What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?

[Avatar4321]

But the real question I like to ask is: who's 'creating' the regulation?

Often times the industry giants are behind regulation bills, lobbying with all of their money and political clout, designing rules that makes it harder for the little guys - ie potential competition - to get a foot in the game.

I'm fine with honest, efficient regulation, but I think what people fail to address are the mounds and mounds of dishonest regulation that is put through via support of the industry giants.

It's the dirty little secret. Big evil companies are corrupt, corrupt politicians demand laws to regulate the industries which drive small business competitors out of business and create more incentive for the big evil companies to be corrupt and purchase politicians.

You want to know the biggest way to eliminate big evil corporations and eliminate the power of their special interests? Adhere to the Constitution by deregulating anything that is unconstitutional, thus allowing more competitors to find innovative ways and let the big companies starve while new companies grow and thrive. Making it more difficult to start businesses just makes things more difficult for everyone and adds to the corruption of the bigger corporations.

 

[The T]

But the real question I like to ask is: who's 'creating' the regulation?

Often times the industry giants are behind regulation bills, lobbying with all of their money and political clout, designing rules that makes it harder for the little guys - ie potential competition - to get a foot in the game.

I'm fine with honest, efficient regulation, but I think what people fail to address are the mounds and mounds of dishonest regulation that is put through via support of the industry giants.

It's the dirty little secret. Big evil companies are corrupt, corrupt politicians demand laws to regulate the industries which drive small business competitors out of business and create more incentive for the big evil companies to be corrupt and purchase politicians.

You want to know the biggest way to eliminate big evil corporations and eliminate the power of their special interests? Adhere to the Constitution by deregulating anything that is unconstitutional, thus allowing more competitors to find innovative ways and let the big companies starve while new companies grow and thrive. Making it more difficult to start businesses just makes things more difficult for everyone and adds to the corruption of the bigger corporations.

Indeed. 100% economic liberty.

 

[Avatar4321]

How hypocritical as thing is coming from the shathead who wants the government to contract everything out to the private sector, the private compnies can't compete because they know the government isn't going to pull the fraudulent bullshit private companies pull such as picking and choosing what costs they will cover.

How is it fradulent to not pay for procedures and medicines you aren't contracting to pay for?

And if you think private companies are doing this, what's stopping you from starting your own private company that doesn't do this and undermines the other companies, making yourself unbelievably wealthy and forcing them for profits to reform their ways?

I would argue that it's because you know your argument is bullcrap.

 

[techieny]

Ira Glasser: What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?

In 1980 Reagan was elected, and the modern conservative political movement began, not as a protest, but as a hegemony. The lasting accomplishments of the Reagan years may have been the changes in the tax code and regulatory regimes that had prevailed for nearly a half century. But that was not what fueled his electoral success; what fueled his electoral success was the fundamentalist movement represented by Falwell, Pat Robertson and what came to be called the social agenda. Censorship of Kurt Vonnegut, Judy Blume and others, movements to pass "creationist" statutes that attempted to elevate the book of Genesis to a branch of science; hostility to the claims of gays, women and reproductive rights all combined to generate what began to be called "the culture wars." To a very demonstrable extent, I think, the conservative movement of the last 30 years (absent the economic issues of deregulation, also supported by Clinton and Robert Rubin and beyond the comprehension or the interest of most voters) may be seen as a panic response to a crumbling world and to the rights expansions of the '60s that struck like a tsunami, washing away all the prior governing arrangements. For these people, reality itself, or at least a reality where they felt in charge, was disappearing. As always, it was the symbols of these changes that were attacked: the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, which (unelected) had rendered many of these decisions; the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, which had brought many of the cases or performed hated services; books and magazines and films; television and Hollywood and "eastern elites." When Pat Buchanan roared, in his quixotic presidential campaign, that "we" needed to "take back our country," he was talking about a country prior to the rights revolutions of the 60s, when people who looked and believed like him ruled the roost and did not have their powers limited by the rights we had won. What conservatives were desperately trying to conserve was not the values at America's origin (the Bill of Rights was, after all, ratified in 1791), but rather the privileges and powers of 19th century and early 20th century America. This is what has fueled the reactionary politics of the past three decades, and it is what we are seeing now in the Republican base and its candidates.

Can the forum say Amen? I do, conservatives aren't conserving anything that works to the good of all Americans.

What? Your freedom to spout your bullshit !

 

[Avatar4321]

Also, what about the government office that researches ways to clean up the environment? No private sector company would devote dollars to preserving "the commons", but government might and this could be of huge economic benefit; destroying our environment means destroying our resources (in the long term), and the potential $$'s we can be making from those resources.

Why would you need government offices to research ways to clean up the environment? There are plenty of people who would be more than willing to do so. In fact, there are private companies that do just that. Because people like a clean environment and are willing to pay them for it.

There is a market for anything anyone wants. That's the beauty of the private sector.

 

[Mustang]

Ira Glasser: What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?

In 1980 Reagan was elected, and the modern conservative political movement began, not as a protest, but as a hegemony. The lasting accomplishments of the Reagan years may have been the changes in the tax code and regulatory regimes that had prevailed for nearly a half century. But that was not what fueled his electoral success; what fueled his electoral success was the fundamentalist movement represented by Falwell, Pat Robertson and what came to be called the social agenda. Censorship of Kurt Vonnegut, Judy Blume and others, movements to pass "creationist" statutes that attempted to elevate the book of Genesis to a branch of science; hostility to the claims of gays, women and reproductive rights all combined to generate what began to be called "the culture wars." To a very demonstrable extent, I think, the conservative movement of the last 30 years (absent the economic issues of deregulation, also supported by Clinton and Robert Rubin and beyond the comprehension or the interest of most voters) may be seen as a panic response to a crumbling world and to the rights expansions of the '60s that struck like a tsunami, washing away all the prior governing arrangements. For these people, reality itself, or at least a reality where they felt in charge, was disappearing. As always, it was the symbols of these changes that were attacked: the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, which (unelected) had rendered many of these decisions; the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, which had brought many of the cases or performed hated services; books and magazines and films; television and Hollywood and "eastern elites." When Pat Buchanan roared, in his quixotic presidential campaign, that "we" needed to "take back our country," he was talking about a country prior to the rights revolutions of the 60s, when people who looked and believed like him ruled the roost and did not have their powers limited by the rights we had won. What conservatives were desperately trying to conserve was not the values at America's origin (the Bill of Rights was, after all, ratified in 1791), but rather the privileges and powers of 19th century and early 20th century America. This is what has fueled the reactionary politics of the past three decades, and it is what we are seeing now in the Republican base and its candidates.

Can the forum say Amen? I do, conservatives aren't conserving anything that works to the good of all Americans.

What are conservatives trying to conserve? In a word (actually two words)? THEIR POWER!! That's it in a nutshell.

As a place to start, I would suggest that everyone read Thomas Frank's book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America."

It's an eye-opener written by someone who actually grew up in Kansas.

Below is a review of the book from Goodreads.com:

Hailed as "dazzlingly insightful and wonderfully sardonic" (Chicago Tribune), "very funny and very painful" (San Francisco Chronicle), and "in a different league from most political books" (The New York Observer), What's the Matter with Kansas? unravels the great political mystery of our day: Why do so many Americans vote against their economic and social interests? With his acclaimed wit and acuity, Thomas Frank answers the riddle by examining his home state, Kansas-a place once famous for its radicalism that now ranks among the nation's most eager participants in the culture wars. Charting what he calls the "thirty-year backlash"-the popular revolt against a supposedly liberal establishment-Frank reveals how conservatism, once a marker of class privilege, became the creed of millions of ordinary Americans.

A brilliant analysis-and funny to boot-What's the Matter with Kansas? is a vivid portrait of an upside-down world where blue-collar patriots recite the Pledge while they strangle their life chances; where small farmers cast their votes for a Wall Street order that will eventually push them off their land; and where a group of frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs has managed to convince the country that it speaks on behalf of the People.
​

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, if by our power, you mean the power of the people to self govern, then yes.

But if you mean government power, than you are conveniently ignoring the fact that Democrats have control of over half the government.

 

[Mustang]

Well, if by our power, you mean the power of the people to self govern, then yes.

But if you mean government power, than you are conveniently ignoring the fact that Democrats have control of over half the government.

No, that's not what I mean.

 

[The T]

Ira Glasser: What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?

In 1980 Reagan was elected, and the modern conservative political movement began, not as a protest, but as a hegemony. The lasting accomplishments of the Reagan years may have been the changes in the tax code and regulatory regimes that had prevailed for nearly a half century. But that was not what fueled his electoral success; what fueled his electoral success was the fundamentalist movement represented by Falwell, Pat Robertson and what came to be called the social agenda. Censorship of Kurt Vonnegut, Judy Blume and others, movements to pass "creationist" statutes that attempted to elevate the book of Genesis to a branch of science; hostility to the claims of gays, women and reproductive rights all combined to generate what began to be called "the culture wars." To a very demonstrable extent, I think, the conservative movement of the last 30 years (absent the economic issues of deregulation, also supported by Clinton and Robert Rubin and beyond the comprehension or the interest of most voters) may be seen as a panic response to a crumbling world and to the rights expansions of the '60s that struck like a tsunami, washing away all the prior governing arrangements. For these people, reality itself, or at least a reality where they felt in charge, was disappearing. As always, it was the symbols of these changes that were attacked: the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, which (unelected) had rendered many of these decisions; the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, which had brought many of the cases or performed hated services; books and magazines and films; television and Hollywood and "eastern elites." When Pat Buchanan roared, in his quixotic presidential campaign, that "we" needed to "take back our country," he was talking about a country prior to the rights revolutions of the 60s, when people who looked and believed like him ruled the roost and did not have their powers limited by the rights we had won. What conservatives were desperately trying to conserve was not the values at America's origin (the Bill of Rights was, after all, ratified in 1791), but rather the privileges and powers of 19th century and early 20th century America. This is what has fueled the reactionary politics of the past three decades, and it is what we are seeing now in the Republican base and its candidates.

Can the forum say Amen? I do, conservatives aren't conserving anything that works to the good of all Americans.

What are conservatives trying to conserve? In a word (actually two words)? THEIR POWER!! That's it in a nutshell.

As a place to start, I would suggest that everyone read Thomas Frank's book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America."

It's an eye-opener written by someone who actually grew up in Kansas.

Below is a review of the book from Goodreads.com:

Hailed as "dazzlingly insightful and wonderfully sardonic" (Chicago Tribune), "very funny and very painful" (San Francisco Chronicle), and "in a different league from most political books" (The New York Observer), What's the Matter with Kansas? unravels the great political mystery of our day: Why do so many Americans vote against their economic and social interests? With his acclaimed wit and acuity, Thomas Frank answers the riddle by examining his home state, Kansas-a place once famous for its radicalism that now ranks among the nation's most eager participants in the culture wars. Charting what he calls the "thirty-year backlash"-the popular revolt against a supposedly liberal establishment-Frank reveals how conservatism, once a marker of class privilege, became the creed of millions of ordinary Americans.

A brilliant analysis-and funny to boot-What's the Matter with Kansas? is a vivid portrait of an upside-down world where blue-collar patriots recite the Pledge while they strangle their life chances; where small farmers cast their votes for a Wall Street order that will eventually push them off their land; and where a group of frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs has managed to convince the country that it speaks on behalf of the People.
​

NO dipshit. The power of the people to be free and exercise thier LIBERTY...in a nutshell just as voiced in the Declaration, and Codified in the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Most, if not all, political and social retreats from reality and descents into "once there was a golden age" fundamentalist fervor are the result of a panic reaction to fundamental change and a resistance to modernity that cannot be assimilated or accepted, and that so unsettles the ground rules by which they live and have always lived that they lash out at the changes, or what they see as the symbols of those changes, in a desperate, if ultimately futile attempt to hold back the sea.

Exactly.

This describes the desperate and pathetic reactionaryism of republicans and conservatives perfectly; indeed, we see excellent examples of it on this very forum daily.

The private economy as we know it wouldn't even exist without government. No human society more complex than a small-population pre-urban farming community can function without formal government, and NO human community, not even a foraging-hunting band, can function without SOME kind of governance. Whatever you do for a living, almost certainly you would be unable to do it without the government.

Government is an essential component of the private economy. Without government, it would not even exist.

Well-said and absolutely correct: without the support and investment of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money in research and development, infrastructure, and regulatory protection at the start of the last century, modern American business as we know it today would never have existed.

 

[Vidi]

But the real question I like to ask is: who's 'creating' the regulation?

Often times the industry giants are behind regulation bills, lobbying with all of their money and political clout, designing rules that makes it harder for the little guys - ie potential competition - to get a foot in the game.

I'm fine with honest, efficient regulation, but I think what people fail to address are the mounds and mounds of dishonest regulation that is put through via support of the industry giants.

It's the dirty little secret. Big evil companies are corrupt, corrupt politicians demand laws to regulate the industries which drive small business competitors out of business and create more incentive for the big evil companies to be corrupt and purchase politicians.

You want to know the biggest way to eliminate big evil corporations and eliminate the power of their special interests? Adhere to the Constitution by deregulating anything that is unconstitutional, thus allowing more competitors to find innovative ways and let the big companies starve while new companies grow and thrive. Making it more difficult to start businesses just makes things more difficult for everyone and adds to the corruption of the bigger corporations.

I don't agree that's the solution, but at least we can agree that's the problem.

 

[KevinWestern]

Also, what about the government office that researches ways to clean up the environment? No private sector company would devote dollars to preserving "the commons", but government might and this could be of huge economic benefit; destroying our environment means destroying our resources (in the long term), and the potential $$'s we can be making from those resources.

Why would you need government offices to research ways to clean up the environment? There are plenty of people who would be more than willing to do so. In fact, there are private companies that do just that. Because people like a clean environment and are willing to pay them for it.

There is a market for anything anyone wants. That's the beauty of the private sector.

Yes, but you have to realize that it's tough to attract investors to an environmental project that will yield profits/benefits in 150 years - per se - and the benefit will be shared by all, not just the investors.

Sounds like a bum investment to me, again which is why I see a role for gov't to step in.

 

[kaz]

Yes the private sector is more facking corrupt than the feds you asshat, do you kno how much money KBR and Lockheed screw the government out of? I saw it with my own eyes. Private sector has no allegiance to the country they do whats best for making their companies richer, even if it means being corrupt and defaruding the government.

Companies that are corrupt go out of businesses. Business men who are corrupt eventually lose money and go to prison. The quest for profit contains and inherent motivation to not be corrupt because corruption is not how you make money, providing goods and services for others is.

Politicians/governments/bureaucracies who are corrupt however end lives. They eliminate liberty. They produce misery.

What Flaylo is saying, and I think you'd have to agree, is that politicians and bureaucrats are never corrupt in the first place, so with government you don't even need to worry about that...

 

[Vidi]

Yes the private sector is more facking corrupt than the feds you asshat, do you kno how much money KBR and Lockheed screw the government out of? I saw it with my own eyes. Private sector has no allegiance to the country they do whats best for making their companies richer, even if it means being corrupt and defaruding the government.

Companies that are corrupt go out of businesses. Business men who are corrupt eventually lose money and go to prison. The quest for profit contains and inherent motivation to not be corrupt because corruption is not how you make money, providing goods and services for others is.

Politicians/governments/bureaucracies who are corrupt however end lives. They eliminate liberty. They produce misery.

What Flaylo is saying, and I think you'd have to agree, is that politicians and bureaucrats are never corrupt in the first place, so with government you don't even need to worry about that...

With government, we can vote them out. In private industry, the corrupt just take their bonus, move onto their next position and do it all over again.

But the reality is the problem is US, the voters, because we DON'T vote them out.

 

[Freedomlover]

Since when does FREEDOM not work to the good of all people? So the answer to your question Flaylo is FREEDOM!

 

[kaz]

Companies that are corrupt go out of businesses. Business men who are corrupt eventually lose money and go to prison. The quest for profit contains and inherent motivation to not be corrupt because corruption is not how you make money, providing goods and services for others is.

Politicians/governments/bureaucracies who are corrupt however end lives. They eliminate liberty. They produce misery.

What Flaylo is saying, and I think you'd have to agree, is that politicians and bureaucrats are never corrupt in the first place, so with government you don't even need to worry about that...

With government, we can vote them out. In private industry, the corrupt just take their bonus, move onto their next position and do it all over again.

But the reality is the problem is US, the voters, because we DON'T vote them out.

Yes comrade, I see what you're saying. It's like the DMV, they are responsive because you can vote them out. They value your time. You only say this because you're too butt lazy to walk across the street to their competitor. And Virginia, failed execs don't get jobs so easy at other successful companies.

Here's an exercise for you.

Part 1. Write down the companies you hate, the ones that are completely unresponsive to customers. You have to complete this part before you move to the second part below.

.
.
.
.
.
.

Part 2. Note you just wrote down companies who have competition the most restricted by...government. Now re-read what you said at the top again. If you do this with intellectual integrity, we now have one less liberal in the world...

 

[Liability]

Fail-lo "asks" the idiotic "question," "What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?"

It is surprising a confirmed mindless sheep lib like him doesn't already know the answer.

Conservatives stand in opposition to liberals.

So the question becomes, "What Are Liberals Trying to Destroy, Neglect, Squander, Waste?"

And the answer is the same: the Constitutional principles of a limited government of enumerated powers.

 

[CausingPAIN]

Ira Glasser: What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?



Can the forum say Amen? I do, conservatives aren't conserving anything that works to the good of all Americans.

"What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?"

Hmm? ....Hmmm? ... This is a tuffy..........................................?

Oh thats wright its shrinking base.. Thats wright!

What do I win? Come on let me have it....

 

[CausingPAIN]

Fail-lo "asks" the idiotic "question," "What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?"



So the question becomes, "What Are Liberals Trying to Destroy, Neglect, Squander, Waste?"

I got to say "Destroy, Neglect, Squander, Waste?" are the foundations of conseritive voters today. They learned get the check book pen spend, spend, spend. Thanks got that clear in my mind..

 

[The T]

Fail-lo "asks" the idiotic "question," "What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?"



So the question becomes, "What Are Liberals Trying to Destroy, Neglect, Squander, Waste?"

I got to say "Destroy, Neglect, Squander, Waste?" are the foundations of conseritive voters today. They learned get the check book pen spend, spend, spend. Thanks got that clear in my mind..

Fixed your quote function son.

Thank me.