How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality

[nofurylike]

By Fareed Zakaria
June 16, 2011

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/...43,00.html

-snip-

Watching this election campaign, one wonders what has happened to that tradition. Conservatives now espouse ideas drawn from abstract principles with little regard to the realities of America's present or past. This is a tragedy, because conservatism has an important role to play in modernizing the U.S.

Consider the debates over the economy. The Republican prescription is to cut taxes and slash government spending - then things will bounce back .... Taxes - federal and state combined - as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest level since 1950. The U.S. is among the lowest taxed of the big industrial economies. So the case that America is grinding to a halt because of high taxation is not based on facts but is simply a theoretical assertion. The rich countries that are in the best shape right now, with strong growth and low unemployment, are ones like Germany and Denmark, neither one characterized by low taxes.

Many Republican businessmen have told me that the Obama Administration is the most hostile to business in 50 years. Really? More than that of Richard Nixon, who presided over tax rates that reached 70%, regulations that spanned whole industries, and who actually instituted price and wage controls?

-snip-

We need conservative ideas to modernize the U.S. economy and reform American government. But what we have instead are policies that don't reform but just cut and starve government - a strategy that pays little attention to history or best practices from around the world and is based instead on a theory. It turns out that conservatives are the woolly-headed professors after all.

###

[Sugarloaf]

Good article. Too bad that many in the general public rarely ever question the GOP's theoretical supply side, trickle down stuff. I'm hoping that over time, people will wake up to this sham the R's have been perpetrating on us ever since Reagan.

[nofurylike]

(06-22-2011 05:45 AM)Sugarloaf Wrote:  Good article. Too bad that many in the general public rarely ever question the GOP's theoretical supply side, trickle down stuff. I'm hoping that over time, people will wake up to this sham the R's have been perpetrating on us ever since Reagan.

thank you, Sugarloaf.
well said.

"hoping that over time, people will wake up to this sham the R's have been perpetrating," and continually perpetrate against their own supporters and constituents!
indecent.

[Velleity]

I take issue with this article:

"Conservatives used to be the ones with heads firmly based in reality. Their reforms were powerful because they used the market, streamlined government and empowered individuals. Their effects were large-scale and important: think of the reform of the tax code in the 1980s, for example, which was spearheaded by conservatives. . . We need conservative ideas to modernize the U.S. economy and reform American government."

"Conservative" b.s. began with the reform of the tax code in the 1980s and Reagan very much would have been George W. Bush if he had the opportunity. They have never "streamilined government." Never. Government never shrinks. They may have outsourced a lot of it to their corporate cronies, but they never shrank anything. They grew it.

And where does this author get off ignoring where "starve the beast" and "supply side economics" came from?

It was from Jude Wanniski (a political scientist, not an economist) and it was before he published his theory in 1976. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_Wanniski

I appreciate real conservatism, which is why I call the contemporary iteration "conservatives." They are not conservative. The article does hint at the notion that one cannot be both radical and conservative but I object to the article insofar as it takes "conservatives" off the hook for being more than irrational. In fact I would argue that the people behind "conservatism" are brutally rational and I point to the fact that they have made so much money at being "conservative" as proof positive.

No. I will let these people off the hook. Not even a little bit.

[nofurylike]

(06-22-2011 06:18 AM)Velleity Wrote:  I take issue with this article:

"Conservatives used to be the ones with heads firmly based in reality. Their reforms were powerful because they used the market, streamlined government and empowered individuals. Their effects were large-scale and important: think of the reform of the tax code in the 1980s, for example, which was spearheaded by conservatives. . . We need conservative ideas to modernize the U.S. economy and reform American government."

"Conservative" b.s. began with the reform of the tax code in the 1980s and Reagan very much would have been George W. Bush if he had the opportunity. They have never "streamilined government." Never. Government never shrinks. They may have outsourced a lot of it to their corporate cronies, but they never shrank anything. They grew it.

And where does this author get off ignoring where "starve the beast" and "supply side economics" came from?

It was from Jude Wanniski (a political scientist, not an economist) and it was before he published his theory in 1976. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_Wanniski

I appreciate real conservatism, which is why I call the contemporary iteration "conservatives." They are not conservative. The article does hint at the notion that one cannot be both radical and conservative but I object to the article insofar as it takes "conservatives" off the hook for being more than irrational. In fact I would argue that the people behind "conservatism" are brutally rational and I point to the fact that they have made so much money at being "conservative" as proof positive.

No. I will let these people off the hook. Not even a little bit.

thank you for adding that, Velleity. that is crucially important perspective.

i agree with you, absolutely.
i'm on my way offline, but will continue later.
thank you, again!

[Velleity]

I'm kind of surprised at Fareed Zakaria. I'm not an expert on him but I don't recall him engaging in baby splitting before.

That said I do agree with what seems to be his premise, that it would be healthy for "conservatives" to get back to real conservatism. I have tried that one on "conservatives" and I can tell you that they're so far beyond the looking glass that it doesn't register.

I would say that "conservatives" are actually a reincarnation of monarchists. Of course they can't exactly reinstate a sovereign, so instead they worship the oligarchy and assign to it the divine right of kings. The oligarchs themselves understand this, to a point. Their rabble are somehow drunk on this notion that they alone possess ideological truth even if they don't share in the real spoils.

They are perverse. It's difficult to even attempt to understand them. But I will give them no quarter, as Fareed seems to want to do here. It will do no good. They will take and they will give back nothing in return. It's like dealing with an alcoholic. They have to hit bottom at which point they will either want to recover or they will die. Giving them quarter just enables them.

[Treestar]

(06-22-2011 06:47 AM)Velleity Wrote:  I would say that "conservatives" are actually a reincarnation of monarchists. Of course they can't exactly reinstate a sovereign, so instead they worship the oligarchy and assign to it the divine right of kings. The oligarchs themselves understand this, to a point. Their rabble are somehow drunk on this notion that they alone possess ideological truth even if they don't share in the real spoils.

I agree with this - that is how they get so stuck on the Presidency and they assign monarchical powers to it, demanding our loyalty to Republican Presidents and screaming about the horrible things Democratic Presidents can bring on - they live in alleged fear of Obama single handedly making the country socialist as if a President could do that.

And the oligarchs never do the John Gault thing - when is the populace going to get that? Or that if they did, we'd go on without them just fine.

[jaxx]

Very interesting observations. Thank you everyone, it helps me to understand the problems.

[sandnsea]

If we had left corporate taxes where they were in 1980, we'd have no debt. And I personally don't think conservatives have ever been rational and making money isn't proof of anything. They steal it by convincing working people they don't deserve it. Run into a little cash flow problem? They file bankruptcy, change their name, and keep going. They're hideous and they've always been hideous. AEI, Thomas' AEI, was founded in 1938 business to oppose FDR. Not a blessed thing has changed. They're the same now as they were then. It's just that we're at the logical conclusion of their economic policy - BROKE. Except WE can't file bankruptcy like they do.

[NJMaverick]

after seeing how successful Ronald Reagan was. The dumb approach, while popular with many voters, has proven to be disastrous.

[Velleity]

(06-22-2011 12:18 PM)NJMaverick Wrote:  after seeing how successful Ronald Reagan was. The dumb approach, while popular with many voters, has proven to be disastrous.

There's a lot of truth to that IMO. However, once again I have to point out how the rich just continue to get so much richer. So I guess "disastrous" is relative?

I was just listening to Thom Hartmann discussing Jefferson's 3 tyrannies: 1) theocracy; 2) warlord kings; and 3) the rich. Thom was describing how "conservatives" have turned #3 on it's head with their culture of worshiping and ceding everything to the rich.

[nofurylike]

thank you, all, for insightful, informative replies.
i am sorry i didn't get to replying, myself, but will asap.