[ul]
[li]Whereas, conservatives (however you want to define the term) are decent people who genuinely want what is best for the country;[/li][li]Whereas, conservatives propose many policies to achieve their goal of a more perfect union;[/li][li]Whereas, liberals expend an enormous amount of effort opposing the policies of these patriotic conservatives attempting to improve our nation;[/li][li]Whereas, the vast majority of Americans genuinely love their country and want to see the nation successfully deliver on its promise that “all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’;”[/li][li]Be it resolved that, from this moment forward, conservatives shall get to implement all of their policies without interference or opposition from liberals or other groups.[/li][/ul]
Seriously, let’s take it as a fact that conservatives (whoever they are) genuinely want what is best for the United States and that they believe that their policies will do that. Given this fact, what would the country look like if conservatives could implement whatever legislative, social, and economic policies they wished to get the country headed “in the right direction?” Are there countries or societies (past or present) that we can look to as the conservative ideal?
Now, you can’t be squeamish about the consequences of those policies. For example, if it decided that food assistance (SNAP) will no longer be given to those too lazy or unwilling to work, then some sort of policy must be in place to deal with them. I mean, they are not likely to merely disappear. So, will they just die in the streets? Do we think they will suddenly shape up and get working? What?
I guess what I am really getting at, is what is the conservative ideal? If a modern conservative could get whatever he/she wanted, what would the country look like?
[By “whatever he/she wanted”, I don’t mean that everyone in the country will automatically do what conservatives want. I just mean that they can implement whatever legislative, social, or economic policies that they want without political opposition. For example, if someone is “lazy”, assume he/she will remain lazy until coerced by some external influence to become “not lazy”.]
You’re probably not going to get a single platform. Modern conservatism is essentially a coalition of movements that work together to promote their separate agendas - and to form a common defense at what they see as liberal opposition. If the conservative “movement” had a clear victory, it would probably splinter into its factions.
The values conservatives would want their moral agenda enacted into law and enforced: they’d want “immoral behavior” like abortions, homosexuality, pornography, drugs, and gambling criminalized.
The business conservatives would want deregulation, tax cuts, and government support for business. They’d be lukewarm with the values agenda because there’s profits to be made in some of the things the values conservatives want to outlaw.
The neo-cons want a strong activist foreign policy which works on making other countries more like the United States. They would have a quasi-alliance with the business conservatives because while their agenda is expensive a lot of that government spending will go back to American business and because part of their program is opening other countries to trade with American businesses. The neo-cons could also have a quasi-alliance with the values conservatives if they could form an agreement over which values they were exporting to the world.
The small government conservatives essentially want the government to go away. They’d oppose the values conservatives over pretty much all of their agenda and the neo-cons over their activist foreign policy (and the military spending it would require). They’d agree with the business conservatives over deregulation and tax cuts but they’d oppose the government support programs.
Ever read Charles Dickens. “Oliver Twist”…? He spent a lot of time dealing with the workhouse in nineteenth-century England.
“In England, Wales and Ireland (but not in Scotland) a poorhouse was more commonly known as a workhouse. In early Victorian times (see Poor Law), poverty was seen as a dishonorable state. As depicted by Charles Dickens, a workhouse could resemble a reformatory, often housing whole families, or a penal labour regime giving manual work to the indigent and subjecting them to physical punishment. At a workhouse, men and women were split up with no communication between them.”
Probably lots of true conservatives would see this as a good solution for dealing with the poor.
I’m going to question your premise. Were people dying in the streets before SNAP was enacted into law? If not, why must we consider that?
I intended that statement as an example. If withdrawal of SNAP would not lead to poor people starving (perhaps in their homes rather than the streets), I’m okay with that. What would be the consequences of ending welfare (however you want to define that) for the lazy (whoever they may be)?
Please notice that I keep using the word “lazy” rather than poor. In my experience, those advocating for cutting the social safety net say that they want to help the poor or less fortunate but that, too often, the “lazy” get the benefits.
I am trying not to poison the well with too many examples. What does the conservative utopia look like?
Oh crap. The title has a misspelled word. “Resolved”. Sorry about that.
I’m going to give conservatives credit for generally doing what they think is right. They believe that if the government stopped interfering and enacted deregulation and tax cuts, private businesses would grow. This would create job opportunities and this would mean there would be a greatly reduced need for public assistance programs.
So conservatives aren’t advocating letting poor people starve. Their argument is their plan would make it possible for poor people to be able to feed themselves.
I’ve come to believe when asked what should be done about any particular problem the default conservative answer is ‘nothing’. So I’d expect that if they were completely in charge.
The best models of what such a society would look like can be seen in the current Southern United States along with Latin America and post-Soviet Russia. There’d still be a semblance of democracy with regular elections even if does become more harder for poor and minority voters to cast a ballot and civil liberties will generally be respected. At the same time there’d be massive income inequality, far higher rates of poverty, and lower average life-spans. There will be all sorts of socially conservative legislation but crime, teen pregnancy, abortion, STDs, prostitution etc. will be far more widespread in a poorer society. With regards to immigration, I suspect the pro-business faction would triumph over the nativists and we’d see the existence of what are essentially indentured servants by the millions in the form of “guest workers”.
Come on, everyone knows there’s a basic human right to eat da poo poo.
-
Abortions outlawed and access to contraception limited to the wealthy.
-
Electoral votes in red states are winner take all, electoral votes in blue states apportioned in whatever way most favors Republicans.
-
Minimum wage and child labor laws repealed.
-
All environmental and worker safety regulations repealed.
-
All consumer protections abolished. Tort reform enacted- effectively prohibiting patients from ever suing doctors.
-
Departments of Energy, Education, and… well those two departments eliminated.
-
Christianity established as state religion although Judaism still permitted as some Christians believe the Jews are needed for the Rapture to take place. Islam banned.
-
Ronald Reagan placed on all coinage and currency. Reagan’s birthday replaces MLK day as national holiday.
-
All persons required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day. Persons not showing sufficient passion on reciting the words “Under God” sent to re-education camps.
-
Global warming officially delcared to be a myth. Evolution declared a hoax. Ministry of Truth established to determine which scientific theories are politically palatable.
-
Public schools eliminated. Only those who can afford to educate their children may do so.
-
The Obama presidency declared null and void and all references to him stripped from all history books.
-
All gun regulations repealed and weapons from handguns to bazookas allowed anywhere.
-
All corporate, income, and estate taxes eliminated and replaced by sales tax.
-
Social Security and Medicare abolished.
-
Gay marriage banned and homosexuality made a felony.
-
Capital punishment in all states to be carried out immediately when verdict is reached.
A conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, does a country ranking list. Hereis the list of countries ranked by economic freedom. The highest ranking country in the world is Hong Kong. Fourty years ago Hong Kong had a GDP per capita of $1,891, now it has a GDP per capita of $37,777, an increase of 1897%. The United States GDP per capita has increase 664% during that same time. Hong Kong has an unemployment rate of 3.2% which is less than half of the US unemployment rate.
Looking closer to home their is a ranking of states by economic conservatism done by ALEC. Utah is ranked number one. It has an unemployment rate at 4.2% which is 44% lower than the national rate. The poverty rate is 18.8% lower than national average and the median income is almost ten percent higher than the national average.
If the US were more like conservatives want then the economy would be bigger, everyone would be richer and there would be less unemployment.
Hong Kong’s entire economy is built on international trade and finance. That’s like saying “look how wealthy New York is! We should model the entire US economy on New York!”
I don’t think the conservative label means much these days, or ever. There is one traditional aspect of conservatism that does aid those now wearing the tag, the clannish us-v-them mentality. That’s what provided their current success in modern US politics, the issues and intentions are irrelevant.
What a surprise that two conservative organizations reached such conclusions! Sure, Hong Kong has freedom- freedom to work in sweat shops, freedom to breathe polluted air. Freedom to be gay or a child free from working in a factory, not so much. Utah is hardly a worker’s paradise either.
Besides which, Hong Kong isn’t a country. It’s a part of a country, and one that officially still calls itself communist.
With the dismantling of the welfare system, there will be a large increase in the homeless population, as well as a large increase in crime, as those without means are forced to steal to support themselves. As the large number of lazy vagrants starts to bother honest hard working Americans, vagrancy laws are implemented and large numbers of people are carted off to camps where they won’t be able to bother honest folk. This proves to be more expensive than wellfare but has the advantage that it punishes rather than rewards the indigent for their laziness. Still, its too expensive for a long term solution. So it is decided that in order to help pay for it, they, and their children, can be rented out to farm and factory owners who are in need of cheap unskilled labor (particuarly since all the Mexicans have been deported.)
So the business owners get cheap labor and higher profits, the poor are rescued from the slavery of welfare and instead are given the freedom that comes from honest toil, while still being shielded from the pressures that come with self determination. Everybody wins!
Woo, buddy. You want to tell me where I can buy those boots of striding and springing? I lost my last pair…
Seriously, to draw conclusions from those two examples is nearly useless. Both are ideal conditions for what they want to do. Place an urban or suburban population inside Utah and see how well it does. SLC barely counts.
As for Hong Kong, I note you point out economic issues but not personal freedom issues. If I have to sacrifice personal freedom for another 1-2% of economic growth I’m not going to consider it as being worth it.
That said, Bob’s list here is equally foolish. Most of the items mentioned would get tangled up in committee and not make it through congress. It does little good to turn these sorts of threads into a punching bag and not taking the premise seriously (not speaking as a mod, just as a poster).
The simple fact is that there are built is negative feedback issues in place in the United States. The poorer segments of society vote at a very low vote unless incentivized. Actually repealing SNAP or Welfare or whatnot would do so and those who voted for it would find themselves back in private life. The only way in which this sort of auto-correction doesn’t occur is if voting itself - at all levels - is abolished. A true oligarchy along the lines of 1970s-80s latin america.
I want to note that it works both ways. A fully liberal government - which raises taxes back to Eisenhowerian levels and other lefty ideals - would results in a similar backlash.
In the end, we’re Americans. We don’t want to be BOTHERED with our government except in the ‘bitch around the water cooler’ way. But we’re quite capable of dealing with overreach towards either extreme.
Why are you fighting the OP’s premise? It’s assumed that conservatives get what they want.