Conservatism vs. progressivism

[Cannonpointer]

There is no viable conservative movement in America today.

Conservatism is either standing for the status quo, or in its radical form, standing for an earlier, preferred status quo. Conservatism is NOT - it is precisely OPPOSITE OF - trying out wacky new ideas without any thought of unintended consequences. Ergo, the republican party is manifestly not conservative, but rather, it is radical right wing reactionary progressivism.

One Example (more to follow): Tort reform, the latest republican assault on the working stiff. There are two planks

1. Caps on judgments (appealing, if you're a curmudgeon);
2. Loser pays (sounds reasonable - good advertising).

Caps on judgments will give bean counters the ability to say - to the penny - whether being an evildoer is a good idea financially. Let us see: There are 12 people living on the shores of this pond. At 250k per (max judgment), that makes doing wrong cost 3 million. It'll cost six million to dispose of this waste legitimately.

DUMP THE WASTE.

Loser pays sounds wonderful. Currently, the JURY makes that call. But if the legislature makes it, then every would-be litigant will be required - as a cost of admission - to ante the legal costs of the company he is suing, in the form of a bond. If he does not have it, he will have to go to venture capitalists to get it - and ventured capital gets paid. When you couple this with capped judgments, you have made our civil courts - the courts that once belonged to everyone - the exclusive playground of the wealthy. The little man - EVEN IF HE PREVAILS - gets nothing. He cannot be "made whole" in such a system.

And on what do republicans base their demands? Why, on the sorry state of our legal system! Just look at it! Attorneys are paying interns to pore over medical journals INTENDED FOR DOCTORS, to find egregious side effects that the attorneys can then use to troll for clients: Call 1-800--mydickfelloff. Yes, a profession that once helped Americans SOLVE disputes is now in the business of CREATING disputes where none existed - a sorry state of affairs.

But why? How did THIS happen? Answer: Radical rightwing progressivism. Thoughtlessly, using slogans instead of reasoning, Reagan deregulated the legal profession, allowing attorneys to advertise CASES. The rest is history. And the cure? Well, the CONSERVATIVE cure is to return to our last sane moment - to re-regulate attorneys. The radical rightwing reactionary cure? Go FARTHER into the woods. Try MORE new shit. I will show you this same exact schema playing out over and over and over again.

The Republican Party is manifestly not conservative. Ironically, the most conservative party is currently the Democrats, because they are holding the gates - as I shall show - against the radical progressivism of the republicans. Mind you, the Democrats are NOT conservative and I am not saying they are - just the MOST conservative of the two.

[rstrong]

Loser pays sounds wonderful. Currently, the JURY makes that call. But if the legislature makes it, then every would-be litigant will be required - as a cost of admission - to ante the legal costs of the company he is suing, in the form of a bond.

That works both ways. If someone suggested switching AWAY from loser pays, one could just as easily claim that the "defendant will be required - as a cost of admission - to ante the legal costs of the company suing him, in the form of a bond" if he has the audacity to defend himself.

Attorneys are paying interns to pore over medical journals INTENDED FOR DOCTORS, to find egregious side effects that the attorneys can then use to troll for clients

This is one of the advantages of a public insurance system.

When an American doctor makes a mistake, he can render a patient uninsurable for life. The NEXT medical problem the patient encounters could send him and his family to the poor house. So, the settlement must cover not only fixing the mistake, but future health care costs too.

Under the Canadian public system, not only is fixing the doctor's mistake covered, but the patient will never be denied coverage because of it. This is why medical lawsuits in Canada are much smaller, and doctors' malpractice insurance costs much less.

One of the Republicon talking points is that even ObamaCare does nothing to solve the lawsuit problem. But by (not totally, but to a large extent) fixing the pre-existing condition problem, it at least lessens the lawsuit problem.

Keep in mind a few things:

- Canada doesn't have socialized healthcare. It has *partially* socialized insurance.

- America doesn't have a healthcare problem. It has a healthcare insurance problem.

- You are not the customer of America's healthcare and insurance companies. They're investment companies. The investors are the customers. And for them at least, the system is working just fine. America's health insurance companies have a Congressionally granted anti-trust exemption that's the envy of every other industry.

- Doctors pay a fortune to insurance companies for malpractice insurance. Far more than is paid out to settle lawsuits. The insurance companies are making a killing.

Do you suppose there's a link between insurance companies spending hundreds of $millions on their owned and operated politicians to block health insurance reform, and insurance companies making a killing selling malpractice insurance?

[O Really]

Advertising is the culprit? Seriously? You clearly don't have a thorough understanding of the limits on attorney advertising, nor have you digested the statistics on the conditions resulting in most of the big awards. What causes malpractice lawsuits? Malpractice.

[Wneglia]

Advertising is the culprit? Seriously? You clearly don't have a thorough understanding of the limits on attorney advertising, nor have you digested the statistics on the conditions resulting in most of the big awards. What causes malpractice lawsuits? Malpractice.

Actually it is lawyers trolling for patients on TV, putting the notion in peoples heads that any medical outcome less than what is desired is caused by an error made by a physician. Admittedly, there are a lots of mistakes made, but far fewer than the number of suits filed, many of which are frivolous, time consuming, and expensive to defend.

Here is a study that shows the breakdown of medical malpractice lawsuits. In 37% of the suits, no errors were committed. Link

[O Really]

Advertising is the culprit? Seriously? You clearly don't have a thorough understanding of the limits on attorney advertising, nor have you digested the statistics on the conditions resulting in most of the big awards. What causes malpractice lawsuits? Malpractice.

Actually it is lawyers trolling for patients on TV, putting the notion in peoples heads that any medical outcome less than what is desired is caused by an error made by a physician. Admittedly, there are a lots of mistakes made, but far fewer than the number of suits filed, many of which are frivolous, time consuming, and expensive to defend.

I understand that point of view, although "frivolous" does have a legal definition that might not match yours. But here's the question - if a lawyer is working by the hour, s/he might find it a good thing to schedule extra depositions, file unnecessary motions, yada. But personal injury lawyers work on contingency. They get a share of the award. What incentive do they have for taking cases they know they'll probably lose? Or that will settle for a piddly amount? But in many if not most cases, a lawsuit gets filed because there is no other available recourse. Most medical facilities (and their lawyers) won't admit to an error no matter how small for fear of a lawsuit. Thus they get a lawsuit because they won't say, "sorry about that hand, dude. Come back and we'll fix it - no charge."

[O Really]

And on what do republicans base their demands? Why, on the sorry state of our legal system! Just look at it! Attorneys are paying interns to pore over medical journals INTENDED FOR DOCTORS, to find egregious side effects that the attorneys can then use to troll for clients: Call 1-800--mydickfelloff. Yes, a profession that once helped Americans SOLVE disputes is now in the business of CREATING disputes where none existed - a sorry state of affairs.

.

And besides, since when is it not allowed for a business or profession to try to expand their market? Name one whose marketing people say, "we'll just stick with the hang out a sign and hope they come in" strategy.

[Bungalow Bill]

Far as I can see, the GOP is still conservative. Small government, low taxes, less
spending, less regulation, and old timey positions on social issues. These have pretty
much been their positions for a fairly long time. Things like deregulating the legal
profession makes perfect sense to conservatives as part of the general deregulation
banner. The pee partiers just take these basic GOP positions and drive them further
to the right and are more unmoored in behavior than the old time button down types.
Just because the tp often come off as loony doesn't mean that the mainstream GOPers
aren't still conservatives, they most definitely are.

[Cannonpointer]

Advertising is the culprit? Seriously? You clearly don't have a thorough understanding of the limits on attorney advertising, nor have you digested the statistics on the conditions resulting in most of the big awards. What causes malpractice lawsuits? Malpractice.

The attorneys hiring nterns to pore over medical journals are not filing malpractice suits. They're suing the pill companies or the medical device companies.

But the OP is not about that.

The OP is about the fact that America does not have a legitimate conservative voice in politics - the fact that the republican party is a big spending, fiscally undisciplined progressive party.

That is what the OP is about - I invite thoughtful responses to the topic, be they agreement or disagreement.

[Cannonpointer]

Stuff

The republican party is not conservative.

How do you feel about that assertion?

[Cannonpointer]

And on what do republicans base their demands? Why, on the sorry state of our legal system! Just look at it! Attorneys are paying interns to pore over medical journals INTENDED FOR DOCTORS, to find egregious side effects that the attorneys can then use to troll for clients: Call 1-800--mydickfelloff. Yes, a profession that once helped Americans SOLVE disputes is now in the business of CREATING disputes where none existed - a sorry state of affairs.

And besides, since when is it not allowed for a business or profession to try to expand their market? Name one whose marketing people say, "we'll just stick with the hang out a sign and hope they come in" strategy.

Easy challenge.

The American legal profession, until radical rightwing progressives, acting on impulse and emotion, deregulated it. Now, those same children demand tort reform, SPECIFICALLY because they are unhappy with the results of their unwise tinkering.

Get it?

[Cannonpointer]

.
When I was sailing the topic of litigious America would occasionally come up among baffled crewmates from other countries. They had the con impression that it's the lawyer's fault. It did not occur to me to point out as rstrong correctly does that victims are far more on the hook for lifetime financial consequences due to our inferior social safety net.

However, I did discuss how many other nations prevent disasters through heavier regulation of industry (we were not just discussing medical malpractice). Here, we've largely chosen to use the tort system as a regulatory mechanism after injury. So, our current situation is a result of being too con, not too liberal. I can't remember a crewmate ever not grasping the point immediately.

Europe has a far less accessible tort system. In Europe, the tort system really is a rich boys' club - a place where big suits between big entities are settled under the law. The little guy has little access.

That said, European lawmakers genuinely restrain corporations from abusive practices, and those caught evil-doing WILL pay - no lawsuit needed from their victims, who will be identified and remunerated. In a government owned and operated by the corporatocracy, we the people desperately need access to our courts.

You have correctly identified the tort system as a regulatory mechanism. It stays the hands of sociopathic corporations, whose officers are very often thoroughly corrupted by the corrosive "profit uber alles" under-regulated corporate culture. Just look at Enron. Remember the voice of the corporate officer lolling about "Granny sleeping in the street?"

And the radical rightwing progressive Republican Party has, as an avowed and eagerly sought goal, the destruction of that mechanism.

Thank you for the first on-topic response - for taking an element of the OP one farther.

[Cannonpointer]

Far as I can see, the GOP is still conservative. Small government, low taxes, less
spending, less regulation, and old timey positions on social issues. These have pretty
much been their positions for a fairly long time. Things like deregulating the legal
profession makes perfect sense to conservatives as part of the general deregulation
banner. The pee partiers just take these basic GOP positions and drive them further
to the right and are more unmoored in behavior than the old time button down types.
Just because the tp often come off as loony doesn't mean that the mainstream GOPers
aren't still conservatives, they most definitely are.

[rstrong]

Far as I can see, the GOP is still conservative.

If you see that, you probably saw that Sarah Palin was America's best possible choice for Vice President.

Small government

As the saying goes, the Republicans are the party that tells you that Big Government doesn't work, and then gets elected to prove it.

Reagan campaigned on small government. Once elected he vastly increased government spending - vastly enlarging the government. Bush I didn't help.

Bush II greatly increased spending - enlarging the government. Before 9/11. Before the government took over virtually all of Wall Street, bailed out many more banks, and committed the government to taking over GM and Chrysler.

There's a better argument for Clinton and Obama being the small government candidates, based on spending. Even ObamaCare is based on private industry and reduces the size of Medicare.

low taxes

Only for the wealthy. And corporations. Republicans believe strongly in socialism for the wealthy, and a free market for the rest.

But listen up: Being a fiscal conservative does NOT mean less taxes. It doesn't even mean less spending. It means RESPONSIBLE spending and taxes. It means avoiding deficit spending. A pay-as-you-go approach.

Traditionally the left spends more to provide more services, and taxes more to pay for it. The right taxes less, but provides fewer services to afford it. Both positions are fiscally conservative.

Reagan, Bush I and Bush II on the other hand spent like drunken sailors and DIDN'T tax. Instead they piled ever increasing deficit after deficit onto the national debt and left if for the next generation to pay off. That's not fiscally conservative; that's fiscal child molestation.

The only fiscally conservative President in recent decades was Bill Clinton. His Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, through the implementation of spending restraints, mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years. This was in a Democrat-controlled Congress - not a single Republican voted for it. He did it; he succeeded in bringing in the first balanced federal budget since 1969.

less spending

*snort*

less regulation

Other than on environmental issues, is their track record really better than the Democrats? Sure, they squealed non-stop about drilling and pipeline regulations during Obama's first term. Even though Obama had reduced regulations.

It's just like the Republicans are the party of ending abortion. But don't once elected. Not even when they've controlled the House, Senate and White House simultaneously and could easily do it.

Or how they're the party of fiscal conservatism, but the most prone to spend like drunken sailors.

Or how they're the party of free enterprise, but have fought the Democrat-backed Commercial Orbital Transportation Services and Commercial Crew Development programs (SpaceX, Orbital Sciences, etc.) in favor of the biggest of Big Government programs (the Space Launch System).

Pay attention to what they do, not what they say.

old timey positions on social issues

In some cases, like denying rights to minorities, that's true. On the other hand, efforts from Pat Robertson to Michelle Bachmann to turn the US into a theocracy - dishonestly insisting that it used to be one - is a new and radical interpretation of American history and the Constitution. Not conservative.

These have pretty much been their positions for a fairly long time.

As campaign issues. Talking points. But not something they have a good track record of doing.

There's also issues like not getting involved in overseas wars. For the previous Republican administration, it's understandable that America went into Afghanistan. The occupation, not so much. And then there's the longer-than-WWII occupation of Iraq. Under Obama America barely flexed its muscles in Libya, and only after Republicans insisted on it. It avoided Syria. Got out of Iraq. Is almost out of Afghanistan.

Just because the tp often come off as loony doesn't mean that the mainstream GOPers aren't still conservatives, they most definitely are.

The problem is that it's the Tea Party that's in control, not just of policies and message, but of the primaries. Sarah Palin is leading in the polls (over other Republicans) for a senate seat.

The "mainstream GOPers who are still conservatives" have learned to sit down and shut up, lest they be labeled RINOs and traitors. In 2012 even Newt Gingrich had the Tea Party - and Fox News - come down on him like a ton of bricks for taking the only sane position that Republicans needed to negotiate with the Democrats on spending. After that he carefully curbed any signs of level-headed judgment. The Tea Party has become McCarthyism. The Republicans need their "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" moment.

[Bungalow Bill]

Those are their stated principles. The fact that they don't always adhere
to them is their problem, not mine. McCain was a conservative who, for some
reason, thought that Palin would help him. I didn't say he was a smart conser-
vative. It probably wouldn't have mattered who he chose that year, as the
electorate was suffering mightily from Bush (and thus GOP) fatigue.

When Dumbya saw the forecast of large surpluses he decided that just couldn't
happen and lowered taxes for everyone, though the most affluent got the
biggest breaks. That was straight from the conservative Republican playbook.
They have also fought against increased regulation of the financial industry,
not very successfully, but they've been out there trying their damndest. Perry,
just before he self-destructed, was talking about getting rid of federal agencies.

The GOP, for the most part, is against gay marriage, abortion, and life styles
that don't agree with their religious approach. Folks like Bachmann have just
taken the God Bless the USA GOP rhetoric to a new level.

I did forget to mention their muscular act first, think later foreign policy. Bush II
was an excellent example of that approach. Maybe, just maybe, they've
learned their lesson on that score, but I wouldn't bet on it.

The tp is a faction that the GOP is ambiguous about. They welcome them if they
can help win elections and get nervous if they blow elections, like they did in
some of the Senate races in 2012. So right now the old timers are doing a
careful balancing act. Yes, the loonies in the tp think the more mainstream
folks are RINOs, but to me they're just old-fashioned Republican conservatives,
the kind who have been around for decades. And there is some pushback
against the tp, due to their take no prisoners tactics. How that turns out,
we'll see. Let' em fight it out between themselves and Democrats will be
wise to stand aside and let them have at it.

[Bungalow Bill]

There are a few different definitions of conservatism. There is the older
one of keeping to traditional ways and being open to gradual change
when necessary and the more modern one of small government, low
taxes, traditional social values. There is quite a bit of overlap between
the two though. I think most interested folks have a pretty good idea
of what present Republican conservatism is about.

By the time the regulations were in their final form, they were likely watered
down quite a bit, but a lot of Republicans were against even these modest
changes.

[Cannonpointer]

There are two definitions of conservatism at play here, the original principles and how it's come to be understood in US politics. Just the same word referring to wholly different things.

That is not actually how language works. Language IS a living and breathing thing - especially the English language, which is one of the livelier and more adaptive on this planet. But the corruption of a thing is not the thing.

Progressivism is not conservatism. Conservatism, as a concept, radically transcends the republican party - transcends politics altogether. The repubs and those they flummox do not have the power to change the meaning of a word that is useful across domains and defines many, MANY things other than politics.

You have made a mistake, buying into the tripe republicans offer a conservatism and now you compound your error with the pretense that your ignorance has the power to alter the English language. You could not be more mistaken.

Your attempt at responding to the central thesis of the Op amounts to a "nuh uh."

[Cannon Pointer]

There are a few different definitions of conservatism. There is the older
one of keeping to traditional ways and being open to gradual change
when necessary and the more modern one of small government, low
taxes, traditional social values.

A distinction without a difference, posted by a moron without a nutsack.

A government big enough to torture its citizens is not "smaller government," nancy.

A government big enough to indefinitely detain its citizens without charging them is not "smaller government," nancy.

A government big enough to spy on its citizens is not "smaller government," nancy.

A government big enough to double its debt while ONE GUY is president is not "smaller government," nancy.

There is quite a bit of overlap between
the two though. I think most interested folks have a pretty good idea
of what present Republican conservatism is about.

Yes, dumbass. Read the OP. It is radical rightwing progressivism, intent on trying radical new ideas based on rhetoric rather than reason.

By the time the regulations were in their final form, they were likely watered
down quite a bit, but a lot of Republicans were against even these modest
changes.

You talking about torturing, spying, arresting without charges? You talking about enormous new spending programs like Medicare Part D?

PREPARE yourself, just a LITTLE, before you post in my threads, you untermensch little monkey. I expect more than drooling retards barely competent to parrot, you whore's son.

No offense.

[Cannonpointer]

That is actually how language works, even if the result is "corruption" and contradictory.

Okay, perhaps I spoke too quickly. Roll with that. Say more.

It has been changed, whether or not we like it.

Okay, fine. Color me not liking it. What are my options?

Doesn't it make sense that I would try to point out the corruption, and distinguish the differences between a proper definition and the corrupt one?

Fwiw, I had and have no interest in your OP. My only posts have been to disagree with Wneglia and to try to bridge an apparent conflict between what rstrong and Bungalow Bill were discussing. Don't be so full of yourself.

That is a sad admission. This is political forum, and the OP is questioning the conservatism of the alleged conservative party in America. This is basically an admission that you are not a very serious thinker - that you are not intrigued by significant and timely distinctions.

That's sad. But thanks for self-identifying.

[O Really]

This is basically an admission that you are not a very serious thinker - that you are not intrigued by significant and timely distinctions.
.

I'm pretty sure that's bullshit. Not being interested in a discussion of conservatism is not equivalent with not being a serious thinker. Those calling themselves "conservative" are a dying breed. I say let them go without further fanfare or waste of "serious thought."

[Bungalow Bill]

Well, small government is a relative term and Republicans favor a smaller
government than Democrats, even if they don't always live up to that
principle. I think most conservative Republicans wouldn't have a problem
with government doing the things you mentioned. Bush certainly didn't
have much trouble with them.

If you want to name it radical right wing progressivism, that's your call.
I'll stick with extreme conservatism.

I was talking about financial regulations, the watered down regs that
conservative Republicans were against. Deregulation is another one of
their mantras.