There’s always going to be a problem getting “conservative” politicians in the USA to do the smart or socially responsible thing.
I don’t know what the ratio is of principled true believers to corrupt pols to principled true believers in avid corruption. But it seems like the conservative movement exists in part to sell access to constituencies that go against conventional wisdom, science, popular opinion, or anything else the Democrats are committed to.
If it’s a good idea, some great number of right-wingers will come out against it, because if it’s a good idea the centrists and progressives will probably be for it, and the conservatives have a business model based on being different from whatever the Democrats do.
Is that too cynical?
I’m from the central US. I’ve personally experienced a long-term warming trend in my region. But politicians sit in climate-controlled rooms and engage in denial.
We have a track record for trying to boost the economy by pushing on the string of upper marginal tax rates–an obvious crackpot idea that had an enormous amount of money going into media to trumpet it. Shockingly :rolleyes: it didn’t work. But it made money for publishers and pols who swore it would.
We have politicians who want to gut the EPA, perhaps not because they either desire or have forgotten *rivers on fire *and songbird population collapses, but because they gain power and influence by being that guy, who says that thing.
So if you’re hoping the GOP will at some point come out in favor of, say, Net Neutrality, I have to expect that most of them won’t. Too much profit, for pol and pundit, in running contrary to the best information and common sense, and playing to the dissenter, the crackpot billionaire, and the briber.
Things went really bad when the U.S. corporate business model started to place too much emphasis on short-term profit. This was the sin of the corporate raids and forced takeovers of the 1980s and forward.
There have been companies that have eliminated their entire Research and Development divisions…because those can only produce long-term promises of profit, but are costly and not profitable now.
The political model has become the same: they can countenance the destruction of the Middle Class, which produced the greatest national wealth in history, because it results in short-term windfalls for the controlling class right now.
What, the Democrats are committed to “conventional wisdom, science, and popular opinion”? Since when?
If the Democrats were committed to popular opinion, they would support construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, would be trying to either abolish or seriously alter Obamacare, etc…
If Democrats were committed to science, they would cease claiming that 25% of female college students have been raped, or that women are paid only 77% of what men are paid for the same work, etc…
If Democrats were committed to common sense, well, they’d do a lot of things differently.
So you start with this point which in summary is “it’s hard to get them to do what I agree is smart of right.”
…and build to this question.
Short answer, yes.
There are People who identify as Democrats that are non-scientific wingnuts. I’ve seen bad economics used as arguments by Progressives. Unpopular arguments could and should be made by both sides, IMO. Otherwise we governed by opinion poll and have a tyranny of the masses (and an especially short term focused, knee-jerk tyranny at that IMO)
The public opinion happens to be wrong about the pipeline and about Obamacare. The pipeline isn’t going to lower gasoline prices, it’s going to put dirtier oil in more markets. It’s going to pump that oil through the US so the Canadians can sell it to more world markets. Obamacare has been subject to relentless lies by Republicans for 5 1/2 years now, it just shows you can buy popular opinion.
If Democrats were comitted to science, they would going full-steam ahead on nuclear energy and free trade and tort reform. If they were committed to popular opinion, they would support the death penalty. Etc.
This notion that one side is all noble and wise and the other is evil and wrong is pretty naive.
I pointed before that if the pipeline is approved the failure would be to approve it with no counterbalance like the stalled renewables bills in congress.
As for Obamacare, there is indeed disapproval at 53% but the polls do tell us that even with all the falsehoods and opinion bought Most Opponents Want Politicians to Make Law Work
Of everything you have ever said in political debates here since I have been a member, this is probably the one thing I agree with you on. (bolding mine)
[Sesame Street]One of this things is not like the others[/SS]…
In the pointed at legislation for alternative energy that has been stalled with no Republican support there is, besides solar wind and other renewal energy sources, also support for nuclear power.
I have seen also a few Democrats against free trade but a lot of the agreements seen made by the Obama administration do counter that view.
So there is evidence that Nuclear and free trade are beneficial, and are followed by Democrats, there is very little to go for the tort reform.
The problem here is that a lot has changed, and unfortunately many Moderate Republicans and independents have not been informed properly of the kinds of Republicans they are electing.
Not in much of a practical way - witness the endless stalling on Yucca Mountain by the egregious Reid, and finally ended by the equally egregious Obama.
What you mistake as opposition to free trade is, in fact, opposition to specific elements of the trade deal, such as IP rights for 100-150 years after the death of the IP holder. There is also opposition to the secrecy in which the pact is being drafted.
Democrats aren’t, as far as I’m aware, opposed to free trade when done in a responsible manner (e.g. No outsourcing to countries with no worker or environmental regulations).
You need science to understand that we badly need tort reform? When a guy can sue the MTA and win because he got injured when he tried to kill himself by jumping in front of a subway train, it’s pretty obvious we need tort reform.
And no, it’s not just that one example, it’s throughout the entire tort system, that one example is just one of the most compelling/well known.
Still not a science-based position. If a lawsuit is frivolous, the courts can and do kick them out. The poster child for this is usually the McDonald’s coffee spill, which was a legitimate lawsuit with a just outcome.