Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

Lincoln's a strange case because, even back then, it was hard to label him as liberal or conservative. Still, if I had to pick one, I'd say he was more conservative than liberal. He was a moderate Republican in comparison to the more radical Republicans of the time and he was considered a conservative by at least half the country during his presidency. You have to keep in mind that conservative and liberal didn't mean back then what it does today. Before the progressive era of the 1890s, a conservative was a federalist who believed in the power of big government. Monarchists were the ultra-right wingers of the 1800s. For example, Washington, Adams and Hamilton were all conservatives who believed in a strong federal government. Small government types, like Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Adam Smith, and John Locke, were considered Liberals. These classical liberals were minarchists vehemently against the central banking system and wanted to limit the power of the federal government. They were the ancestors of the present day libertarians. Libertarians, in a sense, are the true liberals.

As I've said before I am trying to construct a panetheon of greats for today's red and blues. I don't think the reds want to claim Lincoln. I read lots of bad things they say about Lincoln.

For me it is just obvious that both Lincoln and Jefferson are among the Greatest in terms of how we remember them. Along with Washington both appear on US money twice, in coins and bills. All three have impressive memorials. So they belong in a pantheon of greats. I'd put all three in my Blue panetheon, but the Red side is going to object. I figure that both sides can make a good case why Washington belongs in their pantheon.

I think the Red side would let us have Lincoln, and I am willing to let them have Jefferson. I figure black folks are a big party of the Blues, and given a choice between the guy who freed the slaves and they guy who owned them, I should think the choice would be obvious.

I can't see leaving out the top-shelf guys.

There are three "GC presidents": Washington, Lincoln and FDR. The reds hate FDR, so we get him. And for the reasons listed above I think they would say take Lincoln, please. The question I had is what do conservative posters think about the guys I stuck them with. Jackson, like Reagan, is a matter of taste. I don't care for either, but I am guessing the Reds feel otherwise.

It's like blue cheese. Some people like it on their salads. For me its completely ruins it.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winning economis, in his book Free to Choosehe says,

“A monopoly can seldom be established within a country without overt and covert government assistance…The De Beers diamond monopoly is the only one we know of that appears to have succeeded. We know of no other that has been able to exist for long without the direct assistance of governments.”

There is usually some potential competitor. De Beers can get away with a monopoly because it is dealing in a luxury item, and the competition with De Beers is now "blood diamonds". The only other rationale for a monopoly is that the market is too small for competition, and monopoly pricing may reflect that the only way to have a necessary retailer in town is for that grocery store, gas station, dry-cleaner, pharmacist, etc. to charge much more than would a retailer in the same line in a suburb in which competitors might be a few miles away. Merchants and professionals need to make their livings, too.

Would-be monopolists or the near-monopolists can succeed in cornering the market if they get the government as an enforcer. Of course that brings up another question: are the political figures in place who would enforce a monopoly or a rigid cartel so long as they get security of office in return? In view of the cravenness of many of our current politicians, I regretfully say that there are such politicians, and in nearly large-enough numbers. The government that can enforce monopolistic pricing is the same government that typically can do anything to anyone who runs afoul of it.

Monopoly usually has its own rationale. High prices to customers and low returns to workers generate extraordinary profits that the would-be monopolist offers as an engine of enhanced growth. The monopolist can thus invest without concern for 'ruinous competition'. Of course that 'ruinous competition' is fellow entrepreneurs who themselves create jobs and business opportunities. Monopoly implies severe inequality, mass underemployment, low wages for the level of economic development, underinvestment, poor service (even to the extent of an adversarial relationship with customers), high costs of doing business that hurt the country's ability to compete, and shortages. That is economics. In politics one can easily get corruption and despotism... maybe even aggressive warfare as the ruling elite seeks to expand its dominion over captive markets.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

Lincoln's a strange case because, even back then, it was hard to label him as liberal or conservative. Still, if I had to pick one, I'd say he was more conservative than liberal.

Well yes. So was the entire Blue pantheon.

He was a moderate Republican in comparison to the more radical Republicans of the time

That's what makes him conservative. Just as FDR was moderate compared to the progressives of his day like Upton Sinclar, Huey Long, or the socialists.

...and he was considered a conservative by at least half the country during his presidency.

Sure he was because in those days an opponent to (classical) liberalism (which had only been on the Left before 1781) was considered as a conservative (at least by liberals)

A philosophical liberal is someone who celebrates individual freedom. But the word was repurposed by FDR to stand in for "progressive", but at the same time retaining the association with Jefferson and Jackson, because, after all FDR was a Democrat, the party of Jefferson and Jackson. Since FDR the word liberal no longer means libertarian, which is why that word was coined to describe (classical) liberalism.

Libertarianism today stands on the right, as does Conservatism, and various kinds of Fascists. Todays' left has various kinds of progressives and mainstream liberals. Both the Right and Left have conservative and radical factions.

Todays liberals are the conservatives of the Left, while yesterdays liberals (now libertarians) are now radicals of the Right. A radical is one who desires to make fundamental changes, to strike at the "root" of the problems that face us. Radical means root. A conservative is one who desires to address problems by making smaller steps that usually involve modifying existing institutions.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

Maybe there's a generation gap in play here. I can easily see Millennials rehabilitating LBJ as they have no direct memory of Vietnam, while Boomers were so uniquely scarred from the Vietnam experience that they may permanently hold it against him (though we'll see if enrollment in Medicare changes any minds). What does the Boomer contingent here think? Eric, I'd be particularly interested in your opinion.

LBJ all the way (to use a 1964 campaign slogan). He did get us involved into Vietnam (following the conventional wisdom of the time. but his passion was bringing the south into the 20th century and bringing black and white together; he also gave us Civil Rights, Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps. All huge things.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I was trying to come up with a list of greats for today's red vs blue factions. I ruled out Wilson because he was a racist. Bryan was a Creationist, and that doesn't fit with todays blue side. Although both men were economic progressives, the social issues are still very important to partisans on both sides.

Fair enough, though I think today's progressives could handle a creationist on their side better than a racist (the prohibitionist side of Bryan would be more troublesome). But we have that high of a threshold, I don't know if anyone on the blue side is going to meet it. Lincoln was quite moderate compared to the Radical Republicans. FDR was no saint on racial matters either (hello, Korematsu...). We mentioned LBJ and Vietnam, and the same could be said of Hubert Humphrey, another fair competitor. I'm sure you could have some similar conflicts on the red side of things as well.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

He was a dunce and an ideologue, and should never be deferred to.

If by "dunce" and "ideologue" you mean Friedman is the most brilliant and intelligent economist of the 20th century you would be correct. Any economist who defers to flawed and failed Keynesianism is an ideologue. The Austrian and Chicago schools of thought regarding economics are the only schools of thought of any reasonable truth - the rest of them are just ideologues in being a horse of a different color (and a dead one from failure after failure at that).

j.p.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Originally Posted by Eric The Green

He was a dunce and an ideologue, and should never be deferred to.

If by "dunce" and "ideologue" you mean Friedman is the most brilliant and intelligent economist of the 20th century you would be correct. Any economist who defers to flawed and failed Keynesianism is an ideologue. The Austrian and Chicago schools of thought regarding economics are the only schools of thought of any reasonable truth - the rest of them are just ideologues in being a horse of a different color (and a dead one from failure after failure at that).

j.p.

I was with you on the first sentence--Friedman clearly was not stupid. But the rest...all I'll say is that Friedman's beloved monetarism boils down to a very specific type of Keynesianism.

I've really enjoyed this thread, and stayed out of it on purpose. That said, I did want to make a comment here.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I was trying to come up with a list of greats for today's red vs blue factions. I ruled out Wilson because he was a racist. Bryan was a Creationist, and that doesn't fit with today's blue side. Although both men were economic progressives, the social issues are still very important to partisans on both sides.

There seems to be a shifting underway in the social landscape. It's not dominant by any means, but many of the supposed cutting-edge social issues have now been so long settled in the "blue" direction, that they are becoming "conservative" values. Why else would several prominent conservatives begin pushing for moving birth control pills into the OTC domain? This would have been unthinkable just a few short years ago. Similarly, and more on the current landscape, acceptance of same-sex marriage is spreading into the RED domain, with Ted Olson as the chief litigator on the pro side. Obviously, family values are broadening.

I'm beginning to wonder whether social issues will be as divisive as they were. Although some ideas are still very divisive, I'm not sure they have much if any political power any more. Creationists will still be there, but their politics is becoming reactionary. Radicals and reactionaries tend to be marginalized, even within the groups they support. Are we moving into a two-issue world: economics and foreign affairs? If so, how much weight should we give to social issues?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

LBJ all the way (to use a 1964 campaign slogan). He did get us involved into Vietnam (following the conventional wisdom of the time. but his passion was bringing the south into the 20th century and bringing black and white together; he also gave us Civil Rights, Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps. All huge things.

I have to agree with Jenny on this one. The Vietnam War is certainly LBJ's biggest mistake, but the other things he did have to hold sway here. They were big then, and they're still big today. While we did become very pacifist for a while, it didn't last. Yes, the left is still less militant than the right, how does that affect the foreign posture of today? With no draft, it's easy to not care, and that seems to be common on both sides of the spectrum. Domestic policy trumps foreign policy on this one.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

I was with you on the first sentence--Friedman clearly was not stupid. But the rest...all I'll say is that Friedman's beloved monetarism boils down to a very specific type of Keynesianism.

At that, his prescription for ending a major downturn is the very policies followed by Ben Bernanke, and they failed to reverse the situation. He claimed it would have been a fully adequate response to the Great Depression ... better than the fiscal response followed at the time. I think we can agree: he was wrong.

He was brilliant, but his star is already fading fast. Few, if any, of today's economists cite Friedman on anything.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I've really enjoyed this thread, and stayed out of it on purpose. That said, I did want to make a comment here.



There seems to be a shifting underway in the social landscape. It's not dominant by any means, but many of the supposed cutting-edge social issues have now been so long settled in the "blue" direction, that they are becoming "conservative" values. Why else would several prominent conservatives begin pushing for moving birth control pills into the OTC domain? This would have been unthinkable just a few short years ago. Similarly, and more on the current landscape, acceptance of same-sex marriage is spreading into the RED domain, with Ted Olson as the chief litigator on the pro side. Obviously, family values are broadening.

I'm beginning to wonder whether social issues will be as divisive as they were. Although some ideas are still very divisive, I'm not sure they have much if any political power any more. Creationists will still be there, but their politics is becoming reactionary. Radicals and reactionaries tend to be marginalized, even within the groups they support. Are we moving into a two-issue world: economics and foreign affairs? If so, how much weight should we give to social issues?

For me, social issues are so 3T. They are nothing to me. Not any sort of litmus test.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There seems to be a shifting underway in the social landscape. It's not dominant by any means, but many of the supposed cutting-edge social issues have now been so long settled in the "blue" direction, that they are becoming "conservative" values. Why else would several prominent conservatives begin pushing for moving birth control pills into the OTC domain? This would have been unthinkable just a few short years ago. Similarly, and more on the current landscape, acceptance of same-sex marriage is spreading into the RED domain, with Ted Olson as the chief litigator on the pro side. Obviously, family values are broadening.

The coalition that made the Reagan-Gingrich-Cheney coalition possible, one that grafted together some of the most extreme materialists ever (think of the ethos of the Gilded Age) and some of the most extreme anti-materialists (the Religious Right) together now show signs of rift. The Religious Right has gotten little of its way; acceptance of reproductive freedom and even homosexuality is becoming the norm. Devout religiosity could cause the Religious Right to deny the significance of environmental ruin and economic inequality (because Jesus is surely coming soon!)... but those are the people most vulnerable to nasty conditions because they are poorer and less mobile. The fundamentalists and evangelicals have at times gone very far to the left of the mainstream on economic values when they find that their erstwhile allies have taken them on a bad ride. We may be on the brink of a populist era in the South.... New Deal in the 1930s, "New South" based upon an alliance between white and black blue-collar workers that allowed Jimmy Carter to be elected once, and perhaps now.

I'm beginning to wonder whether social issues will be as divisive as they were. Although some ideas are still very divisive, I'm not sure they have much if any political power any more. Creationists will still be there, but their politics is becoming reactionary. Radicals and reactionaries tend to be marginalized, even within the groups they support. Are we moving into a two-issue world: economics and foreign affairs? If so, how much weight should we give to social issues?

People who see themselves with shared economic interests become the mainstream if they are the majority. The Right tells people to ignore the hazards of environmental destruction, harsher management in business, debased education, and intensified inequality because such is the Will of God. Ironically the Blue side, which isn't particularly liberal anymore (I see Obama as practically Eisenhower returned in temperament and much the same political support if not with a military record... and I think Obama would have been a fine senior officer if he had attended one of the Service Academies) has its own clergy to call upon. The Will of God does not imply the oppression of the helpless, as has been shown in both Testaments. The Gospel of Greed is an ugly blasphemy.

Originally Posted by JDFP

If by "dunce" and "ideologue" you mean Friedman is the most brilliant and intelligent economist of the 20th century you would be correct. Any economist who defers to flawed and failed Keynesianism is an ideologue. The Austrian and Chicago schools of thought regarding economics are the only schools of thought of any reasonable truth - the rest of them are just ideologues in being a horse of a different color (and a dead one from failure after failure at that).

j.p.

Keynes works; trickle-down economics does not.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Keynes works; trickle-down economics does not.

Actually, Friedman wasn't a trickle-down guy. He was a monetarist, which is different in many ways, similar in others. In short, Friedman believed that the money supply was as expansive as it needed to be, or as tight. He was the one who thought is was just wonderful that the Chinese were willing to send us real things for a bunch of green paper with dead Presidents printed on it ... the more the better.

He only favored intervention in the economy through the Fed, and only then to control inflation or deflation. He was right about the former, and out to lunch on the latter.

He was a full-blown libertarian too, feeling that the government was an impediment to economic progress. Those ideas have been labeled trickle-down, but that wasn't his argument for favoring an unregulated economic world. He was wrong about that too.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Actually, Friedman wasn't a trickle-down guy. He was a monetarist, which is different in many ways, similar in others. In short, Friedman believed that the money supply was as expansive as it needed to be, or as tight. He was the one who thought is was just wonderful that the Chinese were willing to send us real things for a bunch of green paper with dead Presidents printed on it ... the more the better.

A huge mistake. Eventually the money becomes practically worthless. No country gets rich by importing luxury goods even if it does so on the cheap. Imports may reduce the cost of living, but they also create unemployment.

He only favored intervention in the economy through the Fed, and only then to control inflation or deflation. He was right about the former, and out to lunch on the latter.

In the former he offered what orthodox and Keynesian economists offered. In the latter he supported what Keynes economists showed was completely futile. People scared to spend money simply hoard it. If anything it would be wiser for the government to deal out gift cards with expiration dates than cash (whether as currency or electronic data). Just about everyone could find some way to spend $500 at Wal*Mart on a card that expires in 60 days and usable only there, which would be more effective in stimulating the US economy than $540 in cash.

He was a full-blown libertarian too, feeling that the government was an impediment to economic progress. Those ideas have been labeled trickle-down, but that wasn't his argument for favoring an unregulated economic world. He was wrong about that too.

His idea was that personal choice could almost never be wrong even if one were brainwashed or if one were in such gross need that one would act in desperation.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There seems to be a shifting underway in the social landscape. It's not dominant by any means, but many of the supposed cutting-edge social issues have now been so long settled in the "blue" direction, that they are becoming "conservative" values. Why else would several prominent conservatives begin pushing for moving birth control pills into the OTC domain? This would have been unthinkable just a few short years ago. Similarly, and more on the current landscape, acceptance of same-sex marriage is spreading into the RED domain, with Ted Olson as the chief litigator on the pro side. Obviously, family values are broadening.

This is exactly what I was trying to say in this post, suggesting that S&H likely have it right as a whole that Millies are going to be socially conservative, as they are concurring with the values fought for by elder generations. What was once progressive is now conservative, and what was once conservative is now reactionary.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm beginning to wonder whether social issues will be as divisive as they were. Although some ideas are still very divisive, I'm not sure they have much if any political power any more. Creationists will still be there, but their politics is becoming reactionary. Radicals and reactionaries tend to be marginalized, even within the groups they support. Are we moving into a two-issue world: economics and foreign affairs? If so, how much weight should we give to social issues?

The typical script of the 4T is to wrap up dealing with a lot of those 2T battles and move onto to new ones. It sure seems like me that Millies in particular are in the process of following that script--hopefully they indeed do so.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

At that, his prescription for ending a major downturn is the very policies followed by Ben Bernanke, and they failed to reverse the situation. He claimed it would have been a fully adequate response to the Great Depression ... better than the fiscal response followed at the time. I think we can agree: he was wrong.

He was brilliant, but his star is already fading fast. Few, if any, of today's economists cite Friedman on anything.

In a nutshell, Friedman was a myopic half-Keynesian, focusing almost entirely on the monetary policy side. He lucked out in the early 80s when that prescription was exceptionally useful, but it's one that, as you pointed out, can't cure everything at every moment. pbrower2 pointed out one reason why on the hoarding factor. In order for counter-cyclical government action to work at its fullest, you need a monetary policy to provide the fuel and a fiscal policy to consume it. In that sense, I'm not sure how much blame should go to Bernanke and how much blame should go to Congress and the President for providing an inadequate stimulus.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

In a nutshell, Friedman was a myopic half-Keynesian, focusing almost entirely on the monetary policy side. He lucked out in the early 80s when that prescription was exceptionally useful, but it's one that, as you pointed out, can't cure everything at every moment. pbrower2 pointed out one reason why on the hoarding factor. In order for counter-cyclical government action to work at its fullest, you need a monetary policy to provide the fuel and a fiscal policy to consume it. In that sense, I'm not sure how much blame should go to Bernanke and how much blame should go to Congress and the President for providing an inadequate stimulus.

I think we can agree that the fiscal side has been hobbled to the point of irrelevance. We have a system based on making it very easy to stop changes from occurring, but very hard to actually enact them - made worse by a SCOTUS bent on reversing earlier progress. I have a hard time seeing this being resolved during this 4T. Just resetting the rules to balance the dominance of private money in the political system, a necessary first step, will be a huge challenge.

I agree that the Millies will be conservative in the classic sense, as noted in your earlier post. I'm less certain that they understand the degree of sclerosis in the system, since, in their entire life experience, they have nothing different to use as a model. This is also true for younger Xers, just now moving into power positions.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I think we can agree that the fiscal side has been hobbled to the point of irrelevance. We have a system based on making it very easy to stop changes from occurring, but very hard to actually enact them - made worse by a SCOTUS bent on reversing earlier progress. I have a hard time seeing this being resolved during this 4T. Just resetting the rules to balance the dominance of private money in the political system, a necessary first step, will be a huge challenge.

Yes indeed, but I am encouraged that the Senate just voted for a constitutional amendment no less to overturn Citizens United, with Republican votes; 79 votes total in favor! (at least to go forward with debate) So I suppose it's possible, even if someone like Boehner or statehouse Republicans are still able to put a roadblock in front of it now. It's a positive sign; the people are behind it. Certainly if it does not pass now, this certainly means it will pass later in the 4T.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes indeed, but I am encouraged that the Senate just voted for a constitutional amendment no less to overturn Citizens United, with Republican votes; 72 votes total in favor! (at least to go forward with debate) So I suppose it's possible, even if someone like Boehner or statehouse Republicans are still able to put a roadblock in front of it now. It's a positive sign; the people are behind it. Certainly if it does not pass now, this certainly means it will pass later in the 4T.

They didn't pass it--it was just a procedural vote to open up debate on the floor. And it looks like it's just an opportunity for the GOP to try to clown the Dems over it.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

They didn't pass it--it was just a procedural vote to open up debate on the floor. And it looks like it's just an opportunity for the GOP to try to clown the Dems over it.

Hey, let's grasp at straws

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Originally Posted by Bronco80

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes indeed, but I am encouraged that the Senate just voted for a constitutional amendment no less to overturn Citizens United, with Republican votes; 79 votes total in favor! (at least to go forward with debate) So I suppose it's possible, even if someone like Boehner or statehouse Republicans are still able to put a roadblock in front of it now. It's a positive sign; the people are behind it. Certainly if it does not pass now, this certainly means it will pass later in the 4T.

They didn't pass it--it was just a procedural vote to open up debate on the floor. And it looks like it's just an opportunity for the GOP to try to clown the Dems over it.

Hey, let's grasp at straws

The most positive spin on this is that the Senate Democrats did it at all. Yes, they chose a safe issue, with high positive approval among the electorate, but standing for something is important. I wish Obama would try it sometime. Reagan would take a stand, lose badly, then blame the obstructionist Democrats for denying the people <insert any issue he favored>. Note how well it worked. Being a fighter in America is always admired, and admiration can be parlayed to success later more often than not.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Keynes works; trickle-down economics does not.

But trickle-down is obsolete - even on the right, which now doesn't even pretend that anything should trickle down to the lazy "takers" (or "lucky duckies" as that WSJ editorial called them).

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But trickle-down is obsolete - even on the right, which now doesn't even pretend that anything should trickle down to the lazy "takers" (or "lucky duckies" as that WSJ editorial called them).

Trickle-down is a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition. Elites make vague promises contingent on everything going right for non-elites. Eventually the slaves and serfs get the cast-off rags that the elites no longer find useful.

The idea is that the little man is somehow better off if squeezed, sweated, and starved -- and thus crippled -- than if he is allowed to make choices based upon rational thought and management of solid pay.

Trickle-down is ruin for the non-rich.