Comments on: A Politics That Will Kill Us

By: jasonburke

jasonburke — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:46:35 +0000

Reminds me of the “Crunchy Con” writings of Rod Dreher, where I first read them at the National Review. As long as ‘mainstream’ conservatives insist on extolling the “free market” public attraction to junk food, soda, and a high fat diet – I will continue to be repulsed. This was a great review to convince me otherwise. I really enjoyed this book, and being more mindful of what I eat. It is great to read Frum echo the views that eating healthy and local is simply good, plain, delicious common sense. As Dreher said-

“Learning from wisdom and lived experience and preserving the humanity and life of one’s “little platoon” by living accordingly: What could be more conservative than that?”

Time to go get some more food from my farmers market….

By: Spartacus

Spartacus — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:55:02 +0000

sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 8:29 am – you’re right.

By: hopitab

hopitab — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:29:41 +0000

One angle I think you didn’t consider: liberals will tend not to believe so much in the benevolence of agricultural practices, are more in favor of regulating food production and, lacking this, are probably more inclined to choose organic companies. A pro-business outlook tends to be more accepting of letting corporations regulate their pesticides and drugs.

By: DFL

DFL — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:15:48 +0000

You bring up good points and asked good questions, sinz. The Republicans have ossified. They have no real coherent program for the dire times in which we live.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:29:11 +0000

Spartacus & Jim Pier: A political party runs out of steam when its platform ossifies into dogma, in which old policies continue to be invoked in new times without bothering to test their continued relevance. And what once was radical becomes obsolescent dogma eventually.

In the 1970s, the Dems were in that position. The stagflation, worsening balance of power in the world, and newly ignited culture wars were not susceptible to solution by New Deal policies, yet that’s all that the Dems had to offer–continuing homage to FDR.

By 2000, the Repubs were showing signs of that same ossification. The economy had grown substantially in the prior 20 years. Why did Bush need to propose yet more tax cuts? What problem were these tax cuts supposed to solve?

Supply-side economics, including tax cuts for the sake of igniting growth, which had helped jump-start a recovery in the 1980s, were less relevant now that many Americans paid more in SS payroll taxes than they did in income taxes. And the Cold War was over, leaving the GOP’s hawks with a lot less to do. They found their new enemy in Saddam Hussein (NOT so much radical Islam)–with disastrous results for the nation.

What are the major points in today’s GOP economic platform other than cutting taxes? is there ever a time, boom or bust, inflation or recession, when tax cuts are NOT a good idea?

By: Spartacus

Spartacus — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:35:04 +0000

Jim Pier: “I suppose I was a bit too aggressive there. Sorry.”

Not a problem. Apology gladly accepted.

By: Spartacus

Spartacus — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:34:04 +0000

Jim Pier: “Having won an election is not evidence of having been right. It is evidence of having somehow managed to tally more votes than the opponent.”

It is evidence that most people agree with the assessment that the GOP/conservatives are stuck on tax cuts, anti-intellectualism and hyperbolic, inflammatory rhetoric. It is not dispositive evidence, but it is strong evidence that, combined with the dispassionate confirmatory assessment of other GOPers such as Frum, Voinovich, Tom Davis et al, is compelling.

By: Spartacus

Spartacus — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:23:12 +0000

Jim Pier: “Why don’t we begin with you providing me with support for your claim, as that is what is in dispute? As far as I’m concerned, there are no prominent conservatives who demonstrate the characteristics listed by you.”

Tax cuts as an economic panacea: George Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al.

Anti-intellectualism (a.k.a. Palinism): George Bush, Sara Palin, Fred Thompson, Joe the Plumber, Sean Hannity, et al.

Hyperbolic, Inflammatory Rhetoric: Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, Joe the Plumber, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, et al.

By: greg_barton

greg_barton — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 05:41:06 +0000

Jim, did you say that when Bush was elected?

By: Jim Pier

Jim Pier — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:22:57 +0000

spartacus:

“Of course, I agree with him and, apparently, most of America did too that last time it counted.”

Congratulations on the election. Yawwnn. Old news. Having won an election is not evidence of having been right. It is evidence of having somehow managed to tally more votes than the opponent. This could as easily be done by dishonesty, charisma, or bribery as by advocating good policy or showing leadership. What have the victors done with the power with which they have been entrusted so far?