How to tell “liberal” from a “conservative”

A conservative now seems to be anyone who calls anyone who disagrees with him or her a “liberal”.

How to tell who is a “liberal”?  I don’t know.  There are so ,many varieties.

In the current political climate. Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower would be considered “liberals”.  Probably even Mr. Republican, Robert Taft!!

It also seems that the “conservatives” are being very “liberal” with their interpretation of the Constitution: corporations are people and the Second Amendment means the people have no right to regulate a militia of one person.  I would imagine that the conservatives that wrote these documents would be appalled at these interpretations.

How to lose friends and be influenced by dictators

A new book by Donald Carnage.

Inspired by Max Boot (Corrosion of Conservatism) and George Will (“The shabbiest President ever is an Inexpressibly sad specimen”) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-a-misery-it-must-be-to-be-donald-trump/2019/01/18/d0e05eea-1a82-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html?utm_term=.7bf9d512df93

When “conservative” columnists don’t like “conservative” presidents, something must be wrong with the “conservative” president.

I had a dream

My apologies to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for using a variation of the title of one of his major speeches.

My dream early this morning was about a similar nemesis: those whose only interest is ruling with a false idea of conservatism and a misuse of religion.

The false idea of conservatism is holding on to power, irregardless of how it affects the vast majority of the citizens.  This conservatism puts the interests of some large corporations over the interests of large segments of the population.  The misuse of religion is to claim to have the truth even as it acts contrary to the teachings of its greatest prophet.

My dream was that teams of journalists met all over the country to unite against the attacks by false conservatives on the journalists integrity and professionalism.  Interestingly, many of these journalists being attacked are real conservatives, like George Will and Jennifer Rubin.

What is a real conservative?  We can start by naming a few: Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Dwight Eisenhower.  All of these have given warning about the order of men that is not to be trusted.

Adam Smith warned about those who live by profit.  Edmund Burke warned about the folly of not allowing the colonies to govern themselves.  George Washington warned about factions and about foreign entanglements (letting both friends and enemies control our judgment).  Abraham Lincoln stated that we had to think anew with new circumstances.  Dwight Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex.

The best way to counter these false conservatives is to vote in each and every election.  These false conservatives do all they can to dissuade people from voting from gerrymandering to false statements about their opponents.

Until such time as real conservatives appear on the scene, I’ll just have to keep voting for Democrats.  I don’t support many of the issues of the Democrats, but these issues are not so destructive of our country as the issues proclaimed by false conservatives.

“Real Republicans”

Should we even call “Republicans” “conservatives”?  They certainly aren’t concerned with “Res publica” (public things) and the only thing they want to conserve is their power.

I think real conservatives from Edmund Burke to Dwight Eisenhower would not want to be associated with them.  Remember Eisenhower’s warning about the “military-industrial complex”.

Posted as a comment: http://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/opinion/the-force-of-decency-awakens.html?comments#permid=26131193:26134931.

Taxes are not a one-way transaction

We all complain about taxes and we all would like to pay less taxes or none at all.

But what happens when we pay less taxes?

We won’t have the public streets and highways that we want to be in pot-holeless condition.

We wont’t have fire departments coming to put out our house-fires or the neighbors’ house-fires that might expand to our house.  Does that give you a clue why tax supported fire departments are a good idea?  If not, consider how safe your house would be if you were the only one on your block who paid the fire department.

The same holds for police and snowplowing and street cleaning and …  Would you want to be responsible for clearing the snow from the street in front of your house?

And the irony of ironies is that the “conservatives” who complain the loudest about taxes for things they don’t like want to to throw money at the military, especially if it means a military base in their district.

Oh, yes!  If you can read this, thank a teacher.  If you're rich, maybe your daddy paid the teacher.  If you're not rich, hundreds and thousands of tax-paying citizens paid the teacher.  Or, the poor kid whose education you helped pay for in your middle-age may be the doctor that saves your life in your old age.

Edmund Burke and Sarah Palin thinking alike?

“The occupation of an hair-dresser, or of a working tallow chandler, cannot be a matter of honor to any person–to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments.  Such description of men ought no to suffer oppression from the state; but the state suffers oppression, if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule.”

Quoted in The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin, Corey Robin

I can’t see how he can equate a thinker like Edmund Burke to a clueless person like Sarah Palin.

The above quote is taken very much out of context.  Burke was commenting on the French Revolution where everything was torn down to start anew.  Burke's comments were often directed at Thomas Paine who thought each generation should start governance from scratch.  Burke was very much for change in the context of continuity.  People should keep what works and fix what is no longer working.  To do so, you can't just take people off the street and expect them to understand what changes should be made and how.

I gave up reading The Reactionary Mind after that quote.

I do recommend Edmund Burke: The First Conservative by Jesse Norman and The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Left and Right by Yuval Levin.  Both have a more nuanced understanding of "conservatives" and "liberals".  Although Levin describes himself as a conservative, he gives fair hearing to both Burke and Paine.

Ironically, both Paine and Burke favored the American Revolution.  However, the United States was founded on a Burkean conservatism.  The French revolutionaries imprisoned Paine for about a year and the French Revolution fell to a military government under Napoleon Bonaparte.

Unfortunately, I don't think there are any Burkean conservatives in the U.S. government, unless they are Democrats.  The only thing conservative about Republicans is conserving their own power and that of large corporations.

Ironically, our first conservative wrote a well-thought treatise on how to govern and what dangers to watch out for.  Current "conservatives" not only ignore the lessons in George Washington's Farewell Address, but they don't even attend its annual reading in the Senate!!

Edmund Burke asks that people stop calling him a "conservative".

“I’ve heard there is a grave in England that is smoking. It is the grave of Edmund Burke, "The First Conservative", spinning in his grave. I am reading Jesse Norman's book on Burke, and what Burke believed is not what any current Republican believes (or if they believe like Burke, they are keeping very, very quiet).

“Among other things, he believed in a separation of powers so that they could be a check on one another. By contrast, Donald Trump believes that Congress and the Supreme Court should be subservient to his wishes.”

Comment to Jennifer Rubin’s “Be wary of what you wish for in Alabama”.

Right on about voting

Sadly, so-called "conservatives" show up to vote for "flawed" candidates, but so-called "liberals" stay home if they perceive a "liberal" candidate as "flawed".




Supporting two commenters from Arizona who support Tuscon's police chief, Chris Magnus, in his even-handed law enforcement.

When the World Is Led by a Child

Comment to New York Times article by David Brooks (note: Brooks is considered a conservative)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opinion/trump-classified-data.html?comments#permid=22518785

George Washington warned about the abject support of Trump by the Republicans:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”

Every year on Washington's birthday, a member of the Senate reads Washington's "Farewell Address". And every year the Senate ignores his advice by dividing itself along party lines. We now see almost lockstep support of Trump by Republicans and lockstep opposition to Trump by Democrats.

Maybe someday the the voters will grow up and elect grown-ups to political office.

The false masters of words

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll

We seem to have lots of Humpty Dumptys in politics, their words mean what they choose, not what most people think they mean.

Take the “Freedom Caucus”.  What do they mean?  It certainly doesn’t mean freedom to govern ourselves according to generally accepted rules.  To them it means freedom to do what they damn well please, to hell with whoever else's freedom they tromp on.

Just what are “conservatives” conserving.  It certainly isn’t resources.  It certainly isn’t careful consideration before making any changes.  To too many “conservatives” it means either conserving the power of large corporations or conserving a very narrow view of religion. ironically, the latter don’t hold the former to “you cannot serve both God and Mammon.” - Matthew 6:24.

As I’ve written more times than some of my readers would like, “free market” means, according to the Humpty Dumptys is again, free for the sellers to do as they please.  To them the free market is not providing buyers with all the information they need and is not avoiding externalities such as pollution and worker safety.  These to them are impediments to “free markets”.

“Liberals” misuse words also, but their goals tend to be more friendly to the general populace.  But sometimes their “liberality” works counter to the general welfare or unnecessarily creates opposition to certain desirable goals: like letting people lead the lives they choose.

I think “gay marriage” has lost a lot of otherwise “liberal” votes because many supporters have a different view of marriage.  I’ve always thought this problem should be dealt with by a “granny rule”.  If two grandmothers choose to live together, is it our business whether they sleep in the same bed or in different rooms?  It is “our business” if one of them dies.  Does the survivor have to sell the house to pay the inheritance of the deceased’s children and grandchildren?  To avoid this situation, any group of people who choose to live together should be able to have a civil contract that protects the interests of each member of the group.

Republicans are all for choice except…

“Americans have choices. And they’ve got to make a choice. And so maybe, rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love, and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care.”
Jason Chaffetz, Republcian Rep., Utah

But Republicans don’t want to give people much choice when it comes to transportation.  We should all rely on cars and planes.  Forget trains, buses, and subways.  They would rather build more and more freeways, taking away the tax bases of central cities.

The cost of a cell phone pales in comparison to cost of a car, even a decent used one.  Then there is all the gas, service, and parking places for it.

And the car has destroyed many a downtown because people prefer going where there is “free parking”.  But what is the cost of that free parking: rain runoff (filled with contaminants) and heat radiation.

And what is the cost of health care compared to a cell-phone.    We each pay $238 for medical insurance deducted from our Social Security checks.  We don’t pay anyway near that for our cell phone service.  And the iPhone that is not fully paid for costs only $16.67 per month.

And what is the cost to the rest of us for an uninsured person?  Companies should worry about people showing up sick because they can’t get afford medical care.  All of us should be concerned about somebody who doesn’t get care for a communicable disease.  Did you ever hear about Typhoid Mary who worked in food service?  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon.  Although she never became sick from typhoid, she was a carrier who infected many of the families she cooked for.

Health care for all of us means better health for all of us.  True conservatives would want to keep as many people well as possible.

Quote of the dayl: Donald Trump and Constitution

"What Trump knows about history (or for that matter the Constitution) would not fill a Post-it note."
Roger Cohen, New York Times, 2017-02-28.

One could say the same about many members of Congress and the Supreme Court.

What I don't understand is that some of these judges are "originalists" and then put a different meaning into the text.  Or all those in Congress who call themselves "conservatives" but are quite liberal with their reading of the Constitution.

Spending money saves money

Too many “budget cutters” think that taking benefits from one group of people will save lots of money for a few other people.  Actually taking benefits away will just transfer costs elsewhere.

Take for example health care.  “Conservatives” think that spending less on Medicare and Medicaid will save billions.

No, it will just transfer costs to somewhere else.  Corporations will have to spend more on employee healthcare or risk having more sick employees.  States will have to pay more for healthcare, if they so chose.

If people can’t afford health care, they will be less able to work and have less taxable income.  They will also have less money to spend on all the goods and services companies provide.  If there are fewer buyers, then there will be fewer goods and services sold.  If there are fewer goods and services sold, then there will be less profits.

“Conservatives” should be careful what they ask for.  They may just get the opposite.

Quote of the Day: Hardworking?

Over 2,100 comments were posted to "Why Rural America Voted for Trump", Robert Leonard, New York Times, 2017-01-05.

One of my favorites was submitted by Cam Chapel Hill, NC

"I'm sick of the expression "hardworking". Who doesn't consider themselves "hardworking"? I suspect being homeless and unemployed requires a great deal of 'hard work'.

"Be all this as it may: voting for Trump is like trying to lose weight on a diet of ice cream and cookies-you may enjoy the experience but you won't reach your goals."

Other commenters pointed out that agri-business has reduced the number of family farms, that Trump's billionaires are only posturing about their wanting to help rural America, and that one relative was working 60-hour weeks in New York City.

Liberal/conservative misnaming

Ross Douthat gave a long selection of books for “liberals” to read given that Donald Trump “won” the election.

Boy!  Did readers take him on, including the false dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative, or even it the labels are accurate.

My own contribution was:

The problem is not the division between "liberalism" and "conservatism". They are both misleading labels. For example, "liberals" can be very conservative about reigning in corporate power and "conservatives" can be very liberal about increasing corporate power. The real problem is the disinterest of too many people in voting at all. Lost in all the hoopla of Trump's "victory" is that he came in third to a de facto "none of the above”.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/opinion/books-for-the-trump-era.html?comments&_r=0#permid=20874252.

Whatever happened to real Republicans?

Once upon a time we were active Republican Party members at the precinct level. Then Reagan won the nomination instead of John Anderson, and Republicans became more rigid in their beliefs. It was about this time that the term RINO was coined: Republican In Name Only. And the Republicans stopped being a big tent party. This rigidity should not be mistaken for conservatism, a thoughtful consideration of change.

There have been a few bright spots like Bill Frenzel, Representative of 3rd Minnesota district, and Arne Carlson, Gov. of Minnesota after the Republican candidate imploded because of inappropriate behavior with teen-age girls. So much for the "moral" party. BTW Carlson still writes a blog: http://govarnecarlson.blogspot.com/

Since then, there have been more and more rigid stances, including eight years of obstruction of a Democratic President. Bi-partisan legislation happens too infrequently.

I would say the only thing "conservative" is to "conserve our world view" despite plentiful evidence to the contrary.

Comment to New York Times article "On Where the Republican Party Went Wrong", Charlie Sykes, 2016-12-15

Misuse of "conservative" and "free market”

Letter to New York Times public editor

I wish writers would more carefully use the terms “conservative” and “free market”.

Those labeled with these terms, by self or others, are too often neither.

Are “conservatives” thoughtful and cautious about change, or are they rigid in whatever their views?  For example, “conservative” religious sects are more often throwing the first stone rather than feeding the poor.  Do “conservatives" really follow the Constitution as it currently exists, or are they “activists” interpreting it to suit their own views?  “Persons” are corporations?  “People” in the Second Amendment are now persons.  “Regulate Commerce” is totally ignored.

As to “free market”, it is too often meant to mean corporations should be free to do what they please without government interference.  Adam Smith must be spinning in his grave as those who live by profit (not to be trusted) buy so many politicians with money or a barrage of misleading statements.

A true free market

Has many buyers and sellers
Both buyers and sellers are free to enter or leave the market
Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision
All costs are paid for in the transaction, that is, there are no externalities.

Too many “free marketers” want as few sellers as possible, do their best to lock buyers into the market, find out as much as possible about buyers but hide or provide false information to the buyers, and ignore all the externalities like pollution and bad diets.

See “The Invisible Adam Smith”, http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-invisible-adam-smith.html

Gun rights vs. property rights, a conundrum for "conservatives"

'Tis hunting season in Minnesota.  Right now it is deer season and we can hear gunshots now and then.  I hope they were all on federal land to the south of us.

Technically, we are supposed to post "No Hunting" signs all around our property, but it is a real pain to post signs around 80 acres (half-mile along the road and a quarter-mile deep).  Besides, there always seem to be some jerks that will go right by a "No hunting/no trespassing sign.

Given that in St. Louis County, one can access the Online Land Explorer to find out ownership of every parcel of land, and so there is no excuse for trespassing.  In some other counties one can buy land maps.  Given all the other costs of hunting, I would think the maps are small change.

Now the conundrum, if a gun owner in a residential area is entitled to shoot and kill a "trespasser", should not a rural resident be entitled to shoot a trespassing hunter?

Case in point, several years ago a bird hunter shot down our driveway with a red pickup clearly visible in the driveway.  Would I have been entitled to shoot and kill that hunter in self-defense?

This particular hunter had a "right" to have a shot gun, but I have a right to my property without worrying about an irresponsible gun owner.

I have many friends who are responsible hunters, but shouldn't there be some restrictions on irresponsible people even owning guns.

Trump and the rule of personality, not of law

"Donald Trump is the personification of the distortion of a constitution by men who hate the constitution with such passion that they are willing to swear complete fealty as they destroy everything it stands for.” - Montreal Moe in response to Ross Douthat’s “The Trump Afterlife”, New York Times, 2016-10-19.

Douthat, being a true conservative, doesn’t care much for Trump’s anti-constitutional remarks.

To Montreal Moe’s comment I added:

Hear! Hear! I find it ironic that so-called conservatives rant about activist judges. So-called conservative Supreme Court Judges have defined corporations as persons and defined "people" in the Second Amendment to be "persons". Changes like these are certainly not "conservative”.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/opinion/campaign-stops/the-trump-afterlife.html?comments#permid=20183212:20184925.

Louis the XIV famously proclaimed “L’état, c’est moi!”.  "The state, it is me!"  Is Trump planning on being Donald the I?  Hm, in Trump’s case does “I” mean “me” or the first or both?  Trump’s remarks certainly sound monarchical (rule by one) rather than democratic (rule by many).

Robert Reich predicted the likes of Donald Trump

"[People] think if the big guys cheat in big ways, they might as well begin cheating in small ways. And when they think the game is rigged, they're easy prey for political demagogues with fast tongues and dumb ideas.
- Robert Reich,  Beyond Outrage, 2012

 In Beyond Outrage Reich also pointed out that "Conservatives" don't conserve much.  He wrote they are regressives who want to return to a time when very few were very, very well-off and most had to struggle to make a living, often in dangerous, unhealthy conditions.

He didn't spell it out in detail but "conservatives" sure don't want to conserve resources, clean air, or even a well-functioning government.  "Conservatives" are certainly "liberal" in interpreting the Constitution to their ends, "liberal" at "throwing money" at the military, and "liberal" in awarding generous compensation to those at the top of large corporations, even those who really screw up the company.