Being for "A Larger Stimulus" and Against "Socialism" is Comedy
Conservatives hate "socialism." They hate "Keynes." They love Trump. His is for both of these.
And don't forget conservative Lutherans. Martin Luther wanted society to provide income according to needs. Luther's ideas and those of fellow German, Karl Marx, were so similar it's hard to separate them. But today, of course, Marx was for Communism, bad, and Luther for capitalism, good.
These are economic issues. Let's move to social policy. Conservative Republicans want less government in our private lives except for abortion. To stop abortions it would be necessary for government to keep tabs on all pregnant women. They cannot trust women who claim to have had a miscarriage--there has to be evidence otherwise she had an abortion and must be prosecuted.
As I have said many times here, the ability of human minds to hold two opposing views at the same time and think they hold logical and consistent views is almost infinite. Most any day we can read in the news about a conservative politician who wants to expand government's reach but say, "Democrats and for socialism. The next step after socialism is communism. I'm opposed to both. Don't vote for Democrats. They are for socialism."
Rural voters were strong for Trump. Farmers got big government money from Trump. I read recently that 40% of farm income comes from government, i.e., taxpayers. I'm sure if you polled farmers on socialism they would oppose it be big margins.
Health care has an interesting twist. Trump pledged to shut down Obamacare. He not only did not shut it down, the percentage of plans in the system which provide financial assistance for abortions is now higher than it was during the Obama Presidency.
These last few months have made great strides toward socialism. First, government spent billions of finding vaccines. Now it is pumping stimulus money into the economy. After that vaccinations will get rolling organized and paid for by government.
But you Republicans need not worry. Your party will still say it is against socialism. To most loyal Republicans, what their party says is far more important than what it does.
old Jon is at it again. strings together a pastel of disparate assertions and then, thinking that , in sum, they are supposed to enlighten us. sorry Jon, but you have failed, failed that is, in challenging us, intellectually or otherwise. when I have more time, I may expand on this post. but for now, I am particularly puzzled by your assertion that Republicans hate Keynes. didn't Nixon once famously remark: we are all Keynesians now? to over simplify, didn't Keynes tell us that governments should spend big in tough times and pay it off in good times. a good bit of advice, that. unfortunately, homo politicus typically ignores the last part, just goes on spending, good times and bad. as in a national debt verging on 30 trillion. that's more like modern monetary theory (MMT) than it is classic Keynesianism.
ReplyDeletetsm --"didn't Nixon once famously remark..."
DeleteYes, Nixon did say this. And, W. Bush moved government into the equities market like a bulldozer during the S&L crisis. He was more aggressive, I believe, than many democrats would have been. As you know, many kinds of people are Republicans just as there are many kinds of Democrats.
In discussions about socialism, Keynes is often cited as an enemy of capitalism because he advocated a government solution instead of an unregulated market solution. Markets correct themselves is this latter point of view. Keynes is not mentioned as much as Marx but still mentioned.
I'm just saying the accusation that "socialism is bad, capitalism is good" is quite silly. The reality is government can do some things better than capitalism and visa versa. Capitalism does a pretty good job over most of the economy. Government does a good job most of the places it is in charge.
There are these places where we cling to the idea capitalism should things and it doesn't seem to work very well. Health care is the example. We have government health care in places and it seems to work pretty well: VA, Medicare, etc. Data shows that overall our private health care costs too much and doesn't deliver good health. Maybe, and I'm stressing maybe, most "socialism" in health care would be better.
re. Luther and Marks; Two entirely different time frames. At Luther's time, which was near the ending of feudalism, government as we understand it today does not compare. With Luther, the term "society" more accurately would imply the individual as a whole, not so much the "government". Luther's emphasis was primarily aimed at the individuals responsibility to contribute to the welfare of their neighbors. Feudalism cannot be compared to socialism. With socialism, the aid of the individual is shifted to the responsibility of those in power, with the opportunity of favoritism.
ReplyDeleteIt was Luther's position that Christianity could and should thrive along side, and apart from any form of government if allowed, (A true separation of church and state,) which was pretty much denied in Communist Russia, thanks to Marks and Lenin.
To equate Luther with Marks does not take into consideration context, history and the facts.
"Being for "A Larger Stimulus" and Against "Socialism" is Comedy"
ReplyDeleteAbout as funny as the long line of Democrats advocating to save me money. Obambacare, etc