“A conservative could look at a giant forest fire and say that yes, an arsonist started it, but it’s not government’s job to evacuate people and contain the fire.”
Is this an actual quote from something?
~Max
No it was a parody of an earlier comment.
[quote=“bump, post:24, topic:942320”]
Sane conservatism is not necessarily racist, or anti diversity, but rather questions the degree to which prioritizing those things takes priority over things like property rights, liberty, etc…[/quote]
Not necessarily racist? Also what about right to go on living?
Sane conservatism should be eminently practical. Science and pragmatism over ideology, I’d think.
Sane conservatism asks the question whether social programs are worth the cost.
And looks at the answer.
Sane conservatism would engage in a debate, and then work out a compromise. Sane conservatism would agree to the same set of generally agreed upon facts before starting a debate. Sane conservatism wouldn’t put ideology or religion ahead of science or pragmatism.
Agreed. One thing I would like a sane conservative to do is show one example where supply-side economics actually worked. Yes, Reagan did enjoy growth for a couple years but overall did less well than Clinton who raised taxes.
If this is the test a conservative must pass to achieve sanity, I fear the term “sane conservative” is an oxymoron, a priori.
~Max
To put it more bluntly, the difference is one still exists and the other has gone extinct. I don’t think I need to point out which one is which.
Good, and yes I agree, most of your points would be considered “sane conservatism”.
ISTM even if we’re going to say sane conservatism simply doesn’t exist any more, someone could still posit examples of what was sane conservatism. See for instance survinga’s post.
Some posts though seem to be implying that “sane” politics perforce can’t be conservative. I have to bring up that “sane” (like one SC Justice once said about “constitutional”) does not necessarily mean “good” or “smart”. Someone can be wrong and still be sane and acting in a way that follows sensibly from their premises.
I think Sanity can co-exist with Conservatism. And yes, that allows for being wrong sometimes, while still being sane. That’s not specific to conservatism. There are liberal examples of “wrong”, too.
What is insane is are all the zombie ideas that flourish on the right, in the face of all evidence/data/science/studies/expertise. And they often - very often - have to pretend to hate things that they actually know are good ideas. That’s what sets today’s fake Conservative crowd apart from Liberals. You see, Liberals can be wrong in some ways, but they still tend to accept expertise, data, and science for the most part (sure, there are always exceptions). And they usually adjust policy, begrudgingly, when the data doesn’t support their position (again, there are exceptions). But the larger “conservative” movement has been captured by insanity and zombie ideas for decades now.
Here’s an example of insanity: In 2012, Mitt Romney ran against the ACA, knowing that he was actually the Godfather/Inspiration of the ACA from his state of Massachusetts, which ran a successful pilot of what would become the ACA. But he had to pretend that he hated the ACA and was against it, in order to get Republican support. It was sad. It would be like Fauci becoming an anti-Vaxxer, or Bill Gates railing about the evils of Microsoft. These are the kinds of things that happen with “conservatives” all the time.
For some weird, no one believed me when I pointed out similar in other threads.
In my case, neoliberalism coupled with neoconservatism has been the norm for both parties for several decades. That is, both believe that a strong military is needed to defend the “freedoms” of the country against its enemies, and that there should be more freedom and democracy worldwide through foreign policies and financing that would make countries pry open their economies and resources for trade.
Liz Cheney is a sane conservative. I disagree with her on nearly every political question, but I feel I could have a genuine conversation with her. We do agree on the outcome of the election and, even more so, on resisting insurrection. It would be interesting to know her views on restricting voting. Much the same with Romney.
David Brooks, erstwhile conservative (and Republican) columnist in the Times argued yesterday that the 3.5 giga$ bill is too small.
Fringe elements of both parties exist.
Unfortunately, as a moderate Republican, I need to somehow maintain my moderate Republican viewpoint without being a Trumpist. It is hard to do.
A sane conservative, or really any sane political operator, would be able to defer to the wisdom of expert-interpreted data to form opinions about what reality is. I imagine for a Republican this might look like “yes, I see that wealth inequality is a real phenomenon that causes real economic inefficiency and harm. But I can’t care about that because I’m opposed to government interventions on principle, and I’m specifically not interested in helping poor people.”
i.e. just state that there are certain realities that you don’t care about, or care for, instead of denying reality itself.
As John Kenneth Galbraith wrote, all economic theories contain within themselves the seeds of their own destruction. Since IMHO economic and political theory are indistinguishable, let’s look back at the birth of Conservative theory and Edmund Burke. Burke believed that human beings have two defining traits: response to authority and a yearning for liberty. You may not find that agreeable but you see his point. I’ll even admit I couldn’t make a convincing argument against it.
In fact, it’s not so much different from the two basic impulses of all lifeforms as simple as the euglena: to orient oneself in ones environment, and to move around free of restraint. But what Burke never bother about was the inherent conflict between these two impulses.
Marx, by contrast, took from Hegel the idea that everything is in a constant state of change because of the inherent conflicts between their many parts, and applied that to the class structure of human society (arguably Marxist theory’s seeds of destruction). But at least Marxist dialectic doesn’t disregard conflict, or impose a clamped lid on it.
Burke, as a traditionalist, expected society to be lead by property-owners who, as educated gentlemen of character, would use their wisdom to rationally elevate the proles and colonized primitives gradually up to their level.
That was sane Conservatism. But it wasn’t realistic to human nature any more than “from each according to his ability to produce…” Marxism. What we got instead was self-serving fat cats beguiling what Burke called the “swinish multitudes” into an economic and ultimately environmental hellhole
I don’t want to hijack the topic, can you point me somewhere to read more?
~Max
Personally I think that Cap and Trade is a good example of sane conservatism. Originally it was championed by Republicans/conservatives as a workable solution for several environmental issues- carbon emissions, acid rain, and so on. The whole idea was that it was a framework that allowed companies to modify their operations/business as they saw fit- including merely purchasing more credits if they could afford them. Market solution at work for a problem all recognized, and considered better than something more blunt like a blanket percentage change across all industries.
Same thing with Romneycare/Obamacare. Same sort of thing- market-based solution that didn’t require the government to administer it.
Now why they’ve lost their minds in recent history about stuff like this in favor of opposing any sort of remedy or intervention, I don’t know.
Yeah, those two are classic example of “sane conservatism”. You might disagree with them as policies, and prefer different policies, but the discussion can be centered around actual facts as well as political ideology. You didn’t have to be E-vil™ or just stupid to support these ideas, you just had to have a different set of priorities.
Contrast that to the current anti-vaxxers, who have entirely rejected science, and even just basic math. They look at the overwhelming mass of evidence showing that the COVID vaccines are both safe and effective, and then reject it out of hand as all lies and propaganda. You can’t have a discussion about that, they’re just plain wrong.
The best sources I could find are paywalled, but if you search, there’s no shortage of papers on this general theme:
Thanks for that one.
(carry on)
~Max
I think some people would have believed you, or at least be willing to entertain your view point if your claim was that there was little difference between the current Democratic party and the sane conservatives of the past. The point where you got pushback was the idea that there was no difference between the Democratic party and the current brand of insane conservatives.