Conservative politics and assumption

[Mouthwash]

I've been on CFC since 2007. I've long been a member of the off-topic section but I took a long hiatus.

This site is moderated, as opposed to some other sites. Here, if you stray too far from the topic or troll the board, something will happen. Thus, I'm conversing here.

I still don't understand why you would invest so much energy into a giant rant against conservatism on a leftist forum. Is this just something you couldn't keep bottled up any longer? That happens to everyone occasionally, but this thread seems more like it should have been hashed out in therapy.

The fact that human beings get hungry or require medical assistance does not make us politically the same.

No, but it provides communities of human beings with enough solidarity that they form themselves into nationalities and ethnic groups.

Some human beings believe it is perfectly fine, in fact, superior, that the poor should die off,

Not human beings affiliated with modern American politics.

and that controls by the government would be a worse outcome for both them and the nation at large.

And you were accusing conservatives of being tribal? I'm not a particularly big fan of deregulation, but I understand that common ground can be made with someone that is.

If you're asking why discrimination for a basic service that is required for people's survival, based on wealth,

'Discrimination' calls to mind a different social evil than avarice.

employment status,

But it isn't really about employment. There are many poor people who work two jobs, and many rich people who don't have to work. Yes, it will more often than not be the opposite, but all I'm saying is that discrimination shouldn't be the focus here.

or legal immigration status is discrimination,

That is actually discrimination, but not a (necessarily) bad kind. Unless you think that citizenship should be abolished entirely, you, in fact, are pro-discrimination. This is what the social contract refers to: an agreement between state and citizen.

When you have the state prevent the woman from making her own choices about what happens inside her own body, that means you are rejecting the latter.

No, it means that we're holding the former to be more important. Two rights can contradict each other, y'know. I have a right to my pancakes, but if a man comes to me dying of hunger, his right to live is going to outweigh my right to control my property.

Imagine that, your personal experience with the world isn't the most knowledgeable one. Why do I know more about your political movement than you do?

So your argument is that conservatives don't use the slippery slope argument to connect voluntary euthanasia to healthcare? Sarah Palin doesn't ring a bell? She's not an outlier either. The SND link I provided in the OP made that argument explicitly.

I am not affiliated in any way with a conservative movement or party; certainly not the GOP.

"Euthanasia & Physician-assisted suicide
Conservative
Neither euthanasia nor physician-assisted suicide should be legalized. It is immoral and unethical to deliberately end the life of a terminally ill person (euthanasia), or enable another person to end their own life (assisted suicide). The goal should be compassionate care and easing the suffering of terminally ill people. Legalizing euthanasia could lead to doctor-assisted suicides of non-critical patients. If euthanasia were legalized, insurance companies could pressure doctors to withhold life-saving treatment for dying patients. Many religions prohibit suicide and euthanasia. These practices devalue human life."

But saying that doctors may pressure terminal patients to be euthanized isn't something inconceivable. Some doctors will, inevitably, make moral judgments of that sort. A pretty far cry from "state-sanctioned murder."

No, but they instead argue it doesn't exist, so they don't have to make such an argument. Google "Fox News global warming" and read just about any link at random, that'll get you started. I could mine 100 links for you, it's tough to know which one to pick. I doubt it would get read or get a reaction from you if I bothered.

I'm already aware that denying man-made global warming is a conservative talking point. I'm asking how YOU KNOW that they don't really believe it. Why can't they be deluding themselves about it because they have investments in petroleum or just worship the free market?

Pointing out climate change denial, the kind of denial which is almost a direct parallel to the cigarettes cause cancer denial, that's an example of a lack of empathy?

No, declaring that climate change denialists are really self-centered liars who could not care less about what happens to future generations is.

I mean, it's a useful rhetorical trick, on stupid people. Not gonna work here.

I dunno, you've based your entire rant off of some variation of it.

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY 15 DHS Entry and Exit Overstay Report.pdf

Canadians are the number one source of Visa overstays. In other words, more people illegally overstay their visa coming from Canada than Mexico, or any other country. In fact, more than double the amount of Canadian overstays compared to Mexican overstays.

Source: Department of Homeland Security report, United States government, page 21 of 28. The charts on pages 19 and 20 will help you compare. The chart on page 21 shows how much more visa overstay happens from Canada and Mexico than the others, and Canada is more than double Mexico's rate. Almost 100,000 people from Canada per year overstay their legal Visas and remain in the country. Third column from the right, "total overstays."

Yes, immigration from Mexico isn't as large these days. But the fact remains that most illegal immigrants living in the US are Mexicans and other Hispanics. Those immigrants are also extremely concentrated in the Southwest, so those states have a heavier burden than a simple nationwide comparison would suggest.

(You've entirely ignored my points about Canadians being culturally identical to Americans, or that they come from arguably a richer and freer society.)

Meanwhile, Mexican immigrants commit fewer crimes than the average American citizen.

Thought experiment:

"Lawbreakers are dumber than the general population. We know this because we have tested criminals."

Do you spot the mistake?

Sure I can. I just would impose some conditions on their staying. Mainly, getting on the grid with a government ID, complying with minimum wage laws, and ensuring that they pay their fair share of taxes, which many of them already do. And they need to submit to a background check. Once that happens, they can stay.

On the grounds that immigration in general is good, or that descendants of the colonizing Englishmen don't have a right to sovereignty like others do? Because what you said implies the latter.

That's called a pathway to citizenship and almost all liberals and any reasonable conservative would agree with it. Those who totally oppose all pathways to legal citizenship are folks on the far right like el Trumpo.

I don't recall him saying this.

But since the argument was made during the entire same sex marriage debate that law and tradition supported the conservative cause, now I get to say, it doesn't anymore.

Neither the law, nor the popular opinion, supports it. And even if both did, it would still be wrong. Now it's correct. Stop trying to break it.

Looking over your original argument, you don't actually invoke morality at all. The closest you come to an argument is your stating that the courts support it. Than you just start talking about how the anti-gay marriage people are trying to make America a theocracy, and comparing the absence of gay rights to slavery. You know, dialogue-y kind of things.

If you can't summarize, I'm going to assume you didn't read it either. I summarize the content of my links. If you can't be bothered to make the argument yourself, I mean, why bother posting here?

I posted a link because it didn't seem necessary to explain them, but I suppose you're the only one who gets to throw links around here.

The first one explains that we see the direct effects of something, but we don't see what it prevents from happening. This creates a bias in which we entirely neglect what we don't see, and draw up causal relationships between the things we do see. Seems like a fair criticism of your pointing out how innocent people are getting killed with US weapons, how many wars we've been in, how many radical jihadists groups we've failed to stamp out, etc.

The second one is an illustration of that point: the Wiki page of the 'Long Peace.' America's direct intervention ended WWII on the Western front, and its involvement in Europe ever since has prevented a recurring conflict. Asia is pretty much the same: China and Japan are kept from each other's throats by the overwhelming influence of the United States with both countries. I think it's fair to say that ordinary Americans can't ignore a Franco-German crisis, or a Pacific territorial conflict. Look at the frenzy Brexit stirred up.

Our defenses are not the problem. I have no problem with police work in the United States or background checks on the border or air marshals on planes.

No, I was referring to the actions of the US military and intelligence which you are criticizing.

Our attempt to squash terrorism by invading states has not squashed terrorism. Those trillions of dollars and those thousands of soldier's lives would not have been lost, and there is simply no way that Al-Qaeda could have caused the number of casualties we've inflicted upon ourselves by going to war, nor the level of economic damage.

So have Trump supporters and neocons become the same thing in your head? I think Iraq was a disaster as well, but I don't think that "squashing terrorism" was what the Bush administration had in mind.

(I also don't think that they did it for oil or because the Illuminati ordered it. Just a really deluded foreign policy move, which Bush used counter-terrorism to justify.)

9/11 was the best they could hope for.

I agree, but it's much easier to state that with a decade and a half of hindsight.

Guys in jeeps in Afghanistan can't hope to do more than that, and I fully and totally support the defenses we implemented in the United States that still respected the constitution and didn't involve torture. All of those were practical, cost-effective, and 1,000 times cheaper

It may not be an attack by a sovereign state, but it's not hard to imagine the consequences of doing nothing.

I am perfectly okay with you noting if a source is awful, because (as has been demonstrated by my penchant to cite government sources wherever possible, and I have generally avoided using liberal blogs or opinion pieces) I only want to use good sources.

If you want me to blacklist Globalresearch, I will. It was the top google search result for what I looked for, and it was backed up with plenty of other sources down the list.

So I'll go down the list.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-comparison-gun-deaths-and-terrorism-/

Snopes and politifact.

Fact checking websites side with my position. And even Globalresearch, if it is a crappy source with other weird positions, got this one correct.

So you can piss and whine about the source all day long. Doesn't bother me.

I'll find a different source, if it is indeed a bad source. But the source being bad didn't change the facts. The bad source reported the same correct facts as a more reliable source. The bad source was a good citation in this instance, because it was STILL TRUE.

You want to challenge this? The onus is on you to find better sources.

You want to rebuttal? You don't get the easy way out of saying that since I posted one bad source (with correct information, might I add) that the many dozens of other links and sources I have are invalid.

I didn't mean to give the impression that I was disputing your source (it is, in fact, completely irrelevant to the argument I made, which you'd likely know if you read it in the first place). Even Holocaust deniers or libertarians can state true facts. I'm simply questioning the integrity of someone who would link to a website without conducting a basic inquiry into it.

You're just hiding like a coward at that point. Is that who you are?

Gotta say, it's not unbalanced at all that your posts always include some kind of rant or condescension against the people you dedicated a small novel to 'establishing a dialogue with.'

I responded in chronological order and I do other things in my real life. Also, when you have to find actual data for things, it takes longer.

If I take a day, or two days, or three days or a week to respond to you, you'll just have to sit patiently like the rest of the class. Educating you for free takes time.

Case in point.

Really, you don't have to respond to people by saying that they are stupid and don't understand basic logic/economics, or are egotistical, or religious nutbags. I, personally, would find it pretty satisfying to tell progressives what stupid idiots they are, but that's not likely to win arguments or friends.

Coupla things.

First, I'd tend to use a broader definition of "intellectual". Not just professors and philosophers, but anyone who's seriously involved in the exchange of ideas: trade union organisers, journalists, clergy, anyone who plays a role in formulating and circulating ideas. Something like Gramsci's "organic intellectual", rather than a discrete intelligentsia. Overalls are as fitting a uniform for the intellectual as a black turtle-neck.

I would say that if you don't support Brexit, and that everyone else in your life with whom you engage with intellectually also don't support it, than you do not deserve to be labeled as "organic." How do you be part of a society where you regard half of the voters as irrational and swayed by populism/lack of education?

Peter Mandler put it correctly when he called Britain's elites "a nearly hereditary professional caste of lawyers, journalists, publicists, and intellectuals, an increasingly hereditary caste of politicians, tight coteries of cultural movers-and-shakers richly sponsored by multinational corporations." Those kinds of people can't understand why rural Britons don't care if the banks move to Frankfurt.

Second, it's not about being right or wrong. I think that most conservatives are wrong about most things most of the time. But, there's wrong and there's wrong: there's wrong because your premises or reasoning are in some way flawed, which does not prevent your arguments from being robust and sophisticated and even profound, and there's being wrong because you've made no serious effort at being anything other than wrong, and that's what I see in a lot of contemporary conservative thought, especially in the United States.

The intellectual hollowness of conservatism isn't about a lack of beard-stroking philosophers in their camp, it's about the fact that conservatives have collectively stopped seriously engaging with political ideals, their own or those of others. Some still try, but they are very far from the mainstream, and seem to be regarded with suspicion and hostility by their fellow travelers, who seem to regard self-criticism as intrinsically Marxist. The state of modern conservatism is such that people who read Ayn Rand books are among the more thoughtful and imaginative members of the movement, and that's something that any serious conservative should find very worrying.

But the entire point here is that conservative movements are oftentimes a genuinely grassroots phenomenon. People understand what goes on in their neighborhoods, and they vote based on it. If you think that a lack of intellectualism is enough to discredit conservatism than you have entirely missed the point.

 

[Traitorfish]

I would say that if you don't support Brexit, and that everyone else in your life with whom you engage with intellectually also don't support it, than you do not deserve to be labeled as "organic." How do you be part of a society where you regard half of the voters as irrational and swayed by populism/lack of education?

Peter Mandler put it correctly when he called Britain's elites "a nearly hereditary professional caste of lawyers, journalists, publicists, and intellectuals, an increasingly hereditary caste of politicians, tight coteries of cultural movers-and-shakers richly sponsored by multinational corporations." Those kinds of people can't understand why rural Britons don't care if the banks move to Frankfurt.

What the hell does Brexist have to do with anything?

But the entire point here is that conservative movements are oftentimes a genuinely grassroots phenomenon. People understand what goes on in their neighborhoods, and they vote based on it. If you think that a lack of intellectualism is enough to discredit conservatism than you have entirely missed the point.

As I already said, I don't think "intellectual" and "grass-roots" are in any sense contradictory.

If anything, one of the problems faced by contemporary conservatism is that it has not real grass-roots base. Look at the British Conservative Party: a tightly-managed by a central office staffed by upper class Oxbridge professionals, with the local branches, once the political power-houses of the English county town, reduced to little more than shopfronts. That's not an environment that produces a healthy or effective exchange of ideas.

 

[Legato Endless]

If anything, one of the problems faced by contemporary conservatism is that it has not real grass-roots base. Look at the British Conservative Party: a tightly-managed by a central office staffed by upper class Oxbridge professionals, with the local branches, once the political power-houses of the English county town, reduced to little more than shopfronts. That's not an environment that produces a healthy or effective exchange of ideas.

Anything would be better than the the current party mantra of 'Conservatism can not fail, it can only be failed,' as best epitomized by the Freedom Caucus on the other side of the Atlantic. Then again, the recent populist uprisings in the US have partially consisted of people the GOP Establishment hedged out of political discussion for good reason...

But the entire point here is that conservative movements are oftentimes a genuinely grassroots phenomenon. People understand what goes on in their neighborhoods, and they vote based on it.

Except when they don't. They're equally liable to vote based on what they imagine their neighborhoods may turn into. They vote on what they feel to be true in regards to the crime. Or for instance, the people with the strongest anti-immigration views don't tend to live near any actual immigrants. Ignorance is bliss. Or fear mongering.

 

[Mouthwash]

What the hell does Brexist have to do with anything?

It's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

As I already said, I don't think "intellectual" and "grass-roots" are in any sense contradictory.

True, but I'm just saying that at the moment they mostly are.

If anything, one of the problems faced by contemporary conservatism is that it has not real grass-roots base. Look at the British Conservative Party: a tightly-managed by a central office staffed by upper class Oxbridge professionals, with the local branches, once the political power-houses of the English county town, reduced to little more than shopfronts. That's not an environment that produces a healthy or effective exchange of ideas.

I don't know or care much about British political parties. What does this have to do with my argument?

Except when they don't. They're equally liable to vote based on what they imagine their neighborhoods may turn into. They vote on what they feel to be true in regards to the crime. Or for instance, the people with the strongest anti-immigration views don't tend to live near any actual immigrants. Ignorance is bliss. Or fear mongering.

I'm not going to even consider looking at any study done in regard to voting patterns during (or out of, in fact) election season. And I'm especially not going to read anything which declares that a certain group of voters don't understand what's good for them. I'm by no means an expert on why Donald Trump is so popular, but I've seen firsthand the incredible disparity between what intellectuals say and what commoners say. I've learned to trust the locals over the intelligentsia every time.

A note: even if someone thinks that China is taking over the world or that Muslims want to build a mosque to over Ground Zero, that doesn't mean they're equally crazy in regards to their state/town/neighborhood. It doesn't give you the right to dismiss their opinions on these things, or to label them as subhuman.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

I'm not really sure what it is you're talking about, so I couldn't comment.

True, but I'm just saying that at the moment they mostly are.

Well, again, we're using different definitions of "intellectual".

I don't know or care much about British political parties. What does this have to do with my argument?

I don't know. You're the one who replied to me. I'm just explaining my position.

 

[Legato Endless]

I'm not going to even consider looking at any study done in regard to voting patterns during (or out of, in fact) election season. And I'm especially not going to read anything which declares that a certain group of voters don't understand what's good for them.

Assuming that any sufficiently large group of people possess both near perfect situational information and a lack of bias to act consistently in their own interests would require a pretty vasty amount of rationalizations and excuses for a cursory study of human history.

I'm by no means an expert on why Donald Trump is so popular, but I've seen firsthand the incredible disparity between what intellectuals say and what commoners say. I've learned to trust the locals over the intelligentsia every time.

I don't think anyone would argue the Ivory Tower is always correct, but trusting the locals as you define them intrinsically is something of a leap. A lot of locals in my area don't vaccinate at all. Is the medical intelligentsia all witchcraft on this subject? Do you think the Anti-Vaxxors are rationally acting in anyone's best interests? Better my child suffer horribly and die of yellow fever than risk autism!

As Trump holds few to no consistent ideological positions outside of his racism and nationalist strongman bluster, either his voters are attracted to that ideology, or they fear Clinton's centrist liberal politics enough to join a coalition which includes multiple white supremacist groups and the endorsement of North Korea's national newspapers. Or they vote based not on critical thinking but on emotional preference, like well, most people.

=A note: even if someone thinks that China is taking over the world or that Muslims want to build a mosque to over Ground Zero, that doesn't mean they're equally crazy in regards to their state/town/neighborhood.

If people segregated their views on subjects like this, that would be fair, but racial attitudes have a way of permeating. Maybe Donny who believes 'most Mexicans are rapists' (for a Trump quote) might have a good view on space exploration, I'm not going to trust his view on anything resembling local foreign policy, nor criminal affairs involving Latinos, or getting rid of social security benefits for non white people, etc.

It doesn't give you the right to dismiss their opinions on these things, or to label them as subhuman.

No one deserves to be labeled as subhuman, but ideas (and even their larger cultures) are one of the few things in life you're perfectly entitled to dismiss and reject.

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm not really sure what it is you're talking about, so I couldn't comment.

I'm talking about the separation between the 'globalist class' and the 'anti-globalist class.' I think that almost all of the people in the former are completely isolated from those in the latter. Intellectuals and journalists have professions which clearly gain from globalism, and they have strong ideological baggage against nationalism as well. So to them, it appears that the opposite side is just crazy and/or racist, and being intellectuals and journalists they have all the studies and information to confirm this viewpoint.

The reverse isn't true. Most Trump/Brexit supporters are bombarded with those every day. They're just choosing to reject them, because they don't seem relevant to their own experiences.

I don't think anyone would argue the Ivory Tower is always correct, but trusting the locals as you define them intrinsically is something of a leap.

I don't think that they should always be trusted. I just think that, in regards to their circumstances, their word should always be taken over that of the Ivory Tower. For instance, your video of Newt Gingrich rejecting a study showing that crime had dropped by saying that Republican voters didn't "feel" like it had dropped.

Let's say that cars are manufactured without seatbelts. There are roughly 4,000 fatalities from accidents a year. But there also isn't much of a demand for seatbelts either. Now let's say that, due to better car design, fatalities drop by 50% the following year. There are only 2,000 deaths a year now. But now there is a public outcry to install seatbelts in every vehicle, even though deaths are dropping. So, says the award-winning, non-partisan journalist, seatbelts aren't really important, and the pro-seatbelt movement is baseless and irrational.

Does this strike you as proper reasoning?

A lot of locals in my area don't vaccinate at all. Is the medical intelligentsia all witchcraft on this subject? Do you think the Anti-Vaxxors are rationally acting in anyone's best interests? Better my child suffer horribly and die of yellow fever than risk autism!

Whether or not vaccination works is an abstract, general argument, which is the kind that an intellectual might be able to make properly. I will concede that a local may hear from their neighbor that someone got inoculated aginst measles and a zerg subsequently burst from their chest, and make their decision based on that. But it's not like intellectuals have never advocated anything silly.

I'd say that, as a rule, tradition should always be trusted over medicine men, unless it's something that they can literally see (like cancer or germs).

As Trump holds few to no consistent ideological positions outside of his racism and nationalist strongman bluster, either his voters are attracted to that ideology,

Or they're assuming that someone like that isn't going to be cowed by the establishment, and might deliver actual change. Even those who don't agree with his stated positions might argue themselves into thinking that anyone counter-establishment must secretly support them. The thing elites seem to forget is (ironically given the circumstances) that elections aren't always a reality show where you vote for the person you like the best. Some have real stakes in it.

or they fear Clinton's centrist liberal politics

Or maybe her elitist complacency.

enough to join a coalition which includes multiple white supremacist groups and the endorsement of North Korea's national newspapers.

This isn't far above, "maybe liberals want to punish America for colonialism by voting in a foreign President."

Or they vote based not on critical thinking but on emotional preference, like well, most people.

I couldn't say, but progressives are after all the experts on that.

If people segregated their views on subjects like this, that would be fair, but racial attitudes have a way of permeating. Maybe Donny who believes 'most Mexicans are rapists' (for a Trump quote)

He never said that. He said that Mexico was sending rapists, which involves adverse selection. That's a far cry from labeling an entire nationality as rape-y.

No one deserves to be labeled as subhuman, but ideas (and even their larger cultures) are one of the few things in life you're perfectly entitled to dismiss and reject.

That's true for someone for whom ideas are only read and exchanged in controlled environments (which applies to almost everyone posting here). Out in the real world, ideas are tied to identity. When someone says that Trump voters are a racist mob, they're essentially taking away their humanity. But it doesn't seem like that on a game forum, I know.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm talking about the separation between the 'globalist class' and the 'anti-globalist class.' I think that almost all of the people in the former are completely isolated from those in the latter. Intellectuals and journalists have professions which clearly gain from globalism, and they have strong ideological baggage against nationalism as well. So to them, it appears that the opposite side is just crazy and/or racist, and being intellectuals and journalists they have all the studies and information to confirm this viewpoint.

The reverse isn't true. Most Trump/Brexit supporters are bombarded with those every day. They're just choosing to reject them, because they don't seem relevant to their own experiences.

I don't really see what this has to do with my assertion that politically-organised conservatism is as dumb as a bag of rocks.

 

[Mouthwash]

I don't really see what this has to do with my assertion that politically-organised conservatism is as dumb as a bag of rocks.

I may have taken that analogy a bit too far. To an extent, the two movements have the same problem. An intellectual justification isn't as relevant to grassroots politics, and I don't think that an 'organic intelligentsia' would be able to produce that kind of justification. You need a philosopher or journalist (the latter are certainly not anything organic these days, despite you classifying them as such) to do that.

You said earlier that conservatism has collectively stopped engaging with political ideas. How in the world would they do that without beard-stroking philosophers?

 

[Traitorfish]

I may have taken that analogy a bit too far. To an extent, the two movements have the same problem. An intellectual justification isn't as relevant to grassroots politics, and I don't think that an 'organic intelligentsia' would be able to produce that kind of justification. You need a philosopher or journalist (the latter are certainly not anything organic these days, despite you classifying them as such) to do that.

It's not about "justification", it's about coherence. It's about having a clear notion of how the world looks, how the world should looks, and the difference between the one and the other. Contemporary conservativism doesn't see to have any of those things, or even be seriously attempting to develop them, just a grab-bag of anxiety, prejudice and suspicion. That's not a political movement, it's just a subculture, and the number of people who participated seriously in the conservative subculture is far smaller than the number that conservatism requires to be an effective political force on any national scale.

You said earlier that conservatism has collectively stopped engaging with political ideas. How in the world would they do that without beard-stroking philosophers?

I'm not of the opinion that philosophers, bearded, clean-shaven or elaborately mustachioed, are a necessary prerequisite for political thought.

 

[Cutlass]

That's not a political movement, it's just a subculture, and the number of people who participated seriously in the conservative subculture is far smaller than the number that conservatism requires to be an effective political force on any national scale.

I'd be careful in saying that. That 'subculture' has held the balance of political power in the US for the past 35 years. Has done well in Canada, until the most recent election, has won most of the elections in Great Britain since the late 70s, and hasn't been doing badly in a lot of other places as well.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think it has. Conservative political parties have, but conservative political parties are at this point running entirely on the incompetence of their opposition. Maybe that's enough to win elections, but it shouldn't be enough for anybody who considers themselves a serious conservative.

 

[choxorn]

I don't think that they should always be trusted. I just think that, in regards to their circumstances, their word should always be taken over that of the Ivory Tower. For instance, your video of Newt Gingrich rejecting a study showing that crime had dropped by saying that Republican voters didn't "feel" like it had dropped.

Let's say that cars are manufactured without seatbelts. There are roughly 4,000 fatalities from accidents a year. But there also isn't much of a demand for seatbelts either. Now let's say that, due to better car design, fatalities drop by 50% the following year. There are only 2,000 deaths a year now. But now there is a public outcry to install seatbelts in every vehicle, even though deaths are dropping. So, says the award-winning, non-partisan journalist, seatbelts aren't really important, and the pro-seatbelt movement is baseless and irrational.

Does this strike you as proper reasoning?

That's not a good analogy, at all.

Newt was saying that Republican voters didn't "feel" like the crime rate had dropped. In your seatbelt story, people are pushing to make cars safer, but they're not saying they don't "feel" like cars are safer. If they were claiming cars hadn't gotten any safer, that claim would be absurd, because objectively, they cars are better designed in a way that reduced fatalities, even though the car manufacturers haven't been putting in seatbelts. Fatalities could be reduced even further by installing seatbelts, so anyone who argues that seatbelts are baseless is also not reasoning well, but the cars are definitely safer, even if some say they don't "feel" safer.

The difference is, in the real world, crime is getting lower, and there's no magic seatbelt that's going to make it drop any faster than it already is. Also, with a lot of the crime worries Newt's talking about, there's a definite racist undertone, like with Donald Trump saying that Mexican immigrants are bringing drugs and crime and rapists.

A better analogy to Newt Gingrich's claims would be if car manufacturers reduced fatalities because they have been putting seatbelts into cars, but some drivers are insisting the cars are still just as dangerous, and probably they're blaming it on non-white drivers and insisting on some kind of racist laws about it, despite the complete lack of any evidence that any race is better or worse at driving.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't think it has. Conservative political parties have, but conservative political parties are at this point running entirely on the incompetence of their opposition. Maybe that's enough to win elections, but it shouldn't be enough for anybody who considers themselves a serious conservative.

While it's fair to say that strategic incompetence has been the Democrat's worst enemy in the US, I think you underestimate just how well the Republicans are also doing based on what they have been campaigning on. Racism, religious extremism, imperialism, and crony capitalism have been major good sellers in the political marketplace here.

 

[REDY]

I think its more about honor and tradition.

Conservatism oposses extremism by definition.
Crony capitalism so so...most of conservatives have no trust in banks, wall street and unreleguated import.

 

[Lexicus]

In that case I guess conservatives have been unwitting dupes of the people who want all those things.

 

[Cutlass]

I think its more about honor and tradition.

Conservatism oposses extremism by definition.
Crony capitalism so so...most of conservatives have no trust in banks, wall street and unreleguated import.

Conservatism is extremism. So can hardly 'oppose it by definition'. And they're owned by Wall St and banks.

 

[Bootstoots]

In that case I guess conservatives have been unwitting dupes of the people who want all those things.

I get the distinct impression that the Republican Party is a fairly small group of elite business types that figured out how to get what they want by attracting a variety of dupes who want things that they promise but never deliver. Libertarians, for instance, got seduced by their promises of small government and the way that they use libertarian arguments to push crony agendas. Evangelicals were drawn by all the religious noises that the Republicans make. A diverse array of people that Mouthwash calls the 'anti-globalist class' (a label I agree with) were drawn to them by a variety of appeals to nationalism, anti-intellectualism and skepticism of experts, populism, conspiracy theories, and of course nativism, racism, and xenophobia. And none of these factions really has anything to do with conservatism in the Burkean sense.

Now the anti-globalist class found a demagogue and managed to steal the show away from the elite leaders, an outcome I've been watching with delight even as I hope the demagogue ultimately loses. It has been so rewarding to watch the architects of the Republican fraud like Paul Ryan swallow their pride and follow the herd they thought they were leading. It's also been interesting to watch the left end up defending the institutions of international capital, as they did in the Brexit vote, against the populist right. And the right-wing populists, allied with the Russians, are using a weird post-truth politics that in some ways seems to me to be the culmination of the postmodern denial of absolute truth.

At some point in the last few years, we seem to have gone into Bizarro World. Society is collectively going on one of those bad but interesting acid trips, and it's anyone's guess where it will end up.

 

[Mouthwash]

It's not about "justification", it's about coherence. It's about having a clear notion of how the world looks, how the world should looks, and the difference between the one and the other. Contemporary conservativism doesn't see to have any of those things, or even be seriously attempting to develop them, just a grab-bag of anxiety, prejudice and suspicion. That's not a political movement, it's just a subculture, and the number of people who participated seriously in the conservative subculture is far smaller than the number that conservatism requires to be an effective political force on any national scale.

Trifles. I've met many incredibly smart conservative people in my life, and I think most of those are closeted (at least, they don't seem to advertise as much). It's progressivism which dominates any discourse today. Everything is judged by how well it conforms to things like 'gay rights' or 'helping the poor' as if conservatives don't believe in things like rights or helping, and so naturally will make concessions. The extremists on the right get labeled as nutters; the extremists on the left are simply radicals, with whom one might disagree but respectfully.

I don't think conservatism can be anything else, really. It is, by definition, a preservation of things as they are (in contrast to progression). But if you're for progression, you must have something you want to progress, which lends itself naturally to argument. It's built in to the viewpoints, I'd say.

I'm not of the opinion that philosophers, bearded, clean-shaven or elaborately mustachioed, are a necessary prerequisite for political thought.

People who can hold their own in an intellectual setting, than.

I don't think it has. Conservative political parties have, but conservative political parties are at this point running entirely on the incompetence of their opposition. Maybe that's enough to win elections, but it shouldn't be enough for anybody who considers themselves a serious conservative.

So it's simply the incompetence of all the progressive parties in the English-speaking world for half a century running which explains why people vote for the right. You cracked it, buddy.

That's not a good analogy, at all.

Newt was saying that Republican voters didn't "feel" like the crime rate had dropped. In your seatbelt story, people are pushing to make cars safer, but they're not saying they don't "feel" like cars are safer.

That was what I meant, though.

If they were claiming cars hadn't gotten any safer, that claim would be absurd, because objectively, they cars are better designed in a way that reduced fatalities, even though the car manufacturers haven't been putting in seatbelts. Fatalities could be reduced even further by installing seatbelts, so anyone who argues that seatbelts are baseless is also not reasoning well,

That was poorly phrased. I meant that our hypothetical journalist was saying this was the acceptable, normal level of road fatalities that should be expected to occur (this was the dominant attitude prior to the 1950's).

The difference is, in the real world, crime is getting lower, and there's no magic seatbelt that's going to make it drop any faster than it already is.

You're missing the point, which is that a public consciousness of a problem isn't always correlated to the level of the problem- but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

Also, with a lot of the crime worries Newt's talking about, there's a definite racist undertone, like with Donald Trump saying that Mexican immigrants are bringing drugs and crime and rapists.

Literally anything said to argue against immigration can be viewed as having a racist undertone.

A better analogy to Newt Gingrich's claims would be if car manufacturers reduced fatalities because they have been putting seatbelts into cars, but some drivers are insisting the cars are still just as dangerous, and probably they're blaming it on non-white drivers and insisting on some kind of racist laws about it, despite the complete lack of any evidence that any race is better or worse at driving.

Are leftists pathologically forced to caricaturize everyone who doesn't agree with their politics? I've never seen a conservative make this many spurious insults/strawmen in a single statement, but I guess when you spend your entire life in an ideological echo chamber, the only real competition is how thoroughly the opposition can be mocked.

 

[Mouthwash]

Conservatism is extremism. So can hardly 'oppose it by definition'. And they're owned by Wall St and banks.

If I made a comparable statement about progressivism, I'd probably be a neo-Nazi.

And the right-wing populists, allied with the Russians, are using a weird post-truth politics that in some ways seems to me to be the culmination of the postmodern denial of absolute truth.

Yeah, that's probably the only way to view it from the Ivory Tower. But it's still a false and actively harmful notion. Donald Trump/Brexit voters aren't acting this way because some demagogic leaders magicked them and made them forget why lies are bad; they simply see an opportunity to get what they actually want. Again the insistence on seeing elections as a personality contest.