Conservatives. What do you want?

[Daemon Sophic]

Seriously. Long term. What are the things that conservatives are striving for?

Reduce pollution and control the climate problems?
Reduce the suffering and death from SARS-CoV-2 (Covid)?
Balance the budget?
Bring hard working people out of poverty and desperation, with good jobs and worker education?
Reduce crime?
Maintain a strong military presence?
. . .At home?
. . .Across the globe (aiding our allies to prevent tyrants from gaining power)?
Find the most reasonable and economic way to provide healthcare to the entire population?
Improve education?
Advance our technology?
Base policy upon facts and evidence?


Because all of these things are the goals of the Dems.
Both sides suffer from corrupt twits on occasion.....but US conservatives seem (to everyone else on the planet) to be working their behinds off to thwart each and every one of the items I’ve listed above.

What are you working for?
Why do you choose representatives who are trying to stop the Dems from making our nation a great leader in all these things?

 

[tytlyf]

They want a government controlled by the Christian religion, with religious laws for everyone. It's unconstitutional, but they don't care. They don't think there's a separation of church and state.

 

[sun rise]

When I was young, conservatives and liberals generally shared the same long-term goals and differed about methods. Back then, conservatives were about using incentives to motivate people rather than regulations to command them. Also conservatives in that era were about incremental rather than radical change.

That form of conservatism is basically dead outside of a tiny minority. Today's conservatives are about turning the clock backward, radical change and using command and control methods to promote their agenda.

 

[JustGeorge]

They want a government controlled by the Christian religion, with religious laws for everyone. It's unconstitutional, but they don't care. They don't think there's a separation of church and state.

I'm not sure this is true for everyone. I have many conservative family members, and most of them don't give two hoots about Christianity. Most are agnostic/atheist. I think it boils down to taxes for most of them. The one I talk the most with also desires minimal government interference.

 

[Left Coast]

Seriously. Long term. What are the things that conservatives are striving for?

Reduce pollution and control the climate problems?
Reduce the suffering and death from SARS-CoV-2 (Covid)?
Balance the budget?
Bring hard working people out of poverty and desperation, with good jobs and worker education?
Reduce crime?
Maintain a strong military presence?
. . .At home?
. . .Across the globe (aiding our allies to prevent tyrants from gaining power)?
Find the most reasonable and economic way to provide healthcare to the entire population?
Improve education?
Advance our technology?
Base policy upon facts and evidence?


Because all of these things are the goals of the Dems.
Both sides suffer from corrupt twits on occasion.....but US conservatives seem (to everyone else on the planet) to be working their behinds off to thwart each and every one of the items I’ve listed above.

What are you working for?
Why do you choose representatives who are trying to stop the Dems from making our nation a great leader in all these things?

In fairness, I think conservatives would generally say they agree with those goals, but propose different policy solutions to achieve those goals. So the efforts they try to thwart are the particular policy proposals of Dems, which they believe will have negative unintended consequences.

 

[Watchmen]

Seriously. Long term. What are the things that conservatives are striving for?

Reduce pollution and control the climate problems?
Reduce the suffering and death from SARS-CoV-2 (Covid)?
Balance the budget?
Bring hard working people out of poverty and desperation, with good jobs and worker education?
Reduce crime?
Maintain a strong military presence?
. . .At home?
. . .Across the globe (aiding our allies to prevent tyrants from gaining power)?
Find the most reasonable and economic way to provide healthcare to the entire population?
Improve education?
Advance our technology?
Base policy upon facts and evidence?


Because all of these things are the goals of the Dems.
Both sides suffer from corrupt twits on occasion.....but US conservatives seem (to everyone else on the planet) to be working their behinds off to thwart each and every one of the items I’ve listed above.

What are you working for?
Why do you choose representatives who are trying to stop the Dems from making our nation a great leader in all these things?

Everyone generally wants the same thing, but the two sides have different thoughts on how best to get there.

 

[Watchmen]

They want a government controlled by the Christian religion, with religious laws for everyone. It's unconstitutional, but they don't care. They don't think there's a separation of church and state.

False

 

[Tumah]

Seriously. Long term. What are the things that conservatives are striving for?

Reduce pollution and control the climate problems?
Reduce the suffering and death from SARS-CoV-2 (Covid)?
Balance the budget?
Bring hard working people out of poverty and desperation, with good jobs and worker education?
Reduce crime?
Maintain a strong military presence?
. . .At home?
. . .Across the globe (aiding our allies to prevent tyrants from gaining power)?
Find the most reasonable and economic way to provide healthcare to the entire population?
Improve education?
Advance our technology?
Base policy upon facts and evidence?


Because all of these things are the goals of the Dems.
Both sides suffer from corrupt twits on occasion.....but US conservatives seem (to everyone else on the planet) to be working their behinds off to thwart each and every one of the items I’ve listed above.

What are you working for?
Why do you choose representatives who are trying to stop the Dems from making our nation a great leader in all these things?

I've seen it noted a number of times among Conservatives that Democrats think with their hearts rather than their minds. Idealists who goals, while utopian, aren't necessarily practical.

Take for instance raising the minimum wage. On the face of it, raising the minimum wage seems like a great idea to help people out of poverty. It's really thoughtful and definitely comes from a caring place. The question is though, would it actually help? What happens to business owners who can't afford to hire as many workers at a new $15 minimum? They have to cut down on jobs. So instead of giving two families $7 an hour, you're giving one $15 and one $0. So by not raising the minimum wage, you may potentially be helping more people albeit to a lesser extent. And of course there are facts and figures to bolster each side of the argument.

Another example is education. Democrats are typically for public schooling and against charter schools. Thomas Sowell, a Black intellectual of very high regard, argues that this policy done nothing but harm black people. Whereas black children attending charter schools in ghettos have scored equal to or better than children of affluent neighborhoods, they do abysmally in public schools in the same locations. But for some reason (perhaps relating to Teachers' Unions as TS suggests), Democrats hold steadfast to this policy.

In fact there are a number of Black figures such as Jason Riley, Candace Owens, Thomas Sowell and others, who believe that antipoverty laws and affirmative action have only served to harm Black people - often the very people they aim to help. Glen Loury has noted the irony in the claim that "the [White] oppressor is going to be the agent of my [Black] delivery if only I could get him or her to respond effectively to my moral appeals". And these of course are primarily Democratic initiatives.

Let's talk about crime. Which side has been talking about defunding the police? Spend some time listening to Brandon Tatum. He might not be an intellectual, but as someone who lives in it, he's got his finger on the pulse.

So what your actually noting is not a group of people who are against your ideals, but question whether your methods are effective ways to reach those goals.

And the real problem in all of this, is people like you. Instead of believing that there are valid talking points on both sides, and respectfully disagreeing, you choose to demean and devalue the other side. To even consider that so many people could truly be trying to work against humanitarian goals, it's almost racist if the word could be used against a political party. In that respect, you're no different than Trump.

What's especially telling about your information sources is the belief that your opinion represents an overwhelming majority. That's a feature of today's echo chamber media consumption:

On October 16, 2020, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats, 31% identified as Republican, and 36% as Independent.[3] Additionally, polling showed that 49% are either "Democrats or Democratic leaners" and 45% are either "Republicans or Republican leaners" when Independents are asked "do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?"​

A 5% lead is hardly "the rest of the planet", no?

 

[tytlyf]

I'm not sure this is true for everyone. I have many conservative family members, and most of them don't give two hoots about Christianity. Most are agnostic/atheist. I think it boils down to taxes for most of them. The one I talk the most with also desires minimal government interference.

This applies to evangelicals and those who support the ideology without speaking up to defend the Constitution.
Go to a Trump rally, religion is everywhere

 

[tytlyf]

False

True. Aren't you anti-abortion?

 

[PureX]

I'm not sure this is true for everyone. I have many conservative family members, and most of them don't give two hoots about Christianity. Most are agnostic/atheist. I think it boils down to taxes for most of them. The one I talk the most with also desires minimal government interference.

Yep, ... basically neo-conservatism = selfishness. They want to get more for themselves, and they don't want to have to share any of it with anyone else. They also want to do whatever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want with no concern for the welfare of others. They do NOT want to be beholding to their fellow humans in any way even though we are all dependent upon each other for nearly everything we need to live, and thrive. Neo-conservatives fantasize about the "freedom and independence" of the "good old days" when there really were no such "free and independent good old days" and what they imagine to be "freedom and independence" is really just short-sighted selfishness and a blinding ignorance of their need for others.

 

[Watchmen]

True. Aren't you anti-abortion?

I’m pro-choice.

 

[tytlyf]

I’m pro-choice.

Good. So why do you disagree with my opinion?

 

[Watchmen]

Good. So why do you disagree with my opinion?

You said Republicans want government controlled by religion and don’t believe in separation of church and state. You’re stereotyping. You’re lumping all Republicans together. And you’re wrong. I’m Republican but I am not religious, and I do believe in separation of church and state.

 

[tytlyf]

You said Republicans want government controlled by religion and don’t believe in separation of church and state. You’re stereotyping. You’re lumping all Republicans together. And you’re wrong. I’m Republican but I am not religious, and I do believe in separation of church and state.

Your position is the minority in the republican party. I'd wager the majority think separation church/state is a hoax

 

[Rival]

Your position is the minority in the republican party. I'd wager the majority think separation church/state is a hoax

I'd wager you are refusing to see beyond your stereotypical views and arguing against a strawman.

 

[SomeRandom]

Your position is the minority in the republican party. I'd wager the majority think separation church/state is a hoax

I’m very far left of your republicans. And indeed your Democrats. I think @Watchmen brings up good points, which I think would be beneficial to engage with directly if fruitful discussion is your goal. (Though I question the legitimacy of bringing up someone like Candace Owens as a reputable source, based on what I’ve seen on social media.)
I don’t really consider Trumpers to be “normal” republicans, from my limited perspective. Because all the conservatives, even the hardcore ones I know despise him. And the Trumpers I’ve encountered (excepting this forum) seem to want some sort of monarchy, rather than, well your constitution or whatever. Granted I’m not American, but still.

 

[JustGeorge]

This applies to evangelicals and those who support the ideology without speaking up to defend the Constitution.
Go to a Trump rally, religion is everywhere

Not every conservative would attend a Trump rally. Some wouldn't even vote for Trump. There are moderates on that side, too.

Yep, ... basically neo-conservatism = selfishness. They want to get more for themselves, and they don't want to have to share any of it with anyone else. They also want to do whatever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want with no concern for the welfare of others. They do NOT want to be beholding to their fellow humans in any way even though we are all dependent upon each other for nearly everything we need to live, and thrive. Neo-conservatives fantasize about the "freedom and independence" of the "good old days" when there really were no such "free and independent good old days" and what they imagine to be "freedom and independence" is really just short-sighted selfishness and a blinding ignorance of their need for others.

If it wasn't for the favor of a conservative relative, I'd still be living in poverty right now. I can't say that's selfish. I have a conservative relative that probably donates more to charity than my family brings in a year. They've sent my cousins through college, and provided food/clothing for one of my siblings. This is not selfish behavior. Some have housed, cared for, and rehabilitated numerous animals, on their dollar. Not selfish, either. I think the idea behind their behavior is they want to be able to have some say in where their money goes, rather than the government distributing it for them.

There are selfish turds on both sides of the fence. Unfortunately, its the turds that cause the biggest stink, so receive the most attention.

 

[PureX]

I've seen it noted a number of times among Conservatives that Democrats think with their hearts rather than their minds. Idealists who goals, while utopian, aren't necessarily practical.

Take for instance raising the minimum wage. On the face of it, raising the minimum wage seems like a great idea to help people out of poverty. It's really thoughtful and definitely comes from a caring place. The question is though, would it actually help? What happens to business owners who can't afford to hire as many workers at a new $15 minimum? They have to cut down on jobs. So instead of giving two families $7 an hour, you're giving one $15 and one $0. So by not raising the minimum wage, you may potentially be helping more people albeit to a lesser extent. And of course there are facts and figures to bolster each side of the argument.

What you're failing to acknowledge is that commerce that harms the people engaged in it is a fundamentally toxic enterprise, and therefor is illogical for humans to engage in. If a business cannot afford to pay a living wage to the people it needs to hire, to function, it should not be considered a viable business, and therefor not be engaged in. It doesn't matter how many insufficient jobs a business creates when the jobs are insufficient for survival in a modern society. And the fact that it might generate a profit for the owner/investor does not mitigate the fundamental societal dysfunction of the business in question.

This is not "emotionalism" or, "pie-in-the-sky idealism". This is simple logic and common sense.

Another example is education. Democrats are typically for public schooling and against charter schools. Thomas Sowell, a Black intellectual of very high regard, argues that this policy done nothing but harm black people. Whereas black children attending charter schools in ghettos have scored equal to or better than children of affluent neighborhoods, they do abysmally in public schools in the same locations. But for some reason (perhaps relating to Teachers' Unions as TS suggests), Democrats hold steadfast to this policy.

Any school created for the purpose of maximizing a profitable return on the capital invested will do so at the expense of the education it provides to the degree that it is able, because providing education costs money, and that cost decreases profitability. There is no for-profit enterprise that can provide better and less expensive products or services than non-profit publicly owned and operated enterprises can. Unless wealth inequality and corruption are effecting the outcomes. So the solution is not to privatize education. The solution is to correct the gross wealth inequality and corruption effecting the educational results in our public schools.

Let's talk about crime. Which side has been talking about defunding the police? Spend some time listening to Brandon Tatum. He might not be an intellectual, but as someone who lives in it, he's got his finger on the pulse.

There is no doubt that our system for policing is sorely deficient. To the point where it is and has for a long time been routinely killing our own citizens, unjustly and unnecessarily. This MUST stop. And the question now is what fundamental changes need to occur to make this stop, and to get societal policing back within reasonable and acceptable functional bounds. Militarizing the police certainly has not been a solution. Increasing their inclination and ability to employ violence against civilians certainly has not been a solution. And it's obvious that our current training has shown itself to be quite inadequate. And it also appears quite obvious that the people traditionally in charge of determining and instilling the necessary changes to improve policing have consistently failed to do so for many, many decades. So it's long past time for some very serious, out-of-the-box re-thinking of the way our society is being policed.

Wouldn't you agree?

So what your actually noting is not a group of people who are against your ideals, but question whether your methods are effective ways to reach those goals.

Actually, no, I think this really is about the ideals. And I think the fundamental ideological difference is that conservatives want to "conserve" the status quo, and thereby protect the people and institutions that hold the wealth and power, while the liberals want more radical and effective changes that will significantly open the doors to wealth and power, for everyone else. The reason "methodology" always seems to be the point of contention is because of what the proposed methodologies seek to achieve in the end: significant changes that result real equal access to wealth and power, or insignificant changes that seek to maintain or even increase the current inequity of wealth and power.

 

[joe1776]

I've seen it noted a number of times among Conservatives that Democrats think with their hearts rather than their minds. Idealists who goals, while utopian, aren't necessarily practical.

Take for instance raising the minimum wage. On the face of it, raising the minimum wage seems like a great idea to help people out of poverty. It's really thoughtful and definitely comes from a caring place. The question is though, would it actually help? What happens to business owners who can't afford to hire as many workers at a new $15 minimum? They have to cut down on jobs. So instead of giving two families $7 an hour, you're giving one $15 and one $0. So by not raising the minimum wage, you may potentially be helping more people albeit to a lesser extent. And of course there are facts and figures to bolster each side of the argument.

Another example is education. Democrats are typically for public schooling and against charter schools. Thomas Sowell, a Black intellectual of very high regard, argues that this policy done nothing but harm black people. Whereas black children attending charter schools in ghettos have scored equal to or better than children of affluent neighborhoods, they do abysmally in public schools in the same locations. But for some reason (perhaps relating to Teachers' Unions as TS suggests), Democrats hold steadfast to this policy.

In fact there are a number of Black figures such as Jason Riley, Candace Owens, Thomas Sowell and others, who believe that antipoverty laws and affirmative action have only served to harm Black people - often the very people they aim to help. Glen Loury has noted the irony in the claim that "the [White] oppressor is going to be the agent of my [Black] delivery if only I could get him or her to respond effectively to my moral appeals". And these of course are primarily Democratic initiatives.

Let's talk about crime. Which side has been talking about defunding the police? Spend some time listening to Brandon Tatum. He might not be an intellectual, but as someone who lives in it, he's got his finger on the pulse.

So what your actually noting is not a group of people who are against your ideals, but question whether your methods are effective ways to reach those goals.

And the real problem in all of this, is people like you. Instead of believing that there are valid talking points on both sides, and respectfully disagreeing, you choose to demean and devalue the other side. To even consider that so many people could truly be trying to work against humanitarian goals, it's almost racist if the word could be used against a political party. In that respect, you're no different than Trump.

What's especially telling about your information sources is the belief that your opinion represents an overwhelming majority. That's a feature of today's echo chamber media consumption:

On October 16, 2020, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats, 31% identified as Republican, and 36% as Independent.[3] Additionally, polling showed that 49% are either "Democrats or Democratic leaners" and 45% are either "Republicans or Republican leaners" when Independents are asked "do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?"​

A 5% lead is hardly "the rest of the planet", no?

We progressives aren't always right. So, it's possible for you conservatives to cherry-pick examples of our positions that are Utopian or mistaken. But the bottom line is that, generally, we progressives welcome change while you conservatives oppose it.

If we humans were in a moral decline, you'd be right to try to hold the line. However, we are not declining. We are making moral progress.

Take a moment to compare the USA's moral position today to that of our Constitution's 18th Century morality when slavery was accepted and women were second class citizens.

Since we humans are making moral progress, conservatism's steadfast opposition to change is really a dumb idea.