(no subject)

[keryx]

There is a tiny part of me that thinks "real" Republicanism would be okay. That is, if folk who bill themselves as "conservative" were actually about conserving government spending and not servants of a fundamentalist social agenda, I might at least trust those folk a bit more than "liberals" who are only pro-gay or pro-woman or pro-child with certain limitations.

This part of me was feeling particularly frisky listening to Christine Todd Whitman talk about her book this morning. In actuality, I think the sort of thinking that says the world's current issues could be resolved if government just backed off of everything except defense is overly idealistic. But it still made me wonder...

[Poll #426030]

Comments

[snidegrrl.livejournal.com]

You left out: No, because I'm, like, a socialist.

[keryx.livejournal.com]

True. I was kinda lumping that one in with the generic "republicans are eeevil" response, just to save myself the effort of writing out every other reason why voting for this hypothetical candidate would be a bad idea. Cause I'm a slacker like that.

[snidegrrl.livejournal.com]

hehehe and here i am all humanist like, "well i don't believe in evil". sorry to derail you. :) i'm just not "fiscally conservative".

[keryx.livejournal.com]

I don't believe in evil, either. But then, you wouldn't know without an explanation that "eeevil" is a word that can mean anything from sneaky and conniving to "fundamentally against most things I believe". ;)

And now I've spent just as much time typing as I would have if I'd just put "I'm an effing socialist, duh" as a response.

[enchochada.livejournal.com]

I'm not voting in the poll because I'm not sure I specifically know enough about Republicanism vs Democracy as you guys in the US actually live and experience it, but- I will say that lately I've been finding myself drawn to some of the Conservative Party argumants in this country, despite being a lifelong liberal socialist. I can't help thinking that- in the UK at least- the liberal/ socialist parties seem to absolve people from personal responsibilty whereas the Conservatives are encouraging people to get up off their arses and *do* something about their lives, instead of waiting for schemes and projects and handouts and programmes to come and sort them out instead.

I even found myself expounding the potential value of National Service the other day (although not necessarily the military kind). But yes, I couldn't really get too excited by the Conservatives unless they got over their aversion to how some people look and what some people get up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms...

[libskrat]

Couple of unexamined assumptions there:

1) Economically-disadvantaged people are lazy.
2) The labor market is such that simply "not being lazy" is enough to let somebody get by economically.

[keryx.livejournal.com]

Good point. I mean, I don't know about the UK, but #2 is a significant issue in the US (and why I have doubts that anything but a mandated living wage could address our economic issues well enough) - the cost of living is such that a "normal" 2-parent family with 2 kids would have to work a total of 4 full-time minimum wage jobs to support themselves. Going the "fiscally conservative" route by creating programs that drive people off welfare to work is only effective if they can actually support their families by working the jobs they can get.

[grrangela.livejournal.com]

Have you read The Working Poor? It's EXCELLENT, and talks about these very issues in great detail without boring your socks right off.

[keryx.livejournal.com]

No, I haven't. Although I've read others on essentially the same topic, as everyone should. I'll check it out.

[enchochada.livejournal.com]

Possibly over-generalising, rather than 'unexamined assumptions'- I'm not so naiive to assume either of the above, and it's pedantic and reactionary to assume so yourself; I was merely stating that the misuse/ over-use of welfare programmes will inevitably create a sub-class of people who have become articifially dependent on the motherstate. Policies which encouraged greater self-reliance, faciliated educational opportunities and generally used the approach of giving the people a fishing line, rather than a fish, would have greater long-term benefits to the individuals involved and ultimately the public purse.

Having been an economically disadvantaged single parent of a disabled child for many years I am happy to state that whilst there are people like myself who are prepared to get themselves into shdloads of debt to gat education and improve their life situation, there really are many people who would rather spend a morning haranguing a DSS official for a crisis payment than, say, do a morning's casual work for the same money.

The labour market is far more complicated than you wrongly suggest I assume; as a member of the workforce, and a parent who negated many years of pay in order to pay for childcare I am all too aware of the inadequacies of the system to provide sufficient financial incentives for, say, single parents, to come off welfare and work.

Please don't assume that my opinions and experience comprise 'unexamined assumptions'.

[keryx.livejournal.com]

I think the way most fiscally conservative/socially liberal folk reconcile where they put their money is that they believe individuals and corporations will redistribute wealth on their own - that people are essentially good citizens. It's trickle-down theory, basically. Not that it works, but it's a nice ideal.

[grrangela.livejournal.com]

Doh, I could have saved myself some typing by just saying "word" to this comment.

[attrice.livejournal.com]

Exactly. I mean, you can support all sorts of liberal policies, but if you're fiscally conservative you're only supporting those policies for those in the upper classes.

[grrangela.livejournal.com]

I don't think *all* Republicans are evil, so I didn't pick either of the "No" options, but I would be very unlikely to vote for someone who identified as a Republican, because it's hard for me to understand how one can implement one's social liberalism by conservative economics, particularly in the case of something like "civil rights." Conservative economics play a huuuuuuge part in the oppression of women, people of color, and, quite obviously, working-class and poor families.

[libskrat]

Yep yep. Was hoping somebody would say this so I didn't have to. :)

There is also the question of "who is this person in bed with?" You're never just voting for a candidate; you're voting for his/her machine, his/her favored lobbyists, his/her connections (which go in both directions). In many (though not all) cases, these considerations dwarf the candidate's stated beliefs or intentions.

[keryx.livejournal.com]

Yes, definitely, and something I wasn't thinking about when I first wrote this post. Although I think there are some limited situations in which I would consider a Republican candidate who adamantly supported my social views - for instance, in a local election where party affiliation didn't automatically come with this huge load of other things.

In my opinion

[firecat]

Someone who is really "a supporter of civil rights of all sorts, equal opportunity, and reproductive freedom" is inevitably going to have liberal/socialist-leaning economics because liberal/socialist-leaning economics is how civil rights of all sorts, equal opportunity, and reproductive freedom happen.

If someone believes, "Oh, everyone can do what they want, but we aren't going to put any money into helping anyone do what they want," then they aren't really supporting civil rights, equal opportunity, or reproductive freedom. Because really supporting those things costs money.

It's all fine to have a law saying everyone has equal rights, but to support it, you also have to pay to enforce the law. It's all fine to let women have babies or abortions but to support that, you also have to pay to help them raise their babies or help them get abortions.

Also, I really can't get behind "eeevil" as a synonym for "something I don't believe in for sound and rational reasons." "eeevil" is fundamentally about a knee-jerk reaction.

Note that I don't know whether this is the best way to run the world, or any particular country, or not. I just don't think that small government particularly helps promote the causes of civil rights, equal opportunity, or reproductive freedom. A laissez faire government gives freedom and opportunity to people who have money. Those people might be moved to offer opportunities to other people, and overall opportunities might increase. But they might not offer those opportunities equally. It all comes down to what you think fundamental human nature is.

[fierceawakening.livejournal.com]

I don't see how someone who is really a supporter of civil rights could not be liberal fiscally. I'm just not seeing how such a person would be fiscally conservative and avoid being classist.