WSJ is business conservative.

I could see that. Their understanding came across as econ 101 take on everything.

Ayn Rand was right on most things she commented on.

shut the **** up korko

The quality of Vox's journalism is not a product of it being a center-left publication. It could be a center-right publication if it wanted to be and still focus on politics from a policy perspective. Conservatives probably need a Vox of their own, but the closest thing to it is probably National Review. Reihan Salam is someone who's center-right who is steeped in the intricate details of policy, and he writes for National Review.

If you're really interested in "an advancement of a real conservative idea, a conservative plan", you could read Reihan Salam's book.

Or like, watch this video:



Also, this interview with Douthat provides an insight into American conservatism, if I recall (haven't listened to it in a while): https://www.vox.com/latest-news/2016/1/27/10852856/ross-douthat-trump

The Douthat/Salam book might be worth reading. Apparently there's a a chapter that addresses head on your criticism that American conservatism doesn't have any really content, and that it is only a front for moneyed interests that uses social uses as a symbol to motivative its working class base.

It's a little striking to me that you'd say that articles that are skeptical about allowing people to abort fetuses just because the unborn child has a severe disability is without a "moral philosophy". You're clearly confusing a lack of moral vision for a moral vision and a set of priorities that you happen to disagree with. From this article, for example: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/down-syndrome-abortion-washington-post-column-morally-repugnant/



This seems like a view that ought to be represented in our discourse, and that we ought to take seriously. One could say that there's a fundamental contradiction in the Republican viewpoint, if Republicans simultaneously demand that children with disabilities should not be aborted, yet refuse to provide assistance to families that cannot sustain the financial burden of having such a child (that is, because they oppose universal healthcare). To my mind, that actually seems like the fundamental flaw in the argument. But leaving that aside, there's something worth considering in this article. Especially when the left identifies having a disability as an identity and deserve dignity and recognition as full members of society, isn't there something deeply questionable about assuming that it is better for an unborn child not to be born? Is that not a contradiction in the left's attitudes? Is there not some value to considering whether there is something eugenicist about eradicating Downs syndrome by aborting unborn fetuses with Downs syndrome, as Iceland does? Is it not valuable to consider whether this should be a limit on abortion? Is it worthwhile to consider that maybe having an abortion should not be a financial decision? (Again, lets bracket that a robust universal healthcare system would make it so families obviate the need for families to see this as an financial decision. After all, its possible to imagine that this moral view exist alongside a Democrat's view on healthcare.)

It seems to me that this view is definitely drawing from a moral framework, even if it is one you disagree with. That is, it's drawing from Jewish, Catholic and Protestant traditions that argue that life is sacred and inherently good and worth living, even when it is full of suffering. The alternative, euthanizing morality, is drawing from 19th century utilitarianism, which argues that life is only valuable to the extent that life is lived well and is more pleasurable than painful (for a contemporary utilitarian viewpoint advocate of this kind of euthanization, see the Princeton philosopher Peter Singer).



Again, your confusing a lack of morality for a view that you just happen to disagree with. The point here is, should parents really have the right to decide on behalf of an unborn child that the suffering that child will endure throughout its life means that its life is not worth living? Or should society not protect that unborn child? The impulse to protect the child seems to me undoubtedly a moral argument, and a weighty one that cannot be so easily dismissed.

I'll try to listen to this at some point, but I feel listening to Ross Douthat is giving a major caveat to reading conservatism: never Trump conservatives are a pretty small group of people, with most of the Republican base turning pro-Trump, so I don't think that it's a very politically relevant stance.

I guess in some ways I already accept some of the more mild forms of political conservatism, and often equivocate between people who espouse some conservative views and ~actually existing conservatism~ which is more or less the mainstream of the Republican party. Like, I don't find WSJ objectionable very much, and the CJ articles I talked about I found palatable, and much of that was somewhat center-right to moderate-right conservative, but I also don't think that represents much of ~actually existing conservatism~.

The same point could be made about the Democrats, though, which I agree with, but it's also a matter of scale and depth of the issue.

Though I will comment on this one line..



Sounds like a lovely time with a lovely guy.

Your comment on social safety nets and Republicans is a thought that came up when reading it, I should have exercised that thought in the post.

Other than that, I probably should have not commented, because those articles were clearly written for a group that has already made up its mind, and aren't intended to convince anyone. On the topic of moral philosophy though, I have not really considered my own feelings on this, and am not prepared to defend any thesis, and frankly don't have the inclination to study the conservative viewpoint on this topic.

I'm just a bit turned off by the blatantly emotional appeal, drastic rhetoric and sanctimonious attitude of the articles.

Though, I did get plagiarism vibes from those four articles. Four nearly identical articles on the same subject, back to back, from different authors? Something kinda fishy is going on with that.

Maybe you should stop seeing each of these articles as nothing but instances of conservatism and as expressions of a specific political identity, and instead see them simply as opinions of different authors who are approaching? That is, a center-right thinker is not of fundamentally different in kind than a center-left thinker. It's just an author expressing their views.



This is a little ridiculous. Conservatives aren't unicorns. There is no normative conservatism from with all other conservatisms are deviations. Are you irritated because the opinions expressed in these pieces don't conform to a primitive stereotype of conservatives as backwards rural folk with redneck accents who "cling to guns or religion", as Obama put it? Again, conservatism is a multivalent phenomenon. Northeastern coastal financial elites who vote Republican primarily because they want to pay lower taxes have no more or less a claim to the title of "conservative" than do midwestern pro-life Catholics or dispossessed white collar workers who are troubled by globalization.

Yeah, it's almost like they have some kind of shared ideological framework through which they understand this issue or something.

It's weird to me you don't see anything weird in that. If they were on different websites, it'd seem less weird than four on the same website.

Nobody said anybody has a claim to anything, I guess I just mean that mainstream Republicanism is what I find more indefensible than meme conservatism practiced by three people in a hut on Rhode Island.

I'm not sure what the criticism here is supposed to entail.

You're reading these articles in order to understand conservatism in general. Instead, maybe it'd be better just to see them as opinions about issues. Also, because you're seeing these authors as representaives of conservatism, you're taking for granted that you should take an antagonistic posture towards them, and that they're on the other team.

So they're "not true conservatism"?

I don't know if it makes sense to speak of mainstream Republicans. Is Trump reshaping the Republican Party? Is his politics mainstream Republicanism? He hasn't really shaped the party in his image, and there's plenty of objections from within his party over where he stands on tariffs, healthcare, immigration, etc. It's really unclear what his legacy will be. For all we know, he loses in 2020, and the form of politics he represents is expelled from the GOP. And that's only on the issue of Trump. There is plenty of other diversity within the GOP.

They're not evil. They're not arch rivals.

I never said or implied that, nor do I believe that (except about Ben Shapiro, **** that guy). Not all conservatives are evil, and many of their points are necessary counterbalances to stuff on the left.

I still think the Republican Party needs to be eradicated from American politics. If we had a conservative party that wasn't bat**** I wouldn't be so against it. And this goes since before Trumpism.

Sure it does. Just look at views which are defining of Republicans.



Yes, pretty much, LOL.

I guess the party didn't have to change very much to be "in his image", though.



Not really, tariffs yes because those hurt business, but healthcare and immigration are pretty lockstep. There is no significant opposition to Trump in the legislature.



There's not much to expel. Republicans dislike a couple things he does, particularly things that hurt businesses, but by and large stand and support most of his most destructive and terrible ideas.

The GOP isn't going to reverse their tax bill, for instance, when Trump leaves. They aren't going to take any reasonable stance on healthcare. This is their new vision for America. I don't think you comprehend the clear messaging of how much they ****ing hate working class Americans.

Also the normalization of cronyism and blatantly working to help enrich friends. There are definitely op-ed columnists who oppose this, but I have zero faith that Republicans in congress wouldn't love to do this with their friends freely if they could get away with it. At the very least, it's clear they have no interest in stopping it.

If the "never Trump" Republican bull**** had any teeth, things would look differently. It's by and large optics, and little to do with actual principle when you compare how they act versus what they say.

Like how John McCain always comes out and says things in opposition to Republican healthcare bills, to appease older voters in his district, then votes for the Republican healthcare bill anyway. Every. Single. Time. It's optics over principle, and it's very obvious.

There's no particular opposition to Trump in the legislature, but Trump has also had also no role in shaping legislation. It's not that his party doesn't buck him. It's that he hasn't bucked his party at all. In effect, he's told the legislature to give him a bill to sign he'll sign it, and he cares very little about the details. So no: he hasn't reshaped the party in his image on any issue where he deviates from his party's orthodoxy, except tariffs, which is beyond the purview of the legislature.

I guess what I mean is: I don't think some of these alternate, anti-Trump conservative views will ever produce a justification of the tax bill. And that tax bill was loved by all congressional Republicans. That's what the party is. You can wax all day about "good" conservatives, the reality of their party is this. ~Actually existing Republicanism~ has no value of small government, no respect for small business, no respect for hard work and ethics, it's about ripping off the floorboards of America to help create a new gilded age.

This is indefensible to me. People need to just stop voting for this insane bull****. I don't care whether you were born in rural country or what that means for you. I don't care about your work ethic, or whether you're offended by Clinton's comments. None of that justifies voting for these *******s who are deliberately out to **** you over.

Honestly, what congressional Republicans are doing is worse than the wall, the travel ban or the tariffs Trump put in place.

In other words: conservatives aren't arch rivals, people in power in the Republican Party absolutely ****ing are though.

By the way: welcome to the Democratic Party.

The only thing keeping the Democrats from seeming like the conservatives they are is their need to appeal to the progressive vote.

Well, get with the program, because people aren't going to stop voting for the GOP, no matter how big the Democratic landslide in 2018, and no matter how much you whine about it. You're better off trying to understand why without reducing it to ignorance of the electorate or the mendacity of the wealthy.

Don't forget that right now negative polarization is a bigger force in American politics than party loyalty. To a large part of the electorate preventing the other party from winning is more important than having their own party implement their agenda.

I think I do know why they vote Republican, I just don't respect the reasons. I feel like you really, earnestly believe that understanding breeds respect. Maybe understanding breeds contempt. Maybe liberalism is wrong in that way.

Just because you think being a lofty intellectual sitting back admiring the best rhetoric of op-ed writers doesn't mean politics shouldn't matter to others. Some people desire to act in the world, not just to have the best ideas.

Even they aren't. They're just trying to make a living. They wish their job wasn't so cynical and that they could do the things they came to Washington to do. Not even the donors who pay for them to implement their ****ty agendas are. The real culprit here is the system which allows wealthy donors to use their wealth to consolidate their wealth.

People will vote for the GOP because eventually they will be the cleanest suit again.

Both parties have worked and fought to get their existence, and only their existence, enshrined in law. In a lot of states you have to pay egregious fees and complete an infeasible amount of paperwork just to have your write in votes counted. In some states it is illegal to vote for a third party entirely. Unless people suddenly got really happy with Democratic single party rule they’d face insurmountable headwinds trying to vote for any other alternative.

Ah, the Eichmann defense. Classic.

Yup. I have a feeling the American political system will be rocked with more and more turmoil in the future due to **** like this. It's not going to get any better, because while it's true that there's a diversity of opinion among everyone, yes, including conservatives, very few of those voices have any degree of representation in government. Democracy is going to force it's way through, and it might not be pretty.

But hey, let's not be biased. Let's read City Journal's take on the tax bill. Just to be sure.



Okay, so the tax bill's going to pay for itself by increasing growth through work and investment, which will compensate for the loss in revenue. In other words, a roundabout way of justifying the tax cut via the Laffer Curve. Economically sound reasoning on principle. But that raises the question of whether the facts of America's economic condition supports using the Laffer Curve in this way.

We can look at the opinions of economists. Economists overwhelmingly disagree that the tax cuts will increase revenue. At least with individual income, there is consensus that tax cuts will not increase revenue.

But what about business tax? Well, that's complicated. The United States does have the highest ~nominal~ business taxes, and there's ~some~ evidence that cutting the business tax rate might increase revenue. But the effective tax rate of American businesses is extremely low, already far below the OECD average that's supposed to be the Laffer curve "sweet spot" Republicans are aiming for, justified by papers such as this.

In other words, they're equivocating on the effective and nominal U.S. tax rates. However, it's not entirely bad, the tax plan also does limit some corporate tax credits. However, it repeals the minimum and many tax credits are left in place; it's hard to estimate exactly how this will effect the actual coporate tax rate, but the point is, it's probably to the left of the maximum in the Laffer curve, i.e. won't produce revenue.



A common refrain, but this raises the question: do the wealthy disproportionately benefit from government spending? If they do, it's wrong to claim the current progressive tax system is "unfair" in any way. And I think it's pretty uncontroversial that they do disproportionately benefit from government spending: the bailout, for one, preserved the value of many toxic financial assets that wealthy people had a larger stake in, while homeowners were often shafted.



Again, true, but the U.S. also has by far the worst inequality in the developed world. So much that they still earn more than the wealthy in other developed nations, even after the heftier progressive tax.



That's because the benefits to the wealthy are not primarily in income tax, they're in the value added to corporate stock, which wealthy people own almost all of.



Sounds alot like the Bush tax cuts.



When you comprehend the whole paragraph and look at the key idea, what it's saying is cutting taxes is good because it helps businesses, while spending is the problem. Also, "lol" that the pretext for this normative claim is "reality".



As above, equivocating on the nominal vs. the effective tax rate.



"Flexibility to repatriate capital" means literally not taxing income they bring back. More on why this is meaningless later.



You've created an incentive, but is it an effective one? More on why this is meaningless later as above.



Yes, if you could get corporations to invest. But this is unlikely, and as above we will discuss why this is later.



"It will grow" is not the same as "it will grow significantly and justify its costs". I'm not sure how these estimates are done, but I'm also not sure how strong the "consensus" is here: they certainly preferred to label the highest estimated GDP increases they could find, but didn't seem to present the alternative view.. hmm.



How about both? There's evidence that redistribution does not create market-destroying conditions. Much the opposite, in fact, it doesn't seem to correlate at all with growth, or if it does, the correlation is that inequality produces slightly less growth. This is good news for progressives: increase the effective top tax rate to 60% and you won't see any loss to productivity. In other words, it literally doesn't matter to the economy how much CEOs earn. Half or quarter their income and nothing will happen except conditions will be better for other people.



Sure: Democrats often propose policies that might hamper growth, but that's not the point here.



Let's look at their source:



It's not even remotely funny the level of cynicism one must be capable of to say with a straight face that this loss of employment is bad. "The ACA is bad", the Republican said, "because healthy people don't want to do slave labor."



Buzzwords

So on what I was going to comment on earlier: there's every reason to believe that the tax bill will have only tiny effects on investment. Consider, for one, this event. Seriously, watch the video.

CEOs couldn't even bull****. They are under no false pretenses and are not lying. Most have no intentions of expanding their businesses after the tax cut, despite that being the necessary ingredient for the tax cuts to be able to pay for themselves on any level. Corporations are awash with cash. They are sitting on record amounts of money. Letting them bring back hundreds of billions for free and cutting their taxes isn't going to change what they're already doing, in fact, most predict they're going to double down on share buybacks and other activities which help only the 84% of their primary shareholders.

Not to mention the opinion of every rating agency ever that this will not lead to substantial growth.

So, cherrypick the outlier estimates if you want even minimal GDP growth, sure. Over here in "let's pick the mean if you want a better approximation" land, the Republican tax bill is bunk, and I can safely say the conservative defense of it is economically illiterate, biased, uninformed, and relies on brushed-up faulty economics 101 reasoning that any serious person can see through.

This is why I called center-right conservative apologia dangerous. Eversor is seemingly incapable of accepting that there is not really a sensible, intellectual center-right force in American politics. Everybody who's a liberal desperately wants there to be one, but all that really exists is a few columnists and podcasters, and beyond them waves and waves of angry Trump populists.

But go ahead, wait for Republicans to compromise in a bipartisan way. See how well that's panning out.

More liberals read Ross Douthat than conservatives.

It's a Marxist interpretation, you silly.