d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > To The Right-wingers Of Pard
Prev12345Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 30,165
Joined: Sep 10 2004
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 30%
Oct 28 2020 04:09pm
Quote (bogie160 @ 28 Oct 2020 22:02)
To a certain extent this problem takes care of itself. Left economic policies appeal to low income, low education demographics. The youth tend to check off both boxes. They're not in a great situation and someone is promising them the moon. That's more appealing than a diet of hard work and sacrifice. As people age, there's a mild but general tendency for them to move (economically) to the right/center, if only because they now have financial assets worth protecting.

The right (specifically eschewing the word "conservative") needs to seize back control of education. We underestimate the impact that public teaching, as currently constructed, has on the youth. Teachers are low paid, poorly qualified union workers whose one job perk is benefits and job security. It should be a surprise to no one that they largely champion job security and tenure over meritocracy and benefits over higher salary. To change the culture you must first change the economic circumstances. Make teachers higher paid and increase qualifications. Dismantle teacher unions and fire inadequate teachers.

On the other side of the spectrum, the right needs to more broadly incorporate some elements of economic populism. Similar to how Bismarck introduced social welfare as the "carrot" to his "stick (a heavy handed crackdown on socialists), the right needs to incentivize ideological loyalty. You cannot expect to be backed by voters whose basic material needs you refuse to meet.


this is exactly why in central and northern europe, some of the happiest, healthiest, safest, most prosperous, best educated, and free countries in the world "left economic policies" have no chance... oh wait, those are the "socialist" hellholes that the american right (and establishment) tries to make you people so afraid of, whenever someone who is not beholden to big pharma, wall street, fossil fuel, and the defence industry suggests implementing similar policies...
Member
Posts: 105,149
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,475.00
Oct 28 2020 04:11pm


I can see it now. Biden wins the election... then the Dems say he's unfit, then Harris becomes pres, then the shyt hits the fan. They'll be crying in the streets. :/
Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Sep 10 2007
Gold: 25.00
Oct 28 2020 04:11pm
Quote (Ghot @ Oct 28 2020 06:11pm)
I can see it now. Biden wins the election... then the Dems say he's unfit, then Harris becomes pres, then the shyt hits the fan. They'll be crying in the streets. :/


Centrist Dem stops being the president? Why would anyone cry in the streets over that.
Member
Posts: 129,919
Joined: Oct 3 2006
Gold: 17,050.69
Oct 28 2020 04:12pm
Quote (fender @ Oct 28 2020 06:09pm)
this is exactly why in central and northern europe, some of the happiest, healthiest, safest, most prosperous, best educated, and free countries in the world "left economic policies" have no chance... oh wait, those are the "socialist" hellholes that the american right (and establishment) tries to make you people so afraid of, whenever someone who is not beholden to big pharma, wall street, fossil fuel, and the defence industry suggests implementing similar policies...



Wow you’re so smart with your second grade education

Quote (Ghot @ Oct 28 2020 06:11pm)
I can see it now. Biden wins the election... then the Dems say he's unfit, then Harris becomes pres, then the shyt hits the fan. They'll be crying in the streets. :/



I’m going to church this weekend to pray this won’t happen
Member
Posts: 14,080
Joined: Jun 15 2019
Gold: 0.82
Oct 28 2020 04:12pm
Quote (bogie160 @ Oct 28 2020 05:02pm)
To a certain extent this problem takes care of itself. Left economic policies appeal to low income, low education demographics. The youth tend to check off both boxes. They're not in a great situation and someone is promising them the moon. That's more appealing than a diet of hard work and sacrifice. As people age, there's a mild but general tendency for them to move (economically) to the right/center, if only because they now have financial assets worth protecting.

The right (specifically eschewing the word "conservative") needs to seize back control of education. We underestimate the impact that public teaching, as currently constructed, has on the youth. Teachers are low paid, poorly qualified union workers whose one job perk is benefits and job security. It should be a surprise to no one that they largely champion job security and tenure over meritocracy and benefits over higher salary. To change the culture you must first change the economic circumstances. Make teachers higher paid and increase qualifications. Dismantle teacher unions and fire inadequate teachers.

On the other side of the spectrum, the right needs to more broadly incorporate some elements of economic populism. Similar to how Bismarck introduced social welfare as the "carrot" to his "stick (a heavy handed crackdown on socialists), the right needs to incentivize ideological loyalty. You cannot expect to be backed by voters whose basic material needs you refuse to meet.


actually, you basically have defined 90% of the republican base with this description considering that they are the lowest educated and poorest in the country. they love welfare for themselves but not for other people.
Member
Posts: 54,184
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Oct 28 2020 04:18pm
Quote (bogie160 @ 28 Oct 2020 23:02)
To a certain extent this problem takes care of itself. Left economic policies appeal to low income, low education demographics. The youth tend to check off both boxes. They're not in a great situation and someone is promising them the moon. That's more appealing than a diet of hard work and sacrifice. As people age, there's a mild but general tendency for them to move (economically) to the right/center, if only because they now have financial assets worth protecting.

The right (specifically eschewing the word "conservative") needs to seize back control of education. We underestimate the impact that public teaching, as currently constructed, has on the youth. Teachers are low paid, poorly qualified union workers whose one job perk is benefits and job security. It should be a surprise to no one that they largely champion job security and tenure over meritocracy and benefits over higher salary. To change the culture you must first change the economic circumstances. Make teachers higher paid and increase qualifications. Dismantle teacher unions and fire inadequate teachers.

On the other side of the spectrum, the right needs to more broadly incorporate some elements of economic populism. Similar to how Bismarck introduced social welfare as the "carrot" to his "stick (a heavy handed crackdown on socialists), the right needs to incentivize ideological loyalty. You cannot expect to be backed by voters whose basic material needs you refuse to meet.


I think the bolded part is the central issue of the Right going forward. They must get rid of politically toxic market radicalism policies.
Other than that, I dont think that the Right actually needs to offer its own vision of progress to remain competitive. Promising to conserve will be good enough. Here's why I think that:

In a world of increasing global competition, dwindling natural resources and overpopulation, and with automation looming on the horizon, the inter- and intranational distributional struggles will only get more ferocious over the coming decades. In first world countries, promising to preserve our current way of life and to protect our wealth and national identity will become more and more attractive.

When it comes to social/cultural issues, more and more people will be put off by the excesses of the radical lefties. Simply promising to stand against further steps toward woke dystopia will easily be good enough. It will even be more clever for the Right to position itself as the party of preserving the status quo rather than trying to sell people on dialing back the wheel of time.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 28 2020 04:47pm
Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Sep 10 2007
Gold: 25.00
Oct 28 2020 04:20pm
Quote (Budgeting @ Oct 28 2020 06:12pm)
actually, you basically have defined 90% of the republican base with this description considering that they are the lowest educated and poorest in the country. they love welfare for themselves but not for other people.


To be perfectly fair. A large chunk of those were Democrat union-driven voters. When alot of the jobs those guys had dried up and they lost their unions who told them who to vote for (the party that is pro union), they became alot more susceptible to the grift.
Member
Posts: 22,442
Joined: Mar 3 2007
Gold: 76.11
Oct 28 2020 04:54pm
Quote (bogie160 @ Oct 28 2020 02:02pm)
To a certain extent this problem takes care of itself. Left economic policies appeal to low income, low education demographics. The youth tend to check off both boxes. They're not in a great situation and someone is promising them the moon. That's more appealing than a diet of hard work and sacrifice. As people age, there's a mild but general tendency for them to move (economically) to the right/center, if only because they now have financial assets worth protecting.

The right (specifically eschewing the word "conservative") needs to seize back control of education. We underestimate the impact that public teaching, as currently constructed, has on the youth. Teachers are low paid, poorly qualified union workers whose one job perk is benefits and job security. It should be a surprise to no one that they largely champion job security and tenure over meritocracy and benefits over higher salary. To change the culture you must first change the economic circumstances. Make teachers higher paid and increase qualifications. Dismantle teacher unions and fire inadequate teachers.

On the other side of the spectrum, the right needs to more broadly incorporate some elements of economic populism. Similar to how Bismarck introduced social welfare as the "carrot" to his "stick (a heavy handed crackdown on socialists), the right needs to incentivize ideological loyalty. You cannot expect to be backed by voters whose basic material needs you refuse to meet.


I think some of this isn't completely accurate when looking at available data. Left-wing ideology is most resonate with both low-income AND high-education demographics. In particular, I think that "low-income" considerations also involve geographical considerations. Left-wing policies seem to be more supported in low-income suburban/urban areas whereas low-income rural areas still skew their support to the right. While there is also a general tendency for people to refine their political positions as they age, I think that the generational trajectory is not something that is on-course to "take care of itself". It seems like effortful change will need to occur in order for right-wing ideology to regain momentum and support as subsequent generations come and go. This could result from the Left self-imploding and having a blowback that brings support back to the Right, but I don't know how likely that will be.

If history has taught us anything, it is that the only constant in life and in society is "change". There's very little, I think, examples of societies across the globe that have stagnated or fortified around a status quo when looking at a generational perspective. Certainly there are governments and movements that have achieved short-term versions of these plans, but once someone starts looking at decades and centuries of history we find that change is assured. Especially if/when thinking about globalization and competition. Hard to find a base that wants to preserve a status quo when major powers across the globe are making advancements in healthcare, education, technology, and civil rights.

I do agree with you though that the Right has made an enemy of education, particularly higher-education (and higher-education has made right-wing ideology an enemy, to be fair), when the reality is that every ideological movement should view education as a source of power and influence. To Surf's earlier point, we see that people who are low-income and highly-educated tend to skew to the Left, and Gen Z is on track to be both the highest-educated generation we've ever seen in terms of college degrees while also being one of the lowest income earners with respect to the cost of living.

These all, of course, are largely economic concerns brought up in this thread thus far. Beyond this, it seems like the Right has its work cut for them in terms of reaching new/upcoming generations on social policy positions.

Edit: Also, thanks for your serious response, Bogie. You often approach threads with a level of sincerity, which I appreciate.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Oct 28 2020 04:56pm
Member
Posts: 105,149
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,475.00
Oct 28 2020 05:09pm
Quote (Mangix @ Oct 28 2020 06:11pm)
Centrist Dem stops being the president? Why would anyone cry in the streets over that.




Because if Biden wins and can't do the job.... then wacko Harris becomes the president, without needing to be elected.
Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Sep 10 2007
Gold: 25.00
Oct 28 2020 05:20pm
Quote (Ghot @ Oct 28 2020 07:09pm)
Because if Biden wins and can't do the job.... then wacko Harris becomes the president, without needing to be elected.


Okay and?
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev12345Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll