Comments on: Quit Whining! http://www.frumforum.com/quit-whining Building a conservatism that can win again Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:50:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Don’t Give Up On The U.S. « economics http://www.frumforum.com/quit-whining/comment-page-2#comment-78506 Don’t Give Up On The U.S. « economics Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:22:48 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=8722#comment-78506 [...] shares this pessimism, albeit for different reasons. With Obama and the Democrats in power, many conservatives, including such keen observers as Charles Krauthammer and Victor Davis Hanson, believe the country [...] [...] shares this pessimism, albeit for different reasons. With Obama and the Democrats in power, many conservatives, including such keen observers as Charles Krauthammer and Victor Davis Hanson, believe the country [...]

]]> By: In Case You Missed It: Best Reads of the Week on Whining Conservatives, Internet Battles, Peru, The Single Life, and the Unborn - 2parse http://www.frumforum.com/quit-whining/comment-page-2#comment-57907 In Case You Missed It: Best Reads of the Week on Whining Conservatives, Internet Battles, Peru, The Single Life, and the Unborn - 2parse Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:22:38 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=8722#comment-57907 [...] Whiny Conservatives. David Frum scolds conservatives for  quite whining and points out how silly they look doing so given how far the conservative movement has moved [...] [...] Whiny Conservatives. David Frum scolds conservatives for  quite whining and points out how silly they look doing so given how far the conservative movement has moved [...]

]]> By: Morning Skim: Iraq Attacks, Stock Signals, Conservative Despair and more - The Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com http://www.frumforum.com/quit-whining/comment-page-2#comment-57521 Morning Skim: Iraq Attacks, Stock Signals, Conservative Despair and more - The Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:32:16 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=8722#comment-57521 [...] posts since Monday under the headline “Quit Whining.” In the first he wrote, “The apocalyptic despair heard from today’s conservatives is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong as a description of [...] [...] posts since Monday under the headline “Quit Whining.” In the first he wrote, “The apocalyptic despair heard from today’s conservatives is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong as a description of [...]

]]> By: Morning Skim: Iraq Attacks, Stock Signals, Conservative Despair and more - The Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com http://www.frumforum.com/quit-whining/comment-page-2#comment-57522 Morning Skim: Iraq Attacks, Stock Signals, Conservative Despair and more - The Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:32:16 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=8722#comment-57522 [...] posts since Monday under the headline “Quit Whining.” In the first he wrote, “The apocalyptic despair heard from today’s conservatives is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong as a description of [...] [...] posts since Monday under the headline “Quit Whining.” In the first he wrote, “The apocalyptic despair heard from today’s conservatives is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong as a description of [...]

]]> By: “Moron” “Idiot” “Lardass” “Fraud”: Mark Levin Replies http://www.frumforum.com/quit-whining/comment-page-2#comment-57509 “Moron” “Idiot” “Lardass” “Fraud”: Mark Levin Replies Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:34:16 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=8722#comment-57509 [...] series on conservative despair mentions Mark Levin among others. Here the talk-show host responds with his [...] [...] series on conservative despair mentions Mark Levin among others. Here the talk-show host responds with his [...]

]]> By: Quit Whining 4 http://www.frumforum.com/quit-whining/comment-page-2#comment-57506 Quit Whining 4 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:27:40 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=8722#comment-57506 [...] is part four in a series, read part one here, part two here and part three [...] [...] is part four in a series, read part one here, part two here and part three [...]

]]> By: drhagedorn http://www.frumforum.com/quit-whining/comment-page-2#comment-57499 drhagedorn Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:57:25 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=8722#comment-57499 Dear sinz54, I have read this several times, and I have no clue where you (Americans) get it from - so let me say this once loud and clear (I'll use all caps): SWEDEN IS NOT A SOCIALIST COUNTRY! And it never was. Right now it is parliamentary constitutional monarchy, a trait it has in common for example with the UK. If you look up wikipedia's list of scocialist countries you will not find Sweden among them, you will find it among the countries listed as liberal democracies, where you will also find the United States. However, as Sweden has been governed for long stretches of its history by the major "left" party (currently they are not in power) you might make a case, that this makes the country "socialist". The awkward fact that gets in the way of this reasoning is, that Sweden's left party isn't a even a socialist party - they are Social Democrats. And yes, it does make a difference! Dear sinz54,

I have read this several times, and I have no clue where you (Americans) get it from – so let me say this once loud and clear (I’ll use all caps):

SWEDEN IS NOT A SOCIALIST COUNTRY!

And it never was. Right now it is parliamentary constitutional monarchy, a trait it has in common for example with the UK. If you look up wikipedia’s list of scocialist countries you will not find Sweden among them, you will find it among the countries listed as liberal democracies, where you will also find the United States.

However, as Sweden has been governed for long stretches of its history by the major “left” party (currently they are not in power) you might make a case, that this makes the country “socialist”. The awkward fact that gets in the way of this reasoning is, that Sweden’s left party isn’t a even a socialist party – they are Social Democrats.

And yes, it does make a difference!

]]> By: jfhaney http://www.frumforum.com/quit-whining/comment-page-2#comment-57497 jfhaney Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:12:25 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=8722#comment-57497 And by the way, what may be a major difference between liberals and conservatives occurred to me in reading your article. I think we agree that democracy is a process, not a result; and that as long as we honor and maintain the process, we needn't worry too much about what it produces. It is the process that is important. This seems to hold true for conservatives in economics as well: the process, the free market, is primary. On the other hand, for liberals, outcomes may be more important. And liberals, unlike conservatives, do not equate market freedom with political freedom. Indeed, liberals may see them as sometimes contradictory. And by the way, what may be a major difference between liberals and conservatives occurred to me in reading your article. I think we agree that democracy is a process, not a result; and that as long as we honor and maintain the process, we needn’t worry too much about what it produces. It is the process that is important.
This seems to hold true for conservatives in economics as well: the process, the free market, is primary. On the other hand, for liberals, outcomes may be more important. And liberals, unlike conservatives, do not equate market freedom with political freedom. Indeed, liberals may see them as sometimes contradictory.

]]> By: jfhaney http://www.frumforum.com/quit-whining/comment-page-2#comment-57496 jfhaney Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:42:27 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=8722#comment-57496 David, you mention the "freedom to make...decisions about health care, education, property rights, and eventually (as we already see in Europe, Canada, American campuses, and the disgusting U.N. Human Rights Council) what you’re permitted to say and think." To take them in turn, I wonder first what decisions about health care you're referring to, and how you believe the current proposed legislation (which I'm not an avid fan of) threatens them. As a general observation, I'm sure you understand that many people in need of health care currently have no choice as far as health care is concerned, so this much vaunted freedom vis a vis health care is rather irrelevant for a large number of Americans. Moreover, a "free market" in health care seems to be as irrational and wasteful as you accuse Medicare and Medicaid to be. To take only two aspects of this, first, fee-for-service health care apparently only encourages doctors to multiply services in order to augment their income. In short, what is market "rationality", isn't rational health care, and while it may benefit an "industry", it ultimately isn't good for society. Second, a fundamental principle of free market economics - the rational choice model of the consumer - doesn't operate very well in health care: most people are not competent consumers of health care, being medical non-specialists; are in most high-expense episodes unable to "shop-around" (if you're having a heart attack, you probably want the nearest, not the least expensive, hospital); and finally face inelastic medical choices (if you want transportation, a $50 bicycle might serve as well as a $50,000 Mercedes, but a liver transplant is a liver transplant - an aspirin won't get the job done). For those aspects of health care where the free market operates well, I'm all for it. I wish it worked for all aspects, but I don't believe it does. As for education, I'm not sure what liberal plot endangers education. I would, however, be interested to know. As for property rights, I think we can both agree that they are not absolute - as no right is. The rights of one individual must be considered in the context of those of another - a concept with which I believe conservatives are comfortable - but also of those of the effective community, which for conservatives is more problematic. I think a thoughtful and honest conversation is possible on this topic. Your last item, that of free speech versus its regulation in the interest of not offending individuals or groups within society, is an area with which we almost certainly agree. I am a liberal - one I'd like to believe that does not make a fetish of freedom: that all may do as they please without responsibility to others, which is the overthrow of law and humanity, of the simple human virtues of self-discipline and forbearance - but in this I am an ideologue, a characteristic for which I endlessly castigate conservatives, and for which in this instance I plead guilty. It isn't the speaker who must be regulated - speech should be free because to allow all speech, even the most repellent, is to guarantee a forum wherein the truth may be told - but the hearer. The hearer is allowed the same freedom to speak as the speaker, but no one should be allowed the freedom to silence (outside the - no freedom is absolute - constraints of slander and libel, when you demonstrably damage an individual with intended falsehoods). I'm happy to know that you have made yourself an independent conservative voice. Unfortunately, it will probably make you less effective than more. Mavericks - left and right - own the margins, not the mainstream. They prefer light when everyone else responds to heat. It's the way people are. Maybe the "light" people should talk more. Wha' d'ya think? David, you mention the “freedom to make…decisions about health care, education, property rights, and eventually (as we already see in Europe, Canada, American campuses, and the disgusting U.N. Human Rights Council) what you’re permitted to say and think.”
To take them in turn, I wonder first what decisions about health care you’re referring to, and how you believe the current proposed legislation (which I’m not an avid fan of) threatens them. As a general observation, I’m sure you understand that many people in need of health care currently have no choice as far as health care is concerned, so this much vaunted freedom vis a vis health care is rather irrelevant for a large number of Americans. Moreover, a “free market” in health care seems to be as irrational and wasteful as you accuse Medicare and Medicaid to be. To take only two aspects of this, first, fee-for-service health care apparently only encourages doctors to multiply services in order to augment their income. In short, what is market “rationality”, isn’t rational health care, and while it may benefit an “industry”, it ultimately isn’t good for society. Second, a fundamental principle of free market economics – the rational choice model of the consumer – doesn’t operate very well in health care: most people are not competent consumers of health care, being medical non-specialists; are in most high-expense episodes unable to “shop-around” (if you’re having a heart attack, you probably want the nearest, not the least expensive, hospital); and finally face inelastic medical choices (if you want transportation, a $50 bicycle might serve as well as a $50,000 Mercedes, but a liver transplant is a liver transplant – an aspirin won’t get the job done). For those aspects of health care where the free market operates well, I’m all for it. I wish it worked for all aspects, but I don’t believe it does.
As for education, I’m not sure what liberal plot endangers education. I would, however, be interested to know.
As for property rights, I think we can both agree that they are not absolute – as no right is. The rights of one individual must be considered in the context of those of another – a concept with which I believe conservatives are comfortable – but also of those of the effective community, which for conservatives is more problematic. I think a thoughtful and honest conversation is possible on this topic.
Your last item, that of free speech versus its regulation in the interest of not offending individuals or groups within society, is an area with which we almost certainly agree. I am a liberal – one I’d like to believe that does not make a fetish of freedom: that all may do as they please without responsibility to others, which is the overthrow of law and humanity, of the simple human virtues of self-discipline and forbearance – but in this I am an ideologue, a characteristic for which I endlessly castigate conservatives, and for which in this instance I plead guilty. It isn’t the speaker who must be regulated – speech should be free because to allow all speech, even the most repellent, is to guarantee a forum wherein the truth may be told – but the hearer. The hearer is allowed the same freedom to speak as the speaker, but no one should be allowed the freedom to silence (outside the – no freedom is absolute – constraints of slander and libel, when you demonstrably damage an individual with intended falsehoods).
I’m happy to know that you have made yourself an independent conservative voice. Unfortunately, it will probably make you less effective than more. Mavericks – left and right – own the margins, not the mainstream. They prefer light when everyone else responds to heat. It’s the way people are. Maybe the “light” people should talk more. Wha’ d’ya think?

]]> By: Audio: Mark Levin calls David Frum is an ass, idiot, lardass, and moron | Mofo Politics | Hoping Obama Fails http://www.frumforum.com/quit-whining/comment-page-2#comment-57491 Audio: Mark Levin calls David Frum is an ass, idiot, lardass, and moron | Mofo Politics | Hoping Obama Fails Wed, 29 Jul 2009 01:17:56 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=8722#comment-57491 [...] Levin, in response to David Frum’s article “Quit [...] [...] Levin, in response to David Frum’s article “Quit [...]

]]>