The Pillars of Modern American Conservatism

[SkyBubble]

In many ways, we no longer are. The rich are getting more prosperous all the time, but in real dollars just about no one else has seen their income rise since the mid-70s. Our infrastructure is aging, we're the only industrialized democracy where people fear one illness or injury driving them to bankruptcy, student loan debt is crippling a generation...as an American who has lived overseas for the past 20 years or so, I can tell you, it simply doesn't work that way elsewhere.

Actually, income disparity has decreased due to a relatively free economy.

If socialized medicine is so great, why do people from those countries so often come here for care?

The student loan crisis is the government's fault. It's a government program, funded by the taxpayers, that has caused tuition to increase at a much higher rate than the inflation rate while keeping elite colleges from having to use their endowments. And it is not fiar to make people who paid their own way through college and/or whose families did, or who never went to college, pay the debts of those who took out a loan voluntarily. You don't get to pass that burden off on everyone else. We didn't sign your loan agreement; you did.

 

[SkyBubble]

View attachment 2587999

Simply wrong. Over time, tax cuts greatly increase revenue. That's historically proven. The way you do that is growing the economy.

The Reagan tax cuts, for example, doubled Federal revenues over ten years (through economic growth.) Unfortunately, for every new $1.00 of revenue, Congress spent $1.73. (IOW, spending increased 73% faster than revenues did.)

The problem is that our government has been spending too much -- and a lot more than it takes in -- for decades. Then it creates fiat money to cover it (or borrows it) and we pay for that.

Dollars are commodities just like everything else. The more of them you make, the less each one is worth.

Since we established the Federal Reserve in 1913, our dollars have lost 90% of their value due to the need to increase eh money supply constantly to cover Federal spending and deficits.

Stockman is a politician, not an economist.

 

[SkyBubble]

Here again Politruk defaults to the British wisdom parade by taking a sprawling, wildly inconsistent movement and neatly boiling it down to a confusing cocktail of elitism, frontier spirit, and “exhausting optimism.” Because nothing screams clarity like lumping together rugged individualists and aristocrats while lecturing Americans about conservatism from a vantage point halfway across the pond. It’s adorable how “classical conservatism” becomes a flexible prop to stuff modern politics into an 18th-century mold, all while ignoring the messy reality that real-world ideologies rarely fit into tidy academic categories. But hell, let’s keep pretending American conservatives are just misunderstood descendants of Burke,

It seems you don't understand what's written here.

Conservatives embrace variety. It's a set of principles, not an ideology like liberalism, progressivism, or socialism. There is nothing inconsistent or confusing here.

And yes, conservatives ARE Burkeans, as Russell Kirk constantly stated. Burke said that conservatives "combines a disposition to preserve with an ability to reform."

This essay clearly lays out the broad principles of modern conservatism.

 

[Wilson23]

Consrevatives are CAUTIOUS, That is what defines them. Conservatives fear any drastic change in public policy might lead to unintended consequences -- not an irrational fear.

There does not seem to be much conservatism left in the GOP. No CONSERVATIVE would ever chant "Lock her up!" or "End the Fed!" or "Molon labe!" or "Stop the steal!" That's what you hear from REACTIONARIES, from RWs just as radical and revolutionary as any Communist.

 

[SkyBubble]

Conservatives seek to preserve what Russell Kirk called "the permanent things." Taht's why (as Burke said) conservatism "combines a disposition to preserve with an ability to reform."

And yes, End the Fed is completely compatible with conservatism.

 

[Wilson23]

And yes, End the Fed is completely compatible with conservatism.

No, it's not, because it is a drastic radical change that cannot be done without upending the whole financial system. MOST of the consequences would be unintended and unpredictable.

 

[Rightguide]

It seems you don't understand what's written here.

Conservatives embrace variety. It's a set of principles, not an ideology like liberalism, progressivism, or socialism. There is nothing inconsistent or confusing here.

No, I understand it perfectly, that’s precisely the problem. Calling conservatism “a set of principles, not an ideology” is a rhetorical escape hatch, not an argument. Every durable political worldview is an ideology once it organizes principles into prescriptions, trade-offs, and power. Pretending otherwise is how one avoids internal contradictions without resolving them.

And yes, conservatives ARE Burkeans, as Russell Kirk constantly stated. Burke said that conservatives "combines a disposition to preserve with an ability to reform."

Invoking Burke and Russell Kirk doesn’t rescue the claim; it exposes it. Burke’s “disposition to preserve with an ability to reform” is a prudential method, not a metaphysical exemption from coherence. American conservatism didn’t merely adapt Burke, it selectively inverted him, elevating radical individualism, market dynamism, and frontier optimism over hierarchy, restraint, and inherited authority.

This essay clearly lays out the broad principles of modern conservatism.

The essay doesn’t so much “lay out” modern conservatism as paper over that divergence with soothing generalities. Variety isn’t the issue; tension is. And calling tension a virtue doesn’t make it disappear, it just delays the reckoning.

 

[Wilson23]

American movement conservatism since 1964 is a coalition of several factions and tendencies and traditions NOT always compatible with each other. What do Libertarians have in common with Christian Nationalists or White Nationalists? They don't even always agree with the bizcons, WRT crony capitalism and corporate welfare and sweetheart government contracts.

And now we'll see the split widen between the neocon warhawks and the paleocon isolationists.

 

[SkyBubble]

No, it's not, because it is a drastic radical change that cannot be done without upending the whole financial system. MOST of the consequences would be unintended and unpredictable.

Showing again that you don't understand the ideas you're attempting to discuss.

In no way does it violate any conservative principle. In fact, such an action would uphold conservative principles. It would help restore responsibility for our money where it belongs and disempower the Big Banks from making those decisions for us. We should vhe done it a long time ago.

 

[Wilson23]

Showing again that you don't understand the ideas you're attempting to discuss.

In no way does it violate any conservative principle. In fact, such an action would uphold conservative principles. It would help restore responsibility for our money where it belongs and disempower the Big Banks from making those decisions for us. We should vhe done it a long time ago.

It is NOT conservative to disempower big banks or any other big-biz interests. Doing that would be socialist, not conservative.

 

[YDB95]

If socialized medicine is so great, why do people from those countries so often come here for care?

That doesn't happen anywhere near as often as people like you like to think it does. And when it does, you're talking about people with enough disposable income to travel overseas, pay out of pocket for surgery, and stay in the US for their recuperation. Bully for them, but most people simply don't have that kind of money, and you know it.

 

[briancamdudetenger2018]

what are the non political terms and non political meanings for conservatism

 

[Wilson23]

what are the non political terms and non political meanings for conservatism

An apolitical person might be called "conservative" if generally old-fashioned and traditional.

 

[Chernosoth]

Over time, tax cuts greatly increase revenue. That's historically proven. The way you do that is growing the economy.

What can we do without growing the economy? If we can work only with the current size, or less, of the economy, does your brand of conservativism still work?

With resources becoming more depleted, the general trend of the economy is mostly a long way down for a few centuries. The birthrate is falling here and around the world. If we kick Trump out and open the borders, we would still run out of immigrants. From the nation's wealthiest to the peasants, everyone will face questions of what is worth conserving.

 

[Wilson23]

Simply wrong. Over time, tax cuts greatly increase revenue. That's historically proven.

Like Hell it is!
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

 

[YDB95]

Like Hell it is!
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

He probably forgot the part where Reagan raised taxes, after his initial cuts triggered an economic disaster. Right-wingers usually do.

 

[Wilson23]

Actually, income disparity has decreased due to a relatively free economy.

Not in THIS country, it hasn't.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Simply wrong. Over time, tax cuts greatly increase revenue. That's historically proven. The way you do that is growing the economy.

The Reagan tax cuts, for example, doubled Federal revenues over ten years (through economic growth.) Unfortunately, for every new $1.00 of revenue, Congress spent $1.73. (IOW, spending increased 73% faster than revenues did.)

The problem is that our government has been spending too much -- and a lot more than it takes in -- for decades. Then it creates fiat money to cover it (or borrows it) and we pay for that.

Dollars are commodities just like everything else. The more of them you make, the less each one is worth.

Since we established the Federal Reserve in 1913, our dollars have lost 90% of their value due to the need to increase eh money supply constantly to cover Federal spending and deficits.

Stockman is a politician, not an economist.

David Sockman was Director of the Office of Management and Budget for President Ronald Reagan. In his book The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed Stockman wrote that, contrary to what Reagan promised during the 1980 campaign, it never was possible to cut taxes, raise military spending, and balance the budget by 1983 "if not sooner" without eliminating farm and business subsidies, and making deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare. He added that most Americans, and at least a plurality of Republican voters would oppose those cuts.

Beginning with the Reagan administration, when Republicans have the power to do so they cut taxes for the rich and raise military spending. That is the reason for the increase in the national debt to more than the yearly Gross Domestic Product.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Actually, income disparity has decreased due to a relatively free economy.

This statements documentation.

 

[JohnEngelman]

If socialized medicine is so great, why do people from those countries so often come here for care?

AI Overview

Yes, countries with universal or "free" healthcare systems generally show better health outcomes, including longer life expectancy, lower child mortality, higher use of preventative care, and greater overall well-being, compared to countries lacking such coverage, like the U.S., which struggles with disparities and poor ranking despite high spending. While these systems, often funded by taxes, can face challenges like wait times, they focus on public health and reduce financial barriers, leading to healthier populations.

Key Health Indicators & Outcomes:

• Life Expectancy:
  Studies consistently find higher average life expectancy in nations with publicly funded healthcare.
  
  
• Child Mortality:
  Universal systems are linked to lower rates of infant and child mortality.
  
  
• Preventative Care:
  Access to free care encourages more preventive doctor visits and management of chronic conditions, reducing emergency room use.
  
  
• Well-being & Smoking:
  Higher rates of reported excellent health, lower depression, and greater smoking cessation are seen in countries with universal coverage.
  

Why These Systems Work:

• Universal Access:
  Everyone gets care, removing financial barriers that stop people from seeking treatment.
  
  
• Focus on Prevention:
  A single system has more incentive to invest in public health measures (like obesity prevention) rather than just treating illness.
  
  
• Reduced Disparities:
  Universal care significantly reduces health inequalities tied to socioeconomic status.

 

[Chadrone]

I think the new conservatism is colonialism.

LOL tell us more about what Vaush and Hasan Piker think.....

 

[Chadrone]

This statements documentation.

Yea opening your eyes would bee too hard for you lefties now wouldn't it???

Where is all the worst economic inequity?? Socialist shit holes, every, fuckin', time.

Where is all the most prosperity and equity??

Capitalistic nations where people are free to earn a living without Karencrats who just don't like other people allowed to be more sucessful than they are shutting them down the way the left loves to fantasize about doing to everyone.

 

[ll74]

LOL tell us more about what Vaush and Hasan Piker think.....

Who the fuck is that?

 

[Chadrone]

Who the fuck is that?

The source for all your political positions that you may or may not have depending on how convenient they are for your narrative at any given time.

We all know how you like to be a MAGA and have you Woketard too.

 

[ll74]

The source for all your political positions that you may or may not have depending on how convenient they are for your narrative at any given time.

Oh neat....more ascription

We all know how you like to be a MAGA and have you Woketard too.

Is "we all" your pronoun?