Letter to a Young Conservative

Avi Woolf

3rd class Elder of Zion. Wilderness conservative/traditionalist. Buckley Club alum. Chief editor of @conpathways.

You may also like...

164 Responses

  1. InMD says:

    Where’s the part about how small increases in the capital gains tax will tank the recovery?Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to InMD says:

      Biden’s plan is for small increases in income taxes.
      For Capital Gains, he’ll change the rate from 20% to 39.6%.

      I doubt it will tank the recovery, I strongly expect it will drive behaviour changes.Report

      • InMD in reply to Dark Matter says:

        My comment was semi-sarcastic. But yes, any increase will probably change some behavior on the margins. I’m unconvinced that we can run in the red forever with no consequences. Democrats seem to acknowledge that government needs to be paid for. As best as I can tell conservatives, at least to the extent that is synonymous with Republicans, do not.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to InMD says:

          We have tax-cut and spend on the one side. The other is raise money for some new programs and ignore the growth in the existing ones.

          What we need are some combo of:
          1) Higher tax rates (probably to crazy levels)
          2) Reductions in current programs (brutal)
          3) Force HC to use markets so millions of people are fired and the cost of HC reduced.
          4) Serious focus on economic growth (which implies a willingness to live with inequality, immigration, free trade, and regulatory reform).Report

          • InMD in reply to Dark Matter says:

            I don’t think you’re wrong but I also don’t think it needs to be treated as a no compromise shock to the system. It’s a matter of long term management.

            Number 2 has proven politically impossible and IMO is probably immoral under actual existing conditions. Number 3 is a very long term project of gradually coaxing everyone off employer insurance and gap closure. So in the short term we are left with balancing 2 and 4 in a way that is sustainable.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to InMD says:

              3 is a long term project of very gradually coaxing everyone off employer insurance and gap closure.

              Force medical care providers to have one price and publish it.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Dark Matter says:

                “Force medical care providers to have one price and publish it.”

                Like cars.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Depends on the car dealership. Some have dicker-free pricing that is advertised as such. It’s cheaper and quicker than going down and having hours with of negotiation.

                The ideal would be WalMart. One price fits all and you know what you’re paying for.

                If every Walmart purchase involved dickering over the price or special prices based on your ability to pay or networks, then we’d have a mess.

                Our HC industry functions at a WalMart scale but has slimy used car dealership tactics and rules.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Having sold to Walmart, it’s interesting you bring it up because it acts like a giant single payer driving prices from suppliers down.

                Are you advocating massive consolidation of Healthcare into one or maybe two primary distributors of services?

                It would surprise me if you were… but as someone who negotiates prices on a daily basis, the managing/controlling prices angle of market analysis always strikes me as the weakest.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Are you advocating massive consolidation of Healthcare into one or maybe two primary distributors of services?

                My assumption is we’ll still have Medicare and Medicaid, which will be large enough to matter.

                If Medicaid wants to go with the low bidder that’s great. Now I object to “Medicaid pays less just because we’re the gov and we’re going to shift costs onto other groups”.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine says:

                If I don’t get a Cadillac, I could die.

                You telling me that I could buy a Yaris is telling me to die.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird says:

                One of my working dogs once mysteriously became paralyzed in his hind legs.

                I spent a lot on money to learn about healthcare markets, death and sadness. It was all perfectly transparent and prices quite accurate. In the end, I’m sure my choices were perfectly rational. Still miss that dog.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Dark Matter says:

                “Force medical care providers to have one price and publish it.”

                This is an empty-brain take.

                It’s not price transparency that causes uncertainty in healthcare costs, it’s the negotiation that takes place between “bill submitted” and “patient responsibility”, and that is a unique calculation for every combination of patient, provider, service, and insurer.

                What you mean is “healthcare payments are too variable”, and what you’re asking for is a single-payer system, but I doubt you understand that.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to DensityDuck says:

                Its almost as if the health care market doesn’t behave like a market.

                Like, healthcare is a product that no one wants but everyone is forced to buy at some point.

                The healthcare “marketplace” is one where you aren’t free to enter, or exit, or even choose the product you buy.Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck says:

                What you mean is “healthcare payments are too variable”, and what you’re asking for is a single-payer system, but I doubt you understand that.

                BingoReport

              • Dark Matter in reply to DensityDuck says:

                what you’re asking for is a single-payer system, but I doubt you understand that.

                Because Walmart couldn’t exist without having only one entity pay them?

                Something that stands out of the other countries’ HC systems is I’m not aware of any which have reduced costs. They’re pretty good at locking in prices that already exist, but we need to destroy millions of well paid jobs; I.e. fire those hoards of people who aren’t adding value.

                Markets have a solid history of firing millions of people. I find it hard to see our political class doing that.Report

              • Force medical care providers to have one price and publish it.

                My friend who runs the business office at a hospital tells me, “Anyone who buys a package deal for 20,000 users, across the full range of surgical procedures, and who has never failed to make a payment, gets a very different price than the poor schmuck who has no credit history with us doing a one-off deal.”Report

              • Philip H in reply to Michael Cain says:

                “Anyone who buys a package deal for 20,000 users, across the full range of surgical procedures, and who has never failed to make a payment, gets a very different price than the poor schmuck who has no credit history with us doing a one-off deal.”

                Last I checked that’s how markets are alleged to work.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

                Last I checked that’s how markets are alleged to work.

                I asked my surgeon how much his services would cost me, and he answered he had no idea. I asked the hospital and got the same answer. My procedure was something he does all the time, it’s his job. The amount of money involved might have been enough to make it useful for me to drive or fly out of state.

                Far as I can tell the price of everything wasn’t determinable until after the surgery because everything is a one-off negotiation by hordes of paper pushers. Some poor slob outside the inner workings of power has less power and is thus charged more than a team of bureaucrats inside the system.

                This is not a market, this is Soviet Central Planning.

                Walmart doesn’t check your wallet and your political connections before deciding the price of your shopping cart.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Dark Matter says:

            I’d add one thing to your list, with caveats. I’m not recommending it. And it won’t decrease the amount of spending. But if we permit more inflation, we’ll lower the value of our debt.

            A good analogy would be drinking and driving. If you need to get home, it’s a bad idea, but I know that it’s been tried a lot. Often with disastrous consequences. Often as a combination of sleeping a little in the car then driving home buzzed. What I’m saying is, a list of options based on actual experience has to include it.Report

            • North in reply to Pinky says:

              Inflation is absolutely part of the equation. I’d assert inflation is baked into the cake as a kind of shock absorber. The pattern seems to be:
              -Governments run deficits.
              -Interest rates begin to stir.
              -Governments raise taxes.
              -When tax raises hit the line where it seriously impacts economic growth then inflation continues and the economy stagnates and you are facing stagflation.
              -Bond markets rebel.
              -Government reluctantly cuts spending: easy stuff first (parochial graft and narrowly targeted government largess), then military spending, then finally broad based social nets.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

              And where are we now in relation to historical “dangerous” inflation?Report

          • North in reply to Dark Matter says:

            As a liberal I don’t think your list is wrong so long as you acknowledge that your option #2 includes military spending along with all other programs.

            One thing the Canadian experience with a fiscal crisis has taught me is that modern governments can get their books in order if they really need to but it’s so unpleasant that you need to run at least within spitting distance of the edge of a crisis before the political will can be mustered to do so.
            It also taught me that when that crisis hits the military budget is the -first- and -worst- cut program. Neocons are aware of this too- I suspect virtually 100% of their animus against liberals is that they know that if it comes down to safety nets vs Military budgets the military will be cut to the bone first and then the safety nets will be trimmed however much is necessary to make up the required difference (this assumes, obviously, that tax rates are hiked first and foremost).

            Also, there’s a lot of devil in the details for #4. Still not a bad list. I’d say Obama started the ball rolling on #3 with the ACA.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

            1) yes, duh. 40 years of cutting taxes to cut taxes was and remains a bad idea. And things like income caps on the badly named payroll taxes (which finance earned benefits) don’t help the situation.

            2) Depends on what you want to reduce. Accounting for all revenues and all outlays roughly 1/3rd of the federal government is on the credit card. That’s also about how much of the federal government is discretionary. So unless you are advocating some change in the legal status of earned benefits that would decrease spending there, you may not get very far.

            3) HC uses markets, or so detractors of the ACA keep telling us. You must remember however, that the industry delivering the vast majority of healthcare in the US is actually in the business of for profit health insurance, where denial of coverage to boost shareholder value is considered a good business practice. Making every family doctor publish their rates for kidney stone treatments won’t solve that problem.

            4). I don’t think you need to live with inequality to get economic growth. And I don’t think you need to “reform regulations” by doing away with them. Businesses can and do price regulatory compliance into their activities all the time, nd since we have man, many examples (even discussed on OT) of what happens to labor when those regulations are ignored or absent, I’m perfectly ok with keeping them. As to immigration – allowing free movement across the border to support certain economic sectors that use that labor has always made sense to me.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

              I don’t think you need to live with inequality to get economic growth.

              It’s that economic growth will, by its very nature, create inequality.

              allowing free movement across the border to support certain economic sectors that use that labor has always made sense to me.

              And it keeps prices low! And studies have shown that it really only has a negative impact on the lowest of low-skilled labor in the US.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird says:

                “I don’t think you need to live with inequality to get economic growth.

                It’s that economic growth will, by its very nature, create inequality.”

                We want inequality, but broadly based ‘horizontal’ inequality. It’s the ‘verticality’ of the inequality that erodes trust, causes friction and ends with bad decisions all around.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Pretty much.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

              40 years of cutting taxes to cut taxes was and remains a bad idea

              I think it’s very hard to separate the Reagan recovery from the Reagan tax cuts. So yes, it’s possible to have tax rates so high that they fuel tax avoidance to the point where it’s a problem for the economy and where the gov is bringing in less taxes than a lower level would.

              Now the problem is we learned from that “all tax cuts are good and will pay for themselves” when that’s clearly untrue.

              Accounting for all revenues and all outlays roughly 1/3rd of the federal government is on the credit card. That’s also about how much of the federal government is discretionary

              Yes. The bulk of our spending problem is entitlements. It’s very easy for current politicians to promise that future politicians will find the money for some entitlement handed out today.

              HC uses markets,

              Insurance “networks” is the opposite of a market. Not having specific prices or advertising them is the opposite of a market. 3rd party pays magnifies the other two problems. What we have is an effort by everyone to have everyone else pay for their HC.

              denial of coverage to boost shareholder value is considered a good business practice.

              These same incentives exist for every other type of “insurance”. Why isn’t this a thing for when houses burn down? The answer is we don’t have insurance, just like we don’t really have markets. We only call them that. Insurance is supposed to spread risk, not control cost.

              House insurance is supposed to help you if your house burns down. Making it pay for every lightbulb and window washing and allowing it to be purchased after the house burns down isn’t workable. Add to that various armies of bureaucrats whose only job is to fight with other bureaucrats and you end up with what we have.

              Force insurance companies and HC providers to function like they’re supposed to, i.e. without armies of bureaucrats whose only job is to make things more complex and fight with each other and prices drop a lot. This means no networks. At worst the insurance company is faced with the question, “are kidney stones covered, yes or no”. Much more likely, we’ll be looking at major medical where nothing is covered until you hit the point where everything is.

              Businesses can and do price regulatory compliance into their activities all the time

              We used to think that small businesses were the engine of job creation, and small businesses can’t afford the overhead anywhere near to the same degree as large companies.

              I don’t think you need to live with inequality to get economic growth.

              Do we live with Bezos existing, or do we force him to give up his wealth? If we force him to give it up, then the next Amazon will be created in a different country and we will have sacrificed the growth it would have created.

              And fun fact, I used to point this out about Gates and Microsoft years before Amazon even existed.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Do we live with Bezos existing, or do we force him to give up his wealth?

                This is a false choice. He’s welcome to get wealthy so long as that wealth is fairly taxed. Which at present its not. He can’t spend all that money, he’s not giving it all away, and since as a nation we seem to think CEO’s are valuable, they need to contribute accordingly. Warren Buffet was right, IMO, that his secretary having a higher effective tax rate then he does is a problem.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                This is why the shit like the piss bottles and mandatory wanding strikes me as so mind-bogglingly stupid.

                He’s the richest man in the world. It would affect him NOT AT ALL to pay his people to get wanded (or even to stagger the end of the shift to make the wanding time de minimus!).

                How tough would it be to relax the numbers just enough to allow workers to pee leisurely into a toilet?

                And… no. He doesn’t.

                All of the jokes that come immediately to mind involve one of the French revolutions.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird says:

                How tough would it be to relax the numbers just enough to allow workers to pee leisurely into a toilet? And… no. He doesn’t.

                This is like saying President Biden shouldn’t be having his cops shoot people or his soldiers rape or blow up civilians.

                If you’re going to have a large army, there are going to be abuses. It’s always possible to do a better job policing that. I’m not sure how good a job we do but I’m sure it’s less than perfect.

                Bezos has a very large company which is trying to be very fast at delivery. That’s a fine choice. There are going to be problems because of these choices and controlling the unintended side effects is a thing.Report

              • North in reply to Dark Matter says:

                One of the interesting things going on now is that there’re some signs that Amazon may be pivoting strategy towards better pay and treatment of its employees as part of its overall strategy. Now that it has its delivery infrastructure down employee quality, retention and performance could be the new way they batter their competition.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H says:

                If I am only allowed to amass 100 Billion dollars in wealth, well then mister, what’s the point of even working?Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                If I am only allowed to amass 100 Billion dollars in wealth, well then mister, what’s the point of even working?

                If I offered you 50 Billion dollars to relocate to Europe, would you do it?

                How about if you already have a house in Europe and moving is just a matter of filling out some paperwork?

                How about if I’m also threatening to burn down your life’s work if you don’t do this?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                “and moving is just a matter of filling out some paperwork?”

                What if this changed?
                To where, in order to avoid taxes, one would be required to literally move their company and all its operations and staff?

                And pay a tariff on their now-imported goods?

                How would this change the incentives? Where would the breakeven point be in “cheaper to move” versus “cheaper to pay the tax”?Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                If the plan is to Berlin wall and tariff your way to prosperity, I have some bad news for you.

                For everything else the answer is “it depends”. What kinds of taxes are we talking about and when do they kick in and what kind of business is it? However the basic tax plan needs to assume the evil rich-because-they’re-too-successful aren’t stupid and won’t let themselves be harvested like carrots.

                The core problem is you need to explain what the rules are and then they’ll tell you their actions.

                To where, in order to avoid taxes, one would be required to literally move their company and all its operations and staff? And pay a tariff on their now-imported goods?

                You don’t need to move everything. Software is pretty important for most companies now days.

                I’m building a machine, it’s assembled in the US. I intend to sell it for $100 a pop in profit. The software for making the machine work is valued at $99, it’s owned by a different company (also owned by me) which is in Ireland. There’s no market for any of the components outside of my company.

                I build the machine, sell it, but the bulk of the profit ends up in Ireland. If you want to be really nasty the machine itself could also be software. Are we going to be putting tariffs on bits flowing over the internet?

                A way to tax this is a sale’s tax, but we’re really talking about income taxes here. An accountant could make a serious claim that this is all legal and justified (witness Amazon’s accountants).Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

                He’s welcome to get wealthy so long as that wealth is fairly taxed.

                Wealth taxes are shocking ugly from all standpoints except fighting inequality.

                Other countries show they have a negative value, i.e. the gov spends more to administer the tax than they collect in revenue.

                At any useful level they’ll also result in the rich fleeing and high levels of economic destruction.

                So no, it is not a false choice.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

                I’m not talking strict wealth taxes.

                And the rich have all but fled thanks to outsourcing.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

                I’m not talking strict wealth taxes.

                Then please define what “fairly taxed” means in the sentence: “He’s welcome to get wealthy so long as that wealth is fairly taxed.”Report

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Fairly taxed means his effective tax rate is higher then the rates paid by his employees. Fairly taxed means he – and his company actually pay taxes.Report

              • Damon in reply to Philip H says:

                That’ll never happen since congresscritters need campaign funds. Also, which tax rate are we talking about? Income tax or capital gains? And I can control my taxable income of my company by legally structuring it’s ownership to be off shore and in a tax haven. You going to ban that? If so, I refer you to above congresscritters.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

                Fairly taxed means his effective tax rate is higher then the rates paid by his employees.

                So we’ve changed from talking about wealth to income? He can set his own income. He can even set it to zero and just sell shares when he needs to.

                However when he does sell shares, he pays taxes twice. Once for the capital gains on the shares and then again with income taxes.

                Excluding that issue and trying to claim that his marginal rate is just that of his selling the shares is probably going to result in bad policy.

                Fairly taxed means… his company actually pay taxes.

                Multi-national corporations create problems from a tax standpoint. Those problems are made worse with software and intellectual rights and we run into collective action problems.

                These issues are a creation of math, accounting, and different national policies and aren’t going away.

                Which brings us back to whether we want to live with this issue and benefit from having companies like Amazon exist or not allow companies like Amazon exist.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                …or not allow companies like Amazon exist.

                Your ideas intrigue me.

                Can you game out how this might work, how we could destroy Amazon by raising their taxes?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I’m particularly thrilled by the image of what a post- Amazon world might look like.
                *Man at his laptop- “I think I would like to buy some hedge trimmers!”
                *Clikety clack*

                Blue screen of death appears-
                SORRY, IT IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE TO BUY THINGS ONLINE. HERE IS A CUTE PUPPY VIDEO INSTEADReport

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

                We can’t live with this issue and provide the services citizens continue to demand of their governments. Since our modern period of greatest economic growth coincided with our highest marginal and effective tax rates across the board I see no reason we can’t start attacking the government revenue problem from the revenue side not the spending side.

                As to differing nation policies – fine, let them move. As soon as they do we wipe out all the tax incentives they have been given to set up shop(s) where they are. Wisconsin, if you will recall, gave away literal farms to Foxconn, and got conned in the process. Sure, some companies might absorb the loss, and some might close. But Amazon works where and how it does because of scale, local and state tax incentives and lax labor laws that favor capitol over labor. They also succeed because they are willing to pay the paltry legal penalties for likely illegal union busting activities. Plus their shear size means they can’t instantly close up shop in the US without tanking a significant part of their market. Or cutting off chunks of their allegedly valuable data stream.

                and as to Damon’s congress critter discussion – sure, congress is not generally going to cut off their nose in spite of their faces (though Ted Cruz’s recent rhetoric comes awfully close). Doesn’t mean either of those parties is right, nor does it mean we the people should just sit back and take the ironic goat screwing.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

                Since our modern period of greatest economic growth coincided with our highest marginal and effective tax rates across the board I see no reason we can’t start attacking the government revenue problem from the revenue side not the spending side.

                That period of greatest economic growth also coincided with:
                1) No internet
                2) WW2 having destroyed the rest of the world’s economies.
                3) Massively lower entitlements.

                Further these very high tax rates you’re pointing at didn’t actually collect income. https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high

                Pointing to high taxes which no one really paid suggests that this isn’t a realistic alternative.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                I love the random grab bag of metrics:

                That period of greatest economic growth also coincided with:
                1) No Rock and Roll music;
                2) Other nations were unable to purchase our products
                3) Higher rates of unionization

                So you can see then, why economic growth is no longer possible.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I love the random grab bag of metrics:

                The most important “metrics” are those very high tax rates weren’t very effective at collecting income and there are ways to shield money now that didn’t exist then.Report

              • Slade the Leveller in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Just make it all income. Guy who pays himself in shares – income. Guy who sells shares that have gained – income. Why do we need to treat differing streams of income differently?Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Slade the Leveller says:

                Why do we need to treat differing streams of income differently?

                You buy an asset and sell it later, but it’s value hasn’t actually gone up it’s just inflation has done it’s thing.

                Second, the capital gains tax is merely part of a long line of federal taxation of the same dollar of income. Wages are first taxed by payroll and personal income taxes, then again by the corporate income tax if one chooses to invest in corporate equities, and then again when those investments pay off in the form of dividends and capital gains. This puts corporations at a disadvantage relative to pass through business entities, whose owners pay personal income tax on distributed profits, instead of taxes on corporate income, capital gains, and dividends.

                Finally we want long term capital investments, i.e. “savings”. We probably even want to favor that over short term gains.Report

              • North in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Eh, if you’re fretting about double taxation it is probably a better bet to eliminate the corporate tax and then just expand capital gain taxes and eliminate their preferential (50%) treatment. It’d produce a lot less economic distortion and a lot more money.Report

              • Slade the Leveller in reply to Dark Matter says:

                You buy an asset and sell it later, but it’s value hasn’t actually gone up it’s just inflation has done it’s thing.

                Then someone thinks it’s value has gone up. If the seller thinks it has the same value, he ought to sell it at that price. Otherwise, it’s profit.

                …then again by the corporate income tax if one chooses to invest in corporate equities…

                No one is taxed when the investment is made.

                …then again when those investments pay off in the form of dividends and capital gains.

                The investor is not taxed on the principal, just the gains, i.e., Income.

                Finally we want long term capital investments…

                Kind of sounds like the government is picking winners and losers here. Do you really think that investors would quit investing if the profits were taxed as ordinary income? That’s a large chunk of change to give up out of spite.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Slade the Leveller says:

                Then someone thinks it’s value has gone up. If the seller thinks it has the same value, he ought to sell it at that price. Otherwise, it’s profit.

                There has been almost exactly a 10x devaluation of money (because of inflation) since 1950. https://www.officialdata.org/1950-dollars-in-2017

                If you purchased something in 1950 for a million dollars and sell it in 2021 for $10 million, the asset still has exactly the same value but you are expected to treat that as a $9 million dollar windfall.Report

              • Slade the Leveller in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Let me tell you, if I bought something that produced a $9 million profit, I’d happily pay tax on it. Besides, on a term that long, it’s probably inherited, in which case the basis is stepped up.

                More seriously, though, how are you going to build inflation into the calculation? I’m just trying to make everyone’s life easier by not differentiating income. By your reasoning, the only real income is to be had in short-term investments where the inflationary effect is negligible.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Slade the Leveller says:

                It is possible to index long-term gains to inflation and thereby tax only real gain, of which there is still a great deal — at least if my brokerage statement is any indication. But doing that would knock out the main justification for the tax break, which is terribly inconvenient.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to CJColucci says:

                My impression is the issue is less “lose justification for the break” than it is “the gov would lose a lot of money”.

                For our (extreme) example, the adjusted increase is zero, so lowering the gains to zero means the gov would be leaving about two million dollars on the table.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Fortunately for my retirement, my long-term capital gains are, by a large margin, real rather than inflationary. And since I don’t think I’m any better than average as an investor, I would guess that that’s true for a lot of other people.Report

              • InMD in reply to Dark Matter says:

                God the injustice of such a thing.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Slade the Leveller says:

                Do you really think that [long term] investors would quit investing if the profits were taxed as ordinary income? That’s a large chunk of change to give up out of spite.

                The thinking is as follows:

                If an investment’s pay off takes years to show up, then the credit or income of that investment go to someone else. Politicians not looking past the next election, companies not looking past the next quarterly profit statement, anyone not looking past how long they expect to work at that job. Lowering the tax rate of long term investments attempts to make these investments more attractive to compensate.

                The problem with this line of thinking is it doesn’t suggest a specific lower rate. It’s also, as you pointed out, picking winners and losers. Having said that, people being short sighted does seem to be a thing.Report

          • Brandon Berg in reply to Dark Matter says:

            In the long run, neither tax increases, spending cuts, or extraordinary growth, is needed to balance the budget. The only thing that’s needed is for the economy to grow faster than spending.

            In principle, this should not be particularly difficult or painful. Real GDP per capita has been reliably increasing for centuries, so we can afford to keep a constant level of real government spending per capita with a falling share of GDP. This is exactly what happened during the Bush I and Clinton administrations, when federal spending as a share of GDP fell from 22 to 17% of GDP while still keeping up with inflation and population growth.

            The government just has to refrain from going on grossly irresponsible spending sprees like the ones the current administration is proposing.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Brandon Berg says:

              The government just has to refrain from going on grossly irresponsible spending sprees like the ones the current administration is proposing.

              Um, yeah, because spending as much on defense as the next 6 countries combined isn’t over spending? Because cutting $1 Trillion in revenue over 10 years to get economic growth that was at best 2/3rds of the minimum you needed to make said cut revenue neutral isn’t over spending?

              Give me a break. At least Democrats try to raise revenue through taxation.Report

  2. Philip H says:

    This article, while well written mechanically, leaves me as aimless and drifting as most “conservative deep thought” these days does. As examples, if conservatives are so aware that the great books and great speeches don’t account for all the modern day circumstances, why do they object to the 1619 project? If conservatives are indeed so humble, then why are they so willing to rant and rave about masks and their alleged freedoms being impinged by them? These are not the hallmarks of the movement you allege to represent in its modern manifestation. Dealing with the world as you may want it, as opposed to how it is, is the biggest disconnect in modern conservativism.

    Young people see this and see no real attempt to bridge it.Report

    • InMD in reply to Philip H says:

      The 1619 project is objectionable on it’s own merits; namely it’s bad history and profoundly unserious as scholarship goes. I long for the days when we could laugh at such dumb ideas the way we used to with ‘intelligent design.’ Alas.

      Though to that point about the only thing the conservative movement is good for is holding up the more absurd parts of progressive ideology for deserved mockery, albeit in a totally unprincipled way. It certainly has no larger policy vision about how the country ought go be run.Report

      • Pinky in reply to InMD says:

        I don’t know, man…you know what kind of people question the 1619 Project.Report

      • Philip H in reply to InMD says:

        The 1619 project is objectionable on it’s own merits; namely it’s bad history and profoundly unserious as scholarship goes.

        Well since its journalism I’m not sure why you’d use the practices of history to judge it. That aside, It seems its important and actually useful:

        The United States was not, in fact, founded to protect slavery—but the Times is right that slavery was central to its story. And the argument among historians, while real, is hardly black and white. Over the past half-century, important foundational work on the history and legacy of slavery has been done by a multiracial group of scholars who are committed to a broad understanding of U.S. history—one that centers on race without denying the roles of other influences or erasing the contributions of white elites. An accurate understanding of our history must present a comprehensive picture, and it’s by paying attention to these scholars that we’ll get there.

        https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248

        The project was intended to address the marginalization of African-American history in the telling of our national story and examine the legacy of slavery in contemporary American life. We are not ourselves historians, it is true. We are journalists, trained to look at current events and situations and ask the question: Why is this the way it is? In the case of the persistent racism and inequality that plague this country, the answer to that question led us inexorably into the past — and not just for this project.

        https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-the-historians-who-critiqued-the-1619-project.html

        In fact, the harshness of the Wilentz letter may obscure the extent to which its authors and the creators of the 1619 Project share a broad historical vision. Both sides agree, as many of the project’s right-wing critics do not, that slavery’s legacy still shapes American life—an argument that is less radical than it may appear at first glance. If you think anti-black racism still shapes American society, then you are in agreement with the thrust of the 1619 Project, though not necessarily with all of its individual arguments.

        https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/Report

        • North in reply to Philip H says:

          So it’s full of historical inaccuracies and infantilizes minorities but woke people people like it and one can write a convoluted defense of it from some kind of journalistic postmodern standpoint? Yeah it definitely belongs in schools and Pulitzer prize boards.Report

        • Brandon Berg in reply to Philip H says:

          Oh, hey, it’s our old friend, “Fake but Accurate!”

          I’m also rather puzzled by the idea that she should get a pass on getting the facts wrong because this is journalism, not history. Are journalists not expected to get the facts right anymore?Report

  3. Pinky says:

    Question: is this article titled correctly? It seems to me that it’s not a letter addressed to a young conservative at all, but to a young person who may be open to conversation. If anything, it would be addressed to young people who don’t consider themselves conservative.Report

  4. Chip Daniels says:

    Dear young conservative:

    I know the appeals to privatizing Social Security have a superficial appeal, but tradition tells us that something which has worked for a lifetime should be preserved and strengthened, and programs for taking care of the elderly such as Medicare are the foundation of a righteous and moral society.

    Likewise, the basic building blocks of a gentle civic nation is solidarity between its citizens, where such organizations as labor unions are nurtured and protected, where the rabid radicalism of consumerism and selfish individuality is allowed but carefully constrained.

    And dear young conservative, while the fleeting sugar rush of violence and gunplay may sound intoxicating, a conservative recognizes that restraining violence is the single most essential characteristic of a civil state. Shunning deadly weapons, and building trust among free unarmed citizens is the highest and most liberty-enhancing goal of conservatism.

    Above all, you should understand that conservatism is not a fixed ideology of bullet points, but a general outlook on life, one that embraces tradition and precedent, but is open to innovation and new circumstances which lead to new approaches.

    For example, the essential character of a conservative nature is to cherish the family unit; And in light of new evidence of the fact that some people are called by nature to a different expression of their sexual orientation or gender, a conservative can embrace new household types and family organization.

    And finally, a conservative is one who grasps the fundamental truth, that all persons regardless of ethnicity, creed, orientation, or gender are fully equal and entitled to the full scope of rights and dignity that can be afforded. No society which results in an unequal distribution of wealth or privilege can call itself conservative. And any law or regime which does not have the good of the commonweal as its goal is the natural enemy of conservatism.Report

  5. JS says:

    You wrote an entire letter and never once specified what “conservative” meant. Indeed, you told young “conservatives” to define it for themselves.

    So it’s a meaningless label? A catch-all for anyone who doesn’t identify as “liberal” or “Democrat”?

    “Dear young people who call themselves conservatives,

    The word has no meaning. Just make up whatever and good luck. Heck make it about tax cuts, or facebook censorship, or the right to wear a white hood in public while trying to lynch your own Vice President. Or, I dunno, like whatever you kids like. NFT’s or rap music. It doesn’t matter. Nobody believes anything and we haven’t had a new idea since 1983, when our last idea died (even though we pretended it didn’t). We just scream and destroy because, I dunno, who cares anymore.

    Honestly, I don’t even know why you want the label. I guess maybe it’s easier than saying “I’m a firm believer in Cleek’s Law, and that’s what passes for an idea in my circles these days?”

    Sincerely,

    Old conservative.”Report

    • Pinky in reply to JS says:

      There are a lot of different strains within conservative thought, and certainly this article comes from the perspective of philosophical conservatism, which has been described as the opposite of ideology. As such, it it defined conservatism it would be missing the point.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to JS says:

      I got the idea that Conservativism was an inclination.

      “Maybe this frustrates you, and understandably so, but a core tenet of serious conservatism is intellectual humility.”

      I got the idea that “Conservativism” meant stuff like “We know that the world is an incredibly complicated place. We know that while we human beings have accumulated an enormous amount of knowledge and wisdom, we are also prone to mistakes, rash judgment, and arrogance.”

      When you keep those thoughts in the forefront of your mind, it automatically makes you hedge when it comes to grandiose sweeping statements.

      Like this part here:

      While we’re on the subject of partial change – political change is hard. Sometimes very hard. It takes months and sometimes years of effort, requires hard compromises, and even at its best almost always only fixes part of the problem. You don’t have to take my word for it – read up on the history of any of your political heroes (if you have any, and if you don’t you should get some) and you’ll see I’m right. We conservatives are about careful, positive, and most importantly lasting achievement, not rickety quick fixes that sound good on a bumper sticker but help few people or none. If you are going to be political, you must understand the vocation of politics at its worst – but also at its best.

      As far as I can tell, and this is me projecting onto Avi here, a “conservative” is someone who looks at the Progressive Glorious Future and says “nah”.

      Maybe they are saying that because they’re racist.
      Maybe they are saying that because they hate women.
      Maybe they’re merely saying that because they don’t think it’ll work.
      Maybe they’re merely saying it because they have come to some very cynical conclusions about power and the nature of people drawn to it.

      I see Avi’s letter not to progressives who wanted conservativism defined but to people who, privately, might find “conservative” a label that might fit better than whatever progressivism is labeling this week.

      And maybe none of them would ever end up here and read this letter to them. We’re a decent-sized blog but we don’t get half the traffic of the sites that normies have heard of.

      I reckon that there are a handful of people out there who might benefit from reading this.

      Even if you aren’t one of them to the point where you don’t understand why this wasn’t written to you instead.

      (That’s probably another inclination that conservatives have internalized… “there’s a lot of stuff out there that I’m not the audience for.” The conservatives have sighed and seen this as the way the world is. It’s the ones that would never in a million years consider themselves conservative who wonder why any given product isn’t targeting them instead of someone else. That someone else is probably racist. Or sexist. Why should those people be catered to?)Report

      • North in reply to Jaybird says:

        Why would any sensible liberal accept being lumped in with and defined by woke fringe left wing loons like you’re doing here? And why would any liberal accept that the kind of thoughtful people you’re talking about must necessarily be ceded to the conservatives? Especially conservativism in the form it has devolved into currently.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to North says:

          Why would any sensible liberal accept being lumped in with and defined by woke fringe left wing loons like you’re doing here?

          Social pressure.

          And why would any liberal accept that the kind of thoughtful people you’re talking about must necessarily be ceded to the conservatives?

          They wouldn’t. But I imagine they’d understand why someone who looks around and thinks “What the heck?” might be attracted to the conservative “luminaries” who respond to the excesses with undisguised contempt.

          I mean, say what you will about Vice Signaling, but it has an authenticity that “well, those people shouldn’t be lumped in with *ME*” just doesn’t carry.Report

          • North in reply to Jaybird says:

            Social pressure? From who? Lefties who want to pretend to be a more politically potent force than they actually are? Right wingers who know the only hope they have of anyone reluctantly voting for them is to brand everyone to their left as being part of the woke fringe? Media types who desperately need both sides to be equally deranged so they can continue their BSDI-fan-dance for clicks? Libertarians who think “Hey maybe if people think both sides of the aisle are insane then we can muster up enough people to launch a Seastead!”? Fish all of them (except the Libertarians- it would be nice if they could found their Seastead and get their Rapture on.)

            Sure, Vice signaling does signal emphatic repudiation of wokeness and, of course, chucks normal virtues over the side as well. For authenticity, though, I’m pretty sure I’m on more solid ground by pointing at every Democratic administration in living memory and saying “liberals are not universally woke, they’re not even majority woke, for fish’s sake look at who they just elected- they’re barely even a significant plurality woke. The two front runners were completely non-woke. An establishmentarianism and an old school socialist. What on earth are you all smoking?”Report

            • Jaybird in reply to North says:

              Lefties who want to pretend to be a more politically potent force than they actually are?

              I’m under the impression that the preferred phrase is “on the right side of history”.

              Right wingers who know the only hope they have of anyone reluctantly voting for them is to brand everyone to their left as being part of the woke fringe?

              From what I understand, the attraction of conservatives has something to do with them merely being less odious than something involved with their skilled advertising.

              Media types who desperately need both sides to be equally deranged so they can continue their BSDI-fan-dance for clicks?

              My experience with media types is that more and more of them are from the same pool of lefties who went to the same schools and so they’re doing a good job of portraying the people who don’t agree with them as backwards at best and -phobic or -ist at worst.

              Libertarians who think “Hey maybe if people think both sides of the aisle are insane then we can muster up enough people to launch a Seastead!”?

              Libertarianism is dead. It makes no sense in the current year.

              As for the Democratic administrations… well, I guess we’ll see what happens over the coming years.

              But Clinton and Obama had a handful of issues where they seem to be on the wrong side of history. (That’s more important to some than others, of course.)Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                Of course Clinton and Obama did; find an administration that doesn’t. That’s my point. Conservatives and the left fringe howl “Woke is the left, in total” and the facts on the ground do not support that assertion. They don’t even kind of support that assertion.

                Social justice leftism is real, it’s prevalent to dominant in certain areas of the private sector and seems to be absolutely romping in the distressed fields of the media and the academy but it is only a column within the political left- and not even the most dominant one. Good ol’ fashioned liberalism (warts and all) was, and remains, the dominant driving force in the political left in America today.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                But if you want to oppose Social Justice leftism (more like “Accountability Culture”, amirite?), choosing between “we oppose Social Justice leftism” and “yes, it’s a problem but it shouldn’t be seen as representative of what all of us believe” is an easy choice to make. (I mean, if you want to oppose Social Justice leftism.)Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                Uh yes, the marketing is easier for the right than the liberals. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s a wild lie that makes matter worse.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                When the topic is opposition to Social Justice, the marketing is simple for conservatives.

                Just be less odious.

                The good news is that the left has a pretty good marketing strategy as well: “Everyone in the right is racist, sexist, and has sexual hangups.”Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                Heh, and you just literally did it again.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                We’re talking marketing!Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                Indeed, and while talking marketing you quite literally imported the right wing talking point ascribing the marketing slogan of the social justice left wing fringe to the left entirely and presented it as reality.

                Yes, the identarian left has a marketing strategy of calling everyone and everything to their right racist, sexist and indicative of sexual hangups.” (and proximity being what it is they use it far more effectively against liberals than they do against Conservatives who simply laugh at them) All indications are that marketing strategy performs pretty shiftily outside the left. That’s why right wingers et all try and brand the whole left as beholden to that ideology.

                I understand why the right pretends the identarian fringe defines the left in its total but why are you parroting that point?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                My main point is summed up in the point about being motivated by Social Justice, either in opposing it or in explaining that it’s not representative of all liberals.

                It’s the ancillary point about the Tumblristas being ancillary support to the left that strikes me as being true to the point of triviality.

                If the argument is that the loudmouths shouldn’t be seen as representative, sure. It’s the quiet folks who show up, vote, then go back to work afterwards who are representative.

                But events like last summer are very good at forcing people to pick a side. I mean, a lot of the work of Black Lives Matter is merely pointing out to people that “neutral” ain’t an option.

                Eventually, we’re going to have to wrestle with the fact that these people who are not representative of the left are the ones driving policy. And that will involve either changing the policies being driven or opposing them outright.

                I mean, is Ibram x Kendi fringe? I could see the argument that he was in 2018… but it is the current year.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                I’m sympathetic to your point, but you go increasingly off the rails in your last 3 paragraphs.

                The noisy fringe gets all the attention- absolutely, like how the tiny violent minority that set fires and raised Cain during the BLM protests suddenly were the face of the entire movement. Are they driving policy? Well BLM doesn’t write much policy and one of their more glaring weaknesses is that they don’t have much in the way of policy prescriptions (terrible retail politician but capable policy politician Hillary pointed this out in 2016). Name a BLM policy. Police shouldn’t persecute or kill people (and especially not minorities)? Anodyne and broad to the point of incoherence- everyone agrees with that. Abolish the police? Vague and ill defined- utterly rejected by the actual left both as a policy prescription and in political terms: never even made it into a bill, fled from by every elected politician in the party. Abolish capitalism? *insert laugh track*

                Then your second to last paragraph! My God(ess?) we don’t have to wrestle with the fact that these unrepresentative left wing fringe people are driving policy because the identarian fringe ARE NOT DRIVING POLICY! Their preferred candidates barely even placed in the presidential nomination contest and their policy prescriptions are basically non-existent in actual proposed legislation or policy. I tried to brain storm what policy you could be talking about here, now, and all I come up with is that Biden’s admin let the bureaucracy resume those utterly useless CRT training sessions. Yes, the Dem admin is letting federal employees get bored as fish for an hour or so by that grifter Robin Diangelo’s training seminar once a year. The humanity.

                As for the honorable High Priest Ibram X. Kendi and his anti-racist movement, they’re certainly in vogue right now but where’re the bills? Has his Ministry of Love *cough*, sorry, his Department of Anti-Racism (the DOA. seriously. Are we sure Ibram isn’t performance arting us?) in place? Has a bill been advanced to institute one? Have any significant number of Democratic politicians endorsed this idea?

                Yes, the identarian left is on the march and they’re pushing their ideas hard but most of where they’re getting their purchase is in the private sphere. They’re Goliath in the Academy and in the Media and on fishin Twitter and social media but they’re chickensh*t in actual politics. How many congresspeople do they have? If you go with the most defensible and unobjectionable stuff the identarian left pushes you can give them the Squad and a handful of other politicians- not even enough to control a congressional committee. Government corn subsidies command a bigger political constituency in Congress. Sure, the left in general doesn’t denounce the identarian and occasionally pays empty lip service to their lingo. That’s politics 101- you don’t make war on your own wingers, there’re no votes to be gained in doing so.

                I absolutely agree with you that the identarian left presents all kinds of marketing problems for the left in general. What I am utterly baffled by is why you keep uncritically repeating the propaganda that claims the identarian left is the left entire? You’re not an identarian, not a republican and barely even conservative- so why keep asserting this thing that is demonstrably not true? Especially when pushing that falsehood improves the odds of it becoming true which, I believe you agree, would be an undesirable thing.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                Name a BLM policy.

                “Defund the Police”

                And, yes, it means everything from “defund the police” to “nobody is arguing that the police be defunded” but I can point to a handful of discussions about the places that talked about defunding the police and what happened after (here’s Minneapolis) to places that defunded but then refunded (here’s Oakland) and the famous Congressional Phone Call where congresspeople were shouting about how they need to never mention defunding the police ever again (Here’s us discussing Spanberger).

                we don’t have to wrestle with the fact that these unrepresentative left wing fringe people are driving policy because the identarian fringe ARE NOT DRIVING POLICY

                Looking at our Spanberger conversation from November, I’d be happy to change the phrasing to “be perceived to be driving policy”.

                As for the honorable High Priest Ibram X. Kendi and his anti-racist movement, they’re certainly in vogue right now but where’re the bills?

                Where’s the bills?
                Or where are the policies?

                Because I can show you where it’s being pointed out that it’s not enough to merely be “not racist” right now… and how one must be “anti-racist”. Laws? No.

                Policies? I can dig some stuff up, if you want. Then we can argue over how representative these onesy-twosy stories are.

                What I am utterly baffled by is why you keep uncritically repeating the propaganda that claims the identarian left is the left entire?

                What I am repeating is the fact that if someone is opposed to the identarian left, they get to choose between the right-wingers who are actively opposing the identarians and the left-wingers who explain that the identarians are not representative of the left-wingers and if one is motivated by opposition, only one of those two positions “feels” like opposition to identarianism.

                And in a binary system, only crazy people look for a third option.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                If ya wanna roll it back to “perceived to be driving policy” that seems defensible to me so long as you acknowledge you’re a literal (small) part of the forces promulgating that perception.

                I think a thoughtful intelligent person like what you described in your initial comment is capable of recognizing a false binary when they see one.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                I’m a fan of the third option.

                But I pride myself on collecting new perspectives to look at things from and there are quite a few where the identarians are a force that will be reckoned with for a generation or two rather than a bunch of college kids who will become Bidencrats the second they get their jobs at the investment bank.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                Eh, I have no delusions that identarianism is just gonna be outgrown. I also don’t nurture the fantasy that conservatives desperately wish-cast at liberals that identarianism is going to devour liberalism. Identarianism is too self-contradicting and incoherent to present a serious ideological threat. Also it mostly gets its oomph from the fact that it has caught fire in two deeply distressed and highly visible fields: the academy and the media. What happens when those fields face the looming fiscal reckoning?

                Likewise, identarianism is, frankly, too cheaply resolved on the corporate level: just hire a few minorities, do a lot of pointless signaling pap and ignore social media. That stuff is going to go sour and stale really fast in our modern society. Jesse Jackson went from civil rights crusader to racial grifter over the course of, what, 30-40 years? Identarianism is lousy with grifters and it’s only a few years old.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                What happens when those fields face the looming fiscal reckoning?

                They’d better hope that they got enough of the Democrats in the House/Senate to get a bill to the President.

                I think that there’s a shot at some zombie juice being shot into the veins of the student debt thing. Likely a bill to “help support important journalism” as well.

                I don’t think that Identarianism is going to be successful in 20 years. Absolutely not.

                But it’ll be because it seriously overplayed its hand over the next 10.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                Sure, and if we’re talking about identarianism overplaying its hand now, when it has repeatedly failed to demonstrate the ability to move actual politicians? That suggests it’s only going to persist as a media/internet phenomena and while that is not nothin it isn’t the death of liberalism that conservatives imagine it’ll be.

                Naw, liberals will do what they always do- they will just coopt whatever valid points identarianism has and ignore the rest.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                Depending on how you define “liberalism”, the fact that it’s taken over the media and the internet is an indicator of, at the very least, a wound.

                I mean, for what it’s worth, I think that there is a *LOT* of change coming. And much of it won’t be particularly pleasant. And, yes, women and minorities will be hardest hit.

                But it’ll be around the time that the Zoomers start complaining that the Millennials have all of the good jobs and the good real estate and the Millennials will say “NO WE DON’T! THE BOOMERS DO!”

                And Gen X will wonder if they want to say anything but… you know. Whatever.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                As a Gex Xer (or xennial?) I feel that last bit. Millenials and boomers man.Report

        • DensityDuck in reply to North says:

          “Why would any sensible liberal accept being lumped in with and defined by woke fringe left wing loons like you’re doing here?”

          You don’t think that racism is an important problem, then?Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to JS says:

      If conservativism is a state of mind, and that state of mind is Burkean caution and careful thought when addressing legal and cultural innovations, then the letter here is fine.

      My problem with is is that the sort of behavior practiced in today’s public square by those who today call themselves “conservatives” is not about Burkean caution or careful thought when addressing legal and cultural innovations. I cannot name a single Republican of any prominence in American politics today who displays the sort of mentality that the OP reflects. Mitt Romney seems to come closest, and look at all the esteem and respect that’s earned him from the Trumpers who are running the show.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Burt Likko says:

        The number of true Burkeans can probably fit into a conference room at a moderate sized Marriot in Salem.Report

        • CJColucci in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          I wonder what a true Burkean would be these days? A fair number of people can imitate, with much less skill, the sonorous rolling periods that don’t say anything concrete enough to disagree with. But when you get down to the grubby details, there’s little there there. Does anyone really find the “arguments” Burke gave for the privileges of the established church and the rotten borough system that his patrons used to install him in Parliament any more persuasive than saying in pompous language “that’s how we do things around here”?
          Certainly, there are “conservatives” who are simply attached to the established order and temperamentally disinclined to upset too many applecarts. You can actually discuss things with that sort of conservative, at least as long as they don’t pretend to have a philosophy about it.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci says:

            Someone who argued for a country a lot like the one we had in the 90’s and needed reasons to do anything differently than Bill Clinton did.

            The liberalism of 25 years ago. Frozen in amber.Report

  6. Mikkhi Kisht says:

    As a 42 year old squishy Moderate who only started voting D in the last three years, what would it take for me to go conservatism? Do I want vengeance or a solution?

    I want something that lives in the spaces between vengeance & justice. An apology, an admission that hating me for being of the wrong demographics yet entitled to my vote for those R candidates who claim to hate my guts, due to the state I live in, is authoritarian arrogance. Before anything can be fixed, those that broke it need to own their bag & dump their toxic legislation towards those different than them. To permanently turn away from the tactics of ‘anyone not like us are less than human.’ Until then, I will vote for flattened Solo cups & a Beto or two before I pull a lever for the Cruzes of conservatism ever again.Report

  7. What I would say:

    “You know something worth conserving? A 200-year history of peaceful transfer of power. You know who broke that. Act accordingly.”Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Mike Schilling says:

      “At the heart of our republic is a commitment to the peaceful transfer of power among political rivals in accordance with law. President Ronald Reagan described this as our American “miracle.””

      Liz Cheney, whose face in all future Republican photos will be a blurry dot.Report

      • North in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        The GOP continues to surprise, I honest to God(ess?) don’t know where they’re going to go. 2022 and 2024 will be one heck of a ride.Report

        • Philip H in reply to North says:

          They are driving further to Nativist Fascism in service of white male minority rule.Report

          • North in reply to Philip H says:

            Perhaps they are but can they make that fly in elections? With Trump? Without Trump? How much of the remaining policy stuff they care about can be carried on that structure? Do they even have policy stuff they care about*? It shall be very interesting to find out.

            *Outside of immigration the Trump years suggest “mostly no”.Report

            • Philip H in reply to North says:

              The Republican state legislatures are working very hard to make that fly in the 2022 elections. House Republicans are working hard to make that fly in the 2022 election as their path back to a House majority.

              And no, they no longer care about policy, especially when they are out of power. Should they retake power, I expect they will continue to deal with judicial appointments and deficit hawk stuff to try and get the regulatory state crushed while cutting taxes again. McConnell has already told us what he intends to do until 22.Report

            • Saul Degraw in reply to North says:

              They have lots of states with aging and white populations that decided team blue is why all the kids left and who seethe in resentment at the death of manly jobs. They have state legislatures willing to gerrymander and enact vote suppression laws with surgical precession.

              We have Manchin and Sinema who would probably choose to save the filibuster even if you showed them an alternative future where Republicans march them into concentration camps. We have voters who tut tut when you suggest Ginsburg should have retired in 2009 when she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and Breyer should retire now because that “politicizes” the Supreme Court. We have voters who get angry when you call out Republicans because it is not using the dulcet tones of a tea party.

              Democratic voters overlearned middle school civics and confuse it for how government actually works.Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to North says:

          Fascist and apartheid. They are going fascist and apartheid. Pretending otherwise is denial. Saying it is impolite to point this out is also useless. Democracies can fall because politeness leads to inaction and denial.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

            Hey, North. See?Report

            • North in reply to Jaybird says:

              Hmmm see what?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                Social pressure.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                Saul’s been Sauling since well before the identarians went on the march (love you Saul).Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                Okay. Just making sure you saw it.

                (And, for what it’s worth, I’m not entirely sure that his opposition to fascism and apartheid goes as far as he’s communicating but we’ll see in the coming months, I guess.)Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird says:

                I’m not sure what “apartheid” means in this context. Building walls at the national borders doesn’t come close to meeting that definition.

                Xenophobia, yes. Isolationism, maybe. Protectionism (as opposed to free trade), likely.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to North says:

                Insert David From quote about conservatives choosing conservatism over democracy here.

                The GOP’s reaction to losing Georgia was not moderation but enacting to law to prevent it from happening again and stripping their secretary of state from election power because of his criticism of Trump. Other states with GOP legislatures are doing the same. There is a company called cyber ninjas that is performing an “audit” of Arizona’s ballots again and announced a forensic test to look for rice paper out of an unbaked conspiracy theory that Asia sent 40K of illegal ballots to Arizona for Biden.

                Liz Cheney looks like she will lose her no. 3 spot because of Trump criticism and there is a good chance Trump will be the nominee in 2024 even if he is in full dementia and incapacitated.

                So why is it Saul being Saul to say that the GOP is quadrupling down on anti-democratic action and lies and conspiracy theories? Why is it Saul being Saul to state that they are embracing fascism and apartheid? These are charges that should be leveled and maintained before it is too late to prevent things from going that way. Being a walk me a slow slow moderate who abhors anything but dulcet tea party tones does not help here. Everyone thought the Nazis were a bunch of clowns who could not get their act together and pooh poohed on people who took them seriously as chicken little alarmists.

                Why are we letting be the same here?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                There is a deep rooted It Can’t Happen Here mentality in America.

                We know this because It Already Has Happened Here, many times over.

                America has had pogroms, ethnic cleansing, slavery, apartheid and all the loaded terms we use when other nations do it, but somehow its different when it happens here.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                If you need to reach further than 60 years back to make your point, then it’s probably not a current problem.

                If you’re doing that in an effort to take the moral high ground when what you really mean is “you don’t like the other team”, then you’re not really taking the moral high ground.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                If you were to read any history textbooks from the Jim Crow era, or the Gilded Age, do you imagine they would be saying “Wow, modern day America is experiencing pogroms, ethnic cleansing, repression and injustice!”?

                My point is that liberal democracy in America is a fragile and relatively new development, and can crumble easily.

                If the Republicans win the House its a good bet they will refuse to certify any election they lose, and America will no longer be a viable democracy.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I think anyone from those eras would be shocked at our freedoms and the lack of our ethnic repression.

                What was normal for those eras is so unthinkable now that it’s accusations are used to tar ones political opponents.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Does anyone literally believe that, however bad 2021 is, it wasn’t vastly worse in 1921, and far worse than that in 1821? Well, there are 350-odd millions Americans, some of them very odd, so there are probably a few hundred people who believe anything, but you know what I mean.
                And if the answer is, as it must be, “no,” then obviously we’re in the world of metaphor, in which such comparisons are fair game. Joe Biden being a socialist and all.Report

              • North in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                I don’t particularly disagree with Frums’ analysis (had to pause and double check the Frum article in question to make absolutely certain there- ish, strange times). The Republican party and the conservative ideology it serves as the political wing of is in crisis- I don’t think there’s any controversy in saying so. Their old high-minded principles (to the extent they ever followed them) have collapsed into naked hypocrisy, corruption, nativism and populism. They have also basically been coopted by their own specialized media apparatus which is virtually running the movement at this point.

                The difference between you and I, my friend, is that you wish to be righteous and rally the believers on the internet and I am more interested in the brutal task of actually winning. I have absolutely no doubt that trumpeting cries of fascism and apartheid are very cathartic for you and persuasive to everyone that we already have voting for the left. I am deeply skeptical, however, that it is very effective at moving those lower info mushy middlers and unhappy moderate conservatives who command the margin of victory in actual elections in this infuriating, vast country.

                And we do need to win because successive losses are the only way the GOP and conservativism will ever snap out of this brutal ideological seizure, they are in. They need to lose over and over again until there’s no longer power or profit to be gained from doing what they’re trying to do and persuing what they’re choosing to persue. They won’t stop because you somehow rip the scales from their eyes and they suddenly go “By God the Lefties are right! We truly are fascist apartheid fetishists drunk on racism, sexism and heteronormativity! We need to get woke!” Please. They will only stop if they’re going broke and sitting in the minority because of these actions.

                And what does it take to win? It requires laser focusing on policy that the conservatives, in their convulsed spasm, struggle to demonize even within their propaganda wings. It means lowering the temperature of rhetoric that’s coming from the actual elected officials from our party because fiery denunciations from politicians only please the voters they already have and energize the voters for their opponents. It requires keeping control of ourselves because when we explode in rage and indignation it only titillates the conservatives who live on the internet to “own the libs” and want nothing more than to squat, rent free, in our own heads and make us froth and bubble incoherently so the unpersuaded or the comfortable are given cover to think the left is as deranged as the right is. It requires trying, somehow, to keep our ideological wing from elevating stupid fishing bullsh*t that sends anyone who isn’t a left winger running for the exits EVEN WHEN there’s an entire right wing media apparatus and (more than half of the normal media too) that just LIVES to signal boost and elevate every bullsh*t deranged left-wing notion that some idiot university academic with more degrees (or career desperation) than common sense brain cells idly trots out.

                And it takes acknowledging the reality that neither you nor I are 100% right. Because I would like to think I’m focused on winning enough to recognize that smug fishin’ moderates like me are not the kind of people who can reliably inspire nor am I the kind of person who has the stones to go get my ass kicked and my life wrecked in service of a high principle (until things get really, really unambiguously bad and God[ess?] help us if it gets that bad). I’m aware of my own history enough to know that the good things in life I enjoy were bought with the blood of the radicals AS WELL as the guile of the pragmatists.

                You see I recognize how dangerous the poisons festering in the right are right now. Which is why I’m willing to focus on winning instead of focusing on feeling good on the internet so that the right can be contained until it burns out and turns into something worthy of kicking the lefts butt in elections fair and square. So rage on the left, Saul, we need those idealistic idiots to turn out and maintain enough of a rag of practicality in their brains that they don’t go careening off after the third party bait our opponents eagerly lay out for them. I’ll battle in the trenches in the middle pointing out that no the post gender abolish capitalism (what even is capitalism lol??) militant vegan commissar on twitter doesn’t define the left and hope the radicals keep making us fishing smug moderates uncomfortable enough that we don’t devolve into checking out or being captured by comfortable corporate and institutional corruption.

                But most of all we need to win.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                Why is it Saul being Saul to state that they are embracing fascism and apartheid?

                Because “apartheid” has a meaning and the GOP’s current delve into fantasy isn’t even close to it.

                Nor do I see them nibbling at the margins of election law even close to say, court packing or senate packing.Report

  8. CJColucci says:

    You can’t argue with the merely dispositional conservative because dispositional conservatism isn’t specific enough to grapple with. The tendency to accept what we’re used to simply because we’re used to it is well-nigh universal. It explains why I’m wearing pants right now instead of a kilt or a toga. (Well, it’s rather chilly today for a toga. But kilts would be great. When I have to replace my suits, it is always because of wear in the crotch and upper thighs. Kilts wouldn’t present that problem.) The insight that things are more complicated than the simple-minded, whether of the left or the right, think is painfully obvious — and generally discarded, even ridiculed, whenever necessary to defend whatever shiny object has caught the Magpie’s attention. You can find plenty of examples at this site. Appeals to “tradition” turn out to be appeals to whatever aspect of our multifarious past we find appealing. John Calhoun and Frederick Douglass are both part of our tradition. When you’re simply picking from among the available sides of our tradition, have the decency to admit it rather than make the Argument From Typography. And try not to be too obvious when you swing from pondering Chesterton’s gate to “burn it all down.”Report

    • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci says:

      Here’s some George Bernard Shaw:

      “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

      The statement is true… but it kinda needs to be tempered with some Carl Sagan:

      “They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”Report

      • North in reply to Jaybird says:

        Holy fish, that Sagan quote is dynamite!Report

        • CJColucci in reply to North says:

          And so easily forgotten by so many who think that people laughing at them proves their point.Report

        • Marchmaine in reply to North says:

          Is it? Is it supposed to be ironic? I don’t think I get it.

          I mean, you’re supposed to laugh at Bozo, that’s success… who’s the most spectacular failed inventor that everyone laughed at? That would provide the ‘heightened contradiction’

          But if the idea is that there are no clowns who think themselves geniuses… well then… that’s good news for me, I guess.Report

          • North in reply to Marchmaine says:

            Strikes me as prescriptive:
            “They laughed at Einstein and the Wright Brothers, the fools. Have faith in your self and your beliefs.”
            But they laughed at Bozo the Clown, who is implied to be a ridiculous figure. Don’t get drunk on your own awesomeness, you could be Einstein but don’t forget you could be the clown. Self evaluate.Report

            • Marchmaine in reply to North says:

              But if I’m Bozo I want you to laugh at me… all my self-evaluation points to: spectacular success!

              Einstein:Scientists:Bozo:Clowns

              But then, I’ve never really been impressed by Carl Sagan… so maybe the true lesson is the clowns we meet along the way.Report

              • North in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Yeah I see your point but if we extend our dissection a little deeper then Bozo the Clown wants merely to make you laugh and is not trying to prove anything about the world whereas Einstein/Scientists seek something more serious and lasting. So if one believes, truly, in what ever given thing they’re pushing for, they still would wish to be Einstein who changed how we see the world vs Bozo who made people laugh for a couple minutes.

                But we’re really tearing the poor lil quote apart on a rack at this point.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine says:

            They laughed at “Mad” Mike Hughes…after he crashed and died in his homemade rocket while trying to prove the earth is flat.

            https://www.tmz.com/2020/02/22/daredevil-mad-mike-hughes-dead-dies-rocket-crash-land/Report

      • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird says:

        “They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. They laughed ar Fredrickson.”

        “Who’s Fredrickson?”

        “My uncle. He was a lunatic.”Report

  9. Rufus F. says:

    It’s a tricky thing because what you’re describing here, very well I might add, is a *mood* rather than a *movement* and well, we have a movement that calls itself “conservative” and sometimes it corresponds with the mood, and sometimes it very much does not.Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to Rufus F. says:

      Like I wrote above, I think the OP is describing a kind of conservatism that, while it may still technically still exist, is very much not in the contemporary public discourse. Like I wrote a few days ago, contemporary conservatives (or rather the people calling themselves that) appear to lack a) the (defensible and reasonable) attitude described in the OP; b) the ability to identify problems; or c) the ability to think beyond bromides when tasked with proposing solutions to problems. Rather, they possess 1) strong flock instincts and sometimes sufficient charisma to take a point position within the flock; 2) distaste-bordering-on-contempt, rather than caution, when confronted with cultural innovation; and 3) often, a good sense of political tactics and the ability to maneuver rules to tactical advantage.Report

  10. Burt Likko says:

    Burkean conservatism, the mindset I read in the OP, is a valuable part of a public debate, particularly a public debate about cultural rather than economic or legal innovations.

    My problem with it is that eventually, Burkeanism necessarily must fail. It is the ideology that always says to an innovation, “No, not yet.” Eventually, an innovation is needed. Eventually, someone has to say, “Okay, let’s try that now,” because yesterday’s answers do not always resolve today’s questions, whether or not yesterday’s answers were actually right.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Burt Likko says:

      In a single area, there might be 9 policy ideas that are terrible and/or before their time. The tenth idea might be the right thing at the right time. Do the first 9 bullets dodged count as failures of Burkean conservatism?

      Note also that the scenario I just gave was in a single area of policy. If caution prevents bad actions in all the other areas, can Burkean conservatism be called a failure?

      Last point, or quibble: you call Burkean conservatism an ideology. This may be the heart of the problem. It’s more a bias or a critique. Ideologies may incorporate it, but it is not itself ideological.Report

  11. Saul Degraw says:

    As this thread unfurled, the GOP looks like it is going quadruple down on Trump’s Big Lie and will strip Cheney of her seat position in favor of Harvard-educated opportunist Stefanik. A woman who spreads lies despite knowing better. A company called Cyber Ninjas is doing a chemical analysis of Arizona ballots for rice paper to prove 40k illegal ballots were shipped from Asia to Arizona. Another completely nuts bonkers lie.

    The most Burkean people I know are liberals who want to work out all the potential adverse reactions before enacting a policy change and whose personal lives tend to be neat and orderly. Conservative in this country now means nothing more than hating the libs, fellow (((rootless cosmopolitans))), and other minorities. At least the Bulwark staff realize the GOP must be destroyed.Report

  12. Saul Degraw says:

    Comment in mod.Report