New Conservatives: Do You Want Vengeance, Or A Solution?

Avi Woolf

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

Related Post Roulette

113 Responses

  1. Philip H says:

    Imagine a world where those of us who entered public service under George W. Bush, then served under Mr. Obama, then Mr. Trump and now Mr. Biden weren’t constantly ridiculed in alleged think pieces like this one.Report

  2. CJColucci says:

    The headline asks what they want. The essay addresses what they need.Report

  3. DensityDuck says:

    “the idea of simply having elected officials bark orders at bureaucrats for populist ends would make any elected official shake their head in mirth at the naivete.”

    this is amusing because one of the extremely common liberal complains from 2008-2016 was that those stupid fussy bullheaded Established Civil Servants didn’t simply do what the President said and fix all the problems.

    “the people running that administrative state will still be human beings. Specifically, human beings that may not be on your side. ”

    yes, that’s certainly true, some of them will be like Kim Davis. (others will be like Daniel Pantaleo.) are you okay with that?

    “magine all that money thrown down the drain for those glorified book clubs and endless self-serving conferences spent to train and encourage the creation of a cadre of conservative school administrators. Or city officials. Or budget department eggheads. Or cultural departments. Or any other department you can think of.”

    I think the “conservative” position would be to ask why all those people are the ones who run the show. Because none of them were elected! By anyone! There’s no way to get different people if we don’t like how they run things! If I want, e.g., an FDA that assumes individual human variation in response to pharmaceuticals is of greater diversity than self-reported demographic categories and thus greatly simplifies recruitment requirements for clinical trials, I don’t have a way to do that; the bureaucrats we’ve got are the ones we’re gonna get, and — as you point out — an elected official who says “do whatever it was that guy just said” are gonna get a bemused head-shake and a smirk of annoyance in reply.Report

  4. Damon says:

    The managerial state will continue to grow and expand as that’s what it does. It accrues power to itself, grows and grows. There is no fixing this without a fundamental change in organization, gov’t itself, or people. Since that’s not going to happen, I’m content to wait and see if I live out the collapse of the Americana empire or if I’ll die in the during it. Either way, I’m good.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_jNklBqVCA&ab_channel=RichardCoveneyReport

  5. Chip Daniels says:

    Avi asks us to imagine a conservative administrative state.

    Which is a brilliant question, and I say brilliant because I myself have asked this a dozen times.

    In Florida, Ron DeSantis is showing us his vision of such a state, where the state educational system is used to write conservative opinions into dogma enforceable at the point of a gun.

    In Virginia, Youngkin’s appointee is planning to purge the system of any opinions he finds disagreeable.

    I don’t know if this is what Avi wants, but it is very much what a majority of Republican base votes seem to want.Report

  6. Pinky says:

    I’m probably just reacting to a pet peeve here, but you’re not going to get good government without Great Books.Report

    • Measure Twice in reply to Pinky says:

      Great Books are written all the time. The difficulty is in figuring out which ones are worth reading, of course. See “A Young Ladies Illustrated Primer” for an early rendition of “how to effectively teach people.”
      Latter renditions will prove more valuable, as more data is consumed and intuited into more effective formulations.Report

  7. Jaybird says:

    What is the point of civil service?

    If it’s to provide white-collar employment to people, I don’t see what the problem is with what’s going on.Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to Jaybird says:

      The point of civil service is to implement public policy free from the influence of politics.

      Before we had civil service, we had the spoils system in which people were picked for jobs for the dual purposes of making sure policies were implemented by people who believed in them and to reward and enrich those same people for their loyalties to particular people, parties, ideologies, or belief systems.

      Intentionally grooming a cadre of people who are chosen for their adherence to the ideology of conservatism as candidates for selection into jobs that are ostensibly supposed to be apolitical will have an effect on how the civil service segments thus impacted will behave. To wit, consider the intentional grooming of a cadre of conservative people for the federal judiciary: packing the bench with Federalist Society loyalists has NOT created a neutral judiciary nor enhanced public trust in the courts.

      Let’s not do the same thing with the civil service.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Burt Likko says:

        Yeah, I guess it’d be really bad if the civil service got infiltrated with people who were primarily of a particular political ideology.Report

      • Pinky in reply to Burt Likko says:

        It’s created a more neutral judiciary. Not where it should be, but better than at any point in my lifetime.

        A more interesting comparison is liberals and journalism. To some extent, pre-packaged liberals are encouraged to go into journalism, but also the schools teach prospective journalists to be liberals. I’d like to see sound-minded people encouraged to civil service, no matter what political leaning, and also colleges teach potential civil servants in a more balanced way. That’s my hesitation about Avi’s article. His model sounds more like infiltration. I just want graduates to not be narrow.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

          The is no neutrality acceptable to conservatives since the premise of liberal democracy is what they find so objectionable.Report

        • Slade the Leveller in reply to Pinky says:

          I’m not sure neutral is the right word for 2023’s federal judiciary. It’s kind of like a town that claims to be integrated because it has a balanced mix of races, but they each live on their own side of town.Report

        • Jesse in reply to Pinky says:

          More liberal people end up in journalism because the pay sucks and 40 years of “THE MEDIA IS LIBERAL” claims.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Jesse says:

            Eh, nobody goes into a field *because of* the lousy pay. They’re willing to go into a field with lousy pay because they believe in something (or because they’re misinformed about the pay potential). People who go into journalism to change the world are largely liberal; people who go into it to report the truth could be anything or nothing.Report

            • InMD in reply to Pinky says:

              I actually think it’s a bit more nuanced. On the one hand I think that there are pursuits in life that just have an inherent ideological component, and journalism in the old fashioned sense is one of them. It is hard for me to envision a world where the press in a liberal democracy does not at least lean liberal. Whatever the disposition is, it isn’t conservative in the small c sense.

              However, when it comes to todays partisan identification, I do think economics play into it, but not quite the way you guys are saying. I have no statistics to back this up, but one of my favorite activities is to google the authors of the stories I read at WaPo. It is downright shocking how many of them come from not just upper middle class but quite wealthy, well known, well connected families. Again, maybe I’m wrong, but I think the parallel isn’t the starving artist so much as the person born with the silver spoon who was able to pursue journalism despite the poor economic returns because they had someone else to pay the bills.Report

  8. Marchmaine says:

    There’s something to this. Bureaucracies are personnel; and personnel is policy.

    Among the many failings of Trump that was knowable the day he rode down the escalator was that he had no team, no allies, no ‘shadow cabinet’ or anything like a movement that’s needed to staff and manage whatever changes of course your policies might require.

    I don’t think it’s entirely a matter of reinstating the old ‘spoils’ system of staffing – it would be impossible anyway given the numbers. Also, given the numbers, there’s already significant support within those organizations for ‘conservative’ views.

    So I agree that the performative railing against clouds that’s a stand-in for bureaucracies in general is good to criticize; I’d redirect slightly and start with articulating ‘opposition’ positions on the role of, say, the Dept. of Education or Commerce, or State, etc. etc.

    Bracketing fever dreams of abolishing entire cabinet level departments; it’s more important to articulate what good Education policy would look like. So too with State or Transportation or whatever. The (only?) way to reform bureaucracies is to provide a ‘path dependent’ incrementally new vision of what good outcomes look like. Then it’s promote, promote, hire, hire, deliver, deliver.

    But, you need the new vision of good plus the opportunity for someone to want to do that to even begin to promote or hire with any sort of effect. Plus, your time horizon has to be measured in multiple administrative terms, maybe decades.

    Too much of ‘conservative’ policy on this matter has been determined by the libertarian faction of de-regulation vs. good regulation. This was a Republican thing owing to the coalition, but it’s not in any way a conservative thing.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Marchmaine says:

      it’s more important to articulate what good Education policy would look like.

      This is a great example. 46 state level secretaries of education (many Republican) wrote the Common Core standard years back. Then when the Obama Administration turned around and said “great, we will let the states guide us by adopting this as a national standard” those same states lost their damned minds in trying to stop it while railing about Democratic overreach in the federal Department of Ed.

      Plus, your time horizon has to be measured in multiple administrative terms, maybe decades.

      The current time horizon in DC is the 16 or months between the start of a new Congress and when House members have to get serious with their reelections. Very little of substance can be accomplished in this time window.

      I don’t think it’s entirely a matter of reinstating the old ‘spoils’ system of staffing – it would be impossible anyway given the numbers.

      It would also violate current federal law, and it would mean we learned nothing from the excesses of that era that created professional civil service to begin with.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to Philip H says:

        1. Like Immigration Policy… sometimes the ‘leaders’ articulate policies that aren’t accepted by their teams. Could be that the policy is bad, could be that the policy wasn’t ‘socialized’ and vetted first, or both. Sometimes Leadership isn’t Leading.

        2. Yes, the only meaningful achievement in this 16-month cycle for Team Red would be articulating notions of good that aren’t simply avoidance of bad. I don’t think the goal will be achieved this cycle (if you’re asking).

        3. Yes, I don’t think the spoils system is even remotely possible with 1,869,986 Federal Employees. But if I did, the Civil Service Reform acts would simply be the first thing you’d reform. Probably the Reforms due need reforming… but that’s just ongoing good governance.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Marchmaine says:

          1. Like Immigration Policy… sometimes the ‘leaders’ articulate policies that aren’t accepted by their teams. Could be that the policy is bad, could be that the policy wasn’t ‘socialized’ and vetted first, or both. Sometimes Leadership isn’t Leading.

          Please. Neither party has been serious about immigration policy, much less its reform. Biden’s apprehensions are UP compared to Trump in the same time period in his first term (just like Obama’s were ABOVE Bush’s in the same period and over his 8 years), so I doubt the team is fomenting rebellion against the leadership.

          What’s so wrong with the way civil service is currently done that the spoils system is so appealing?Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

            If yelling “NO PERSON IS ILLEGAL” isn’t serious, I don’t know what is.

            Did you see Alex Nowrasteh’s (from CATO!) arguments about why more immigration is good?

            Intriguing!Report

            • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

              I don’t twitter, so no I hadn’t seen it. But that a Cato guy would write such things is completely unsurprising.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                I suppose that one of the questions most worth ignoring is “is he right?”

                And any followup questions after that.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                What causes immigration to have such an effect is also a question worth asking.

                And whether a different immigration policy might produce a different effect.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                We jumped right into “yes, it does”.

                Well, I know that Canada’s immigration policies include wanting immigrants that will benefit Canada (and this is measured by stuff like “can you speak the language”, “Do you have necessary skills”, “do you have a lot of money”).Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                I don’t know. I was just assuming his assertion for the sake of argument, and asking if he, or you, knows why it happens.

                And it doesn’t sound like either of you do.

                Right now, lacking any other input, it sounds like both of you are just making a causal connection- As immigration goes up, unions go down.

                Without any deeper understanding of either, it weakens any sort of or policy recommendation you might have.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Wait, so you jumped to “he and you” and since you asked me a question, you’re jumping to “neither he nor you know the answer to the question”?

                Nice trick.

                But, for the record, he explains why it happens.

                A diverse population reduces social solidarity, which is good for economic growth because people don’t want wealth-destroying policies to help out people who look different.

                He wrote an entire paper about the union issue. You can read it here (warning: PDF).

                Watch out, you may quickly find yourself saying “I don’t have the training required to interpret this information.”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                You’re using him as a proxy for your own arguments, so I direct my questions at the both of you.

                So lets take his(your) argument.

                Why do you accept the idea that a diverse society reduces social solidarity?
                Is this universally true, or only true under certain circumstances?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                No, I’m not using him as a proxy for my own arguments, though I do agree that the phenomenon that he describes exists.

                I think that immigration is, on the whole, a good thing and that illegal immigration is, on the whole, a bad thing and that we should revamp how we do immigration (I’ve posted before about my own personal experience with the byzantine immigration system as it existed prior to 9/11).

                But, at this point, I’m merely pointing out a very interesting admission from one of the most pro-immigration folks out there.

                When asked if there’s anything to back up the position, I posted a 50 page paper that he wrote to back his position up.

                Why do you accept the idea that a diverse society reduces social solidarity?

                Because multiculturalism, in practice, involves more than EPCOT’s World Pavilion. We’ve discussed this before, you know.

                Why do you accept the idea that a diverse society reduces social solidarity?

                It does seem to happen where diversity increases.

                There was some success, in the past, with some sort of “melting pot” theory of immigration but, from what I understand, that theory has fallen by the wayside. It was a “salad bowl” theory for about a decade before that went away too.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                I know we’ve talked about,, which is why I wanted to tease it out into the open.

                The argument you are struggling to make is that immigration poses a dilemma for liberals where we can have diversity or solidarity but not both.

                The inverse relationship between diversity and solidarity seems like a myth without any sort of support.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                The inverse relationship between diversity and solidarity seems like a myth without any sort of support.

                Big Labor was adamantly against immigration until pretty recently (2013?). That’s why Team Blue was the anti-immigration party back when the Clintons were in the WH.

                Cato’s seriously pro-immigration stance is in part because immigration reduces unionization. https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-reduce-unionization-united-statesReport

              • Wchip_aia@yahoo.com in reply to Dark Matter says:

                These are two different claims.

                One is that immigration weakens unionization.

                Another is that diversity weakens solidarity.

                Which are you asserting here?Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Wchip_aia@yahoo.com says:

                I think both are pretty straightforward.

                Immigration increases diversity.

                Unions require solidarity in order to function.

                So we’d expect that increasing immigration would weaken both unionization and solidarity.

                Immigrants can have wildly different (i.e. diverse) political views, cultural views, and religious views. Both from the American mainstream and from each other.

                If your “solidarity” requires “everyone having the same view for culture or politics” (i.e. social solidarity), then this seems like an easy logic path.

                “Diversity” in left speak often means “different skin color and/or sexual orientation but not political views”. So when Colleges talk about “increasing diversity”, that’s what they mean.

                Real “diversity” means “different everything, including opinions”, which by definition is going to reduce agreement (i.e. solidarity).Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                So…
                Allowing conservative opinions on campus weakens solidarity then?

                Is that a good thing?Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Allowing conservative opinions on campus weakens solidarity then?

                Yes.

                Is that a good thing?

                Depends on whether you value diversity (as in, actual diversity) over solidarity.

                I’d say yes.Report

              • P -> Q
                Q -> R

                Well? WHICH IS IT? IS IT IF P THEN Q OR IF Q THEN R?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

                I know that Canada’s immigration policies include wanting immigrants that will benefit Canada

                Funny how all the undocumented migrants in the uS benefit the US, but right leaning politicians and the business owners they represent always want to make the undocumented immigrants responsible for the system that makes it so, while denying those immigrants the benefits of that structure.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                The benefits of undocumented dreamers who only want a better life for themselves and their families are privatized.

                The costs are socialized.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

                NO. Hard no. Those folks work, they pay taxes, they buy goods in local stores. They buy cars and houses. They attend and support churches. The benefits are not privatized in any sense of the word. And they help support the costs they incur. There are not 11 million undocumented migrants sucking at the proverbial teet of the safety net.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                Yeah, we get into this periodically. We’ve argued about it several times now.

                Let me say, again: I am one of the people who benefits from undocumented dreamers who only want a better life for themselves and their families.

                I just also know that there’s more to “solidarity” than “well, *I* benefit from this. So do they. What’s the problem?”Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird says:

                If we’re going to talk about immigration then let me point out the rest of the world is looking at population crashes. We should be stealing as many healthy smart young people as we can.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Hells yeah! Dark Brandon keeps winning!

                Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird says:

                Bit of hysteria there.

                Total number of child labor violations: 3,876
                Bulk of that is places where it’s appropriate for minors to work, so they put in too many hours at the fast food chain or grocery.

                Yes, we also have a sub-category of that working dangerous jobs, and we also have immigrants. That these articles don’t include those numbers is strongly suggestive that it’s a tiny sub-fraction.

                It’s a problem, it’s rare to the same level as “killed by bolt of lightning”.Report

          • Marchmaine in reply to Philip H says:

            I said the spoils system isn’t appealing *and* that it’s unpossible.

            Basically I’m saying that ‘conservative’ civil service should be done that same way ‘liberal’ civil service is done.

            Mission Statement, Hiring, Promotions… I’m agreeing with Avi and being specific that you have to be intentional about what a ‘good’ Dept of Education or Dept of State or Dept of Entergy does and build to support that mission. So I’m obliquely agreeing with possible critiques of Republicans who only define themselves in terms of not-bad – the difference between building a ‘better’ civil service and just undermining one.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Marchmaine says:

              Basically I’m saying that ‘conservative’ civil service should be done that same way ‘liberal’ civil service is done.

              There is no such thing as “Liberal” of “Conservative” civil service. Except for the political appointees who do change with parties in power, the civil service is the civil service. Granted, Democrat sdo seem to be more attracted to civil service, but they make up half the federal workforce, with Republicans and independents making up the other half.

              It was also no surprise that the researchers confirmed that Democrats outnumber Republicans or Independents in the federal workforce, as has long been public perception. Democrats made up about half of the workforce during the 1997-2019 data period (compared with about 41% of the U.S. population). Meanwhile, registered Republicans dropped from 32% to 26% during the period, with an increase in Independents making up the difference. The most heavily Democratic departments are the EPA, Department of Education, and the State Department, where about 70% of employees are registered to the party, while the most conservative departments are Agriculture and Transportation.

              https://www.newswise.com/articles/study-finds-the-cost-of-partisanship-among-federal-workersReport

              • Marchmaine in reply to Philip H says:

                You’re talking personnel – which I also stated above would be inclusive of conservatives – though your quote seems to be making a stronger case for a sub-point of mine, that the more you align the mission with objectives attractive to one political vision the more you get of that team as it aligns with the objectives.

                I’m being explicit that the Civil Service is in service to the direction given to the depts they serve. You specify the mission, then Hire, Promote, Fund, Deliver etc. Recruiting for Missions that align ‘better’ with conservative notions will go better for recruiting people who want to support those missions.

                In fact, while working out on the eliptical I’ve often thought I should write a category scrambler: The Conservative Case for DEI: How to code and signal for Hiring.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Marchmaine says:

                I’m being explicit that the Civil Service is in service to the direction given to the depts they serve. You specify the mission, then Hire, Promote, Fund, Deliver etc. Recruiting for Missions that align ‘better’ with conservative notions will go better for recruiting people who want to support those missions.

                Oh boy . . . .

                we are already responsive to the direction given. Happens with each new administration. I’m not doing the same work I did under Mr. Bush or Mr. Trump.

                What I read in your example – is the you have tor REHIRE, REPORMOTE etc with each new administration, so conservatives are doing conservative work under a GOP administration and then switch under Democrats. That’s not a workable solution, in no small measure because you’d loos significant experience in basic government functions every time. Never mind that the federal government already has conservative missions that attract conservatives.

                What conservatives REALLY need is to stop voting for candidates who publicly lambaste the workforce they claim they want to lead when they are candidates.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Philip H says:

                Happy to clarify that I’m not specifically calling for HR bloodbaths every time the administration changes.

                Some? Many? Most? Things wouldn’t change much. I mean, taking temperatures, recording things, measuring other things, keeping things open, approving things that need approving just keeps going per usual. But some of those things might be things that get re-directed via ordinary priority setting that’s perfectly legal within the civil service code and funding. That’s why you can’t simply wave a magic wand and have a large corporate enterprise do things differently on a dime.

                Ironically I’m agreeing with the major premises… that doesn’t mean that the Civil Service sets its own agenda.

                I agree, there’s no reason to ‘publicly lambast the workforce’ – I mean that’s Avi’s entire post, yes? – that’s why *I* would be even more dangerous that Trump, more dangerous than RDS, the most dangerous of all for understanding how personnel, incentives and funding shape large corporate organizations. I don’t want to lambast the Civil Bureaucracy, I want it to execute the ‘conservative’ vision I have for good governance. Just like Liberals.

                So, to Chip’s point below, it’s perfectly fine to say, March I hope you never get elected because I can’t stand any of your ideas for ‘conservative good governance’ but I’ll laugh at your attempts to prevent me from promoting, hiring, funding, incentivizing those institutions to deliver them. Just like Liberals do.

                And I’ll give you an example that might (or might not surprise you). I was vocal during the Afghanistan withdrawal that Biden having ordered the military to execute the plan should have held accountable the leaders who either a) poorly executed it, or b) attempted to subvert the decision by underpreparing in the hope they would make the action supremely unattractive.

                In the end, I’m agnostic as to which, but adamant that Biden *ought* to have held leadership responsible; resignations and career ending billets. The military does not get to set their own agenda. Promote, promote, hire, hire. Set the Agenda.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Marchmaine says:

                But some of those things might be things that get re-directed via ordinary priority setting that’s perfectly legal within the civil service code and funding.

                This happens with every administration change. The only thing that slows it down is the Senate dithering on approving political appointees.

                that doesn’t mean that the Civil Service sets its own agenda.

                The closest we come to setting our own agenda is proposals for new starts in the President’s Budget process. Most of those never get above cabinet level, and the few that do are always bounded by OMB’s interpretation of a particular Administration’s priorities. Congressional appropriations do more to set our agenda then the White House some years, because they carry the force of law.

                In the end, I’m agnostic as to which, but adamant that Biden *ought* to have held leadership responsible; resignations and career ending billets. The military does not get to set their own agenda. Promote, promote, hire, hire. Set the Agenda.

                Can you at least acknowledge that Biden might see his folks making the best out of a bad no good options situation? And thus what we on the outside see as bungling might well just be the best performance that can be expected? I mean if we want accountability – where is the accountability for the $1 Trillion that “vanished” in Iraq and Afghanistan in the first 16 years?Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Philip H says:

                “where is the accountability for the $1 Trillion that “vanished” in Iraq and Afghanistan in the first 16 years?”

                Moar accountability is my response.

                Re: Afghanistan, sure, possibly. But honestly that’s just not how accountability works in the Military. If you FUBAR an assignment, that *is* the penalty. Whether the FUBAR is career ending or merely career limiting is the judgement call. I really do think that Biden, either way, erred with poor judgment; we need that accountability, especially in the Military.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Marchmaine says:

                My point is that Biden may not see that as FUBAR – but rather as the best bad option of bad options. You would do greater damage to the military for punishing people for the best bad option.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Philip H says:

                I hear you and acknowledge you. 🙂

                But, I believe that is the wrong way to interpret events; and, even if it were the right way, the Military doesn’t evaluate leadership that way.

                You aren’t punishing them for merely making the best of a bad option, you are evaluating them for not executing a bad option well. There’s a big difference. And that’s granting them an opinion on the Option.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine says:

                You aren’t doing much to distinguish yourself from the DeSantis theory of civil service.

                His theory is that conservative ideas are neutral objective fact while liberal ideas are partisan advocacy.

                As I mentioned, a kindergarten book showing a mommy and daddy is neutral, while the same book showing two mommies is “sexual” and “indoctrination “.

                If this isn’t your notion of what you mean by a conservative civil service you should probably hasten to explain.Report

  9. Deena says:

    Imagine a world where people like Avi managed to talk about these needs without the constant use of the contempt-laden “woke”, “wokery”, “elite” adjectives to describe most civil servants who try to do a good job at their work. Maybe the discussion would go further than the tiny boundaries of the extreme conservatives who disdain everyone outside of their small thought bubble.Report

  10. Imagine your leaders being Trump and DeSantis, and thinking there’s any other reason you’re losing educated people.Report

  11. Murali says:

    Let me put it this way. I’m a libertarian in academia. I’m nowhere near being radical or woke. Yet, I wouldn’t touch these conservatives like DeSantis, Trump or anyone who seems to be big in the republican party with a 10 foot pole (except maybe Romney, but he’s not running for president). Meaning that if you were to put me in the civil service, today’s conservatives still will not like what I do. Today’s republicans by and large are theocratic, transphobic, anti-trade, illiberal, anti-reason, misogynistic and authoritarian. The left has not gone so far off the rails that I would endorse anything like what the current republican party seems to stand for.Report

    • Murali in reply to Murali says:

      Or in short, the current republican party is in so bad shape that the reasonable middle wants to have nothing to do with it.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Murali says:

      Avi is one of the few Republicans/conservatives who insist that Burkeanism is a sincere belief held by many people and he has been so brought up in this group that he can’t admit what the charade is.Report

  12. Saul Degraw says:

    Give up the ghost. The GOP cannot be saved or reformed. There is no real market for Burke or Oakshott or Hayek outside of a small group of conservative nerds who can fit into one of the smaller conference rooms at the Hilton Garden Inn of the Spokane Airport. The “National Conservatives” are doing the same song and dance that gets repeated every few decades about blaming the “elites” for the problems of the forgotten man and woman. Some how those elites end up just being “(((elites)))”. The actual system of plutocracy remains in place. Or they wave the flag and discuss mom and apple pie and claim that the real thing keeping the people down are those liberals who just want to give a more complex and nuanced view on American history instead just stating it is the greatest thing ever.

    Trump and DeSatntis are the real faces of conservatism. The masks are off.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      The fall of Communism untethered American conservatism from its animating force.

      There is no market for Burkean conservatism because the New Deal and the Warren Court decisions are now the tried and true tradition which is being attacked by an insurgency proposing a radical remaking of society.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      That’s funny, I was waiting for you to play the anti-Semitism card, but I just didn’t see how. I figured, the article’s not anti-Semitic, the topic doesn’t suggest anti-Semitism, but still Saul’s here and he disagrees with the article, so someone’s going to get called anti-Semitic. But – you may only know how to play one card but you play it well.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

        This sort of response- “Playing the [X] card”- probably sounds good to other conservatives, but to the rest of us this sounds like a confirmation of the critique that for conservatives, racism, misogyny, homophobia, anti-Semitism are all just non-existent myths, things that may have once existed but are no longer valid.

        And that any mention of it is just a scam, a ruse to gain power over innocent white males.

        This is why we say there are no such things as “moderate” or “reasonable” Republicans, because while they themselves are not googly eyed bigots, googly eyed bigotry isn’t a dealbreaker for them because, well, all that stuff is a non-existent myth.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          If you’re going to constantly lower the bar for what it means to not be racist, and especially if what you mean is “opposes what we want”, then it can’t be a deal breaker.Report

  13. Philip H says:

    Do tell – when and where did these purges occur?Report

  14. Chip Daniels says:

    What do conservatives want?

    This is what they want: A world where all the factors of production are brought under the control of the Party.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/02/27/desantis-now-controls-disney-worlds-special-district-heres-what-that-means/?sh=2aafbbe83e37

    Jewett noted the arrangement will likely make Disney much more beholden to DeSantis when he holds the fate of their business in his hands, and the board being made up of his appointees puts “some pressure on Disney not to criticize Gov. DeSantis.”Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      This is a great example on why Fortune 500 companies mostly avoid taking sides in political fights.

      Far as I can tell, Disney’s leadership is seriously woke and felt the need to oppose Desantis because that’s what all good Team Blue organizations do.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

        Explain this without using the buzzword “Woke”.

        Like is there any way to describe this as anything other than the governor using the power of the state to punish dissent?Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          Normal companies don’t get to be the county/city government for plots of land they own. If Disney is going to be a normal company and engage in pissing matches with the gov, then fine, they can do that…

          …but doing that at the same time they’re also functioning as an arm of the state of Florida seems a little weird.

          This is making them a normal company, which seems to be what they want.

          That’s over and above whether it’s a good idea for a State to donate it’s powers to a company. Any number of dystopian movies and/or horrors have companies functioning like this.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

            See, the governor was very explicit that this was NOT a matter of principal.
            He made it very clear that this was retaliation for Disney saying things he disagreed with.

            Also, there are numerous other special districts in Florida which have a similar arrangement as Disney, but the governor didn’t attack them.

            So try again, and describe why this isn’t an abuse of power.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              the governor was very explicit that this was NOT a matter of principal.

              Weirdly enough, no. Far as I can tell, this is just a claim by various talking heads. Having said that I’m fine with this as an assumption.

              The ability to function as an arm of the government is very much a special favor.

              describe why this isn’t an abuse of power.

              Is it an abuse of power for one arm of the government to tussle with another arm of the government?

              Is it an abuse of power to eliminate an abuse of power? There are serious problems with these districts and I don’t see why they should exist at all.

              …the district has been criticized for acting in the interests of Disney instead of the public. The district has the authority of a governmental body, but is not subjected to the constraints of a governmental bodyReport

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                I’ll assume you haven’t read anything about the circumstances of how and why DeSantis decided to take this action.

                Because the claim that this is merely a principled stand is a baldfaced lie.

                Read up on when this action happened, and why, in response to what.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I said I’m fine assuming it’s not a principled stand.

                That doesn’t change that he’s eliminating a serious abuse of power.

                So he’s picked his battle really, really well.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Conservatives were perfectly fine with this abuse of power right up until the very moment that Disney expressed opposition to the Don’t Say Gay law.

                Then…suddenly…in a flash, conservatives realized they were against it. Some sort of religious conversion, perhaps.

                And to this day, the Villages’ identical abuse of power is, well, somehow acceptable.

                See, this is why I say no one should ever accept conservative’s words at face value, because they are constantly bullsh!tting us.

                You don’t have to do this.
                You can stand up and speak the truth anytime you want.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                In politics we often have the problem that good things can be done from the selfish motivation of politicians.

                Eliminating an abuse of power is a good thing.

                It would be a good thing to outlaw high paid joke jobs given to the children of politicians (like we’ve done for the children of foreign politicians). One of the few ways to get there is for Team Red to decide to go after Hunter Biden’s history of doing that.

                Or alternatively, Team Blue could do that against the children of whatever Red President comes next.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

                One of the few ways to get there is for Team Red to decide to go after Hunter Biden’s history of doing that.

                Or alternatively, Team Blue could do that against the children of whatever Red President comes next.

                Or Team Red could have some stones, admit their team did it in spades in the last Administration – Jared Kushner anyone – and do it to their own team. Then at least we’d have some respect for them.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

                Then at least we’d have some respect for them.

                Define “respect”?

                Not falsely accusing them of making library books felonries? Maybe even willing to vote for them if your guy is caught selling pardons?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Define “respect”?

                Not holding them in laughable contempt because the son in law of a sitting president – while serving that Administration as Special Advisor for the Middle East – received billions in loans and loan guarantees from Saudi Arabia. Yet at the time (and still) any suggestion he should be investigated is met with stiff resistance because we have to run Hunter Biden to the ground first. Which the DoJ I note is still doing.

                If Team Red thinks this sort of trading on Daddy’s name is a problem, they need to clean their own house first.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

                I have zero problem investigating Kushner(?)(*)

                Although my observation is the usual problem is what is legal.

                On a side note, Kushner had a serious resume long before politics. Him managing a large scale real estate wealth fund passes a smell test.

                Without political support, Kushner is still a Billionaire business guy and Hunter… I’m not sure what Hunter does. Far as I can tell his entire career has been trading on his father’s career.

                Having said that, if you made a list of the top 10 GOP congress men by length of service, you’d probably be able to find 5 more just like Hunter.

                (*) Keep in mind Trump’s organization, and by extension Kushner’s, is this massive FU to the basic concept of clean government. The organization has an economic reality that long predates gov and it’s an impossible mess to deal with.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                You’re not being honest here.

                When exactly did you decide that special districts are a bad thing?

                Last week? A month ago? At the precise moment Ron DeSantis decided it was a good way to punish speech he didn’t like?Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                When exactly did you decide that special districts are a bad thing?

                Any number of bad movies ago. However I never realized we actually let corporations serve as the gov in the US outside of fiction.

                When did you decide you were in favor of this?Report

              • Greg In Ak in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Come on. Is rds doing this to any other SD. Today he is talking about this:

                “On Monday, he took matters much further. DeSantis appointed a board to oversee Disney. The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District is stacked with DeSantis cronies, including Bridget Ziegler, a proponent of his education policies; Ron Peri, who heads the Christian ministry the Gathering USA; and Michael Sasso, president of the Federalist Society’s Orlando chapter.

                While the board handles infrastructure and maintenance, DeSantis boasted that it could use its leverage to force Disney to stop “trying to inject woke ideology” on children.”

                from
                https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/desantis-promises-florida-will-control-disney-content.html

                This is far far more then just getting rid of SD”s since he isn’t, you know, doing that. He is trying to do dictate what a private company produces because he doesnt’ like them speaking freely.

                Free speech warriors are largely still asleep.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Greg In Ak says:

                Mechanically, what powers has Disney lost? The board is replacing the previous one, which in turn was acting as a government… which means…

                …take over private property under eminent domain laws and to issue government-backed bonds.

                So in the future, if Disney wants to take over another plot of land or issue gov backed bonds(*), they have to go to this supervising board.

                How exactly is this a problem? How mechanically are they going to shut down Disney’s employees’ free speech?

                Link below on where I got the list of powers being transferred here.

                (*) Yes, really, and I’m floored we let corps do this. Picture Enron able to issue gov backed bonds which can be used to pay for it’s own development.

                https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/12/02/reedy-creek-disney-special-tax-district-legislature/Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                I first became aware of it decades ago when studying building codes,, and to this day I’m ambivalent about it.

                But you sound like a tankie explaining why we have always been at war with East Asia and Comrade Disney was never a loyal party member.

                It isn’t possible to take any of this seriously and conforms my view that there are no “moderate” Republicans since every one of them will tie themselves into knots rationalizing any abuse.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                We were letting Disney issue gov back bonds which, if they’re defaulted upon, wreck the credit rating for the State of Florida.

                I’m pretty sure I’d have thought this a bad idea no matter when I heard of it.

                We’re also letting them use Eminent Domain without even the fig leaf of pretending they need to talk the gov into it.

                I’ve complained that the Supremes got that one wrong before and which ever Supreme was targeted afterwards should have lost his home to the business which offered to build a store there.

                But by all means, please explain why letting companies issue gov backed bonds or without supervision use Eminent Domain can only be a good thing and how you’ve always been in favor of this.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Dark Matter says:

                If someone were to make some kind of principled proposal to get rid of SD’s, that might draw bipartisan support. Picking and choosing which SD’s you abolish because you don’t like what the business’s officers say about you is a whole different thing.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to CJColucci says:

                Most SDs die on their own and are for very narrow situations. His actual law was to eliminate all the SDs which have existed for more than 58 years.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

                His actual law was to eliminate all the SDs which have existed for more than 58 years.

                Please provide citations to any other Special Districts being eliminated, having their boards reshuffled or in any way receiving the same treatment.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

                These bills will establish the Congressional Districts of the state, abolish independent special districts that were created before 1968…

                https://www.flgov.com/2022/04/22/governor-ron-desantis-signs-legislation-to-create-lawful-congressional-districts-and-remove-special-interest-carveouts/Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Which was how many, exactly?Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to CJColucci says:

                The bill targets six special districts in Florida that were established prior to 1968. The sponsor of the House version of bill, Florida State Rep. Randy Fine (R-Brevard), said that the following districts were not in compliance with the state’s constitution:

                Hamilton County Development Authority

                Bradford County Development Authority

                The Sunshine Drainage District (Broward County)

                Reedy Creek Improvement District (Orange County and Osceola County)

                East Point Water and Sewer District (Franklin County)

                Marion County Law Library District

                So 6.

                If memory serves the State created something like 1800 of these in the last 10(?) years but 1500 of those had died of natural causes. It’s very unusual for these things to live this long.Report

              • Slade the Leveller in reply to CJColucci says:

                58 is a pretty specific number. Kind of send a message, doesn’t it?Report