The crisis in conservatism

[Aexodus]

Sorry I was talking about this paragraph.

The recent phenomenon essentially consists of the increasing preponderance of these radical elements, at the expense of the more "civilised" characteristics. Without doubt, the main culprit for this change is the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent stagnation or anemic growth. As income equality decreases and the middle class shrinks, it's normal for the relatively "impoverished" society to endorse more agressive doctrines, which

[Abdülmecid I]

Since Brexit is a symptom of the ‘crisis in conservatism’ I feel it’s relevant. The remain campaign even admits it’s “it’s the economy stupid” approach led to their loss of the referendum. Immigration was a much more powerful issue than the economy. That’s just the truth, even the remain campaign recognises this when they say that immigration wasn’t something they could win on, and that many people didn’t care about the economy.

Did you watch the BBC video? It talks about the completely different issue of people not being convinced about the legion of economists' arguments regarding the benefits of the EU membership. Nothing to do with my point about increasing inequality, deindustrialisation and relative impoverishment fuel right-wing anti-establishment feelings and encourage hostility towards those that are perceived as competitors for the worryingly limited resources. By the way, you still have not adressed any of my argument about how the economic situation influenced the result of the referendum, as the Welsh example demonstrates. Something I forgot to mention, even if O'Toole's interpretation of Irish nationalism is accurate, he fails to take into account that people may not always correctly estimate their interests and prospects of their decision: This means that, even if Irish independence prove to be economically disastrous, this does not necessarily mean that the Irish were determined to sacrifice their prosperity for the sake of nationalism, as they did not possess our posterior knowledge about the actual repercussions.

Why do you frame a discussion about conservatism around the far right?

The subject of the discussion is the crisis in conservatism, as manifested in the resurgence of tribal/far/alt/new right. To be clear, the case of Marine Le Pen was firstly mentioned by your own source, professor Kaufmann, so I explained how his arbitrary generalisation was totally mistaken, in what concerns at least the phenomenon of French reactionarism. Sweden, France, Wales, Michigan and many other regions show what an influential role the economy plays at the crisis of traditional and moderate conservatism. Epic fail has nicely summarised how the negative consequences of the 2008 crisis has affected our stance even towards immigration, the flagship of the extreme right. To paraphrase Napoleon or Frederick II or a creative biographer, a society thinks and behaves like a serpent, according to its stomach's needs.

[conon394]

Michigan

The problem here was Trump could capitalize on a pervasive and incorrect historical narrative with snake oil promises. First he benefited from the (recently passed) narrative of Ross Perot - the giant sucking sound (of jobs south of the boarder) due to NAFTA. Of course Perot never mentioned the sucking sound to just the American South, and most critically the inevitability of automation taking jobs. But those sound bytes have not died. More importantly Trump did sort of hit on a critical mistake of allowing China in the WTO . Were NAFTA to work Mexico needed to be the destination for cheap product construction and the US and Canada would have retained the higher end value added stuff. Sou the assembly of very low profit margin cars or t-shirts goes to Mexico companies in Mexico are going to incentivized Buy US and Canada. I will say the US and Canada should have pushed for firm enforcement of improving worker rights, and environmental controls etc. What made NATA bad and put the stake in the heart of the Rust belt was China WTO. In a pen stroke China was better in every way, cheaper labor, environmental or worker safety ha ha. And now without the risk of the US ending most favored nation trading status US companies dump ton of investment into shimmering illusion of a billion person market that they could only access by paying and paying.

[The spartan]

No particular disagreement here but the fact that you felt you needed to post that paragraph shows that my point did not come across, I hope you are not presuming partisanship on my part.
My point is:
The same statistics, the same batch of raw data can be interpreted to confirm the narrative that matches the experience of a constituency, or it can be interpreted in a number of different ways.
To make things worse, that same batch of raw data can be interpreted in a way that justifies the way the voters feel about their experience of reality around them, or it can be interpreted in a way that makes the voters look ungrateful for the way they feel.

Well, no, you can draw basic assumptions from statistical data: if crime rate is low, and collected properly, then crime is generally low in the area. Easy assertion. If someone feels that crime is high in the area (crime ridden) and you check the data and it doesn't show that to be the case, it is more likely the person was unjustified in feeling that way. We shouldn't base our policy on unsubstantiated feelings, that is ridiculous.

Or are we to hold it against the individual voter that they are unable -or unwilling- to apply the scientific method on the latest social research themselves and individually, or that they ought to be savvy enough to understand which of the political competitors is more manipulative than the other, especially after decades of a game of Jenga with the funding of the public education system in the USA?
The fact of the matter is that they can't do that, but what they can do, is choose between two or more competing interpretations of that batch of data.
I believe we ought to expect that the voters will choose to believe the interpretation that makes them feel the most righteous.
Does this explain the reason why the (corporate) Democrats are at a disadvantage when it comes to the game of manipulation?

If an individual does not even use the most basic of information gathering skills, then no, they probably shouldn't vote in National elections. And it isn't about "applying the scientific method on the latest social research themselves", there are plenty of reliable institutions to derive information from. If NASA puts out a statement on climate change and an individual rejects it because they think NASA is just a bunch of liars that fabricate data, I don't blame NASA for not satisfying that individual's personal standards, I blame the individual for having an unreasonable understanding of how NASA works.

I believe that it's not about people trusting or distrusting a particular political group but about which constituency choosing which political group to trust or distrust.
My outlook on this is elaborated on in the paragraph above.
I also believe that both the conservative and the liberal/progressive outlooks are legitimate, I wouldn't use the accusation of dishonesty against people whose outlook differs from mine.
Personally, my natural inclination is liberal/progressive but my education makes me conservative, so I can understand both outlooks and due to my acquired conservatism I can acknowledge that not all people can be equally sophisticated in their ability to read between the lines.

Then why are you saying Democrats are responsible for the distrust? Also, I don't know what you mean by "I also believe that both the conservative and the liberal/progressive outlooks are legitimate"; legitimate to what? They are both just certain types of political ideology, are you trying to say any particular ideology could allow for effective governance? just trying to get what you mean by "legitimate".

I will not type in too many lines analyzing this as I believe it somewhat deviates from the main topic.
As an educated conservative with potent remaining liberal inclinations, I would caution you against disregarding peoples' instincts on account of the way they justify them: Most of the people, most of the time, simply lack the vocabulary they need to properly and accurately articulate and communicate their concerns.

Borders are meaningful and the desire to live within the context of one's own culture is a legitimate one: the massive influx of new people of different cultures does lead to legitimate concerns that newcomers will change the character of society faster than society can assimilate them.
I'm sure you have a retort for this but I am not the one you are trying to convince.

To the claimed benefits from illegal immigration, the populist in me asks "for whom?" (it would be funny if it wasn't tragic that the Sanderites are so quick to retort "for the 1/10th of 1%" and yet they are all too ready to welcome everybody), while the latent Marxist in me asks "at what cost to the conquests of the labor movement?", they are little better than slaves.
(I am not a Marxist in that I reject the Marxian proposed solutions to the problems of capitalism as proven unworkable, but I do believe that the Marxian analysis of those problems holds water.)

I mean, I don't think I could disagree more. The "average American" is rather uninformed on a lot of positions they strongly support/oppose. Whether it is a Federal $15 minimum wage, that immigrants causing great harm to our economy, or the existence of Climate Change; there are so many Americans who have strong opinions they spent very little time looking into. Personally, I see it all the time with immigrants-harm-economy argument: they seem so convinced that median wages have plummeted and unemployment is high because of immigrants, but if they spent 10 minutes on google verifying this they would know neither of those things have happened. They just liked the narrative.

The second and third paragraphs are references to ideologues and things they would say. You demonstrated why they cause such a problem for political discourse. They have very esoteric values such as "cultural history" or hypothetically re-defined property rights. I prefer measurable ways to help people, cause actual improvement on the ground. Their solutions are almost always impractical as well.

I am not prepared to reject this but I am also reluctant to accept it: The problem of partisanship in American politics started before the internet and before globalization.

I wasn't trying to say partisanship started with the internet, just that the internet feeds into it in a way that we haven't previously had to deal with in society.

Because politicians are an elite and they are not allowed the benefit of inadequate sophistication.
For ordinary Americans the inability to acknowledge the legitimacy of a different outlook comes natural.
Combine the above two with the taking hold of the post-modernist assertion that there is no such thing as free speech because you are always a mouthpiece for the interests of your group, therefore there cannot be such a thing as an honest dialogue, it's all about power.


If you get the feeling that throughout my posts I place more blame on the left than the right it's because it was the left who in the name of progressivism introduced the post-modernist ideas and allowed those ideas to permeate their rhetoric that rendered the left regressive.

And it was the mainstream Democrats who had the responsibility to reject such attitudes as undemocratic but instead adopted them.

And, of course, ordinary conservatives, when told that their opinions did not matter because "they had not suffered enough" and for that reason were unable to understand the suffering of others and to an equal degree unwilling to do so because of "group interest defense", they reacted with the only tactic that (effortlessly) seemed viable to them:
"If that's the game you are playing, fine, but we are not going to lose".

This got real off the rails toward the end here. Progressivism itself has nothing to do with post modernism, post modernists would be the ones critiquing progressivism, or any other modernist ideology. It certainly didn't "introduce" post modernism into politics, that just seems to be a product of our time.

You also keep seeming to imply that Democrats forced Conservatives to act a certain way. That is BS. Democrats have been much more willing to compromise in politics than Republicans have, nor are Democrats as willing to dismantle government institutions. The Democrats didn't coerce Conservatives to do the things they are doing and supporting politically, there was no existential threat looming over them.

[Gaidin]

The problem here was Trump could capitalize on a pervasive and incorrect historical narrative with snake oil promises. First he benefited from the (recently passed) narrative of Ross Perot - the giant sucking sound (of jobs south of the boarder) due to NAFTA. Of course Perot never mentioned the sucking sound to just the American South, and most critically the inevitability of automation taking jobs.

Rural areas are automating because the job growth is in the cities. Yes, we have a job creating economy. But the jobs are not getting created everywhere. So while there are places that need jobs, their may or may not be people for those jobs. Or if their are bodies, they may not be adequately educated or trained for them. So the person running the show shifts to automation.

[Diamat]

I mean, I don't think I could disagree more. The "average American" is rather uninformed on a lot of positions they strongly support/oppose. Whether it is a Federal $15 minimum wage, that immigrants causing great harm to our economy, or the existence of Climate Change; there are so many Americans who have strong opinions they spent very little time looking into. Personally, I see it all the time with immigrants-harm-economy argument: they seem so convinced that median wages have plummeted and unemployment is high because of immigrants, but if they spent 10 minutes on google verifying this they would know neither of those things have happened. They just liked the narrative.

Just to add some things:

Indeed, many Americans cannot intelligently defend their convictions. But this is a problem both on the left and right. Immigration, as you showed, is a perfect example. To talk about immigrants in general is just plain silly. One cannot say that immigrants, as this large ambiguous group, cause good or cause harm. Yet there are people on both the left and right who hold that immigration is either a panacea or irredeemable evil. Not many people look at the actual statistics or attempt to separate between groups of immigrants, income brackets, educational backgrounds, social backgrounds, religious backgrounds, etc. Those are the first questions that should be asked and a sensible immigration policy should be built on the foundation of sound empirical data. So yes, there are those immigrants and immigrant groups who have higher crime rates or leech off government support. This is undeniable. But to say that all immigrants are prone to crime etc. is just silly. I just wish we could have honest conversations about this topic without people immediately getting offended.

[Katsumoto]

I don't really think the author of the piece is correct. Then again, it is incredibly difficult to gauge the currents of the epoch from the perspective of the present. Some thoughts:

It seems possible that what we are seeing today is a process of realignment and redefinition. We are still trapped by old categories of left/right or liberal/conservative, and these are limiting our own self-understanding. Glancing over conservative news sources, one can clearly detect a populist and anti-corporation trend. While conservatives remain pro-capitalist, there appears to be developing a strong aversion to corporations. At the same time - and this is truly fascinating - a sense of solidarity with the working class is forming. It is almost as if conservatism is developing into a new type of left, while the current left is developing into a bourgeois idealist movement closely allied to corporate interests. A new type of conservatism seems to be emerging, though it still lacks self-awareness and proper theoretical/philosophical tools.

I think any solidarity with the working class on behalf of conservative politicians is mostly populist rhetoric designed to get them into power, since I can't think of many policies favoured by conservatives that would actually help the working class in any practical way. We see the opposite in the US with the tax cut for corporations and attempts to remove Obamacare. Even conservative voters from what I gather aren't in favour of such pro-working class policies and often outright oppose spending on social welfare programmes.

[Diamat]

I think any solidarity with the working class on behalf of conservative politicians is mostly populist rhetoric designed to get them into power, since I can't think of many policies favoured by conservatives that would actually help the working class in any practical way. We see the opposite in the US with the tax cut for corporations and attempts to remove Obamacare. Even conservative voters from what I gather aren't in favour of such pro-working class policies and often outright oppose spending on social welfare programmes.

It is debatable whether something like a nationalized healthcare system is feasible in a country such as the US. It's a huge country with an enormous population. Moreover, it differs greatly across states, and states have plenty of sovereignty (e.g., states have their own separate tax systems). It is difficult to see how an efficient nationalized healthcare system could ever emerge. What would make more sense is tax benefits for lower income brackets to encourage them having healthcare. Perhaps government healthcare subsidies for the indigent might also be something that can be considered (see Medicaid). In the end, though, since the states have so much sovereignty, and since the US is such a diverse place, it would make more sense to let the states handle any type of government healthcare system, if they want it.

[Aexodus]

I don’t see why healthcare can’t be a state by state issue. If for example Cali wanted tax funded healthcare, why not let them do it.

[Katsumoto]

It is debatable whether something like a nationalized healthcare system is feasible in a country such as the US. It's a huge country with an enormous population. Moreover, it differs greatly across states, and states have plenty of sovereignty (e.g., states have their own separate tax systems). It is difficult to see how an efficient nationalized healthcare system could ever emerge. What would make more sense is tax benefits for lower income brackets to encourage them having healthcare. Perhaps government healthcare subsidies for the indigent might also be something that can be considered (see Medicaid). In the end, though, since the states have so much sovereignty, and since the US is such a diverse place, it would make more sense to let the states handle any type of government healthcare system, if they want it.

Sure, I don't know what the solution is. My point was just that conservatives don't tend to favour policies that would benefit the working class, including when it comes to healthcare.

[Vanoi]

I don’t see why healthcare can’t be a state by state issue. If for example Cali wanted tax funded healthcare, why not let them do it.

Yes but that dooms people in poorer states like mine. South Carolina should never have control of my healthcare. They're way too incompetent for that job.

[Diamat]

Sure, I don't know what the solution is. My point was just that conservatives don't tend to favour policies that would benefit the working class, including when it comes to healthcare.

I think conservatives care about the working class, especially in recent years. It's just that conservatives and liberals have different visions about what benefits the working class. I think it would be mistaken to assume that the bourgeoisie necessarily acts in the interest of its own class or that the class interests of the bourgeoisie are necessarily in conflict with that of the proletariat.

[conon394]

I don’t see why healthcare can’t be a state by state issue. If for example Cali wanted tax funded healthcare, why not let them do it.

Because something as important to everyone like healthcare or K-12 education should not be subject to the local variants in wealth and income in the richest country in the world. Moreover states are vulnerable to cyclical tax shortfalls in a way the US government is not.

[Aexodus]

Yes but that dooms people in poorer states like mine. South Carolina should never have control of my healthcare. They're way too incompetent for that job.

Because something as important to everyone like healthcare or K-12 education should not be subject to the local variants in wealth and income in the richest country in the world. Moreover states are vulnerable to cyclical tax shortfalls in a way the US government is not.

That’s not my point, I’m saying why not let some states have free healthcare programs for American residents of those states, and some not. If Carolina or Idaho don’t want free healthcare then fine. If California and Washington do, then fine.

[Love Mountain]

Yes but that dooms people in poorer states like mine. South Carolina should never have control of my healthcare. They're way too incompetent for that job.

I still think it's better for States to take a lead on this issue. It'll serve as another avenue for showing why Blue is better than Red.

[The spartan]

It'll serve as another avenue for showing why Blue is better than Red.

I don't think that is the lesson that people learn by watching policy play out. Public education in the Bible Belt has been a disaster ever since the market downturn of 07-08 because certain States don't want to return funding for public schools. This hasn't led people in the region changing their representatives to someone who will fund the public education, the constituency just grows more resentful towards public education as a concept. Voters don't learn, they just get more angry.

[Love Mountain]

I don't think that is the lesson that people learn by watching policy play out. Public education in the Bible Belt has been a disaster ever since the market downturn of 07-08 because certain States don't want to return funding for public schools. This hasn't led people in the region changing their representatives to someone who will fund the public education, the constituency just grows more resentful towards public education as a concept. Voters don't learn, they just get more angry.

I think you're correct on this issue. My experiences have generally led me to the same conclusion. I don't think any of this matters though, it all comes down to political campaigning more than actual policy.

[Prodromos]

I still think it's better for States to take a lead on this issue. It'll serve as another avenue for showing why Blue is better than Red.

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.

[Love Mountain]

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.

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

[Aexodus]

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.

What are you on about. The exact opposite would happen. Economic and social improvement due to a healthier populace, and a mass influx of people looking free healthcare.