I wonder to what extent the radicalization of Conservative

To some, if you believe in laws, morals, standards, the Constitution.....

I'm certainly not as politically aware as some in this forum, but it seems to me that Rob got the situation half right. A lot of people on the right of the political spectrum do appear to be taking a harder line. I don't think the phenomenon is new since Mr. Buckley's death, though. It seems to me that the hardening has been going on since at least the days of Speaker Gingrich.

The thing the Rob seems to have missed is that the 'radicalization' is hardly limited to the right wing. It seems to me that the left wing activists are at least as radicalized as those on the right. I've been impressed by the severity of the polarization on BOTH ends. It is telling that even with a super-majority in Congress the Democrats were unable (and IMO will likely remain unable) to pass even a rudimentary healthcare/insurance reform package despite the fact that there is a huge need for reform. At least part of the blame for that has to be assigned to the radical left, which expressed a willingness to torpedo any bill that did not deliver everything on their agenda, regardless of the short term or long term fiscal and political consequences. That was unbelievably myopic, and illustrates the intransigence that is so typical of BOTH ends of the political spectrum.

It appears, however, that the partisans on BOTH sides of the aisle are almost uniformly blind to their own intransigence. Hence we see comments like the OP that seem to imply only one side has changed.

in it through my university years, (though not SDS type extremism). Frankly, I'm not sorry to see it gone. I have mourned the years of Democratic rudderlessness, and I am not sure that is indeed over. Blue-Dog Democrts, better described as DINO's were the result of the powerful and focussed Republican machine for so many years; Democrats trying to edge so close to Republican positions that they could win.

Perhaps it's just viewing it all from this distance, or perhaps its that I've always been a liberal. You know, Liberals aren't the malevolent creatures they are painted. What most of us want is a government responsive to people over corporations, and responsive to the majority of people, not to the wealthiest.

Rob

The portion of the left that you would label 'radical' is probably smaller than what I would label 'radical'. I don't think radical liberals have gone AWOL at all. Although Mr. Obama is tending to govern more from the middle, a lot of his votes and statements prior to becoming president were pretty far out there IMO. Others, like Mr. Ayers, have attempted to go mainstream to some extent but I don't think they necessarily makes them less radical. Less honest, perhaps, not but necessarily less radical.

I don't recall saying that liberals are evil. I doubt many are evil people. That said, I am concerned that liberal policies have wrought evil in various places and times. For example, I am fairly confident that the way the US welfare system is structured has done considerable damage to family cohesiveness among the poor, especially in the Black community. I am also fairly confident that the US welfare system has helped to create an environment that makes perpetual poverty highly likely for large numbers of the poor in the US. Actually, the same probably applies in the international arena as well. Whether some of the changes in the US welfare system over the last 20 or so years will mitigate those adverse results is not at all clear to me.

I am also quite confident that the government's forays into provision of medical care have done harm along with whatever good they have accomplished. I believe that in many respects the good that has come from Medicare and Medicaid outweighs the harm but there is certainly room for uncertainty. Many of the costs of US healthcare policy will actually be paid by our descendants which is one of the reasons it is hard to say whether the programs have done net benefit or harm at this point.

So, to reiterate, I certainly do not regard liberals as inherently evil people but I do fear the results of some liberal policies. It is quite easy for well meaning people to do things that have evil results. Conservative policies have sometimes suffered from the same problem. But that's another discussion.

I'm certainly not prepared to endorse this statement without first clarifying what you mean by 'responsive':
What most of us want is a government responsive to people over corporations, and responsive to the majority of people, not to the wealthiest. It's not that I'm all gung ho about supporting corporations (believe I recently called them 'soulless' and I certainly do not want to privilege them above people in value or in law), it's just that my experience suggests that what you mean by 'responsive' actions could easily be interpreted as irresponsible or confiscatory by the people who will actually be paying for the government. At some point government policy starts to bump up against economic reality. Somebody has to pay for the 'responsiveness' of government and that money has to come from somewhere. Alas, I'm afraid that train of thought is going solidly in the direction of a non-allowed political statement.

I didn't intend my comment on Conservatives thinking liberals are evil to apply to you. But there has been a really nasty streak going back to the 70's in Republican-Conservative commentary regarding liberalism, Pat Robertson, Reagan's supporters and his son Michael, Rush Limburger et al. have attributed all sorts of nasty motives and an inherently deliberately.

I don't think you can attribute the collapse of Black families to Welfare. That's much too complex an issue, with far too many causes. It may have enabled single parent families to survive, but that isn't purely a Black problem, and treating it as such is a racially specific program which would fail even this Supreme Court's standards.

Responsiveness is perhaps a fuzzy term, but I can't see why the Democrats are being blocked from governing, and passing legislation, and making appointments by a minority. The "filibuster" in this session of Congress is being used more than twice as often as it was in the last Congress. And that number was high (the figures are 118 times versus 54 times which was the all time peak before this).

I would like to see a Congress which could be as active on its own agenda as, for example, Reagan's Congresses. A majority is a mandate, if there's something wrong with a law, it is not the job of the minority to over-rule it or prevent its passage, it is the job of the Judiciary to rule on its Constitutionality.

To most wealthy people, all taxes are confiscatory. In Britain wealthy people bemoaned a tax rate of 7 pence in the pound at the beginning of the 20th Century, a rate of less than 3%.

Economic realities are in the eyes or perspective of the beholder as well. Who, 40 years ago would have seen the economic powerhouse that China now is, more, they would have believed it likely that China would collapse the way the Soviet Union did 20 years ago.

I have written tiresomely that the greatest period of growth in the US economy occurred when taxes both personal and corporate were far higher (1945-1972) than they have been since. Has the Conservative drumbeat for lower taxes abated, not a chance. No CEO in 1970 was saying, "I can't survive on what I'm earning" when he was earning 50 times what his lowest paid workman was being paid. Now they earn 300 to 500 times, and the tax system favours them. Corporations have been allowed to withdraw from the American economy except as a net negative, they have exported jobs, and exported their putative head offices, and eliminated their tax liability despite the fact that they use services from both local, state, and federal levels of government.

We will have to disagree over health care. The US is out of step with the vast majority of industrialized countries, but I've said that before. I've always wondered how that can simply be dismissed out of hand as a concern, but it is. Equality of Opportunity for all people in the US should mandate Public Health Care. And none of the countries with Universal Health Care has the kind of costs associated with the American system. I think Canada may be the worst at around 11% of GDP. The US cost is around 17% currently. Why pay that sort of premium for a system that excludes so many? The people who would be helped by universality would be as white as they are Black or Brown. A photographic Health Card could eliminate illegal aliens from the pool of patients. Britain doesn't even bother with that sophistication, theirs is a folded printed piece of card, and they have illegal aliens too. So does France and Germany, but they don't bother much with screening patients either. Health Care is seen, at least in Europe and Canada and in Japan and heaven knows how many other countries, as a universal right. To me that is a recognition of the essential humanity of their populace, and an indication of a sense of equality of access to important basic services.

I pointed out before that the right of people simply to life is a new development, following the American Revolution; the right to an education is a recent development. Why should the right to health care be different?

When I was reading about the introduction of the Canadian Health Care system, I found that doctors were virulently opposed, in the mid 1950's, but they learned to work with it, and they became content with it. Now Canada conducts Internationally Accredited Courses in various medical disciplines and offers fellowships to Americans, which is how we ended up here in the first place. My wife was sufficiently happy with the system to be delighted with the offer of a staff position at the Hospital where she was learning Endoscopy, and was equally happy with her time in Britain.

Of the two of us, I was the former radical, she was and is a regular Democrat of a mildly liberal stripe. She was the one who embraced the systems here and in Britain, drawing me along. Particularly in Britain she was extraordinarily impressed with their way of delivering Health Care, and the Community Nursing which was available for home visits post-discharge. MacMillan nurses for all species of cancers, dedicated Stoma Care Nurses for patients with colostomies and ileostomies, nurses who come to people's homes regularly to follow up on the surgical patients for years after. It could be the same in the US, at less cost than you are paying now. I wish it was the case here. My wife made a proposal to Ontario's Ministry of Health for follow-up nursing care for Colon Cancer Patients as a pilot project for other similar programs. It was torpedoed by a combination of civil servants and politicians fearing increases in the cost of Health Care and the Physician`s union, known as the Ontario Medical Association. Doctors here fear the entry of nurses into the direct patient contact outside of hospitals, even when it is for follow-up care under the supervision of the surgeons, with reports available to him in days.

I`m afraid that the debt left for our children is entirely at the door of the Reagan, Bush, Bush Administrations, and Wall Street. It has nothing to do with possible Health Care programs. Had the Clinton era approach to the economy held sway, and had Bush not squandered huge sums of money on Iraq, you would have been in a far better position, you`d even be farther ahead in Afghanistan.

I believe we share an equal dismay at the Supreme Court`s ruling preferring Corporations over people. The system that we have is supposed to be a representative democracy; it is supposed to offer equal representation elected by each individual, and the platform of the winning party is what one is voting for, if the Democrats win the majorities they did, they should be governing, not dealing with gridlock organized by the Minority party. Bush got everything he wanted, why isn`t Obama accorded the same courtesy.

Rob

Not surprising when coming from such a strong socialist bias.

Corporations have been allowed to withdraw from the American economy except as a net negative, they have exported jobs, and exported their putative head offices, and eliminated their tax liability despite the fact that they use services from both local, state, and federal levels of government.

Corporations are among some of the most democratic economic organizations that this world has ever seen. They were a natural outgrowth from the days of smaller businesses which involved "partnerships". As they grew, more could invest into the business and through the issuance of stocks also become minor "partners" and major "partners" depending on how much stock each was willing to buy. Those that make big profits also make bigger dividend payments to those shareholders. Who are those shareholders? Everyone, from the rich to middle class and even the poor who may have pension plans who invest in those corporations.

Please, get over your constant obsession with trying to villify the greatest and fairest business construct this world has probably ever seen. If you feel left out of it, then that's your fault for not investing in your country's business, your country's economy, and you have no right to then sit on the sidelines and whine about it.

They run to the Government (the ordinary people) for a bailout?

Don't forget they've been creaming it receiving big dividends.

And when they tried to give it back the govt didn't want them too. Why? Because the govt was wanting to take them over. When you are talking about banks who depend on the Federal Reserve system which Congress set up and the rules they must meet to be a part and parcel of that, then maybe you can understand the banks in some ways are more a part of govt than the Post Office is. They answer to govt on how much funds they must retain, and the govt can willy nilly require them to increase deposits held. The interest rates banks charge are directly related to the rates the Federal Reserve charges the Reserve Banks which filter the money out to the banks. The bailout of the banks was actually the govt bailing out itself because the biggest bank in America is the Federal Reserve.

Since you believe in investors getting something for their money...

How bout the Govt getting something for your their/your money?


the govt came to them And when they tried to give it back the govt didn't want them too.

They took the money (but they really didn't want to),

The govt came to GM?

During the recession, GM turned to the government for bailout money and had to enter bankruptcy in June 2009. The company received a total of $60 billion in loans, with the government assuming a 62 percent share in the company.

IF I don't to be indebted, I don't borrow.

It was conspiracy and collusion under the guise of a necessary bailout, which it wasn't. The end result is those holding GM stock ended up having most value of the company stolen from them and shifted into another new corporation while they were left holding Motors Liquidation stock. If instead it had gone through bankruptcy proceedings properly and not gotten special treatment, the shareholders might have gotten a better resolution.

Still, investors are responsible for how they invest their money, and one primary rule is to check a company's total debt before investing in it, or seeing their debt climb, sell the stock off, get out of it. When a company's total debt outstrips it's total assets, then it's time to keep a closer eye on the investment and any adverse economic developments which might cause it to head toward bankruptcy. GM has not been "blue chip" for a long time. If one avoids risky investments like GM was, they can avoid huge losses during a bankruptcy when it occurs.

The situation between GM and the govt was a special situation, one which I feel shouldn't have occurred, not in the manner it was done. Anytime you have govt deciding who is "too big to fail" and who isn't, then a gross inequity is introduced into the capitalist system not unsimilar to what happens in Communist countries where business is entirely controlled by the govt. Communist tactics have no place in a Capitalist system.

With Congress, a majority is not always a mandate. I takes a 2/3 majority to override a veto. In the Senate, it takes a two-thirds vote to bring a bill to the floor for debate. In the Senate, Invoking cloture requires a vote by 3/5 of the full Senate. In the House, under "Suspension of the Rules", it requires a 2/3 majority of those present and voting for the measure to be passed.
Considering recent history, I guess I should mention that in a Senate trial following impeachment, it takes a two thirds majority to remove from office.

(it was Saturday wasn't it?). I watched religiously usually with my parents, sometimes me yelling at the screen, and always discussing the program for the rest of the day. Didn't see it much while I was in school (no personal TV) but I did every time I was home, or could persuade the common room to watch (imagine those discussions in 1968!!!).

Rob

Depression, and the past 80 years has passed you by. The US was growing beyond the agrarian beginnings of the United States following the US Civil War as the US became a primarily industrial nation. The issue of new legislation for new issues is handled by the Judicial branch. I cannnot conceive of anyone saying, let's try to reverse the past 230 years and go back to a pure 18th Century agrarian democratic Republic. That way lies disaster since so much has changed. You can't run a country on rules that are 230 years out of date, even the incredibly well evolved and flexible Constitution and Bill of Rights won't stretch that far.

Rob

I take it you are completely in agreement that a bigger government that takes away your liberty by taking over every aspect of your life, down to what you should be eating, is better than a limited government. No thanks. I already have a STATE government that has most of those powers that the Feds want to overrule and take control of....which is how the Constitution planned it to be in the first place.

TONI H

and conditions change in ways that weren't imagined 200/300 years ago.

Never say never?

Nothing is written in stone..unless it's a tombstone. (that's fairly definite)

Written in stone. Not a tombstone.

and what?

everyone follows them?

The name, and dates on tombstone are more "written in stone" than the Ten Commandments, because the "event" has already happened, unlike the Ten Commandments, which just tell people what they should/shouldn't do.


That's the extent of my discussions on a religious subject.

...majority of history, like the Hammurabi Code, and all the civilizations since the dawn of man who have carved laws on marble walls, various stele, wood, and almost anything they could carve it into. All you see however are the tombstones.

might have referenced the Laws of Solon in Athens as well. I would note that the Israelite progress following the Ten Commandments was bloody, involving lots of conquest and slaughter including the destruction of every man woman and child in some communities. Clearly the 10 Commandments applied only to the Israelite's personal interactions. The treatment of people in ancient Assyria (Hammurabi) was gravely harsh despite the Code, and that until the 20th Century the concept that legalities could actually stop illegal, immoral and lethal behaviour was absent in all societies. Man's inhumanity to man is a cliche, but no less true for that, and man's inclination to illegality and the imprisonment or exile of inconvenient people is also true through the ages.

Should you care to read "This War Without an Enemy" which is a book on the English Civil War (1641-1651), you can find some of the most moving utterances between friends who found themselves on the opposite sides of the question, including the title. "Let us each play our parts in this Tragedie with as much honour as we can." is another, said by a man subsequently killed in the battle. His friend and opponent recovered the body from the battlefield and wept over it.

Sir Jacob Astley quite famously on the eve of the battle of Edgehill prayed, "Oh, Lord, Thou knowest how busy I must be about thy business this day. If I should forget thee, doe not thou forget me."

And should you have been among the winners in that war, you needed to be among the correct bunch of winners. The Levellers, and Fifth Monarchists, and particularly the communal Diggers led by Gerard Winstanley were slaughtered by Cromwell's SS, the Ironsides, in their buff coats and breastplates and steel helmets, for being too progressive (and too democratic).

Codes may be carved in stone, but people aren't made of stone, and you can't stop history, even if Wm F. Buckley did say that a Conservative's duty was "to stand athwart history and shout, "Stop!!"

Rob