Okay. Let’s say that you have some conservative views on things. Here’s a few possibilities.
1. You see a lot of government inefficiency and regulatory stupidity and you think some of your tax dollars are going to waste or being used in dumb ways. You think that enough of this is an unavoidable part of the human condition whenever bureaucracy is involved that you generally lean more toward lowering taxes than improving the performance of government.
2. You think that communities differ in what kind of social standards, tax policies, educational strategies, etc., that they want to see, and therefore you are opposed to one-size-fits-all federal solutions to many problems.
3. You’re a religious conservative and think some things, like protecting the unborn, are appropriate federal issues because you consider them universal human rights.
I could list more examples, but it’s possible to reasonably believe the above things without being an asshole. But that is not what the conservative movement is all about it. Is it?
They seem pretty sure that the views of the majority of students on campus differ from Will conservative views. Is that indeed true outside the very narrow issue of whether campus sexual assaults are acceptable behavior that is mostly controlled by the behavior of women. Is not that Will’s “we are all responsible adults” excuse?
How many Scripps students differ with him on economic policy, ideology, baseball fergawdsakes?
I suppose the main difference is on whether it’s appropriate to invite a jerk to speak on campus.
BooMan, I don’t know how to break this to you, but those aren’t reasonable premises. 1 and 2 can be empirically disproved. Health, environment, crime, education, income inequality and mobility, and even family values (unwanted pregnancies, marriage and divorce %, child poverty) are flat-out higher in high-tax/high-spending countries and states than they are in low-tax/low-spending countries and states. We’ve been running the natural experiments after making hundreds of hypotheses for decades. And we know that despite individual cases of malfeasance or incompetence devolution and/or reducing the scope of government on the whole leads to suboptimal outcomes. There’s no reasonable disagreeing on this point. We have a spectrum of OECD countries ranging from South Africa to Denmark that implement economic and social conservatism on a sliding scale and the dysfunction of each country cleanly maps to how much say conservatives are allowed to have.
The fundamental assumptions of conservatism are flawed, anything that flows from it are irrevocably tainted. Sure, you can add a bunch of additional crazy on top of that, but it’s really just the sprinkles and cherries atop of the shit sundae. And we shouldn’t believe in the mythical existence of ‘sane’ conservatives anymore than we can believe in ‘sane’ Austrian schoolers or ‘sane’ Leninists or ‘sane’ Wahhabists.
I’m not sure you get Booman’s point. At one time not so very long ago, we had a functioning congress where things were actually debated and compromises were hammered out. And in that context, there was a value to reasonable conservatism.
Booman is talking about tendencies within conservatism that may be considered reasonable. Basically you are saying that government performs an essential function in society, that private enterprise does not supply the solution to everything because many essential functions are NOT profitable, etc., etc. And I agree. Conservatives consider that a left wing position, but it isn’t. It’s just the function of government. Read Aristotle’s Politics. But the conservatives are right that government CAN become too intrusive or undemocratic.
It is not a question of whose extreme position is reasonable. It’s a question of where do you draw the lines. In a rational system of government, you balance priorities fairly. The conservatives suck because they only think in extremes, and that is radical, not conservative. Extreme leftism sucks too.
Will has been an insufferable, superior, and dogmatic asshole his whole public life – who has never ever been right about any goddam thing.
Good for that college!
Several of Will’s equally clueless media types (and often as disgusting) were past speakers. But, unlike Will, they refrained from putting into print what they really think about rape.
Someone should rape George Will and see if he feels privileged afterward.
Then tell him all guys wearing bow ties should expect it, eh?
But in the David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Sunday Talk Show circles, the mythic conservative still rides high. This stalwart, imaginary figure is still waking every day in his Georgetown townhouse, taking his limo into the Capitol and striving mightily to hammer out nice, comfortable centrist compromises with those staunch, immovable and radical ideological liberals like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their “community organizer leader”, Barack Obama. And in spite of the valiant efforts of these reasonable people, it is the Democrats who simply will not come off their hardened stances and carve out common ground with the Ted Cruz’s, Steve King’s and Louie Gohmert’s who, in their minds, are simply trying to move governance forward in an increasingly partisan environment. One in which “both sides are equally responsible” for this insufferable situation.
And also in their minds is the dream that once the GOP owns both the House and Senate, the long-sought-after and elusive spirit of compromise and bipartisanship will finally bloom profusely, in all its glory, as the proper Beltway equilibrium is once again established and all things become right with their world.
It is quite the delusional state of mind. But it has permeated every nook and cranny the beltway media mind.
Because 2003-2006 was a golden era. AKA FUBAR by practically everyone outside the beltway media bubble which is why the era ended with the Democrats taking back the House and Senate.
Who then compromised again and again, screwing their constituents to “offer something to the Republicans in the spirit of bipartisanship” until they now stand on the brink of losing it all again because of a justly aroused electorate who don’t know any better course than to “throw out the incumbents”.
Mmmmmmmmmmmm. The guy with the CIA and Secret Service gun to his head? That guy?
The guy who had a politicized military brass on the brink of mutiny in the prosecution of a war–until he cashiered them? That guy?
The guy who had to work four long years with Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad? That guy?
The guy who has had to dance around the loss of jobs in Alaska, Louisiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia because of fossil fuel company intransigence, accidents, and opportunism? You talking about that guy? Those four states account 8 Senators. Dems have 4 of 8 there. Only WV has two Dems at the moment, and Rockefeller is retiring.
This mess has not been created by one person. It takes the Village to screw things up this badly.
Never said one person. I said Democrats. They are all culpable including Dick Durbin and Harry Reid. Also, I can’t answer for other states but Democrats have pretty well screwed up my state of Illinois. Rahm Emanuel, Pat Quinn, Mike Madigan, Richie Daley, John Cullerton come to mind, but they are only the high profile names. Personally, I think they made a major mistake attacking the state workers and their unions, but they could be right that the unions are too weak to do anything about it, else they would have been thrown out in the primary. Other Democratic states? New York, California? Their residents can tell you how happy they are — or not. As for the embattled Democrats in “red states” that used to be “blue states” in my youth, they sowed the wind by playing Republican Lite, now they reap the whirlwind. I only hope that the Turtle gets his, but with Alison Grimes trying to vie with him in Obama Derangement Syndrome, I think not. Why don’t Democrats have a plan to help Appalachian people displaced by ending Coal? These people see their livelihoods threatened and Democrats just chant “go to college and retrain”. You know how impractical that is. I know you do. And I certainly hope that Wendy Davis proves that one can win by being a real Democrat. But she is the only candidate I respect this cycle. That’s why I have contributed to her campaign and nothing to Grimes’.
As “Voice” said, he was talking about Democrats. The ones that claimed after they took the House and Senate that they were handicapped by GWB and fewer the sixty seats in the Senate. (Although, they did manage to deliver a minimum wage increase.) So, voters gave them what they asked for. And got massive bailouts for Wall St. as they lost jobs and houses. Health care legislation that is too complicated, took too long to pass, and almost four years before the alleged centerpiece was implemented. New off-shore oil drilling leases. Ramped up charter/private school (corporatized education). Additional military resources dumped into the Afghanistan money pit. Enhanced and expanded NSA spying on US. …