Goldwater was, it should be noted, one of the very few Republicans of his time who despised evangelical politics infecting the GOP and was saying how dangerous it was.
I actually agree with this. As a relative centrist who does want to see some actual fiscal responsibility and has a libertarian bent, I don’t think I’d want an unfettered Democratic party.
Given that the Republican party’s current level of ‘fiscal responsibility’ is ‘Destroy the World Economy’ what party would you like to see fetter the Democrats?
I wasn’t arguing that the current Republicans are fiscally responsible. But I don’t think a Democratic trifecta would do so, either.
I think it’s easy to vilify conservatism as inherently bad, but it doesn’t have to be. Certainly it is bad in the current American incarnation.
I am totally comfortable with calling conservatism in its current American incarnation evil.
But as I said above, the current incarnation has been in place for over 125 years, so the Venn diagram showing the “current incarnation of conservatives” and “conservatives” is practically a circle in America.
Sincere question - when were Rs last fiscally responsible?
I consider myself a strong supporter of fiscal responsibility. Heck, I’ve never carried a credit card balance, and haven’t had a car or house payment for decades. Yeah, I know household budgets are differ, but I do believe in making choices as to WHAT you spend your money on. There is PLENTY of to be saved in the military budgets, and to be raised from taxes on the wealthy.
A couple of additional thoughts come to mind. First, the Rs have moved so far to the right, that if the Ds advocate anything close to a centrist position, the Rs view that as the new extreme left, and move even further right. So we sorta NEED extreme liberal positions to balance out the crazy right religious and isolationist crap.
Second, I readily admit that I personally am not terribly strongly motivated by some of the furthest left causes. But I support them because many of those causes support those who are the least advantaged by our current system. I support a robust public safety net. Our government does SO MUCH for those who are the most successful and most fortunate. It does not offend me to at least work towards helping the least fortunate/successful. Aiming at helping the least successful demographic generally is consistent with moral values I wish reflected in my government, and support a multicultural polity. Rather than simply, “Make the rich richer and let the poor fend for themselves.”
I would be interested if you could point me to a clear explanation of what you consider to be a reasonable modern day conservative agenda, and a list of elected officials who follow such an agenda.
Reagan blew it up, then Bush I restored it a bit by raising taxes. Since then, never. So, maybe early 90s, then skip the 80s, and then they probably were from Nixon on back.
Certainly Eisenhower was fiscally conservative. That meant, among other things, tax the wealthy. Up to 91% on incomes over (IIRC) $200K (equivalent to at least $2M today. That had two effects. First it reduced the wartime accumulated debt (by a lot; at least half of it was gone). Second, it meant that there was no point in throwing gobs of money at CEOs because the government took most it away. Kennedy cut taxes somewhat. I am not sure what happened under Johnson, Nixon, and Carter, but Reagan blew it out of the water. The only fiscal conservative between then and now was, of course, Clinton who reduced the debt and handed W a surplus. Which, like a good Republican, he blew away. Of course, starting two wars didn’t help.
I can respect a true conservative. They want to keep things humming along and make few, if any, changes. The trouble is that this means ignoring real problems, like climate change and income inequality. And I think that is recipe for future disaster.
Although not entirely germane, let me mention a friend from grad school whose family were marxists. (No they didin’t support the Soviet Union that they felt had utterly subverted Marx.) But they didn’t like FDR either. They felt that he saved capitalism; that without him there would have been a true marxist revolution in the US. Who knows, maybe they are right.
Anyway, Brooks is a true conservative. I don’t especially admire him, but he is honest enough to realize that the current Republican party is an extreme radical party.
On this evening’s PBS Newshour (YouTube video - about 11min) … IMHO, Brooks is starting to feel a bit emboldened and speaking more directly about his concerns.
I don’t think I can. But what I do know is that realistically, the Democrats represent whatever it is the US considers left, and until someone makes it a >2 party system, any opposition has to come from the right. I know people will want to claim the Democrats aren’t really left, but by US standards this is what we have.
Traditional US conservatives were for fiscal responsibility and free trade. I support both of those, even if in the past we only got lip service.
Come to Massachusetts- a state I do love, and that does work well- and see the amount of Nanny State that we get. I hate that. I’ve mentioned that in this state it is illegal for me to so much as replace the kitchen faucet unless I am a licensed plumber. That’s what one party rule gets you. Nanny States from the left and on the other side, Bibles in the classroom.
I once heard a description of conservatism as “Not opposed to change or solving problems, but being careful, considerate, and methodical about it.” I can get on board with that. Ezra Klein has been talking a lot about how in states like CA the various permitting and community input requirements mean a high speed rail link will take orders of magnitude more time and money than it should. Again, that doesn’t mean we toss all regulation, but certainly there has to be a better way.
Of course, it doesn’t help that here you have to take the nuttery on both sides of the aisle to get anything you might support.
Insofar as free trade is concerned, I wouldn’t call it lip service. The US cut a number of politically unpopular free trade deals c. 1980-2005.
Actual conservatives broadly favored free trade until 2016 (though GWBush and his father pandered to Pennsylvania and were probably less supportive of free trade than Reagan, Clinton, or Obama. All of that is in a different universe than Trump.)
Conservatives as a group have not been for fiscal responsibility since the 1970s, if by fiscal responsibility you mean low deficits. Self-styled fiscal conservatives today favor lower taxes and higher budget deficits. John Anderson was an actual fiscal conservative. Bush Sr. agreed to higher taxes and lower spending as part of a deal with the Dems.
Actual conservatives who are skeptical and careful about change self-identify as moderates today. Reactionaries self-identify as conservatives. The US center-left today is full of wonks determined to cross every t and dot every i.
All I’m going to say is, watch his tune the next time a woman or nonwhite runs for President.
There’s a certain kind of person who is less interested in being right than in not being wrong. That’s Brooks. For the moment, he’s realized that there’s no kind of conservative that isn’t wrong.
So he’ll repudiate the fringe, for the moment, because it would make him persona non grata in the elite circles he moves in. But these sentiments are short-lived. I predict he will once again turn heel the first time his priors are threatened in any meaningful way. In 2028 Brooks will write this column:
He’ll write that. He really will. He’s written worse.
From the official Massachusetts website.
Plumbing work: The Board of Examiners of Plumbers and Gas Fitters’ Fact Sheet says, “Only a master or journeyman plumber examined and licensed by the Board of State Examiners of Plumbers and Gas Fitters, with the proper permits issued by the local plumbing inspector, can perform plumbing work at your home or business. . . A permit is not required for minor repairs such as fixing a leaky faucet, valve or other working part of a plumbing fixture, or for clearing a blocked drain.” See MGL c. 142, § 3 and 78 Mass. App. Ct. 385 (2010).
It’s not clear whether replacing a faucet counts as fixing. Does Home Depot sell replacement faucets in the open or are they strictly black market?
Don’t get me started on this.
To replace a faucet, officially, requires a licensed plumber, despite the fact that HD sells faucets to anyone. The wording of the law seems to be a nod to things like replacing a gasket. It absolutely infuriates me. I own property, and unless I am putting others at risk, you can go ahead and fuck right off.
It’s a nod to plumbers, insurance companies, or both.
If someone can explain how me fucking up a replacement kitchen faucet can hurt someone else, I’d love to hear it.
The other problem is that MA cities and towns (at least around Boston) won’t give permits to homeowners for fuck-all. I couldn’t get one to replace a door. Officially I can, but the cities just refuse the permits.
This deserves its own thread. But I doubt (could be wrong) it happens in places that aren’t nanny states.
That plumber law is pretty insane.
Am I being whooshed? I read that law as saying you can’t work as a plumbing contractor unless you’re a licensed contractor, not that you need to be a licensed contractor to replace your own faucet.
Good job reading the cited statute and decision, as I didn’t. The stat is brief - and certainly does not mention a homeowner installing a faucet. I somewhat skimmed, but didn’t see the language quoted above there either. (Apparently case involved a homeowner installing all of the plumbing in a new build, and then being denied an occupancy permit. Or something like that. Like I said, I skimmed it.)
You are not being wooshed. A homeowner cannot do more than replace a gasket or similar in MA (well, unless he happens to be a plumber). So the flex line from your wall to the toilet? Fine. The bathroom faucet? Nope.
The thing is, from talking to friends and relatives here, most don’t even know this the law is like this.
It used to be that you could pull a permit for anything on your own home, and it really just meant that the inspection would be a little tougher. It’s still like that in NH.
From the state itself https://www.mass.gov/info-details/plumbers-and-gas-fitters-consumer-fact-sheet#:~:text=Permits%20for%20performing%20plumbing%20work,for%20clearing%20a%20blocked%20drain.
A permit is not required for minor repairs such as fixing a leaky faucet, valve or other working part of a plumbing fixture, or for clearing a blocked drain.
However, these minor repairs do not include replacing or relocating a faucet, valve or other working part of a plumbing fixture, or water supply, sewer, drainage, soil, waste, vent or similar piping, or any work which may affect the public health.
Massachusetts law prohibits anyone but a licensed professional from installing, removing or repairing plumbing. The reasons for this may not, at first, be obvious, but public safety is of primary importance. Inadvertent cross- connections can create backflow problems which jeopardize the safety of public water supplies. Improperly installed parts, such as temperature and pressure relief valves, can result in serious explosions and injuries. These are just two examples of possible consequences when plumbing work is performed by untrained and inexperienced persons.
Bolding mine. So they make it clear that replacing a faucet is not a minor repair.
I don’t know how I could prove this, but I would be willing to bet you don’t find laws like this in conservative states, so I’m just making the case that there are at least some elements of conservatism that make sense.
Umm, allowing folks to do things that might “jeopardize the safety of public water supplies.” and can “result in serious explosions and injuries” makes sense?
Replacing my own kitchen faucet, something allowed in most states, does this how?
I recognize there are things that jeopardize the public. The rules in MA go way beyond that.
And if they deem replacing a faucet worthy of a permit, you know they could inspect my work just as well as a plumber’s. And if you’ve replaced a faucet, it’s pretty much clamp the faucet to the sink, using the provided clamping mechanism, and screw two water supply lines to the valves inside the cabinet. It’s literally no more a threat to the water supply than when I attach my garden hose to the outside supply, because it is precisely the same interaction with the water supply.