Leaving Sullivan aside for a moment (who I actually do read on an almost-daily basis), why are these positions not considered conservative? Is it because "conservative" means now "achieve the smallest government possible"?

If we make the case that the stimulus and tax increases were/are necessary to preserve the fiscal health of the country & government, isn't this, by definition a conservative action (i.e. "to preserve"). Or has our national dialogue devolved to the state that we simply state "any spending = liberal" and move on?

Why is regulation a "liberal" concept? Wouldn't an actual conservative want to avoid the negative outcomes generally associated with lax and/or too little regulation? Wouldn't an actual conservative want smart regulation designed to maximize positive outcomes? Or has our dialogue, again, ended up in a shorthand where any regulation is merely a step towards socialism?

Why is the provision of health care not conservative? Why wouldn't a "conservative" approach to the provision of health care be to do so in a comprehensive, level, and fiscally prudent way. In this sense, a "liberal" approach to the provision of health care would consist on extra-generous (i.e. "liberal") provision of cradle-to-grave services. But a conservative one could still (and arguably would still) look to cover all with a comprehensive approach that, critically, made use of standards, regulation (*gasp*) and economies of scale.


If you're arguing that in current American terminology the above isn't a realistic understanding of "liberal" or "conservative", then I'm with you there. But if we do so, then the fact of the matter is that both labels are now fundamentally meaningless, since in reality "liberal" now means "anyone not in the GOP" and "conservative" now means "mean-spirited libertarian".

What do you mean why are these positions not considered 'conservative'? It's like you haven't been following politics for the last decade. Conservatism has been about smaller government since the Reagan years, and it has been building upon that since the rejection, by the base, of George H.W. Bush.

You can't put the genie back in the box and go back to 1970s definitions of liberals and conservatives. That dog just won't hunt. And referring to those definitions to say things like Obama is really just a moderate Republican (not that you have necessarily said that, but others have) is just going to result in a eyeroll by most of the population.

How can conservatism be about smaller government when its same proponents on the political stage are also in favor of greater scrutiny / restrictions of private individuals' actions?

Are we being deliberately obtuse now?

I don't know, are you?

I guess the conclusion I'm trying to construct here is that "liberal" and "conservative" are meaningless labels now. It's difficult to conclude otherwise when those who call themselves "conservative" are, on the whole, fiscally libertarian and socially interventionist, while "liberal" has simply become a pejorative to the point that even those who would have called themselves "liberal" back in the day (raises hand) won't now.


I believe you are arguing that the political spectrum is relative and malleable over time. Thus, the definition of a "pure Moderate" would be expected to move over time (and thus has moved rightward). And I'm fine with that. The problem is that you interchange the words "left", "right" and "center" with "liberal", "conservative" and "moderate". Thus, Obama's a lefty.

But shouldn't a left/right spectrum retain an actual center and stay constant over time? I guess that's what I'm arguing. And the point of that is to, again, point out that while the GOP has continued to move rightward, the center has been taken over by Democrats (which, yes, includes, but is not wholly made up of, "lefties").

The problem with allowing the spectrum to shift is that it masks the fact that the GOP has become less and less a party of the mainstream. So yes, when I say Obama has governed like a "moderate Republican", I am talking about a GOP of 20 years ago. But I admit that most would laugh because they're thinking of the GOP of today. But to then say that the GOP of today is merely right-of-center because the political spectrum has shifted, when in fact they're supporting more extreme policies than ever, is to give the party an air of credulity and respectability I don't believe its actions deserve.

Anyway, I hope that makes sense.

Um... why should an actual center stay constant?! That makes no sense. If political terms shift and move, then the center shifts and moves too.


And when they win the Senate this fall (as looks likely) and control the legislature, it makes little sense to claim they are 'less' a party of the mainstream. Unless your mainstream is Massachusetts...

And that's an extremely false construct, to the point that I can't for the life of me understand why you'd waste your time trying to build it.

It's difficult to conclude
Stop right there ... because you just gave meaning to those "meaningless" labels. Let's even stipulate for the sake of discussion that it's a reasonably accurate description. Just because the definition has changed perhaps vs 50 years ago doesn't make the word meaningless. It makes it difficult to use clearly if you're trying to compare modern socio-politics to what are now historical socio-politics but if you're talking modern apples-to-apples then the word is still perfectly useful.


Whereas the previous incarnations of the GOP (circa 50s / 60s) were a party that I had little to no use for and would not (and did not circa 70s) associate myself with.

That's fine, and I can agree with that. But then why do you continue to use "lefty" as a pejorative? Do you mean to indicate that you feel Campaign Obama and Warren are far left wackos? Because that's what I infer from your posts. More telling, you employ no similar pejorative for those on the right. Is that intentional?


I would caution against using election results from our somewhat-unrepresentative bicameral legislature as a guide to what's mainstream or not.

I think you doth protest too much. Lefty is a descriptor, not a pejorative and any issues you have with that are you own. We aren't talking about righty pols because they kind of don't exist in the Democratic Party, do they?

And not using election results to determine what is mainstream is the silliest thing I've heard of in a while.

I can agree with all of that.

I guess my issue is that both "liberal" and "left" have been turned into perjoratives in a way "conservative" and "right" have not (unless, critically, you add adjectives to "right", like "right-wing gun nut").

To me, that makes the usage of any of the four words somewhat meaningless for constructive discussion, even though I can see the utility, as you suggest, of using them as shorthand.

What are most words if not shorthand?

I can describe the blueberry lemon poundcake upstairs as "delicious" but does that really tell you a lot (other than the fact I approve of it)?

I could say "man, that Walmart bakery blueberry lemon poundcake upstairs on the center island of my kitchen counter is exceptionally moist, with a commendable blend of sweet and tart. The texture is particularly pleasing to my palate and the pre-sliced portions are well considered, with a half slice proving to be just the right amount to satisfy as either dessert or snack" ...

but in the interest of time -- both yours & mine -- it probably makes more sense to simply say "delicious"

Illegal Immigration Crisis:

Sorry, slightly off-topic, but for the record, I am in favor of the Obama plan requesting $3.7B to shut off the current illegal entry flood gates. The plan calls for some crazy ridiculous funding like $1.6B to house and feed illegals temporarily and $300M to tell Central America to stop (??) but overall, it's a start. Particularly the part where he's willing to admit that we are clearly understaffed at the border.

Hopefully this request doesn't die.

If Obama wants it then Republicans don't.

Sorry Dutch, but that's $1.6B too much right from the top.

Agreed, but its the next $1.6B I want to see us tap into. No way to do it straight up with a liberal president. You have to pay the "coalition vote tax" first. In the end its just fake money anyway.

Well, anyway: The Best Of The Dish Today « The Dish



The ideological placement scale is from Pew, btw.

You realize that's a 23 question, pretty simple binary quiz, right? It's entirely devoid of any nuance and makes you pick from two relatively vague positions and asks which comes closer to your views.

I did this quiz a week or so ago... and my results are:


I am literally as far left as they can go on their chart.

Agree or disagree? :)

Panerd's alternative: Stop the war on drugs. Stopping a policy that destroys these Central American countries. Instead let's give the drug cartels (sorry I mean Central American governments) a $300M bribe and continue a federal policy that about half of the states are working on their own to override.

Well, it is Pew, after all.

Are you surprised you're further left than Sullivan?

I don't think you understand fully...

I'm kind of tired this morning. Can you just spell it out for me?

Pew's Do-It-Yourself Poll is very flawed. If you want to do it yourself, you can see for yourself.

It isn't that puts me to the left of Sullivan (where I'm not necessarily sure I belong anyways), it is that it says I am the absolute farthest left pole in American politics. Do you believe that I'm as left as one can possibly go in American politics?

OK, fine. FWIW, I decided to take it and a) in no surprise I'm a Solid Liberal and b) yes, it's a poorly-designed test.

So, whatever.


Let's press the reset button on the conversation for a sec.

Let's assume a "standard" political spectrum looks like this:



If public opinion shifts rightward over time, as we suggest it has, does the resulting spectrum look like this:



or this:

I think both are too simplistic and fails to account for those considered 'off the scale'.

A center shifting rightward will tend to move everything a bit rightward. Those are on the far left in the original calculus will be considered extreme (and thus 'off' the scale), those originally moderate left will be considered left, and those considered extreme and 'off the scale to the right will be considered as part of the spectrum again.

In the future, of course, less and less younger people will be on the original far left pole as the center shifts to the right. After all, how many young Democratic Congresspeople (inc Senators) are in the mold of Bernie Sanders? Compare that with young Republican Congresspeople in the mold of Ron Paul.

This may need its own thread.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0FM1TU20140717

Isn't the correct answer here "it depends"?

As in, it depends upon what you're measuring L/C/R against.
Current average positions/values?
Historical and/or traditional values?
Definitions of L/C/R that are defined independently of any mass valuation (i.e. never mind what the rest of the population thinks, Issue A has either Left or Right position that can be taken, with Moderate being a position that hedges between the two)



I mean, any representation -- a graph, a percentage score, any way to plot your location on some spectrum -- is reliant upon the scale being used for the horizontal axis, right?

*In case I'm not expressing this clearly/very well, I'm thinking along the lines of how TV ratings are determined by what universe you're measuring. The same show can be a 1.0, a 4.6 and a 2.7 in the same week. It just depends upon what you're trying to measure (A18+ vs W18-34 vs A18-34).

I was basing the MS Paint graphs on this concept:


Which, btw, thanks for putting into understandable words for me.


So, with that context, what I'm asking is whether the liberal/moderate/conservative terminology shifts (and/or should it shift) as the average of public opinion shifts.

IMO goes back to the context of the discussion, and/or the participants in the discussion.

Let's use me for an example. I'm a black/white/right/wrong kind of guy. I'll pick out gay marriage as an easy topic for the illustration. I'm going to identify acceptance/approval of it as a "Left" (synonymous with Liberal) position.

The only context where I'd likely agree to a different labeling of it is if we were discussing something like positions relative to some recent study that showed X% thought this about it while Y% thought the opposite and Z% were somewhere in the middle.

THEN someone generally accepting of it (I dunno, say a reply like "thinks it should be legal, does not necessarily personally approve") could be "Moderate" in the context of that specific discussion.

Go back to my Nancy/Hillary/Harry comment a few days ago. If those three are the context (in TV ratings terms "the universe") then one of them is Left, one is Moderate, and one is Right.

Next Generation Left.

Lots of things happening around Obama.

-- Ukraine crisis
-- Israeli into Gaza
-- Iraq and ISIS
-- Iran
-- Afghanistan & Election results
-- Border kids

Not sure I've seen so much happening at one time before. But I try to put it into context. If it was one or the other, I still prefer today vs during the Great Recession.

YOU FORGOT BENGHAAAAAAAAZIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!

IRS and NSA and VA and Obamacare. You left all the good stuff out.

The Israeli-Gaza coverage is interesting. All you see from the Gaza-backed side is pictures and stories about children and women (while Hamas militants hide in these neighborhoods), while on the other side, it's about Israel taking out tunnels, how Hamas allegedly rejected ceasefire proposals, the non-stop rockets in Israel by Hamas.

We're still in a recession IMO.

Agggh, you totally forgot that we have a College Football playoff because of him! Right?

Obama gets 'promise kept' for college football playoff

There is no opinion regarding a recession. An economic recession is defined as negative GDP growth in two consecutive quarters. That hasn't happened since 2009. Ergo, we can't "still" be in a recession (though we may be entering a new one).

With that said, I probably agree with your implied point. I would say we are (and have been since the 90s) in a period of stagnation. Real wages haven't grown since the Great Recession of 2008, true unemployment/underemployment remains high (this isn't a new phenomena) and any gains have been largely concentrated on the wealthy via the stock market.

The definition for 'recession' is purely country based - what is being seen in America (and has been for a while) is the effect of (1) more people chasing fewer jobs as automation/internet increases, (2) putting the rights of corporations above those of employees ... this depresses the negotiation power of employees with regards to salaries while increasing the profits of corporations.

(I'd argue this has been going on far longer than the 2k8 recession, however it was somewhat masked by people spending by extending mortgages etc.)

As for #1, we need to be able to adapt to technology and use it to our advantage. If we really can't find work because of technology, we're already doomed to being a 3rd world country.

As for #2, I'm not so sure. Detroit is a great example of "corporate weakness and employee strength" with regard to rights and negotiating power.

Detroit is a great example of a lack of diversification combined with inept local government.

Unions gone wild.

This


And this.

Detroit shoul dhave been so cash flush it walked through 2008, however poor leadership destroyed that ideal. The unions and their absurdity drove may jobs out of Detroit and the rest is what you see today.

Wouldn't the entire world become a "3rd world country" then?

Except it takes two to approve a union contract. Blaming the union in isolation is just factually and logically incorrect.

I voted absentee yesterday. Lots of interesting elections in the upcoming primary. Interested to see how it all falls.

Technology has always created jobs, albeit different kinds of jobs. The automobile and internet killed lots of jobs, but ultimately created many more. If we ever get to the point where the technology is so advanced no jobs are needed, then, great. I for one welcome the era of the robot slaves.

A Court Ruling Just Blew A Huge Hole In Obamacare

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Tuesday that more than half the country shouldn't be receiving tax subsidies under Obamacare -- a ruling that could cripple the health care law if it's ultimately upheld.

The 2-1 decision in Halbig v. Sebelius is the first victory, in any court, for a legal challenge that says the tax subsidies should only be available in states that set up their own insurance exchanges.

The health care law specifically authorizes subsidies in "an exchange established by the State," and the plaintiffs in Halbig said the administration violated the law by also extending subsidies to the in the 36 states using the federal system. They said Congress meant for the tax credits to serve as an incentive for states to establish their own exchanges.

Defenders of the health law said that reading of the health care law is too narrow, and that Congress clearly intended for the financial assistance to be provided equally on all exchanges.

Two federal courts have dismissed similar challenges, making Tuesday's victory especially important for the challengers."

So the law could have just said that the tax credits ALSO go to the states using the federal system, in addition to the ones established by the states themselves. Oops.

I think it's a trend in appellate courts to rely more on the literal express words of a statute. My state's appellate court recently overruled precedent that said that a court would follow the words of a statute unless doing so would lead to an absurd result. The reasoning being, legislature can't pass unconstitutional laws, but they're certainly allowed to pass absurd ones, and in any event, it's not up to the court to determine whether a law is good, bad, or absurd. I really don't know if the result here would qualify as "absurd" under that old rule, (and I'm not even up to speed with how the U.S. Supreme Court is addressing that issue these days), though it's certainly not a result the legislature intended.

Edit: With a competent, effective legislature, this would be an easy fix. This kind of shit happens in state courts sometimes, and the state legislature just fixes the statute the next time they're in session. Of course, that's not reality for the U.S. legislature, so the stakes are so much higher. Which makes the federal courts way more powerful than they should be.

I read elsewhere that the intent of the sentence in question is apparently very clear, but due to the wording slip-up, there's basis for this challenge.

In which case, if it gets to SCOTUS, it'll be interesting to see if they'll go common sense or technical.

Also:


Yes.

In another ruling a 4th Circuit Court panel upheld the subsidies today.

They actually got something done?

Obama signs bipartisan jobs bill: "Let's do this more often" | MSNBC

Ho-Lee-Shit, a snowball in hell must be melting.