An interesting read

[Otto Matic]

Not sure what happened. I was about to respond to a fair list of thoughts from Otto Matic. I was even poised to give a VG thumbs up . It was nice to see the ideas and the experience behind the ideas. But then it was gone - converted into a one-sentence us/them line, bummer. For his now gone text, I agreed with some and disagreed with some but it was part of a discussion which was nice.

Didn't feel like it met your "political theory" context, so just deleted the entire thing.

THEORY: A theory is a group of linked ideas intended to explain something. ... They can be tested to provide support for, or challenge, the theory. The word 'theory' has several meanings: a guess or speculation. a law about things which cannot be seen directly, such as electrons or evolution.

If you are "conservative", and wonder why liberals seem to be taking control, look up "O'Sullivan's Law".

Just about the most succinct description of what's happening in today's world.

I'll replace part of what I wrote, vg!

Since FDR, America has been on a slide into socialism and communism.
FDR set up the Social Security System.
That was one of the first BIG steps toward making Americans dependent on their Gov't.
Since LBJ, (here's your part!) liberalism has been slowly taking over the media, education and destroying free speech and religion.

Today's "conservative" must stop the "I'll give you a chance." hiring practice and begin using the "liberal" practice of shunning liberalism!

Just today, Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and another (D) cohort, refused to confirm a hard core, liberal progressive for a post simply because the man was "white"!
Isn't THAT racism?
Aren't "liberals" antiracist? ...supposedly?

 

[VikingsGuy]

If you are "conservative", and wonder why liberals seem to be taking control, look up "O'Sullivans Law".

Came up an Australian lawfirm - I guess my google-fu is weak today.

Updated: Nevermind, found it. Damn quotes tricked google.

 

[VikingsGuy]

If you are "conservative", and wonder why liberals seem to be taking control, look up "O'Sullivans Law".

But your own deleted story shows that updating your views in light of new information and understanding is critical to even your own evolution. So, while I can see the trend O'Sullivan points out, it doesn't by itself give us a path towards addressing new circumstances and new environments.

For example, while Reagan-esque policies of economically isolating communist countries to bring them to heal worked wonderfully with the Soviets (and would have worked for China back then), but since we let China slide (both Nixon and Clinton get black eyes for this), it is now too late to stick to that 1980 principle. We now need new thinking to address the present problem.

 

[Otto Matic]

We now need new thinking to address the present problem.

My "theory"!?
If you want it!

Use "liberalism" against liberals.
Hard core, no nonsense, split lips, cracked skulls, missing teeth conservatism.
THAT'S what elected Trump in '16!
"You hit me, I'll hit back. Twice as hard!"
Ted Cruz, John Ratcliff, Mike Pompeo, Jim Jordan, John Kennedy, Ron DeSantis, Kristi Noem etal understand that concept.

Conservatives must STOP being "Mr. Nice Guy!" and start kicking, biting, scratching, hair pulling, nut busting, gouging, kidney punching their way back.

Now!
How much of all that will come about?
Probably none of it.

JUST MY NOT SO HUMBLE OPINION!!!!

Any of you remember the ads by Eddie Chiles* of the "Western Company" of the 80's and 90's?

"Hi! I'm Eddie Chiles and I'm mad!"
He would then launch into a Will Rogers-esque tirade against some goofy crap the Gov't was up to! About 95% of the time spot on with his anger!

I don't claim to have all the answers and I don't think anybody else here does either.

vg - as an aside, I worked with a gent who could barely write his own name, but built his own single seat, ultralight aircraft with a VW motor and a push prop. Actually, he built several, but ultralight enthusiasts kept buying them. He just didn't care to do it for a living.
I've also worked with highly educated people who couldn't pour the proverbial liquid out of a boot with instructions on the heel.

* the closest I EVER came to getting run over was in a construction zone where I was flagging traffic.
Eddie Chiles, in his red, 2 seater Mercedes Benz came speeding through the zone and never batted an eye! ....nor did he pay any attention to the bright orange flag I was waving at him!

 

[beginnerhunter]

Always appreciate your thoughtful posts and threads, Vikingsguy. Maybe you should start a politics forum!

PS still working on that PM, trying to gather my thoughts without coming across too tinfoily.

 

[Hydrophilic]

Good read.

I personally believe the last great republican was Dwight Eisenhower, who was well before my time. Some of his policies and stances would not have aged well but he had an impressive list of accomplishments, many of which 'helped the little guy'...and by little guy I mean most of America, not the corporate CEOs. Eisenhower passed a huge education bill, interstate system bill, one of the first civil rights acts (federal protections for African American voting rights), a progressive tax policy with a 92% tax on the highest bracket, balanced the budget 3 times!, created NASA, ended the Korean war, and helped the united states stay out of wars. WW2 vet. Legend. No comparison to what we have now.

It seems like the modern republican movement is centered around 'owning the left', 'resenting the left', 'pointing out hypocrisy in the left', 'whataboutisms', further empowering corporations, saying anything you want to, and guns. I say that as someone who has voted for conservative candidates before, and at one time considered myself a conservative, but not a republican. It would be interesting to see how modern republicans would react if Teddy Roosevelt, a republican, was setting aside millions of acres of public land today, which hunters greatly appreciate. Would it largely be viewed as federal overreach? Or would it be federal government using it's power, vested by the people, to serve ALL the people, not just wealthy corporations? The same thing with Eisenhower, who enjoyed a tremendous approval rating. Would his policies be approved or frowned on by modern republicans?

I would like to see a conservative movement aligned with everyday americans, against crony capitalism, for an environmental platform of some sort, and for a new healthcare system of some sort. I suspect there are tons of 'conservatives' (not republicans) voting for other parties who would readily jump ship if the party rebranded and stood for normal, every day americans again.

 

[Salmonchaser]

Now we’re getting somewhere. Considered discourse by like minded but not always agreeing people. Imagine the possibilitie.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Just today, Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and another (D) cohort, refused to confirm a hard core, liberal progressive for a post simply because the man was "white"!
Isn't THAT racism?
Aren't "liberals" antiracist? ...supposedly?

Just to be clear - they threatened to vote against any more non-diverse nominees due to 0 out of 15 cabinet-level appointed being Asian or Pacific Islander. After discussions with the white house that assured them that this demographic will get a meaningful role in his administration, they withdrew their objections.

I am not a fan of race-based politics, but lets at least tell the full nuanced story.

 

[Otto Matic]

Good read.

I personally believe the last great republican was Dwight Eisenhower, who was well before my time. Some of his policies and stances would not have aged well but he had an impressive list of accomplishments, many of which 'helped the little guy'...and by little guy I mean most of America, not the corporate CEOs. Eisenhower passed a huge education bill, interstate system bill, one of the first civil rights acts (federal protections for African American voting rights), a progressive tax policy with a 92% tax on the highest bracket, balanced the budget 3 times!, created NASA, ended the Korean war, and helped the united states stay out of wars. WW2 vet. Legend. No comparison to what we have now.

It seems like the modern republican movement is centered around 'owning the left', 'resenting the left', 'pointing out hypocrisy in the left', 'whataboutisms', further empowering corporations, saying anything you want to, and guns. I say that as someone who has voted for conservative candidates before, and at one time considered myself a conservative, but not a republican. It would be interesting to see how modern republicans would react if Teddy Roosevelt, a republican, was setting aside millions of acres of public land today, which hunters greatly appreciate. Would it largely be viewed as federal overreach? Or would it be federal government using it's power, vested by the people, to serve ALL the people, not just wealthy corporations? The same thing with Eisenhower, who enjoyed a tremendous approval rating. Would his policies be approved or frowned on by modern republicans?

I would like to see a conservative movement aligned with everyday americans, against crony capitalism, for an environmental platform of some sort, and for a new healthcare system of some sort. I suspect there are tons of 'conservatives' (not republicans) voting for other parties who would readily jump ship if the party rebranded and stood for normal, every day americans again.

Read somewhere once that Ike had a really hard time adjusting from a strict military discipline to the haphazard, slipshod ways of politicians.
He was still a pretty amazing figure, but he soon learned that it was easier to just go play golf than deal with politicians, both (d) and (R).
It was just an article and I have no idea WHERE I found it

 

[Otto Matic]

Just to be clear - they threatened to vote against any more non-diverse nominees due to 0 out of 15 cabinet-level appointed being Asian or Pacific Islander. After discussions with the white house that assured them that this demographic will get a meaningful role in his administration, they withdrew their objections.

I am not a fan of race-based politics, but lets at least tell the full nuanced story.

It's still "racism", regardless of nuances.
...and (d)'s claim to not be racist.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Read somewhere once that Ike had a really hard time adjusting from a strict military discipline to the haphazard, slipshod ways of politicians.
He was still a pretty amazing figure, but he soon learned that it was easier to just go play golf than deal with politicians, both (d) and (R).
It was just an article and I have no idea WHERE I found it

From what I have read, Ike was a good man, but it is probably for the best that we have only had 3 generals in the white house over the last 230 years.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It's still "racism", regardless of nuances.
...and (d)'s claim to not be racist.

It does beg the question - is objecting to someone else's racism, racist? (not you, the senators)

 

[Salmonchaser]

On propensity of calling everyone who disagrees with a progressive a racist I think the language of our local disorderly conduct statute applies as an affirmative defense to punching some one in the nose for calling someone a racists who is not. My god that is a shitty sentence but I’m cooking dinner. Loosely translated : by Words or conduct likely to incure and assault. Seems to me if some one calls me a racist and I punch them in the nose, they should get arrested for disorderly conduct.
Now back to the pork chops

 

[Otto Matic]

It does beg the question - is objecting to someone else's racism, racist? (not you, the senators)

As a kid growing up (1950's), racism was rampant, both in the south where I was raised and in my home. It was just a part of everyday life.
Myself, I didn't understand. Weren't "people" just "people"?
I've since tried to maintain that attitude.

 

[Europe]

Now we’re getting somewhere. Considered discourse by like minded but not always agreeing people. Imagine the possibilitie.

 

[Dougfirtree]

It's heartening to hear a right-leaning author saying this stuff. There's a lot I can agree with in the article. His view of the Trump presidency is spot-on, both in terms of why he was elected (essentially a fluke caused by 2 terrible candidates) and what it represents. I particularly liked this metaphor:

"Earthquakes do not build anything. They disrupt and destroy, but they are temporary, and they provide the benefit of exposing structures that were sloppily built or that rested on crumbled foundations. People who relied on the old structures will rush in to put them right back up again. But after the earthquake comes a chance to reassess, to learn from what failed, and to rebuild in a way better suited to contemporary conditions."

Everyone on the right and the left should read that last sentence again.

The overall point of the article is quite true IMO; that (to put it simply), a Republican party that casts off its (sizable) fringe could draw a lot of Democrats into it and create a powerful new coalition in the middle. I would argue this isn't just an opportunity for the right. It's rapidly going to become a survival strategy, as shown by Democratic wins in Georgia, Arizona and how close it came in Texas(!)

The challenge is the same challenge that has faced conservatism through my lifetime. So much of conservatism is about taking power away from government, with the assumption that power will then rest with the people. And, similarly, putting people on an even playing field and letting competition sort things out. The challenge is that we don't start that game with an even playing field. We start with many generations of inequality, persecution and power gaps (not to mention the long legacy of racism). Power taken from the government tends to find itself in only a few hands and those hands are all too often those of big corporations; the wealthy and powerful. An equal playing field, applied to an unequal society just perpetuates what's already there. I'm not certain that the author (with his calls for a "multi-ethnic, working class conservatism") really gets that.

Good article. Thanks for posting!

 

[Hydrophilic]

Here’s an interesting topic. Would campaign finance reform fit into a modern conservative movement? Forget the other major political party who also has this issue, please focus on where this fits into a modern conservative movement.

Is it “free speech” for corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to political candidates? Or, do these “free speech” donations by corporations (which are not living/breathing people, rather entities created by state law) undercut the will of the people, and degrade a democracy?

Generally speaking, nearly all political donations (80%) come from 0.5% of the population largely concentrated in NY, WA, LA, Chicago, Boston. I suspect many people have turned to conspiracy theories because they have witnessed a government so out of touch with the people it just doesn’t make any sense. I wonder why?

Take health care. According to this Pew poll, most Americans want a health care system where the federal government plays some kind of a central roll. At the very least, most Americans want a fair and honorable health care system where health is the primary focus, not maximized profits

Increasing share of Americans favor a single government program to provide health care coverage

63% of U.S. adults say the government has the responsibility to provide health care coverage for all, up slightly from 59% last year.

www.pewresearch.org

Why don’t we get the health care system we want? We always end up with the health care system someone else wants for us. It’s not hard to figure out what’s going on.



It should be noted Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were ANTI unregulated corporations.

“Let individuals contribute as they desire, but let us prohibit in effective fashion all corporations from making contributions for any political purpose, directly or indirectly”. -Teddy Roosevelt

Nothing will change until this issue is addressed on a large national scale. In Oregon we recently passed a campaign contribution limit in a largely bipartisan fashion. This had bipartisan support for decades and the corporations continually out maneuvered the will of the Oregon people. It will help but won’t be a solve all.

Thoughts?