going to be much less interesting.

Suffice it to say, I have been talking about the political ideology known as Conservatism. It's a thing. And while it is true Conservatives don't tend to be fans of social change, they also want to preserve the institutional aspects of society. This is why, in the past Conservatives were seen as stuffy status quo men, not reactionaries that tear down institutions. This is what would say, separate a Conservative and a Fascist; both have interest in social traditions, but Conservatives would never dream about dissolving parliament or congress, or go extra-legally around the courts, for the sake of enforcing traditional social policies while Fascists are totally fine with consolidating authoritarian power if it means accomplishing political goals.

see, there is reason to be cautious... reason is you dont know if a truly multiracial society works. maybe it does maye it dont. USA has been 80-90% white since start until recently, so we cant look there for answers. I dont know of any other genuinely multiracial country either, that is, where one group doesnt dominate as in current/historical US. How can you be so certain there wont be any problems? the kind of relative "racial harmony" we see in the west now is a very recent and young phenomena. maybe it breaks down when there is no longer a dominant majority, maybe it breaks down for other reasons. i think its naive to belive the tranquility we have now will last forever, when most of human history shows that diversity, far from being a strength, is just a source of conflict. this completely unwarranted certainty you have about this great experiment... thats what strikes fear in the hearts of conservatives.

Ok, so you think it is a race thing; proper citizenry is dependent on race rather than ideals. I don't think I can even speak to you on this issue because you seem too far gone.

I don't get what you mean when you say "truly multiracial society", it sounds like a strawman you have been working on for some time. We have had plenty of societies and national identities with little to with race in the past (plenty in the present as well), as well as plenty of examples of constituent, but distinct, culture groups merging their cultural identity. It's pretty rare for Germans to refer to themselves as Hessian or Saxon anymore, they typically just stick with "German". Indians pretty much just stick with "Indian" rather than one of their thousands of different ethnic groups because it just isn't as important to them anymore. It's all "multiculturalism", bro, how the "cultures" are divided up in people's minds is what changes. The fact that you are unironically using the ethnic group of "White" to also refer to (I assume) Iberians, Italians, and Greeks shows people play fast and loose with these categories.