But what does dismantling the institution of marriage, keeping G-d out of the schools (and everywhere else for that matter) and condoms in, and letting unborn babies be mass-murdered, have to do with leveling the economic playing field?

Since the authoress doesn't even try to say why, her piece, despite its title, while a fairly good read overall, is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, as Perry Mason liked to say.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/here...nt-understand/

Here are 7 things people who say they’re ‘fiscally conservative but socially liberal’ don’t understand

By Greta Christina

“Well, I’m conservative, but I’m not one of those racist, homophobic, dripping-with-hate Tea Party bigots! I’m pro-choice! I’m pro-same-sex-marriage! I’m not a racist! I just want lower taxes, and smaller government, and less government regulation of business. I’m fiscally conservative, and socially liberal.”

How many liberals and progressives have heard this? It’s ridiculously common. Hell, even David Koch of the Koch brothers has said, “I’m a conservative on economic matters and I’m a social liberal.”

And it’s wrong. W-R-O-N-G Wrong.

You can’t separate fiscal issues from social issues. They’re deeply intertwined. They affect each other. Economic issues often are social issues. And conservative fiscal policies do enormous social harm. That’s true even for the mildest, most generous version of “fiscal conservatism” — low taxes, small government, reduced regulation, a free market. These policies perpetuate human rights abuses. They make life harder for people who already have hard lives. Even if the people supporting these policies don’t intend this, the policies are racist, sexist, classist (obviously), ableist, homophobic, transphobic, and otherwise socially retrograde. In many ways, they do more harm than so-called “social policies” that are supposedly separate from economic ones. Here are seven reasons that “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” is nonsense.

1: Poverty, and the cycle of poverty. This is the big one. Poverty is a social issue. The cycle of poverty — the ways that poverty itself makes it harder to get out of poverty, the ways that poverty can be a permanent trap lasting for generations — is a social issue, and a human rights issue.

If you’re poor, there’s about a two in three chance that you’re going to stay poor for at least a year, about a two in three chance that if you do pull out of poverty you’ll be poor again within five years — and about a two in three chance that your children are going to be poor. Among other things: Being poor makes it much harder to get education or job training that would help you get higher-paying work. Even if you can afford job training or it’s available for free — if you have more than one job, or if your work is menial and exhausting, or if both of those are true (often the case if you’re poor), there’s a good chance you won’t have the time or energy to get that training, or to look for higher-paying work. Being poor typically means you can’t afford to lose your job — which means you can’t afford to unionize, or otherwise push back against your wages and working conditions. It means that a temporary crisis — sickness or injury, job loss, death in the family — can destroy your life: you have no cushion, nobody you know has a cushion, a month or two without income and you’re totally screwed. If you do lose your job, or if you’re disabled, the labyrinthine bureaucracy of unemployment and disability benefits is exhausting: if you do manage to navigate it, it can deplete your ability to do much of anything else to improve your life — and if you can’t navigate it, that’s very likely going to tank your life.

Also, ironically, being poor is expensive. You can’t buy high-quality items that last longer and are a bargain in the long run. You can’t buy in bulk. You sure as hell can’t buy a house: depending on where you live, monthly mortgage payments might be lower than the rent you’re paying, but you can’t afford a down payment, and chances are a bank won’t give you a mortgage anyway. You can’t afford the time or money to take care of your health — which means you’re more likely to get sick, which is expensive. If you don’t have a bank account (which many poor people don’t), you have to pay high fees at check-cashing joints. If you run into a temporary cash crisis, you have to borrow from price-gouging payday-advance joints. If your car breaks down and you can’t afford to repair or replace it, it can mean unemployment. If you can’t afford a car at all, you’re severely limited in what jobs you can take in the first place — a limitation that’s even more severe when public transportation is wildly inadequate. If you’re poor, you may have to move a lot — and that’s expensive. These aren’t universally true for all poor people — but way too many of them are true, for way too many people.

Second chances, once considered a hallmark of American culture and identity, have become a luxury. One small mistake — or no mistake at all, simply the mistake of being born poor — can trap you there forever.

Plus, being poor doesn’t just mean you’re likely to stay poor. It means that if you have children, they’re more likely to stay poor. It means you’re less able to give your children the things they need to flourish — both in easily-measurable tangibles like good nutrition, and less-easily-measurable qualities like a sense of stability. The effect of poverty on children — literally on their brains, on their ability to literally function — is not subtle, and it lasts into adulthood. Poverty’s effect on adults is appalling enough. Its effect on children is an outrage.

And in case you hadn’t noticed, poverty — including the cycle of poverty and the effect of poverty on children — disproportionately affects African Americans, Hispanics, other people of color, women, trans people, disabled people, and other marginalized groups.

So what does this have to do with fiscal policy? Well, duh. Poverty is perpetuated or alleviated, worsened or improved, by fiscal policy. That’s not the only thing affecting poverty, but it’s one of the biggest things. To list just a few of the most obvious examples of very direct influence: Tax policy. Minimum wage. Funding of public schools and universities. Unionization rights. Banking and lending laws. Labor laws. Funding of public transportation. Public health care. Unemployment benefits. Disability benefits. Welfare policy. Public assistance that doesn’t penalize people for having savings. Child care. Having a functioning infrastructure, having economic policies that support labor, having a tax system that doesn’t steal from the poor to give to the rich, having a social safety net — a real safety net, not one that just barely keeps people from starving to death but one that actually lets people get on their feet and function — makes a difference. When these systems are working, and are working well, it’s easier for people to get out of poverty. When they’re not, it’s difficult to impossible. And I haven’t even gotten into the fiscal policy of so-called “free” trade, and all the ways it feeds poverty both in the U.S. and around the world. (I’ll get to that in a bit.)

Fiscal policy affects poverty. And in the United States, “fiscally conservative” means supporting fiscal policies that perpetuate poverty. “Fiscally conservative” means slashing support systems that help the poor, lowering taxes for the rich, cutting corners for big business, and screwing labor — policies that both worsen poverty and make it even more of an inescapable trap.

2: Domestic violence, workplace harassment, and other abuse. See above, re: cycle of poverty. If someone is being beaten by their partner, harassed or assaulted at work, abused by their parents — and if they’re poor, and if there’s fuck-all for a social safety net — it’s a hell of a lot harder for them to leave. What’s more, the stress of poverty itself — especially inescapable, entrapped poverty — contributes to violence and abuse.

And you know who gets disproportionately targeted with domestic violence and workplace harassment? Women. Especially women of color. And LGBT folks — especially trans women of color, and LGBT kids and teenagers. Do you care about racist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynist violence? Then quit undercutting the social safety net. A solid safety net — a safety net that isn’t made of tissue paper, and that doesn’t require the people in it to constantly scramble just to stay there, much less to climb out — isn’t going to magically eliminate this violence and harassment. But it sure makes it easier for people to escape it.

3: Disenfranchisement. There’s a cycle that in some ways is even uglier than the cycle of poverty — because it blocks people from changing the policies that keep the cycle of poverty going. I’m talking about the cycle of disenfranchisement.

I’m talking about the myriad ways that the super-rich control the political process — and in controlling the political process, both make themselves richer and give themselves even more control over the political process. Purging voter rolls. Cutting polling place hours. Cutting back on early voting — especially in poor districts. Voter ID laws. Roadblocks to voter registration — noticeably aimed at people likely to vote progressive. Questionable-at-best voter fraud detection software, which — by some wild coincidence — tends to flag names that are common among minorities. Eliminating Election Day registration. Restricting voter registration drives. Gerrymandering — creating voting districts with the purpose of skewing elections in your favor.

Voter suppression is a real thing in the United States. And these policies are set in place by the super-rich — or, to be more precise, by the government officials who are buddies with the super-rich and are beholden to them. These policies are not set in place to reduce voter fraud: voter fraud is extremely rare in the U.S., to the point of being almost non-existent. The policies are set in place to make voting harder for people who would vote conservative plutocrats out of office. If you’re skeptical about whether this is actually that deliberate, whether these policies really are written by plutocratic villains cackling over how they took even more power from the already disempowered — remember Pennsylvania Republican House Leader Mike Turzai, who actually said, in words, “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

Remember former Florida Republican chairman Jim Greer, who actually said, in words, “We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us.” Remember the now-former North Carolina Republican official Don Yelton, who actually said, in words, that voter restrictions including voter ID were “going to kick Democrats in the butt.” Remember the Texas Republican attorney general and candidate for governor Greg Abbott, who actually said, in words, that “their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party’s electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats.” Remember Doug Preisse, Republican chair of Franklin County (Ohio’s second-largest county) who actually said (well, wrote), in words, that Ohio Republicans were pushing hard to limit early voting because “I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter-turnout machine.” (And no, the “read African-American” clarification isn’t mine — it’s his.) Remember… oh, you get the idea. Disenfranchisement is not some accidental side effect of Republican-sponsored voting restrictions. Disenfranchisement is the entirely intentional point.

And on top of that, you’ve got campaign finance laws saying that corporations are people, too — “people” with just as much right as you or I to donate millions of dollars to candidates who’ll write laws helping them out. When you’ve got fiscal policies that enrich the already rich — such as regressive tax policies, deregulation of businesses, deregulation of the financial industry — and you combine them with campaign finance laws that have essentially legalized bribery, you get a recipe for a cycle of disenfranchisement. The more that rich people control the political process, the richer they get — and the richer they get, the more they control the political process.

4: Racist policing. There’s a whole lot going on with racist policing in the United States. Obviously. But a non-trivial chunk of it is fiscal policy. Ferguson shone a spotlight on this, but it isn’t just in Ferguson — it’s all over the country. In cities and counties and towns across the United States, the government is funded, in large part, by tickets and fines for municipal violations — and by the meta-system of interest, penalties, surcharges, and fees on those tickets and fines, which commonly turn into a never-ending debt amounting to many, many times the original fine itself.

This is, for all intents and purposes, a tax. It’s a tax on poor people. It’s a tax on poor people for being poor, for not having a hundred dollars in their bank account that they can drop at a moment’s notice on a traffic ticket. And it’s a tax that disproportionately targets black and brown people. When combined with the deeply ingrained culture of racism in many many many police forces — a police culture that hammers black and brown people for the crime of existing — it is a tax on black and brown people, purely for being black or brown. But Loki forbid we raise actual taxes. Remember the fiscal conservative mantra: “Low taxes good! High taxes bad!” High taxes are bad — unless we don’t call them a tax. If we call it a penalty or a fine, that’s just peachy. And if it’s disproportionately levied by a racist police force on poor black people, who have little visibility or power and are being systematically disenfranchised — that’s even better. What are they going to do about it? And who’s going to care? It’s not as if black lives matter. What’s more: You know some of the programs that have been proposed to reduce racist policing? Programs like automatic video monitoring of police encounters? An independent federal agency to investigate and discipline local policing, to supplement or replace ineffective, corrupt, or non-existent self-policing? Those take money. Money that comes from taxes. Money that makes government a little bit bigger. Fiscal conservatism — the reflexive cry of “Lower taxes! Smaller government!” — contributes to racist policing. Even if you, personally, oppose racist policing, supporting fiscal conservatism makes you part of the problem.

5: Drug policy and prison policy. Four words: The new Jim Crow. Drug war policies in the United States — including sentencing policies, probation policies, which drugs are criminalized and how severely, laws banning felons convicted on drug charges from voting, and more — have pretty much zero effect on reducing the harm that can be done by drug abuse. They don’t reduce drug use, they don’t reduce drug addiction, they don’t reduce overdoses, they don’t reduce accidents or violence that can be triggered by drug abuse. If anything, these policies make all of this worse.

But they do have one powerful effect: Current drug policies in the United States are very, very good at creating and perpetuating a permanent black and brown underclass. They are very good at creating a permanent class of underpaid, disenfranchised, disempowered servants, sentenced to do shit work at low wages for white people, for the rest of their lives.

This is not a bug. This is a feature.

You don’t have to be a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist to see how current U.S. drug policy benefits the super-rich and super-powerful. It is a perfect example of a “social issue” with powerful ripple effects into the economy. And that’s not even getting into the issue of how the wealthy might benefit from super-cheap prison labor, labor that borders so closely on slavery it’s hard to distinguish it. So people who are well-served by the current economy are strongly motivated to keep drug policy firmly in place.

Plus, two more words: Privatized prisons. Privatized prisons mean prisons run by people who have no interest in reducing the prison population — people who actually benefit from a high crime rate, a high recidivism rate, severe sentencing policies, severe probation policies, and other treats that keep the prison population high. It’s as if we had privatized fire departments, who got paid more the more fires they put out — and thus had every incentive, not to improve fire prevention techniques and policies and education, but to gut them.

Privatization of prisons is a conservative fiscal policy. It’s a policy based on the conservative ideal of low taxes, small government, and the supposedly miraculous power of the free market to make any system more efficient. And it’s a policy with a powerful social effect — the effect of doing tremendous harm.

It’s true that there are some conservatives advocating for criminal justice reform, including drug policy reform, on the grounds that the current system isn’t cost-effective. The problem with this, as Drug Policy Alliance Deputy State Director Laura Thomas points out: When you base policy decisions entirely on whether they’re cost-effective, the bottom line will always take priority. Injustice, racism, corruption, abuse — all of these can stay firmly in place. Human rights, and the human cost of these policies? Meh. Who cares — as long as we can cut government spending?

6: Deregulation. This one is really straightforward. Deregulation of business is a conservative fiscal policy. And it has a devastating effect on marginalized people. Do I need to remind anyone of what happened when the banking and financial industries were deregulated?

Do I need to remind anyone of who was most hurt by those disasters? Overwhelmingly poor people, working-class people, and people of color.

But this isn’t just about banking and finance. Deregulation of environmental standards, workplace safety standards, utilities, transportation, media — all of these have the entirely unsurprising effect of making things better for the people who own the businesses, and worse for the people who patronize them and work for them. Contrary to the fiscal conservative myth, an unregulated free market does not result in exceptional businesses fiercely competing for the best workers and lavishly serving the public. It results in monopoly. It results in businesses with the unofficial slogan, “We Don’t Care — We Don’t Have To.” It results in 500-pound gorillas, sleeping anywhere they want.

7: “Free” trade. This one is really straightforward. So-called “free” trade policies have a horrible effect on human rights, both in the United States and overseas. They let corporations hire labor in countries where labor laws — laws about minimum wage, workplace safety, working hours, child labor — are weak to nonexistent. They let corporations hire labor in countries where they can pay children as young as five years old less than a dollar a day, to work 12 or even 16 hours a day, in grossly unsafe workplaces and grueling working conditions that make Dickensian London look like a socialist Utopia.

And again — this is not a bug. This is a feature. This is the whole damn point of “free” trade: by reducing labor costs to practically nothing, it provides cheap consumer products to American consumers, and it funnels huge profits to already obscenely rich corporations. It also decimates blue-collar employment in the United States — and it feeds human rights abuses around the world. Thank you, fiscal conservatism!

This list is far from complete. But I think you get the idea.

Now. There are conservatives who will insist that this isn’t what “fiscally conservative” means. They’re not inherently opposed to government spending, they say. They’re just opposed to ineffective and wasteful government spending.

Bullshit. Do they really think progressives are in favor of wasteful and ineffective government? Do they think we’re saying, “Thumbs up to ineffective government spending! Let’s pour our government’s resources down a rat hole! Let’s spend our tax money giving every citizen a solid-gold tuba and a lifetime subscription to Cigar Aficionado!” This is an idealized, self-serving definition of “fiscally conservative,” defined by conservatives to make their position seem reasonable. It does not describe fiscal conservatism as it actually plays out in the United States. The reality of fiscal conservatism in the United States is not cautious, evidence-based attention to which government programs do and don’t work. If that were ever true in some misty nostalgic past, it hasn’t been true for a long, long time. The reality of fiscal conservatism in the United States means slashing government programs, even when they’ve been shown to work. The reality means decimating government regulations, even when they’ve been shown to improve people’s lives. The reality means cutting the safety net to ribbons, and letting big businesses do pretty much whatever they want.

You can say all you want that modern conservatism in the United States isn’t what you, personally, mean by conservatism. But hanging on to some ideal of “conservatism” as a model of sensible-but-compassionate frugality that’s being betrayed by the Koch Brothers and the Tea Party — it’s like hanging onto some ideal of Republicanism as the party of abolition and Lincoln. And it lends credibility to the idea that conservatism is reasonable, if only people would do it right.

If you care about marginalized people — if you care about the oppression of women, LGBT people, disabled people, African Americans and Hispanics and other people of color — you need to do more than go to same-sex weddings and listen to hip-hop. You need to support economic policies that make marginalized people’s lives better. You need to oppose economic policies that perpetuate human rights abuses and make marginalized people’s lives suck.

And that means not being a fiscal conservative.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

If you care about marginalized people — if you care about the oppression of women, LGBT people, disabled people, African Americans and Hispanics and other people of color — you need to do more than go to same-sex weddings and listen to hip-hop. You need to support economic policies that make marginalized people’s lives better. You need to oppose economic policies that perpetuate human rights abuses and make marginalized people’s lives suck.

And that means not being a fiscal conservative.

Well, no. The economy did just fine during the tax and spend liberal era, but has been going steadily down hill since Reaganomics. If the government tunes the economy to the benefit of Main Street, Wall Street does just fine. The opposite isn't true.

But "fiscal conservatism" is a number, not a philosophy - because whether a balanced budget is or is not truly "conservative" depends on whose backs you balance it on.

For the first 18 years or so after World War II, it was balanced on the backs of the rich - and this "redistributionism" and moral conservatism seemed to harmonize rather well. By contrast, the exact opposite policy in both areas leads to nothing but danger and chaos.

I see this as values lock again. The conservatives have this theory of how economics ought to work. If their theory conflicts with the obvious facts of history, they disregard the facts of history. Recent history shows that Communist economics and Reagan economics just don't work. Simple as that. However, reevaluating one's world view requires a full scale disaster rather than just slow misery. The myth of voodoo economics lives on.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But "fiscal conservatism" is a number, not a philosophy - because whether a balanced budget is or is not truly "conservative" depends on whose backs you balance it on.

For the first 18 years or so after World War II, it was balanced on the backs of the rich - and this "redistributionism" and moral conservatism seemed to harmonize rather well. By contrast, the exact opposite policy in both areas leads to nothing but danger and chaos.

There is nothing moral about take from the poor to give to the rich. It's pure greed.

But you still haven't answered my question: How is encouraging high moral standards taking from the poor and giving to the rich?

Social order requires sacrifices from everyone. For the rich, this means material sacrifices; i.e., paying a fair share of taxes. For the poor, this means behavioral and cultural sacrifices; mainly, not behaving in a manner that intimidates the other social classes.

Demanding sacrifices from one side but not the other cannot hold for any appreciable length of time - before tension and even violence ensue.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But you still haven't answered my question: How is encouraging high moral standards taking from the poor and giving to the rich?

High standards enforced harshly for the poor today come with soft standards for the elites. That is the way of the Boomer elite -- one that gets away with ruthlessness, arrogance, and selfishness that it does not tolerate in others. The high standards are great sacrifices by the non-elites accepted with fatalistic reverence for the results by those who make the greatest sacrifices and get bare survival in return.

Boom non-elites do not get away with elite vices any more than non-elites of any other generation. Boomer elites force debasing humility upon all but themselves and their loved ones. It's easy to see how America can end up with a hereditary hierarchy.

Social order requires sacrifices from everyone. For the rich, this means material sacrifices; i.e., paying a fair share of taxes. For the poor, this means behavioral and cultural sacrifices; mainly, not behaving in a manner that intimidates the other social classes.

Elites have frequently shown their ability to get away with imposing sacrifices -- great sacrifices -- on all but themselves while those elites live sybaritic lives. If American elites could get away with it they would impose fundamentalist Protestantism (probably the religious heritage most consistent with extreme inequality and with mass servility) upon all Americans except themselves.

Demanding sacrifices from one side but not the other cannot hold for any appreciable length of time - before tension and even violence ensue.

The Romanov dynasty lasted nearly 300 years.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But you still haven't answered my question: How is encouraging high moral standards taking from the poor and giving to the rich?

Social order requires sacrifices from everyone. For the rich, this means material sacrifices; i.e., paying a fair share of taxes. For the poor, this means behavioral and cultural sacrifices; mainly, not behaving in a manner that intimidates the other social classes.

Demanding sacrifices from one side but not the other cannot hold for any appreciable length of time - before tension and even violence ensue.

The original end point of the article was that voodoo economics would help the lives of the ordinary people. This is just plain wrong, which is the point I really care about.

I would agree with a tie between economics and morality, but believe the debt goes the other way. Poverty leads to immoral behavior. While the elite classes continue the take from the poor to give to the rich voodoo economics pattern, economic stress upon the lower class continues. This leads to a lack of belief that the system will work, and thus a rejection of the system and it’s lopsided idea of morality.

There is also an inflexibility in the conservative notion of morality. Birth control changed things big time. Much of the pre-birth control / pre safe abortion morality was enforcing family in order to take care of the inevitable kids, no matter how dysfunctional the family. Many conservatives are values locked into the old sexual mores, caring more for what the Old Time Religion says is right than what is best for the people involved. Reality changes. Conservatives don’t.

After that it gets back to prejudice of one flavor or another. Humans are ready to believe their culture is better than other cultures. If two cultures do things in different ways, it is natural to snoot one’s nose in the air, assume one’s own culture is superior, and demand that other cultures change to meet the standards of one’s own.

If the economics is working, this can actually work. For much of US history, the newest wave of immigrants had a decent shot at the American Dream. If after a generation or two spaghetti and meatballs, corn beef and cabbage or sweet and sour chicken became American rather than foreign, if a good education leads to good jobs, the poverty and troubles that forced the immigrants to immigrate is left behind. The American values and virtues come to dominate the Old County's, while the exotic foods and celebrations from various far shores are shared. Today, everybody is Irish on St. Patrick’s day. This was not always so.

But the new cultures have to be able to believe. If the dominant culture is immoral, if the elites arrange the economic system to ensure perpetual poverty for the marginal cultures, they kill everything America once was. (Not to say that there weren't always people trying to keep the new people down. The question is whether the prejudiced bigots will succeed in keeping them down.)

Sure, you can preach at them. If you aren’t willing to live a moral life, to set up a moral culture, don’t expect anyone to take a hypocrite’s preaching seriously.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But you still haven't answered my question: How is encouraging high moral standards taking from the poor and giving to the rich?

High moral standards means respect and tolerance for people with different sexual, gender and racial identities. As JFK said, it's a moral issue. How about the golden rule; moral enough fer ya?

Social order requires sacrifices from everyone. For the rich, this means material sacrifices; i.e., paying a fair share of taxes. For the poor, this means behavioral and cultural sacrifices; mainly, not behaving in a manner that intimidates the other social classes.

The other classes need to wise up and do the right thing; respect all people. Don't ask that in exchange for getting more money from rich people, that others tolerate discrimination and hate.

Demanding sacrifices from one side but not the other cannot hold for any appreciable length of time - before tension and even violence ensue.

The article seemed to suggest the opposite; the two issues are linked. You can't have one without the other. That's correct. Liberal is right, and liberal is liberal. Either we go backward or forward; it's up to us. Compromise might be a good thing, depending on the circumstances and the proposals. But it applies across the board, not to the fiscal side or the social side.

The culture war is ending. Time to declare a liberal victory and move on.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The other classes need to wise up and do the right thing; respect all people. Don't ask that in exchange for getting more money from rich people, that others tolerate discrimination and hate.

Meting out just punishment to criminals - from open-container carriers and public urinators to armed robbers, rapists, and murderers - is "discrimination and hate"?

The article seemed to suggest the opposite; the two issues are linked. You can't have one without the other. That's correct. Liberal is right, and liberal is liberal. Either we go backward or forward; it's up to us. Compromise might be a good thing, depending on the circumstances and the proposals. But it applies across the board, not to the fiscal side or the social side.

But didn't we have "one without the other" - and palpably so - throughout the middle third of the 20th Century?

The culture war is ending. Time to declare a liberal victory and move on.

Actually, the culture war is just beginning. 2015 will prove to be a restatement of 1859. The conservatives will see to it; otherwise, they might as well "tap out" right now - and they ain't gonna do that.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Actually, the culture war is just beginning. 2015 will prove to be a restatement of 1859. The conservatives will see to it; otherwise, they might as well "tap out" right now - and they ain't gonna do that.

The demographic clock was going run out on the South after the 1860 Census. It could be that the Sanders campaign may be our Fremont campaign. Even if Hillary gets the nomination as expected, the debate will hopefully happen beforehand.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Meting out just punishment to criminals - from open-container carriers and public urinators to armed robbers, rapists, and murderers - is "discrimination and hate"?

No, the Left is not pro violent crime.

But didn't we have "one without the other" - and palpably so - throughout the middle third of the 20th Century?

It seems like liberals advanced on both fronts in those years, especially toward the end of that middle third and the early years of the last third. There was some civil rights advance in the depression and war years, mostly out of necessity that required women to work. But economic liberals advanced more clearly, and then the social liberals caught up and advanced. The reaction on both fronts got going simultaneously in the late 1970s.

Actually, the culture war is just beginning. 2015 will prove to be a restatement of 1859. The conservatives will see to it; otherwise, they might as well "tap out" right now - and they ain't gonna do that.

It won't happen so fast. Look for the early 2020s to be potent ground for such an event. But it will likely not revolve around such settled issues as same sex marriage, but possibly abortion, and certainly gun control. The conservatives are most paranoid about have guns taken from their cold, dead hands. State reform and economic/tax issues (with the racial anti-welfare/taxes dog whistle in play, and racial/police unrest like we already see) as well as ecological issues will be front and center, and possibly foreign affairs and what America does about them. The blue and red cultures remain divided on all these issues. And it's true that by then the red culture will be ripe for defeat. If so, that's for the best, of course But they might well go down fighting.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, the Left is not pro violent crime.

So what's their plan to deal with it - kill it with kindness?

It seems like liberals advanced on both fronts in those years, especially toward the end of that middle third and the early years of the last third. There was some civil rights advance in the depression and war years, mostly out of necessity that required women to work. But economic liberals advanced more clearly, and then the social liberals caught up and advanced. The reaction on both fronts got going simultaneously in the late 1970s.

You don't seem to understand my basic point - which is not about ending racial discrimination; instead, it's the whole "G-d is dead," "If it feels good, do it" thing, which has alienated scores of millions of American voters who would otherwise gravitate to the progressive economic agenda.

It won't happen so fast. Look for the early 2020s to be potent ground for such an event. But it will likely not revolve around such settled issues as same sex marriage, but possibly abortion, and certainly gun control. The conservatives are most paranoid about have guns taken from their cold, dead hands. State reform and economic/tax issues (with the racial anti-welfare/taxes dog whistle in play, and racial/police unrest like we already see) as well as ecological issues will be front and center, and possibly foreign affairs and what America does about them. The blue and red cultures remain divided on all these issues. And it's true that by then the red culture will be ripe for defeat. If so, that's for the best, of course But they might well go down fighting.

The red side has to do something - and, as I have pointed out elsewhere, they might as well set the gays against the feminists by using abortion as a wedge issue; after all, whatever else homosexuality may or may not be, it is not murder.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

So what's their plan to deal with it - kill it with kindness?

That's a complicated plan, but I think you know. Better education and social support. Just sentences for offenders. End racial profiling and the drug war. Treatment, not jail, for drug users. Jury nullification, and a return to innocent before proven guilty. End capital punishment. Gang task forces.

You don't seem to understand my basic point - which is not about ending racial discrimination; instead, it's the whole "G-d is dead," "If it feels good, do it" thing, which has alienated scores of millions of American voters who would otherwise gravitate to the progressive economic agenda.

I don't know any liberal politicians who advocate those two very-different things. Even Obama ends his speeches by saying "God Bless America." Maybe Bernie Sanders doesn't; I don't know who else.

I thought your point was about when economic and social changes happened. That is historically clear. Social/culture change IS about ending discrimination, as far as the "progressive agenda" for voters is concerned. Maybe you're talking about weed legalization? Do you think marijuana legalization efforts alienate Americans who would otherwise be attracted to the progressive economic agenda? Seems a stretch. Twisted Flat '58 logic again, I guess. You do have a unique mind.

The red side has to do something - and, as I have pointed out elsewhere, they might as well set the gays against the feminists by using abortion as a wedge issue; after all, whatever else homosexuality may or may not be, it is not murder.

I don't quite get your point, Flat (not unusually ). The feminists are pro-abortion; why would gays be against it? It doesn't affect them. Gay people don't have children, unless they are also straight/bisexual. So what's the point?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

You don't seem to understand my basic point - which is not about ending racial discrimination; instead, it's the whole "G-d is dead," "If it feels good, do it" thing, which has alienated scores of millions of American voters who would otherwise gravitate to the progressive economic agenda.

I don't think so. Socially conservative working class white men have favored Republicans for a long time, despite the fact that the Republicans favor policies antithetical to their economic interests. They are not stupid, they are perfectly aware that Republicans are the party of the rich and look out for their interests. They vote for Republicans (or not at all) because they like Republican "traditional values" rhetoric. It's identity politics, you vote for the guy who comes across as one of your own, and look askance at one who is different. To be a social conservative in America today is to take a charitable view towards very rich conservatives, even if their economic agenda is very bad for your people. Social liberals are no different. After demonizing the Kochs for their political influence, they will cheer Bloomberg for his efforts on gun control.

Social conservatives left the economic liberals because they could not abide the latters' stance on segregation. Should the liberals have accommodated them and not pursued Civil Rights? Should girls sports not be supported by their school as mandated by Title IX of the Civil Rights Law? Should we have kept a male manager's fondling of female employee's breast (as happened to my wife) legal? Should we still prosecute gay men for sodomy?

Really -- it is the right-wingers who are so gullible.
..................................


Well, aren’t most people likely to trust someone who seems to agree with them? Probably, but people differ enormously in gullibility. (People showing few right-wing authoritarian tendencies) are downright suspicious of someone who agrees with them when they can see ulterior motives might be at work. They pay attention to the circumstances in which the other fellow is operating. But (people with strong tendencies toward authoritarianism) do not, when they like the message.

So suppose you are a completely unethical, dishonest, power-hungry, dirt-bag, scum-bucket politician who will say whatever he has to say to get elected. ... Whom are you going to try to lead, people with strong tendencies toward authoritarianism or people who have few authoritarian tendencies? Isn’t it obvious? The (gullible right-wing authoritarians) will open up their arms and wallets to you if you just sing their song, however poor your credibility. Those crabby non-authoritarian types, on the other hand, will eye you warily when your credibility is suspect because you sing their song?

So the scum-bucket politicians will usually head for the right-wing authoritarians, because the (right-wing authoritarians) hunger for social endorsement of their beliefs so much they’re apt to trust anyone who tells them they’re right. Heck, Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany running on a law-and-order platform just a few years after he tried to overthrow the government through an armed insurrection.

You sometimes hear that paranoia runs at a gallop in “right-wingers”. But maybe you can see how that’s an oversimplification. Authoritarian followers are highly suspicious of their many out-groups; but they are credulous to the point of self-delusion when it comes to their in-groups. So (in another experiment the author ran) subjects were told a Christian Crusade was coming to town led by a TV evangelist. The evangelist (the subjects were further told), knowing that people would give more money at the end of the evening if he gave them the kind of service they liked, asked around to see what that might be.

Finding out that folks in your city liked a “personal testimonial” crusade, he gave them one featuring his own emotional testimonial to Jesus’ saving grace. How sincere do you think he was? Most subjects had their doubts, given the circumstances. But (right-wing authoritarians) almost always trusted him.

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer...oritarians.pdf


..........................

I'm obviously not a right-wing authoritarian type. I would be astounded to hear anyone tell me what I wanted to hear. Is it a hustle? If I were to hear any contradiction (even of numbers not adding up, if significant) I would recognize someone at best misguided and at worst dishonest.

The hallmark of truth is internal consistency.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But what does dismantling the institution of marriage, keeping G-d out of the schools (and everywhere else for that matter) and condoms in, and letting unborn babies be mass-murdered, have to do with leveling the economic playing field?

Since the authoress doesn't even try to say why, her piece, despite its title, while a fairly good read overall, is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, as Perry Mason liked to say.

What you "don't get," '58, is Christina's article is focused on the hypocrisy of those, like David Koch, who claim they are socially liberal but economically conservative. And she does a brilliant job of laying out how the smaller/less active government desired by the economically conservative does great harm to the objectives of a socially liberal.

On the other hand, you can be both a economic and social conservative - you, of course, would be a mean-spirited a-hole trying to impose your belief system on others, but not a hypocrite (unless, of course, you frequently take the "wide stance" in the bathroom stalls at airports and bus stations).

Also, you could also be an economic liberal but prefer government largess be limited to some social liberal objectives (e.g., mitigating poverty) but not others (e.g., recognizing gay marriage) - again, not a hypocrite, just another a-hole trying to impose your belief system on others, but maybe with a ray of hope for you.

The article has nothing to do with linking social behavior and economic activity.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Really -- it is the right-wingers who are so gullible.

About 160 years ago, it was maintaining the honor of the Southern Way; today, its standing against the mooching poor, out-of-control vaginas, and the unholy gays.

Times change and the elites their messaging, but the sheeple will always be sheeple.

Originally Posted by playwrite

About 160 years ago, it was maintaining the honor of the Southern Way; today, its standing against the mooching poor, out-of-control vaginas, and the unholy gays.

Times change and the elites their messaging, but the sheeple will always be sheeple.

None of this will matter a few years from now. The Culture Wars are so 20th Century.

Originally Posted by playwrite

What you "don't get," '58, is Christina's article is focused on the hypocrisy of those, like David Koch, who claim they are socially liberal but economically conservative. And she does a brilliant job of laying out how the smaller/less active government desired by the economically conservative does great harm to the objectives of a socially liberal.

I see the Koch agenda as authoritarian. Maybe there is some enlightenment in their would-be tyranny -- like sponsoring medical research and high culture. But can't we have a solid scientific community and the promotion of high-brow (but essentially conservative) content without a plutocracy that ensures that most people live miserable lives in which they are priced into the potter's field instead of into the hospital? Destitute people cannot reliably enjoy the symphony, theater, ballet, opera, etc. (It may be ironic, but the Soviet Union was excellent at sponsoring traditional high culture -- and that culture was ultra-conservative).

On the other hand, you can be both a economic and social conservative - you, of course, would be a mean-spirited a-hole trying to impose your belief system on others, but not a hypocrite (unless, of course, you frequently take the "wide stance" in the bathroom stalls at airports and bus stations).

Even I prefer some hypocrisy to the "I Be BAD" stance. But that "I Be BAD" stance is evil in itself.

Also, you could also be an economic liberal but prefer government largess be limited to some social liberal objectives (e.g., mitigating poverty) but not others (e.g., recognizing gay marriage) - again, not a hypocrite, just another a-hole trying to impose your belief system on others, but maybe with a ray of hope for you.

Big Business is giving way on gay rights because it has nothing to gain from the suppression of homosexuality. It still wants labor unions eviscerated; it wants free rein on environmental degradation and workplace safety; it wants the taxes shifted from the super-rich to the non-rich. But such is giving in on something that does no harm to profits and holding a hard line on the only issue that matters to them -- enrichment and pampering of a Master Class.

It is conceivable that the Religious Right would attack alcohol, pornography, racy movies, and gambling out of puritanical values -- but Big Business would crush such swiftly because the outlawry of those would cut into the all-holy profits from vice.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't think so. Socially conservative working class white men have favored Republicans for a long time, despite the fact that the Republicans favor policies antithetical to their economic interests. They are not stupid, they are perfectly aware that Republicans are the party of the rich and look out for their interests. They vote for Republicans (or not at all) because they like Republican "traditional values" rhetoric. It's identity politics, you vote for the guy who comes across as one of your own, and look askance at one who is different. To be a social conservative in America today is to take a charitable view towards very rich conservatives, even if their economic agenda is very bad for your people. Social liberals are no different. After demonizing the Kochs for their political influence, they will cheer Bloomberg for his efforts on gun control.

But do they also cheer Bloomberg for the Michele Bachmann-like stance he has staked out on "tax reform;" i.e., if everybody pays the same toll on a bridge, even if it is about to fall down (!), then isn't it only "fair" that everybody pays the same "toll" on what they earn each year? And he said it on The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell, no less.

Social conservatives left the economic liberals because they could not abide the latters' stance on segregation. Should the liberals have accommodated them and not pursued Civil Rights? Should girls sports not be supported by their school as mandated by Title IX of the Civil Rights Law? Should we have kept a male manager's fondling of female employee's breast (as happened to my wife) legal? Should we still prosecute gay men for sodomy?

But when was there ever de jure segregation in Bensonhurst? Or Livonia/Sterling Heights, Michigan? Or Cicero, Illinois? Or Torrance, California?

And let's not forget that Archie Bunker was a Democrat - at least at the beginning.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

... You don't seem to understand my basic point - which is not about ending racial discrimination; instead, it's the whole "G-d is dead," "If it feels good, do it" thing, which has alienated scores of millions of American voters who would otherwise gravitate to the progressive economic agenda...

This is a good thing to discuss, but impossible to resolve. Your argument is simply that the moralists are offended by immorality ... at least immorality as they see it. OK, but why is this a problem for others to solve? Many people are offended by excessive moralizing. Should they expect the moralists to roll-over and quit pontificating? I'm sure they would prefer that, but have no expectation it will ever happen. If anything, they should be more offended, because the moralizing is always aimed at people like them. There actions, offensive though other may consider them to be, tend to be private. I've never seen someone standing on a street corner preaching that G-d is dead, but I've been accosted many times by people preaching pro-religious messages.

In short, this is not an issue that can be resolved, and it won't be resolved by the open-minded acting like they are good practicing <insert the belief structure of your choice> to make others comfortable.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This is a good thing to discuss, but impossible to resolve. Your argument is simply that the moralists are offended by immorality ... at least immorality as they see it. OK, but why is this a problem for others to solve? Many people are offended by excessive moralizing. Should they expect the moralists to roll-over and quit pontificating? I'm sure they would prefer that, but have no expectation it will ever happen. If anything, they should be more offended, because the moralizing is always aimed at people like them. There actions, offensive though other may consider them to be, tend to be private. I've never seen someone standing on a street corner preaching that G-d is dead, but I've been accosted many times by people preaching pro-religious messages.

This critique has validity only if one believes that, in their heart of hearts, FDR, etc., were fanatical, stone-cold racists and anti-Semites - rather than realists who knew that they needed the South and Midwest, respectively, in their coalition, otherwise everything they were working for on the economic front was going to get repealed, as ObamaCare - and maybe even EMTALA as well - might very well get repealed come 2017.

In short, this is not an issue that can be resolved, and it won't be resolved by the open-minded acting like they are good practicing <insert the belief structure of your choice> to make others comfortable.

I trust that, back in the mid-'70s, you put your money where your mouth is and actually purchased those "Soul-Aid" band-aids - the point being that any society that has a vast majority of its people belong to one race, religion, etc., is going to practice some degree of "favoritism" toward that group - and obsessively trying to stamp out every last vestige of that "favoritism" is only going to sow constant discord - and as I recall, Dante placed the sowers of discord way, way down there in his Inferno.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... Also, you could also be an economic liberal but prefer government largess be limited to some social liberal objectives (e.g., mitigating poverty) but not others (e.g., recognizing gay marriage) - again, not a hypocrite, just another a-hole trying to impose your belief system on others, but maybe with a ray of hope for you.

I think moral boundaries are almost a default for human society. For example, how many people think that adults and children should engage in active sexual relations? I suspect the answer is: damn few. That's a well respected moral boundary. Others are more open to discussion, but people have the right to be offended by things that, well, offend them. Meddling, on the other hand, should be limited to situations where the meddling can be fully justified. Protecting children from predation certainly qualifies. It gets a bit harder as the upper limit of childhood is reached. A 17-year old is not as much at risk as a 7-year old, but is (s)he still enough at risk to justify moral oversight? If yes, then where do you draw the line?

So there are real issues that need to be outrageous to society, and others need to be mere eye-rollers. That's why we have a legal system, that separates the merely undesirable from the truly unacceptable. We don't address the morally ambiguous at all. The problems arise on the legal side of divide, but outside some people's tolerance domain. We're moving the lines all the time. The more socially conservative are typically less tolerant than society as a whole. Social liberals tend to be more tolerant, pushing the envelope toward the legal divide. Neither side will get the other to capitulate, so tolerance of each others views is the best we can expect. We're nowhere near that point today.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

None of this will matter a few years from now. The Culture Wars are so 20th Century.

Please expand