Is modern conservatism a threat to us?

yahooyahoo said:

Only certain rights...... 

It's okay for the government to infringe on a woman's right to choose, a citizen's right to vote, a person's right to practice Islam, and so on.

The far right of the Republican Party is not about maintaining rights but imposing their belief system on all others.

Equivalent to certain Muslim groups wanting to impose Sharia law in western democracies then

lord_pabulum said:

yahooyahoo said:

Only certain rights...... 

It's okay for the government to infringe on a woman's right to choose, a citizen's right to vote, a person's right to practice Islam, and so on.

The far right of the Republican Party is not about maintaining rights but imposing their belief system on all others.

Equivalent to certain Muslim groups wanting to impose Sharia law in western democracies then

Except "certain Muslim groups" have about the same global reach as a high school debate team and the US right is about 60,000 Florida voters away from controlling the most powerful military that's ever existed.

drummerboy said:

terp said:

drummerboy has always been big on the whole "guilt by association" thing.  *shrugs*

how so?

You are prone to blame people for the actions of others if you think it's possible that something had been said in the past.  You have criticized people in the past for using the term Fascism even when you agreed with the point as an example.  

RobB said:

lord_pabulum said:

yahooyahoo said:

Only certain rights...... 

It's okay for the government to infringe on a woman's right to choose, a citizen's right to vote, a person's right to practice Islam, and so on.

The far right of the Republican Party is not about maintaining rights but imposing their belief system on all others.

Equivalent to certain Muslim groups wanting to impose Sharia law in western democracies then

Except "certain Muslim groups" have about the same global reach as a high school debate team and the US right is about 60,000 Florida voters away from controlling the most powerful military that's ever existed.

If Muslim groups sought to impose Sharia law through electoral politics it would be the same as the far Right seeking to do so.

BTW I do not think many of us know much about Sharia Law although I once had to do some legal research that touched upon it.

lIs modern conservatism a threat to us?

YES!

The only thing that is really a threat is the suffocating "embrace" of the state. 

terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

drummerboy has always been big on the whole "guilt by association" thing.  *shrugs*

how so?

You are prone to blame people for the actions of others if you think it's possible that something had been said in the past.  You have criticized people in the past for using the term Fascism even when you agreed with the point as an example.  

yeah ok. I honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Actually, back to the premise of the thread, yes, I think conservatism is headed along a terrible, destructive path. Krugman's column this week may be his best of the year. He addresses the act of dumbing down the right wing as if it was a good idea, and now look where it got us.

He calls it The Donald and the Decider, but I would have entitled it The Dumbing Down of the Right Wing.

That column was one of the most absurd of all times. And with Krugman that means its it absurdly absurd because he is always absurd.

A Conservative point of view:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/donald-trump-constitution-opinion-213458

bramzzoinks said:

That column was one of the most absurd of all times. And with Krugman that means its it absurdly absurd because he is always absurd.

Any specifics you'd like to bring up? What flaws do you find in reasoning, what discrepancy with facts do you see?

Tom_Reingold said:

bramzzoinks said:

That column was one of the most absurd of all times. And with Krugman that means its it absurdly absurd because he is always absurd.

Any specifics you'd like to bring up? What flaws do you find in reasoning, what discrepancy with facts do you see?

The entire thesis is totally wrongheaded.

Even the use of the words "of" and "and?" Is it possible to be even the slightest bit specific? Or is the problem that Krugman wrote it?

Everything in this is total absurd bunk:

"Well, part of the answer has to be that the party taught them not to care. Bluster and belligerence as substitutes for analysis, disdain for any kind of measured response, dismissal of inconvenient facts reported by the “liberal media” didn’t suddenly arrive on the Republican scene last summer. On the contrary, they have long been key elements of the party brand. So how are voters supposed to know where to draw the line?

Let’s talk first about the legacy of He Who Must Not Be Named.
I don’t know how many readers remember the 2000 election, but during the campaign Republicans tried — largely successfully — to make the election about likability, not policy. George W. Bush was supposed to get your vote because he was someone you’d enjoy having a beer with, unlike that stiff, boring guy Al Gore with all his facts and figures.
And when Mr. Gore tried to talk about policy differences, Mr. Bush responded not on the substance but by mocking his opponent’s “fuzzy math” — a phrase gleefully picked up by his supporters. The press corps played right along with this deliberate dumbing-down: Mr. Gore was deemed to have lost debates, not because he was wrong, but because he was, reporters declared, snooty and superior, unlike the affably dishonest W.
Then came 9/11, and the affable guy was repackaged as a war leader. But the repackaging was never framed in terms of substantive arguments over foreign policy. Instead, Mr. Bush and his handlers sold swagger. He was the man you could trust to keep us safe because he talked tough and dressed up as a fighter pilot. He proudly declared that he was the “decider” — and that he made his decisions based on his “gut.”
The subtext was that real leaders don’t waste time on hard thinking, that listening to experts is a sign of weakness, that attitude is all you need. And while Mr. Bush’s debacles in Iraq and New Orleans eventually ended America’s faith in his personal gut, the elevation of attitude over analysis only tightened its grip on his party, an evolution highlighted when John McCain, who once upon a time had a reputation for policy independence, chose the eminently unqualified Sarah Palin as his running mate.
So Donald Trump as a political phenomenon is very much in a line of succession that runs from W. through Mrs. Palin, and in many ways he’s entirely representative of the Republican mainstream. For example, were you shocked when Mr. Trump revealed his admiration for Vladimir Putin? He was only articulating a feeling that was already widespread in his party.

Meanwhile, what do the establishment candidates have to offer as an alternative? On policy substance, not much. Remember, back when he was the presumed front-runner, Jeb Bush assembled a team of foreign-policy “experts,” people who had academic credentials and chairs at right-wing think tanks. But the team was dominated by neoconservative hard-liners, people committed, despite past failures, to the belief that shock and awe solve all problems.

Why should anyone be surprised to see this posturing, er, trumped by the unapologetic belligerence offered by nonestablishment candidates?

In case you’re wondering, nothing like this process has happened on the Democratic side. When Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders debate, say, financial regulation, it’s a real discussion, with both candidates evidently well informed about the issues. American political discourse as a whole hasn’t been dumbed down, just its conservative wing."

Tom_Reingold said:

Actually, back to the premise of the thread, yes, I think conservatism is headed along a terrible, destructive path. Krugman's column this week may be his best of the year. He addresses the act of dumbing down the right wing as if it was a good idea, and now look where it got us.

He calls it The Donald and the Decider, but I would have entitled it The Dumbing Down of the Right Wing.

I'm sure you think its good. He's preaching to the choir.  BTW: There is a podcast that is devoted largely to fact checking Krugman and identifying his rhetoric.  It's actually a great listen.  One gentleman is an Economics professor and the other is a History scholar.  It's called ContraKrugman.   And its not what you think, there are times where they agree with him.  

the irony of zoinks quoting this...

"Bluster and belligerence as substitutes for analysis, disdain for any kind of measured response, dismissal of inconvenient facts reported by the “liberal media” didn’t suddenly arrive on the Republican scene last summer."

bramzzoinks said:

Everything in this is total absurd bunk:

terp said:
I'm sure you think its good. He's preaching to the choir.  BTW: There is a podcast that is devoted largely to fact checking Krugman and identifying his rhetoric.  It's actually a great listen.  One gentleman is an Economics professor and the other is a History scholar.  It's called ContraKrugman.   And its not what you think, there are times where they agree with him.  

You don't like the guy? OK. But still, I notice you haven't said anything wrong you find with that piece.

I notice he's not always accurate or he misses some key points. I don't hang on his every word, I promise. This piece does speak to me, and maybe it doesn't to you, but rather than comment on it, you comment on the author. Is that not some kind of tacit acceptance of what he says? Or is it lack of comprehension or consideration? Help me out here.

tom said:

the irony of zoinks quoting this...




"Bluster and belligerence as substitutes for analysis, disdain for any kind of measured response, dismissal of inconvenient facts reported by the “liberal media” didn’t suddenly arrive on the Republican scene last summer."

I don't think he knows what bluster and belligerence are.

bramzzoinks said:

Everything in this is total absurd bunk:

"Well, part of the answer has to be that the party taught them not to care. Bluster and belligerence as substitutes for analysis, disdain for any kind of measured response, dismissal of inconvenient facts reported by the “liberal media” didn’t suddenly arrive on the Republican scene last summer. On the contrary, they have long been key elements of the party brand. So how are voters supposed to know where to draw the line?

Let’s talk first about the legacy of He Who Must Not Be Named.
I don’t know how many readers remember the 2000 election, but during the campaign Republicans tried — largely successfully — to make the election about likability, not policy. George W. Bush was supposed to get your vote because he was someone you’d enjoy having a beer with, unlike that stiff, boring guy Al Gore with all his facts and figures.
And when Mr. Gore tried to talk about policy differences, Mr. Bush responded not on the substance but by mocking his opponent’s “fuzzy math” — a phrase gleefully picked up by his supporters. The press corps played right along with this deliberate dumbing-down: Mr. Gore was deemed to have lost debates, not because he was wrong, but because he was, reporters declared, snooty and superior, unlike the affably dishonest W.
Then came 9/11, and the affable guy was repackaged as a war leader. But the repackaging was never framed in terms of substantive arguments over foreign policy. Instead, Mr. Bush and his handlers sold swagger. He was the man you could trust to keep us safe because he talked tough and dressed up as a fighter pilot. He proudly declared that he was the “decider” — and that he made his decisions based on his “gut.”
The subtext was that real leaders don’t waste time on hard thinking, that listening to experts is a sign of weakness, that attitude is all you need. And while Mr. Bush’s debacles in Iraq and New Orleans eventually ended America’s faith in his personal gut, the elevation of attitude over analysis only tightened its grip on his party, an evolution highlighted when John McCain, who once upon a time had a reputation for policy independence, chose the eminently unqualified Sarah Palin as his running mate.
So Donald Trump as a political phenomenon is very much in a line of succession that runs from W. through Mrs. Palin, and in many ways he’s entirely representative of the Republican mainstream. For example, were you shocked when Mr. Trump revealed his admiration for Vladimir Putin? He was only articulating a feeling that was already widespread in his party.


Meanwhile, what do the establishment candidates have to offer as an alternative? On policy substance, not much. Remember, back when he was the presumed front-runner, Jeb Bush assembled a team of foreign-policy “experts,” people who had academic credentials and chairs at right-wing think tanks. But the team was dominated by neoconservative hard-liners, people committed, despite past failures, to the belief that shock and awe solve all problems.

Why should anyone be surprised to see this posturing, er, trumped by the unapologetic belligerence offered by nonestablishment candidates?

In case you’re wondering, nothing like this process has happened on the Democratic side. When Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders debate, say, financial regulation, it’s a real discussion, with both candidates evidently well informed about the issues. American political discourse as a whole hasn’t been dumbed down, just its conservative wing."

um, did you quote that excerpt as proof that what Krugman wrote was bunk? Believe us when we tell you that what is self-evident to you isn't close to what we see, so maybe you can tell us why Krugman was wrong.

terp said:

Tom_Reingold said:

Actually, back to the premise of the thread, yes, I think conservatism is headed along a terrible, destructive path. Krugman's column this week may be his best of the year. He addresses the act of dumbing down the right wing as if it was a good idea, and now look where it got us.

He calls it The Donald and the Decider, but I would have entitled it The Dumbing Down of the Right Wing.

I'm sure you think its good. He's preaching to the choir.  BTW: There is a podcast that is devoted largely to fact checking Krugman and identifying his rhetoric.  It's actually a great listen.  One gentleman is an Economics professor and the other is a History scholar.  It's called ContraKrugman.   And its not what you think, there are times where they agree with him.  

meh. A bunch of Libertarian wannabees jealous of Krugman's accomplishments. I love that he makes you guys crazy.

Am listening to one of the podcasts now, about global warming.  When will they get to the point? Stay tuned....

geez, boring.

Ooh, here we go. 

Gonna turn it off soon. Bunch of babbling so far.

I give up. Bob Murphy is quite, quite unimpressive. His only claim to fame (among his fan bois) seems to be that he likes to attack Krugman.

Thank you for wasting my time terp.

But thanks for letting us know who you think is worth listening to. Tells me a lot.

bramzzoinks said:

Everything in this is total absurd bunk:

"Well, part of the answer has to be that the party taught them not to care. Bluster and belligerence as substitutes for analysis, disdain for any kind of measured response, dismissal of inconvenient facts reported by the “liberal media” didn’t suddenly arrive on the Republican scene last summer. On the contrary, they have long been key elements of the party brand. So how are voters supposed to know where to draw the line?

Let’s talk first about the legacy of He Who Must Not Be Named.
I don’t know how many readers remember the 2000 election, but during the campaign Republicans tried — largely successfully — to make the election about likability, not policy. George W. Bush was supposed to get your vote because he was someone you’d enjoy having a beer with, unlike that stiff, boring guy Al Gore with all his facts and figures.
And when Mr. Gore tried to talk about policy differences, Mr. Bush responded not on the substance but by mocking his opponent’s “fuzzy math” — a phrase gleefully picked up by his supporters. The press corps played right along with this deliberate dumbing-down: Mr. Gore was deemed to have lost debates, not because he was wrong, but because he was, reporters declared, snooty and superior, unlike the affably dishonest W.
Then came 9/11, and the affable guy was repackaged as a war leader. But the repackaging was never framed in terms of substantive arguments over foreign policy. Instead, Mr. Bush and his handlers sold swagger. He was the man you could trust to keep us safe because he talked tough and dressed up as a fighter pilot. He proudly declared that he was the “decider” — and that he made his decisions based on his “gut.”
The subtext was that real leaders don’t waste time on hard thinking, that listening to experts is a sign of weakness, that attitude is all you need. And while Mr. Bush’s debacles in Iraq and New Orleans eventually ended America’s faith in his personal gut, the elevation of attitude over analysis only tightened its grip on his party, an evolution highlighted when John McCain, who once upon a time had a reputation for policy independence, chose the eminently unqualified Sarah Palin as his running mate.
So Donald Trump as a political phenomenon is very much in a line of succession that runs from W. through Mrs. Palin, and in many ways he’s entirely representative of the Republican mainstream. For example, were you shocked when Mr. Trump revealed his admiration for Vladimir Putin? He was only articulating a feeling that was already widespread in his party.


Meanwhile, what do the establishment candidates have to offer as an alternative? On policy substance, not much. Remember, back when he was the presumed front-runner, Jeb Bush assembled a team of foreign-policy “experts,” people who had academic credentials and chairs at right-wing think tanks. But the team was dominated by neoconservative hard-liners, people committed, despite past failures, to the belief that shock and awe solve all problems.

Why should anyone be surprised to see this posturing, er, trumped by the unapologetic belligerence offered by nonestablishment candidates?

In case you’re wondering, nothing like this process has happened on the Democratic side. When Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders debate, say, financial regulation, it’s a real discussion, with both candidates evidently well informed about the issues. American political discourse as a whole hasn’t been dumbed down, just its conservative wing."

oh, and thanks for clearly confirming to us that when faced with an onslaught of facts and historical accuracy, you just throw up your hands and say "total bunk".

I do believe that this is Krugman's exact point. So thanks for proving him right.

Small government and light regulation leads to prosperity. What Krugman wants leads to stagnation and decline. The Republicans are the party of ideas when it comes building prosperity. The fundamental differences and debate between Paul, Cruz and Bush is a sign of intellectual strength, not weakness.

All the Democrats want to do, each and every one of them, is continue to pay off the public employee unions and politically correct NGO's until we are totally broke. The only "debate" is how fast to do so and which groups to favor.

bramzzoinks said:

Small government and light regulation leads to prosperity. What Krugman wants leads to stagnation and decline. The Republicans are the party of ideas when it comes building prosperity. The fundamental differences and debate between Paul, Cruz and Bush is a sign of intellectual strength, not weakness.

All the Democrats want to do, each and every one of them, is continue to pay off the public employee unions and politically correct NGO's until we are totally broke. The only "debate" is how fast to do so and which groups to favor.

you have officially descended into self-parody.

"Small government and light regulation leads to prosperity."

For a few who are well-connected. Everybody else low wages, poor working conditions and pollution.

bramzzoinks said:

Small government and light regulation leads to prosperity. What Krugman wants leads to stagnation and decline. The Republicans are the party of ideas when it comes building prosperity. The fundamental differences and debate between Paul, Cruz and Bush is a sign of intellectual strength, not weakness.

All the Democrats want to do, each and every one of them, is continue to pay off the public employee unions and politically correct NGO's until we are totally broke. The only "debate" is how fast to do so and which groups to favor.

Yes, one must merely look to Brownbackistan and Walkerland to see how well those ideas and policies work in the real world. 

bramzzoinks said:

Small government and light regulation leads to prosperity. What Krugman wants leads to stagnation and decline. The Republicans are the party of ideas when it comes building prosperity. The fundamental differences and debate between Paul, Cruz and Bush is a sign of intellectual strength, not weakness.

All the Democrats want to do, each and every one of them, is continue to pay off the public employee unions and politically correct NGO's until we are totally broke. The only "debate" is how fast to do so and which groups to favor.

Sentence 1 is an opinion, as is sentence 2. One can agree or disagree.

Sentence 3 is absurd. They haven't had a new idea in over 20 years.

Sentence 3 is silly. Their "differences" are just an appeal for votes. 

The second paragraph is polemic. What does "pay-off public employee unions" mean? No branch of government makes direct payment to any Union. Public employees just like private sector employees have the right to seek higher wages, benefits and better working conditions. The fact that Democrats support those goals is why I vote for Democrats. Republicans seem to want to pay-off those who already have plenty. 

What is a "politically correct NGO"? The Brady Campaign? The NRA? The Red Cross?

bramzzoinks said:

Small government and light regulation leads to prosperity. What Krugman wants leads to stagnation and decline. The Republicans are the party of ideas when it comes building prosperity. The fundamental differences and debate between Paul, Cruz and Bush is a sign of intellectual strength, not weakness.

There are no examples of this in the history of any country. There are plenty of examples that show that you are wrong. Afghanistan and Somalia have tiny government with no effective regulation. They are not prospering.

You could look at the economy as a soccer tournament. If there is no governing body to define the boundaries of the field and the rules of play, we have anarchy, and the most ruthless players will be brutal and make up the rules as they go along. If everyone agrees on the boundaries and rules, there is prosperity.

You have convinced yourself of things that are completely contrary to facts that stand before our eyes. You have a religious fervor which is impenetrable by facts and logic. You cling to words as if the new meanings you assign to them carry true meaning. Your process is stupid.

drummerboy said:

terp said:

Tom_Reingold said:

Actually, back to the premise of the thread, yes, I think conservatism is headed along a terrible, destructive path. Krugman's column this week may be his best of the year. He addresses the act of dumbing down the right wing as if it was a good idea, and now look where it got us.

He calls it The Donald and the Decider, but I would have entitled it The Dumbing Down of the Right Wing.

I'm sure you think its good. He's preaching to the choir.  BTW: There is a podcast that is devoted largely to fact checking Krugman and identifying his rhetoric.  It's actually a great listen.  One gentleman is an Economics professor and the other is a History scholar.  It's called ContraKrugman.   And its not what you think, there are times where they agree with him.  

meh. A bunch of Libertarian wannabees jealous of Krugman's accomplishments. I love that he makes you guys crazy.


Am listening to one of the podcasts now, about global warming.  When will they get to the point? Stay tuned....

geez, boring.

Ooh, here we go. 

Gonna turn it off soon. Bunch of babbling so far.

I give up. Bob Murphy is quite, quite unimpressive. His only claim to fame (among his fan bois) seems to be that he likes to attack Krugman.

Thank you for wasting my time terp.

But thanks for letting us know who you think is worth listening to. Tells me a lot.

Any time!

Oh, and