House of Eratosthenes

The “I’m a fiscal conservative but a social moderate” stuff. It’s a phrase tossed around so casually now, so meaninglessly. Check out what that means. Socially, the democrat agenda is to increase the standard of living for those who don’t put much effort into taking responsibility for things, and to decrease the standard of living for those who do. What’s the Republican response to that? If “fiscal conservative social moderate” means agreement with that, then don’t let the doorknob hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.

The question that arises is whether the nugget stirred discontent because of something that needed aligning with the truth, or whether it brought a stinging sensation that is the natural result of an effective disinfectant going to work.

I submit that it is the latter of those two. Had I any doubts about that, they were put to rest a half an hour ago when I heard the lies spewing forth from the lying lips of the early morning teevee news bitch (paraphrase):

For several months now the feds have been putting a lot of money into our banks, and now things are looking better.

I submit, further, that the thing being done to us has a lot to do with Item #3 on the list of ways To Motivate Large Numbers of People to Do a Dumb Thing Without Anyone Associating the Dumb Thing With Your Name Later On:

3. Switch Moderation and Extremism with Each Other

It’s a dirty little secret about people: They lack the ability to recognize an extreme idea when they hear about it. Even more helpful to your cause, they also lack the humility needed to confess, even to themselves, that they are lacking in this ability…

Is it really an extreme idea to call the lying teevee news bitch a lying teevee news bitch? Is it really an example of moderation to question the moderation of those who call themselves moderates? Well, how can we measure extremism versus moderation. We can go by popular decree, which I’ve never liked at all. And yet perhaps it has some legitimacy here — popular decree was how we figured out moderation-versus-extremism in the first place, was it not? And once the public has been forced to live through something, once it’s been educated through pain, the value of popular will slowly escalates. There isn’t too much sophistication demanded of an organism that is expected to recognize “Hey, this really sucks” when it goes through pain. Actually, on the flip side of that, it’s kind of insulting to demand the organism think to itself “Hey, this is really awesome” just because it’s told things are so awesome by lying teevee news bitches.

Obama Debt Graph Or, we can rely on simple mathematical concepts. The feds did pump a lot of money into our banks…but what the feds pumped into our banks…came from us in the first place. That, or it was borrowed. Our simple mathematical concept therefore is —

Money feds pumped into our banks, equals
money taken from us in the first place, plus
money borrowed on our credit

The borrowing has real consequences. First of all, it will be paid back. So your kids thank you. Secondly, as it is paid back, the federal government waddles into the money-lending market on the “borrower” side of the table…something like a seven-foot Kodiak bear waddling into your backyard swimming pool. Actually, that big bear sitting in your kids’ wading pool. We have a device to calibrate how the money-lending market works, in its effort to adjust to supply and demand. That device is the interest rate. You were wondering why, sometimes, we struggle with skyrocketing inflation rate; well, now you know. That’s most of it, the interest rate.

Interestingly, the second method I’ve proposed to measure moderation-versus-extremism, is currently not too far different from the first. Earlier in the year, as I wore my anti-Obama tee shirts around Folsom on the weekends, I’d gather my usual eclectic mixture of smiles & high fives versus dirty sideways glances & sneers. Lately I’ve added a new one to the inventory that removes all subtlety:

The reaction to this is unprecedented: People want to talk to me about it. Not “Hey, whaddya think you’re doing, you some kind of racist trash or what” kind of talk to me. They want to know things. They want an education. You can see it in their eyes, they just got done making a serious decision about something on which they now realize they knew next-to-nothing; they’ve lately become aware of this vast multitude of issues that were involved, and they want to find out about some of them. They suspect they’ve made a terrible mistake, if they don’t realize it outright; and they’d like to at least start the process of comprehending what exactly it was.

They’ve been told that it’s radical gun-and-Bible-hugging agitprop to suggest His Worshipfulness might have Communist leanings. And they’ve made the conscious decision that, you know what, I think I’d like to find out a little bit more before I just sweep all dissent aside like I did last November. They’ve started to figure out there’s a bit more to the story.

In fact, let’s rework that mathematical formula just a little bit more:

Money feds pumped into our banks, plus
money spent on interest servicing debts incurred previously, plus
money spent on all the bullshit administration layers associated with pumping money into our banks, equals
money taken from us in the first place, plus
money borrowed on our credit

Even with these new lines added, this formula still adheres to reality only in a superficial, Fisher-Price-Toy kind of a way. Many more lines would have to be added in order to capture all the things that really do matter; but as the additional lines are tacked on, you’ll see for the most part they aren’t any more flattering to the plan that was just carried out. The point is — the lying teevee news bitch’s summary only included the first line. This goes to show the high level of difficulty involved in capturing just how deceptive it is. This is exactly the kind of “news” that is worse than no news at all. But it’s the kind of news we’re being given, and expected to believe, if we are to evolve as good “moderate” citizens.

In fact, it is worthy of emphasis that I didn’t counsel the Republicans to ostracize or excoriate the “fiscal conservatives and social moderates.” My teachings had to do with inspecting, case-by-case, what exactly this highly overused phrase means. As I noted in my follow-up —

It is a hackneyed phrase that has been overused and abused to the point where it no longer means anything. What do you have to say when FCSM is used as a cover for things that are obviously not true? The “I’m a ‘conservative,’ but I acknowledge global warming” thing for example?

Is it moderate, or extreme, to infer against the data that there’s some planet-wide “mean temperature” that is increasing as we pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and because of this, we anticipate a global catastrophe; one that can somehow be averted if, and only if, we place large sums of money into undisclosed locations any time a transaction takes place that involves the consumption of energy; and then that we labor with the assurances, again against the evidence, that this virtual tax will somehow stop the planet from dying?

Form whatever opinion you wish to form about that one, fiscal-moderates-social-conservatives. I’ve formed mine.

Hunh? WTF does “socially moderate” have to do with frickin’ “climate change?” (scare quotes appropriate in the second instance, not the first) Unless you’re viewing Algore and his disciples as some sort of formal religion… which might be CLOSE in practice and execution… but it ain’t part of this argument, as far as I’m concerned. The inference that all “socially moderate” Republicans sign on to the global warming bullshit is insulting, even if some actually do (and I’d be looking in McCain’s direction, here). Don’t be generalizing, Morgan, coz you know damned well we’re not all cut from the same cloth.

Frickin’ “climate change” ain’t a social argument as I define it… it’s a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with a set of scientific theses… and whether the evidence supports or refutes the arguments being made. As for the legislative/ fiscal component (cap ‘n’ trade), that’s but a subset and is in NO way “social.” And you know that too, Morgan.
- bpenni | 08/31/2009 @ 08:59
I have someone in mind. Think of leprechauns. Really tall ones.

As to how it actually makes sense that global warming is a “social moderate” issue…sorry, can’t help ya there. You’ll have to ask him/them.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2009 @ 09:44
I think that FCSM people are economic conservatives who like sex.
- Daniel | 08/31/2009 @ 09:54
I think you’re right, Daniel. In that hetero-normative way, of course. 😉
- bpenni | 08/31/2009 @ 10:55
Socially moderate means that one wants the government to stay out of one’s business? How terribly different is that from the conservative view? I have to agree with Morgan that the term is quite…. empty. See, to liberals, your view is most decidedly immoderate, and I daresay most conservatives would not have a problem with a vastly reduced government. So what is so moderate about it?

Seems to me it is not so much conservatism that you feel the need to distance yourself from, but the religious conservatives, with their Ten Commandments and all? With their icky morals and sermonizing? Do they embarrass you?

Maybe I’m wrong, and you don’t have any trouble with religious people. If so, OK. Issue still stands though, what the hell is socially moderate?

I think that FCSM people are economic conservatives who like sex.
– Daniel | 08/31/2009 @ 09:54

And social conservatives don’t? Even if it’s a joke, it’s one that liberals have been pushing for a very long time, why play into their hands?
- KG | 08/31/2009 @ 17:18
Seems to me it is not so much conservatism that you feel the need to distance yourself from, but the religious conservatives, with their Ten Commandments and all? With their icky morals and sermonizing? Do they embarrass you?

I don’t think so. My friend in New Mexico, and I, are kindred spirits on this. I’m absolutely opposed to the federal government taking any action whatsoever in the so-called “War on Drugs”; I take the decidedly Jeffersonian view that this is a regional issue, with the smaller jurisdictions having the final say. And the first time someone comes up with a law outlawing the purchase or consumption of booze on a Sunday, or a double-tax on people who don’t attend church, I’ll be right there at the protest marches raising as big a ruckus as anyone.

Where he and I part company, though, is with the idea that these dark events lie in a near or likely future…or that to hold some fear of them, and act on it, voting out of dread toward it, is some kind of manifestation of “moderation.” Nobody anywhere with any weighty or respectable name has proposed turning the USA into a theocracy — what we’re teetering on the brink of doing, is turning the whole nation into a bizarre “Soylent Green” kind of commune that worships death. A theocracy would be far better than that. And that’s a moderate idea, right there, if ever there was one.
- mkfreeberg | 08/31/2009 @ 18:29
The bit that gets me is how “moderate” oftentimes seems to mean “not conservative”, which is what I took bpenni to mean when he says “socially moderate”, but then he gives an essentially conservative/classical liberal view, ie. limited government. And of course, in our society liberals often use the term moderate to give cover for their un-American ideas. So, as you said, it’s an abused term and, sure, bpenni can say it means so and so, but while that may hold for him, it may not for others.

Take the gay marriage issue, what is the socially moderate view? It’s unfair to keep marriage from them, so let them have it? Since that’s what liberals are shooting for, how exactly does that moderation differ?
- KG | 08/31/2009 @ 19:14
Well, I think in general SMFC is generally used as a way to say, “I’m kind of a Liberal, but I don’t want to take responsibility for the bill.”

Now, really, it should pretty much mean “Libertarian”.

One problem is (see Things Phil Knows #7) that people have gotten “tolerance” and “acceptance” mixed up.

A real social moderate might think that, say, homosexuality is wrong, but that there shouldn’t be any laws against activities between consenting adults. Now that guy is a really kind of a social conservative, personally, but he tolerates things he doesn’t accept as long as there is no “victim” … that is, nobody’s rights are violated.

Or, a real social moderate might think that homosexuality is just dandy, but that there shouldn’t be any laws that force people to acknowledge that dandiness, because he tolerates the idea that there are others who disagree with him and think it’s wrong and it is their right to believe that as long as nobody’s Big Three Inalienable Rights are concerned. That person is really kind of a social liberal, personally.

So lines kind of get blurred here — each one has personal beliefs that he will not force on others, which makes him tolerant. But not accepting. But both should be called social moderates.

Now there are some conservatives that think there should also be laws that keep consenting adults from doing things he thinks are wrong. And there are some liberals who think that they should be able to pass laws forcing people to accept homosexuals as just fine and dandy and never mention that fact to anybody or be slapped with a “hate speech” charge.

I’ve discussed my thoughts on the whole gay marriage thing several times over at my place.

Or, say, smoking pot. There are people who believe smoking pot is wrong, and they don’t do it and really don’t think others should, but they leave that decision up to each individual — as long as said individuals don’t interfere with someone else’s Big Three. You commit a crime agains somebody else, you can’t blame the pot. You’re it. Your life goes down the tubes because you’re too lazy to work and nobody will hire you, tough cookies. At any rate, those people (with said belief) would be social moderates.

And not everybody who uses SMFC is obfuscating. This is excactly what local radio host Gary Nolan tags himself as, and I believe him. He’s a pretty hard-core Libertarian. He’s Catholic. He’s tolerant. But not necessarily accepting about things he personally thinks are wrong. And that’s fine.

Here’s the bottom line. If I can’t cram my personal conservative beliefs down your throat, you can’t cram your personal liberal beliefs down mine.

It’s the difference of opinion about what rules the government gets to enforce. Liberals like to pretend they don’t have beliefs they’d like to cram down everyone’s throats. But they do.

Now of course we have the whole problem of our Public ~~Indoctrination Camps~~ schools. Big mistake putting government in charge of schools, because then Government is in charge of what the kids get “taught”.

There would be no issue whether or not my kid’s gonna be taught what he has to accept … and let’s face it, pretty much what to believe about global warming, homosexuality, America’s standing in the world, and politics in general … sometimes subtly, sometimes not … if I got to send my kid to the private school of my choice.

See, I think SMFC would be a valid label for me, although my personal social beliefs are more conservative than what I am prepared to tolerate.

That whole political quiz thing that puts you in quadrants on a 2 dimesional graph doesn’t cover this. It should probably be a sphere.
- philmon | 08/31/2009 @ 19:42
Buck …

The Global Warming thing has gotten so out of control precisely because it has been made into a social issue. It is being used to justify anti-capitalism, veganism, involuntary population control … and energy markets, pitting first world against third world. Class warfare, which Commies love. And since half the science has been discarded in the “debate” and much of the disproportionately represented rest of the “science” is based on the conclusion they came to by discarding the science self-appointed and self-congratulating Earth Watchdogs didn’t like.

Most of it can (or should) be summed up thus:

Assuming CO2 is a non-negligible climate driver and that man’s activities are causing CO2 levels to rise from tiny levels to slightly larger tiny levels, ice caps will melt, climate zones will shift, species will have to move, adapt, or die, and oceans will rise, and people who used to grow crop A might not be able to (though they might be able to grow crop B and someone else might be able to grow crop A … but these things are not typically discussed at least in the media, nor is the adaptability of life on Earth … still, digressing.)

Only problem is, it turns out that the founding assumptions are not backed up by the data.

So … yeah, it’s pretty much a religion.
- philmon | 08/31/2009 @ 19:59
That SMFC brush is pretty big phil…. at first glance, your strokes seem to have a lot of overlap with both conservative and liberal stances, but a lot of what you say seems to me to fall in the classical liberal territory. I honestly don’t see any serious disagreement between what you were saying about not legislating behavior and modern conservatism as I understand it. Liberals love to legislate behavior, so it would seem that your definition of moderate is closer to the conservative column than the liberal one.

I hope I’m making my point clearly enough. It seems to me that when you guys talk about what moderate means to you, or what it should be, the positions you take are really more modern conservative/classical liberal ones than the mythical middle of the road position.

I’m a young adult, and maybe before my time the right/left divide really were more extreme positions and a moderate one really did exist, but I haven’t seen any of that in my conscious lifetime. I guess for me it’s been like a split field with conservative views on one side and liberal views on the other. Each has gradients within them, but more so for the conservative side than liberal. The line between them may zig and zag a bit, but otherwise stays put for the most part.

Anyway, these were some thoughts from a gen Yer, ya know, the generation that stuck a knife up its ass last November.
- KG | 08/31/2009 @ 20:38
but a lot of what you say seems to me to fall in the classical liberal territory

I take that as a high compliment. I tend not to use the word “liberal” to describe Progressives for that very reason. The founders were classical liberals, and so am I.

As far as modern liberals loving to legislate behavior, the way I see it when they look at conservatives they are guilty of a severe case of projection. They can’t see or refuse to consciously acknowledge that the ideals this country was founded on were strongly rooted in Christianity and its associated cultural trappings. The very idea of leaving most behavior up to a contract between you and your maker that the rest of us kind of stay out of excepting crimes against one another … kind of the whole “judgement day” scenario. Got put ya here, and he may have rules, but he really doesn’t enforce them himself. He waits to see how you do and sorts you out at harvest time himself. And thus conservatives are far more tolerant than Progressives give them credit for.

That’s because their whole philosophy is to get government to enforce their ideals. Morgan has a saying I love. “Liberals. Total bliss is always one more regulation away. Always.” (or something very close to that.

There are very hard-core Christian zealots who would like to legislate behavior, and they tend to be conservative in most of their beliefs, so they side with me and me with them because of the broad overlap in what we believe. We have common ground and it is important common ground. Especially when the other side wants to regulate every little thing about us from what we eat to where we set our thermostats to what used toys we can sell at a garage sale. It’s personal responsibility vs social responsibility. I’m on the personal responsibility side.

Our social responsibilities should largely be left to us, individually. Just because I don’t think the Government should be in the business of charity doesn’t mean I don’t think you and I should be. And that bears out. A year or three ago, a study was done to determine if “liberals” gave more in charity than conservatives. The author was surprised to find out that conservatives, in fact, give much more than “liberals”. I suspect that it’s because “liberals” feel they have discharged their social responsibilities by coercing others to give and … “speaking out”.

And as far as the mythical “middle of the road” position, I base my “middle of the road” on the relative position in the spectrum of positions, not on the bell curve of the population that holds those positions. (Which is still actually a little right of center, but not everybody believes that).

Supposedly (by the numbers) that bell curve is still a bit right of center. However, Progressives perceive that to be incorrect, because they tend to hang out with each other and re-enforce with each other what they think is “normal”. Conservatives do the same thing, but it is tempered by what we see and hear in the media and classrooms all our lives. So we really get a more balanced picture. “Liberals” (until very, very recently) have been the outspoken ones, where as the “silent majority” keeps quiet mainly out of a sense of civility inherent in the culture from which we sprang.

In the end, our point of view gets challenged far more than does theirs. That is changing now, and they don’t like it. They’re not really sure what to do about it. So they scream louder and make wilder accusations. Well, whatever works, I say. Well, within reasonable bounds.

The left/right divide developed really more and more as the left went farther left. There really hasn’t been that much change in the right. It’s probably drifted a little left, but not at near the same velocity the left has moved left. Funny thing is, relative to them (Einstein) they perceive the right moving right. One problem we on the right have is that the few real racists left in the country abandoned the Democrats (which was the party of racism … see my blog about that) and moved under the Republican tent with the large majority of decent Republicans… because most of the racists had other values completely unrelated to racism in common with other conservatives. I think they left the Democrats when they took up the mantle of ~~buying votes~~ emphasizing special treatment for minorities, where as the Republicans leaned more toward equal protection under the law, and of course the racists found that position more tolerable than the Democrats’ position.

So now they’re our problem, sadly, and we get lumped together as a bunch of “racists” in part because of that. They have something to point to, unrepresentative as it might be.

Oddly, though, I know some staunch older Democrats… and they are some of the most bigoted people I know.
- philmon | 09/01/2009 @ 06:11
[…] INTERESTING– “They’ve been told that it’s radical gun-and-Bible-hugging agitprop to suggest His […]
- Steynian 379 « Free Canuckistan! | 09/02/2009 @ 18:48

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Memo For File XCIIIMonday, August 31st, 2009

Memo For File XCIII
Monday, August 31st, 2009