Here is my rebuttal of this,
http://critical-thinker.net/?p=1025
First, I would not maintain that idealizing the past is solely a conservative issue. I think you can always find cases where any group idealizes the past. However, in my opinion, the fallacy in your counter argument is of cherry picking. Admittedly, I have not done any statistical analysis of how often conservatives appeal to an idealized past in their rhetoric compared to the other cases you cite. I submit these points to reinforce my point:
Point 1 – Conservative by definition implies a history to conserve. The definition of the word contains my main premise, that conservatives root their identity, heritage and notion of truth in the past. None of the other groups you mentioned call themselves by a name that essentially, in the definition of the very word, implies identification with the past. I find this to be along the lines of a tautology, it is necessarily true that conservatism implies a past to conserve and any group that calls themselves ‘conservative’ sets up an identity with the past…
Conservatism means to conserve the past.
Therefore, a conservative wants to conserve the past.
Point 2 – I think most folks would agree with my presumption that conservatives continually hearken back to a better time that proves their ideology much more than other group’s rhetoric (including the ones you mentioned). I do not think that the numbers are the same for the cases you cite – numbers and proportionality matter. Admittedly, I have not and do not plan to try to come up with stats on this so this depends on people’s own judgment that preferably do not have a vested interest in the outcome of their judgment.
Point 3 – I think this is your admonition that conservatives idealize the past…
“I think a more accurate definition of conservative is someone who wants to conserve tried-and-true traditional institutions and who supports only gradual change, believing that such things are the way they are for good reasons.”
The “tried and true” is exactly what my contention is – the ideal of the “tried and true” may not have really been ‘tried’ or ‘true’. It certainly is an interpretation that is contestable – it may have been ‘tried’ but maybe not the way people think it was tried and the outcome may not have been the ‘true’ that common, un-researched opinions may have assigned to it. Are you suggesting that everything or even most things people think are “tried” and “true” really are – are you? It is the job of propaganda to make/create the content of the ‘tried’ and ‘true’. The reality is not necessarily either and I find typically different.
Point 4 – The graph you cite in your previous post that came from here,
http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2011/12/federal-finances-update.html
along with this graph,
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/lns14000000
and these from my post,
https://www.mixermuse.com/blog/2012/01/06/all-you-need-to-know-about-politics-1-6-12-2/
all demonstrate my point. When Bush took office January 20, 2001 the unemployment was 4.2%. When President Obama took office January 20, 2009 the unemployment rate was 7.8%. Four months later in May it was 9.4%. Your GDP graphs show the almost straight line up at the end of the Bush administration as well. These straight lines up started at the end of the Bush administration and peaked just after Obama took office. They have been coming down ever since. This is the point I am making and you made it for me as well. The economy is like a cruise ship. Don’t forget the recession started as a result of 8 years of a Republican president and 6 years of Republican House and Senate control. A president cannot change the economy the day he gets into office. However, there is substantial evidence that you made and I made and others that things are turning around since Obama got into office – the proof is in the pudding. All you have to do is look at the graphs and where they occur to make my point. If you look at all the data points and do not take one point like “19.7” you will see that the debt went up just as Bush was leaving and Obama was starting. Also, look at the rate of change of spending in the graph on my blog cited above. Here is a better graph from GAO data,
http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/debt/
I am not sure where your numbers come from on your graph but they seem a little skewed from the GAO numbers.
Another thing you have not taken into account is discretionary and non-discretionary part of the budget. Discretionary spending is annual spending that the congress and the president have to deal with every year; non-discretionary is mandatory, multiyear spending that has already been committed to by previous administrations (i.e., like food stamps calculated to poverty levels). The non-discretionary portion of the 2011 budget is 59%; the discretionary is 34%.
http://nationalpriorities.org/resources/federal-budget-101/peoples-guide/
What Republicans call Obama-Care has not kicked in yet but the GAO wrote a report that I have read from start to finish that claims it will take 100 billion off the budget over 10 years as compared to doing nothing (can’t cherry pick GAO reports in my opinion – ask my wife – she retired from the GAO). However, the 1 trillion dollars over 10 years of Medicare Part D that was passed by a Republican president (Bush) and Republican dominated House and Senate has already started to hit non-discretionary spending. The non-discretionary part of the budget makes up the lion’s share of the increased debt spending that you see at the end of the Bush administration. Part is this has to do with the wars, the national disasters (FEMA) and more importantly the recession. As more people go into poverty entitlements that were all previously linked to poverty numbers kick in with much higher amounts of spending – nothing to do with President Obama.
As you can see from your graphs and the others ones I have cited, the graphs are taking a turn for the better since President Obama took office but it will take more time than a year to turn it around and a congress that cooperates with the president to get military and entitlement spending down.
Please attach further comments to the original post cited at the top – thanks.
More Interesting Information:
•Since 2001, the U.S. has spent $7.6 trillion in security-related efforts, including: Department of Defense base-line, nuclear weapons, Homeland Security and war.
•From 2000 to 2011, security-related discretionary spending increased 96% versus non-security discretionary spending which increased 39%.
•The 2011 cost of interest on the national debt which is related to military spending is $80 billion. This is equal to the 2012 budgets of Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, Labor and Transportation combined.
•2011 spending on the Iraq War ($47.4 billion) would pay for all the public disaster funding that FEMA disbursed from Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2010.
•2011 spending on the Afghan War ($122 billion) is greater than the 2012 deficits of 42 states and the District of Columbia combined.
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/09/08-3
http://costofwar.com/en/publications/2011/ten-years-after-911/
and,
http://costofwar.com/en/publications/2011/ten-years-after-911/ten-year-visualization/
PS
I have not researched this data yet but plan to see if this is accurate:
Medicare Part D will add 9.4 trillion over next 75 years to the debt.
http://www.cms.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/part-d-revisited/
Joe Scarborough reports Medicare Part D will add 7 trillion over 10 years to the debt.
Credit Default Swaps were 50 to 70 trillion during the Bush years.
I will not state that this is good data until I see reputable data sources.
Mark
January 24, 2012 at 1:05 pm · Reply
cool…agreed.
Jeffrey Ellis
January 24, 2012 at 9:16 am · Reply
Regarding market regulation — I do think the government has a role to play in the free market — I should have explicitly mentioned that as well, although arguably it is subsumed under protecting people. Part of this protection is, e.g., ensuring compliance with environmental regulations that competitors in a free market would never come up with on their own; another part is ensuring a level playing field by preventing monopolies from forming, etc.
Mark
January 24, 2012 at 9:11 am · Reply
Yes, I realize the distinction you made about those ‘institutions’ being outside government and I was merely offering some ideas for amplifying and discussing those topics.
I find it very interesting that you made this remark – ‘The purpose of government is to defend people’s rights from both internal and external violators’ – I could see a defense of some amount of market regulation in those comments but I will get into that later.
The link you listed looks interesting and I will look at it more when I get some time.
Perhaps I was not clear, I am not against all of Paul’s domestic ideas. I cannot think of anyone that I would think was all wrong. Those kinds of black and white statements seem to speak more about the person making them than the object of their claims IMO.
Jeffrey Ellis
January 23, 2012 at 8:39 pm · Reply
I think these topics are sometimes hard to separate for conservatives. The subject of marriage has certainly become entangled with politics when it comes to same sex marriage. But I was only using it as an example of something the conservatives consider to be a traditional institution, and I did mention that some of these are outside government.
I do not think small government would be anarchy. The purpose of government is to defend people’s rights from both internal and external violators. If the government did that job, anarchy would not be the result. And the job could be done with a far smaller government than we have today.
For the record, I am most definitely not a conservative, although perhaps 15 years ago before I knew any better I might have called myself that. These days I consider myself to be an independent who avoids any party affiliations. If anything, I empathize most with the positions espoused by self-described “bleeding heart libertarians” (see, for example, here).
Regarding Ron Paul, I’m a bit surprised you are against his domestic policies such as ending the war on drugs, and legalizing same sex marriage.
Mark
January 23, 2012 at 8:23 pm · Reply
Oh, with regard to marriage and the church,
These are not political issues as the original topic was conservatism. Given, a fair amount of Christians are conservative (possibly not a majority) but I think the political argument can be separated from the theological argument. That said, if you would like to discuss theology and what you think might be its relevance to politics I would love to take that avenue with you.
With regard to marriage, I think civil unions would embody the spirit of the constitution with regard to equal rights. I would also be fine with whatever folks want to call it – marriage or whatever – it is really just a word if civil unions are the contract. Actually, there are gays that are Christian…Anyway, the institutions you mentioned are really not political and my original essay had to do with politics and conservatism so the ‘institution’ I think would have to be along those lines to be applicable.
With regard to small government, I love Thomas Jefferson. I think the debate he had with Adams is highly informative. I would love to hear how you think small government would not be anarchy with 300 million people in this country. The country was not nearly as big when Jefferson and Adams were around. However, I would be happy to digress into a historical discussion about the writings of Jefferson and other ‘founding fathers’ that diverge from the idealized notion that contemporary conservatives have about their writings. The ‘institution’ in this case would mean the country I suppose and I think you will find plenty of themes in their writings that would go against the idealized view that conservatives have about who they were – not all their writings of course but many could be cited that would be contrary, I think. If the assumption is that modern conservatives speak the ‘tried and true’ of all or many of the ‘founding fathers’ that would be a real kick to get into! We can pursue that if you wish. One thing that comes to mind immediately is that Jefferson wrote we should have a revolution every 16 years – you can forget the constitution he helped write if that is the ‘real’ ‘tried and true’ history you are espousing. If the next thought is how the ‘free market’ will solve all the current ills with a small government (whatever that is would need to be determined)… as you know I am writing a lengthy, multipart essay on Adam Smith, Karl Marx, capitalism and socialism and I would prefer to save those comments for the ‘free market’ question. Oh, by the way if you are a libertarian you will be happy to know that I like Ron Paul’s notions on foreign policy…alas, not domestic policies though.
Mark
January 23, 2012 at 5:57 pm · Reply
I would define a reputable source as:
1) Non-partisan
2) Well known and respected (GAO, CBO, Kaiser Family Foundation, Census Bureau, Pew, Gallup, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Treasury Department, National Coalition on Health Care, Economic Policy Institute, well know universities can do good research, etc.)
3) Recent reports and data
The Goldwater Institute and a Milton Friedman report published in 2001 does not cut it unless they give me links to these kinds of reputable sources. I do not accept Wiki unless the source is cited and verified – sorry – seen too much junk there but it can be a good place to start…NY Times, Washington Post, etc as long as they cites sources.
I have also researched Health Care…
http://www.mixermuse.com/blog/2010/10/29/faqs-on-health-care-reform/
http://www.mixermuse.com/blog/2010/10/28/cbo-health-care-reform-bill-cuts-deficit-by-1-3-trillion-over-20-years-covers-95/
http://www.mixermuse.com/blog/2010/03/30/%e2%80%9ci-paid-for-my-social-security-and-medicare-i-don%e2%80%99t-take-government-handouts-%e2%80%9d/
http://www.mixermuse.com/blog/2010/01/11/the-latest-republican-attempt-to-kill-health-care-reform/
http://www.mixermuse.com/blog/2010/11/08/colorado-state-budget-faq/
I would recommend…
“The Long-Term Budget Outlook” – This is a great place to start to get good data!
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12212
.pdf here http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/122xx/doc12212/06-21-Long-Term_Budget_Outlook.pdf
Federal Debt Held by the Public – Alternative and Extended Baseline Scenarios
Take a look at the graph at the top of the report on GDP and Debt with these scenarios in mind…
“extended-baseline scenario, adheres closely to current law”
“The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP. This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicare’s payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law) and that some policies enacted in the March 2010 health care legislation to restrain growth in federal health care spending will not continue in effect after 2021. In addition, the alternative scenario includes an assumption that spending on activities other than the major mandatory health care programs, Social Security, and interest on the debt will not fall quite as low as under the extended-baseline scenario, although it will still fall to its lowest level (relative to GDP) since before World War II.”
There is also projected data about Medicare and Medicaid that is really good to get a solid understanding. Please check out Box 1-1 – “How the Aging of the Population and Rising Costs for Health Care Affect Federal Spending on Major Mandatory Programs”
This paragraph is worth looking at…” Long-Term Changes in Demographics, Health Status, and Health Care”
Chapter 3 – The Long-Term Outlook for Mandatory Spending on Health Care
The unemployment rate discussion is very good.
Chapter 5 – The Long-Term Outlook for Social Security
I do not think all this data necessarily backs up all my opinions but it is a good place for us to start that I think we could both agree has solid data. I try my best to back up my opinions with good data from good sources and change my opinion if the data does not back it up (I have done this many times so no illusions of hanging on to dumb pride because I was wrong). However, since I am not God and have not had time to research everything I still have unfounded opinions and look forward to the opportunity to change them with your help.
Jeffrey Ellis
January 23, 2012 at 1:09 pm · Reply
Traditional institutions can include many things, both within and outside of government. Marriage, church (to many if not most conservatives), our own form of limited government (shown by now to most conservatives to be “tried and true”), and so on. Many conservatives would also look on charitable subscriptions that existed in the 18th and early 19th century as a traditional institution they would want to return to rather than rely on government entitlement programs.
I don’t doubt that Obamacare was an honest effort. I just don’t think it is a good idea, as I discussed here — see also here and here.
Mark
January 23, 2012 at 12:53 pm · Reply
On your point #1: What are these traditional institutions specifically that you refer to? Yes, I do not think that conservatives want to conserve all the past just some idealized notions of it which is what I tried to point out in the original post. Agreed, conservatives do not want to support all the past but their main contentions about the ‘tried and true’ are what I find problematic. Once you name the specific traditional institutions I think we can go from there…I do not want to name any cherry picked specifics for you.
On your point #2: Point taken – I think we are mostly in agreement on this point.
On your point #3: Cool – understood and agreed.
On your point #4: Sorry, the GDP graph. I think I cited the original link for your graph in one of the links I provided. As far as unemployment, I have many issues with the way it is calculated including the way the ‘real’ data is calculated that you cite. After quite a long struggle with accepting the commonly quoted unemployment numbers cited by both sides, I came to the conclusion that it is a benchmark of sorts – it is calculated from sources that are consistent and lends itself to consistent numerical calculation. It may not be the ‘true’ rate but it is consistent over time with regard to method of calculation and sources so that does buy it merit, I think. However, folks should not take it as the absolute number – agreed.
I know ‘big government’ is what Republicans say about Obama but I beg to differ, of course. For example, I think what Republicans call Obama-Care is an honest effort to deal with a major problem in this country that other countries, even by GAO, standards are doing a much better way of dealing with. I even heard Mitt say that the reason he came up with Romney-Care was because he figured out that emergency room care was far more expensive than the type of care that was really needed. He stated his plan forced people that could pay for their insurance to pick up the cost of their health care and not put it on the taxpayer…not that I agree with Mitt on many things but this made perfect sense to me and I would think a traditional conservative as well. What the neocons need to understand is that they are already paying for HIGH cost, emergency room health care – health care reform is about reducing the costs we’re already paying for! There are more examples that lead me to believe Obama wants to make smarter decisions and not decisions based on some ideological mantra about government – I could be convinced different with good arguments based on reputable sources.
Jeffrey Ellis
January 23, 2012 at 12:07 pm · Reply
Mark, great dialogue that we are having here. Some replies to your rebuttal…
On your point #1: It may seem like I am nit-picking, but I still think there is a difference between saying conservatives want to conserve the past and saying that conservatives want to conserve traditional institutions that are believed to work well. I don’t know of any conservatives, for example, who wish to conserve slavery simply because it was an institution of the past. Certainly the traditions conservatives wish to conserve came from the past, but saying it’s the past they wish to conserve is too broad.
On your point #2: Looks like you are claiming that conservatives harken back to “better times” more so than do other ideologies — which I think is related to the cognitive bias known informally as rosy retrospection. I do not disagree with you on this claim, and suspect you are probably right, although as you note, there are no handy statistics to confirm this. I claimed only that conservatives are not solely guilty of this. My examples (e.g., liberals and the Hoover-Roosevelt era) were intended to merely be examples to support my point, hence I don’t think I’m guilty of cherry-picking; examples are always picked to illustrate a point.
On your point #3: I claim only that conservatives believe them to be tried and true; not that they necessarily are tried and true. It may very well be the case that in some instances conservatives have fallen victim to their own rosy retrospection, propaganda, or other cognitive pitfalls, and have come to honestly but fallaciously believe in the efficacy of traditional institutions that had (and have) serious problems.
On your point #4: I’m a bit confused — when you say “The graph you cite in your previous post” I’m not sure which post and graph you are referring to, so I’ll skip that for now. You do cite many figures about unemployment that I do not question, other than to point out that the more recent figures under Obama do not include many unemployed people who have given up looking for work, and hence are not included in the unemployment numbers. The real unemployment percentage, counting these people as well, has been estimated anywhere from 11% (see here to as high as 23% by some counts (see, e.g., here and here and here).
To summarize… you are correct in what you state the official unemployment number to be, but that number seriously underestimates the real problem by not counting those who are partly unemployed and those who have given up looking.
I do completely agree with your statement that the economy was seriously declining when Obama took over and he can not be expected to have accomplished too much just yet. But I do believe that his big government policies and interventions in the economy have made things worse. That is probably a good topic for a future set of posts.
You make a distinction between discretionary and non-discretionary spending. Doesn’t Obamacare become non-discretionary once it kicks in? Obamacare too is a great topic for future posting. All I’ll say for now is that nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman pointed out the cause of skyrocketing health care costs in 2000, and it’s the third party payer system. Obamacare will insure more people but will make the root problem — costs — even worse.