DescentBB

At least as we formerly understood what the definition a of conservative meant. We have Donald J. Trump and the voters that brought him to power to thank for putting the final brick in the mausoleum wall, cementing the power of the corrosively divisive, socially oppressive, theological and nationalistic brand of "conservatism" we see now. Am I sad to see what's transpired? Yes, since I'm still somewhat fiscally conservative in my political views, I want to see our country thrive and I firmly believe in good old collaboration with the opposing party(s) to get things done for the benefit of ALL the people. I see none of that ancient tried and true ideology with the current crop of so-called "conservatives" occupying Congress and the White House. All I see now are a bunch of scared bootlickers and sycophants unwilling to stand up to an ego-maniacal vulgar bully of a president or even stand up for their own conservative principles and values.

http://theweek.com/articles/739147/conservatism-dead

Conservatism died with the Tea Party ascendency, in a sense. Trumpism is just naked cronyist Nationalism, a greedy scheme based on playing to the basest fears and hatred of the largely uninformed and panicked population facing an economic sea change. Just as well that conservatism goes to the dustbin of history. Classic liberalism won't be cutting it, either, as we'll need an entirely new set of paradigms to maintain civil society in a post-labor economy.

callmeslick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:53 pm Classic liberalism won't be cutting it, either, as we'll need an entirely new set of paradigms to maintain civil society in a post-labor economy.

So what's your "solution?" Marxism? Socialism? Some variation based on postmodernist philosophy?

Nightshade wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:28 pm

callmeslick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:53 pm Classic liberalism won't be cutting it, either, as we'll need an entirely new set of paradigms to maintain civil society in a post-labor economy.

So what's your "solution?" Marxism? Socialism? Some variation based on postmodernist philosophy?

How about the "right" quit trying to pull the nation so far to the right? They've been doing that ever since Obama got elected. Why do you think liberals are resisting you so hard? They're NOT going there. Why not suck it up, knuckle down and try working with the other side to get things done instead of the my-way-or-the-highway or liberals are evil attitude that's been rampant recently? There's got to be some give and take. Trump loves to play that Rolling Stones song at his rallies: "You can't always get what you want." Well, it's time to learn something from your own arrogance. Just as the left can't always get what they want, the right can't always get what they want either, at least without tearing the country apart.

Nightshade wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:28 pm

callmeslick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:53 pm Classic liberalism won't be cutting it, either, as we'll need an entirely new set of paradigms to maintain civil society in a post-labor economy.

So what's your "solution?" Marxism? Socialism? Some variation based on postmodernist philosophy?

it will certainly be considered some sort of 'postmodern' political/economic system. I honestly don't know what combination of policies will work best, but if we don't design and ACCEPT a system of redistribution of investment income to folks past the 5% of the public sufficiently invested, we are cooked. Marxism was just a design for the early industrial revolution, designed to temper the excesses of capitalism. It carried, as all know, it's own potential sets of excesses. Most successful modern nations have cobbled together an amalgam of the two main economic models and codified the amalgam through politics. No place of any scale operates on pure Marxism nor pure Capitalism.

oh, and TC, that right-wing push started with Reagan. It showed by way of contrast with Obama because he fought, publicly, against the abject cruel stupidity of that approach to government. Why? Because Barack H Obama is one of the few politicians extant who sees what is coming economically. He knew the GOP was going for subjugation of 90% of the population as the end goal(still are, by the way), and tried to point out how and why.

callmeslick wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:05 pmit will certainly be considered some sort of 'postmodern' political/economic system.

I occasionally ponder new forms of governance and lately I've been looking for something that models itself after biological systems. I haven't found anything resembling that I vaguely have in mind, but I keep looking. One thing I think needs to happen is a move toward decentralization. I have Libertarian leanings, but find myself a bit more left-Libertarian than right-Libertarian compared to my self-labeled Libertarian friends (who tend to be right-anachronistic).

I've always been an advocate of state's rights and, while it might be disastrous, I would be interested in seeing how the US would fare as a Confederation. It might be the only way to accept each other's differences.

it is past time that folks realized that in the economy we're developed, nations are going to become the 'states' and the global economy will require more robust global governance. I may have not gotten far in my quest for the answers, but that much seems obvious.

callmeslick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:17 am it is past time that folks realized that in the economy we're developed, nations are going to become the 'states' and the global economy will require more robust global governance. I may have not gotten far in my quest for the answers, but that much seems obvious.

Good luck with that idea. We already got the nationalists stirring up the xenophobic hate pot in the U.S. and in Europe. Hell will have to freeze over before we even remotely see any type of global governance being thought of as a viable solution to the world's economic problems. Nations are just too damn tribal.

never suggested the path will be easy or straight.

Call me a pessimist, but I'm saying it would be nearly impossible, given human nature and tribalism. I'm guessing the only thing that would bring humanity together, worldwide, would be an invasion by an alien species and I'm guessing even that would be short lived, because once the threat was gone, if we managed to repel the invaders, we'd invariably revert back to our evolutionary ways and become little feuding tribes all over again.