Redefining conservatism . . . Oren Cass and American Compass . . .

[Sope Creek]

. . . the process of wresting conservative politics and the US economy from simplistic libertarian slogans has begun . . .

. . . one of the money quotes from the op/ed linked below:

Cass and his band of conservative reformers thus stand athwart this tide of recent conservative history yelling “Stop.” Cass argues that “free-market fundamentalism, so often presented as the sophisticated way to understand economics, [is] pathetically simplistic.” This means a renewed appreciation for elements in conservative thinking that have long been cast aside in favor of economic and individualistic reductionism.

. . . another . . .

Cass and his allies, however, stand for the opposite idea: Only democratic politics permits the collective judgment of the people to be heard, distilled and implemented. That judgment has a healthy respect for markets and economic freedom, but it has the wisdom to know when liberty becomes license and when the freedom of some is injurious to the health of society. In those cases, Cass and American Compass hold, it is not only proper for society to intervene in the market but also necessary for it to do so.

Good for Cass . . . although I'm not sure Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio are two to help lead this effort . . . but I've been wrong before . . . often, as I am reminded of often.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...nservatism-republicans-ignore-it-their-peril/

 

[IUCrazy2]

. . . the process of wresting conservative politics and the US economy from simplistic libertarian slogans has begun . . .

. . . one of the money quotes from the op/ed linked below:

Cass and his band of conservative reformers thus stand athwart this tide of recent conservative history yelling “Stop.” Cass argues that “free-market fundamentalism, so often presented as the sophisticated way to understand economics, [is] pathetically simplistic.” This means a renewed appreciation for elements in conservative thinking that have long been cast aside in favor of economic and individualistic reductionism.

. . . another . . .

Cass and his allies, however, stand for the opposite idea: Only democratic politics permits the collective judgment of the people to be heard, distilled and implemented. That judgment has a healthy respect for markets and economic freedom, but it has the wisdom to know when liberty becomes license and when the freedom of some is injurious to the health of society. In those cases, Cass and American Compass hold, it is not only proper for society to intervene in the market but also necessary for it to do so.

Good for Cass . . . although I'm not sure Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio are two to help lead this effort . . . but I've been wrong before . . . often, as I am reminded of often.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...nservatism-republicans-ignore-it-their-peril/

I would be one of the people that is aimed at.

I agree with some of the old school Democratic economic positions...I cannot go so far as the party is now and there are other parts of that party that completely turn me off, but I am completely fine with pulling the GOP back from the Libertarian economic folks.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

. . . the process of wresting conservative politics and the US economy from simplistic libertarian slogans has begun . . .

. . . one of the money quotes from the op/ed linked below:

Cass and his band of conservative reformers thus stand athwart this tide of recent conservative history yelling “Stop.” Cass argues that “free-market fundamentalism, so often presented as the sophisticated way to understand economics, [is] pathetically simplistic.” This means a renewed appreciation for elements in conservative thinking that have long been cast aside in favor of economic and individualistic reductionism.

. . . another . . .

Cass and his allies, however, stand for the opposite idea: Only democratic politics permits the collective judgment of the people to be heard, distilled and implemented. That judgment has a healthy respect for markets and economic freedom, but it has the wisdom to know when liberty becomes license and when the freedom of some is injurious to the health of society. In those cases, Cass and American Compass hold, it is not only proper for society to intervene in the market but also necessary for it to do so.

Good for Cass . . . although I'm not sure Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio are two to help lead this effort . . . but I've been wrong before . . . often, as I am reminded of often.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...nservatism-republicans-ignore-it-their-peril/

Can't read the oped, but I will agree with the notion that conservatism needs an honest effort of examination and focus. I wouldn't call it re-definition. I don't think the definition has ever changed. Although I will acknowledge that conserves and liberals have tried to change the meaning though such adjectives as "social," "economic," and "movement". The most serious problem facing conservatives today is its conflation with libertarianism. Reagan fed into this with his comment that "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help". That has been misconstrued as a statement in favor of libertarianism. Not at all. Reagan was governor of California President of the US. He never governed as a libertarian. An important principle of conservatism is the need for restraints on power of human excess. That is where government comes in.

I perhaps take issue with this from your quote from the WaPo piece: "Only democratic politics permits the collective judgment of the people to be heard, distilled and implemented." I'm not sure if whether "democratic politics" is intended to be different from conservative politics, but I'd say this is an important feature of conservatism, not of liberalism. An appropriate generality is that conservatism is very much about the collective judgement of people to be the force for change while liberals look to the collective judgment of a leadership group to do this. This perhaps is the source of the Democratic talking point that conservatives don't like elites or intellectuals. No. Conservatives accept that there are elites and intellectuals amongst us. Centralized or concentrated power and authority is the issue.

 

[outside shooter]

Conservatism needs an infusion of guts. It takes guts to call out your own party for allowing the corruption of its purpose, for abandoning its fundamental principles, all while encouraging the rise of an embarrssingly inept emperor with no clothes.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Conservatism needs an infusion of guts. It takes guts to call out your own party for allowing the corruption of its purpose, for abandoning its fundamental principles, all while encouraging the rise of an embarrassingly inept emperor with no clothes.

Sounds like you think conservatives have an obligation to shout at Trump. Why does that even matter? Conservatism has been around for centuries. Trump has been around for 3 years. What conservative "fundamental principles" has Trump caused conservatives to abandon?

 

[outside shooter]

What conservative "fundamental principles" has Trump caused conservatives to abandon?

-free trade
-fiscal responsibility
-thoughtful policy-making, rather than being guided by bizarre conspiracy theories
-respect for / belief in science &technology, rather than peddling windmill cancer and "game-changing" snake oils
-honoring servicemen and women, vs. attacking John McCain & Gold Star families
-support for law enforcement, rather than attacking institutions like the FBI for imagined roles in imagined conspiracies and ignoring government intelligence in favor of Russian bots
-opposing tyrants like Putin rather than kissing his butt


I could go on, but those come to mind in seconds.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

free trade

The US was substantially financed with tariffs for its existence prior to the income tax.

fiscal responsibility

What does that even mean? You'll need to relate that to a conservative principle.

thoughtful policy-making, rather than being guided by bizarre conspiracy theories

Meaningless word pile.

respect for / belief in science &technology, rather than peddling windmill cancer and "game-changing" snake oils

Which policy resulted from this? Short answer--none.

honoring servicemen and women, vs. attacking John McCain & Gold Star families

Attacking McCain was despicable. I would hope that honor and respect is a universal human principle, not just a conservative principle.

-support for law enforcement, rather than attacking institutions like the FBI for imagined roles in imagined conspiracies and ignoring government intelligence in favor of Russian bots

Cleaning out crooked law enforcement is a universal principle, not a conservative one.

-opposing tyrants like Putin rather than kissing his butt

Trump policies have been harder on Russia than any predecessor since the end of the Cold War. Try again.

I could go on, but those come to mind in seconds.

Pease go on with particular attention to conservative principles instead of well-worn anti-Trump screeds. This notion that Trump is ruining conservatism is a common point--but I have yet seen any serious evidence or even intelligent discussion about it. If you don't understand conservatism or its principles, I can understand how you might find this a difficult task.

 

[outside shooter]

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Calling Trump a dumbass doesn't make you a smart fellow. Do you want expand on the interesting thread starter about the need to examine conservatism in the age of Trump, or post cartoons?

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Calling Trump a dumbass doesn't make you a smart fellow. Do you want expand on the interesting thread starter about the need to examine conservatism in the age of Trump, or post cartoons?

Doesn't make him wrong, either.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Doesn't make him wrong, either.

No, but it makes him totally irrelevant. The point of the thread is conservatism and how it should change or go back to its roots. You are irrlevant as are both of my last responses. This is why the board sucks. Dipshits make it all Trump all the time.

 

[hoosboot]

Doesn't make him wrong, either.

Yo, dude, CoH only likes it when he alters the topic of conversation.

 

[outside shooter]

Calling Trump a dumbass doesn't make you a smart fellow. Do you want expand on the interesting thread starter about the need to examine conservatism in the age of Trump, or post cartoons?

Trump is most certainly a dumbass, and I don't need any of my 4 advanced degrees to understand that. Political cartoons have been a very effective way to convey serious thoughts and concerns since our country was founded. And no, I don't want to continue tedious bickering with someone lacking the intellectual capacity to extract his cranium from his great leader's rectal cavity.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Trump is most certainly a dumbass, and I don't need any of my 4 advanced degrees to understand that. Political cartoons have been a very effective way to convey serious thoughts and concerns since our country was founded. And no, I don't want to continue tedious bickering with someone lacking the intellectual capacity to extract his cranium from his great leader's rectal cavity.

Lol. Tedious bickering is often a by-product of not understanding a conversation. You certainly don’t need any of your 4 advanced degrees to post what you post in this thread. All you need is to understand relevance.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I would be one of the people that is aimed at.

I agree with some of the old school Democratic economic positions...I cannot go so far as the party is now and there are other parts of that party that completely turn me off, but I am completely fine with pulling the GOP back from the Libertarian economic folks.

being the the Dem party is now economically way way right of "old school Dem economic positions", (they're even right of "old school" pre Reagan Pub economic positions), not sure what current Dem economic positions you're talking about.

 

[Sope Creek]

Can't read the oped, but I will agree with the notion that conservatism needs an honest effort of examination and focus. I wouldn't call it re-definition. I don't think the definition has ever changed. Although I will acknowledge that conserves and liberals have tried to change the meaning though such adjectives as "social," "economic," and "movement". The most serious problem facing conservatives today is its conflation with libertarianism. Reagan fed into this with his comment that "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help". That has been misconstrued as a statement in favor of libertarianism. Not at all. Reagan was governor of California President of the US. He never governed as a libertarian. An important principle of conservatism is the need for restraints on power of human excess. That is where government comes in.

I perhaps take issue with this from your quote from the WaPo piece: "Only democratic politics permits the collective judgment of the people to be heard, distilled and implemented." I'm not sure if whether "democratic politics" is intended to be different from conservative politics, but I'd say this is an important feature of conservatism, not of liberalism. An appropriate generality is that conservatism is very much about the collective judgement of people to be the force for change while liberals look to the collective judgment of a leadership group to do this. This perhaps is the source of the Democratic talking point that conservatives don't like elites or intellectuals. No. Conservatives accept that there are elites and intellectuals amongst us. Centralized or concentrated power and authority is the issue.

Just to be clear, the "democratic politics" referenced here is with a small "d", which I took as intending to mean government by elected officials, not governance by Democrats alone.

I think that principle is one on which conservatives and liberals generally have agreed for decades, and might yet agree on it again if we can get past the current claptrap. Judging from your post above, apparently you don't . . . .

 

[Sope Creek]

Calling Trump a dumbass doesn't make you a smart fellow. Do you want expand on the interesting thread starter about the need to examine conservatism in the age of Trump, or post cartoons?

Oh, I don't know . . . it's a recognition of what is, which is where a smart person begins their analysis.

BTW, my sense is that OS is saying that to get to the interesting thread starter we need to clear out the garbage that keeps getting in the way of that discussion. He has a point . . . .

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Oh, I don't know . . . it's a recognition of what is, which is where a smart person begins their analysis.

Cass mentioned "Trump" twice in his piece. Neither of which describe a material starting point.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Oh, I don't know . . . it's a recognition of what is, which is where a smart person begins their analysis.

BTW, my sense is that OS is saying that to get to the interesting thread starter we need to clear out the garbage that keeps getting in the way of that discussion. He has a point . . . .

many/most of the most active posters here, are here for the very purpose of inserting garbage into the discourse, and stopping discussions from going any direction one party or the other, or both, want it to go.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Just to be clear, the "democratic politics" referenced here is with a small "d", which I took as intending to mean government by elected officials, not governance by Democrats alone.

I think that principle is one on which conservatives and liberals generally have agreed for decades, and might yet agree on it again if we can get past the current claptrap. Judging from your post above, apparently you don't . . . .

Small "d" is does not answer the question. The starting point in any comparison of political philosophies is the role of the sovereign--or the elected officials. Are they elected to implement the will of the people, or to exercise independent judgment. Of course it's a mixture, but the real question is how does one differentiate between those two points. SCOTUS EC argument next Wednesday should be interesting on this point. Looking forward to that one. I wish this would be an forum where intelligent people could discuss it with mutual respect, but that ain't gonna happen is it--as you just made clear.

I don't get your personal reference to me.

 

[Sope Creek]

Cass mentione "Trump" twice in his piece. Neither of which describe a material starting point.

(1) I don't know which "piece" you're referring to, as the link in the OP is to an op/ed by Henry Olson, and (2) Olson doesn't mention Trump once that I could see.

What are you referring to?

 

[Cortez88]

The US was substantially financed with tariffs for its existence prior to the income tax.



What does that even mean? You'll need to relate that to a conservative principle.



Meaningless word pile.



Which policy resulted from this? Short answer--none.



Attacking McCain was despicable. I would hope that honor and respect is a universal human principle, not just a conservative principle.



Cleaning out crooked law enforcement is a universal principle, not a conservative one.



Trump policies have been harder on Russia than any predecessor since the end of the Cold War. Try again.



Pease go on with particular attention to conservative principles instead of well-worn anti-Trump screeds. This notion that Trump is ruining conservatism is a common point--but I have yet seen any serious evidence or even intelligent discussion about it. If you don't understand conservatism or its principles, I can understand how you might find this a difficult task.

This is the epitome of how a “conservative” explains the heel turn to full Trumper. So was conservatism a sham or are you totally full of shit? It’s one of the other.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

(1) I don't know which "piece" you're referring to, as the link in the OP is to an op/ed by Henry Olson, and (2) Olson doesn't mention Trump once that I could see.

What are you referring to?

The piece Cass actually wrote linked in your pulled quote.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

This is the epitome of how a “conservative” explains the heel turn to full Trumper.

I feel like I'm talking in a hurricane. IMO, there is no conservative heel turn to "full Trumper" no matter what people like Max Boot say. I tried to discuss this with Outside and he went to full dumbass with his cartoon and nonsense post. Please tell me you have something more to add than "full Trumper". Lots of noise out there about this issue, but precious little signal.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

The US was substantially financed with tariffs for its existence prior to the income tax.

What does that even mean? You'll need to relate that to a conservative principle.

Meaningless word pile.

Which policy resulted from this? Short answer--none.

Attacking McCain was despicable. I would hope that honor and respect is a universal human principle, not just a conservative principle.

Cleaning out crooked law enforcement is a universal principle, not a conservative one.

Trump policies have been harder on Russia than any predecessor since the end of the Cold War. Try again.

Pease go on with particular attention to conservative principles instead of well-worn anti-Trump screeds. This notion that Trump is ruining conservatism is a common point--but I have yet seen any serious evidence or even intelligent discussion about it. If you don't understand conservatism or its principles, I can understand how you might find this a difficult task.

CO, can you for once in your life just try to admit that Trump's views do not align with fiscal conservatism and traditional conservative principles?

He's shown a lack of desire to balance the budget and reduce spending, he's using government to meddle in free markets via tariffs, publicly call out businesses for things he views favorably or negatively and demonstrated zero respect for monetary policy. He's also threatened to use his Federal powers to override States, which is inherently contradict traditional conservative beliefs.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

CO, can you for once in your life just try to admit that Trump's views do not align with fiscal conservatism and traditional conservative principles?

He's shown a lack of desire to balance the budget and reduce spending, he's using government to meddle in free markets via tariffs, publicly call out businesses for things he views favorably or negatively and demonstrated zero respect for monetary policy. He's also threatened to use his Federal powers to override States, which is inherently contradict traditional conservative beliefs.

I agree Trump's does not align himself with fiscal conservatives. I don't think I ever said otherwise. That said, I think fiscal conservatism is not a traditional conservative principle. I look to Frederich Hayek as the father of conservative economics. I don't think he had much to say about deficits. He was more about individulism and free markets.

Traditional conservative principles is another matter entirely. I think most of Trump's policies align very well with those. At least those conservative principles as I have understood them for many decades. I will agree that what are traditional conservative principles have become a little vague. There are many reasons for that.

I think Trump is by in large a free market advocate. Most of his deregulation efforts have reflected that. I don't understand your point about threatening states with federal powers. The only example I can think of is his sanctuary city policies. I think that argument can go either way about whether that is conservative or not. He has been extremely deferential to governors during the pandemic, and has taken a great deal of heat for not being more aggressive and authoritative in that regard.

Much of Trump criticism about everything, including his conservatism, stems from his character defects and shooting his mouth off. Being likable, as far as I know, is not a prominent conservative principle.

 

[IUCrazy2]

being the the Dem party is now economically way way right of "old school Dem economic positions", (they're even right of "old school" pre Reagan Pub economic positions), not sure what current Dem economic positions you're talking about.

Well for one, I think Trump kind of took some of that old school position with the his trade policies, namely trying to protect American labor from countries like China. I am not opposed to smart application of the tax code nor am I opposed to increasing taxes on the top end of the earning scale.

 

[IUCrazy2]

CO, can you for once in your life just try to admit that Trump's views do not align with fiscal conservatism and traditional conservative principles?

He's shown a lack of desire to balance the budget and reduce spending, he's using government to meddle in free markets via tariffs, publicly call out businesses for things he views favorably or negatively and demonstrated zero respect for monetary policy. He's also threatened to use his Federal powers to override States, which is inherently contradict traditional conservative beliefs.

I will admit some of that. Not all of that is a negative either. I have no issue with calling out businesses. I think the Republican Party had gotten to married to the idea that what was good for the Chamber of Commerce, was good for America. I disagree. Free trade led to our jobs disappearing to foreign countries who basically pay slave wages and forced the U.S. labor force to try and compete with that. It has led to everything from our manufacturing supply lines up to our medicine being supplied to us by a country whose stated goal is to displace the U.S. by 2050. People like the Kochs dumped money into the party to open the floodgates of immigration into the country so that our working class was forced to not only compete with cheap foreign labor over there but also a flood of cheap foreign labor at home. And the exploding disparity in income has followed with it.

You mention things that a conservative should believe in general, such as the federal overriding the states. To me, conservatism is looking for solutions that would need the least government interference, however, there are instances when government has to step in and reset the equilibrium. I think the libertarians hold too much sway in the party.

As far as spending too much goes...yeah, but really how different is that than basically any other President lately? Does not matter who is in charge, they all spend...and do not give me the crap that Democrats at least pay for the spending, that's a joke. Nobody does.

 

[Sope Creek]

I will admit some of that. Not all of that is a negative either. I have no issue with calling out businesses. I think the Republican Party had gotten to married to the idea that what was good for the Chamber of Commerce, was good for America. I disagree. Free trade led to our jobs disappearing to foreign countries who basically pay slave wages and forced the U.S. labor force to try and compete with that. It has led to everything from our manufacturing supply lines up to our medicine being supplied to us by a country whose stated goal is to displace the U.S. by 2050. People like the Kochs dumped money into the party to open the floodgates of immigration into the country so that our working class was forced to not only compete with cheap foreign labor over there but also a flood of cheap foreign labor at home. And the exploding disparity in income has followed with it.

You mention things that a conservative should believe in general, such as the federal overriding the states. To me, conservatism is looking for solutions that would need the least government interference, however, there are instances when government has to step in and reset the equilibrium. I think the libertarians hold too much sway in the party.

As far as spending too much goes...yeah, but really how different is that than basically any other President lately? Does not matter who is in charge, they all spend...and do not give me the crap that Democrats at least pay for the spending, that's a joke. Nobody does.

I don't mind the government spending money. I don't have a problem with tax cuts per se. What I don't like is spending money - including, perhaps especially, via tax cuts - without getting full value in return for it. That's on both parties . . . but the rampant corruption in this administration is on a different level. The American taxpayer can't afford Trump any more.

 

[Sope Creek]

Small "d" is does not answer the question. The starting point in any comparison of political philosophies is the role of the sovereign--or the elected officials. Are they elected to implement the will of the people, or to exercise independent judgment. Of course it's a mixture, but the real question is how does one differentiate between those two points. SCOTUS EC argument next Wednesday should be interesting on this point. Looking forward to that one. I wish this would be an forum where intelligent people could discuss it with mutual respect, but that ain't gonna happen is it--as you just made clear.

I don't get your personal reference to me.

Feel free to go elsewhere . . . perhaps over on Peegs' political commentary board . . . what's it called . . . "Civil Discourse"?

BTW, you state "The starting point in any comparison of political philosophies is the role of the sovereign--or the elected officials" as if that's an uncontrovertable fact. It's this bullshit in response to a perfectly good OP based on someone other than you providing a starting point for a discussion.

You demand that everybody play on your field and you also demand setting the rules of the discussion. It's your preternatural narcissism on full display again. It makes you tediously boring.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I don't mind the government spending money. I don't have a problem with tax cuts per se. What I don't like is spending money - including, perhaps especially, via tax cuts - without getting full value in return for it. That's on both parties . . . but the rampant corruption in this administration is on a different level. The American taxpayer can't afford Trump any more.

Rampant corruption in what way? Stuff like that tends to get thrown around a lot when we are taking the other party to task and then just accepted as argument.

The Amerirican taxpayer can not afford Trump in the same manner they could not afford either Obama or Bush. And truly, it is neither of the 3 of them that is the problem. It is the House and Senate. The majority of the congressional leadership (both parties) has been around for decades and they control spending. Pelosi and McConnell are more to blame than almost anyone when it comes to our current position. Those two have overseen more profligate spending during their leadership than almost anyone else before them combined. You could similarly throw Schumer and Ryan in there too, but I think McConnell and Pelosi would have the lion share.

 

[glmiu11]

Rampant corruption in what way? Stuff like that tends to get thrown around a lot when we are taking the other party to task and then just accepted as argument.

The Amerirican taxpayer can not afford Trump in the same manner they could not afford either Obama or Bush. And truly, it is neither of the 3 of them that is the problem. It is the House and Senate. The majority of the congressional leadership (both parties) has been around for decades and they control spending. Pelosi and McConnell are more to blame than almost anyone when it comes to our current position. Those two have overseen more profligate spending during their leadership than almost anyone else before them combined. You could similarly throw Schumer and Ryan in there too, but I think McConnell and Pelosi would have the lion share.

I would agree with that post all of my life until this president and this pandemic. Admittedly, many know more about history than I do.
I’d at least argue with your Bush, Obama take. I believe both would’ve handled this situation better in every way imaginable.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I would agree with that post all of my life until this president and this pandemic. Admittedly, many no more about history than I do.
I’d at least argue with your Bush, Obama take. I believe both would’ve handled this situation better in every way imaginable.

I think they would have been tighter on messaging but the same structural problems would have existed.

 

[glmiu11]

I think they would have been tighter on messaging but the same structural problems would have existed.

I really don’t.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I really don’t.

Agree to disagree then. Really just conjecture on each of our parts anyway. I just don't see how Bush and Obama would have had the PPE ready to go and would have prevented the CDC from contaminating the first batch of tests. Additionally, I don't know if either of then would have been as willing to cut travel from China and Europe as quickly as Trump did either.

 

[glmiu11]

Agree to disagree then. Really just conjecture on each of our parts anyway. I just don't see how Bush and Obama would have had the PPE ready to go and would have prevented the CDC from contaminating the first batch of tests. Additionally, I don't know if either of then would have been as willing to cut travel from China and Europe as quickly as Trump did either.

The governor of Maryland went pretty much straight to tv after being informed and said things were about to get bad. Decisions should have been made right then, and I believe the two presidents you brought up would have done more for the people of our country.
I agree to disagree. Even though I do agree with elements of what you write.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Feel free to go elsewhere . . . perhaps over on Peegs' political commentary board . . . what's it called . . . "Civil Discourse"?

BTW, you state "The starting point in any comparison of political philosophies is the role of the sovereign--or the elected officials" as if that's an uncontrovertable fact. It's this bullshit in response to a perfectly good OP based on someone other than you providing a starting point for a discussion.

You demand that everybody play on your field and you also demand setting the rules of the discussion. It's your preternatural narcissism on full display again. It makes
you tediously boring.

You say I have preternatural narcissism as you level personal attacks at me in each of your posts? Good grief.

My “starting point” comment had to do with your remark about liberals and conservatives agree about government by elected officials. More basic to that is what elected officials should use as guideposts. It wasn’t a statement of fact but my position, hoping to generate an intelligent discussion. FWIW, I’ve had similar discussions with many local electeds and with a congressional rep. You chose the path of going after me, which is what you do. You’re pretty pathetic any more.