What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

[beagle9]

Size is one thing, but mismanagement is another, so what needs to go on more often (imho), is more and more firings of government employee's who aren't doing their jobs, instead of them thinking they got it made no matter what they do when doing their job's, as if it is a lifetime position or something. I cringe to think what has taken place in the welfare offices, housing offices, unemployment offices and/or the Medicare and Medicaid offices over the years. I cringe to think about what kind of incentives were given to increase the size of the impoverished over the years in this nation, and all for a long reaching agenda when it was all being done.

 

[PMZ]

It's funny how conservatives believe in free markets, though none have ever existed, but don't believe in the free market of democracy.

They believe that every product from every supplier is fully revealed and known, and each consumer makes a fully informed decision to buy this, or that, offering.

Democracy creates what most of we, the people expect.

Our borders in the outgoing direction are fully open. There is at least one of every kind of government you can imagine, out there someplace.

If you can't live with the choices made by we, the people, it would seem essential, to me, to move on.

What am I missing?

 

[Bfgrn]

Nice phrase.

Liberals want a constitution that grows like an acorn. Into a huge oak that takes over everything and sucks up all the water and nourishment from the yard and shades out every other plant.

I've never known a liberal who isn't satisfied with the Constitution that we have as it has been continuously improved over time.

Our government is of, by, and for the people. We are those people. We have control as a people because of our democracy. It is the size that it is because that's what we voted for in terms of our expectations of it.

It may well be the wrong size for you personally but you can vote with your feet instead of accepting our democratic decisions. What you can't do is take what we, the people, voted in.

Size is one thing, but mismanagement is another, so what needs to go on more often (imho), is more and more firings of government employee's who aren't doing their jobs, instead of them thinking they got it made no matter what they do when doing their job's, as if it is a lifetime position or something.

 

[Circe]

If you can't live with the choices made by we, the people, it would seem essential, to me, to move on.

What am I missing?

You are missing that what you have gotten voted in, may well be voted out again. A lot of people are working on that.

Or, as so many predict now, democracy and America as one country may fall.

Time passes, things change.

 

[beagle9]

I've never known a liberal who isn't satisfied with the Constitution that we have as it has been continuously improved over time.

Our government is of, by, and for the people. We are those people. We have control as a people because of our democracy. It is the size that it is because that's what we voted for in terms of our expectations of it.

It may well be the wrong size for you personally but you can vote with your feet instead of accepting our democratic decisions. What you can't do is take what we, the people, voted in.

Size is one thing, but mismanagement is another, so what needs to go on more often (imho), is more and more firings of government employee's who aren't doing their jobs, instead of them thinking they got it made no matter what they do when doing their job's, as if it is a lifetime position or something.

In this graph, did Bush appoint people whom did a good job in their positions, thus causing the line to rise due to it being a good thing or did they mismanage their positions thus seeing this line as being bloated ?

With the blue line is this Obama getting rid of Bush appointee's (targets on their backs, I mean hey the IRS can do it right ?), until he can refill the positions with his own, and isn't there a lot of resistance to whom Obama wants to put into office because of their credentials or radical associations etc. ? Just might explain your graph well in these respects...(grin)

 

[PMZ]

Nice phrase.

Liberals want a constitution that grows like an acorn. Into a huge oak that takes over everything and sucks up all the water and nourishment from the yard and shades out every other plant.

I've never known a liberal who isn't satisfied with the Constitution that we have as it has been continuously improved over time.

Our government is of, by, and for the people. We are those people. We have control as a people because of our democracy. It is the size that it is because that's what we voted for in terms of our expectations of it.

It may well be the wrong size for you personally but you can vote with your feet instead of accepting our democratic decisions. What you can't do is take what we, the people, voted in.

Size is one thing, but mismanagement is another, so what needs to go on more often (imho), is more and more firings of government employee's who aren't doing their jobs, instead of them thinking they got it made no matter what they do when doing their job's, as if it is a lifetime position or something.

Everything done by man is imperfect. Every organization with purpose strives for continuous improvement. It's an endless task.

Corporations are modeled after the military, organizationally. Each individual, within limits, has to please one "boss".

Democratic government, at the management level, is diametrically different. Each individual contributer has to please a plurality of his/her constituents to remain employed. Generally that means maintaining a few percent difference between those who like what you're doing and those that don't.

So, somewhere near slightly less than half of the time, we, individually, will be dissatisfied with any elected official. And that colors our evaluation of all government employees.

Democracy is not designed to be organizationally efficient. It's designed to be of, for, and by, we the people.

My biggest complaint about today is that we've let into our living rooms, media that sells partisanship rather than real, well analyzed performance among our elected officials. That is, by definition, extremism. What they are selling is always right, anything else is always wrong.

That conflicts with the very precept of democracy.

 

[PMZ]

If you can't live with the choices made by we, the people, it would seem essential, to me, to move on.

What am I missing?

You are missing that what you have gotten voted in, may well be voted out again. A lot of people are working on that.

Or, as so many predict now, democracy and America as one country may fall.

Time passes, things change.

Can you elaborate on "Or, as so many predict now, democracy and America as one country may fall."?

BTW, I agree with you that democracy is dynamic.

 

[Circe]

Democracy is not designed to be organizationally efficient. It's designed to be of, for, and by, we the people.

Ha! I see what the problem is. You keep writing as if democracy is a consensus system of government! You say "we the people" as if that's everybody. And the rest of us don't count.

But democracy is not about "we, the people." Democracy is designed to be of, for, and by only a small fraction of a percentage above 50%.

Leaving a whole lot of angry and unhappy losers. Who will take down that result just as soon as they can.

 

[Circe]

Can you elaborate on "Or, as so many predict now, democracy and America as one country may fall."?

BTW, I agree with you that democracy is dynamic.

There's a long thread on the breakup of America so many are predicting these days that just got moved to the Conspiracy Theories forum. Nice speculations.

Historically, we're WAY overdue. Amazing that this nation has so long endured, when other nations so conceived and so dedicated have long since split up, had revolutions, changed radically, etc. It can't last forever. The land mass is way too big, for one thing. Not since the incredible disunity after 9/11/2001 and most people no longer identifying as patriotic Americans.

 

[PMZ]

Democracy is not designed to be organizationally efficient. It's designed to be of, for, and by, we the people.

Ha! I see what the problem is. You keep writing as if democracy is a consensus system of government! You say "we the people" as if that's everybody. And the rest of us don't count.

But democracy is not about "we, the people." Democracy is designed to be of, for, and by only a small fraction of a percentage above 50%.

Leaving a whole lot of angry and unhappy losers. Who will take down that result just as soon as they can.

Living in a democracy is a choice based on freedom. It's the only way that citizens can be as free as possible. Under more tyrannical forms of government the ruling classic is very happy, all others are, in reality, enslaved.

As free as possible doesn't mean that everybody is perfectly satisfied with government at any time. That only comes with anarchy. But the absence of government is chaos, and the ruling class defaults to the guy with the biggest club.

 

[PMZ]

Can you elaborate on "Or, as so many predict now, democracy and America as one country may fall."?

BTW, I agree with you that democracy is dynamic.

There's a long thread on the breakup of America so many are predicting these days that just got moved to the Conspiracy Theories forum. Nice speculations.

Historically, we're WAY overdue. Amazing that this nation has so long endured, when other nations so conceived and so dedicated have long since split up, had revolutions, changed radically, etc. It can't last forever. The land mass is way too big, for one thing. Not since the incredible disunity after 9/11/2001 and most people no longer identifying as patriotic Americans.

If it comes to that, and I don't think that it will, what would you personally replace what we have, with?

The reason that I think that it won't come to that is environmental. The people talking about it just haven't adapted to today's world. They will go extinct.

The corner has already been turned and those that haven't kept up will just be less and less influential and relevent.

In fact it is the progression of that process that has them so worked up. I'll bet that the dinosauers were just as worked up as the world changed around them.

 

[PMZ]

"You keep writing as if democracy is a consensus system of government!"

It is.

 

[Circe]

"You keep writing as if democracy is a consensus system of government!"

It is.

No, indeed. Consensus government is when everyone agrees. I know this because Quakers use this system, and I was talking with one about it once -- he said that it takes a long time to get to agreement, and sometimes ----------

"Sometimes someone just has to die."

He meant of old age, of course. [



Democracy is majority rules: you must know that. The Republican form of government is supposed to take some of the tyranny off the majority, keep it from being plain mob rule as in the French Revolution, whoever controlled the passions of the crowd for the day controlled the government.

 

[Foxfyre]

That would leave a gaping hole in the fabric of US politics. There would be many who would be more than willing to fill that gap, as money is to be made and power to be garnered, at which point we would get a whole new crew of those who would be considered conservative.

Well now that is an interesting twist on it isn't it? You are quite right that something always rushes in to fill a vacuum. Those of the radical left are currently insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, one-world-government, and socialist/Marxist economic theories.

When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, I wonder how many would be instant converts to modern day American conservatism?

 

[Circe]

If it comes to that, and I don't think that it will, what would you personally replace what we have, with?

The reason that I think that it won't come to that is environmental. The people talking about it just haven't adapted to today's world. They will go extinct.

The corner has already been turned and those that haven't kept up will just be less and less influential and relevent.

In fact it is the progression of that process that has them so worked up. I'll bet that the dinosauers were just as worked up as the world changed around them.

Well, maybe.........that's not what normally happens, though. Usually there are pretty frequent huge, giant, disruptive political changes. Left, right, left, right, big swings via revolution. I can't think of an area of the world that just.........environmentally adapted via the objectors going extinct? Can you suggest one that has?

As for what system I'd like, I hate to go against Winston Churchill ("Democracy is the worst political system there is, except for all the others.") but I guess I'd prefer an enlightened dictatorship at this point, moderate conservative and libertarian philosophy held by Diktor.

However, what everybody always gets after revolution or civil war is a dictator who runs it all for himself and what he likes. I'm trying to think of an exception to that ---- Henry VII (not VIII) was an enlightened dictator who came in via Big Change. Very nice man. That would work. He's the only one I can think of right now, however. Nice dictators don't lie thick on the ground.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

I've never known a liberal who isn't satisfied with the Constitution that we have as it has been continuously improved over time.

Our government is of, by, and for the people. We are those people. We have control as a people because of our democracy. It is the size that it is because that's what we voted for in terms of our expectations of it.

It may well be the wrong size for you personally but you can vote with your feet instead of accepting our democratic decisions. What you can't do is take what we, the people, voted in.

Size is one thing, but mismanagement is another, so what needs to go on more often (imho), is more and more firings of government employee's who aren't doing their jobs, instead of them thinking they got it made no matter what they do when doing their job's, as if it is a lifetime position or something.

If CR shows a chart for Reagan the most interesting measure would be spending on government employees. My memory is that Reagan increased federal head counts more than any peacetime president before him, but the truly appalling number was the increase in spending. Here is a wider spectrum version of the chart above showing how ALL nutball presidents follow Keynesian theory to increase federal headcounts during recession, while the tightfisted Democratic Party president cuts back...

Recall that Reagan signed those incredibly malfeasant federal "pay parity" bills (upping federal pay and benefits with less thought to pension consequences than shit house rats give to the price of gold) that states/local govs aped - and that are now bankrupting some and causing stress in many. The only public union that suffered under Reagan was some air controller union that must have made too much noise to hide giving them everything they wanted and more like he did ALL OF the rest of the government unions. The man was a wide open New Dealer in what he signed, and it still amuses me how completely the legions of nutballs bought the words and the martial music on stage, while behind the curtain the Bobbleheaded One handed the keys to the US Treasury to corporations and government unions.

 

[Esmeralda]

I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left

I don't think the 'Left' hates normal, reasonable, thinking conservatives; I think they hate the crazies, and in recent times, it seems the crazies are taking over the GOP. American politics has become so deeply partisan, it is amazing the country manages to function. The hate goes both ways. We need more than 2 viable parties.

 

[PMZ]

If it comes to that, and I don't think that it will, what would you personally replace what we have, with?

The reason that I think that it won't come to that is environmental. The people talking about it just haven't adapted to today's world. They will go extinct.

The corner has already been turned and those that haven't kept up will just be less and less influential and relevent.

In fact it is the progression of that process that has them so worked up. I'll bet that the dinosauers were just as worked up as the world changed around them.

Well, maybe.........that's not what normally happens, though. Usually there are pretty frequent huge, giant, disruptive political changes. Left, right, left, right, big swings via revolution. I can't think of an area of the world that just.........environmentally adapted via the objectors going extinct? Can you suggest one that has?

As for what system I'd like, I hate to go against Winston Churchill ("Democracy is the worst political system there is, except for all the others.") but I guess I'd prefer an enlightened dictatorship at this point, moderate conservative and libertarian philosophy held by Diktor.

However, what everybody always gets after revolution or civil war is a dictator who runs it all for himself and what he likes. I'm trying to think of an exception to that ---- Henry VII (not VIII) was an enlightened dictator who came in via Big Change. Very nice man. That would work. He's the only one I can think of right now, however. Nice dictators don't lie thick on the ground.

I think that the PRC and USSR are good examples of evolutionary change.

I'm way too far into freedom to ever trust a ruling class.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Democracy’ needs to be understood in the context of the rule of law and a Constitutional Republic.

Many things are not subject to ‘consensus,’ inalienable rights primary among them.

 

[PMZ]

I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left

I don't think the 'Left' hates normal, reasonable, thinking conservatives; I think they hate the crazies, and in recent times, it seems the crazies are taking over the GOP. American politics has become so deeply partisan, it is amazing the country manages to function. The hate goes both ways. We need more than 2 viable parties.

The problem has never been conservatism, but extremism. Unfortunately Rush and Rupert et al and the NRA and the Dixiecrats have made them indistinguishable.