Politics

[Bluto]

You're not slouch yourself, sir.



Did you read the blog post? It's very short. The author's point is that, rather than impressing its values on the lower 98% (either through force or persuasion), the American elite has instead opted to create a completely separate and parallel set of institutions which has insulated it from the problems faced by the rest of the country. Nearly 20 years later, I can't say I disagree with him.



Could you describe that for me? Aside from: (1) supporting an impersonal welfare state through taxes; and (2) avoiding doing harm to others, what does liberal philosophy claim is owed to one's neighbor? And to be clear, when I say "liberal", I'm speaking philosophically (Hobbes, Locke, etc.) and not politically.



Libertarianism and Progressivism mostly share the same ends. They just disagree on the means of attaining them (mostly as it related to the State's role).



Yes, maximizing freedom/ opportunity/ etc. for each autonomous individual is the chief goal, and to the extent intermediary institutions hinder that goal, they get crushed. Thus the decline of family, community, religiosity, state's rights, etc. In the end, there are only radically free individuals and a Federal government which provides/ protects those freedoms. Europe's a good example, as their evolution toward the modern liberal end state is much further along than America's.



The threat posed by corporatism is directly correlated to the size and power of government. The larger and more powerful a government is, the greater the incentive for interest groups to engage in lobbying/ regulatory capture. Centralization makes it easier, too.

But you're right, in a sense. True conservatism is suspicious of "bigness", because muscular institutions-- both public and private-- are equally dangerous to the fragile intermediate institutions that we value.

I did read the first article. It was like one of those David Brooks op-eds where he bemoans the elites disconnection with the working class but never defines who these "elites" are. Are they cultural, economic, political? Elites as I read it from conservative publications often equals academics and "Wall Street". Meanwhile the Koch brothers and GW Bush are just good ole boys. As for the elites of the past sharing some sense of "social responsibility", that's hog wash. Anyhow, white working class America has been defining the political narrative for sometime but they're just getting what they voted for. The GOP is guilty of playing to a certain racist and xenophobic streak that runs through a portion of white America but if it wasn't there they wouldn't play to it. It's also hard to call something "class war" when the segment of the class that's suffering whole heartedly supports said policies. Frankly, I don't get much of this hand wringing about the white working class from political conservatives . They should just cut to the chase and say Chomsky was right... about everything. Lol.

If you're talking philosophical as opposed to political liberalism I value traditional belief systems and I am not a fan of throwing the "baby out with the bath water". I was raised Catholic. Not a believer but it bugs the crap out of me when people (mostly stereotypical liberals) I know fail to differentiate between the institution of the church and the actual priests, nuns and parishioners who are doing worlds of good based on the teachings of the church. I respect my Dad (who goes to church 5 times a week) more than any other person I have ever meet because he embodies the teachings of the new testament. All in all I guess I would say I'm in favor of liberal socialism. I think much of Europe is moving in the right direction in that respect.

I see your point about the correlation between big government and big corporate power but the same dynamic was at play in pre-1930's America. I would say that without a check on corporate power we are in big doo doo. Unions and progressive government policies played that role for much of the last century. So now what?

Honestly the fear of "bigness" is the common thread I see between most "liberals" and "conservatives".

Big Ups on the podcast!

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Sorry on my phone. Per the first item. I did read the first article. White working class America has been defining the political narrative for sometime but they're just getting what they voted for. It's hard to call something "class war" when the class that's suffering whole heartedly supports said policies. Also, the idea that the elites of the past shared some sense of "social responsibility" is hog wash. Frankly, I don't get much of this whooo is the white working class stuff from conservatives. They should just come out and say Chomsky was right about everything. Lol.

You'd know more about that than I. I took the author's example of declining life expectancy for white low-income women as evidence that this is clearly a class issue (1% v. everyone else), and not a racial one.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Don't want to disrupt this conversation but have any of you guys seen the documentary on the conservative political strategist Lee Atwater?

I'm about 95% sure there is a part where they are talking to Palin's aide(??) and he talks about race and Americaness.

It has been a long time since I watched it, but I remember there is part where it touches on what you guys are talking about.

 

[Bluto]

You'd know more about that than I. I took the author's example of declining life expectancy for white low-income women as evidence that this is clearly a class issue (1% v. everyone else), and not a racial one.

It is a class issue. Race, class and self identity however, can't be easily compartmentalized. It's going to be interesting when for example gays have full civil rights then poor and working class gays look around and say "hold on a second". Once all of these abstract and self imposed definitions are removed (sexuality, race, ect...) it's gonna be all about the haves and the have nots.

 

[Bluto]

Don't want to disrupt this conversation but have any of you guys seen the documentary on the conservative political strategist Lee Atwater?

I'm about 95% sure there is a part where they are talking to Palin's aide(??) and he talks about race and Americaness.

It has been a long time since I watched it, but I remember there is part where it touches on what you guys are talking about.

I have. Awesome piece of film making.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9UwJYfTC9Hw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Huge ninja edit after I respond to your post?

If you're talking philosophical as opposed to political liberalism I value traditional belief systems and I am not a fan of throwing the "baby out with the bath water". I was raised Catholic. Not a believer but it bugs the crap out of me when people (mostly stereotypical liberals) I know fail to differentiate between the institution of the church and the actual priests, nuns and parishioners who are doing worlds of good based on the teachings of the church. I respect my Dad (who goes to church 5 times a week) more than any other person I have ever meet because he embodies the teachings of the new testament. All in all I guess I would say I'm in favor of liberal socialism. I think much of Europe is moving in the right direction in that respect.

Well that's the direction we're going, but it's not good news for conservatives or religious people; as I mentioned in my previous post, Europe is a lot further along in its evolution toward the modern liberal end state than we are, and it's a thoroughly dechristianized and cosmopolitan place.

I see your point about the correlation between big government and big corporate power but the same dynamic was at play in pre-1930's America. I would say that without a check on corporate power we are in big doo doo. Unions and progressive government policies played that role for much of the last century. So now what?

Certainly not blanket deregulation. It's tempting to say "stronger regulation", but the Feds are so prone to regulatory capture these days. Break up the mega banks? Try to limit corporate size? For those concerned with renewing intermediate social institutions, I think the only real answer is a renewed emphasis on Federalism and subsidiarity-- devolve power back down to the smallest social spheres wherever possible.

Honestly the fear of "bigness" is the common thread I see between most "liberals" and "conservatives".

Really? Most "liberals" I know are suspicious of big corporations, but have no problem with big government. As if a profit-driven CEO is somehow less dangerous than a former lobbyist-turned-regulator or a corrupt Congressman.

 

[Bluto]

Huge ninja edit after I respond to your post?



Well that's the direction we're going, but it's not good news for conservatives or religious people; as I mentioned in my previous post, Europe is a lot further along in its evolution toward the modern liberal end state than we are, and it's a thoroughly dechristianized and cosmopolitan place.



Certainly not blanket deregulation. It's tempting to say "stronger regulation", but the Feds are so prone to regulatory capture these days. Break up the mega banks? Try to limit corporate size? For those concerned with renewing intermediate social institutions, I think the only real answer is a renewed emphasis on Federalism and subsidiarity-- devolve power back down to the smallest social spheres wherever possible.



Really? Most "liberals" I know are suspicious of big corporations, but have no problem with big government. As if a profit-driven CEO is somehow less dangerous than a former lobbyist-turned-regulator or a corrupt Congressman.

You need to spend more time in Northern California. Weird mix of libertarianism and 60's radicalism burn out. Perfect examples would be the brew ha has surrounding the Drakes Bay Oyster Company in Point Reyes (that has made for some real strange bed fellows) and the 101 By Pass in Willits California. I have found that many people in this area have zero respect for the public process. Maybe it's all the weed?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

You need to spend more time in Northern California. Weird mix of libertarianism and 60's radicalism burn out. Perfect examples would be the brew ha has surrounding the Drakes Bay Oyster Company in Point Reyes (that has made for some real strange bed fellows) and the 101 By Pass in Willits California. I have found that many people in this area have zero respect for the public process. Maybe it's all the weed?

I'm familiar with the "liberaltarianism" of Silicon Valley. I find it to be a lot more palatable (and internally consistent) than what the GOP or the DNC has on offer. But it still puts us in the same place at the end.

 

[Bluto]

Huge ninja edit after
Certainly not blanket deregulation. It's tempting to say "stronger regulation", but the Feds are so prone to regulatory capture these days. Break up the mega banks? Try to limit corporate size? For those concerned with renewing intermediate social institutions, I think the only real answer is a renewed emphasis on Federalism and subsidiarity-- devolve power back down to the smallest social spheres wherever possible.
.

Yeah, some of that has been happening in California believe it or not. It's created this strange sense of provincialism though in many places and money still talks on that level. I've seen some high rollers get stuff permitted no questions asked that never should have been where I live. It's also made 501 c3's a cottage industry (supported by same high rollers) that support every cockamamy and questionable idea under the sun and turn them into "legitimate" causes. See "banning leaf blowers". Also, we have the "parent trigger law" which has become a way for non-profit and for-profit corps to bum rush and take over public schools.

Anyhow, gotta run. Good talkin.

 

[Bluto]

I'm familiar with the "liberaltarianism" of Silicon Valley. I find it to be a lot more palatable (and internally consistent) than what the GOP or the DNC has on offer. But it still puts us in the same place at the end.

Kind of does. Interesting book on that area. The Devil in Silicon Valley. Below is a link to an excerpt.

Sample Chapter for Pitti, S.J.: The Devil in Silicon Valley: Northern California, Race, and Mexican Americans.

 

[chicago51]

This represents how I feel about liberalism pretty well:

Center-Left Liberalism

Liberalism stands for a belief in an equal right to freedoom and diginity advanced by a government of constitutionally restrained powers.

I think this second statement shows what the intent of LBJ's Great Society was. It was not a giant welfare support program. The main emphasis was to provide education and job training opportunities.

Consevatives tend to revere both the free market and social traditionalism and to view inequality arising from them as natural and inevitable. But while believing that those inequalities can and should be reduced liberalism is not committed to eliminating all economic inequality. There is no disagreement from liberals that those who work harder take greater risk or develop their talents to a higher degree should be able to recoup a return for their efforts. Liberals concern is focused rather on providing all citizens minimum protection against risk beyond their control and equal opportunity in the making of their lives though equal opportunity in the making of their lives though not equal results from the choices they made.

The report goes on point out that workers and the market forces on their own are not strong enough to protect themselves against the interest of the corporation.

 

[chicago51]

Really? Most "liberals" I know are suspicious of big corporations, but have no problem with big government. As if a profit-driven CEO is somehow less dangerous than a former lobbyist-turned-regulator or a corrupt Congressman.

I would most "liberals" were very suspicious of the Patriot Act and some of the other anti privacy standards.

I economically though liberals I'd certainly say that statement is true. Ultimately for me at least it stems from the perhaps naive belief that we the people can change our government if they overstep their bounds but that same power isn't there against non elected corporations.

I think you can look at government in two ways. Both are probably true.

1- Government in the wrong hands has the capacity to inflict harm.

2- Government in the right hands has the capacity to do good.

I personally agree that government has overstepped but tend to think it is not the institution of government but the people in it.

 

[BobD]

I just hang out here so people think I'm smart too. You guys amaze me with your knowledge.

 

[chicago51]

I just hang out here so people think I'm smart too. You guys amaze me with your knowledge.

Bob did you ever think your thread would last this long and lead to all this discussion long after President Obama was reelected?

Who do you think you'll vote for in the presidential election? I'm asking because I honestly think Romney doesn't have a rat's chance in hell of winning. I'm going to attach a poll (hopefully I can make it private, so names aren't posted) So we don't have to get into a big political debate unless you like talking politics?

Please vote in the poll even if you don't care to comment....I'm curious to see your opinion.

Thanks, BobD

 

[BobD]

Bob did you ever think your thread would last this long and lead to all this discussion long after President Obama was reelected?

Nope. I wasn't even sure if many people would vote. I was just hoping some folks would comment because of the well educated group here at IE. I've learned a lot from this and other threads, as well as having fun in many others.

 

[Black Irish]

Is OMM gone yet? I want to get back to yelling incoherently at liberals for trying to take away my guns, bibles, and SUVs.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I give you my promise not to return to this thread for at least a week. {I have a science talk to give to the Society for Scientific Exploration coming up anyway, and can use the break}.

 

[chicago51]

Basically police can now take a DNA sample without one's consent and without a warrant.

That "conservative"/big government Supreme Court is back in action:

Supreme Court: DNA Samples Can Be Taken From Arrestees Without Warrant

Although Scalia the most conservative actually voted with 3 of the Democrat appointed justices against it.

Necessary procedure or an overstepped in giving police more power?

 

[Black Irish]

Basically police can now take a DNA sample without one's consent and without a warrant.

That "conservative"/big government Supreme Court is back in action:

Supreme Court: DNA Samples Can Be Taken From Arrestees Without Warrant

Although Scalia the most conservative actually voted with 3 of the Democrat appointed justices against it.

Necessary procedure or an overstepped in giving police more power?

You already get printed and photographed when you get arrested, so what difference does a cheek swab make? Now if they want to allow the police to pull a pint of blood out of you that's different story.

 

[GoIrish41]

You already get printed and photographed when you get arrested, so what difference does a cheek swab make? Now if they want to allow the police to pull a pint of blood out of you that's different story.

I agree with the first sentence. Not necessarily with the second. Don't think a blood sample is much different than a cheek swab. The way to avoid all of this is don't get thrown in jail.

 

[Downinthebend]

I'm a bit averse to subjecting people who have been thrown in jail but not proven to have done anything wrong losing rights.

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"

forcibly taking blood samples, or DNA swabs seems rather like that to me.

 

[chicago51]

I'm a bit averse to subjecting people who have been thrown in jail but not proven to have done anything wrong losing rights.

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"

forcibly taking blood samples, or DNA swabs seems rather like that to me.

I agree with this.

My big point though was that big government takes multiple forms.

Things like Patriot Act and other anti-privacy bills that members of both parties have voted are also big government.

Some modern conservatives have no issue giving the government power to spy on people but yet have an issue an issue with laws saying that dumping certain chemicals in a river or lake is unacceptable.

Or that unlike Bangladesh buildings and working conditions must have certain safety standards:

The one thing I'll give libertarians credit for is that unlike traditional Republicans at least they are consist no government for anything period. As opposed to the hawks in the party that have no issue expanding the CIA and things of that nature.

Personally they I would say there is a line between good government and bad government. It is ultimately the individuals in power that chose over step not the institution of government itself. Personally after hearing about what happened in Bangladesh I am glad we have some government regulation.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm a bit averse to subjecting people who have been thrown in jail but not proven to have done anything wrong losing rights.

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"

forcibly taking blood samples, or DNA swabs seems rather like that to me.

my point is that they already fingerprint people when they get arrested. those finderprints are used for the same purpose as that cotton swab or a pint of blood would be. taking blood is a bit more intrusive, but it is along the same lines. I don't want people just being rounded up so they can take DNA samples, but if they are already arrested I don't see it as much different than what we're already doing.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

AmCon's Samuel Goldman just posted a compelling article on meritocracy:

Young’s diagnosis of pretensions of the modern elite seems unimpeachable to me. As I and others have argued on this site, the current system of educational credentialing has the function of preserving and transmitting privilege, even though it was designed for much the opposite end. The conceptual hinge of this transformation is the ambiguity of the term “merit”. If we’re not careful to specify what we mean by merit, the (strong) instrumental argument for distributing tasks and responsibilities to those best able to fulfill them tend to slips into the (weak) moral argument that the most capable few deserve greater power and wealth.

 

[MJ12666]

I agree with this.

My big point though was that big government takes multiple forms.

Things like Patriot Act and other anti-privacy bills that members of both parties have voted are also big government.

Some modern conservatives have no issue giving the government power to spy on people but yet have an issue an issue with laws saying that dumping certain chemicals in a river or lake is unacceptable.

Or that unlike Bangladesh buildings and working conditions must have certain safety standards:

The one thing I'll give libertarians credit for is that unlike traditional Republicans at least they are consist no government for anything period. As opposed to the hawks in the party that have no issue expanding the CIA and things of that nature.

Personally they I would say there is a line between good government and bad government. It is ultimately the individuals in power that chose over step not the institution of government itself. Personally after hearing about what happened in Bangladesh I am glad we have some government regulation.

Well said. Just like President Obama said, Republicans want “dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance" and want laws that will allow companies to be able to pollute "as much as they want.”

 

[chicago51]

Well said. Just like President Obama said, Republicans want “dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance" and want laws that will allow companies to be able to pollute "as much as they want.”

Most Republican citizens want safe work conditions but the guys in DC and in certain state capital.

Then there is this: Peter Dreier: The Texas Fertilizer Plant Explosion Wasn't an Accident

 

[connor_in]

Wow...haven't visited this thread in a while and I come back to see that once again we come back to all R's are basically Ming the Merciless but entwined with Nazi and Stalin's DNA...nice...

Have a nice day, "I'll retire to bedlam"

 

[BobD]

I think we should collect every newborns DNA.

 

[DSully1995]

I think we should collect every newborns DNA.

Are you serious? I dont think police collecting DNA w/o a warrant is bad, its really just an identifier, not property, like collecting where you live or your license plate number

 

[chicago51]

Are you serious? I dont think police collecting DNA w/o a warrant is bad, its really just an identifier, not property, like collecting where you live or your license plate number

Yea but that is "big" government and all big government is bad right?