Liberals: which conservative notions have you found appealing?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

In this Pit post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10502055&postcount=95), I asked Starving Artist to supply me with a single truth you came around to that was espoused by a liberal that you at first strongly opposed and suggested that he might be surprised to find that most liberals have no problem acknowledging that they've

ever learned anything, conceded a fact, changed their position, accepted a conservative idea


He declined my invitation. So I invite those on the left-of-center to demonstrate things they've learned from their conservative brethren, facts they've conceded were true, etc.

This isn't the Pit, nor Great Debates, so please, no conservatives need apply. Self-identified lefties only, please. I'll start:

I've come around to thinking, after reading numerous discussions in GD, that 2nd Amendment pro-gun defenses aren't specious parsings of language contrary to the founders' intent, as I once had thought, but a genuine straight-forward and legitimate position reflecting their desire for most homes to be protected by privately owned firearms.

[Sunspace]

"Fiscal conservatism" (don't spend more than you have). This idea was a big feature of the conservative crusade in the nineties, as exemplified by the fulminations of the Toronto Sun newspaper. I now often point people to Dave Ramsey's debt advice, and our Canadian experience has shown that it applies on a national scale as well.

I remain, however, both green and socially libertarian, and I believe that sometimes it is the place of government to attempt social change or try to level a playing field. Social democracy is not always a bad thing.

[Illuminatiprimus]

Leftie who has moved closer to the centre over time chiming in.

I think the thing that attracts me the most about (theoretical) conservative ideology is the notion of personal responsibility. I annoys me no end to hear someone with a bleeding heart argue to the effect of "it's not his fault that he robbed a store at gun point for drugs money, it's society's fault".

No, it isn't. It's his choice to do that so it's HIS FAULT. Just because we have to make choices we don't like, or have to make more effort to achieve something because the hand we got dealt wasn't as good as it could have been, it's not an excuse to break the law or harm others. "We are all a product of our environments" is a cop out and it fails to distinguish between those who had a crappy start but don't have the ability to do much about it and those who do but chose not to.

No I'm not blaming people for their own problems, but there is a point where you have to say "do you want to choose to do something about this or not?" and hard core lefties will maintain that someone in a socially and/or economically disadvantaged position never really had that choice to make. I maintain they do and that they made the wrong choice. If that's not the case why do so many people from privileged background fuck their own lives up royally and some people pull themselves up from nothing by their own boot straps?

[Gyrate]

It'll do you no good, PRR - we tried it already in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=488826) to no avail.

But to sum up, the conservatives (especially Airman Doors) seem to be good at bringing liberals (myself included, I suppose) around to their viewpoint on gun ownership/control via reasoned and respectful discussion.

And George Bush has inadvertently done a good job of selling me on fiscal conservatism. :rolleyes:

[John DiFool]

First of all, I believe the political spectrum to be a fiction, and a rather harmful one at that. Ideas are either good or bad, we shouldn't have to consult our party playbook for what to think in a given situation before we pronounce our viewpoint.[/rantoff]

That said, this slightly left of center poster came over to guns several years ago.

[Ephemera]

Though I'm still no fan of the things, I'm not as adamantly opposed to firearm ownership as I used to be.

[Fretful Porpentine]

Another liberal here who has become cautiously pro-gun, or at least accepting of the fact that a single set of gun rules will never work for a large collection of disparate subcultures like the United States.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

It'll do you no good, PRR - we tried it already in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=488826) to no avail.

Well, this is a little more specifically focused, it's not in the Pit, and conservatives are requested to refrain, so I have a little hope we may accomplish something here.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking, btw, about brain-farts you may have had over the years, but genuine changes of heart following a discussion with a conservative. For example, I was a Bill Buckley supporter for Mayor of NYC when I was 12, but that was just because I was young and stupid and I like the way Bill Buckley created sentences-- that was just a blip of bad judgment on my part. And I voted against HRC, but that's just because I would have voted for anyone running against her, not because I liked her opponent's political philosophy. I'm talking about real, sincere thought-out changes in your thinking (which did not, however, make a conservative out of you. If it did, you probably don't belong here. Thanks for respecting this request, btw, conservatives. I know you'd like to get in here and dish, but I'll thank you to open your own thread if you really want to argue with someone.)

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Also, I've been persuaded that the Death Penalty is neither cruel nor unusual, and have almost no problem with everyone on death row meeting his maker by 4 PM today.

[Gyrate]

Don't feel too bad - I registered Republican in 1988 to support Bob Dole's candidacy. Thinking back, I found his platform more palatable that those of Bush Sr and Pat Robertson (especially Robertson). I also would have preferred Dole to Dukakis, whom I never liked. I'm currently registered Independent, for the record. I may be liberal but the Dems are no friends of mine either.

And I have no problem with the death penalty as long as the appeals process is robust and sensible.

[Chefguy]

I grew up with guns in the house and have no problem with most of them, nor with responsible non-trophy hunters. The notion of fiscal conservativism I agree with. The way the Republicans yammer on about it without actually practicing it, not so much.

[Illuminatiprimus]

First of all, I believe the political spectrum to be a fiction, and a rather harmful one at that. Ideas are either good or bad, we shouldn't have to consult our party playbook for what to think in a given situation before we pronounce our viewpoint.[/rantoff]I agree with this - and it does actually frustrate me as someone who works in the civil service that Political ideology can drive/block evidenced based policy making. A great example of this is the increasingly punitive approach to prostitution that is being taken by our current Government and in particular our Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.

From my liberal perspective I'm not opposed to prostitution and think there are better things we could be focusing on. But moreover from a policy wonk perspective if the outcomes you want are safer sex workers, less human trafficking, a weaker link between prostitution and drug usage etc etc further and harsher criminilisation of prostitution and people who use prostitutes doesn't achieve that. All the evidence shows this internationally, yet the ideological position of New Labour and Smith is that prosititution is vice and no woman really chooses to be a prostitute she's just forced into it via circumstance/desperation (even though there are about 80,000 prostitutes in this country and plenty of them will happily admit they went into it as a good source of money and no compulsion has ever occured). If you removed morality from this question and looked at it in a purely objective way criminilisation is not the answer you'd come up with.

Same with drugs, if the outcome you want is to reduce the black market in drugs, reduce people being dependent on them and turning to crime to finance their habits, limiting the effect it has on people's lives, reducing the number of people who are killed with contaminated substances etc etc the solution to this isn't prohibition because it clearly doesn't work. Virtually the entire medical profession and lots of police officers agree, but again the two main parties will never think outside of the current approach to drugs because they want to be seen to be "tough on crime", even though this doesn't actually achieve what they want. Interestingly enough the third party, the Liberal Democrats, have said they'd be happy to go back to the drawing board on drugs including consideration of whole scale legalisation and regulation if that was what the evidence showed was the best approach. Unfortunatley it's these kind of logical and sensible statements that ensure they'll never get into power.

[Beware of Doug]

I am attracted to the kind of levelheaded conservative thinking that can serve as a rational (DIDJA HEAR ME I SAID LEVELHEADED AND RATIONAL) counter to the more excessive, PC-moonbat-theory-think that arises when my fellow libs get distracted from the concerns of society at large and get a little too individualistic for the common good.

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

Well, at this very moment I'm thankful for the republicans in Congress who are making a stink over the bailouts. I'm not necessarily opposed to using taxpayer money to stabilize the economy, if the alternative is risking a depression, but we damn well need to examine what we're doing and put some major conditions on any money forked over.

I do like the idea of somewhat limited government and controlling spending. Too bad these conservative ideals have pretty much disappeared - the only difference now is the republicans spend on different things from the democrats.

I'm actually not too keen on having guns available to everyone. However, I do think it is a constitutional right, and no amount of rationalization can get around that. Obviously there has to be some allowance for controls and limitations (I don't think anyone but the nuttiest dominionist would argue that there's a right for each person to own a nuclear weapon), but yeah, Americans have the right to bear arms.

[Revenant Threshold]

I've come around to thinking, after reading numerous discussions in GD, that 2nd Amendment pro-gun defenses aren't specious parsings of language contrary to the founders' intent, as I once had thought, but a genuine straight-forward and legitimate position reflecting their desire for most homes to be protected by privately owned firearms. I'd go with something along these lines too, with pretty much the same evolution of thought.

This seems to be a rather popular one.

[DanBlather]

I've become much more "law and order" over the years. I hate the idea that there is a small group of repeat offenders that continually rob, rape, steal, drive drunk, etc. Let's get rid of laws on victimless crimes to free up permanent space in jail for those who victimize others. And of course my infamous stand on transients who get called "homeless".

But, I also think there should be a death penalty for white collar criminals who steal/embezzle over $100M.

[Karyn]

I gradually changed my mind about gun ownership also, and I like the (theoretical) idea of being fiscally conservative but not when it goes hand in hand with social conservatism. I've never changed my position because of a heated debate but calm reasoning can work.

[olivesmarch4th]

I think the conservative emphasis on personal responsibility is important. This is along the lines of what Illuminatiprumus has said about blaming society for the choices of others. I can appreciate that some of us have faced greater challenges then others, and that some experience prejudice and oppression, and that there is widespread injustice--but I still can't excuse bad decision making. I think people ought to live with the consequences of their actions. I think they will become better people because of it.

That seems to me to be the greatest influence of conservative thinking on my own ideas. Being at a disadvantage is not an excuse for failure.

[Beware of Doug]

OK, specifics seem to be the order of the day, so...
-I have no particular problem with the death penalty, only with how it's applied.
-I like the basic idea that art and culture ought to have some minimal moral decency, although I would never legislate to that end.
-I'm OK with responsible gun ownership. Just don't make a friggn lifestyle out of it.
-I'm for school choice, because when I was a kid, we didn't have it. I went to an open classroom. The board of ed leaned on us for 5 years till they could find a way to kill the program.
-I say Merry Christmas when seasonally appropriate. Yes, it is a religious holiday. It's also a secular one.
-I think there's a lot to be said for the broken window theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixing_Broken_Windows).

[Beware of Doug]

I think the conservative emphasis on personal responsibility is important.I think personal responsibility per se is important. But I think the conservative position on it is largely cynical and false.

[Icerigger]

Just asking, when do you see a conservative take any responsibility for things going wrong? They always blame liberals in one fron or another. Hell, the current financial crisis is blamed on Obama by conservatives and he is not even in office yet.

[Beware of Doug]

It's personal responsibility, not corporate or institutional or political responsibility. See above comment re: cynical and false.

[AHunter3]

I've come around to thinking, after reading numerous discussions in GD, that 2nd Amendment pro-gun defenses aren't specious parsings of language contrary to the founders' intent, as I once had thought, but a genuine straight-forward and legitimate position reflecting their desire for most homes to be protected by privately owned firearms.

This. And beyond that, even: I think the founding fathers really and truly intended that the citizens of the country should be armed, if necessary, against abuses wrought by their own government. To pick up arms and once again say "When, in the course of human events...", if need be.

"Fiscal conservatism" (don't spend more than you have).

This, in particular.


I think the thing that attracts me the most about (theoretical) conservative ideology is the notion of personal responsibility. I annoys me no end to hear someone with a bleeding heart argue to the effect of "it's not his fault that he robbed a store at gun point for drugs money, it's society's fault".


Related to that and linked to it: as many folks on this board are aware, I am opposed to forced psychiatric treatment &/or incarceration. Involuntary psychiatric treatment is supported & excused by the notion that there is a "you" separate and distinct from "your mind", such that you should be protected from unfortunate things you might do due to you being too ill to understand things. It is the flip side of "this person is not responsible for what they did, their behavior is caused by ExternalFactor X". Now, while on the one hand I think our culture's attitudes towards punishment are still draconian (albeit nowhere near as much so as they once were), a consistent legal system and a consistent structure of rights and responsibilities is, to many conservatives' way of thinking, the hallmark of a stable society. I could not agree more. A person's behavior is illegal or it is NOT. A person is subject to arrest for what they DID not what you think the MIGHT DO. Locking someone up and not letting them leave is an act of INCARCERATION. Citizens are responsible for what they DO.

If our legal system is inappropriately harsh, unforgiving, or inflexible in how it treats all its citizens, or a given law makes some perfectly reasonable behavior an arrestible crime when that behavior is actually harmless or excusable under some circumstances, fix the law, but don't carve loopholes in it based on "some people are not responsible for what they do". I think that's a spectacularly bad precedent.



And I will add one about 'political correctness'. I mean this term in the specific sense of some person or some organization taking an attitude towards a superficial issue — usually one that in some rather specific & limited political discussion of prior years came to take on larger symbolic meaning for the people involved — that condemns a superficial behavior in the most absolute and unforgiving fashion. That probably reads like mud. I'll provide examples:

• The Water Buffalo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_buffalo_incident) incident.

• Use of the word "girls" to refer to any female over 21 / over 18 / beyond puberty / at all.

• Growing or cutting one's hair to a length more typical of the other gender.


I added the third just to have one in the list where the intolerant ones have been the conservative folk, but I'm afraid I have to agree that it's far more often the liberals; that it comes with an unspoken dialog something akin to "All the important people in the world already had all the discussion that shall ever be needed on whether using that term / wearing that shape / singing that song is or is not offensive, it is not up for discussion, and you had to have known it was wrong, but you went and did it anyway therefore we, the thought police, are busting your ass for your inappropriate thoughts that your superficial behavior revealed"

Annoys the hell out of me. Actual racist sentiment? Intolerable. Sexist sentiment? Intolerable. But treating the superficial symbol as if it invariably signifies some intolerable sentiment is mind-blowingly stupid. It's like expelling a nursery school kid for drawing five pointed stars on the grounds that five pointed stars represent witchcraft and satanism.

[Frustrated Wonderer]

Um, I´m quite alright with the Death Penalty.

Gee...what else?

Reagan tax cuts were kinda cool, but they kinda just added more debt....

[Palo Verde]

I agree with several people that the most appealing aspects of the right are

1. Fiscal responsibility.

2. Not all problems have a government solution

3. Personal responsibility. If you do something stupid, it's your fault, it's not my fault for not stopping you. And since you made the mistake, you fix it.

[Sublight]

Don't spend more than you have.

You are ultimately responsible for what happens on your watch, even if you didn't personally do or not do it (i.e., "The Buck Stops Here). I've been very dismayed over the past 8 years at how frequently people have given Bush a pass for what people under him are doing.

I'm fine with rifle/shotgun ownership (still not convinced on handguns).

I'm strongly in favor of nuclear power

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Nothing. Whatever "conservative" ideas I agree with, I agreed with from the outset. I actually started out more conservative when I was younger and became more liberal.

[Isamu]

Nothing. Whatever "conservative" ideas I agree with, I agreed with from the outset. I actually started out more conservative when I was younger and became more liberal.

This describes me too. I tried to think of a single issue where I've been persuaded by conservative agruments and there aren't any.

[DubsyUin]

Just asking, when do you see a conservative take any responsibility for things going wrong? They always blame liberals in one fron or another. Hell, the current financial crisis is blamed on Obama by conservatives and he is not even in office yet.

Well, off the top of my head, Greenspan just came out and said he f***ed up. He's a pretty conservative guy. Now, if you're looking for conservative politicians who say they are wrong. Well, try finding A politician who will admit their world view or pet-policy could be wrong or flawed. Really, as I think about it, the same question can be asked for anyone who is firmly grounded into a certain ideology.

Anybody who blames the current crisis on Obama himself (not his ideology) is an idiot. Period. This is coming from a free market guy-open society kinda guy here (in fact I probably shouldn't be posting in this thread...Peace!)

Oh, quick question. What are considered "conservative arguments?" E.g. I would consider marijuana legalization a conservative argument.

[Throatwarbler Mangrove]

This describes me too. I tried to think of a single issue where I've been persuaded by conservative agruments and there aren't any.

Add me to the list of people who have become more liberal with age. In particular, I really don't understand people (lib or con) who are dogmatically set on one economic position or another. Mostly this applies to conservatives - I've never met anyone who thought we should tax and spend for the sake of taxing and spending, but plenty who are "fiscally conservative" either for the sake of being fiscally conservative, or for the sake of "fuck you, got mine".

[jsgoddess]

Add me to the list of people who have become more liberal with age.

Me, too.

[ITR champion]

He declined my invitation. So I invite those on the left-of-center to demonstrate things they've learned from their conservative brethren, facts they've conceded were true, etc.

This isn't the Pit, nor Great Debates, so please, no conservatives need apply. Self-identified lefties only, please. I'll start:

I've come around to thinking, after reading numerous discussions in GD, that 2nd Amendment pro-gun defenses aren't specious parsings of language contrary to the founders' intent, as I once had thought, but a genuine straight-forward and legitimate position reflecting their desire for most homes to be protected by privately owned firearms.
I have adopted the following conservative positions on political issues, all quite different from what I believed when I was a left-wing, Nader-voting college freshman.

- Affirmative action should be eliminated. So should Title IX and anything else of that nature. The state does not have any interest in promoting diversity for its own sake.
- States and cities should be allowed to make their own pornography laws, without interference by the federal government or the courts.
- The government should be allowed to use decency as a criteria, when deciding to fund or defund projects (such as the NEA).
- Religious displays and public property should be allowed.
- Public schools should be allowed to offer voluntary religious instruction.
- School vouchers should be available for all parents, giving them the chance to send their children to private school.
- Private businesses should be allowed to make their own decisions about smoking by customers.
- Welfare is a bad idea.
- Communism is a bad idea.


And I have adopted the following conservative personal beliefs, also quite different from what I believed when I was a left-wing, Nader-voting college freshman.

- Profanity is not a bold means of challenging authority. It is, rather, a lazy and useless kind of speech.
- More generally, pop culture that bills itself as gleefully offensive is not good, and is not part of a long and glorious tradition. Rather, it contributes to making society more coarse, vulgar, and stupid.
- In the same vein, our approach to speech, behavior, dress, and appearance is tied together with our morality. Lower standards in the little things inevitably lead to lower standards in the big things.
- Complete sexual anarchy just won't work. Social rules regarding who we sleep with, when, where, and why, are a necessary part of a functioning society.

[Kyla]

I'm a liberal and I supported Obama, but his talk of rewriting NAFTA made me cringe. I believe free trade is necessary to improve lives all over the world. (Although I am not a fan of the way the WTO operates a lot of the time, and there needs to be more social support for people who lose their jobs as a result.)

[Der Trihs]

Nothing. Whatever "conservative" ideas I agree with, I agreed with from the outset. I actually started out more conservative when I was younger and became more liberal.That's also me. The conservatives aren't likely to deliberately * convince me of anything, both because I disagree strongly with the majority of their worldview, and because of their habit of hypocrisy when it comes to any semi-decent idea they mention. Like fiscal responsibility; it's both obvious ( so I don't need to be convinced of it ), and as practiced by the conservatives it translates to "spend money like water, blame the resulting debt on the Left and demand cuts on social spending while handing more money to the rich".

* About the only way they convince me of anything is by being bad examples. The more I pay attention to the Right, the more I tend to drift to the Left.

[BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed]

E.g. I would consider marijuana legalization a conservative argument.

I thought about this in terms of taxes, but never really considered the fact that that might mean it was a conservative argument. Interesting!

I guess that means that legalization would be a (fiscal) conservative argument, and decriminalization a liberal one?

[MrDibble]

I have always been pro-(licenced)gun ownership, so it isn't that. Oooh, I know...

Conversations on the 'dope have led to to accept that, while I remain an abortion-anytime advocate, a 2nd-trimester cutoff is a compromise I can live with.

[DianaG]

This. And beyond that, even: I think the founding fathers really and truly intended that the citizens of the country should be armed, if necessary, against abuses wrought by their own government. To pick up arms and once again say "When, in the course of human events...", if need be.
I'd be a lot more convinced by that argument if armed private citizens ever showed up en masse to say, prevent the government from arbitrarily disolving a whole bunch of peoples' marriages.

I'm a little baffled that people would have to "come around" to ideas like respecting the second amendment and practicing fiscal conservatism. Good ideas are good ideas, it doesn't matter which team's playbook they came from. The problem with many "conservative" agendas isn't the fundamental ideas, it's the application and the methods.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I thought about this in terms of taxes, but never really considered the fact that that might mean it was a conservative argument. Interesting!

I guess that means that legalization would be a (fiscal) conservative argument, and decriminalization a liberal one?

We're getting a little far afield from the practical (as opposed to philosophical) connotations of the OP, I think. There are many practical positions espoused by "conservative" people (by which I mean registered Republicans, rich people, right-wingers generally--the typical, every day garden variety meaning of the term) that are downright liberal, even radically so, in the strict philosophical sense of the word. "Drill, baby, drill" and fuck-the-environment generally is an extremely liberal position, in that it plainly takes risks that the more conservative (conservationist) thinkers are unwilling to take, and it presumes that some unknown future turn of events will come along to resolve any long-term problems 'that drilling creates. Typically, focusing on solving current problems at the risk of violating previous norms is a liberal position. (See also: advocating nuclear power as a Liberal position). The philosophically conservative position on these things would be "It's very risky, let's study it carefully, and maybe prepare to act on the idea of nukes-for-everyone and drill-baby, drill only when we're quite sure the benefits outweigh the dangers." I don't know that there's much of a correlation between the current uses of "conservative/liberal" and the philosophical positions of the same name.

I'm really taking about the practical use of the terms. Positions like "prioritizing a reduction in the deficit," or "substituting work for welfare," or "allowing handguns to be sold with fewer restrictions" or "allowing prayer in public schools" would be "conservative" by this standard, and "legalizing drugs" or "allowing cats and dogs to marry" would not be. Please supply positions that CONSERVATIVES would acknowledge as conservative ones, and that you've come around to accepting. if you want to re-define or argue the true meaning of the terms "liberal" and 'conservative,' you can start a thread dedicated to that discussion, or I can, but this ain't it. Thanks.

[Justin_Bailey]

And I will add one about 'political correctness'. I mean this term in the specific sense of some person or some organization taking an attitude towards a superficial issue — usually one that in some rather specific & limited political discussion of prior years came to take on larger symbolic meaning for the people involved — that condemns a superficial behavior in the most absolute and unforgiving fashion. That probably reads like mud. I'll provide examples:

• The Water Buffalo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_buffalo_incident) incident.

• Use of the word "girls" to refer to any female over 21 / over 18 / beyond puberty / at all.

• Growing or cutting one's hair to a length more typical of the other gender.

I added the third just to have one in the list where the intolerant ones have been the conservative folk, but I'm afraid I have to agree that it's far more often the liberals; that it comes with an unspoken dialog something akin to "All the important people in the world already had all the discussion that shall ever be needed on whether using that term / wearing that shape / singing that song is or is not offensive, it is not up for discussion, and you had to have known it was wrong, but you went and did it anyway therefore we, the thought police, are busting your ass for your inappropriate thoughts that your superficial behavior revealed"

Definitely political correctness for me. I remember that annoying time of political correctness when "retarded" went from being a medical term to being unacceptable to all because a bunch of kids started using it to taunt other kids. The PC collective then went through a whole host of new phrases (special, challenged, developmentally disabled, etc, etc, etc).

Enough!

Fuck the PC police and use "retarded" or even "mentally retarded". Everyone knows what it means and it is probably the clearest word used to describe someone with a mental handicap. Don't let 10 year olds dictate the phrasing used by the medical community.

Affirmative Action is a joke too, but I always kind of disliked it (to full on hating it after I used a scholarship search engine before I started and came up with zero hits that would apply to being a white middle class male of Italian descent).

[Der Trihs]

I'm a little baffled that people would have to "come around" to ideas like respecting the second amendment and practicing fiscal conservatism. Not overspending is simply practical good sense; the Second Amendment is highly arguable. I and others consider it a useless and destructive law; many others consider it good. Those two things don't really belong in the same category.

[Illuminatiprimus]

Affirmative Action is a joke too, but I always kind of disliked it (to full on hating it after I used a scholarship search engine before I started and came up with zero hits that would apply to being a white middle class male of Italian descent).So it's a bad idea because it doesn't directly benefit you?

[Litoris]

The older I get, the more I appreciate many traditionally conservative views. The biggest one I wish more people would accept is personal responsibility. We all have choices in life, no matter what hand we have been dealt. My children are being taught personal responsibility and consequences of making bad choices, I wish other people would do that, rather than expect the schools, churches or store employees to protect their precious little snowflakes from being allowed to make choices.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Since when is personal responsibility a "conservative" ideal? How is liberalism opposed to personal responsibility? That's a canard, just like conservatives being the only ones who believe in God and "family values" is a canard.

[Larry Borgia]

What does "personal responsibility" even mean from a policy standpoint? Is it just code for cutting funding from roads, schools, or hospitals? Or is there something more to it?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think when conservative demagogues talk about it, it's double talk for advoidance of civic responsibility.

[Lobsang]

I like the idea of giving punishments that reflect the seriousness of someone's crime. I think today's [British] society is woefully inadequate in its treatment of criminals. Prison is comparable to a hotel.

[Ephemera]

I had to serve five days in jail last year for a speeding offense, and it wasn't anything like a hotel, or even a really crappy motel. I seriously doubt the British penal system's any better.

[Justin_Bailey]

So it's a bad idea because it doesn't directly benefit you?

The scholarship remark was more a subtle dig at the oppressed suburban white middle class male idea, but yes, excluding a whole population of people NOW because of some inequity THEN is terribly unfair.

Call it whining if you want, but I'm really not sure what my skin color and gender should have to do with whether or not I'm awarded a college scholarship.

[Lobsang]

You might be surprised. I knew someone who was in an (admittedly not British : Manx) Jail.

He used his time to get an IT qualification. He said it was like a hotel, the downside being you can't go outside the perimiter.

Edit; I asked around the office. They've had friends who confirm conditions are distincly hotel-like.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I think when conservative demagogues talk about it, it's double talk for advoidance of civic responsibility.This.

I don't think anyone is against personal responsiblity. As a political issue, it needs to be juxtaposed with gummint intrusion into the individual's personal life. Phrased like that, conservatives are pretty uniformly for it and liberals are pretty uniformly against emphasizing personality responsibility to the exclusion of state responsibility for certain things.

This is a phrase not unlike "death tax" or "anti-abortion"--at first, we're all on the same side, until we articulate a modified interpretation, and then we divide sharply.

[Illuminatiprimus]

The scholarship remark was more a subtle dig at the oppressed suburban white middle class male idea, but yes, excluding a whole population of people NOW because of some inequity THEN is terribly unfair.

Call it whining if you want, but I'm really not sure what my skin color and gender should have to do with whether or not I'm awarded a college scholarship.I see. I don't necessarily disagree with you, by the way. Whilst in theory I'm all for interventions that even the playing field when it comes to dealing with socio-economic disadvantage (which is after all highly correlated to race, especially in the UK) I'm not entirely sure the US system of Affirmative Action is necessarily the best way to achieve it.

[Larry Borgia]

Back when I was a dumbass teen I used to be really anti-nuke, a position I feel really embarrassed by today. I think it was more common sense than conservatism that led me to be pro-nuke.

[olivesmarch4th]

Since when is personal responsibility a "conservative" ideal? How is liberalism opposed to personal responsibility? That's a canard, just like conservatives being the only ones who believe in God and "family values" is a canard.

I didn't mean to imply that personal responsibility is only valued by conservatives. They just tend to be more vocal about it. As to your assessment that this vocalization is often accompanied by the denial of civic responsibility--well put. I think there may be a tendency, however, on the liberal side of things, to attribute personal failure to social injustice. While this is often the case, it is not always the case. My job puts me in direct contact with a number of people in less than ideal life circumstances, and the split between ''bad luck'' and ''bad decisions'' is just about 50/50. I can't help but feel like there must be some kind of middle ground -- where we neither allow exploitation nor encourage learned helplessness. I have not always thought so ambiguously about this matter, and I would have to attribute the increasing complexity of my own political positions to the influence of conservative thought.

Shayna, I'm not familiar with just how Obama supposes he is going to rewrite NAFTA, but I cannot say it is fine just the way it is, at least not when it comes to Mexico and the United States. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the international investment that free trade allows is at the expense of undercutting the sale of domestic goods. Ideally the losses in the agrarian sectors would be absorbed by the rapid expansion of manufacturing. This is not happening for two reasons. 1) The manufacturing plants in Mexico are largely foreign-owned. Goods are imported from the U.S. into Mexico, manufactured using Mexican labor, and exported, resulting in zero investment in domestic business. 2) There are not enough new jobs available in manufacturing to compensate for the losses in agriculture. What results is massive immigration into the United States at a great burden to the U.S. healthcare system and other public services in the already struggling minority areas.

Even if you have the reasonable opinion that Mexico is responsible for its own practices, policies and government, there is no question, at least from my point of view, that free trade as it is now is creating problems for the United States. I don't have enough knowledge on the topic to suggest we should do away with free trade altogether, but I don't see how its current incarnation is in our best interest as a nation. My belief is irrespective of my personal feelings about the great hardship immigrants go through in their attempt to survive economically. But if you're the bleeding-heart type, as I most proudly am, this too should count as another argument for rewriting NAFTA.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Fiscal conservatism, decriminalization of marijuana (if you consider that a conservative policy, which I don't), free trade/non-protectionism, and not interfering militarily in the affairs of other sovereign nations without multilateral support.

There are a few things I strongly dislike, but accept and even support in an American context because of the Constitution - the right to bear arms, and Constitutional arguments against Roe v. Wade.
I'm a little baffled that people would have to "come around" to ideas like respecting the second amendment and practicing fiscal conservatism.
There's an argument against fiscal conservatism which is specific to the US, which is that there's no need to balance our budget because there's always someone around who will be willing to lend us money. I no longer believe in it, but I once did, and people do.

[Der Trihs]

The older I get, the more I appreciate many traditionally conservative views. The biggest one I wish more people would accept is personal responsibility. We all have choices in life, no matter what hand we have been dealt. My children are being taught personal responsibility and consequences of making bad choices, I wish other people would do that, rather than expect the schools, churches or store employees to protect their precious little snowflakes from being allowed to make choices.When conservatives say "personal responsibility", it tends to mean "YOU'RE responsible", or "screw you, I've got mine". It's what they use to excuse screwing someone over, and blaming the victim, or to excuse letting the unfortunate suffer.

Conservative "personal responsibility" is mostly about them denying any responsibility at all. Either towards society in general, or towards someone they are exploiting. It's about shoving responsibility onto other people, and denying any of their own about anything.

[1010011010]

I don't really identify with any political party.

The basic idea of keeping the government out of my personal life and wallet at much as possible is fairly appealing. Unfortunately, it seems like "smaller government" is conservative double-speak for "We want to intrude at a state/local level where we don't have to answer hard questions about privacy or equal rights"

[burundi]

I'm a bleeding heart in most respects, but there are a few conservative ideas I strongly agree with.

1) People should be married before having kids.

2) Kids do best in two-parent households.

3) Adults who are physically and mentally capable should work to support themselves and their families. I understand that shit happens and that people down on their luck need help, but the idea of a welfare system like Great Britain's (where as I understand it, anybody can get housing and a check without having to look for work) boggles the mind.

[Illuminatiprimus]

but the idea of a welfare system like Great Britain's (where as I understand it, anybody can get housing and a check without having to look for work) boggles the mind.That's not quite true, but there are a lot of people who are effectively parasites off the system because they can be. A friend of mine has a cousin who's a teacher and girls in her class have actually said to her "Why should I try and do well in my exams miss? I can just get pregnant and get a council flat".

Makes me very very :mad:

[PaulParkhead]

I understand that shit happens and that people down on their luck need help, but the idea of a welfare system like Great Britain's (where as I understand it, anybody can get housing and a check without having to look for work) boggles the mind.

What led you to the understanding that housing benefit is available to any British Citizen who asks for it?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

What led you to the understanding that housing benefit is available to any British Citizen who asks for it?
Mostly from what I've read on messageboards and in novels. I'll freely admit, it's not something I've made an in-depth study of, and I may be off-base in my assumption. But it does seem that free, government-provided housing is more widely available to British citizens than American citizens.

Sorry, logged in as Left Hand, not burundi.

[PaulParkhead]

Mostly from what I've read on messageboards and in novels. I'll freely admit, it's not something I've made an in-depth study of, and I may be off-base in my assumption. But it does seem that free, government-provided housing is more widely available to British citizens than American citizens.

Sorry, logged in as Left Hand, not burundi.

It's probably fair to say that free-ish (it often stops being free once you have the ability to pay) housing is more available in the UK than it is in the USA. But it isn't freely available to anyone who can't be bothered working. I'd need to ask my sister along to explain (it's her field), but basically it's possible to get housing assistance if you can't work for health (or family) reasons, or if you are looking for work. You may be offered a house or flat owned by the local authority, or you may be able to get rent assistance in cash.

You can't just show up at an office and say "Yo! Government! I can't be assed working! Give me a house!"

[Really Not All That Bright]

You can't just show up at an office and say "Yo! Government! I can't be assed working! Give me a house!"
Not until you fill out the forms, anyway. :D

[Illuminatiprimus]

Not until you fill out the forms, anyway. :DBelieve me, it's more work than actually getting a paying job. Also unless you're a one legged black muslim lesbian single mother asylum seeker expect to go to the bottom of a very loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong waiting list.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Believe me, it's more work...

Aw, come in, Illum--you're spoiling it for all the conservatives who get hardons imagining all the lazy layabouts whose dream it is to live in public housing on the dole, using their food stamps to buy beer and drugs and cackling at all the poor working stiffs supporting their life of leisure.

Take that away from them, and what do they have left?

[Illuminatiprimus]

Aw, come in, Illum--you're spoiling it for all the conservatives who get hardons imagining all the lazy layabouts whose dream it is to live in public housing on the dole, using their food stamps to buy beer and drugs and cackling at all the poor working stiffs supporting their life of leisure.

Take that away from them, and what do they have left?Oh, yeah, sorry. Forgot what I said. In fact about once year I quit my job and sit naked in front of the TV smoking pot for several weeks in public housing just because I can. Getting the place only requires me to walk into a local housing and say "I'm lazy - gimme!". They even fill the form out for me!

Better?

[cosmosdan]

This.

I don't think anyone is against personal responsiblity. As a political issue, it needs to be juxtaposed with gummint intrusion into the individual's personal life. Phrased like that, conservatives are pretty uniformly for it and liberals are pretty uniformly against emphasizing personality responsibility to the exclusion of state responsibility for certain things.

This is a phrase not unlike "death tax" or "anti-abortion"--at first, we're all on the same side, until we articulate a modified interpretation, and then we divide sharply.

The problem I've seen is once programs to offer a safety net to the poor have been around long enough people tend to think it's their right as an American to be taken care of. Helping folks is a good thing but the programs need to be designed to encourage people or even insist, they do all they are able to do. Programs need to require something of the person receiving help other than just being in need.

[burundi]

It's probably fair to say that free-ish (it often stops being free once you have the ability to pay) housing is more available in the UK than it is in the USA. But it isn't freely available to anyone who can't be bothered working. I'd need to ask my sister along to explain (it's her field), but basically it's possible to get housing assistance if you can't work for health (or family) reasons, or if you are looking for work. You may be offered a house or flat owned by the local authority, or you may be able to get rent assistance in cash.

Thanks for the clarification, Paul. I appreciate it.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

The problem I've seen is once programs to offer a safety net to the poor have been around long enough people tend to think it's their right as an American to be taken care of. Helping folks is a good thing but the programs need to be designed to encourage people or even insist, they do all they are able to do. Programs need to require something of the person receiving help other than just being in need.


I don't know that I buy this any more. Rather than have large pockets of abandoned and dangerous locales that get the back of the gummint's hand (except as places to make numerous daily arrests), I sometimes would prefer to offer minimal subsistence housing and food at taxpayers' expense (and keep careful track of who's getting it, with punishment for fraud built in) attached to education, job training, workfare, etc. The lifestyle might attract some lazy layabouts, sure, but I would rather work than live on rice and spam with basic cable and domestic vacations. I'd prefer to work at least ten times as hard to make only three times the money that welfare pays, and I accept that some unenlightened slobs would not. Still, I'd rather they were paid to sit around and waste their lives than make them feel that the only way they had to live was to mug me and sell drugs to my kids. But I understand the principle that you're responding to--this difference is one of the traits that distinguishes liberals from conservatives, I think. We both are sad that some people lack ambition, but we have different solutions for preventing their lack of ambition from poisoning our lives.

[DianaG]

There's an argument against fiscal conservatism which is specific to the US, which is that there's no need to balance our budget because there's always someone around who will be willing to lend us money. I no longer believe in it, but I once did, and people do.
Crazy people? Children? My mom?

Even if it were true that "someone will always be willing to lend it", who thinks perpetual debt is a good idea? Oh right... crazy people, children, and my mom.

cosmodan, I have no experience with welfare for the past fifteen years or so, so I don't know how it works after reforms, but I was on AFDC for a while after my daughter was born, and I can tell you that at the time it was profoundly fucked up. I wasn't allowed to work. If I did, no matter how little money I made, I forfeited my AFDC. Applying for AFDC, one of the first things they told me was that if I owned a car worth more than $2K, I'd have to get rid of it. There was more, but just these two things blew my mind.

How is it better to pay everyone the same amount for doing nothing? Why not offer graduated benefits based on income? Why not a program that specifically pays for daycare? After all, there are a whole lot of people who could make enough money that they could feed their families just fine, if they didn't have daycare expenses. And how does it make sense to make people get rid of their cars, especially over such small amounts of money? Not a big deal for me personally, because I live in the city and don't drive, but for most people, good luck trying to do your grocery shoppng with three kids, let alone GET A JOB with no car.

Again, no idea how it works not, I assume it's improved. But back then, it was like the system was designed to encourage complete helplessness and dependency on the goverment. IMO, it's not that people felt that they shouldn't have to do anything to help themselves. It's that the simply weren't allowed to do anything to help themselves. It was the ultimate rock and hard place situation.

[Baldwin]

I'm really trying to think of an example. I've only become more liberal as I get older. Bleeding-heart, tax-and-spend. I guess I've developed a more nuanced view on the Second Amendment. (I don't like guns, but I've got a real hardon for the Bill of Rights.)

Though I'm not even sure what's "conservative". I see the term used for some ideas that seem pretty radical to me.

[Evil Captor]

As a result of my experiences arguing on the Dope, I no longer am all that opposed to gun ownership, though I still think this would be a safer society overall if every criminal halfwit was somehow prevented from buying a gun with the same ease he can buy a newspaper. Call me crazy.

I used to like the notion of personal responsibility, but seeing how it is practiced by conservatives has led me to absolutely despise it. It's just a cheap, sleazy excuse to avoid tackling social problems in a responsible manner. Every time questions like "How shall we reduce the incidence of rape, armed robbery and murder in our society?" pops up the conservatives cry "Squawk! Personal responsibility! Lock 'em up!" Or "How can we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?" the conservatives cry "Squawk! Personal responsibiility! Ban abortions!"

I wold like to see some calm, objective thought given to these issues, but the conservatives have used the "personal responsibility" meme to prevent that time and again. I spit on the conservative notion of personal responsibility.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I spit on the conservative notion of personal responsibility.

Saliva or the phlegmy stuff?

[Evil Captor]

Saliva or the phlegmy stuff?

The metaphorical stuff.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Aw, come in, Illum--you're spoiling it for all the conservatives who get hardons imagining all the lazy layabouts whose dream it is to live in public housing on the dole, using their food stamps to buy beer and drugs and cackling at all the poor working stiffs supporting their life of leisure.

Take that away from them, and what do they have left?

Look, we have been nice by complying with your wishes as stated in the OP that conservatives stay out of this. Do you think that that gives you license to fire insults at us?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Where's the insult, Doors? Are you disputing that it's a standard, totally unexceptionable hard-core conservative position that welfare recipients jack up everyone's taxes needlessly by preferring the easy and lucrative dole to honest labor?

If you'd do think that's an unfair characterization of the conservative critique of the welfare system, could you please open a separate thread to discuss it? Thanks.

[gonzomax]

If you are for fiscal conservatism is that a rightie policy? They talk it and then run up huge deficits. Reagan and Bush have talked the talk and then did the opposite. Yet the wild spending dems have shown more fiscal restraint. So if I say we should control our spending ,am I being lefty or righty?

[Revenant Threshold]

Where's the insult, Doors? Are you disputing that it's a standard, totally unexceptionable hard-core conservative position that welfare recipients jack up everyone's taxes needlessly by preferring the easy and lucrative dole to honest labor? I think that your point might be more accurately described as suggesting the conservative position is based upon sexual gratification from imagining particularly hyperbolic boogeymen, and then rhetorically asked what would be left if said gratification were taken away.

So I suppose the insult might be in the part you failed to copy into your question. Or was that also rhetorical?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Oh. You think Doors thought I was implying that conservatives literally got erections from perceived welfare abuse rather than implying that the subject got them all hot and bothered for ideological reasons? I guess I thought that was so clearly figurative it could be taken for granted as a rhetorical flourish, but maybe not.

[pepperlandgirl]

If you are for fiscal conservatism is that a rightie policy? They talk it and then run up huge deficits. Reagan and Bush have talked the talk and then did the opposite. Yet the wild spending dems have shown more fiscal restraint. So if I say we should control our spending ,am I being lefty or righty?

This is actually the problem I'm having with this thread. I've never been anti-gun. I was raised around them. They were a major part of my life, and while gun control might have once been a major part of the liberal platform, it's never been a major part of my liberal platform. Republicans talk a lot about "fiscal responsibility" but in my lifetime, I've seen the economy boom under a Democratic president, and then get run into the ground with a Republican administration until people are talking seriously about the possibility of a major Depression. I have always been in favor of personal responsibility, but I see Republicans argue that birth control should be taken out of the schools and severely limited, thus rendering it impossible to be personally responsible for your own sexuality (one example of many that makes me think "personal responsibility" it utterly meaningless to Republicans). I've always been in favor of the government staying out of personal lives, but Republicans seem to argue that they have a right in invade people's bedrooms and their bodies.

So....I would be able to answer the OP if I had a clear idea of what Republican supposedly stood for. But I don't have any real idea. It all seems (to me) to be a nebulous "We hate Liberals, atheists, and fags" philosophy.

[Revenant Threshold]

Oh. You think Doors thought I was implying that conservatives literally got erections from perceived welfare abuse rather than implying that the subject got them all hot and bothered for ideological reasons? I guess I thought that was so clearly figurative it could be taken for granted as a rhetorical flourish, but maybe not. Well, when people say to each other "Fuck you!" (which i'm not, to be clear), they aren't literally indicating their desire to have sex with them. Calling someone an asshole doesn't really mean you think they're a particular bodily part. And suggesting conservatives have a hardon from imagining welfare abuse does not literally mean you think they're sitting back and going to town. It is obvious all are not being literal. Nevertheless, all three are insults.

Moreover, even in the figurative sense that conservatives get "hot and bothered" from it for idealogical reasons is insulting.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Moreover, even in the figurative sense that conservatives get "hot and bothered" from it for idealogical reasons is insulting.
This is silly. Report me, if you must. I was characterizing this issue as one that conservatives at their most cliched wax choleric (is that an okay image?) over, and I think I was characterizing them fairly and accurately. Next you'll be telling me that conservatives don't care a fig about taxes, or the welfare cheats who cause them to skyrocket, and would never express their feelings anyway in a tone that wasn't calm and soothing.

[Revenant Threshold]

Not at all, nor I have I disagreed that the issue is one of importance to conservatives, as you'll note. I'm merely pointing out that you managed to miss out the potentially insulting part of your post when rephrasing it. You were characterising it in an insulting fashion, and it is to that that I was trying to draw your attention. Seemingly unsuccessfully, it appears.

And it's perfectly within the rules to be insulting towards a large population. It's just singling out Dopers you can't do.

[jsgoddess]

prr, while I agree with most of what you're saying, I think the thread is in grave danger of simply getting hijacked out of the territory where it started.

[Zoe]

I don't know of any Liberals who would expect government assistance for anyone who is not willing to accept responsibility for himself or herself. There are times when a person cannot accept responsibility: the comatose, the severely retarded, etc. But Liberals aren't saying, "Let's give him a free ride; he was an economically disadvantaged child and doesn't know how to work."

But I think that Conservatives and Liberals can agree that welfare programs should be supervised more closely.

Justin Bailey: ...excluding a whole population of people NOW because of some inequity THEN is terribly unfair.

Are you sure that's what's happening. Harvard admitted no women when I was in college. Since then they have discovered that more women actually qualify for admission (about sixty percent). In order to keep a gender balance, they have begun affirmative action for males. (This is from a Sixty Minutes report from about four years ago and there may be some differences now.)

Beware of Doug: -I say Merry Christmas when seasonally appropriate.

You don't have to be Conservative to say Merry Christmas. Don't you remember the Merry Christmas Liberalization Laws of 1994?

One thing has changed in my mind. I used to carry in my mind a stereotype of Liberals as the kind ones and Conservatives as the hard-hearted folks. After all, it was the Conservatives that tried to add the word "Compassionate" to their image.

But the SDMB has lifted a veil for me. The intent of Liberals may be compassion on a grand scale. But on a personal level, I have found the Conservatives to be warm and caring toward me in general. The Liberals have been less so. Yet there are probably few here that are more politically to the left than I.

Other than that, I haven't moved an inch.

[Ersatz Shmoe]

I used to be a left-wing, Nader-voting college freshman. Since then, my views have become much more conservative. Now I'm merely a hardcore liberal.

However:
- I do think that people have the right to own guns, but they should be registered at least as thoroughly as cars
- I think parents need to be responsible for their children and not expect the schools to raise them. Teachers have too much to deal with already without having to discipline kids with no home training (not to mention that they can't discipline them effectively, thanks to the threat of lawsuits).
- I think the budget should be balanced, however, after 8 years of little to no investment in infrastructure and enormous investment in billionaires, I think we can deficit spend to get the nation back on track before that.
- I don't have a problem with religious displays on public property as long as it's a community thing and not just a blatant middle finger to other religions or atheists (hard to state this idea clearly, but Christmas tree downtown is cool, giant crucifix not so much. The 10 Commandments at the county courthouse is out of line).
- Lowering taxes might stimulate the economy by giving people (especially towards the bottom) a little extra spending cash and also help get them out of debt.

Like most posters here, I agree with the principle of some of the conservative talking points, but the motivations behind them and the way that they are implemented I find two-faced and reprehensible.

[jsgoddess]

- I don't have a problem with religious displays on public property as long as it's a community thing and not just a blatant middle finger to other religions or atheists (hard to state this idea clearly, but Christmas tree downtown is cool, giant crucifix not so much. The 10 Commandments at the county courthouse is out of line).

For me, the difference here isn't kinds of religious displays but whether a Christmas tree is a religious display at all. I understand those who think it is, but I'm an atheist with a Christmas tree. It has zero religious meaning for me.

[Sam Stone]

I don't know of any Liberals who would expect government assistance for anyone who is not willing to accept responsibility for himself or herself. There are times when a person cannot accept responsibility: the comatose, the severely retarded, etc. But Liberals aren't saying, "Let's give him a free ride; he was an economically disadvantaged child and doesn't know how to work."

Not in so many words, but the whole concept of wealth redistribution has that attitude at its core - that the poor should be given things they didn't earn, which should be taken from the people who did earn it, because in the government's opinion they have more than they need. Barack Obama's economic plan is to simply cut cheques to poor people and raise taxes on the wealthy to do it. The concept of perpetual welfare has gone out of fashion, but today's economic turmoil has given the left the rationale to do it all over again, only now wrapping it in the language of 'stimulus'.

The attitude goes a lot further than that - union rules, heavily affected by left-wing ideology, almost always prevent merit pay increases and make it hard to fire people who won't do the job properly. They are a microcosm of left-wing politics, in which equality of outcome is sought regardless of disparity in ability or work ethic. Everyone gets paid the same, differing only in seniority and not ability.

Getting back to the OP, I started out as a very hard-core libertarian. Everything goes. But when you're young, it's hard to see just how rapidly society can change when the rules break down. So I've become somewhat more socially conservative over time. Not in the religious-right sense, but I have new appreciation for how cultural norms and shared cultural experiences bind a civil society together. Change isn't always a good thing. I've also learned more about emergent and spontaneous order, and I think that liberal and libertarian ideas for tearing down many social conventions are as dangerous as trying to manipulate an ecosystem from the top down. There are unintended consequences. So that's made me somewhat more sympathetic to those whose preference is for social stability and resistance to change.

[Mosier]

I support law enforcement more than most other liberals. Also, although I don't strongly support the pro-life platform, I respect the position and understand how a person could arrive at it.

[Mosier]

Not in so many words, but the whole concept of wealth redistribution has that attitude at its core - that the poor should be given things they didn't earn, which should be taken from the people who did earn it, because in the government's opinion they have more than they need. Barack Obama's economic plan is to simply cut cheques to poor people and raise taxes on the wealthy to do it. The concept of perpetual welfare has gone out of fashion, but today's economic turmoil has given the left the rationale to do it all over again, only now wrapping it in the language of 'stimulus'.

The attitude goes a lot further than that - union rules, heavily affected by left-wing ideology, almost always prevent merit pay increases and make it hard to fire people who won't do the job properly. They are a microcosm of left-wing politics, in which equality of outcome is sought regardless of disparity in ability or work ethic. Everyone gets paid the same, differing only in seniority and not ability.

Getting back to the OP, I started out as a very hard-core libertarian. Everything goes. But when you're young, it's hard to see just how rapidly society can change when the rules break down. So I've become somewhat more socially conservative over time. Not in the religious-right sense, but I have new appreciation for how cultural norms and shared cultural experiences bind a civil society together. Change isn't always a good thing. I've also learned more about emergent and spontaneous order, and I think that liberal and libertarian ideas for tearing down many social conventions are as dangerous as trying to manipulate an ecosystem from the top down. There are unintended consequences. So that's made me somewhat more sympathetic to those whose preference is for social stability and resistance to change.

You're getting into Great Debates territory. I'd like to discuss what the "core" of wealth redistribution ideology is with you if you'd like to re-submit that post in the proper forum.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Crazy people? Children? My mom?

Even if it were true that "someone will always be willing to lend it", who thinks perpetual debt is a good idea? Oh right... crazy people, children, and my mom.
You're asking me to defend a position I don't believe in- but given that the national debt has been spiralling upwards more or less constantly (other than the Clinton balanced-budget blip) for forty years, it would seem that the vast majority of the populace thinks it's a good idea.

[Plan B]

Well, I'm a conservative now, but thinking back to the old days when I was a serious lefty, I remember thinking that laissez faire was much better than centralized planning for allocation of resources. I actually remember saying to a friend, back in my college days, that if I wanted to open a store somewhere that I should be allowed to do it- assuming I've saved up or borrowed the money - and if it's a dumb idea, we'll know soon enough, and I won't be allocating a whole lot of resources for a long time.

I also did some volunteer work and internships at government agencies and was amazed at the inefficiencies, and I figured there had to be a better way. That led to me being a libertarian, and so on.

[MadPansy64]

Gun control.

I'm a devout bleeding-heart Liberal, teetering on the brink of Whacko-left-wing-nut, who is royally pissed off that the government has the gall to try to stick its nose into my gun safe.

I guess, in my view, it boils down to Little Suzy and Little Johnny wouldn't be shooting up their 'hood if they had regular meals, decent health care and something resembling hope for their future.

Or maybe they would, but if they weren't all shaky from hunger, they'd be better at aiming.

[Plan B]

Oh, I almost forgot. What's the opposite of affirmative action? Merit based admissions? Zero tolerance for quotas? Whatever. Anyway, at the height of my liberalness, I had a prof who was at least a Communist, maybe even further left, and one day he railed against affirmative action. He was all for giving poor kids a break, but said that putting people in college when they weren't prepared was just plain dumb. He said he was just giving out a lot of Fs and that was that. I guess that had a big influence on me. So when I was a liberal I was against affirmative action.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Oh, I almost forgot. What's the opposite of affirmative action? Merit based admissions? Zero tolerance for quotas? Whatever. Anyway, at the height of my liberalness, I had a prof who was at least a Communist, maybe even further left, and one day he railed against affirmative action. He was all for giving poor kids a break, but said that putting people in college when they weren't prepared was just plain dumb. He said he was just giving out a lot of Fs and that was that. I guess that had a big influence on me. So when I was a liberal I was against affirmative action.
Race-based preferential college admission is only one area of affirmative action, and not a particularly effective one; too many people in the US go to college already, learning things they don't understand to perform jobs they won't have, when they should be going to vocational higher education- what they used to call "trade schools".

[Plan B]

Race-based preferential college admission is only one area of affirmative action, and not a particularly effective one; too many people in the US go to college already, learning things they don't understand to perform jobs they won't have, when they should be going to vocational higher education- what they used to call "trade schools".I'm not sure if that's what my prof would have said. Maybe he'd agree. I think his drift was more that the state should just educate the babies of morons right from the beginning so all of us could go to college and get As and go to medical school and do great research and win the Nobel Prize in at least three different areas. I think he was a bit too much of an idealist to settle for trade school for anyone.

But I'm fine with your idea.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'm not sure if that's what my prof would have said. Maybe he'd agree. I think his drift was more that the state should just educate the babies of morons right from the beginning so all of us could go to college and get As and go to medical school and do great research and win the Nobel Prize in at least three different areas. I think he was a bit too much of an idealist to settle for trade school for anyone.

But I'm fine with your idea.
It probably won't go anywhere. A lack of formal education carries a stigma, and higher education confers a little bonus to one's social standing. As long as that's the case, equal opportunity for all to go to college isn't necessarily a bad thing. The problem is that it waters down the ranks of the college-educated, and waters down further the ranks of the skilled trades, which is (a small) part of the reason so many American manufacturing jobs are heading overseas, among other things.

It's also part of the reason why so many of us have college degrees that are utterly unrelated to our jobs.

The problem is even worse these days because many vocational programs have turned into college degrees. Instead of an apprenticeship to become, say, a potter*, you go and get a BA in pottery.

*or whatever. Maybe potters actually need a college education.

[HMS Irruncible]

It's hard for me to say, because I used to consider myself conservative before repudiating a number of those positions (in part or in whole). Why would I go back and embrace ideas that I've actively decided to stop believing in?

I suppose that I have never strayed too far from the idea of fiscal responsibility (though ironically that seems to have fallen out of favor among conservatives nowadays). Likewise I hold to the the idea that the Great Society was bound to fail from the start and that overreaching schemes to correct inequality are doomed to failure. That doesn't mean we can't try to do better, but we can't fix history by fiat. Though I believe in some regulation of guns, I am much more OK with them than your average liberal or moderate. When it comes to crime and punishment, I believe rehabilitation is only an option for petty crime and youth offenders. For the violent and destructive stuff, lock 'em up and throw away the key, I don't care how many prisons we have to build. Go ahead and institute youth programs to try and catch these kids before they are lost to lives of crime and prison, but do not suffer adult violent criminals to walk my streets.

[Zoe]

We had a university in our city that had a very low admission standard during the 1970s. The President of the university said that we needed "colleges for the academically handicapped." I disagreed with him then and now. Was I taking a conservative position? I haven't seen it as being either liberal or conservative -- just reasonable.

[Sublight]

I liked what G. Gordon Liddy had to say on the subject of federal agents.

[Der Trihs]

I liked what G. Gordon Liddy had to say on the subject of federal agents.So you support murdering them ? Charming.

[Sublight]

So you support murdering them ? Charming.
I support defending my home and property from criminals.

[Der Trihs]

I support defending my home and property from criminals.Interesting definition of "criminal" you have. And you likely won't HAVE much if any property to defend after getting tossed into prison for murdering someone.

[Sublight]

Interesting definition of "criminal" you have. And you likely won't HAVE much if any property to defend after getting tossed into prison for murdering someone.

I'm a law-abiding person, so if the country has reached the point where federal agents are kicking down my door (or were, as I no longer live in the US), then "criminal" is an apt descriptor and property rights are likely long gone.

And in any case, I could not possibly care less whether or not you find me "charming".

[Really Not All That Bright]

We had a university in our city that had a very low admission standard during the 1970s. The President of the university said that we needed "colleges for the academically handicapped." I disagreed with him then and now. Was I taking a conservative position? I haven't seen it as being either liberal or conservative -- just reasonable.
That's reasonable if by "academically handicapped", he meant "stupid". If by "academically handicapped", he meant "forced into shitty schools by de facto or de jure segregation", you might have been being a bit unreasonable.

[cosmosdan]

I don't know that I buy this any more. Rather than have large pockets of abandoned and dangerous locales that get the back of the gummint's hand (except as places to make numerous daily arrests), I sometimes would prefer to offer minimal subsistence housing and food at taxpayers' expense (and keep careful track of who's getting it, with punishment for fraud built in) attached to education, job training, workfare, etc. The lifestyle might attract some lazy layabouts, sure, but I would rather work than live on rice and spam with basic cable and domestic vacations. I'd prefer to work at least ten times as hard to make only three times the money that welfare pays, and I accept that some unenlightened slobs would not. Still, I'd rather they were paid to sit around and waste their lives than make them feel that the only way they had to live was to mug me and sell drugs to my kids. But I understand the principle that you're responding to--this difference is one of the traits that distinguishes liberals from conservatives, I think. We both are sad that some people lack ambition, but we have different solutions for preventing their lack of ambition from poisoning our lives.

I don't see how your post differs from mine except you added more detail. So what is it that you don't buy?

[cosmosdan]

Crazy people? Children? My mom?

Even if it were true that "someone will always be willing to lend it", who thinks perpetual debt is a good idea? Oh right... crazy people, children, and my mom.

cosmodan, I have no experience with welfare for the past fifteen years or so, so I don't know how it works after reforms, but I was on AFDC for a while after my daughter was born, and I can tell you that at the time it was profoundly fucked up. I wasn't allowed to work. If I did, no matter how little money I made, I forfeited my AFDC. Applying for AFDC, one of the first things they told me was that if I owned a car worth more than $2K, I'd have to get rid of it. There was more, but just these two things blew my mind.

How is it better to pay everyone the same amount for doing nothing? Why not offer graduated benefits based on income? Why not a program that specifically pays for daycare? After all, there are a whole lot of people who could make enough money that they could feed their families just fine, if they didn't have daycare expenses. And how does it make sense to make people get rid of their cars, especially over such small amounts of money? Not a big deal for me personally, because I live in the city and don't drive, but for most people, good luck trying to do your grocery shoppng with three kids, let alone GET A JOB with no car.

Again, no idea how it works not, I assume it's improved. But back then, it was like the system was designed to encourage complete helplessness and dependency on the goverment. IMO, it's not that people felt that they shouldn't have to do anything to help themselves. It's that the simply weren't allowed to do anything to help themselves. It was the ultimate rock and hard place situation.

I agree. My experience was about 20 years back and it was fucked up. People lost way more benefits than some menial job offered so they were better off staying home. I thought the same thing you did. Why not have a program that encourages people to work and better themselves by offering graduated help. Why not even help them find jobs and insist they do something. I also saw more than a few single Moms with live in working boyfriends. While someone else paid their rent they had extra money for themselves. It isn't just the recipient's either. Those who provide low income housing are sometimes bilking the system. I'm all for helping people and I know it won't be perfect. The system needs to be improved on many levels. One of them IMHO is to require something of recipients to encourage them to work and get off the system. Allowing too high a percentage of citizens to vote themselves benefits at others expense isn't a good idea.

[Czarcasm]

I'm a law-abiding person, so if the country has reached the point where federal agents are kicking down my door (or were, as I no longer live in the US), then "criminal" is an apt descriptor and property rights are likely long gone.

And in any case, I could not possibly care less whether or not you find me "charming".[Moderator Advice]Der Trihs and Sublight, do not continue this in IMHO-take it to The BBQ Pit.[/Moderator Advice]

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

what is it that you don't buy?

It's a matter of emphasis, and maybe I misunderstood yours.

Ronald Reagan used to get a lot of mileage campaigning against "welfare queens," appealing to the haters of welfare who hated the idea that some poor person somewhere might be getting a free ride and living better than the poor but hard-hardworking taxpayer who paid for all the goodies (his "welfare queen" rode a Cadillac, etc.). My view is that this is just politicking, red-meat-tossing, grandstanding--of course, there wil be abuses of any system, but you can't act on the assumption that because there are abuses --because some people have figured out how the system can be gamed-- you should just pull the plug on the whole thing, because that's just finding an excuse to turn your back on the needy, which is what I believe reagan's supporters (if not reagan himself) wanted in the first place. So I'm dubious about the strict necessity of builiding in the strictest work requirements for receiving the first penny of pubic assistance. Maybe you are too.

[cosmosdan]

It's a matter of emphasis, and maybe I misunderstood yours.

Ronald Reagan used to get a lot of mileage campaigning against "welfare queens," appealing to the haters of welfare who hated the idea that some poor person somewhere might be getting a free ride and living better than the poor but hard-hardworking taxpayer who paid for all the goodies (his "welfare queen" rode a Cadillac, etc.). My view is that this is just politicking, red-meat-tossing, grandstanding--of course, there wil be abuses of any system, but you can't act on the assumption that because there are abuses --because some people have figured out how the system can be gamed-- you should just pull the plug on the whole thing, because that's just finding an excuse to turn your back on the needy, which is what I believe reagan's supporters (if not reagan himself) wanted in the first place. So I'm dubious about the strict necessity of builiding in the strictest work requirements for receiving the first penny of pubic assistance. Maybe you are too.

I don't advocate pulling the plug. I've thought about this and talked with conservative friends to get their take. Some people have real experience with their neighbors or relatives working the system to get others to pay their bills etc and I don't blame them for being pissed and I understand it influencing their POV.
My own take is that we need to keep tweaking the system to offer aide to those in need and discourage abuse. I do believe that it helps to require something from those needing assistance, if they are able, in order to discourage abuse and promote a mentality of offering service for help needed.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

the first penny of pubic assistance.
Actually, I've changed my mind --that first penny of pubic assistance should be free to everyone. No one wants some raggedy-ass poor person to have problems keeping their pubes tucked in, too.

[Zoe]

Originally Posted by [b]Zoe
We had a university in our city that had a very low admission standard during the 1970s. The President of the university said that we needed "colleges for the academically handicapped." I disagreed with him then and now. Was I taking a conservative position? I haven't seen it as being either liberal or conservative -- just reasonable.

[quote]Not All That Bright: That's reasonable if by "academically handicapped", he meant "stupid". If by "academically handicapped", he meant "forced into shitty schools by de facto or de jure segregation", you might have been being a bit unreasonable.

I honestly can't say that I knew what he was thinking. And I don't know when the schools in this city were first integrated. I do know that they were integrated by the end of the Sixties. Also, there was and is another university in the same city that is predominately African American that has mantained very high standards and has an excellent reputation.

At the first university the ACT score required for admission was 11 (eleven). People with degrees from that school became teachers in our school system. Some did just fine. Others were lacking in basic skills.

I see your point and it is well taken. It is our responsibility to provide a decent education, noy necessarily a college degree.

BTW, the schools in my city are essentially about to resegregate. They are going back to the neighborhood schools. In some neighborhoods that will be okay -- but not in others.