The question here isn’t who can think of new ideas, but who is willing to re-think them. Shodan provides an excellent example.
I remember an item in the newspaper in the early-80’s that said the National Debt had gone over one-trillion dollars. We’ve lowered taxes a lot since then. The debt is now over ten-trillion dollars. The Republicans proposed solution? Cut taxes!
It is based on a book called Unequal Democracy. Here is a snippet from the New York Times talking about it (note that the author of the book is apolitical…no axe to grind):
Wait, how can you possibly know that? It might be that you can’t see any drawbacks or side effects to gay marriage, or it might be that gay marriage is one of those policies that we should pursue in spite of possible drawbacks or side effects because it touches on fundamental rights. But how can you say for certain there are no drawbacks or side effects?
Because in all the years it has been an issue no one has come up with any that aren’t a variant of ‘it’s iccky’ or bronze age superstitious twaddle.
At least it will push more wealth and protection up the top where it belongs. The little people just exist for exploitation don’t you know. Conservative love to think they are members of the ruling class because they will back them at their own personal cost and loss.
I agree 100%. For the rest, you are clearly exaggerating my position to make your point.
But let me ask you this. Why is it so hard for liberals to develop a consensus? You say that they are more independent thinkers, so developing a consensus is hard. Well, take Global Warming for example. We take it as fact because so many people from diverse backgrounds and experiences and skills have come to a consensus on it. The preponderance of evidence backs it up, so it’s easy for all these liberal independent thinkers to agree about it.
They have no problem when lots of evidence and sound reasoning backs them up. What is it about other issues that makes it so hard to come to accord?
And conversely, for other issues where conservative thinkers come to a consensus, its portrayed as simple dogma, stubbornness, lack of independent thinking, unwillingness to change their mind.
So which is it? Is the development of a consensus evidence of a good well thought out plan or idea? Or is it simply dogmatic allegiance?
Thanks for the links Whack!
I’ll add a few of my own personal ingredients to the discourse stew.
The biggest conservative (and Conservative) in my life was my father. And he told me, in all sincerity and honesty, that he made up his mind about what the world was like and what was true and what was not when he was twelve years old, and hadn’t budged from those positions since.
He was in his fifties when he told me this.
All in all, I think conservatives are far more likely to believe in the idiot virtue of “steadfastness”. Not changing your mind about things is only a virtue if you’re right, and you don’t know if you’re right unless you’re open to having your opinions challenged. There has to be a free market of ideas.
This does not mean that conservatives are less open to the idea of changing things than liberals. But what it does mean is that conservatives are more likely to think that the changes they want are meant to restore things to some hazily-defined and highly idealized past state, as opposed to making things better than they have ever been.
Of course, both these labels are wholly inadequate to describe anyone of a thoughtful and serious mindset, who makes their mind up issue by issue rather than picks a side and sticks with it for life.
The world is too complicated for two dimensional politics.
He said rethink ideas, not come up with new ideas. Free trade? Who was President when NAFTA passed? Cap and trade? Sure, no liberals are behind that. But when tax cuts don’t actually stimulate revenue, as we can see from the increase of the deficit, conservatives just want to pile on more.
Privatizing Social Security is an example of not rethinking the idea of government being always bad. To be fair, Reagan did what was right to fix a bigger issue than we have today. Conservatives seem to be getting more and more hidebound as time goes on.
California is an excellent example. Liberals (and the Governator) are willing to look at a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to deal with the problem. Conservatives? They pledged to not raise taxes even as the ship sinks. Rethink their ideas? Hah, not likely.
I think talk radio illustrates the differences between liberals and conservatives. Hannity and Limbaugh make mucho buckos and get swarms of listeners. People don’t tune in to hear both sides of the issue, they tune in to get positive reinforcement for their own mindsets. Air America struggles because liberals just aren’t into being continually reassured that they’re correct in their beliefs.
Agreeing that there is a problem and agreeing to the solution to that problem are two very different things. Liberals tend to understand there are a lot of issues when dealing with something like Global Warming. They want to save the environment and believe it or not they actually want to see business prosper at the same time. Juggling those two often conflicting goals is a challenge and there can be lots of ideas on how to do it.
Republicans just stand shoulder-to-shoulder and deny there is even a problem in the first place.
The rich guys who ran the country for the last few years remade the entire landscape. We used to be a big manufacturing and production base. They were perfectly happy to ship that abroad and the jobs with it. It made long term headaches but short term huge profits . They sold it to repubs who buy what they sell.
Now we are in the business of creating and selling debt. It has been a huge money maker and a destroyer of our economy. But short term ,they made a killing.
The party is run by exploiters. Their own personal interests trump any national concerns. An endless war that they refused to pay for, but made billion off of ,is another repub plan. Yeh, they have great ideas. I think I will pass.
They’re not really new ideas, they’re newly-conceived paths back to the way things were before the New Deal, where conservatives since Robert Taft have been continually agitating to take us.
This may very well be, but it doesn’t mesh with my observations much. Maybe it’s just the more visible conservatives that I’m noticing, but many arguments I hear in support of conservative ideas seem emotionally based. (That emotion more often than not being blind rage.) For instance, in a debate about the death penalty, you’ll often hear the argument “Fry the bastards!” Not what I’d call well-nuanced rhetoric.
But maybe the level heads are meeting behind closed doors, where I can’t see them.
For one thing, because political questions do not depend solely on scientific evidence but on value judgments; and even within a given political tendency with a definite value-center, there is not universal agreement on what relative priority different values should be given when they conflict. E.g., Ed Asner is a highly liberal – socialist, even – pro-lifer, a position I once heard him defend in an interview.
School vouchers and cap-and-trade were eliminated by the New Deal? News to me.
Regards,
Shodan
Well there you go. Argument from ignorance. Despite the absence of a logical basis and fact that a basic principle of fairness is at stake, vague, undefined fears of consequences are enough to compel conservatives to block a type of reform.
Is it not true that a lot of the support for vouchers comes from families that want to send their children to religious schools? The private school model pre-dates that public school model and vouchers can be seen as a partial dismantling of the latter in favor of the more traditional educatonal model.
Well, speaking as a Canadian, we’ve had gay marriage for a while now and as far as I can tell, there’s been absolutely no negative effects. Society has not come apart at the seams, marriage and having children remain as popular as ever, nobody is marrying their tarsier, and life is going on pretty much just as before, except that some people are finally able to marry the love of their life.
I’m a big fan of public schooling, but I am not entirely opposed to the voucher idea either. I like the idea of supporting a diverse set of approaches to the educational system. I never felt I was terribly well served by the one we have now. 
You would have to have standardized testing and a unified base curriculum. Society needs people who know certain things. But I like the idea that while the goal is the same, the path to said goal can be varied.
One thing that amuses me is that I don’t think the social conservatives quite know what they’d be unleashing in that kind of system. After all, vouchers could well support schools that are a lot MORE liberal than the standard system today.
Perhaps that’s a price they are willing to pay in order to make sure their kids don’t learn too much.