Democracy Corps survey is the degree to which the GOP conservative worldview stands completely apart from the rest of America. Conservatives do not have a slightly more radical version of the same beliefs as other Americans. They have a completely seal…

It’s like you took the words right out of my mouth and actually arranged them into a readable format!

I keep forgetting about the Green Room and Doctor Zero’s entries. I habitually go to the home page of HotAir and scroll around. Those are pointed stories about this or that episode of the day. A number of them I find aggravating. It’s just frustrating to read about the changes happening and the speed with which this is all happening.

But Doctor Zero, your entries are so important because you are helping us find a way through this, find a way to see a solution by understanding more about the problem. That’s what we need to do right now.

I’m going to reflect on what you’ve said here and I hope to respond again when I have more time. In the mean time Thanks again. And be sure to know, as you probably already do, that your efforts are highly regarded here. Thanks for all your contributions.

From a piece at Hot Air (h/t, Conservatism Today):

Republican politicians often forget that conservatism is an argument, while liberalism is a promise. The conservative champions both the moral and practical superiority of liberty and individualism….

Republican politicians often forget that conservatism is an argument, while liberalism is a promise. The conservative champions both the moral and practical superiority of liberty and individualism. The liberal promises tangible rewards in exchange for…

One way to change the ground of the argument is to show our path works. Michigan and California as pathfinders for America are not frightening the masses. I’m not looking forward to a deep trough in prosperity teaching useful lessons to Obama voters.

What state (in 2009 America), in you opinion, is closest to getting the message that reinforcing success works? And how can we make that state more successful, to shine as a beacon to others?

Seven Percent Solution on May 5, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Count me out…conservatives are more then a bunch of arguments.
This is a silly path to take.
We are conservatives because of basic core values, and we defend them with arguments.
And “argument has two sides” core values do not….the Doc is way off base.

Doctor Zero on May 5, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Arguments defend a faith or your beliefs…they don’t define it.
Arguments are created to defend the belief.
So an argument is created to defend being a conservative, and the arguments may vary and change, but the basic premise of being a conservative does not.
Otherwords, arguments are fluid…like the arguments to defend the constitution, they defend the basic creed that is already outlined. That outline does not change, just the arguments.
As I stated, you have it backwards, the liberal use the arguments as their foundation, and those arguments change depending on whom they are speaking to.
Their tenets are basically, “anything except what conservatives believe”. Then they form their arguments.
We (conservatives) can just point to the constitution and say “There it is, no argument”.
You really did a disservice posting this…and I am surprised how many bought into your analogy…

What is really being talked about is statism. As we’ve seen over the last eight years, statism can be Democrat or Republican. Where the state has already intruded into society, statism can be conservative — Barney Frank, for instance, is highly conservative when it comes to his beloved CRA. When the state is taking new ground, it can be very liberal — spending freely to nationalize automobile companies, perhaps.

By clinging to the liberal/conservative nomenclature, and using Democrat=liberal, Republican=conservative shorthand, we allow ourselves to be put on the defensive in any argument. Who could be against freedom?

But, just as in Orwell’s 1984, if “freedom” is just a label that the state puts on slavery, then how can you argue that freedom is a worthy goal?

I came across one of the better pieces I’ve seen in some time, over at HotAir today. Republican politicians often forget that conservatism is an argument, while liberalism is a promise. The conservative argument will never be over, because any……

The upper class liberal doesn’t have faith in the ability of the poor and downtrodden to seize the opportunities provided by capitalism, and build a better life for themselves.

I agree with Seven Percent Solution, this article should be required reading – but for every Conservative. If for no other reason than to understand our opponent. From that understanding, we can develop arguments that will work. For the longest time, it bothered me that the logic of Conservatism and Capitalism seemed lost on the average Liberal. Now I realize that I may have been speaking in a different language.

Our argument must change to fit their mindset.

The problem is that welfare *has* been socialism for my entire lifetime.

How? By welfare, I’m talking about food stamps, public housing, medicare, things like that. Very few people actually qualify for those benefits, and nobody who has survived on them really wants to go back to it. Hardly anybody who doesn’t need them wants to live that way, either, because there’s such a social stigma attached to it and it’s such a meager existence.

Yes, conservatism is an argument, but it also has to be a political movement. It’s pointless to sit around ruminating about how disastrous Obama’s policies will be while there’s nobody in congress to vote against them. Basically, conservatives are going to have to offer a more attractive compromise, and they’re going to have to do it now, or suffer the consequences of some very dangerous policies.

Tricks and deception in such things as the credit card industry lead me to believe that there must be checks and balances that sometimes come from government. Decentralization means more of this goes back to the states. Anti-trust law is not without its merits, minus such punitive things as high taxes. Market-earned monopolies aren’t necessarily bad things, but abuse of monopoly power is. Megalomania is a human risk not confined to government.

Feedie on May 5, 2009 at 2:18 PM

Those are interesting points. I’ve always thought one of the worst aspects of Obama-style corporate statism is that the government can’t effectively fulfill its job as an honest, impartial regulator when it’s an active participant in the markets. In a free society with free markets, the government should increase consumer and investor confidence, by protecting them against the worst excesses of illegal and fraudulent behavior. Obama has been destroying confidence by invalidating contractual agreements, nullifying the judgment of market forces, and distorting the value of money by pouring it on politically favored “stimulus” targets, leaving titanic piles of debt in his wake.

In a healthy economy, this wouldn’t be enough to win any elections. A modest program of welfare for the desperately poor protects the free market from socialist overtures during economic crises. Welfare is not socialism. Neither are the other spillover benefits the government provides, like the highway system, public education, and the courts.

Compassionate conservatism could have succeeded along these line, if only the politicians had been more interested in helping the genuinely poor than subsidizing home loans to the borderline middle-class.

RightOFLeft on May 5, 2009 at 2:45 PM

I wouldn’t disagree with the need to make adequate provisions for the truly disadvantaged. The citizens of an advanced, prosperous democracy will never be willing to watch poor people die of hunger in the streets, or waste away without urgently needed medical care. The problem is that welfare *has* been socialism for my entire lifetime.

Even if we can return to being a free people thriving in free markets, with the needs of our least fortunate citizens comfortably taken care of, it won’t be long before “community organizers” begin trying to convince those citizens they aren’t nearly comfortable enough. That’s what I meant when I said conservatism is an argument, and the argument will never truly be over.. Collective politics will remain a challenge that free men and women must be well-prepared to answer.

saiga on May 5, 2009 at 2:50 PM

There are a large number of fairly successful entrepreneurs in the Hispanic community…

No, 365 to 173 electoral votes is considered a landslide.
Your problem is cultural and demographic evolution.

strangelet on May 5, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Our challenge is to educate the growing masses of non-whites about the need for respnsible spending. If we focus on getting poor minorities interested in learning how to start a business and run it right, appriciation of expense dollars will be a result. Jack Kemps enterprize zones would help the minorities start businesses, but intense thought leadership from a Republican business developement organization could make the difference.

Something stronger than The SBA.

The conservative champions both the moral and practical superiority of liberty and individualism.

Not the social conservative. The social conservative champions the moral and practical superiority of strict conformity to a fundamentalist Christian lifestyle.

liberal promises tangible rewards in exchange for votes.

In a healthy economy, this wouldn’t be enough to win any elections. A modest program of welfare for the desperately poor protects the free market from socialist overtures during economic crises. Welfare is not socialism. Neither are the other spillover benefits the government provides, like the highway system, public education, and the courts.

Compassionate conservatism could have succeeded along these line, if only the politicians had been more interested in helping the genuinely poor than subsidizing home loans to the borderline middle-class.

Before you can justify govt interference in the market, you first have to prove that govt ineficiancies are less than market ineficiancies, and that is an impossible task.

MarkTheGreat on May 5, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Oh the free market is incredibly efficient. It’s just incredibly unforgiving if you do something stupid. And the sad truth is that a rather large cross section of the population is stupid most of the time, and most of us are stupid at least some of the time.

Sorry, but conservatism is not an “argument”…it is a direction, a policy, a belief.
To say I am a Christian, is not and “argument” but a statement of faith.
So being a conservative is a statement of faith.
The faith that smaller government, less taxes, freedom of education, the education of all, sanctity of human life, freedom of speech, and many other ideals.
Your “cute” saying, minimizes what a conservative really is, it is a belief system the we feel better benefits Americans.
Now you may defend that belief system with “arguments”, but the belief is real and profound.
Liberals are the ones that want to “argue” their point, because their system is based on counter arguments, not a a system that is supportive of individual rights.
I am afraid you got it all screwed up Doc….
Arguments are transitory…conservatives thoughts are ideals laid down by our founding fathers.

Best if you just take this post down….but then you would argue you are right. And that’s all it would be, an argument.

right2bright on May 5, 2009 at 1:40 PM

I think you’re taking the term “argument” a bit differently than I mean it. Arguments don’t have to be hostile, or futile. An argument is a process of persuasion. A sizable portion of the electorate is willing to listen to the argument put forth by conservatism, if we are willing to make it with passion and logic.

It shows no disrespect to your heartfelt beliefs to say that in a free society, you will need to persuade other people to adopt them, if you wish to expand their reach and influence. Liberalism persuades with a promise, which is simple, direct, and false. The conservative has a system of freedom and liberty to defend, against an ideology that will never stop attacking it.

The task ahead of you is not “arguing” to convince everyone you’re a good Christian. The task is making the argument that your Christian beliefs can illuminate a free and prosperous society that does not necessarily share them. Or, you could withdraw from the arena of ideas, keep to yourself, and watch the rest of our nation degrade as you use the power of your beliefs to nurture your own family and fellow believers. That doesn’t strike me as a truly Christian attitude, and in any event, I don’t believe Obama and his followers will leave you the option of keeping to yourself for very much longer.

To the casual center-left voter, the world seems overwhelming, confusing, and unfair. This was never more obvious than in the financial crisis that erupted last fall, when a large number of citizens became very angry and frightened about a crisis they couldn’t begin to understand.

I have some sympathy with liberals for this observation, but as you say, their solutions are the same old poison. The financial crisis came from a fusion of large government and large business interests. The near constant turmoil of a 24/7 world and large-scale corporatism are factors in the atomization of communities and family life (though not totally to blame by any means). This was not the norm in the post WWII period.

The first task in any case will be to restore some semblance of limited constitutional government with representatives much more connected to the electorate and nationhood. Next, there needs to be some recognition of the need to discourage “too big to fail.” These huge financial entities cause too much turmoil when they fail and failure depended on political connections. Many are failing anyway.

I hate to admit it, but like liberals, I have little faith in such huge concentrations of economic power, just as I and fellow conservatives have little faith in huge governmental powers. Decentralization is my watchword, but it also applies to business.

Tricks and deception in such things as the credit card industry lead me to believe that there must be checks and balances that sometimes come from government. Decentralization means more of this goes back to the states. Anti-trust law is not without its merits, minus such punitive things as high taxes. Market-earned monopolies aren’t necessarily bad things, but abuse of monopoly power is. Megalomania is a human risk not confined to government.

I don’t want conservatives to become liberals, but maybe it’s time to look at some these pestilent stressors and acknowledge that some conservatives fell for the same concept of extreme equality as liberals. Many thrive and succeed in a high stress environment, while others have values they cherish more than an enhanced personal bottom line.

Doctor Zero, thanks for your thought inspiring article. Gotta leave now.

The lack of talent on the conservative bench in politics is nothing compared to the vacuity of our elite “conservative” critics.

LODGE4 on May 5, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Cmon, it’s not that bleak. Most people are really concerned about the *effects* of policies and much less about ideologies, so if they don’t see an election helping their wallets, the scale will tip the other way. That is why we have very swift changes in political landscape in our country.

OTFM

MarkTheGreat on May 5, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Well, there is a theoretical result that shows purely free market system (perfect competition) will eventually create a Pareto distribution of wealth, eventually triggering popular unrest, leading to government (read people, in a democracy) intervention. So, I guess it all depends on what your definition of efficiency is, mathematically – if all you are considering is the growth in GDP, you are right – however, if you consider standard deviation of the incomes, then you are not.

The problem with elites, both ours and theirs, is that they have no faith in average people.

And it shows.

right2bright on May 5, 2009 at 1:40 PM

But, the “belief” that you speak of, is borne out of certain arguments that Doctor Zero talks about – like success of free markets and failure of big government bureacracies, right?

This is true on average, over time but not always (as has become obvious). Aren’t the left’s fears at least somewhat justified?

Govt interference with the market is proof that the market will sometimes behave irrationally?

The free market is not perfect, and no rational person argues that it is. It is however vastly superior to any planned economy.

Before you can justify govt interference in the market, you first have to prove that govt ineficiancies are less than market ineficiancies, and that is an impossible task.

They’re not hard-core ideologues – how many ordinary people really are?

This is true. But I’d go even further. Not only are they not ideologues, they haven’t even given much thought to their political leanings. We’re abnormal for even thinking about this stuff as much as we do.

One of the biggest challenges may be lie in shaking off voter apathy to the political process. Then the persuasion may begin. Or maybe an infusion of confidence will catch their interest. Who knows?

However, I am not sure whether this appeal to Republican politicians will be useful.

We’ve had too many years of Republicans who think the path to victory is promising to run the snake-oil wagon a bit more efficiently, and sell a healthier, lower-fat version of the snake oil.

Doctor Zero on May 5, 2009 at 12:33 PM

The snake oil is actually what politicians aim for. All politicians crave for power, and the bigger the government, the more the power. Hence, speaking strictly from a selfish viewpoint (no reason to believe politicians are altruistic), it makes more sense for a more talented politician to go with a party that favors big government as opposed to one that favors the exact opposite. This results in two issues : (1) smart people coming into the fold want more of the “snake oil”, or (2) less talented politicians join the fold.

This has resulted in the GOP gradually succumbing to the big government frenzy that we saw during the Bush years. I can envision no scenario (meaning a political force winning in both houses of Congress and White House) that can effectively tamp down the increase of government. Unless of course, we get rid of politicians completely and have online elections for everything (I know, we talked about it before, it can be a mess – at least initially).