|
CreativeDominant -> RE: The Failure of Conservatism (10/8/2010 12:53:15 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:
ORIGINAL: AnimusRex
So for the past 30 years we have followed what can only be considered the conservative agenda; we have cut taxes, reduced regulation, cut social welfare programs, and reduced the power of labor unions.
It doesn't matter which party controlled the White House or Congress; relentlessly, the key items of the conservative agenda were promoted and passed, while not one piece of liberal lawmaking has been introduced or passed in the past 30 years.
The American public largely followed this path on the promise that if we did this, if we unleashed the power of the marketplace the rich and the corporations would create jobs, and prosperity would flow to the middle class.
So my question is, where is it? Is the America middle class stronger, more secure than we were in say, 1980? Who here has a more secure job, who has a more secure retirement, than they did in 1980?
By any measure, the American middle class is poorer, less secure than ever. The middle class used to be able to live on one income, but now we need two; we pay endlessly for things that used to be offered free- school busses, driver's education, school lunches, work training programs, community colleges...the list is endless of the things that the middle class now has to pay for, even as the top 1% pays ever less in taxes.
This may be the first generation in American history to live with a lower standard of living than our parents.
This is why I could no longer call myself a conservative- even if you can set aside the liberal arguments about compassion, or the poor, even when you only measure it against its own standards, conservatism has failed in its most basic promise, to deliver prosperity and economic security to the middle class.
Conservativism works very well--for it's leaders. And that's its goal--the rest is rhetoric to gather votes.
Remember what conservativism is (vs. the more recent rhetoric) -- protecting the consolidation of wealth and power in the hands and institutions of the established conservative elite, both through insulating them from interference and militarily promoting their interests. Then look at what happened, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II.
For the conservative elite, mission accomplished. The strata between rich and poor widened. Wealth was redistributed via unpaid tax cuts primarily to the wealthy, offset with government borrowing paid for by everyone. Sure, deficits quadrupled, but their interests were served. This borrowing also funded unpaid wars, from Central America to the Middle East. Regulations were stripped or watered down (including, unfortunately, mine safety and oil oversight). Banking got aggressive, and when its overreaching failed, the tax payers picked up the tab, from the Savings & Loan crisis to the credit crunch bailouts.
For them, government, properly controlled, is a candy store. Well established industries, from oil/gas to massive corn farming, still get heavy support--allowing people like Dubya, incidentally, to make millions even though all his businesses tanked (his brothers profited from the S&L bailout). Their "big government" rhetoric is reserved for regulation--they're not advocating returning any of the billions they're making from it, not the least of which comes from military operations.
This is why Clinton (who, other than health care, was really a rather conservative Democrat) was such a threat. He understood the economy, and when Newt rushed into town, he knew he'd need to work with him and adapted. Newt, also, despite his silly Contract with America pagent, realized he had to work with the President to get things done--and they both did, in the largest peacetime expansion in our nation's history. This, however, was reversing the gains of the conservative elite.
So they demonize government even as they use it. Find a "moral" issue, or "terrorist" or a "threat" to religion or "our way of life," blow it out of all context, whether immigration, gay marriage, abortion, whatever, and get the voters fired up. Promise them you'll cut their taxes and usher in change (by the way--you all have been getting tax cuts since 1980 now...what have you all done with all that extra money? Just curious...).
OK, that's the past, so where do we go from here? Despite the rhetoric about Obama's administration/Congress so far, other than health care, they've continued Bush's conservative approach, protecting large financial institutions and trying to buy their way out of recession (Bush had already used up lowering interest rates in two previous recessions) and promote liquidity. Whether this was a good idea (a lot of economists say it should have gone much further), and whether it worked (most economists say it at least helped), doesn't really matter in terms of the nation's direction, as that was/is a short term situation. Jobs will come back as inventories continue to fall and confidence/knowledge about where we are and what's coming (including adjusting to health care changes) settles down (probably starting after August--orders for durable goods and production goods are already up). So while no one likes how much we're spending, this is a blip, correctly handled or not.
This is the problem with the Teas, and why I consider their approach naive--just replace everybody, preferably with new, uncompromising conservatives, a recipe for gridlock, lax regulation, and handing the candy store keys back to the conservative elite. After all, economic woes keep people from worrying too much about keeping a closer eye on what else is happening. It also makes a labor force relatively grateful for that thankless, low paying job, as better than nothing. It's a prosperous middle class, more than anything, that keeps a close eye on misdeeds. As long as cash can still be rechanneled from taxpayers to the ruling class at the top, all is well as far they are concerned.
This is also why conservative leaders consider liberals such an obstacle--they promote individual rights, and this threatens their power structure. Consider this list of liberal achievements generated in another thread:
quote:
Yeah, I weep when I think of all those good things liberals destroyed: segregation, old-age poverty, child labor, sweatshops, malnutrition in schools...monopolies, unaffordable education through high school, extreme poverty, work place discrimination in hiring...dumping toxic waste into rivers, logging off old-growth forests, damming wild rivers, lead in gasoline, cars without seatbelts, lead paint in baby cribs....
Every one of those was opposed by the conservative structure as too costly, and you can see why--it takes money away and forces social accountability. Remember before all this, the 1890s and the early 20th century, with completely free markets--incredible monopolies, including intertwined trusts, no workplace safety at all (one in three workers died on the job), workers locked inside factories, children chained to their looms, factory workers earning 25% of what it cost to support a family--this is the conservative ideal. "Compassionate" conservatism is accepting that society has advanced, and conserving the consolidation of the wealth, power, and institutions of the ruling elite from there, while promoting its global interests at the cost of the citizenry's lives and tax dollars.
And now, safety precautions in deep water oil drilling were also considered too costly. Look at the cost now.
So yes, trickle-down economic policy works--for the powerful wealthy elite, and at the cost of American taxpayers.
Would that be that Top 1 -2 % that pay 40 - 50% of the taxes? Who ironically enough, happen to be the "powerfully wealthy elite"...those like W. Buffet, Bill Gates, John Kerry and his wife, etc., etc.
|
|
|
|
