What destroyed the American conservative MIND?

[latecomer91364]

The apt question is "What destroyed the 'liberal' mind?

 

[justawnnabewriter]

The apt question is "What destroyed the 'liberal' mind?

That's assuming they had a mind to begin with

 

[latecomer91364]

That's assuming they had a mind to begin with

Once upon a time, long, long ago.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The liberal mind is morally and intellectually superior. IF we have a major downfall its we have a hard time grasping the conservative is genuinely that dumb and evil.

 

[SkyBubble]

I don't claim to know anything about being Bill Gates. What I do know is, people like him have been saying things like that for over a hundred years.

Not like this. And we've been in the so-called "Progressive" era for about that long, so the two things track with each other. The regulatory state is the biggest burden on our economy. Taxes and regulatory compliance are two of teh bigest costs to a business, and unlike the expenses for space and pay, those costs produce nothing for teh business.

They said it about minimum wage laws (I mean any minimum wage at all) the 40-hour work week, child labor laws, safety regulations

They made different complaints about those things, not the specific thing Gates said. And minimum wage laws both cause unemployment at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder (which your cult doesn't mind one bit) and serve as a benefit to Big Business because it makes it difficult enough for small businesses to stay in business that the additional cost to the Walmarts of the world is more than offset by the gain of market share when the mom-and-pops collapse under the weight of unsustainable expenses.

if any of it were true, Gates wouldn't have been able to found Microsoft in the first place

This is not so. The regulatory burden 30-40 years ago when he was

he understood the Constitution in the way you want it to be understood.

He understood it the way it was written, which is how you should interpret it.

And the first thing anyone who really is an expert on the Constitution will tell you is, it is NOT "pretty clear". There was a lot of disagreement on what should go into it, the framers themselves said at the time that none of them was fully satisfied with what they ended up with, and there were parts where they had to be fairly ambiguous just to achieve consensus.

Nobody disputes that, but they came up with a brilliant document they could all support generally, even if they disagreed with specific provisions. (All but one or two signed it.)

Its language is clear and direct. It says what it means and means what it says. The doctrine that says the meaning changes with time is simply wrong. The Constitution is our rulebook and if you want to change it, it provides two avenues to do that. It's hard, deliberately, but those channels exist and there are currently 27 amendments (though 2 of them cancel each other out.) If you and I were to play a game, would you want to play by clear, understandable rules or rules that change over time?

 

[YDB95]

Not like this. And we've been in the so-called "Progressive" era for about that long, so the two things track with each other.

The Progressive Era ended with World War I, SkyBubble. It pays to know your history.

The regulatory state is the biggest burden on our economy. Taxes and regulatory compliance are two of teh bigest costs to a business, and unlike the expenses for space and pay, those costs produce nothing for teh business.

Nothing but safety, a solid infrastructure, workers who are at least sometimes treated like human beings with rights...if you don't see why those things matter for a business, you've obviously never run one. But I concede the ruling class usually don't care about them.

They made different complaints about those things, not the specific thing Gates said.

First of all, those "different complaints" were wrong. Hiring only adults, paying them a living wage, giving them enough time off to spend with their families and enjoy life a little, and respecting their rights to a safe working place did not drive anyone out of business. Secondly, the "specific thing Gates said" was simply that he wouldn't be able to start Microsoft in today's climate. That is not specific at all; it's wonderfully vague, and lets people like you project nearly any meaning you want on it.

Oh, and the real kicker? Microsoft was founded in 1975. Before the Reagan revolution and all the deregulations it brought, most of which have never been fully undone. In other words, there were a lot more regulations in 1975 than today. So Gates might even be saying an entrepreneur would be better off with more regulations (and having worked in startups myself, I agree: it makes you look a lot more trustworthy for talented potential employees and investors to take a chance on).

And minimum wage laws both cause unemployment at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder (which your cult doesn't mind one bit) and serve as a benefit to Big Business because it makes it difficult enough for small businesses to stay in business that the additional cost to the Walmarts of the world is more than offset by the gain of market share when the mom-and-pops collapse under the weight of unsustainable expenses.

Nice try. But first of all, the Fed actually aims to maintain a certain level of unemployment when it adjusts interest rates. Secondly, you bring up Wal-Mart of all things...they are notorious for paying their workers so poorly most of them qualify for public assistance even when they're working full time. That they can get away with that is the real reason why they've put mom and pop shops out of business all over the place: they essentially sell their wares at less than fair value (and can afford to do so due to volume and the too-low minimum wage), thus forcing the competition out of business. That's also how John D. Rockefeller got rich, decades before the minimum wage existed, incidentally.

In other words, the very regulations you are decrying here could prevent what Wal-Mart does.

This is not so. The regulatory burden 30-40 years ago when he was

51 years ago, actually. The dividing line here is 1980, which is probably why you apparently want to believe Microsoft came after that. It didn't.

He understood it the way it was written, which is how you should interpret it.

Even the framers themselves did not want it interpreted that way. They understood that times and values would change, and that they had no way of knowing just what would change (i.e. I doubt if it occurred to any of them that women would one day get the vote, or even non-landowners for that matter). That's why we call it a living document. And whatever Barry Goldwater's merits (I will say i always liked how blunt he was, whether I agreed with him on anything or not), he was not a Constitutional scholar. Indeed, he wasn't a scholar at all.

Nobody disputes that, but they came up with a brilliant document they could all support generally, even if they disagreed with specific provisions. (All but one or two signed it.)

Ah, but you are disputing it, when you say the Constitution is "pretty clear". By design, it is not.

Its language is clear and direct. It says what it means and means what it says.

In some places yes, in others it is deliberately ambiguous. That's why we have an entire branch of the government that's dedicated to interpreting it.

The doctrine that says the meaning changes with time is simply wrong. The Constitution is our rulebook and if you want to change it, it provides two avenues to do that. It's hard, deliberately, but those channels exist and there are currently 27 amendments (though 2 of them cancel each other out.) If you and I were to play a game, would you want to play by clear, understandable rules or rules that change over time?

True but irrelevant. Nothing here proves that the language is "clear" in any way.

 

[SkyBubble]

The Progressive Era ended with World War I

With the exception of just a few years, we have lived under Progressivism since at least the beginning of the 20th century. FDR was a progressive; so were LBJ, Obama, and others. The progressive vision of a powerful collective state run by "experts" has simply metastasized.

The Progressives and teh fascists and Nazis adopted many of each other's ideas.

Nothing but safety, a solid infrastructure, workers who are at least sometimes treated like human beings with rights.

None of which has teh slightest thing to do with progressivism. If you think it does, you don't know what it is.

First of all, those "different complaints" were wrong. Hiring only adults, paying them a living wage, giving them enough time off to spend with their families and enjoy life a little, and respecting their rights to a safe working place did not drive anyone out of business.

They were not wrong. The regulatory structure imposed burdens and costs that made some marginal businesses close. Taht is simply history and economics. I'm sorry you don't understand those things.

Secondly, the "specific thing Gates said" was simply that he wouldn't be able to start Microsoft in today's climate. That is not specific at all; it's wonderfully vague, and lets people like you project nearly any meaning you want on it.

It's quite specific enough. He is saying the contemporary regulatory structure makes it impossible for a guy like him to start a company and grow it like he did. It's not hard to understand, unless you simply don't want to.

Microsoft was founded in 1975.

Correct. In a time when ther was more economic freedom, fewer barriers to entry, fewer obstacles to growth.

there were a lot more regulations in 1975 than today.

This is simply factually wrong. The regulatory code has grown massive since then. This claim alone discredits everything you say.

But first of all, the Fed actually aims to maintain a certain level of unemployment when it adjusts interest rates.

In that case, it's not doing a very good job.

The Fed is just the Big Banks. Do you want big bankers running our economy?

Since teh Fed was founded in 1913, the dollar has lost over 90% of its purchasing power.

you bring up Wal-Mart of all things...they are notorious for paying their workers so poorly most of them qualify for public assistance even when they're working full time.

True, they pay low wages. Wages people agreed to accept. If I'm willing to sell my labor for that price, what the hell business is it of yours or the government's to interfere in that private contract between seller (the employee who possesses the labor) and the buyer (the employer who buys that labor)?

Those low wages allow the price to stay low. When you force pay up artificially, you add expenses to the cost of doing business and that has to be made up somehow. So the price has to be raised. That's true for the big guys like Walmart and the small mom and pops as well. The difference is that the big guys can afford it and the smaller ones can't, so now you're left only with teh big guys. The small merchant is gone.

This raises the cost of living for everyone, so whatever good you think you're doing by setting artificially high wages is undone by the cost of living increases. Meanwhile, you've caused unemployment for the people who worked at the smaller place, who are usually on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

Not that your cult cares about that.

The dividing line here is 1980

How so?

Even the framers themselves did not want it interpreted that way.

Wrong. Read them; they fully intended it to be read the way they wrote it. Otherwise, they would have written it differently. They intended to set up a permanent governing structure that best implemented the principles of the Declaration of Independence and preserved the maximum degree of liberty for the people. The purpose was to restrain government.

They understood that times and values would change, and that they had no way of knowing just what would change

Yes, they did. And they gave us two procedures to amend the Constitution if we decided it needed amending. They made it difficult, but it's happened 27 times. If you don't like it, amend it, but you don't get to just interpret it away.

But they intended to have a permanent set of foundational rules to protect liberty from government. Your side wants to protect the government (except when you don't run it, which you consider a threat to democracy.)

Oh, and BTW, we're not a democracy and we're not supposed to be.

That's why we call it a living document.

That's a euphemism for "let's ignore it when it's inconvenient." A living Constitution is no Constitution. As I said before, if you and I are playing a game, do you want the rules to be "living" or fixed? How would it work if we can just "interpret" the rules in the middle of the game?

And whatever Barry Goldwater's merits (I will say i always liked how blunt he was, whether I agreed with him on anything or not), he was not a Constitutional scholar.

He wasn't, and I suspect you're not either. But he understood it. It really isn't hard to understand. As I said, it's pretty clear.

By design, it is not.

By design, it is.

Nothing here proves that the language is "clear" in any way.

So then you're in doubt about the enumerated powers or the First Amendment or how many houses of Congress there are?

Your side has a vested interest in pretending i doesn't mean what it means so that you can make it mean whatever suits you at a given moment.

 

[Rightguide]

When Movement Conservatism got started in 1964, its public faces were at least pseudo-cerebral types like William F. Buckley and George Will.

But it is a very long time, now, since American conservatism has been able to rise above the intellectual level of a claymation Christmas special. It is a very long desclension from Buckley and Will to Beck and Carlson.

Why IS that?

And while we’re busy staging funerals for conservative intellect, one might cast a glance, purely out of anthropological curiosity, at the left’s own evolution. From the icy, cultivated hauteur of Susan Sontag to the slogan-chanting theatrics of today’s street-level activism, there has been, shall we say, a certain simplification of the species. What was once expressed in dense essays and moral paradox now arrives pre-digested on cardboard placards, spelled phonetically and shouted with great conviction.

This is not to say that passion has replaced thought, only that thought has been relieved of its former burdens. Where Sontag dissected, her latter-day descendants denounce; where she interrogated complexity, they declare certainty. The trajectory is not so much downward as outward, from the library to the pavement, from argument to performance.

Thus, Wilson, the critic who laments a decline in conservative intellect, might pause before throwing stones from what has become, on your own side, a glass-encased treehouse.

 

[YDB95]

With the exception of just a few years, we have lived under Progressivism since at least the beginning of the 20th century. FDR was a progressive; so were LBJ, Obama, and others.

How I wish it were that simple. But the fact is, the country did take a hard right turn in the 1980s, particularly when it comes to regulations on business, and we have never really righted the course since then.

The Progressives and teh fascists and Nazis adopted many of each other's ideas.

Tell me you know nothing about fascism or the Nazis without saying so...

They were not wrong. The regulatory structure imposed burdens and costs that made some marginal businesses close.

If your profit margin is so narrow that you can't afford to pay a living wage, you've got bigger problems than regulations. Much bigger.

Taht is simply history and economics. I'm sorry you don't understand those things.

I have a degree in history. As for economics, when a right winger says "That [or, in this case, taht] is just economics," it's almost always a reflection of someone who either slept through Econ 101 or never took it at all.

It's quite specific enough. He is saying the contemporary regulatory structure makes it impossible for a guy like him to start a company and grow it like he did. It's not hard to understand, unless you simply don't want to.

That's not "specific" at all. It's a blank slate for anyone to interpret as a condemnation of any particular regulation they don't like. And as I said, the ability of well-connected families to bring their children's start-ups to the attention of bigwigs has not changed. THAT is how Microsoft got its big break.

Correct. In a time when ther was more economic freedom, fewer barriers to entry, fewer obstacles to growth.

That simply is not true. Rolling back regulations, or simply failing to enforce them, was a big part of what defined the Reagan administration. As with a lot of his dumb ideas, we've never completely set things back to the way they were beforehand.

This is simply factually wrong. The regulatory code has grown massive since then. This claim alone discredits everything you say.

And yet neither you nor Bill Gates have actually pointed at anything specific to back up your claim.

True, they pay low wages. Wages people agreed to accept. If I'm willing to sell my labor for that price, what the hell business is it of yours or the government's to interfere in that private contract between seller (the employee who possesses the labor) and the buyer (the employer who buys that labor)?

You're moving the goalposts. The point wasn't whether or not people are willing to accept Wal-Mart's slave wages (although it is worth knowing that in many rural communities, it's the only option they have). You brought up Wal-Mart as supposedly the beneficiary of burdensome governmental regulations that force smaller companies out of business, when in reality Wal-Mart is the culprit in that story.

Those low wages allow the price to stay low. When you force pay up artificially, you add expenses to the cost of doing business and that has to be made up somehow. So the price has to be raised. That's true for the big guys like Walmart and the small mom and pops as well. The difference is that the big guys can afford it and the smaller ones can't, so now you're left only with teh big guys. The small merchant is gone.

As I already said, if your profit margin is so tight you can't afford a living wage, you've got bigger problems anyway. And this is further evidence that you don't understand economics. The relationship you are describing here is not perfectly elastic, and even if it were, payroll is a relatively small part of most companies' expenses (usually in the 20-30% range).

This raises the cost of living for everyone, so whatever good you think you're doing by setting artificially high wages is undone by the cost of living increases. Meanwhile, you've caused unemployment for the people who worked at the smaller place, who are usually on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

Not that your cult cares about that.

As I already said, the likes of you have been making claims like that for over 100 years. It has never happened.

Wrong. Read them; they fully intended it to be read the way they wrote it.

If you have read them, you know that's not true. Or perhaps I should say "if you have read and understood them." But hey, you went to a top ten college, didn't you?

Otherwise, they would have written it differently. They intended to set up a permanent governing structure that best implemented the principles of the Declaration of Independence and preserved the maximum degree of liberty for the people.

Although basically correct, in no way does that prove they intended it to be simple or rigid.

The purpose was to restrain government.

No, it was not. It was to make government accountable to the people (or at least to the relative few they deemed worthy of getting a vote).

But they intended to have a permanent set of foundational rules to protect liberty from government.

From tyranny. Not from government. If you can't tell the difference between the two, that's your problem.

Your side wants to protect the government (except when you don't run it, which you consider a threat to democracy.)

You know, the first rule of having a reasonable debate is, you have to be able and willing to phrase your opponent's views accurately. Otherwise, you're either starting from a position of being misinformed, or you're simply not willing to acknowledge what the other side actually believes. I get the feeling in your case, it's both. In any event, you are totally off base here.

Oh, and BTW, we're not a democracy and we're not supposed to be.

That one again? At least here I understand your view. Sort of.

That's a euphemism for "let's ignore it when it's inconvenient." A living Constitution is no Constitution. As I said before, if you and I are playing a game, do you want the rules to be "living" or fixed? How would it work if we can just "interpret" the rules in the middle of the game?

The Constitution is not a game.

He wasn't, and I suspect you're not either. But he understood it. It really isn't hard to understand. As I said, it's pretty clear.

Anyone who says a thing like this is simply illustrating that they are way, way out of their depth.

So then you're in doubt about the enumerated powers or the First Amendment or how many houses of Congress there are?

Very funny. But even you know that's not what I meant.

Your side has a vested interest in pretending i doesn't mean what it means so that you can make it mean whatever suits you at a given moment.

"Pretending I doesn't mean what it means"? Ermkayyyyy...

 

[GhostFence2024]

When Movement Conservatism got started in 1964, its public faces were at least pseudo-cerebral types like William F. Buckley and George Will.

But it is a very long time, now, since American conservatism has been able to rise above the intellectual level of a claymation Christmas special. It is a very long desclension from Buckley and Will to Beck and Carlson.

Why IS that?

Please provide proof that Conservatism has a mind. They're a disease, a blight, not things that have minds.

 

[73Seahawks]

Things that drove the American Conservatives NUTS:
*Demographics changing the United States of America as the country is becoming more racially diverse.
*Interracial marriages skyrocketing and lots of interracial grandchildren and great-grand children.
*Lots of interracial sex orgies in movies, television series, dramas, etc.,
*Thin-skinned when it comes to constructive criticism on policies, etc.,
*Lack of specific policy achievements.
*Distractions, distractions, etc.,