Progressive v. conservative views of the Constitution, government, and why it's hard to get things done in the US political system

[BradStevens]

How the Constitution Can Bring Us Together (with Yuval Levin) - Econlib

Can a document unify a nation? Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute and author of American Covenant argues that the Constitution unified the United States at the founding of the country and that understanding the Constitution can help bring the country together today. Listen as Levin...

www.econtalk.org

Can a document unify a nation? Listen as Levin speaks with EconTalk's Russ Roberts about how the Constitution not only took into account fractious politics, but also ensured that polarization would lead to a stronger democracy.

Topics include the inherent limitations placed on the majority and how that affects policy formation, the vital if misunderstood advantages of the electoral college, and why, despite all the warnings to the contrary, this is far from a dangerous moment in American political history.

 

[hoot1]

How the Constitution Can Bring Us Together (with Yuval Levin) - Econlib

Can a document unify a nation? Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute and author of American Covenant argues that the Constitution unified the United States at the founding of the country and that understanding the Constitution can help bring the country together today. Listen as Levin...

www.econtalk.org

Can a document unify a nation? Listen as Levin speaks with EconTalk's Russ Roberts about how the Constitution not only took into account fractious politics, but also ensured that polarization would lead to a stronger democracy.

Topics include the inherent limitations placed on the majority and how that affects policy formation, the vital if misunderstood advantages of the electoral college, and why, despite all the warnings to the contrary, this is far from a dangerous moment in American political history.

Russ Roberts firmly believes the less government we have the better. Therefore when he sees our divided politics and polarized Congress he envisions the results being less government.

Not so sure this is what our founders intended when they wrote the Constitution.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Russ Roberts firmly believes the less government we have the better. Therefore when he sees our divided politics and polarized Congress he envisions the results being less government.

Not so sure this is what our founders intended when they wrote the Constitution.

Mount Vernon paper or whatever it was called. Limited gov. Let the economy grow and equality will follow

 

[Bloom.]

Mount Vernon paper or whatever it was called. Limited gov. Let the economy grow and equality will follow

It was still a group of men which left a ton on the table in terms of those whose rights were guaranteed so they could get it done. Limited government sounds great to those of us who have always had access to it and the economy.

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

Russ Roberts firmly believes the less government we have the better. Therefore when he sees our divided politics and polarized Congress he envisions the results being less government.

Not so sure this is what our founders intended when they wrote the Constitution.

I’m not sure I buy the notion that divided government = less government.

It seems more true that divided government = omnibus shit shows where every rep and senator gets their turn at the trough.

 

[hoot1]

Mount Vernon paper or whatever it was called. Limited gov. Let the economy grow and equality will follow

Darn, I've lived through a good many growing economies, and the rich who owned things along with those with ability always seemed to benefit more than the poor and untalented.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Darn, I've lived through a good many growing economies, and the rich who owned things along with those with ability always seemed to benefit more than the poor and untalented.

talent effort and luck. but bloom's right re having access. blacks got to the economic dinner table wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy late to their extreme detriment

 

[Bloom.]

I’m not sure I buy the notion that divided government = less government.

It seems more true that divided government = omnibus shit shows where every rep and senator gets their turn at the trough.

If we took media cameras out of the legislative buildings there would be a lot less grandstanding and more getting down to business.

Watching Senate and House hearings with witnesses is mind numbing. Both sides catering to their bases for the first minute of their time before really ever getting to a question.

 

[BradStevens]

I just finished the interview.

I was struck by the last thing Levin said: that social peace is something we take for granted and sometimes (not always) you have to give up being “right” in its interest.

He made some other interesting points, too: that our individual character is shaped by our system of govt and the disputes it engenders; that our politicians campaign a certain way because of the rules of the game (I.e. it’s not certain if Dems would dominate a popular election); and that the form of govt, its offices, etc also form the issues people will fight over and thus the very majorities that might win.

On an upbeat note, he doesn’t think the US is facing an existential threat with Trump (Roberts isn’t so sure) but is worried about continuing norm breaking.

I, obviously, agree with a lot of this.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I just finished the interview.

I was struck by the last thing Levin said: that social peace is something we take for granted and sometimes (not always) you have to give up being “right” in its interest.

He made some other interesting points, too: that our individual character is shaped by our system of govt and the disputes it engenders; that our politicians campaign a certain way because of the rules of the game (I.e. it’s not certain if Dems would dominate a popular election); and that the form of govt, its offices, etc also form the issues people will fight over and thus the very majorities that might win.

On an upbeat note, he doesn’t think the US is facing an existential threat with Trump (Roberts isn’t so sure) but is worried about continuing norm breaking.

I, obviously, agree with a lot of this.

I haven't been through it, but I don't think we are heading toward dictatorship with Trump. At the same point, to paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions does the Supreme Court have? If Trump orders the civil service to be fired and replaced and is completely determined, what can the SC do?

I think the guard rails will hold, but he seems to suggest that he will demand far more loyalty first this time. IF that plays out, I'm not sure we won't find out how strong a dedicated president is. The ride will certainly be bumpy.

 

[BradStevens]

Good analysis in the Economist last month (referenced in the interview):

Why America is vulnerable to a despot

Why America is vulnerable to a despot

Its democratic system is not as robust as it seems

www.economist.com

from The Economist

 

[CO. Hoosier]

How the Constitution Can Bring Us Together (with Yuval Levin) - Econlib

Can a document unify a nation? Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute and author of American Covenant argues that the Constitution unified the United States at the founding of the country and that understanding the Constitution can help bring the country together today. Listen as Levin...

www.econtalk.org

Can a document unify a nation? Listen as Levin speaks with EconTalk's Russ Roberts about how the Constitution not only took into account fractious politics, but also ensured that polarization would lead to a stronger democracy.

Topics include the inherent limitations placed on the majority and how that affects policy formation, the vital if misunderstood advantages of the electoral college, and why, despite all the warnings to the contrary, this is far from a dangerous moment in American political history.

There is a fundamental difference in how we view the relationship of the federal government with the states and the people.

Liberals tend to view state government as the creature of the federal government and conservatives tend to see the federal government as the creature of the states.

Of course that latter is correct, but I think the general public think the former is correct. So do many in Congress.

Intersting thread

 

[TomEric4756]

I thought one of the main themes was it is supposed to be hard to get things done. … in support of a limited Federal government.

 

[UncleMark]

Liberals tend to view state government as the creature of the federal government and conservatives tend to see the federal government as the creature of the states.

Now you're (again) just making shit up.

 

[hoot1]

There is a fundamental difference in how we view the relationship of the federal government with the states and the people.

Liberals tend to view state government as the creature of the federal government and conservatives tend to see the federal government as the creature of the states.

Of course that latter is correct, but I think the general public think the former is correct. So do many in Congress.

Intersting thread

Don't think it is entirely a liberal v. conservative thing.

See it more along the lines of say traditions and logic.

For example, crime and education have traditionally been state and local challenges.

In terms of national defense, global warming, foreign relations, immigration, civil rights, federal taxes, etc. it just makes more sense to have the federal government deal with these national issues.

On a personal level, see abortion as being more of a civil rights national issue. Making it a state issue was IMO just a way for a majority of the Supremes to get a hot potato off it's plate. Having said that, before Wade it was a longstanding state by state issue.

 

[BradStevens]

There is a fundamental difference in how we view the relationship of the federal government with the states and the people.

Liberals tend to view state government as the creature of the federal government and conservatives tend to see the federal government as the creature of the states.

Of course that latter is correct, but I think the general public think the former is correct. So do many in Congress.

Intersting thread

I tend to think liberals are more optimistic about human nature. Conservatives more “realist.” New illiberal identitarians are also pessimistic/realistic in a different way.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I tend to think liberals are more optimistic about human nature. Conservatives more “realist.” New illiberal identitarians are also pessimistic/realistic in a different way.

I’ve heard and read that argument for decades. Often this takes the form that conservatives see human nature as individualistic and competitive and liberals see human nature as cooperative and comfortable with groups. I think there is some truth in this, but I have never understood taking that difference to the realm of optimistic or pessimistic, better or worse, or any other similar difference. Both views have advantages and disadvantages. I both views have aspects of the other.

 

[Bloom.]

There is a fundamental difference in how we view the relationship of the federal government with the states and the people.

Liberals tend to view state government as the creature of the federal government and conservatives tend to see the federal government as the creature of the states.

Of course that latter is correct, but I think the general public think the former is correct. So do many in Congress.

Intersting thread

It's not nearly as binary as you portray it.

There are definitely people on both sides who view the federal government as protection from state governments.

 

[BradStevens]

I’ve heard and read that argument for decades. Often this takes the form that conservatives see human nature as individualistic and competitive and liberals see human nature as cooperative and comfortable with groups. I think there is some truth in this, but I have never understood taking that difference to the realm of optimistic or pessimistic, better or worse, or any other similar difference. Both views have advantages and disadvantages. I both views have aspects of the other.

I wasn't thinking so specifically as you, but some of what you've outlined (competitive vs. cooperative focus) might be true.

I was thinking more utopian vs. fallible (some might say fatalistic), with liberals (of my "time") thinking that if we just keep tinkering, advancing, exploring, thinking about things, we'll come up with ("progress" towards) the perfect govt system to make everything near perfect, including people.

Conservatives (again, that I had grown used to debating) , alternatively started with the premise that man is fallible, unchanging in his character, and that the best govt system is one that recognizes that assumption and that any govt. you design will necessarily entail power-hungry people striving to lead it.

I agree both views are useful and have truth to them.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I tend to think liberals are more optimistic about human nature. Conservatives more “realist.” New illiberal identitarians are also pessimistic/realistic in a different way.

Defund the police. Bail projects. Both speak to liberal optimism about human nature.

 

[hoot1]

I’ve heard and read that argument for decades. Often this takes the form that conservatives see human nature as individualistic and competitive and liberals see human nature as cooperative and comfortable with groups. I think there is some truth in this, but I have never understood taking that difference to the realm of optimistic or pessimistic, better or worse, or any other similar difference. Both views have advantages and disadvantages. I both views have aspects of the other.

CoH, your comment about "both views [liberal and conservative] have advantages and disadvantages" triggered me to respond.

First all, we often forget about the values both American liberals and conservatives share.

Secondly by having both liberals and conservatives the voters have a choice in finding solutions to the problems facing our country. Thus through trial and error over time we find solutions which work.

Finally, in this thread we seem to focus on government as being the driving force in our future. IMO it is the private sector which is the driving force with government being a helpmate in making the private sector function for the general welfare.

 

[hoot1]

talent effort and luck. but bloom's right re having access. blacks got to the economic dinner table wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy late to their extreme detriment

Judging people by the color of their skin perpetuates the problem of coming late to the table.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

CoH, your comment about "both views [liberal and conservative] have advantages and disadvantages" triggered me to respond.

First all, we often forget about the values both American liberals and conservatives share.

Secondly by having both liberals and conservatives the voters have a choice in finding solutions to the problems facing our country. Thus through trial and error over time we find solutions which work.

Finally, in this thread we seem to focus on government as being the driving force in our future. IMO it is the private sector which is the driving force with government being a helpmate in making the private sector function for the general welfare.

Fully agree with your point here. All points of view should be part of the policy debate. Those who say certain ideas should be banned signal their own weakness of ideas. However, I admit to a certain cognitive dissonance when including a point of view that advocates excluding other points of view.

Regarding your last paragraph. I think the trend is clearly to have government being the driving force. This is the product of our education system which seems to advocate that overall objective. Too many see government as the fix for all social ills and individual insecurities.

 

[hoot1]

Fully agree with your point here. All points of view should be part of the policy debate. Those who say certain ideas should be banned signal their own weakness of ideas. However, I admit to a certain cognitive dissonance when including a point of view that advocates excluding other points of view.

Regarding your last paragraph. I think the trend is clearly to have government being the driving force. This is the product of our education system which seems to advocate that overall objective. Too many see government as the fix for all social ills and individual insecurities.

IMO the budgets of state and the federal governments tells us where the focus is.

Here in Indiana the top budget items are education followed by Medicaid.

On the federal level it is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid with interest on the national debt growing.

So the fix focuses on health, retirement, and education.

Personally it is my opinion that Americans should be living a more healthy lifestyle, investing more in their own retirement, and looking at education as a life long project.

 

[Bloom.]

Defund the police. Bail projects. Both speak to liberal optimism about human nature.

Defund the police isn't about belief in human nature. It's about police abusing their authority, which is undeniable. How to deal with that is where the rubber hits the road, but defunding the police was never legitimately about removing resources. It was about how to better allocate resources.

Finding ways to address reasons people turn to crime seems to make sense accept to the cynical and those who view it 'their' tax dollars going to social programs. They'd rather keep their money and point fingers at the criminals.


Bail projects is another issue of over prosecuting non-violent offenders, then creating an equal and opposite reaction that ends up putting violent offenders back on the streets due to (insert over crowding or perceptions of social justice).


Neither of those have much to do with optimism about human nature. It's about pessimism against authority that seems to act in unjust ways.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Defund the police isn't about belief in human nature

no. it's about human nature. as are bail projects. an inherent belief that people will do the right thing when presented with second chances and opportunities etc. it's removed from reality.

Bail projects is another issue of over prosecuting non-violent offenders

i don't think you understand the purpose behind bail

It's about pessimism against authority that seems to act in unjust ways.

enforcing laws isn't unjust

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

Defund the police isn't about belief in human nature. It's about police abusing their authority, which is undeniable. How to deal with that is where the rubber hits the road, but defunding the police was never legitimately about removing resources. It was about how to better allocate resources.

Finding ways to address reasons people turn to crime seems to make sense accept to the cynical and those who view it 'their' tax dollars going to social programs. They'd rather keep their money and point fingers at the criminals.


Bail projects is another issue of over prosecuting non-violent offenders, then creating an equal and opposite reaction that ends up putting violent offenders back on the streets due to (insert over crowding or perceptions of social justice).


Neither of those have much to do with optimism about human nature. It's about pessimism against authority that seems to act in unjust ways.

Here in Chicago we’ve been attacking the “root causes of crime” for four decades. Going back to the Daley’s every Mayor has said something of the sort.

It’s worked great…..

The idea that you can lower crime through wealth distribution is an utter fallacy.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Here in Chicago we’ve been attacking the “root causes of crime” for four decades. Going back to the Daley’s every Mayor has said something of the sort.

It’s worked great…..

The idea that you can lower crime through wealth distribution is an utter fallacy.

It will help but these teens that are little gangbangers shooting up don’t want to hear from some social worker. They play sports at the boys’ club during the day and run wild at night. At this point it’s culture. Time for some accountability. Progressives thinking the best of people is a kindness but not reality.

There are 800,000 cops. Tens of millions of contacts a year. Some abuse will be baked in. That’s life. Act right

 

[Bloom.]

no. it's about human nature. as are bail projects. an inherent belief that people will do the right thing when presented with second chances and opportunities etc. it's removed from reality. i don't think you understand the purpose behind bail

No, it's not. It's a mixture of a reaction to over prosecution (social justice) and trying to hone down who really should be behind bars.

In some cases, it goes too far.

enforcing laws isn't unjust

Clearly, sometimes it is, or police wouldn't lose jobs or end up going to prison on their own merit. Life doesn't operate in the vacuum you think it does.

 

[mcmurtry66]

No, it's not. It's a mixture of a reaction to over prosecution (social justice) and trying to hone down who really should be behind bars.

over prosecution? says who. bail is to ensure the accused shows up at court. otherwise they don't remedy the wrong and judges don't clear dockets.

sometimes it is

cops have as many as 50 million contacts a year with citizens. you can sometimes anything

Life doesn't operate in the vacuum you think it does.

i love your posts on topics on crime and law. it's always right where arrogance meets ignorance. actually it's on countless topics with you to be fair

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Liberals tend to view state government as the creature of the federal government

You're being dishonest and/or stupid again. Please knock it off.

 

[DANC]

Good analysis in the Economist last month (referenced in the interview):

Why America is vulnerable to a despot

Why America is vulnerable to a despot

Its democratic system is not as robust as it seems

www.economist.com

from The Economist

Europeans are scared shitless about the US becoming a dictatorship because they've seen it up close and personal and they depend on the US to maintain world order.

If you talk to many Europeans, you'll find they have a different view of the US than we do.

 

[shouldhavebeenLars]

over prosecution? says who. bail is to ensure the accused shows up at court. otherwise they don't remedy the wrong and judges don't clear dockets.

cops have as many as 50 million contacts a year with citizens. you can sometimes anything

i love your posts on topics on crime and law. it's always right where arrogance meets ignorance. actually it's on countless topics with you to be fair

He clearly has zero real world experience with the legal system.

 

[Bloom.]

over prosecution? says who. bail is to ensure the accused shows up at court. otherwise they don't remedy the wrong and judges don't clear dockets.

Says the people who were calling for defund the police.

That's not me, bro, just pointing out one perspective that isn't in line with your thinking.

cops have as many as 50 million contacts a year with citizens. you can sometimes anything

Can you translate that to English for me?

i love your posts on topics on crime and law. it's always right where arrogance meets ignorance. actually it's on countless topics with you to be fair

I just follow your lead. My fault that I didn't agree with your take 100%. I didn't take my red pill today.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Says the people who were calling for defund the police.

That's not me, bro, just pointing out one perspective that isn't in line with your thinking.


Can you translate that to English for me?


I just follow your lead. My fault that I didn't agree with your take 100%. I didn't take my red pill today.

okay

 

[IUINSB]

Defund the police. Bail projects. Both speak to liberal optimism about human nature.

Both speak to lunacy and anarchy.

 

[Bloom.]

Both speak to lunacy and anarchy.

THAT'S what @mcmurtry66 wants to hear. Good boy!

 

[mcmurtry66]

THAT'S what @mcmurtry66 wants to hear. Good boy!

exactly

 

[IUINSB]

exactly

Where's my treat?

 

[Bloom.]

Where's my treat?

Not even a courtesy reach around.