Are Republican Party policies the root cause of nearly all of our problems?

[RR1997]

Hi guys! I'm RR1997.

My political views have been shifting to left in recent months. I used to be a lot more conservative last year than I am now. I used to be a hawk and a huge Dick Cheney fan, but now I consider myself a centrist/center-left on foreign policy issues. I used to be a right-winger on economic issues, but now I consider myself to be center-right on economic issues. I've been socially liberal my whole life. I'm starting to go through an identity crisis. I don't know who I am. I feel like I'm too right-wing for the Democratic, too left-wing from the Republican Party, and too south-wing for the Libertarian Party (#moderateheroproblems). I feel so left out. Like I don't belong anywhere.

Anyways, is conservatism the root cause of all our problems? The 2008 Financial Crisis was mainly cause by the deregulation of the big banks and the financial sector in general, the "Greed is Good" type mentality, the repeal of Glass-Stealgall. All of which are all conservative principles. Even though I'm still a supporter of deregulation (for most industries), I'm starting to question its effectiveness. Deregulation has hurt us more than it has helped, according to history (with the 2008 Crisis being a good example of that). Even though I used to believe that the government was bad and shouldn't get in the way of the private sector, I'm starting to break away from that kind of thinking (I still adhere to that type of thinking, but just less so compared a year ago).

I'm also a supporter of trickle-down economics, but I'm starting to question its effectiveness as well. History has shown that middle-out economics benefits every class. When the middle-class (the consumers) benifits, so does the rich. It didn't seem to work the other way around when we tried it the other way during The Reagan Era (1981-2009), and all trickle-down economics has done for this country is widen the wealth gap. I'm still for trickle-down economics, but I'm starting to understand the other side.

Even though I still believe that tax cuts do help the economy, I'm starting to question the effectiveness of tax cuts as well. Not only are tax cuts fiscally unsound, do tax cuts really help stimulate the economy? What historical proof is there of this (legit question)? Not to mention that Bush's tax cuts were incredibly fiscally unsound and added on to our debt problem that conservatives keep on whining about. I'm not going to deny that higher taxes means that the government can invest more money in stuff like a better education system, transportation, etc, which is probably good for the economy as well. I still consider myself to be a conservative on the issue of taxes, I'm starting to understand the left-wing point of view.

I've heard many people claim that "you don't cut spending during a recession." Is this the truth? Is more government spending a good thing for our economy? Most economist agree that the Stimulus Package helped us a lot.

I used to be a hawk on foreign policy issues, but that's not true anymore. The hawkish foreign policy brought upon by the conservatives is the reason behind 9/11, ISIS, our budget problems, etc.

Social conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history. Social conservativism is evil. I'm all about progress. If the SoCons were in charge since the mid-1900's, we'd still have racial segregation, no interracial marriages, and etc. Even today, SoCons are fired up by hate. They hate everything different. SSM legalization was a step forward. It was a sign of progress, and SoCons hate this. They don't want us to change as a society for the better. They want to take us backwards. They want to degrade us. Social conservatism is the reason why hate exists. It's the reason why society is progressing slower than we should.

I hear people claim all the time that they're conservatives, but not Republicans, but I'm the exact opposite of that. I'm a Republican, but not a conservative. I'm a liberal Republican. Conservatism is all about opposing modernism. Conservatism is all about hatred and backwardness. Liberalism is all liberty,progress,change,hope,and freedom. I'm a proud liberal.

Globalization is something I'm completely for. This means that I believe that free trade agreements, job outsourcing, more immigration, and the "global-economy" are all things I'm strongly for. I believe in progress. I like the UN. I believe that U.S. should be involved in the world. I belive in change. I don't believe in patriotism and tradition.

Economic conservatism is arguably the root cause of the 2008 Financial Crisis, the wealth gap (I actually don't think the wealth gap is a huge problem,but many do obv.), and our budget crisis.

Foreign policy conservatism is arguably the root cause of 9/11,ISIS,the deaths of thousands in the Middle-East, and the budget crisis.

Social conservatism is arguably the root cause of America's hatred of things that are different and it's backwardness. It's the reason why we aren't progressing faster.

I've noticed that nearly all of our problems that the US faces can be traced back to conservatism.

Do you guys believe that conservatism is the root cause of all our problems?

I voted yes.

EDIT: Changed the title.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes it is. (But it depends how you define conservatism)

[Mercenary]

No, nor is liberalism
The cause of our problems are many different things.
You seem to think the worst fringes of some group or philosophy represent a group.
Social conservatism isnt even, although some elements within it do have bad ideas.
Same is true of social liberalism.

If banks and corps werent so close with government to begin with it is unlikely theyd have grown so powerful and their failure had such an impact. If thwy knew theyd be wiped out instead if bailed out perhaps they wouldnt have made such stupid decisions. If people were held responsible for their decisions a lot of things may have bee averted. I am not sure how the financial meltdowm is the result of conservative policies, it seems to be the result of twisted corporatist policies where government and big business operate as one.

I think the major causes of our problems is government being in bed with big business and people not really seeming to care as evidenced by their voting patterns or lack of voting.
Voting R or D basically is a seal of approval for corporatism.

[Mr. Smith]

Nope.

To keep this short, since I'm at work you should be asking:

- Have things gone too far rightwards?

- If they have, what is the appropriate Overton Window of Left-Right?

[Vosem]

I misread the question and voted 'yes' -- count me as a 'no'.

The more interesting question is why some people come to this website and their political beliefs instantly start shifting.

[Torie]

I misread the question and voted 'yes' -- count me as a 'no'.

The more interesting question is why some people come to this website and their political beliefs instantly start shifting.

Because they're punks and their minds are mush, and then they realize they need to go left to get laid, or something. It takes some skill actually to be right wing and still get leftists to like you, when you "need" them. Hope that helps.

[Beet]

Depends on what is meant by conservative. Anyone who has an ideal policy set/society,would be a 'conservative' in such a society, strictly speaking. Progressivism in its most pure form, besides egalitarianism, would imply continual criticism and revolution, with no fixed program except change itself. in that sense capitalism is quite progressive.

[pbrower2a]

Yes it is. (But it depends how you define conservatism)

It's the sort of conservatism that we now have that does the damage.

The conservatives of an earlier time, one that I can remember, believed that the common man needed a stake in the system. Conservatives recognized the need for dignity in the workplace, fair pay for honest work, thrift, and self-development. They disdained recklessness in business and anything that now resembles 'voodoo economics'. They had no use for demagoguery or debased rhetoric in politics. They saw war as a budget-buster instead of as an opportunity for easy profits for well-connected people.

That is over. They now believe in the mystical benefits of trickle-down economics toward the working poor who get even poorer. They promote an economy in which legal loan-sharking is a significant part of the activity. They push superstition because such allegedly 'improves' people. They love to exploit Orwellian rhetoric that debases the political process. They have no problems with wars so long as they churn profits.

The conservatism that we now have as the dominant expression can implode, and when it does there will be openings for a new (maybe a revived version of the old) conservatism. Many of the voters for Obama in 2008 and 2012 are demographically the sorts of people who 'liked Ike'. Those are as a rule well-educated, often economically-successful people, who recognize that their ability and formal schooling made them what they are more than did some tax cuts to enrich tycoons and executives.   

It is ironic, but in 2008 the connection between income and partisan voting was never so weak. Education, usually a good proxy for income, favored Obama. (Ethnicity and the urban-rural divide mattered far more).   

[RR1997]

I changed the title.

By "conservatism" I meant the way most Americans would define it. Basically the policies of the current GOP.

[SATW]

No, this is equally as ridiculous as saying progressive values are the root of all of our problems.

[RR1997]

Let's play a little game

Someone name a (government-related) problem that the U.S. is going through right now, and I'll connect it to Republican policies

Let's go

[Pandaguineapig]

Let's play a little game

Someone name a (government-related) problem that the U.S. is going through right now, and I'll connect it to Republican policies

Let's go

Failure of the great society programs in relation to minority and impoverished communities

[Cassius]

Have you been roofied?

[Mr. Smith]

Now that you've changed the title, then obviously my vote would change.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The repeal of Glass-Steagall was bipartisan, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley was only the final nail in the coffin after several decades of the law being bent under both Democrats and Republicans in order to keep American banks competitive with banks in other countries that were not constrained by such laws.  "Greed is Good" is not really what this was about, though maybe the small number of left-wingers who opposed it look better in hindsight than the experts who told us that Glass-Steagal was holding us back.

What do "trickle-down" and "middle-out" economics mean, in practical terms? 

What's so great about "progress"?  Is something better just because it is new?  What is it we are supposed to be progressing towards?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The repeal of Glass-Steagall was bipartisan, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley was only the final nail in the coffin after several decades of the law being bent under both Democrats and Republicans in order to keep American banks competitive with banks in other countries that were not constrained by such laws.  "Greed is Good" is not really what this was about, though maybe the small number of left-wingers who opposed it look better in hindsight than the experts who told us that Glass-Steagal was holding us back.

What do "trickle-down" and "middle-out" economics mean, in practical terms? 

What's so great about "progress"?  Is something better just because it is new?  What is it we are supposed to be progressing towards?

True, Clinton and Obama have been barely better than Reagan and the Bushes. All the Presidents for a long time have been terrible. And another Clinton or Bush will make it even worse.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There is nothing wrong with realizing that current position is incorrect. I personally wouldn't mind if the tax rates were back at the Clinton era for the wealthy and maybe even a little higher. On the other hand, on issues like entitlement reform or corporate tax code reform, the Democrats typically get it wrong because they are more concerned with rhetoric then reality when it comes to the numbers on these things.

If you want to get at big banks, the best approach is not regulation, which the banks welcome because they can navigate it with their armies of lawyers and win special favors and carve outs. Instead, what you need is a smarter effective approach to regulation that discourages monopolies and also the risky behaviors, whilst incentivizing the competition and maintaining the necessary competativeness that will prevent things like the crash.

A low corporate income tax, with few to no special breaks or subsidies combined with a higher cap gains and dividend tax would probably yield fewer of these monopolies. But then again, it is not one party or the other that is going to be better on this question since Democrats would raise taxes acros the board, and Republicans would cut the across the board.

Adhering to an ideology doesn't require blanket approval for what that ideology currently or previosuly stood for. Goldwater opposed tax cuts as irresponsible. Taft opposed foreign intervention and wars as wasteful. Taft supported Civil Rights and Everett Dirksen was critical to passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964, but no one doubts they were Conservatives in a broader context.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

One has to acknowledge the difference between Conservatism and Reactionary politics. Conservatism embraces change through legalistic channels, and rejects populism and demogoguery. Reactionary wants to preserve an outdated values set and rejects change outright. Modern Conservatism has its roots in the liberal Whig philosophy of the mid 18th century in England, courtesy of Edmund Burke. Burke was not a reactionary and called for reforms including with regards to both how Ireland was treated by England and with regards to corruption. It is not about embracing the status quo because it is simply the status quo, it is about reforming in a cautious manner.

Social Conservativism is not evil. There is nothing inherently evil about seeking to preserve societal structures and institutions that one deems necessary for society to function. Society has rendered a current Socially Conservative position on marriage to be outdated, true. Society cannot handle too much change or it will tear itself apart. Conservatism by definition is inherently about slowing things down so that society can absorb and react to changes without breaking. In a sense though with a non-elected institution, striking down the misguided will of the people in this sense, the process is one that is inherently conservative in the line with Burkean thought. At least in the sense of rejecting populist-demogoguery.

Real conservatives like Taft and Dirksen supported Civil Right up until the point where it came to ensuring equal rights and voting, and opposed going further on issues like busing and the like.

Reactionaries and pandering politicians, supported the continuance of segregation, opposed inter-racial marriage and the like. The Republican Party openly embraced these types of politicians in the 1960's and 1970's in order to build a viable Conservative coalition off the backs of "lesser of two evil voters" ("not a dimes worth of a difference" is a a quote from George Wallace in 1968). But there was time when a Conservative meant opposing foreign wars, balancing the budget (even it meant raising taxes) and supporting Civil Rights for African Americans.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The way the OP uses the word 'progress' reminds me a little of the movie Braveheart with its completely unelaborated concept of 'freedom'. As Beet said, the only way presenting 'progress' itself as inherently good and 'social conservatism' itself as inherently evil makes any sense at all is if one is both a believer of some stripe in the concept of permanent revolution and basically amoral about what the exact content of the revolution should be. This is why I haven't described my own political views as 'progressive' in years.

If you want to get at big banks, the best approach is not regulation, which the banks welcome because they can navigate it with their armies of lawyers and win special favors and carve outs. Instead, what you need is a smarter effective approach to regulation that discourages monopolies and also the risky behaviors, whilst incentivizing the competition and maintaining the necessary competativeness that will prevent things like the crash.

I can't really parse the second sentence of this paragraph. The following paragraph helps somewhat, but only somewhat. Would you mind expanding on it a little bit?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Right-wing policies are the cause of all of America's problems.

Every. Single. One.

[Reaganfan]

I think of it as quite the opposite actually. Think about everything I ever hear people complain about, it can be traced back to liberals.

I see policeman complain about "sensitivity training" and things brought about by the Justice Department. Who is in charge of the Justice Department? Obama administration.

I see kids in the news overdosing on drugs and using weed that is apparently much stronger than anything the hippies of the 60s ever smoked. Who supports legalizing it? Liberals.

I have friends who wait tables, they can't make minimum wage PLUS tips. Why not? The Fair Wages Act, started by Democrats.

I have friends who like to go shooting. They worry people might be against them exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. Who hates guns and wants gun control? LIBERALS.

My mother gets nervous over hospital test results, she can't get the information from the nurse immediately, there are roadblocks. Why? Hipaa Act. Signed by a Democrat.

My stepfather's employer is at risk of dropping spousal insurance. Why? OBAMACARE. Passed by Democrats only, signed by a Democrat President.

My mother's taxes go up. Why? She's middle class, far from anything close to "wealthy". But as soon as she makes good money, the Government considers her a higher earner and taxes the crap outta her. Who raises taxes on high earners? DEMOCRATS.

I'll hear someone complain that they don't want their hard-earned money "going towards other people's welfare!" Who supports doing that? LIBERALS.

People get stunned that Dukes of Hazzard is taken off the air. Who supports banning it? LIBERALS.

People get angry that a principal suspends a little boy for biting his sandwich into the shape of a gun. Who supports doing it? LIBERALS.

Jesus, watch "Scarface". At the beginning, all those criminal violent Cuban refugees come to Florida. That was a real event. Crime soared. One of the characters at the beginning says to another, "That son of a bi*ch Castro is sh*ttin' all over us." He did. He basically emptied his prisons into Florida. Who allowed that? Jimmy Carter, a Democrat. Thanks Jimmy...I guess being friends with a brutal communist piece of crap is worth turning Miami into a dangerous, violent city. Good going. Good compassion.

I CAN GO ON AND ON AND ON. I just named a few things off the top of my head that I hear people complain almost every day. I'm sure there is even more. It's ALL LIBERALISM. Republicans may not be rosy, but the Democrats are wilted...and I only scratched the surface. EVERYTHING that is pissing people off is a result of liberalism. EVERY SINGLE THING I LISTED YOU KNOW IS TRUE. It's true where I live. People bitch and people moan about this stuff EVERY SINGLE DAY. The solution to the problem is right in front of you. DO NOT ELECT LIBERALS.

If it bothers you, go to a bar and light up a cigarette to relax. OH WAIT...can't smoke inside a bar anymore. I wonder why...

Liberals. Every single day. LIBERALS. I rest my case.

[RFayette]

They weren't the ones (the conservative Republicans you seem to be referring to) who sanctioned and continued to reaffirm the legal slaughter of 50 million unborn children, so no, at least from a pro life paradigm.  Additionally, there are a lot of issues in blue-state urban cores that Republicans haven't touched for decades.  Not to mention the fact that you never stated an actual reason why social liberalism is better, only that social conservatism is "backward."  As far as economics goes, that's an ongoing debate, but I find the incredibly simplistic "Socially liberal = good" mantra pretty unsettling.

If you want to see a serious, socially conservative perspective on morality and political issues, check out Dr. James White, my favorite theologian.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Another victim of the Atlas cool clique. RIP RR1997 (R-IL)

[CountryClassSF]

There is no conservatism anymore. It doesn't exist in government.  It's hard-left vs center-left.

I suggest you leave the Republican Party, left-leaning Repubs have decided our presidential nominees for quite some time now, and are not doing a good job.

Left-wing political correctness is what is hurting the country.

[RFayette]

One thing that's an interesting phenomenon is that hard-core liberals tend to feel the nation's been drifting to the right since 1980 and lament SCOTUS decisions like Citizens United, RTW, property tax caps, etc. while hard-core conservative make similar arguments but cite gay marriage, abortion (since 1973), profanity/pornography, etc.  Both sides tend to see the other as the issue, though conservatism has increasingly become based on social issues, hence a lot of the demographic changes we've been seeing in voting. 

It's funny, I've moved in just about the exact opposite direction of RR1997 since joining Atlas, though this is mainly a function of leaving high school as well as the intake of tons of country music and Calvinist (and general conservative Protestant) theology videos and articles.