Bill Kristol tells GOP to come back to the table.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Given the current state of the super-rich and the makeup of Congress, Liberal Othering has clearly not been as successful. The thought process is the same, but I do think there is a big difference between Austin dirt surfers, and elected representatives.

I suppose. I didn't know that suddenly we were only talking about politicians and not all conservatives. I guess when I see a statement like the one I quoted above, and this one -

CheezePavilion wrote:

In general, a liberal will put up with a rich person behaving badly yet getting more rich as long as society overall gets better far more than a conservative will put up with a poor person behaving badly yet not suffering for it even if society sees an overall improvement.

... I just stupidly assume we're talking about people in general. Boy is my face red!

Also, I enjoy that our political spectrum for discussing liberal and conservative is a punish-the-wicked-because-God-said-so baseline for conservatives and "liberal dirt surfers" when I mention Austin. This has been super productive. This definitely proves that "liberal othering" has been pretty unsuccessful!

How is it I'm protecting this view again? I'm not the one promoting the 95% tax rate. I am promoting closing some of the crazy loop holes that allow people and corporations to cheat the system.

I assumed you were against raising taxes on those making more than $250,000. We can't make enough back through cutting loopholes to balance the budget; eventually, somewhere, we have to raise some taxes. Shouldn't we first consider reversing some of the larger cuts that have gone in in the last 30 years? That would be on those making more than $250,000.

If you're for that, then I apologize for the confusion.

Bloo Driver wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Given the current state of the super-rich and the makeup of Congress, Liberal Othering has clearly not been as successful. The thought process is the same, but I do think there is a big difference between Austin dirt surfers, and elected representatives.

I suppose. I didn't know that suddenly we were only talking about politicians and not all conservatives. I guess when I see a statement like the one I quoted above, and this one -

CheezePavilion wrote:

In general, a liberal will put up with a rich person behaving badly yet getting more rich as long as society overall gets better far more than a conservative will put up with a poor person behaving badly yet not suffering for it even if society sees an overall improvement.

... I just stupidly assume we're talking about people in general. Boy is my face red!

Also, I enjoy that our political spectrum for discussing liberal and conservative is a punish-the-wicked-because-God-said-so baseline for conservatives and "liberal dirt surfers" when I mention Austin. This has been super productive. This definitely proves that "liberal othering" has been pretty unsuccessful!

After six months of posting on GWJ, I realize that I need to check my general tendencies to not suffer foolishness lightly. This includes myself- when I do something stupid my friends and family tell me that I get way too embarrased and angry. I'm not against help for the less fortunate, but I'll admit I have a hard time dealing with those who can't get their guano together after multiple chances. Some of Robear's posts have convinced me that fortunately the number of idiots out there milking the system is far lower than I'd first feared.

Echoing Bloo Driver's comments, I also see some of the "rich are bad" stereotypes here in Seattle. There's an added element here in the Northwest about the rich destroying the environment, which while I won't say has no merit to my mind gets a bit overly self-righteous. One thing I will agree with is much of the anger is directed at people who we should be angry with - those who broke the law and profited handsomely for doing so during the bubble and crash. But I've also seen a bit of disdain for anyone living the upper middle class "yuppie" lifestyle which in some ways mirrors conservative's general bashing of the poor because of some bad run-in with a homeless guy. It's human to take the bad behavior we see around us and extrapolate.

Bloo Driver wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Given the current state of the super-rich and the makeup of Congress, Liberal Othering has clearly not been as successful. The thought process is the same, but I do think there is a big difference between Austin dirt surfers, and elected representatives.

I suppose. I didn't know that suddenly we were only talking about politicians and not all conservatives. I guess when I see a statement like the one I quoted above, and this one -

CheezePavilion wrote:

In general, a liberal will put up with a rich person behaving badly yet getting more rich as long as society overall gets better far more than a conservative will put up with a poor person behaving badly yet not suffering for it even if society sees an overall improvement.

... I just stupidly assume we're talking about people in general. Boy is my face red!

Also, I enjoy that our political spectrum for discussing liberal and conservative is a punish-the-wicked-because-God-said-so baseline for conservatives and "liberal dirt surfers" when I mention Austin. This has been super productive. This definitely proves that "liberal othering" has been pretty unsuccessful!

Well, let's not tarnish the whole conversation based on the behavior of one participant.

Bloo Driver wrote:

I'm just going to add to this that I live in Austin, TX, and a lot of my liberal friends do in fact seem quite happy with the idea that the rich should be punished. Because... they're bad. Unless they want to give all their money away to whatever cause. I'm not stating this just to be contrary, but I think perspective has a lot to do with this.

I don't doubt your perceptions, but if your perspective is "liberals in Austin" (edit) or jd's "here in Seattle" then I don't know if your perspective is very representative. My perspective isn't just "conservatives from Crawford" it's mostly growing up around Reagan Democrats; in fact, they say the key to getting Reagan to support a cause was to put a human face on it--when a social problem was abstract to him he was conservative, but when it was personal he became far more liberal. And the perspective of other people commenting in this thread and the people they are around. And, quite frankly, our conservative forum goers.

I think another factor is perceptions vs. reality: in this very thread we've seen a lot of "liberal hostility towards the rich" kind of comments, but that's a mistaken perception. A lot of the anger liberals have right now is not with the rich, but with the ridiculousness of the arguments used to defend the status quo as far as things like wealth distribution or tax rates and what not.

I understand that my comment was not very politically correct, but that does not necessarily make it wrong. Of course there's the 'fiscal conservative/social liberal' who believes that welfare spending doesn't deliver the ROI that liberals do; then again, I'm not sure how many of them exist, and if they're not actually social conservatives when it comes time to spend tax dollars on social programs. However, I don't think differences in belief about the math of the social welfare state can explain most of the differences we see between liberals and conservatives on the issue. I think the evidence fits the explanation that conservatives are much more concerned with making sure the undeserving don't prosper from government spending than liberals are.

My thinking on the matter was highly influenced by a documentary I saw one time about a prison. The warden talked about how successful a college program for inmates was at preventing recidivism. A lot of people complained to him about how unfair it was that they have to pay to send their kids to college while these criminals get rewarded with free tuition for breaking the law. His response was "would you rather spend your money sending these criminals to college, or replacing what they steal from your kids when they re-offend?"

edit: what I say should stand or fall whether it's politically correct enough or not, but if it helps legitimize my argument, keep in mind I haven't been afraid to express my dislike of liberalism when it becomes too collectivist.

Nevermind, forgot what I was dealing with.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

I'm just going to add to this that I live in Austin, TX, and a lot of my liberal friends do in fact seem quite happy with the idea that the rich should be punished. Because... they're bad. Unless they want to give all their money away to whatever cause. I'm not stating this just to be contrary, but I think perspective has a lot to do with this.

I don't doubt your perceptions, but if your perspective is "liberals in Austin" (edit) or jd's "here in Seattle" then I don't know if your perspective is very representative.

It's not meant to be perfectly representative, but it's meant to add a more narrow perspective on purpose. It's pointless and potentially damaging to say "ever notice liberals walk like this, and conservatives answer the phone like this?" when we're talking about things like motivation, thought processes, and behavior. Stating "conservatives tend to look poorly on social programs in general" is a fine and defensible statement. But when we start trying to draw windows into the minds of others, it's really difficult to do so with such a broad category. So when I say "I live in Austin", I don't mean "so here is a sample from the reckless, extreme end of hippie liberals," I mean to say, "there are a lot of liberal folks and causes around here." It is a hotbed of focused political activity. It is meant to state that I am looking at a long list of localized behavior and am at a ground level eye view to feel comfortable saying, yes, a lot of these folks are really angry at rich people for extremely vague reasons that boil down to "it's unfair they're rich, and they should feel bad about that."

I think another factor is perceptions vs. reality: in this very thread we've seen a lot of "liberal hostility towards the rich" kind of comments, but that's a mistaken perception. A lot of the anger liberals have right now is not with the rich, but with the ridiculousness of the arguments used to defend the status quo as far as things like wealth distribution or tax rates and what not.

And that's a fair statement, because there is definitely a lot of people handwaving informed outrage with misinformed or directionless anger. But I think it's somewhat telling that you can just say "it's a mistaken perception," give some quick vague analysis as to why, and consider that done. But when someone says "well, it's not really right to say conservatives want to punish people through social inequality", the rebuff is "of course it's the truth, here's a half page long post that's just conjecture and talking about Ayn Rand," and someone else admonishing the person for not likewise posting a long essay of guesswork.

I understand that my comment was not very politically correct, but that does not necessarily make it wrong.

Can we please not do that? I don't think I am balking at these comments because they're politically incorrect. They're unfair. What we're seeing here is this:

"Well, why are conservatives so bad?" followed by a bunch of head nodding.

"Well, why are liberals so bad?" followed by "well, no they're not, silly. We just know they're not."

I usually brush off the eye-rolling "liberal echo chamber" accusation that pops up here from time to time, but this is definitely some slanted viewing.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Nevermind, forgot what I was dealing with.

I am morbidly curious what the "what" here is.

Bloo Driver wrote:

It's not meant to be perfectly representative, but it's meant to add a more narrow perspective on purpose. It's pointless and potentially damaging to say "ever notice liberals walk like this, and conservatives answer the phone like this?" when we're talking about things like motivation, thought processes, and behavior. Stating "conservatives tend to look poorly on social programs in general" is a fine and defensible statement. But when we start trying to draw windows into the minds of others, it's really difficult to do so with such a broad category. So when I say "I live in Austin", I don't mean "so here is a sample from the reckless, extreme end of hippie liberals," I mean to say, "there are a lot of liberal folks and causes around here." It is a hotbed of focused political activity. It is meant to state that I am looking at a long list of localized behavior and am at a ground level eye view to feel comfortable saying, yes, a lot of these folks are really angry at rich people for extremely vague reasons that boil down to "it's unfair they're rich, and they should feel bad about that."

Sure, and that's why I did add "in general" and bolded it, because there are different perspectives. And I understand it's difficult. But I'm interested in doing something difficult. I think it's worth doing even if it's difficult. And for those, it's the representativeness of the perspectives that counts.

And that's a fair statement, because there is definitely a lot of people handwaving informed outrage with misinformed or directionless anger. But I think it's somewhat telling that you can just say "it's a mistaken perception," give some quick vague analysis as to why, and consider that done. But when someone says "well, it's not really right to say conservatives want to punish people through social inequality", the rebuff is "of course it's the truth, here's a half page long post that's just conjecture and talking about Ayn Rand," and someone else admonishing the person for not likewise posting a long essay of guesswork.

But that's not it. We've got the thread here and anyone can go back and look at what people have been saying. It's not so much vague as it is me not going to the trouble of being exhaustive in citing to posts that we've all already read. On the other hand, does "well, it's not really right to say conservatives want to punish people through social inequality" really require a rebuff? Something requires a rebuff if it brings up something that needs explaining. Just saying "it's not fair" isn't an argument for whether something is true or not. Sometimes the facts don't add up to something fair. If you're balking at comments because they're unfair, then yes: that is political correctness. Balk at comments because they're wrong.

I understand that my comment was not very politically correct, but that does not necessarily make it wrong.

Can we please not do that? I don't think I am balking at these comments because they're politically incorrect. They're unfair. What we're seeing here is this:

"Well, why are conservatives so bad?" followed by a bunch of head nodding.

Hold on--when did we say it was bad? I know we're all jumping to the assumption it's bad, but I have specifically been choosing my language to allow someone to argue that punishing the undeserving is not bad.

Now, it's going to be unpopular to argue it's not bad, but hey--them's the breaks. I make unpopular arguments all the time because I think they are right--did you see the sh*tstorm I gladly sailed into in creating that other thread about Libertarianism because I wanted to make an unpopular but (to me, at least) important point? If I can do it, why can't anyone else?

...that sounds sort of 'conservative' of me, doesn't it? "If I did it, why can't they?"

"Well, why are liberals so bad?" followed by "well, no they're not, silly. We just know they're not."

I usually brush off the eye-rolling "liberal echo chamber" accusation that pops up here from time to time, but this is definitely some slanted viewing.

What you're brushing off is why people know they're not. They know that from years and years of liberals arguing it's not worth it to carry on the way conservatives do about government programs just because the occasional 'welfare queen' makes out. They know it right from jd's post about "I'm not against help for the less fortunate, but I'll admit I have a hard time dealing with those who can't get their guano together after multiple chances. Some of Robear's posts have convinced me that fortunately the number of idiots out there milking the system is far lower than I'd first feared."

I think the slanted viewing going on here involves your understanding of why liberals know they're not thing-popularly-considered-bad: you think they 'just' know it instead of challenging it with some facts. Do so instead of just complaining about fairness, and you might find they're quite willing to meet you with facts they believe support what they know.

This is not a conversation. This is a series of "you didn't read/get what I was actually saying!" followed with "and I will tell you how you're thinking" moments that I think I'll just move on from, since I'm wholly uninterested to see how many "well that's not what was really going on" paper walls I'll have to punch through.

There's also a common-sense economic principle that says that you can't cut taxes forever and expect government to perform well or pay off it's debts. And guess who has gotten the most benefit from the tax cuts?

There's a conservative principle that says that you have to deal with reality as it is, not as you wish it to be. The Republicans left that behind years ago, and they need to face up to it. Even Milton Friedman understood that taxes can't go down perpetually. Paul Ryan is not the economist Friedman was, that's for sure...

I won't play the games Cheeze does.

I think conservatism is morally bankrupt. That is the core reason so many conservatives feel the need to wrap themselves in the flag and cling to their religion to legitimize just how anxious they are to impose suffering on those they feel fail to live up to their standards.

And while there is no shortage of wealthy people liberals choose to hate, there is not actually a liberal movement to make the rich suffer. There is a movement that believes progressive tax structures are the fairest way to achieve stability in society. The rich are benefiting from that stability the most and their higher earnings should be taxed at a higher rate to support that. That is viewed as wanting the rich to suffer, but it is a false equivalence.

The moral bankruptcy makes it easy for conservatives to want government out of their lives while at the same time wanting to impose a cultural lifestyle on everyone else.

Bloo, both sides have to get into the "why" of their opponents opinions. That's an absolute prerequisite in judging the validity of different options and how to best come to a compromise.

In addition, not directed at Bloo in particular, it would be nice if everyone keeps in mind that typically when people talk about large swaths of humanity like conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans, etc, etc, etc it's not meant to be a fully representative statement. No one is saying that all conservatives want to punish evildoers, or that all liberals want to crack open the jails and let child rapists run rampant in playgrounds, we are just commenting on a general trait that seems to be indicative of people on the right and left side of the country.

Back to the conservative/punishment thing, isn't it true that households that self-identify as conservative donate substantially more of their earnings to charity? That is a point against the idea of conservatives tending to be very cautious about accidentally helping the undeserving. Is it too simple to explain that as most of those charities being religious, so the donators have faith that God will steer those resources away from those that don't deserve it?

I think there's also a difference between donating specifically to your own church, where you know funds are likely to go toward new carpet and vacation bible school and confirmation classes, and donating to, say, a Jesuit-run soup kitchen in the urban core... both are religious charitable donations but the direction of funding is quite different.

Bloo Driver wrote:

This is not a conversation. This is a series of "you didn't read/get what I was actually saying!" followed with "and I will tell you how you're thinking" moments that I think I'll just move on from, since I'm wholly uninterested to see how many "well that's not what was really going on" paper walls I'll have to punch through.

There's absolutely nothing in that comment that makes me think you moving on isn't the best way to get this back to being a conversation.

Jayhawker wrote:

And while there is no shortage of wealthy people liberals choose to hate, there is not actually a liberal movement to make the rich suffer. There is a movement that believes progressive tax structures are the fairest way to achieve stability in society. The rich are benefiting from that stability the most and their higher earnings should be taxed at a higher rate to support that. That is viewed as wanting the rich to suffer, but it is a false equivalence.

That's a good call--the goalposts were getting moved there. We started out with why people support or don't support certain acts by the government, and we got into what people say on a Saturday night.

Yonder wrote:

it would be nice if everyone keeps in mind that typically when people talk about large swaths of humanity like conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans, etc, etc, etc it's not meant to be a fully representative statement. No one is saying that all conservatives want to punish evildoers, or that all liberals want to crack open the jails and let child rapists run rampant in playgrounds, we are just commenting on a general trait that seems to be indicative of people on the right and left side of the country.

What's interesting to me about that statement and what I was trying to get at in my last comment and with how I was writing is that Conservatives *used* to emphasize that they were the ones who wanted to punish evildoers. They used to appeal to people with that platform. It seems really disingenuous for people to say "where did you ever get the idea that conservatives were like that" when the answer is "from what conservatives not only said, but were very proud of and got a lot of votes from for like, decades?"

Didn't we just have a whole bunch of posts about how some people need to die over in one of the other threads?

Times have changed--the idea of punishment isn't as popular as it once was. And maybe Conservatives don't like the burden of that history with how our attitudes have changed over the years. I'm just not willing to put that history down the memory hole because it's politically correct to do so. It just feels weird for people to call it unfair to point out something about Conservatives that Conservatives used to explicitly embrace not that long ago.

Jayhawker wrote:

I won't play the games Cheeze does.

I think conservatism is morally bankrupt. That is the core reason so many conservatives feel the need to wrap themselves in the flag and cling to their religion to legitimize just how anxious they are to impose suffering on those they feel fail to live up to their standards.

And while there is no shortage of wealthy people liberals choose to hate, there is not actually a liberal movement to make the rich suffer. There is a movement that believes progressive tax structures are the fairest way to achieve stability in society. The rich are benefiting from that stability the most and their higher earnings should be taxed at a higher rate to support that. That is viewed as wanting the rich to suffer, but it is a false equivalence.

The moral bankruptcy makes it easy for conservatives to want government out of their lives while at the same time wanting to impose a cultural lifestyle on everyone else.

So may I ask, do you see any redeeming values in conservatism? And do you hate most conservatives on principle?

Jayhawker wrote:

I won't play the games Cheeze does.

I think conservatism is morally bankrupt. That is the core reason so many conservatives feel the need to wrap themselves in the flag and cling to their religion to legitimize just how anxious they are to impose suffering on those they feel fail to live up to their standards.

What do you mean by "conservatives"? Many of us on the libertarian end of the spectrum disagree with most of the modern Republican party, but agree about things like smaller government, less interference, state's rights, etc. And we believe in those things because we don't believe large government scales or that it inevitably infringes on personal freedoms (see the last 12 years). Or because it picks winners and losers (see the last 6 years of banking and financial policy). Which conservatives are included in your "moral bankruptcy"?

jdzappa wrote:

So may I ask, do you see any redeeming values in conservatism? And do you hate most conservatives on principle?

No, I really don't see any redeeming values of conservatism.

And no, I don't hate people just because they disagree with me.

But to answer Cheeze's original question, I think the lack of a moral foundation of conservatism leads it proponents to fall back on other sources to legitimize harmful policies.

That's why when we have panhandlers, conservatives look for ways to other the beggars. It's why when welfare is discussed conservatives look for ways to denigrate those that use assistance. It's also why the Occupy movement were described as spoiled brats with iPods and laptops. It's an easy way to avoid fixing actual problems, because the key people are not worth helping.

It's why Reagan would be considered a socialist today. There are large swaths of conservatives that view the responsibility to the community as an evil restraint. They want to choose their own subset to be responsible for, and screw the rest.

I'm talking about Neocons, the Christian Right, Tea Partiers, and libertarians.

On the plus side, I really believe that the numbers of all those groups are shrinking overall. To their horror, I see a European style of socialism in the future. That just creates the angry bitterness that we have seen during the last two democratic presidencies.

Demonizing the opposition is always productive!

Is it demonizing to note that the center has gone out of the Republicans in Congress? Without that, where is the crossover point between their policies and those of Democrats? And it's not that democrats became more liberal, it's that Republicans have purged the Center Right out of existence.

Whatever discussions we have to place Congressional Republicans in the US political spectrum, they have to start with the acknowledgement that it's Republicans who have substantially changed their politics.

Nope, but this is.

Jayhawker wrote:

No, I really don't see any redeeming values of conservatism.
...
I think the lack of a moral foundation of conservatism
...

:%s/conservatism/socialism/g

Jayhawker wrote:

To their horror, I see a European style of socialism in the future.

Do you believe that the European style of socialism is better than the American style of capitalism?

MacBrave wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

To their horror, I see a European style of socialism in the future.

Do you believe that the European style of socialism is better than the American style of capitalism?

I suspect he does. I do too. So does the prosperity rankings of the EU's northern nations, which are the style of European socialism that people like Jayhawker and I point to as success stories.

Farscry wrote:
MacBrave wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

To their horror, I see a European style of socialism in the future.

Do you believe that the European style of socialism is better than the American style of capitalism?

I suspect he does. I do too. So does the prosperity rankings of the EU's northern nations, which are the style of European socialism that people like Jayhawker and I point to as success stories.

I don't see why one doesn't take the EU as a whole, including the likes of Greece, Spain, and Italy.

MacBrave wrote:
Farscry wrote:
MacBrave wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

To their horror, I see a European style of socialism in the future.

Do you believe that the European style of socialism is better than the American style of capitalism?

I suspect he does. I do too. So does the prosperity rankings of the EU's northern nations, which are the style of European socialism that people like Jayhawker and I point to as success stories.

I don't see why one doesn't take the EU as a whole, including the likes of Greece, Spain, and Italy.

Because that would go against the desire to see a spectrum of countries using "European Socialism"? If you wanted to compare averages you'd need to take the EU and compare it with the US, and then a bunch of African and South American countries.

Farscry wrote:
MacBrave wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

To their horror, I see a European style of socialism in the future.

Do you believe that the European style of socialism is better than the American style of capitalism?

I suspect he does. I do too. So does the prosperity rankings of the EU's northern nations, which are the style of European socialism that people like Jayhawker and I point to as success stories.

You mean relatively small, homogeneous populations that are fairly densely populated and don't have much in the way of standing military?

Apples, meet oranges.

MacBrave wrote:
Farscry wrote:
MacBrave wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

To their horror, I see a European style of socialism in the future.

Do you believe that the European style of socialism is better than the American style of capitalism?

I suspect he does. I do too. So does the prosperity rankings of the EU's northern nations, which are the style of European socialism that people like Jayhawker and I point to as success stories.

I don't see why one doesn't take the EU as a whole, including the likes of Greece, Spain, and Italy.

Because I'd rather emulate the nations that are more prosperous than mine.

bandit0013 wrote:
Farscry wrote:
MacBrave wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

To their horror, I see a European style of socialism in the future.

Do you believe that the European style of socialism is better than the American style of capitalism?

I suspect he does. I do too. So does the prosperity rankings of the EU's northern nations, which are the style of European socialism that people like Jayhawker and I point to as success stories.

You mean relatively small, homogeneous populations that are fairly densely populated and don't have much in the way of standing military?

Apples, meet oranges.

Oh, so because something hasn't been done before by someone like us, we shouldn't try? There's that positive entrepreneurial spirit we need!

bandit0013 wrote:

You mean relatively small, homogeneous populations that are fairly densely populated and don't have much in the way of standing military?

Apples, meet oranges.

Can you explain why being homogeneous is a benefit? That's kind of always appeared to me as code for "They don't have black and hispanic people holding them back."

Also, their homogeneity would be a more interesting data point if this nation wasn't actively undergoing work that makes it as inhomogenous as possible, from the Drug War artificially bumping up the incarceration rates of the most disadvantaged to our taxes and services constantly siphoning more money to the rich so that the income levels here are far more disparate than anything in Europe.

Yonder wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

You mean relatively small, homogeneous populations that are fairly densely populated and don't have much in the way of standing military?

Apples, meet oranges.

Can you explain why being homogeneous is a benefit? That's kind of always appeared to me as code for "They don't have black and hispanic people holding them back."

Also, their homogeneity would be a more interesting data point if this nation wasn't actively undergoing work that makes it as inhomogenous as possible, from the Drug War artificially bumping up the incarceration rates of the most disadvantaged to our taxes and services constantly siphoning more money to the rich so that the income levels here are far more disparate than anything in Europe.

In a democratic system? It's quite simple. Having everyone sharing a common race, background, cultural values system makes it a lot easier to agree on a base line. Take Sweden for example. There is almost no debate on whether the population deserves to have a pension, universal health care, etc.

The complexities of core values and beliefs in the USA vs a Scandinavian country are pretty night and day.

bandit0013 wrote:
Yonder wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

You mean relatively small, homogeneous populations that are fairly densely populated and don't have much in the way of standing military?

Apples, meet oranges.

Can you explain why being homogeneous is a benefit? That's kind of always appeared to me as code for "They don't have black and hispanic people holding them back."

Also, their homogeneity would be a more interesting data point if this nation wasn't actively undergoing work that makes it as inhomogenous as possible, from the Drug War artificially bumping up the incarceration rates of the most disadvantaged to our taxes and services constantly siphoning more money to the rich so that the income levels here are far more disparate than anything in Europe.

In a democratic system? It's quite simple. Having everyone sharing a common race, background, cultural values system makes it a lot easier to agree on a base line. Take Sweden for example. There is almost no debate on whether the population deserves to have a pension, universal health care, etc.

The complexities of core values and beliefs in the USA vs a Scandinavian country are pretty night and day.

Germany, on the other hand, with a huge Turkish minority, has almost no debate on whether the population deserves to have a pension, universal health care, etc. France, with huge North African muslim minorities, and sizeable Caribbean minorities, has almost no debate on whether the population deserves to have a pension, universal health care, etc.

Wow this was a nice thread to discuss the pros and cons of balancing the budget, paying down debt, and whether the politicians would look at it that way or play sound-bite football instead. Those issues aren't fully resolved but this now seems like another out in the clouds argument about political philosophy, whether the US is or should be like other countries, etc. Gotta put our flame war pants on.