The Pillars of Modern American Conservatism

[Wilson23]

It dominates one of our major parties.

The left does NOT dominate the Democrats. Not even AOC or Sanders are clearly part of the left.

So what major party does that leave?

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/never-ever-say-the-left-when-you-mean-the-democrats.1648687/

 

[YDB95]

Not even AOC or Sanders are clearly part of the left.

I'm not sure if I agree with that, but it is worth noting that they are widely considered the most left-wing members of Congress...and they're nowhere near as far to the left as most Republican members are to the right. It's not even close.

 

[Wilson23]

I'm not sure if I agree with that, but it is worth noting that they are widely considered the most left-wing members of Congress...and they're nowhere near as far to the left as most Republican members are to the right. It's not even close.

Since 1964 the GOP has moved far to the right and evolved into an ideological party. But the Democrats have remained a coalition of interest groups.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Once again,

1. The tax cuts are across the board. Teh wealthiest taxpayers got the LOWEST proportional cut.
2. Cutting taxes and regulatory burdens increase revenues by growing the economy. More people to tax. The problem is that politicians see the new revenues and increase spending even faster.

SPENDING is what got us in debt. It is always and only a spending problem.

During the Reagan administration the top tax rate declined from 30% to 28%. Domestic spending increases are popular with the voters. So are tax increases for the rich.

 

[briancamdudetenger2018]

The left does NOT dominate the Democrats. Not even AOC or Sanders are clearly part of the left.

So what major party does that leave?

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/never-ever-say-the-left-when-you-mean-the-democrats.1648687/

then what are aoc and sanders in lol

the up wing or the down wing

but then again the pot smoker tucker carlson and candy owens are also in the same postion of what wing are they in as in what wing are candy and tucker in lol up wing or down wing

 

[Wilson23]

the up wing or the down wing

What are those?

 

[Sean Renaud]

DOGE found a lot we could cut, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, the politicians don't have the will. We could get along just fine without about 90% of the Federal government.

I know none of us are perfect but seriously you don't need to post this many fucking times in a row. There is a quote button for a fucking reason.

First no, we do not find out we can do find when the government shuts down. We find out that its pretty essential to a lot of things. And its only because the "important" workers aren't kept home during these things that life goes on at all. I really wish the Dems had the balls to have kept the government shut down over the holidays. I guarantee when people weren't going home for the holidays, essentials weren't being delivered because ports were closed etc, etc we'd notice fucking fast. If SNAP had actually been down through the holidays people would have fucking noticed.

The Left does not dominate one of our parties. We have a far right party and a center right party. The problem is our media is so fucking conservative we don't even understand what Left and Right actually are. Sure the Left media can occasionally come through on social issues but not on anything else on any consistent basis. I don't see CNN or MSNBC pushing for higher wages, easier access to government programs, Universal Health Care, lowering funding for the military or supporting unions. They at least weren't openly hostile a few years back when unions started up in Starbucks and to a lesser degree in Amazon but no full throated backing of it. I don't see them condemning Israel at all. They seem to almost exclusively attach HAMAS. Nobody is claimin HAMAS are good people by the way.

DOGE did really one thing from where I'm sitting when it comes to government spending. It sure as fuck seems like there is much, much less waste, fraud and abuse than I thought. I would have figured out of a three and a half trillion dollar budget, before running a deficiet, we would be able to find at least a hundred billion or two of waste fruad and abuse. I would expect there to be at least that much in whatever the government equivalent is of a contract I forgot to void.

 

[briancamdudetenger2018]

What are those?

you know how there is a left wing and a right wing along with a far right wing and a far left wing

well where would people like the pot smoker tucker carlson and nutty candy owens go since those 2 are kinda not in the right wing and definley not in the left wing

the up wing or the down wing

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

you know how there is a left wing and a right wing along with a far right wing and a far left wing

well where would people like the pot smoker tucker carlson and nutty candy owens go since those 2 are kinda not in the right wing and definley not in the left wing

the up wing or the down wing

Tucker Carson and Candace Owens are both far right wing.

 

[Rightguide]

Communism does not prove that socialism does not work; it proves that a dictatorship is an inappropriate government for a command economy.

This argument survives only by redefining socialism until it means “capitalism with high taxes.”

The closest approximation to democratic socialism that I like is social democracy, especially Scandinavian Social Democracy.

Communism didn’t fail because of dictatorship, command economies require coercion. Scandinavia works precisely because it rejects socialism: private ownership, free markets, strong property rights, and global trade. They tax capitalism after it creates wealth.

The goal of socialism should not be government ownership of the means of production; it should be to reduce economic inequality.

“Reducing inequality” isn’t an economic system, it’s a spending preference. Without markets generating surplus, there’s nothing to redistribute but poverty.

In Scandinavia this is achieved by a mixed economy, and a well financed public sector of the economy paid for by steeply progressive taxation. There are also high minimum wages and strong labor unions.

In other words, Scandinavia isn’t proof socialism works, it’s proof capitalism works so well it can afford a safety net.

 

[JohnEngelman]

This argument survives only by redefining socialism until it means “capitalism with high taxes.”


Communism didn’t fail because of dictatorship, command economies require coercion. Scandinavia works precisely because it rejects socialism: private ownership, free markets, strong property rights, and global trade. They tax capitalism after it creates wealth.


“Reducing inequality” isn’t an economic system, it’s a spending preference. Without markets generating surplus, there’s nothing to redistribute but poverty.



In other words, Scandinavia isn’t proof socialism works, it’s proof capitalism works so well it can afford a safety net.

The definitions of words are not absolute facts, but social conventions. I think the legitimate function of socialism is to reduce economic inequality Scandinavian Social Democracy does that well.

 

[Rightguide]

The definitions of words are not absolute facts, but social conventions. I think the legitimate function of socialism is to reduce economic inequality Scandinavian Social Democracy does that well.

Socialism has a historically consistent meaning: state control or collective ownership of the means of production. You don’t get to discard that core definition simply because the results were catastrophic.

Scandinavian social democracy does not “do socialism well”, it explicitly abandons socialism. These countries rely on private ownership, market pricing, capital investment, and global trade to generate wealth. Redistribution comes after capitalism succeeds, not instead of it.

Finally, “reducing inequality” is not the function of an economic system. It’s a political objective that can be pursued only if an economy first produces surplus. Calling that surplus-taxing model “socialism” doesn’t make it so, it just muddies the language to protect an ideology from its own record.

If words mean whatever is convenient, then history means nothing, and that’s exactly the escape hatch your argument is trying to use. You need to be honest with yourself. The semantic evasion you engage in is nothing more than an attempt to escape accountability for a failed ideology.

 

[Hel_Books]

Socialism has a historically consistent meaning

You're a sick joke. Whenever a program comes up to spend money on something other than you (like, say a program to provide vaccinations or education or clean drinking water for the working poor) it's "socialism" picking someone's pocket, while a massive defence budget or subsidies for agribusiness or the carried interest loophole or tax breaks for property developers . . . well, that's all what government was created for in the first place, eh?

 

[JohnEngelman]

Socialism has a historically consistent meaning: state control or collective ownership of the means of production. You don’t get to discard that core definition simply because the results were catastrophic.

Scandinavian social democracy does not “do socialism well”, it explicitly abandons socialism. These countries rely on private ownership, market pricing, capital investment, and global trade to generate wealth. Redistribution comes after capitalism succeeds, not instead of it.

Finally, “reducing inequality” is not the function of an economic system. It’s a political objective that can be pursued only if an economy first produces surplus. Calling that surplus-taxing model “socialism” doesn’t make it so, it just muddies the language to protect an ideology from its own record.

If words mean whatever is convenient, then history means nothing, and that’s exactly the escape hatch your argument is trying to use. You need to be honest with yourself. The semantic evasion you engage in is nothing more than an attempt to escape accountability for a failed ideology.

Socialism existed as several schools of thought before the Communist Manifest was written in 1847 and published in 1848.

In The Communist Manifesto, written in 1847 and published in 1848 Karl Marx distinguished between:

Feudal socialism,
Petty Bourgeois Socialism,
German or True Socialism,
Conservatism or Bourgeois Socialism,
and
Critical Utopian Socialism.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

Each of these were varieties of socialism that existed before The Communist Manifesto was written.

Also, the difference between capitalism and socialism is analog, rather than binary. Modern economies are not capitalist or socialist. They combine aspects of capitalism and socialism. The United States moved in a socialist direction during the New Deal. Many Americans, including me, want the United States to move further in a socialist direction. That would require a more progressive tax system, more environmental regulations, socialized medicine, government financing of higher education for those who qualify, and a few other reforms. In short, it would require that the U.S. economy become more similar to Scandinavian Social Democracy.

 

[Rightguide]

Socialism existed as several schools of thought before the Communist Manifest was written in 1847 and published in 1848.

In The Communist Manifesto, written in 1847 and published in 1848 Karl Marx distinguished between:

Feudal socialism,
Petty Bourgeois Socialism,
German or True Socialism,
Conservatism or Bourgeois Socialism,
and
Critical Utopian Socialism.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

Each of these were varieties of socialism that existed before The Communist Manifesto was written.

Also, the difference between capitalism and socialism is analog, rather than binary. Modern economies are not capitalist or socialist. They combine aspects of capitalism and socialism. The United States moved in a socialist direction during the New Deal. Many Americans, including me, want the United States to move further in a socialist direction. That would require a more progressive tax system, more environmental regulations, socialized medicine, government financing of higher education for those who qualify, and a few other reforms. In short, it would require that the U.S. economy become more similar to Scandinavian Social Democracy.

This sounds reasonable only because it blurs critical distinctions. Economies aren’t “analog” in the way you’re suggesting; they are structurally capitalist or not, depending on whether prices, investment, and production are set either by markets, or by political authority.

The U.S. did not “move toward socialism” under the New Deal. It remained a capitalist economy with private ownership, market pricing, and profit-and-loss discipline. What changed was the size of government, not the economic system. Confusing redistribution and regulation with socialism is the mistake you're making here.

What you’re advocating isn’t “more socialism.” It’s more taxation, more regulation, and more public spending layered on top of existing capitalism. You may prefer that combination, it's a legitimate political position, but calling it socialism doesn’t make it so.

 

[JohnEngelman]

This sounds reasonable only because it blurs critical distinctions. Economies aren’t “analog” in the way you’re suggesting; they are structurally capitalist or not, depending on whether prices, investment, and production are set either by markets, or by political authority.

The U.S. did not “move toward socialism” under the New Deal. It remained a capitalist economy with private ownership, market pricing, and profit-and-loss discipline. What changed was the size of government, not the economic system. Confusing redistribution and regulation with socialism is the mistake you're making here.

What you’re advocating isn’t “more socialism.” It’s more taxation, more regulation, and more public spending layered on top of existing capitalism. You may prefer that combination, it's a legitimate political position, but calling it socialism doesn’t make it so.

 

[ll74]

View attachment 2591554

The thread is about conservatism

 

[JohnEngelman]

Letter from Dwight D. Eisenhower to Edgar Newton Eisenhower (1954)​

by Dwight D. Eisenhower, November 8, 1954


Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.4 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/letter-to-edgar-newton-eisenhower/

What President Eisenhour is telling his brother is that he intends to preserve the socialist reforms of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal because he knows that they are popular with the voters.

President Eisenhower was a true conservative because he accepted the status quo left to him by the Roosevelt administration.

William Buckley was a reactionary who tried to repeal New Deal Reforms.

 

[Sean Renaud]

This sounds reasonable only because it blurs critical distinctions. Economies aren’t “analog” in the way you’re suggesting; they are structurally capitalist or not, depending on whether prices, investment, and production are set either by markets, or by political authority.

The U.S. did not “move toward socialism” under the New Deal. It remained a capitalist economy with private ownership, market pricing, and profit-and-loss discipline. What changed was the size of government, not the economic system. Confusing redistribution and regulation with socialism is the mistake you're making here.

What you’re advocating isn’t “more socialism.” It’s more taxation, more regulation, and more public spending layered on top of existing capitalism. You may prefer that combination, it's a legitimate political position, but calling it socialism doesn’t make it so.

You know this is what makes people like you so fucking frustrating and dangerous. You know enough to understand that even the most leftist person of any political importance in America is not socialist. You're smart enough to weaponize words. You'll happily call us socialist because you know its a scare word that will galvanize your allies and hopefully shame us into taking a different opinion. Now that so many of us have just said "fuck it, if this is socialism I'm okay with it" you want to debate that what we want isn't socialism. It's a really good tactic for not discussing whatever particular subject is at hand whether its Universal Health Care, low or free education or infrastructure. I know exactly how food and labor get from point A to point B and while I'm not going to sit here and do the math or even know if there is a consistent way to attempt to do the math I know having reliable transportation is vital.

The worst part of your fucking tactic is how dangerous it is long term. Millennials depending on if we are elder or younger have spent our entire lives watching capitalism fail and being told socialism saved us. The Bailouts for the Auto and Banking industry were definitely sold by the right as socialism. The Left just didn't bother arguing. Both sides agreed it was absolutely necessary. Then COVID and hopefully economists are wrong but it certainly looks like we're headed for a recession or something that feels like one whether or not it reaches the technical definition. We've lived our entire lives in a shit storm. Gen Z has never even seen an economy that anybody was describing as healthy instead of "Well it could absolutely be worst." One actual socialist or commuinist or something new that doesn't have a proper text book definition yet with a bit of charisma isn't going to have a hard time selling "What have you got to lose?" Social security is going to run out in five years. You'll never own your house. You want kids but can't afford them and the country is DYING. You can pretend all you want that the Right isn't preaching that. They are just wraping it in White Christian Nationalism. You can't have an immigration problem AND a problem keeping your population steady or growing. Japan has the same stupid problem. But when socialist, communist, Marxist no longer means anything to an increasingly large population what's going to prevent them from ACTUALLY voting for it?

I would love to claim that the Left over used racism and that's why we're here. But the reality is we can look at the ages MAGA as a collective and see we didn't push them into the arms of another. They just stopped pretending they weren't bigots and really wanted to Make America Great Again and that starts with putting everybody who isn't a Rich Straight White Christian Male back in their places.

 

[briancamdudetenger2018]

Tucker Carson and Candace Owens are both far right wing.

true but there has been alot of right wingers latley that do not like the pot smoker tucker carlson and the crazy one candy owens anymore

so thats why i said what wing are they in now lol

the up wing or the down wing

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

true but there has been alot of right wingers latley that do not like the pot smoker tucker carlson and the crazy one candy owens anymore

so thats why i said what wing are they in now lol

the up wing or the down wing

The right wing is in disarray. The only thing they all agree on is that they want Trump to be in power.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I don't think they agree on that. I think they accept they can't get rid of him.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I don't think they agree on that. I think they accept they can't get rid of him.

They think they can use him to get what they want. For some, it’s white supremacy, for others it’s manipulating the stock market. Some of them are angling for pardons. Some of them want to destroy the U.S government. Having a gullible bigoted crook as President of the United States is really useful if you’re a bigot or a crook yourself.

 

[YDB95]

They think they can use him to get what they want.

This! Most of them know what a moron Trump is and always has been, and they know he's sundowning to boot. But he's a useful idiot, because of the way he rallies the deplorables.

 

[briancamdudetenger2018]

The right wing is in disarray. The only thing they all agree on is that they want Trump to be in power.

its like what happened to them

were they all torchered by a ramsey bolton and he called all of them reek