[besson3c]

I have promised myself that I will turn over a new leaf and be far less leading and hypocritical with the way I do business here. Unfortunately, this latest question of mine is sort of based on a leading premise. Please feel free to refute this and it will be end of thread

The leading part of this is the very strong sense I have that as of late there has been greater support of war on the right. This includes both current wars, as well as the Gulf War, Vietnam, and probably others too.

If it is true that the right is generally more supporting of the wars we have encountered in recent years, perhaps you could explain a logical disconnect for me? If the right is also generally very mistrusting of government, why does this mistrust not also include the wars being waged?

I know that it is the government's job to manage the military and make these decisions, there seems to be no dispute over this. My question here is not about the righteousness of the wars, but about trust. How can one distrust the government in general, yet be anything but uncomfortable about the wars being waged which involve many lives?

I also want to stay true to my promise of conducting my business here a little differently by stating quite clearly that all of this is meant in a general way, I'm not wanting to get into the debate about whether we should be in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether these wars are just, etc. If my premise of the right generally being in stronger support of the recent wars we've been a part of is correct, these questions should apply to any war - pick any.

[SpaceMonkey]

Conservatives in the United States favor a limited role for the federal government. Out of sheer necessity, one of the few areas of responsibility they see the federal government having is providing for the national defense. They are more likely to question the skill or trustworthiness of the federal government in areas of society where they do not already see a need for it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Part of the general answer to your question is a sort of confirmation bias. Conservatives in the United States favor a limited role for the federal government. Out of sheer necessity, one of the few areas of responsibility they see the federal government having is providing for the national defense. They are more likely to question the skill or trustworthiness of the federal government in areas of society where they do not already see a need for it.

Yeah, I understand this part and see how it is consistent with their philosophy, but what I don't get is the notion of selective mistrust? I mean, we've heard language about this government being treasonous, socialist, anti-American, etc. Shouldn't this mistrust logically extend across the entire spectrum?

[SpaceMonkey]

Are you talking about the military/national security apparatus itself, or the government's management of it? I think there can be a lot of mistrust on both sides in the latter. Republicans do not have confidence in Obama's approach in Afghanistan and his insistence on a 2011 deadline, for example.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Are you talking about the military/national security apparatus itself, or the government's management of it? I think there can be a lot of mistrust on both sides in the latter. Republicans do not have confidence in Obama's approach in Afghanistan and his insistence on a 2011 deadline, for example.

The civilian/government decisions that guide the military. My thinking is that if the government was not trusted, wouldn't they want the military out of Afghanistan and Iraq yesterday as to protect our members of the military given that the fact they are there, the troop numbers, funding, resource allocation, intelligence, etc. is all managed by the very government that they mistrust so?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The civilian/government decisions that guide the military. My thinking is that if the government was not trusted, wouldn't they want the military out of Afghanistan and Iraq yesterday as to protect our members of the military given that the fact they are there, the troop numbers, funding, resource allocation, intelligence, etc. is all managed by the very government that they mistrust so?

The most straightforward answer is that there is no alternative. You can "privatize" the national security function of society to a point (and we certainly have), but within the larger political philosophy that most of us (left and right) are operating under, popular sovereignty is in the hands of the state as part of a bargain in exchange for national welfare, which includes protection. The political disagreement we have in this country that you are focusing on now is simply the scale of the state's responsibility for national welfare, with security from outsiders being the absolute minimum. To get to a point where you are saying the government should have no role in national security would need a break in political theory that is much, much more significant than simply Republicans vs. Democrats.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

as of late there has been greater support of war on the right.

Greater than the left? Or greater than they have before? Greater than the left, sure, but if you mean greater than they have before... when has the right ever been generally opposed to warfare?

If the right is also generally very mistrusting of government, why does this mistrust not also include the wars being waged?

It's similar to what SpaceMonkey said, but even if you don't have the same background on the importance of state vs federal powers as someone who went to primary school in the US does, you can understand that "conserv"atives favor "conserv"ing things the traditional way, and "liberals" favor change and "liberating" people from their traditional roles. Any time you see conservatives opposing the federal government, they're opposing a change (expansion) in the role of the federal government. In the US, these two correlate because the federal government started out as small as possible, by design, so any change has nowhere to go but bigger. Change = bigger, and conservatives by definition oppose change, and that's why conservatives oppose bigger government. With one exception: warfare. Warfare has been the role of the federal government since the beginning of the country, and really since the beginning of the concept of nations. You can't get more "traditional" or "static" than the idea that warfare is the domain of the federal government, this is true for all civilizations. That is why the conservatives don't oppose it. It's not a change, it doesn't clash with "conserv"ing things the way they've always been.

So if you change your pigeonhole from "conservatives hate government" to "conservatives hate change," you won't see a disconnect.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The most straightforward answer is that there is no alternative.

But he's not asking who should control warfare, he's asking how big should warfare be. There certainly are alternatives to "big warfare." He expects conservatives to want to minimize warfare, exactly because of what you said: it has to be done by the federal government, which conservatives supposedly hate. I hope that my answer to him above explains why the supposition that conservatives hate the federal government is off the mark.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Greater than the left? Or greater than they have before? Greater than the left, sure, but if you mean greater than they have before... when has the right ever been generally opposed to warfare?

Greater than the left...

It's similar to what SpaceMonkey said, but even if you don't have the same background on the importance of state vs federal powers as someone who went to primary school in the US does, you can understand that "conserv"atives favor "conserv"ing things the traditional way, and "liberals" favor change and "liberating" people from their traditional roles. Any time you see conservatives opposing the federal government, they're opposing a change (expansion) in the role of the federal government. In the US, these two correlate because the federal government started out as small as possible, by design, so any change has nowhere to go but bigger. Change = bigger, and conservatives by definition oppose change, and that's why conservatives oppose bigger government. With one exception: warfare. Warfare has been the role of the federal government since the beginning of the country, and really since the beginning of the concept of nations. You can't get more "traditional" or "static" than the idea that warfare is the domain of the federal government, this is true for all civilizations. That is why the conservatives don't oppose it. It's not a change, it doesn't clash with "conserv"ing things the way they've always been.

So if you change your pigeonhole from "conservatives hate government" to "conservatives hate change," you won't see a disconnect.

Could you make the argument that the military has grown in size, funding, and demands being placed on it?

I think I get your point though. To paraphrase: it's not really about trust, but about change?

[Uncle Skeleton]

It can be about trust, they distrust change

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But he's not asking who should control warfare, he's asking how big should warfare be. There certainly are alternatives to "big warfare." He expects conservatives to want to minimize warfare, exactly because of what you said: it has to be done by the federal government, which conservatives supposedly hate. I hope that my answer to him above explains why the premise that conservatives hate the federal government is off the mark.

Right. I think we all agree that it is more practical for our government to control the military, I'm not debating that. It just seems like we're asking a whole lot of our military as of late, and these same trust issues don't seem to be as prevalent there.

I'm wondering if there is a good reason for this, or if this is indeed a logical disconnect similar to those that want the government to stay out of health care but "don't touch my Medicare/Medicaid", or those that demand deregulation but want to hold Obama solely accountable for the oil spill. If you disagree about there being a disconnect there that's cool, these were the best two examples that popped into my mind of "huh?! " sort of politics.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Greater than the left...

But it has always been so, hasn't it?

Could you make the argument that the military has grown in size, funding, and demands being placed on it?

Fair enough. But think about the birth of this country, with the wild west and manifest destiny. Using the military to expand our sphere of influence and dominion is quite a traditional and familiar role.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It can be about trust, they distrust change

Hmmmm... I don't know if it is this simple.

The nature of these wars are both relatively new, many Conservatives have fully embraced the idea of fighting a new sort of war on terrorism. Maybe some of them support old school tactics, but...

I dunno. Something about your theory doesn't make sense to me right now.

[ghporter]

von Clausewitz stated that war was an extension of politics through other means. It doesn't matter what label is placed on those in power, war is politics. Formally stated, war is an extension of a country's political will through violence or the threat of violence. Whomever is behind the political aims that a war supports will support the war.

[besson3c]

Uncle Skeleton: what do you say to those on this board that will swear up and down that they are Conservative (small or big "c") yet don't fear change? A logical disconnect somewhere, or are there other caveats to your theory?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

von Clausewitz stated that war was an extension of politics through other means. It doesn't matter what label is placed on those in power, war is politics. Formally stated, war is an extension of a country's political will through violence or the threat of violence. Whomever is behind the political aims that a war supports will support the war.

Can those support a war that is carried out with compatible political aims if they don't trust the people carrying out said war? Isn't that sort of like trusting criminals to mind your store?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Uncle Skeleton: what do you say to those on this board that will swear up and down that they are Conservative (small or big "c") yet don't fear change? A logical disconnect somewhere, or are there other caveats to your theory?

I didn't say "fear" I said "oppose" or "distrust," and I sympathize with them, after all what we have is a lot closer to perfection than it is to desolation, so risk/reward on changing things is weighted more towards risk than reward. That aside I don't know who you're referring to, can you give an example?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I didn't say "fear" I said "oppose" or "distrust," and I sympathize with them, after all what we have is a lot closer to perfection than it is to desolation, so risk/reward on changing things is weighted more towards risk than reward. That aside I don't know who you're referring to, can you give an example?

Fair enough, sorry to put the word "fear" into your mouth...

An example of what? I'm not sure what you are asking?

[Uncle Skeleton]

An example of a conservative who doesn't distrust change?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Right. I think we all agree that it is more practical for our government to control the military, I'm not debating that. It just seems like we're asking a whole lot of our military as of late, and these same trust issues don't seem to be as prevalent there.

I'm wondering if there is a good reason for this, or if this is indeed a logical disconnect similar to those that want the government to stay out of health care but "don't touch my Medicare/Medicaid", or those that demand deregulation but want to hold Obama solely accountable for the oil spill. If you disagree about there being a disconnect there that's cool, these were the best two examples that popped into my mind of "huh?! " sort of politics.

I just don't see the disconnect. If you agree that is the government's role, then there is no "trust" issue. To the degree that there is a debate about "big warfare," that is about the scale of the perceived threat. After all, working backwards, you might logically expect a conservative to be opposed to a standing army. And of course, that was the case for much of our history. But concern about trusting the government to have that much permanent power was overwhelmed by the perception of the threat, mitigated by the feeling that this is part of the government's role anyway.

Maybe part of the problem is that I am confused by whether you mean "trust" in the context of fearing government to be something nefarious (a kind of Second Amendment view of things), or "trust" in the context of fearing the government to be incompetent (a states' rights view of things). Or both.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

An example of a conservative who doesn't distrust change?

Swartzneggar?

There are Conservatives that are willing to change our environmental policies, our immigration policies, our tax code, etc.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I just don't see the disconnect. If you agree that is the government's role, then there is no "trust" issue. To the degree that there is a debate about "big warfare," that is about the scale of the perceived threat. After all, working backwards, you might logically expect a conservative to be opposed to a standing army. And of course, that was the case for much of our history. But concern about trusting the government to have that much permanent power was overwhelmed by the perception of the threat, mitigated by the feeling that this is part of the government's role anyway.

Maybe part of the problem is that I am confused by whether you mean "trust" in the context of fearing government to be something nefarious (a kind of Second Amendment view of things), or "trust" in the context of fearing the government to be incompetent (a states' rights view of things). Or both.

Both probably, but probably more of the latter.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

von Clausewitz stated that war was an extension of politics through other means. It doesn't matter what label is placed on those in power, war is politics. Formally stated, war is an extension of a country's political will through violence or the threat of violence. Whomever is behind the political aims that a war supports will support the war.

Well said!

And in light of that .....

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Conservatives in the United States favor a limited role for the federal government. Out of sheer necessity, one of the few areas of responsibility they see the federal government having is providing for the national defense.

This is why throughout US history you have support for wars that have nothing whatsoever to do with the "national defense" of the US. Wars that were clearly about expanding US economic interests and/or international power were supported because people identified with the politics of what they were about. This is especially true of many on the right ... but it is by no means limited to them.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Swartzneggar?

I didn't think he considers himself a conservative. Does he?

There are Conservatives that are willing to change our environmental policies, our immigration policies, our tax code, etc.

First of all, there are ways to change these things to revert back to more ancestral forms, to undo the changes others have made. If that's what you're referring to, that fits with what I'm saying. Secondly, are they really conservatives, or just republicans? I know it's hard for you to remember that these are not synonymous. As always, it would help if you provide specific examples.

[lpkmckenna]

The relationship between war and conservatives is bizarre. I've met many conservatives in Canada who support the Iraq war, even after the reason behind it was revealed as a lie. It seems conservatives will condemn any gov't actions, except police and military, who are beyond all criticism.

However, I don't think today's conservatives could get behind a war like Vietnam; we're all too cozy to accept thousands of deaths every year. Today's wars are nothing like the wars of the past.

EDIT: Liberals and the Afghanistan war can be just as tough. We've defeated the Taliban, but we can't create a self-sufficient gov't in Kabul. It's gonna be sad to watch the Taliban retake southern Afghanistan. It's just inevitable: the Pashtun will accept the Taliban as better than the corrupt Karzai gov't.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I didn't think he considers himself a conservative. Does he?


First of all, there are ways to change these things to revert back to more ancestral forms, to undo the changes others have made. If that's what you're referring to, that fits with what I'm saying. Secondly, are they really conservatives, or just republicans? I know it's hard for you to remember that these are not synonymous. As always, it would help if you provide specific examples.

Again, do you think the conservatives here would agree that they are generally resistant to change? I would bet that they would say that they are resistant to change they disagree with, or for some of them, changes they feel are unconstitutional.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by OAW 

This is why throughout US history you have support for wars that have nothing whatsoever to do with the "national defense" of the US. Wars that were clearly about expanding US economic interests and/or international power were supported because people identified with the politics of what they were about. This is especially true of many on the right ... but it is by no means limited to them.

Part of the politics is defining what is a threat to national welfare. So of course you are right that people agree or disagree with the decision to use military force based on politics. I was writing more generally about why people trust the government on face value to be the implementer of this force, even if they don't agree with the motives for a particular war.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Again, do you think the conservatives here would agree that they are generally resistant to change? I would bet that they would say that they are resistant to change they disagree with, or for some of them, changes they feel are unconstitutional.

Yes. Why don't you ask them?

But you're moving the goalposts here besson3c. In the OP you demanded to talk about generalities, the party line, not specifics of any one war or any one person. Individuals are often conservative on some issues and liberal on others. You could have a person who's severely conservative on everything besides gay marriage for example (I would describe several MacNN regulars this way), and fairly call that person a "conservative," but that doesn't mean that the person's views on gay marriage are "conservative." All it means is that the person is only "liberal" about one solitary topic. You didn't ask about individuals' specific views, and that doesn't answer your question. You asked about the party line, and it's clear (to me at least) that the party line is to be resistant to change, and to push for reversing changes that the other side manages to make.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The relationship between war and conservatives is bizarre. I've met many conservatives in Canada who support the Iraq war, even after the reason behind it was revealed as a lie. It seems conservatives will condemn any gov't actions, except police and military, who are beyond all criticism.

This may be surprising, but I have no doubt there is a certain percentage who continued to give their support because not doing so would have been leaving Iraq to its own devices after we flattened it's infrastructure.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yes. Why don't you ask them?

But you're moving the goalposts here besson3c. In the OP you demanded to talk about generalities, the party line, not specifics of any one war or any one person. Individuals are often conservative on some issues and liberal on others. You could have a person who's severely conservative on everything besides gay marriage for example (I would describe several MacNN regulars this way), and fairly call that person a "conservative," but that doesn't mean that the person's views on gay marriage are "conservative." All it means is that the person is only "liberal" about one solitary topic. You didn't ask about individuals' specific views, and that doesn't answer your question. You asked about the party line, and it's clear (to me at least) that the party line is to be resistant to change, and to push for reversing changes that the other side manages to make.

Oh, I realize that there is no monolithic conservative viewpoint. But then again, aren't you coming up with a generality in suggesting that most conservatives are resistant to change?

All I'm saying is that there is a difference between being fundamentally resistant to change, and just happening to line up with positions that involve not changing.

[Big Mac]

This is a good thread, besson. I hope to get some time to respond to it very soon, and I'll do my best not to inject partisanship.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

An example of a conservative who doesn't distrust change?

Here!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Here!

Ok what changes are you pushing for?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

All I'm saying is that there is a difference between being fundamentally resistant to change, and just happening to line up with positions that involve not changing.

From my observation it is the opposite. They are fundamentally resistant to change, and other "patterns" are just happening to line up with that, such as supposedly hating the federal government, the poor, and minorities.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Both probably, but probably more of the latter.

First you have to accept, if only for the sake of argument, the rationale for why the government is incompetent, namely that it's designed in such a way as to punish success.

Speaking in a (very) general sense, by necessity, the larger a problem is, the more funding it will have put towards it. The result of this is the more effectively any given institution deals with a problem it is tasked to solve, the less funding it receives.

So the primary purpose here is to provide a different dynamic. It's an attempt to, as much as possible, remove this disincentive for success.

As to why the military gets special treatment, it's because the downside for incompetency is massive. The worst most government programs can muster is wasting money, and their failure doesn't threaten our future as a nation.

[smacintush]

As I understand his point, I actually agree with Besson. I would say that it's not consistent. The point about the execution of the military being a proper role of government is a valid one, but that isn't enough to justify the apparent trust in the government's ability to use the military in a moral fashion. I think that perhaps part of it might be a strong sense of patriotism, pride and respect they have for the military that overrides whatever skepticism they might have in regard to the government. Hence the "if you don't support the war you don't support the troops" nonsense.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So if you change your pigeonhole from "conservatives hate government" to "conservatives hate change," you won't see a disconnect.

This is incorrect. Conservatives don't hate/fear change - they hate/fear idiocy. And to be frank, most of the change the left proposes is pure idiocy.

Example: Business (and particularly small business) drives the economy and puts food on the table (for owners and employees). I can't name a single leftist MP in the UK who's run his own business (and therefore knows ass from elbow), while I can't name a single conservative MP who hasn't run his own business. As a result, the leftists come out with idiotic policies which damage business while the conservatives generally come out with policy which is helpful.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok what changes are you pushing for?

Do i have to be pushing for changes in order to not be distrustful of them? No. But to entertain you:

At this point, I'm all for changing our direction on the economy, health care (not going back to what it was, but not the changes that were enacted), so called green jobs, initiatives for Global Warming, the laws and regulations regarding politicians (enforcing the same laws on them), and immigration. All that needs to change, and I'm not distrustful of change itself, I'm distrustful of those doing the changing because of their track records and chronic inability to put the nation before themselves.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

This is incorrect. Conservatives don't hate/fear change - they hate/fear idiocy. And to be frank, most of the change the left proposes is pure idiocy.

Example: Business (and particularly small business) drives the economy and puts food on the table (for owners and employees). I can't name a single leftist MP in the UK who's run his own business (and therefore knows ass from elbow), while I can't name a single conservative MP who hasn't run his own business. As a result, the leftists come out with idiotic policies which damage business while the conservatives generally come out with policy which is helpful.

Yup.

[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

As I understand his point, I actually agree with Besson. I would say that it's not consistent. The point about the execution of the military being a proper role of government is a valid one, but that isn't enough to justify the apparent trust in the government's ability to use the military in a moral fashion. I think that perhaps part of it might be a strong sense of patriotism, pride and respect they have for the military that overrides whatever skepticism they might have in regard to the government. Hence the "if you don't support the war you don't support the troops" nonsense.

The distinction here is very important though. Whether you trust the government to use the military in a moral fashion is totally different from whether you trust the institution to be competent.

I have very little trust in the former, and a fair amount in the latter, not the least reason being the military gets (and I approve of) special treatment compared to other government institutions.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Do i have to be pushing for changes in order to not be distrustful of them? No. But to entertain you:

At this point, I'm all for changing our direction on the economy, health care (not going back to what it was, but not the changes that were enacted), so called green jobs, initiatives for Global Warming, the laws and regulations regarding politicians (enforcing the same laws on them), and immigration. All that needs to change, and I'm not distrustful of change itself, I'm distrustful of those doing the changing because of their track records and chronic inability to put the nation before themselves.

What is definitely connected to this conversation is another potential disconnect, or at least source of confusion for me...

Reagan said that "government is the problem", and I expect that many conservatives abide by that belief. I'm not commenting on the wisdom behind that statement, but Is it a little weird to you that people would get behind somebody who believes that government gets in the way, including on the issues you have listed, while also expecting them to deliver those very sweeping changes on these very issues via an institution they don't believe in? Isn't this kind of like buying from a company that is afraid to eat their own dog food, so to speak?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Do i have to be pushing for changes in order to not be distrustful of them? No.

Like I told besson3c, we're not talking about you as a person, we're talking about the part of you that defines "conservative." You don't have to buy everything in the store, but I only care about the things you do buy, if that makes sense. Being ambivalent to something takes it out of the picture.

At this point, I'm all for changing our direction on the economy, health care (not going back to what it was, but not the changes that were enacted), so called green jobs, initiatives for Global Warming, the laws and regulations regarding politicians (enforcing the same laws on them), and immigration. All that needs to change, and I'm not distrustful of change itself, I'm distrustful of those doing the changing because of their track records and chronic inability to put the nation before themselves.

I don't mean to nit-pick, but your language is totally ambiguous: you want to change the economy back to the way it used to be, right? Health care...what exactly? Green jobs, you're opposed to them or what? Initiatives for (by which I assume you mean preventing) Global Warming... you want them or you don't want them? Watching the watchmen, you want to increase this correct? Immigration, you want to reduce it right?

As I said earlier, "changes" that change things back to the way they were before the progressives "progressed" everything, these confirm my theory. If you don't say what direction you want to change things, if all you say is "I don't like it right now," I can only assume that's what you mean, reversion to the good ol' days. So which of your desired changes buck this trend? And those that do (health care?), do you consider this view itself to be "conservative," or simply something you happen to feel differently from conservatives?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by subego 

The distinction here is very important though. Whether you trust the government to use the military in a moral fashion is totally different from whether you trust the institution to be competent.

I have very little trust in the former, and a fair amount in the latter, not the least reason being the military gets (and I approve of) special treatment compared to other government institutions.

On the issue of competence…and this may be an clue for Besson…there is an issue of evidence. In most matters, in fact nearly ALL matters, the government does a mediocre job at best. Our military however has proven to be the best in the world by far. So in terms of how they do their job, a great deal of trust is completely justified.

The reason I mentioned morality is because it is the immoral choices our leadership makes that is the problem. For example, when Obama puts arbitrary limits on how long we will be in Afghanistan or Iraq this is not a strategic military decision, it's one based upon political and/or moral ideology (if it's purely political, that makes it an immoral decision therefore still remaining in the realm of morality). When we decide to invade a country to depose a dictator in order to "spread democracy", that is a political and/or moral decision. When we are in attempting to remove a government and rout an insurgency in a way that severely limits our capability in order to protect civilians, this is not merely a strategic decision, it is a political and/or moral one. When we choose to drop atomic bombs on two Japanese cities that is also not merely a strategic decision, I think we can agree.

I think that if you go an look at any of the poor military outcomes that we have had, at least in recent history, you will find a leadership making decisions for political/moral reasons rather than simple incompetence. So the situation with our military nearly always comes back to morality.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is definitely connected to this conversation is another potential disconnect, or at least source of confusion for me...

Reagan said that "government is the problem", and I expect that many conservatives abide by that belief. I'm not commenting on the wisdom behind that statement, but Is it a little weird to you that people would get behind somebody who believes that government gets in the way, including on the issues you have listed, while also expecting them to deliver those very sweeping changes on these very issues via an institution they don't believe in? Isn't this kind of like buying from a company that is afraid to eat their own dog food, so to speak?

I agree.

But…and I'm not trying to speak for Snow-i…government is still the one who HAS to change these things. How else would it get done? In my view most of the big problems we face are either not really problems or are problems that the government has caused. Most of the time they have no place interfering regardless, yet they do. Even if one believes that government causes and/or exacerbates and/or has no role in a given area, it is still government that has to reverse its own policies in order to fix them. Take the economic meltdown. IMO It is precisely that government's policy of interference that laid the groundwork for and subsequently has worsened the situation. Should a small government guy like me want them to do nothing at this point? Or should I want them to undo the things they've done to create this mess in the first place?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

On the issue of competence…and this may be an clue for Besson…there is an issue of evidence. In most matters, in fact nearly ALL matters, the government does a mediocre job at best. Our military however has proven to be the best in the world by far. So in terms of how they do their job, a great deal of trust is completely justified.

I don't know about that...

Our military also has the most resources allocated to it by far. If you throw enough money and resources at something, you'll get some sort of results. The question is whether the military is efficient and whether we get our biggest bang for our buck. I'm not trying to make the case that we don't, but I don't think you can simply look at the final results to make this assessment - the comparison is apples vs. oranges, it's sort of like comparing Apple to CharlesSoft (how's that for a plug, CharlesS?)

I also don't know whether it is a given that the most things our government does is mediocre at best. We don't know how successful certain things are because we only hear about problems. This is so with all governments, and not only governments, but a local police force, cybersecurity, or any other sort of thing where only negative news is reported.

The reason I mentioned morality is because it is the immoral choices our leadership makes that is the problem. For example, when Obama puts arbitrary limits on how long we will be in Afghanistan or Iraq this is not a strategic military decision, it's one based upon political and/or moral ideology (if it's purely political, that makes it an immoral decision therefore still remaining in the realm of morality). When we decide to invade a country to depose a dictator in order to "spread democracy", that is a political and/or moral decision. When we are in attempting to remove a government and rout an insurgency in a way that severely limits our capability in order to protect civilians, this is not merely a strategic decision, it is a political and/or moral one. When we choose to drop atomic bombs on two Japanese cities that is also not merely a strategic decision, I think we can agree.

I think that if you go an look at any of the poor military outcomes that we have had, at least in recent history, you will find a leadership making decisions for political/moral reasons rather than simple incompetence. So the situation with our military nearly always comes back to morality.

This is a very interesting argument. Trust is not only an issue, but moral judgment. You can trust a government and it can *still* make bad moral decisions, or the reverse. It isn't a given that when you have one you have the other.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I agree.

But…and I'm not trying to speak for Snow-i…government is still the one who HAS to change these things. How else would it get done? In my view most of the big problems we face are either not really problems or are problems that the government has caused. Most of the time they have no place interfering regardless, yet they do. Even if one believes that government causes and/or exacerbates and/or has no role in a given area, it is still government that has to reverse its own policies in order to fix them. Take the economic meltdown. IMO It is precisely that government's policy of interference that laid the groundwork for and subsequently has worsened the situation. Should a small government guy like me want them to do nothing at this point? Or should I want them to undo the things they've done to create this mess in the first place?

And where the big mind **** exists for me is whether these problems occurred because of too few resources, an appropriate amount of resources squandered, a badly designed system, a set of problems that could have been prevented with more/less/smarter regulation, there are all sorts of ways to look at this.

What I do believe is that our economy is way too centered around boom and bust cycles, and there is no sense in making this a partisan issue because it has been this way for a long time now. The manner in which things are regulated seems to be the key to solving this in my mind, but I'm ambivalent as to how to do this, exactly. I do believe that the notion that if we remove *all* or even most regulation that everything will be hunky dory is a flawed premise though. My gut feeling is that this comes back to refining and making the system leaner and meaner. It may also require more resources, particularly when it comes to researching how to go about doing this. Everything seems to require some quantity of resources, playing the game of seeing how much we can starve these resources seems like a dangerous game to play, in my estimation. Of course, it's also a sensible game to play with our deficit... Another mind ****!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't know about that...

Our military also has the most resources allocated to it by far. If you throw enough money and resources at something, you'll get some sort of results.

I agree to a point.

The question is whether the military is efficient and whether we get our biggest bang for our buck. I'm not trying to make the case that we don't, but I don't think you can simply look at the final results to make this assessment - the comparison is apples vs. oranges, it's sort of like comparing Apple to CharlesSoft (how's that for a plug, CharlesS?)

I wasn't referring to efficiency and costs. There is almost nothing that the government does that is cost effective AND competent. It's either one or the other. Or neither. I don't agree with your point about the final results. That is exactly how we should be judging our military. Are you saying that if we have the most powerful force in the world but it is overpriced that somehow that means it is not the most powerful force in the world? In light of the nature of government, especially OUR government, I think that in terms of efficiency we have now about as much as we can expect without reducing our effectiveness. I wish it weren't so, but that's how it is and I think it is foolish to expect or hope otherwise.

I also don't know whether it is a given that the most things our government does is mediocre at best. We don't know how successful certain things are because we only hear about problems. This is so with all governments, and not only governments, but a local police force, cybersecurity, or any other sort of thing where only negative news is reported.

I didn't expect you to agree. I personally can't name too many things they do that I'm satisfied with.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I wasn't referring to efficiency and costs. There is almost nothing that the government does that is cost effective AND competent. It's either one or the other. Or neither. I don't agree with your point about the final results. That is exactly how we should be judging our military. Are you saying that if we have the most powerful force in the world but it is overpriced that somehow that means it is not the most powerful force in the world? In light of the nature of government, especially OUR government, I think that in terms of efficiency we have now about as much as we can expect without reducing our effectiveness. I wish it weren't so, but that's how it is and I think it is foolish to expect or hope otherwise.

Then to me while the claim of "best military in the world" might be technically true, the meaning of this is skewed if it is wildly inefficient and only the best because we throw great big gobs of money at it, if this were true, hypothetically.

I didn't expect you to agree. I personally can't name too many things they do that I'm satisfied with.

I'm not saying I disagree necessarily, I'm saying that I don't think this point is a given without further research.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What I do believe is that our economy is way too centered around boom and bust cycles

What does this even mean? I've heard politicians use this as an excuse to increase regulation but I've not seen anything suggesting that we can prevent them at all. Or that we should.

I do believe that the notion that if we remove *all* or even most regulation that everything will be hunky dory is a flawed premise though.

Based on what? A regulation free market has never been tried. Have you ever asked yourself why specifically this wouldn't work? It seems to me that there are many people who think like you for the same reasons that people are religious: cuz that's the culture you were raised in. When you live in a society where the government is expected to control things in order to protect us from greedy people, stupid people, bad luck etc., how are you expected to question the validity of that philosophy?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

What does this even mean? I've heard politicians use this as an excuse to increase regulation but I've not seen anything suggesting that we can prevent them at all. Or that we should.

It means that our economy is volatile in comparison to other countries. Our banking sector, for instance, is compromised of a bunch of smaller banks and several larger banks with massive debt ratios that are "too big to fail", and generally pale in comparison to the stability and effectiveness of banks in, say, Canada (the Royal Bank of Canada is also the third largest bank in North America, which is impressive considering Canada's size). Canada's economy weathered the global economic collapse far better than America in large part because of its banks and financial sector.

In addition to the banks, you have large companies like Enron that have the ability to cause massive amounts of instability as well. These sorts of market powerhouses seem to create cycles that involve massive collapses that seem to happen far too often.

Based on what? A regulation free market has never been tried. Have you ever asked yourself why specifically this wouldn't work? It seems to me that there are many people who think like you for the same reasons that people are religious: cuz that's the culture you were raised in. When you live in a society where the government is expected to control things in order to protect us from greedy people, stupid people, bad luck etc., how are you expected to question the validity of that philosophy?

I have asked myself that question many times, actually.

The reason is the same reason that anybody with power often finds themselves in trouble: power corrupts, and for some people greed knows no limits. In addition, this sort of greed can cause massive instability and large scale collapse like this current economic collapse. Even smaller scale abuse of power can cause significant casualties. While you can't eliminate this altogether, you can make it more difficult to pull this off, just as putting locks on the doors of your house deters some thieves or having police roaming the streets deters other stuff.

That being said, there is a balance. Trying to completely eliminate abuse altogether is about as smart as sinking an abundance of resources into the war on drugs.

My two cents...