House GOP budget to restructure Medicare/Medicaid

[jeff]

You seem to have the same difficulty as Purple Fencer did noticing the phrase "[b]outside of moral issues[b]". Or perhaps you consider "religious beliefs" not to be a moral issue, I don't know...

I have no difficulty at all and completely understand what you're trying to say - it's still clumsy agitprop to pull a "no true Scotsman" and dismiss an essential (here I'll use the word sense you tried to use a few weeks ago) aspect of conservatism. Purple has it completely right, as did Capt. Slo-mo and kalivor

Lots of zealots try to label their political faction as the one preserving freedom while smearing the opposition. That's what you did.

Personally I'm not very hung up on all the moral positions the social conservatives seem to find so important. I'm almost entirely an economic and political conservative, and would far rather that politicians on the right got out of the social values business and devoted all of their attention to keeping the state out of the market and my bank account...

Yes, that's quite clear, and if all conservatives felt as you I would object to them much less strenuously. But in reality the conservative movement includes both social and small government planks. Witness the recent acts and statements from Cantor, Kyle, Bachmann, and the Tea Party caucus. Try as you may, social conservatism (and many other things besides "small government") are as integral to conservatism as the parts you like.

I really don't like cottage cheese, but I don't spend any energy denying it exists.

That amounts to a distinction without a difference, though. Try framing the statement the same way about voting rights or something.

That's not so just because you say so. Peaceful exercise of one's rights that do not place other people in increased danger is not the same as doing what you please even if it causes harm to others, whether by pollution or increased risk of death by violent crime.

If you think that's the case, go explain it to Giffords.

[I_luv_saber]

I disagree. Repressive policy is as much part and parcel of the conservative agenda as "less government". they just happen to intersect at the point where government provides protection.

I disagree that this is the norm. Sometimes it is... as I said, abortion and gay marriage are good examples.

No problem being all over the place - just rest before you drive! Haven't we already agreed that good regulations are good, bad ones are bad? I thought that was a closed subject except for the "all regulations are bad" extremists. I know we've also agreed previously that there's need to have both sides and maintain balance.

Yes, I was just reiterating that.

I just disagree that repressive policy is an aberration in the conservative movement, when that's been one of its hallmarks from Jim Crow days to today.

I disagree.

I think that in some sectors, Republicans are actually much more likely to defend freedoms as opposed to repressive policies Democrats want to initiate.

Who are the ones pushing the hardest for a total public smoking ban (the one here, anyway, is backed by Democrats)? I believe initial smoking in public band and worker protection was reasonable, but the inability to light up anywhere outside is repressive, IMO. I think there are some cases that unions, a good and necessary thing, get too much power... can that not end up being repressive to other people? Not to reopen an old discussion, but I've argued in the past that affirmative action programs (and similar unequal allowances) are examples of fighting racism with racism, unfair, and repressive.

Equality and freedom is fought for sometimes too much, to the point it can swing too far the other way, and end up being repressive to others. You can get too much of a good thing (just talk to a Libertarian ). I would argue both sides engage in repression, just of their own flavors. Republicans via too little involvement and Democrats via too much. Both end up being repressive.

Dems *not* trying to regulate insurance companies? Sorry - that's wrong: they are the sole source of regulatory oversight to insurers.

Not nearly as they should be. The insurance companies, especially in California, have all politicians in their pockets (I believe the current, or previous, Insurance Commissioner was a former insurance lobbyist). Democrats have pushed very little in this sector, and when something has been proposed it hasn't been supported. There may be some regulation, but it's a token... it's ineffective, and has a short-reach anyway.

The big ones that come to mind: big pharma, big ag, big insurance, are not being pushed by anybody.

[Inquartata]

I have no difficulty at all and completely understand what you're trying to say - it's still clumsy agitprop to pull a "no true Scotsman" and dismiss an essential (here I'll use the word sense you tried to use a few weeks ago) aspect of conservatism.

It's not an "essential" part of my sort of conservatism, which I consider to be the sort that counts and is the only sort for which I know how to argue.

You use the word "dismiss"...and that's exactly what you've just done to the argument that conservatives stand for choice outside of moral issues. Of course I understand that you don't like conservatism and consequently will resist any intimation that it stands for or can stand for anything good. But you haven't really refuted the argument by merely by characterizing it with pejoratives like 'agitprop'.

Purple has it completely right, as did Capt. Slo-mo and kalivor

Gee, you agree with those who agree with you...not awfully convincing to others, though I am sure they will appreciate the ego boosts.

Lots of zealots try to label their political faction as the one preserving freedom while smearing the opposition. That's what you did.

Yep. Here we go again. "Smear". Deja vu all over again.

Meanwhile, what exactly would you call using pejoratives like "agitprop" and for that matter "smear" had someone with whom you disagree done it?

...the conservative movement includes both social and small government planks.

And the political left includes a few communists and socialists, some moderates and some conservatives ( relatively speaking ). May I then argue against modern liberalism as though it is socialism?

That's not so just because you say so.

Neither is it made not so by you pointing that out...

So many double-edged swords in rhetoric!

Peaceful exercise of one's rights that do not place other people in increased danger is not the same as doing what you please even if it causes harm to others, whether by pollution or increased risk of death by violent crime.

You've lost me. But my position, aside from the Constitutional protection of whatever is mentioned in the Bill of Rights---which includes the right to keep and bear arms---comes back again to this: Conservatives are generally for increased choice, and gun control is an example ( and one in a "moral" area, at that ). They stand for individuals retaining the greatest possible amount of freedoms in their lives and affairs. Liberals stand for the limitation of those freedoms in the service of the often vaguely defined "geater good", that is, the welfare of the group. This principle is the on-ramp to Hayek's road to serfdom, and as he noted, those of good will who seek it don't understand its destination, and those who do are not of good will...

Freedoms however come with costs. I understand that it's the costs liberals want to minimize, not the freedoms. But it's not possible to do that.

As far as the Giffords affair...what is your prescription? And before you offer it, ask yourself again the question I posed before, which you didn't answer: Would you accept the same sort of reductions in any other freedoms, such as those protected by the First Amendment? As an example which has recently been in the news, would you accept the government stepping in to muzzle the Wesboro Baptist Church's freedom of speech because it causes harm? Do you disagree with the Supreme Court's rationale for protecting it? Or how about curtailing Fifth Amendment protections for, I don't know, a kidnapper whose victim may be starving to death somewhere while he is in custody? How far are you willing go in subordinating individual freedoms to the prospective good of those who may be harmed by isolated abuses of said freedoms?

Or is it just the Second Amendment which you think needs to be singled out for this treatment?

[jeff]

I disagree that this is the norm. Sometimes it is... as I said, abortion and gay marriage are good examples.

First "norm" != "part and parcel".

When you look at the conservative movement from its inception in the US to today, it's been a continuous theme. From William F Buckley speaking out in favor of white supremacy, to the segregationists of the 1960s, to the subsequent race baiting and "dog whistle racism" to today's homophobia - it been a part of conservatism all along, and exclusive to them. If you look at "which faction is trying to get books banned in public libraries" - overwhelmingly conservative organizations. "which faction is trying to rewrite history and science in Texas schoolbooks" - conservatives. One could write a book.

Now - one could say with all fairness that this is not what conservatism is all about, and that many professed conservatives don't want anything to do with it. A nice fella such as you may reject the above. Inq is the perfect example of somebody who says his concerns are solely along economic lines (though that didn't stop him from insisting that gays not be allowed the freedom to marry).

So, it's fine to say that there is much in conservative thought and among its exponents that does not include abhorrent repression of other people's rights, and (for example) is solely concerned with reducing the scope of government. However, it would be a false statement to say that conservatism doesn't include the nasty bits described above (and many more beside) and that therefore it is the "party of freedom". That was the propaganda Inq was trying to sell, and which several of us leaped on.

Yes, I was just reiterating that.

Okay, just wasn't sure where you were going.

I disagree.

I think that in some sectors, Republicans are actually much more likely to defend freedoms as opposed to repressive policies Democrats want to initiate.

Who are the ones pushing the hardest for a total public smoking ban (the one here, anyway, is backed by Democrats)?

Ain't none of that going on where I live, but in NYC, that's Bloomberg - a Republican. Maybe it's a function of who's in office? But smoking is interesting because somebody's choice to smoke means that I have to breathe the consequences of their choice.

I believe initial smoking in public band and worker protection was reasonable, but the inability to light up anywhere outside is repressive, IMO. I think there are some cases that unions, a good and necessary thing, get too much power... can that not end up being repressive to other people?

Events of recent years (and recent weeks) have made it crystal clear that unions are a shadow of their former strength. Now, who is it to say, as judge and jury that unions are too powerful?

Not to reopen an old discussion, but I've argued in the past that affirmative action programs (and similar unequal allowances) are examples of fighting racism with racism, unfair, and repressive.

In a perfect world there would be no affirmative action, and there wouldn't be the need for it either. Maybe it's outgrown its purpose. I don't know. But in reality, there are lots of fields where people would refuse to hire or contract with, or sell a house to people of the wrong race, color, gender, or religion. FWIW, I've been in the private sector over 30 years and I have never seen a case where we were required to make a quota or hire people in a minority.

"Equal rights" is not just affirmative action. It's making sure that people are treated fairly and given equal opportunity. That's a value I have no problem sticking up for. And who has fought against equal rights (let along AA) in workplace, hiring, pay, where you live, where you go to school, and even ability to sue to remedy any of the above? Conservatives.

Equality and freedom is fought for sometimes too much, to the point it can swing too far the other way, and end up being repressive to others. You can get too much of a good thing (just talk to a Libertarian ). I would argue both sides engage in repression, just of their own flavors. Republicans via too little involvement and Democrats via too much. Both end up being repressive.

I really don't muster a lot of sympathy for the argument that we've swung too far in favor of protecting equal rights, and the argument that Democrats are "repressive" in this regard - well, I don't see anything here to support that.

Not nearly as they should be. The insurance companies, especially in California, have all politicians in their pockets (I believe the current, or previous, Insurance Commissioner was a former insurance lobbyist). Democrats have pushed very little in this sector, and when something has been proposed it hasn't been supported. There may be some regulation, but it's a token... it's ineffective, and has a short-reach anyway.

The big ones that come to mind: big pharma, big ag, big insurance, are not being pushed by anybody.

Well, you know me - I'm the guy in favor of more and better regulation, as you've seen me say at tedious length Both parties have failed us in this regard: either by being ideologically opposed to regulation, or bought out, or too damned wimpy.

Here we are right after the biggest financial catastrophe since the Great Depression, due to lax and under-enforced regulations, and there are people still insisting that we need fewer regulations, rather than more, better, and more tightly enforced. That's ideology at work, when people refuse to learn from their experiences.

[jeff]

It's not an "essential" part of my sort of conservatism, which I consider to be the sort that counts and is the only sort for which I know how to argue.

Changing the subject, eh? Before it was "Conservatives are about choice, at least outside of so-called 'moral' issues. Liberals are about forcing everyone into the same round hole", now it's about your conservatism. You made blanket statements about conservatism and liberals, and now its only about yourself.

Yes, I know that you personally are all about your view of economics, and none of that other stuff. But that's not what you were referring to. You said "Conservatives are..." They are not all you. They are not all remotely like you.

You've been making heavy use of a particular rhetorical trick recently:

"A is like B, provided one ignores the aspects in which A and B differ" (Fox and NYT)
"A is composed solely of the property X, provided one ignores all properties Y, Z, etc other than X"

Those are merely tautologies - vacuous statements.

Yep. Here we go again. "Smear". Deja vu all over again.

Meanwhile, what exactly would you call using pejoratives like "agitprop" and for that matter "smear" had someone with whom you disagree done it?

Oh, your saying that liberals like to force everyone into the same round hole - that is, take away people's freedom isn't a smear, and isn't agitprop. I don't think you know what the words mean, then.

And the political left includes a few communists and socialists, some moderates and some conservatives ( relatively speaking ). May I then argue against modern liberalism as though it is socialism?

No you may not, seeing as "left" is composed of non-overlapping subsets "liberals", "socialists", and "communists". They tend to loathe one another, actually. If you say "liberals believe <whatever>" you may not assume that they speak for the others.

On the other hand "Conservatism" includes purely social conservatives, purely economic/small government conservatives, and predominantly a population that has subscribes to both social and economic principles in varying degrees. The Tea Party caucus and indeed the Republican leadership has explicitly stated that both are essential (that word again) parts of their agendas.

Neither is it made not so by you pointing that out...

So many double-edged swords in rhetoric!

You made a proposition, and a vacuous one at that. Sharpen your argument, if not your weapon.

You've lost me. But my position, aside from the Constitutional protection of whatever is mentioned in the Bill of Rights---which includes the right to keep and bear arms---comes back again to this: Conservatives are generally for increased choice, and gun control is an example ( and one in a "moral" area, at that ). They stand for individuals retaining the greatest possible amount of freedoms in their lives and affairs. Liberals stand for the limitation of those freedoms in the service of the often vaguely defined "geater good", that is, the welfare of the group. This principle is the on-ramp to Hayek's road to serfdom, and as he noted, those of good will who seek it don't understand its destination, and those who do are not of good will...

On more than one occasion you sternly admonished me to not characterize conservatives, as you felt it was obvious I was neither competent nor impartial enough to do so. Only an insider could make such comments. Yet, you feel that you are entitled to vent your opinions on what liberals want. Back to "one set of rules for Inq, another set of rules for everyone else?"

I suppose, at face value, then you believe that people and institutions have the rights to:

- pollute wherever they want.
- hire only those of the colors, religions and races they want.
- pay those of other colors less than their own.
- sell homes or rent only to the colors, religions and races they want.
- marry whoever they want, even if they are the same gender. Oh wait, you already said you opposed that.
- build a mosque in New York. Oh, you've expressed your freedom position there, too.

But, really the salient point is your claim that conservatives "stand for individuals retaining the greatest possible amount of freedoms in their lives and affairs." Well, that's nonsense, unless you exclude the many instances and categories in which they don't want individuals to have freedom. Including suppression of free speech, a favorite conservative passtime when it isn't their own.

And, at the risk if outraging ILS, Hayek's statement is rubbish. Having a social safety net, didn't lead to serfdom here or in Europe (as one commentator said "So, where are the horror camps?")

Freedoms however come with costs. I understand that it's the costs liberals want to minimize, not the freedoms. But it's not possible to do that.

Says you. And when costs must be suffered by others than those enjoying their freedom, then that's a form of oppression. Freedoms also come with responsibilities, don't ya think?

As far as the Giffords affair...what is your prescription? And before you offer it, ask yourself again the question I posed before, which you didn't answer: Would you accept the same sort of reductions in any other freedoms, such as those protected by the First Amendment? As an example which has recently been in the news, would you accept the government stepping in to muzzle the Wesboro Baptist Church's freedom of speech because it causes harm? Do you disagree with the Supreme Court's rationale for protecting it? Or how about curtailing Fifth Amendment protections for, I don't know, a kidnapper whose victim may be starving to death somewhere while he is in custody? How far are you willing go in subordinating individual freedoms to the prospective good of those who may be harmed by isolated abuses of said freedoms?

Or is it just the Second Amendment which you think needs to be singled out for this treatment?

This may come as a terrible shock to you, but even freedoms like the First are subject to conditions under the law, and that's a matter of historical fact. What makes you think the Second should be unlike any other law?

[I_luv_saber]

When you look at the conservative movement from its inception in the US to today, it's been a continuous theme. From William F Buckley speaking out in favor of white supremacy, to the segregationists of the 1960s, to the subsequent race baiting and "dog whistle racism" to today's homophobia - it been a part of conservatism all along, and exclusive to them. If you look at "which faction is trying to get books banned in public libraries" - overwhelmingly conservative organizations. "which faction is trying to rewrite history and science in Texas schoolbooks" - conservatives. One could write a book.

I have no doubt these groups exist, or even that they fly the banner of conservatism. But that's not the same thing as saying that's "part and parcel" of conservatism or that it in any way defines it. As I said earlier, one could also say that liberals are in favor of socialism, pacifism (to a fault), heavy-handed and repressive regulation, etc. All of these elements (and more) still are generally under the banner of liberalism, but they aren't really defining groups... they tend to be more fringe elements.

Now, what I will grant you is that Republicans have not been denouncing their own extremists (such as the Tea Party folks) as they should be, and certainly not as much as Democrats distance themselves from their own wingnuts. But I don't think that's quite the same thing as being made up of those groups; they merely are exploiting them to squeeze out votes and support moreso than the Democrats are, the same thing which is (and was) happening with racism and the party. Something to be damned, for sure, but not nearly as far-reaching as what you are saying.

Now - one could say with all fairness that this is not what conservatism is all about, and that many professed conservatives don't want anything to do with it. A nice fella such as you may reject the above. Inq is the perfect example of somebody who says his concerns are solely along economic lines (though that didn't stop him from insisting that gays not be allowed the freedom to marry).

I would say the vast majority.

So, it's fine to say that there is much in conservative thought and among its exponents that does not include abhorrent repression of other people's rights, and (for example) is solely concerned with reducing the scope of government. However, it would be a false statement to say that conservatism doesn't include the nasty bits described above (and many more beside) and that therefore it is the "party of freedom". That was the propaganda Inq was trying to sell, and which several of us leaped on.

I think Inq's statement was hyperbole, and I can agree that those elements exist in conservatism (I think we're already in agreement here, mostly). What I was really responding to was that while Inq's statement was obviously loaded, the basic notion that conservatives are in favor of choice, at it's core, is really not far off. One could argue Libertarianism is a strong example of (nearly) pure conservatism (way moreso than the Republican party, which many would argue is largely not conservative in many ways). You can't get much more choice and less government involvement than that. Obviously, some people (including myself) think that that's too far in the other direction and there are many detriments to that position, but all the same it is more choice and "freedom". But pure untempered freedom, like anything else, is probably not a good thing. I don't want to live in the Wild West, either.

Ain't none of that going on where I live, but in NYC, that's Bloomberg - a Republican. Maybe it's a function of who's in office? But smoking is interesting because somebody's choice to smoke means that I have to breathe the consequences of their choice.

As I said, I believe indoors that is a concern. Outdoors, I feel it's over the top... I feel it's more encroaching on someone's rights to say "you can't light up" than it is for someone else to have to simply move out of that persons immediate vicinity. Again, I think this is a good example of a case where a fight for someone's freedom (to breathe clean air and not suffer another's smoke) has been pursued to the point that that person's freedom has outweighed the other's (the smoker). Basically, granting one person more "rights" at the other's expense. In this case, not really that big of a deal... just an example.

Events of recent years (and recent weeks) have made it crystal clear that unions are a shadow of their former strength. Now, who is it to say, as judge and jury that unions are too powerful?

A shadow of their former strength? Well, in Wisconsin perhaps... I don't think so in the majority of the country, and certainly not in California. As far as who is the judge and jury... we're merely discussing what we feel is part and parcel of each party and what goes with it. I'm not proposing butchering unions, just including that I feel it's another example of too much of a good thing.

In a perfect world there would be no affirmative action, and there wouldn't be the need for it either. Maybe it's outgrown its purpose. I don't know. But in reality, there are lots of fields where people would refuse to hire or contract with, or sell a house to people of the wrong race, color, gender, or religion. FWIW, I've been in the private sector over 30 years and I have never seen a case where we were required to make a quota or hire people in a minority.

I was mostly speaking of colleges and universities rather than businesses. But at any rate, I would point out that what you note are, in fact, granting people more choice... the choice to not hire someone for whatever reason they wish. As it is, the government is forcing people to not allow race, religion, etc, to be a factor. Obviously, to most of us (left and right), this is a good thing, but it is a good thing obtained by restriction, not freedom. Restriction, in my mind, does not always imply "bad".

"Equal rights" is not just affirmative action. It's making sure that people are treated fairly and given equal opportunity. That's a value I have no problem sticking up for. And who has fought against equal rights (let along AA) in workplace, hiring, pay, where you live, where you go to school, and even ability to sue to remedy any of the above? Conservatives.

Most equal rights legislation is not, in fact, less government and freedom of choice, but examples of good regulation and restrictions. I agree people should be made to provide decent working conditions, equal treatment, etc... but as I've been saying, that's not freedom of choice but an example of good regulation/legislation. It's forcing a culture that doesn't want to accept a group, to accept a group. Again, good thing, but not freedom and lack of involvement.

I really don't muster a lot of sympathy for the argument that we've swung too far in favor of protecting equal rights, and the argument that Democrats are "repressive" in this regard - well, I don't see anything here to support that.

In most things I don't necessarily think this is the case either; but I do think there are examples of it in some places, and that it certainly can, does, and has happened.

Well, you know me - I'm the guy in favor of more and better regulation, as you've seen me say at tedious length Both parties have failed us in this regard: either by being ideologically opposed to regulation, or bought out, or too damned wimpy.

True.

[jeff]

I have no doubt these groups exist, or even that they fly the banner of conservatism. But that's not the same thing as saying that's "part and parcel" of conservatism or that it in any way defines it. As I said earlier, one could also say that liberals are in favor of socialism, pacifism (to a fault), heavy-handed and repressive regulation, etc. All of these elements (and more) still are generally under the banner of liberalism, but they aren't really defining groups... they tend to be more fringe elements.

How can one say these are "fringe elements" of conservatism when they are founding members of conservatism (eg: WFB) or party members and officials in government positions (Buchanan some time back, and now the congressmen and senators that I've listed previously - Kyle, Bachmann, Cantor, and the rest of the gang), and in general, the leaders of today's conservative movement? The repressive ideologies I've listed are official party planks.

Noted in passing: up to the Vietnam War, the stereotype would have gone the other way, and liberal administrations (FDR, HST, JFK, LBJ) were portrayed by conservative isolationists as warmongering interventionists. After Vietnam, the polarity reversed - but before that the pacifist-to-a-fault guys were on the Right.

Now, what I will grant you is that Republicans have not been denouncing their own extremists (such as the Tea Party folks) as they should be, and certainly not as much as Democrats distance themselves from their own wingnuts. But I don't think that's quite the same thing as being made up of those groups; they merely are exploiting them to squeeze out votes and support moreso than the Democrats are, the same thing which is (and was) happening with racism and the party. Something to be damned, for sure, but not nearly as far-reaching as what you are saying.

How can they denounce the extremists when they are among them? The Republican freshman class in congress states their Tea Party membership explicitly, as well as incumbent wingnuts like Bachmann and free-lancers like Palin. There's a list of "not right wing enough" Republicans who lost their jobs - Bennett and Crist come to mind immediately - because they weren't sufficiently ideologically pure and had to be purged (Remember Reagan's 11th commandment about not speaking ill of other Republicans? That law is tossed in the trash). And, I have to emphasize: the TP and Republican official agendas include not just small government, low tax free market policy, but the "let me restrict your freedoms" planks as well. I reject the idea that they are just exploiting the TP. Heck, look at how several (Huckabee, and notably that bozo Trump, who is doing very well in the Republican polls) of the bonzos angling to be the Republican nominee for the presidency are still toying with the birther craziness. How much closer to "official" do they need to be. And we in AZ just passed a "birther bill." It's bonkers, but it's officially sanctioned conservative movement bonkers.

Now, if the Dems had official party planks that said "we're going to give ownership of the means of production to the proletariat" then there would be a parallel case of saying they are as far on the left as the guys on the right. But they don't. Heck, we take over companies just to bail them out of the misery they brought on themselves, save their ungrateful behinds, and then send them back out into the private sector to go off and make more havoc.

I would say the vast majority.

I think you are a decent bloke and are projecting that attitude upon people who may be less aligned with you than you expect. How can it be the vast majority when they accept as party platforms the things that nice fellas like you exclude?

I think Inq's statement was hyperbole, and I can agree that those elements exist in conservatism (I think we're already in agreement here, mostly). What I was really responding to was that while Inq's statement was obviously loaded, the basic notion that conservatives are in favor of choice, at it's core, is really not far off. One could argue Libertarianism is a strong example of (nearly) pure conservatism (way moreso than the Republican party, which many would argue is largely not conservative in many ways). You can't get much more choice and less government involvement than that. Obviously, some people (including myself) think that that's too far in the other direction and there are many detriments to that position, but all the same it is more choice and "freedom". But pure untempered freedom, like anything else, is probably not a good thing. I don't want to live in the Wild West, either.

The reason we're having this conversation is that Inq chose to glorify his faction as protecting freedom while smearing liberals. There was no need to have this conversation. It's not hyperbole, it's a gratuitous attack. As far as whether these claims match reality, one has to do a big job of "No True Scotsman" to close one's eye to the parts where conservatives are willing to trample choice for other people. They do both.

As I said, I believe indoors that is a concern. Outdoors, I feel it's over the top... I feel it's more encroaching on someone's rights to say "you can't light up" than it is for someone else to have to simply move out of that persons immediate vicinity. Again, I think this is a good example of a case where a fight for someone's freedom (to breathe clean air and not suffer another's smoke) has been pursued to the point that that person's freedom has outweighed the other's (the smoker). Basically, granting one person more "rights" at the other's expense. In this case, not really that big of a deal... just an example.

I note that the conservative state government in Arizona is plans to add surcharges to medical care for people on Medicaid who smoke or are fat. Is that coercive social legislation in a nanny state when its done from the Right? Or is that label only applied when its done from the Left via the mechanism of taxes instead of fees?

(As far as your point on smoking - I agree. Let somebody smoke if they want, but not if that requires other people breath their exhaust fumes)

A shadow of their former strength? Well, in Wisconsin perhaps... I don't think so in the majority of the country, and certainly not in California. As far as who is the judge and jury... we're merely discussing what we feel is part and parcel of each party and what goes with it. I'm not proposing butchering unions, just including that I feel it's another example of too much of a good thing.

Nationally - I would say. Remember that unions used to be a private sector phenomena, and that's been mostly extinguished.

I was mostly speaking of colleges and universities rather than businesses. But at any rate, I would point out that what you note are, in fact, granting people more choice... the choice to not hire someone for whatever reason they wish. As it is, the government is forcing people to not allow race, religion, etc, to be a factor. Obviously, to most of us (left and right), this is a good thing, but it is a good thing obtained by restriction, not freedom. Restriction, in my mind, does not always imply "bad".

If I parse that correctly, we are agreeing I don't think that everyone would, alas, and that includes "not everyone on this board." I must point out that conservatives fought against equality laws.

Most equal rights legislation is not, in fact, less government and freedom of choice, but examples of good regulation and restrictions. I agree people should be made to provide decent working conditions, equal treatment, etc... but as I've been saying, that's not freedom of choice but an example of good regulation/legislation. It's forcing a culture that doesn't want to accept a group, to accept a group. Again, good thing, but not freedom and lack of involvement.

I think we're agreeing again. This is a case where the "free market" is not ideal, and it does not provide solutions to such problems.

In most things I don't necessarily think this is the case either; but I do think there are examples of it in some places, and that it certainly can, does, and has happened.

One can always find examples of abuse or flat-out stupidity in any human activity. Kinda comes with the territory!

[I_luv_saber]

I'm not really going to continue with the rest because we are pretty much in agreement already (or so close that I don't find the finer points terribly important), but I wanted to expand a bit on one point.

How can they denounce the extremists when they are among them? The Republican freshman class in congress states their Tea Party membership explicitly, as well as incumbent wingnuts like Bachmann and free-lancers like Palin. There's a list of "not right wing enough" Republicans who lost their jobs - Bennett and Crist come to mind immediately - because they weren't sufficiently ideologically pure and had to be purged (Remember Reagan's 11th commandment about not speaking ill of other Republicans? That law is tossed in the trash). And, I have to emphasize: the TP and Republican official agendas include not just small government, low tax free market policy, but the "let me restrict your freedoms" planks as well. I reject the idea that they are just exploiting the TP. Heck, look at how several (Huckabee, and notably that bozo Trump, who is doing very well in the Republican polls) of the bonzos angling to be the Republican nominee for the presidency are still toying with the birther craziness. How much closer to "official" do they need to be. And we in AZ just passed a "birther bill." It's bonkers, but it's officially sanctioned conservative movement bonkers.

I think you are a decent bloke and are projecting that attitude upon people who may be less aligned with you than you expect. How can it be the vast majority when they accept as party platforms the things that nice fellas like you exclude?

A few points here. As I said in another thread regarding the Tea Party phenomenon, my experiences lead me to believe that the majority of conservatives do not believe in many facets of the TP ideology (aside from Libertarian-istic tendencies). I think the problem is that on the voter level, conservatives are feeling underrepresented. They are feeling like the Republican party has strayed so far from conservatism in so many ways that there is no (at least fiscally) conservative party pushing in Congress. They push for low taxes and less government, sure, but the proposed Medicare cuts (agreed with or not) are the first serious attempts to cut that I've seen in some time. As such, conservatives saw the Tea Party movement - a grassroots effort that intended to change the party - and resonated with that same feeling of not being represented (and an agreement on fiscal conservatism). As such, we've seen (or at least I've seen) a whole lot of moderate conservative folks hop on board with that movement. It's exciting to see a grassroots effort gain momentum, and they feel they can "get things done", and so are willing to go along with them without looking at what other more extreme facets they are pushing. This, I believe, is why the TP movement has gone as far as it has.

On the level of Congress, old-school Republicans recognize this movement and are doing nothing more than exploiting what's popular in order to stay in power, the same way they exploited race back in the day. That's politics, and fault them for what you will, but they're good at it.

Now, what I think (hope) is happening is that people are realizing the TP is pushing some areas that are too extreme and are too afraid of compromise to be useful, and so I think (or again, hope) that the movement will begin to recede. If it hasn't peaked already, I think it will shortly. Again, I think this because these are the sort of feelings I know a lot of conservatives are having. I could be projecting... but I don't think I am (obviously).

That, personally, is why I think we are seeing the TP represented in the GOP, not because they represent a majority (or even a very large minority) of conservative voters.

(As an aside, I would note that I think these feelings of not being represented are spreading among Democrats as well. As I noted in regards to regulating insurance, big ag, pharma, etc, they aren't fulfilling their role as they should be, and I think more and more Democrats are feeling the same way Republicans were feeling some years ago. One could also look at how many Democrats feel that Obama has not "done his job" as a Democrat on many issues (at least according to those I talk politics with). Hopefully they will handle this better than the Republicans.)

I note that the conservative state government in Arizona is plans to add surcharges to medical care for people on Medicaid who smoke or are fat. Is that coercive social legislation in a nanny state when its done from the Right? Or is that label only applied when its done from the Left via the mechanism of taxes instead of fees?

I think this is mostly due to conservatives being against social programs at all and an attempt to make them more fiscally viable more than it is due to wanting to enact social change. Just my opinion.

[jeff]

I hope that you are right that Republicans are just using TP, just as they exploited racism, but I remain dubious. Sure, there are characters like Boehner and McDonnell who I think are not true belivers, and there are other Republicans who worry that they'll be eaten by the tiger instead of riding it (seeing what happened to people like Bob Bennett). But there are plenty of Republicans who are fully on-board with the Tea Party agenda and are among its leaders - especially among the freshmen. Your very last sentences above illustrate the extremist nature of a broad swathe of conservatives that want to dismantle the social network altogether. That should not be a surprise to anyone.

I also hope that the Tea Party and the rest of the right wing have overreached, but I see no evidence that the Republicans are moving away from the extreme.

Back in the 50s, William F. Buckley openly espoused white supremacy (a historical fact that *cough* some people have denied *cough* along with the fact you pointed out that Republicans exploited racism). That's to his shame, but to his credit at some point he changed, and led the effort not only to create the conservative movement but to purge from it the loonies and bigots like the John Birch Society. That's the kind of action I hope comes from the Republicans and responsible conservatives.