SkipCaptcha
35,519
edits
Changes
Talk:Essay: A new conservative age is rising (view source)
Revision as of 18:48, September 5, 2023
, 18:48, September 5, 2023→User: Conservative's rebuttal
The government should not allow big businesses' lobbyists to get regulators to set up nonsensical regulations to create artificial barriers for small businesses' entry into an industry. The government should make it harder for regulators to set up nonsensical regulations. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:22, September 5, 2023 (EDT)
The government should not allow big businesses' lobbyists to get regulators to set up nonsensical regulations to create artificial barriers for small businesses' entry into an industry. The government should make it harder for regulators to set up nonsensical regulations. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:22, September 5, 2023 (EDT)
====LT's response====
# Yes, social conservatism is objectively preferable to moral degeneracy, though one needs to understand how it goes both ways: in a moral society, social conservatism is a necessary bulwark, while an immoral society can utilize it to hold together and fuel a sinister system.
# More job-friendly? That in of itself has nothing wrong, though how it is portrayed and what agenda it serves matters. Both "right-wing populists" and old-school Communists are working-class populist agitators, left-wing nationalists (as opposed to right-wing "bourgeois" nationalism), and nativists who think that the "outsiders" don't belong.
# On the issue of free trade vs. protectionism, fitting that into a left–right framework is tricky in objective terms because of how the very political spectrum changed in the late 1960s–80s; protectionism was once associated with the politics of right-wing "standpat" Republicans, though rejected by the eventual "New Right." However, even in the old days, protectionism wasn't necessarily right-wing—it was conservative when used to benefit the big business interests, and left-wing when a part of socialist, populistic working-class sentiments. The [[Liberal Republican Party]] nominee of [[United States presidential election, 1872|1872]], [[Horace Greeley]], was strongly protectionist, yet also a socialist. Conclusion: Trump's protectionism, fitting a framework of working-class populism, actually represents old-school left-wing ideals from a historically grounded perspective.
# Decisions by couples on how many children they desire to have are their private decisions the government has no business intruding upon. A child should not be conceived and born simply because their parents were goaded by a central state into seeking an extra welfare benefit—Conservative, your implied argument that "the ends justify the means," in this case being that a high fertility rate is so important that it justifies government welfare, '''is a brainchild of Machiavellianism, which you hypocritically reproved RobSmith for adhering to.'''
# Yes, small businesses are a crucial backbone of the United States economy. That doesn't justify "right-wing populism."
# As for the rhetoric that the evil industrial business elites are controlling the government through cronyism, that is old-school Jeffersonian and Jacksonian rhetoric. In those days, the Jeffersonians and Jacksonians were the left-wing populists, while the Federalists they denounced as industrial cronyists were the classical conservatives.
—[[User:LT|<code><span style="background:#FF8181">'''LT'''</span></code>]] '''''[[User talk:LT|<sup>Rev. 22:13</sup>]]''''' Tuesday, 14:48, September 5, 2023 (EDT)