Conservatives Pushing 'Common Good Capitalism' Sound a Lot Like Progressives
The ideology champions the same tired policies that big government types predictably propose whenever they see something they don't like.

"Common good capitalism" is all the rage these days with national conservatives. But what exactly is it, you may ask? That's a good question. As far as I can tell, it's a lovely sounding name for imposing one's preferred economic and social policies on Americans while pretending to be "improving" capitalism. If common good capitalism's criticisms of the free market and prescriptions for its improvement were ice cream, it would be identical in all but its serving container to what much of the left has been dishing up for decades.
The wider adoption of the term Common Good Capitalism (CGC) can be traced back to a speech given by Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) at Catholic University in 2019. While there are different strains of common good capitalism, they all have in common the goal of producing a more balanced and stable economy that better serves the nation and its people.
The common good is, of course, a vague and subjective concept, the details of which are hard to pin down. Its advocates claim it's an alternative form of conservative governance meant to promote things like tradition, workers' dignity, religion, order, and families, rather than the singular free market focus of personal liberties and economic freedom. How exactly government policies will be used to mold capitalism into achieving these goals—many of which go further than economics—is unclear. This haziness explains why those defending common good capitalism usually do so only by listing what they see as wrong with the free market, rather than by giving their audiences specific details.
For instance, common-good advocates' complaints about no-prefix capitalism often include excessive income inequality caused by greedy, cosmopolitan capitalists who heartlessly offshore jobs to low-wage foreign countries, or gripes about corporations somehow simultaneously charging monopolistically high prices that hurt consumers and low prices that threaten small firms and damage local communities. I wouldn't blame you if you thought these complaints were coming from the likes of Sens. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.).
While I don't dismiss some of their complaints about the underperformance of the economy—specifically the hardships suffered by some workers and families—common good capitalists make the same mistakes as their counterparts on the left. They start by mistaking problems caused by government intervention for problems inherent in the free market. They end by offering up even more government interventions as supposed solutions.
It's striking to listen to CGC advocates act as if today's markets have been freed of all the fetters that I and other advocates of small government have warned about for decades. The size and scope of the government say otherwise. With $31 trillion in debt, more than $6 trillion in annual federal government spending, and a future 30-year government shortfall of $114 trillion, it's ludicrous to assert that the dominant governing philosophy in Washington over the past 50 years has been Milton Friedman-style market theory. Also contradicting the common-good capitalists' mythmaking is the well-documented burden imposed by the regulatory state at all levels of government.
But rather than demanding fewer government-erected barriers to exchange, employment, and housing affordability, the CGC crowd wants tariffs to obstruct consumers' access to inexpensive imports. They want to line the pockets of the firms they favor while punishing those they dislike. Further, these "capitalists" want to forbid the business practices that they think favor capital over labor, when in reality capital fuels innovation, hiring, and higher wages. And they want to make families artificially dependent on government design with policies such as federal mandated paid leave and extended child tax credits. These policies, of course, are favored also by the left.
In the end, CGC champions the same tired policies that big government types predictably propose whenever they see something they don't like. Industrial policy, export bans, and other forms of protectionism are, based on ample evidence, terrible for both economic resiliency and efficiency—and thus for workers and families. What's more, research suggests that giving relatively large amounts of money to parents without any strings attached disincentivizes work and makes more child poverty likely.
At every turn, common good capitalism implies a greater role for government in regulating and directing the market to achieve the fancies of common good capitalists. Who truly believes that such interventions won't result in more inefficiency, corruption, and political capture by special interests? I don't. I also worry that common good capitalists won't be interested in balancing the rights and the freedoms of those persons who disagree with their economic and social designs.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Easily start receiving more than $600 every single day from home in your part time. i made $18781 from this job in my spare time afte my college. easy to do job and its regular income are awesome. no skills needed to do this job all you need to know is how to copy and paste stuff online. join this today by follow details on this page.
.
.
Apply Now Here———————————————->>> https://Www.Coins71.Com
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
Cash generating easy and fast method to work part time and earn an extra $15,000 or even more than this online. By working in my spare time I made $17990 in my previous month and I am very happy now because of this job. you can try this now by following
the details here...... http://Www.Smartjob1.com
Yes, the classic neocons fully support common good capitalism because they too believe in state power. Rubio, Romney, et al. Nobody has ever argued they were not doing this.
But on the other side you do have the GOP that do not support it like Massie, Paul, and others.
Why are their ideas never highlighted as a positive?
A single Rep and a single Senator?
I didn't know i had to provide idiots a full list when making a comparison between two different sets.
Cut him some slack. He is functionally retarded after all.
I mean I did provide more names than Veronique did.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link—————————————>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
Probably because it all comes with an asterisk that says "unless it allows people to make their own choices, then it's bad".
Ron Paul was a pro-freedom politician who supported his ideals even when they disadvantaged his conservative cultural beliefs. His son is a cultural conservative who will ignore his fiscal principles if they inconvenience his social agenda.
Massie is more of a mixed bag. He is great on budget deficits, foreign military adventurism, government surveillance, civil asset forfeiture, and government transparency. Things go downhill from there, with his climate denialism and opposition to legal immigration (along with his "disaster relief for my state, but no others" votes) showing his tendency to support culture war narratives.
There are almost no conservatives left who support free markets and small government any more. The culture war has become the raison d'être for today's Republican party. The fact that Paul and Massie are the best examples of a pro-liberty Republican Senator and Representative is depressing proof of that.
"Climate denialism" So he doesn't subscribe to your religious beliefs, hence he's a loser? "Climate denialism" should be an aspiration for all those idiots in government. The mighty US government isn't going to "fix" the climate, they're just going to use that as a convenient excuse to redistribute wealth from fools who think Gia is dying to their corrupt friends in industry. Get a clue.
"So he doesn’t subscribe to your religious beliefs"
Religious beliefs are when you take something that is impossible to prove and accept it on faith. Climate change has ample proof, so.it is the opposite of religion.
Massey doesn't accept the clear evidence that shows that climate is being disrupted by the proliferation of greenhouse gasses released by industialized society. That isn't even a dispute except tor the flat-earthers who try to find small uncertainties and blow them up into fatal flaws. It's the refusal to accept facts that is the problem.
However, it's a crisis like the one Malthus predicted for food, meaning we're only on the edge of Armegeddon if nothing changes from both a policy and a technology perspective. We are already making policy changes that, while modest, will incentivize both the improvement of existing technologies and the creation of new ones.
There is a position that accepts the fact that climate change is real thing, accelerated precipitously by over 100 years of industry, while also accepting the fact that there is more time than the Chicken Littles of catastrophe claim.
Merely expanding existing energy sources that don't emit greenhouse gasses (including the most powerful, nuclear) will push off the End Of Life As We Know It (or EOLAWKI) by years, if not decades.
Battery technology is on a course to make electric vehicles as easy, if not easier, to use for all transportation. It's not hard to imagine a company (like one that rhymes with Schmesla?) creating universal modular batteries that drivers could switch out in their cars at convenient locations throughout the country.
Believing in climate change is like believing in gravity, not religion. It is a proven reality backed by objective, repeatable, and confirmed study.
Believing that we are on the edge of a catastrophic end of human life on Earth, though? That is exactly like religion. Lock in your conclusions based on the knowledge of the past, refuse to accept anything that contradicts your religion, and deny any new information that shows your religion is flawed.
If you can't accept the first one, you're fooling yourself. If you accept the second, you are also fooling yourself.
Climate change is a problem. But a solvable problem. A managable problem. A problem that can be mitigated in the short term to avoid catastrophe and in the long term (as in, throughout the next 100 or so years) to return to baseline.
"they’re just going to use that as a convenient excuse to redistribute wealth from fools"
In terms of fleecing the gullible to redustribute wealth to the undeserving, religion beats government every day and (literally) twice on Sunday.
Proof so clear that they’ve been wrong for a century with predictions.
Climate has always changed throughout history dumdum.
The predictions have been spot on. The interpretarions of the predictions by people who profit from questioning scientific consensus are often wrong. Intentionally so.
Their predictions have been, in fact, entirely wrong since they started with climate cooling in the 1970's. Not a single model has even been able to predict things in it's own data set. That is the definition of junk science. As for reproducibility? That's even worse.
It's a religious faith supported by things that sound like science, but are in fact not scientific.
As a simple example, life requires at least a 170PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere, and we're at something like 450PPM today. There is scientific reason to believe, according to climate scientists themselves, something like 3000-4000PPM (if not much higher) in recent geological timeframes of a few million years.
So this really does illustrate that you don't know a whole lot about it beyond the standard 'consensus' that was never real in the first place.
Ignorance, indeed.
" Not a single model has even been able to predict things in it’s own data set. "
Not true, not true! One model put forth by AGW theory has been verified to be virtually 100% accurate, verified by NASA satellite data over 50+ years of observations.
That model? Global Greening. That's right - the earth has about 20% more vegetation than it did in 1850. What does that mean? It means that WHEN we stop burning fossil fuels for energy, the "extra CO2" will get sucked back up for free....
“Their predictions have been, in fact, entirely wrong”
Sure they have. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
Or the “wildly inaccurate” predictions that are within 1/20 degrees C of observations: sciencealert .com /nasa-s-long-term-climate-predictions-are-accurate-to-within-1-20th-of-a-degree
What about people who are skeptical, critical, and analytical? Same result: skeptical-science .com /science/how-accurate-are-climate-models/
Then there’s this: nationalacademies .org /based-on-science/climate-models-reliably-project-future-conditions
Or this: nationalgeographic .com /environment/article/how-climate-models-got-so-accurate-they-earned-a-nobel-prize
And on and on and on and on. It’s not even a scientific question, although it is a political wedge issue, so facts will never make a difference. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see, after all.
If you’d like to educate yourself on the way climate science works, as opposed to climate politics , this would help you: news.climate.columbia .edu /2018/05/18/climate-models-accuracy/
Remember James Inhofe bringing a snowball into Congress as “proof” that global warming doesn’t exist, displaying staggering ignorance about the difference between climate and weather? People with knowledge laughed their asses off at the willingness of a sitting Senator to so easily prove his stupidity.
People who refuse to accept facts said, “Oh, snap! (it was 2015) Inhofe just owned the libs!”. They probably still believe it was brilliance, not the can’t-understand-basic-elementary-school-concepts-in-science own-goal that it really was.
I had to put spaces in the addresses so the site would let me post, but I'm reasonably certain you can puzzle out how to get to them if you want to learn.
“Climate change has ample proof, so.it is the opposite of religion.”
Climate change is indeed real. Global temperatures have been steadily rising for the past 40,000+ years. For 10,000+ of those years it's been warm enough to qualify as an "inter glacial period" - one of many within the current (the Earth's 5th) Ice Age which is 3+ billion years old and about due to end.
The notion that our “climate is in crisis” is a cult hoax. If the IPCC report on climate change were “100% settled science,” we could all rest easy because there is no threat whatsoever. Innovation is exponential; climate change is happening at a (pun intended) glacial rate.
If anyone believes we are facing an “existential threat” from using fossil fuels for the next 30 years, they are a cult fanatic.
See my post directly above here with crazy things like "proof".
It doesn't have the potency of unsupported, but incendiary, terms like "hoax". So it isn't exciting, but boring and accurate is better than wild and inaccurate when discussing facts.
"If anyone believes we are facing an “existential threat” from using fossil fuels for the next 30 years, they are a cult fanatic."
I actually agree with this. But if we are to drastically reduce fossil fuels in the next 30 years, we have to start now.
Such a switch doesn't happen overnight. Planning ahead is usually a better approach than "it isn't a disaster right this moment, so we can ignore it until it becomes one".
Ackshuyally, Malthus wasn't right about geometric population growth vs. arithmetic economic growth. And the records show that in the long haul it is more the reverse.
In pre-Industrial Revolution, families required as many as 14 children to be put to work to sustain a family and as insurance against neonatal and early childhood deaths. Family burial plots on old farms attest to this.
When factories and mechanized farms produced more plentiful and cheaper foods, medicines, and other goods, more children survived childbirth and survived longer into adulthood. Thus, families needed fewer children as backups and families became smaller.
Also, with mechanized production, fewer human hands were needed to provide necessities of life and that meant child labor shrank even before laws were passed against it, which meant fewer child labor fatalities and again, fewer children needed as backups. Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now explains it all with graphs and charts and references to those studies everybody hates as "dry."
And, of course, being a Minister and not an Economist, Malthus was out of his depth anyway.
I mean the climate alarmist industry is probably one of the biggest issues Veronique is referencing as a controlled economic system. Youre too dumb for your own argument.
"climate denialism"
Oh wow, you mean he's denying there's a climate?
Or that he doesn't think fearmongering about cherrypicked extreme outliers on climate models is productive?
There never were a lot of examples of a pro-liberty Republican Senator and Representative, if by "pro-liberty" you mean radically libertarian. For that matter, there aren't a lot of examples of any kind of radical in high office in this country, so why should it be any different for libertarians? And if think there are a lot of radicals of other kinds in such office, it means your perspective is distorted by your own radicalism. You probably see the just-average as authoritarian.
"There never were a lot of examples of a pro-liberty Republican Senator and Representative"
There were. Before Reagan's time there were liberal Republicans who agreed on the goals of America, just not always the means of attaining them. Before Clinton there were Republicans who would have been horrified by Ken Starr. Before Bush 43 there were Republicans who opposed getting into another Vietnam (never mind two of them). Before Obama there were Republicans who believed that opposing a Supreme Court Justice was a position that you had to be convinced to support, not forced to abandon. And those Republicans still exist, they just don't have the space to act as they would prefer. There are plenty of pro-liberty Republicans, they just don't have enough support and influence to make a difference right now.
""if by “pro-liberty” you mean radically libertarian"
No, I mean someone who opposes legislation designed to limit individual choices for specious reasons. Culture war items, be they advocating for abortion bans (pre-viability), language bans (hate speech, "free speech zones", speech is violence), or anything in between. Someone who is opposed to legislating issues that can't be defended without "it's immoral", "it's how it's always been", some version of 'slippery slope' argument, or hysterical cries of "I'm protecting children".
"For that matter, there aren’t a lot of examples of any kind of radical in high office in this country"
Six letters: AOC/MTG. We are suffering a surfeit of radicals in high office right now. We're smothered in Jordan/Schiff, DeSantis/Newsome, and Sanders/Cruz with Polis/Baker few and far between.
"You probably see the just-average as authoritarian."
No, I see "Why shouldn't I use government power" as a foundational question as authoritarian. I see "Why should I use government power" as a foundational question as the pro-liberty position.
Because to Reason, they're all icky Republicans, unlike those dreamy Democrats who allow them to be libertines while Reason gets to ignore real libertarianism.
Say what you will about Romney (I often do in the negative) but the SOB was one of 4 Republican Senators to vote against the Cares act.
That read like it brought you physical pain to write.
The man deserves credit for not taking part of the biggest scam in modern history.
"Why are their ideas never highlighted as a positive?"
Because, being 100% all-in on totalitarianism, the Progressives / leftist are always trying to draw a "moral equivalence" so as to say "Conservatives are just as bad as we are!" lest everyone realize that no, they aren't anywhere near as bad as Democrats.
So, they must constantly search out the Progressives masquerading as Conservatives to make that claim.
Reason certainly knows how to be progressive.
Most of them obediently voted for Biden.
An entire movement whose followers could comfortably fit in a service station washroom, but Reason gives it ten times the coverage of the Twitter Files, Durham Report and FBI malfeasance combined.
I agree that the bloggers here are attracted to reporting on whatever shiny new thing they seem to find, but they’re really all the same old thing with shiny new names. Nearly everybody who cares about public policy is a mixed bag, combining principles with exceptions. America is wary of ideologues and ideologies, so anyone who wants to not sound like a kook has to deny all the widely-recognized ideologies by qualifying them. “Capitalism” (Why use a Marxist term when you really mean “free enterprise”?), yes, but for the common good, because everyone concedes that following any idea too straightforwardly will hurt the common good at some point.
Essentially what they're saying is that people should be allowed to have their own private business, and to do what they want with it, except in those cases where minding your own business can be construed as unfavorable for some other public concern of recent times. And guess what? Practically everybody agrees with this in general, just don't ask them about the details, because they all disagree on those.
Or. You can acknowledge that offshoring our manufacturing base is Not a good thing, being beholden to China for the supply chain of damn near everything we use is Not a good thing, is indeed a dangerous thing.
And you can be for combatting that by - removing regulations that strangle domestic manufacturing as opposed to government subsidies, which is the Democrat approach.
There’s no real benefit in pretending that the Free Market brought us to total dependence on Chinese manufacturing. Or that flooding the country with illegals will not depress wages, which increases inequality. It’s actually OK to be both patriotic and pragmatic and Libertarian/Conservative solutions to very real problems.
To take a bit of a devil’s advocate position on the China portion of your comment. Wouldn’t it be fair to say, though, that China is tied to us just like we are tied to them? The same logic could be used to argue that it is that dependence that prevents a more belligerent China, as to force the US away from dependence is not economically expedient for China to do.
Thus, the mutual dependence itself adds a layer of preventative security that would be gone if the US didn’t utilize China for product production.
Is the benefit greater than the estimated corporate theft domestically? Especially when adding in domestic prices increase due to rising costs for security manament of IP and trade secrets?
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ......
SITE. ——>>> DOLLARPAY.COM
And let's extend that logic further: The US never had wars with Africa because slavery.
Fwee markers.
The Marines invaded Libya to stop the Barbary pirates from capturing US ships and enslaving their crews.
Do you know where you are?
I suspect you don’t, and on a regular basis. You’re very stupid, yet snotty and contentious. Which is a bad combination.
Of course, you’re too much of a moron to understand that.
The Jungle?
Baby.
Offshoring is neither good nor bad. All things being equal, it is generally a good thing when people spend their money on things they are good at. And it is generally a bad thing when people have to spend more money on things because they are produced less efficiently.
That said, all things are not equal. The Developed Nations including the US and EU have a unique system where their Central Banks print a dominant currency which leads to inflation. This inflation is not even- as the Printed Dollar propagates through the economy, prices generally rise as it passes from group to group. So the people at the beginning of that process benefit having that printed dollar and buying goods and services that haven't yet inflated.
The net effect of this is that it encourages Offshoring. Your purchasing power as the recipient of an inflato-buck is directly proportional to how far you are from that printing press. You will generally get better bang for that buck buying goods from people far away from the printing press- like in developing countries where capital moves around less quickly.
So I do agree with conservatives that this problem is generally caused by bad fiscal policies, but the problem is this cannot be fixed with legal/trade policy. You merely transfer the cost of inflation from domestic producers to domestic consumers- the producer generally gets the inflato-bucks from the banks and uses it to pay workers who now have nowhere to spend their money outside the country. They must spend their inflato-bucks on domestic goods that have already inflated in price.
"You can acknowledge that offshoring our manufacturing base is Not a good thing"
Why? It makes better products less expensive, thus making them available to people with more modest incomes. I like being able to get a cell phone for $1000 instead of $3000. I like being able to get my car for $35,000 instead of $105,000. I like being able to get a new roof for $10,000 instead of $30,000. Most people wouldn't be able to pay three times as much for big-ticket items.
The alternative to globalization is everyday products becoming much more expensive, even out of reach, for average Americans.
"being beholden to China for the supply chain of damn near everything"
That's a choice some American companies make. Globalization doesn't require manufacturing in China. There are plenty of other places that could match the costs China provides (Vietnam, Indonesia, India, and several African countries have the infrastructure and facilities) and many companies choose them.
"indeed a dangerous thing"
Only for a small number of products, mostly highly technical components like semiconductors. Again, there are plenty of other countries, other than China, with the necessary infrastructure and labor pool.
"removing regulations that strangle domestic manufacturing as opposed to government subsidies"
That won't close the gap. The cost of living in America requires a level of pay that prevents the total cost of manufacturing in America from ever becoming cheaper that the landed cost of importing from other countries where $5 a day is a good income. It's simple math: $10/hr vs. $5/day adds up quickly, and that's if you can find anywhere in America where enough people would work for $10/hr.
"total dependence on Chinese manufacturing"
We don't have total dependence on Chinese manufacturing. Some companies, like Apple, have made decisions that created such dependence. But most companies have diversified their manufacturing base, especially as China was subject to sudden months-long shutdowns of entire cities and ports during Covid.
"Or that flooding the country with illegals will not depress wages, which increases inequality."
Employers hiring illegals is what depressws wages. Only illegal immigrants *working* can impact wages. Prosecuting those who hire illegal immigrants would basically eliminate that impact.
Issuing more guest worker visas for manual labor (like agriculture) and other specific labor categories would reinforce the market value of labor because those temporary workers would have to be hired at prevailing market wages. Plus making them guest- or temporary-worker visas would reinforce the idea of "come, work, log some time towards future citizenship, and go back home" as a means of earning citizenship.
Our needs in those lower-wage categories will never be met, keeping wages reasonable for the category. And making credit towards citizenship contingent on following immigration laws would reinforce the idea that those who follow the rules get priority.
What we don't need is more highly-educated, highly-skilled workers coming in on permenant work visas or as a preferred class of immigrant. Unless you want to weaken the American middle class.
"It’s actually OK to be both patriotic"
There's a word that has many, often conflicting, definitions. For example, I would say patriotism would involve opposing Ron DeSantis' use of government force to punish his political foes and restrict speech. My guess is you would disagree.
I mean we just had 4 years of supply chain risk that is still ongoing. But why look at reality.
Yes, but in specific sectors at specific times with a wide variety of geopolitical causes.
This why sophists like you reply to detailed posts like mine with a single vague, generalized, and unsupported sentence. Because if you tried to get more detailed, your argument would dissolve into gibberish.
Do you really think there's a simple answer to international trade? And no one but you understands it?
The recent shift away from just-in-time inventory could explain some supply chain issues. Do you know what that means?
Finally, there is always supply-chain risk. There hadn't just been "supply chain risk" for the last 4 years (as you claimed), it's existed since supply chains began. Risk is unavoidable.
The most expensive place to finish is 2nd place in war. When the edge cases are so very disastrous, they must control to an extent one's actions. The trick is balancing the thing. In this case, allowing a single malicious communist/fascist/starting to swing back to communist actor to carry the brunt of our trade was a completely fucking moronic idea.
Reminds me of what I used to say during the Bush years.
"Show me a compassionate conservative and I'll show you a big government progressive who opposes abortion."
"Compassionate conservatism" from the Bush years was a kind of white flag of surrender to the left which was essentially saying, "Don't worry, we believe in markets, but we'll let you have your expansive welfare system, too!"
Wasn't he the guy who said he had to abandon free market principles to preserve the free market?
I don't remember... probably... a LOT of people were saying that in 2008. Wall Street was collectively saying it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaIxqJu_m2M
"I have abandoned free market principles to save the free market system."
-- George W. Bush
Yeah I wasn't denying it, I just couldn't remember. Like I say, Wall Street was essentially saying it... collectively.
So you've not read Olasky?
Really, ytou said such a dumb thing and you think it memorable !! Just tell us when was the last time you helped in any way a woman avoid abortion who wanted her baby.
You don't even know that stupid as Wilson was as a Progressive he HATED abortion.
"Just tell us when was the last time you helped in any way a woman avoid abortion who wanted her baby."
You'll have to explain that. If a woman doesn't want to have an abortion, all she has to do is not get an abortion. It requires no help whatsoever.
"I’ll show you a big government progressive who opposes abortion.”
Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising Abortion
and
The Progressive Case Against Abortion
Sarcasmic's an idiot.
https://twitter.com/GiovanniMandev1/status/1659198918868242441?t=QsddyfWsnGg80tjUmVbvlQ&s=19
One of the more remarkable things about progressivism is that it has so rotted the brains of two-thirds of our population that a pregnant white nurse is thought more likely to be an aggressor & bike thief than a black guy surrounded by a horde of his camera-wielding friends.
“Why would they lie and play the victim like that if they are in the wrong?”
Because you’re stupid and they know the system.
[Link]
https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/1659256915203878913?t=TvRkWIGCjZTN-Zis1dLzkw&s=19
Reality: Five teenagers attempt to steal a bike from a woman and film it.
Woke Reality: A pregnant woman tried to steal a bike from five teenagers because she is white and they are always the victim.
She might lose her job because of “equity”
[Link]
https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/1657804757963259904?t=DW1oG1eDc68OylxR53HEKw&s=19
A suspected white supremacist woman tried to steal a Citi Bike from a Black kid after he paid for it, and when him and his friends wouldn't allow her to steal it, she went thru all the Karen tactics to try to get the Black youths hemmed up:
*Screaming for help
*Fake crying
*Mayo Babbling
[Video]
Insult to injury, Twits snatch photo of completely unrelated person off the web, dox her:https://twitter.com/DragonMajik13/status/1657811656225816576?s=20
Funniest backhanded-compliment-self-pwn:https://twitter.com/MrsBoomBoomNYC/status/1657853621017493507?s=20
I can remember Klan rallies happening at various capitols and courthouses growing up, remember news articles of actual burning crosses on people’s lawns. The idea that one white woman in a quibble over a bikeshare fare extrapolates to “They hanging people in NY *and* Boston!” “racism” is hilarious.
Hers another nugget of woke from my neck of the woods……
https://nypost.com/2023/05/18/washington-official-glad-to-support-sex-offender-on-homelessness-board-in-heated-meeting/
A Washington official blew up at a fellow board member, who objected to a sex offender joining their committee, saying she was “glad” the convicted pedophile was nominated for the role.
“Shanee Colston, the co-chair for the King County Regional Homelessness Authority Continuum of Care Advisory Committee, presided over a Zoom call on May 3 where the group voted to approve prospective board members, including 38-year-old Thomas Whitaker-Raven Crowfoot.
Kristina Sawyckyj, a board member and sexual assault survivor, raised concerns with Whitaker’s nomination as she expressed she had a “bad experience” with him in the past. “
So this crazy bitch is shrieking about how important it is to have a convicted pedophile rapist on their housing committee, even though he raped one of the sitting members. She was hysterical and raving in a related audio clip I heard listening to Andrew Wilkow this morning.
Thomas Whitaker-Raven Crowfoot
The fuck kind of name is that?
So this crazy bitch is shrieking about how important it is to have a convicted pedophile rapist on their housing committee, even though he raped one of the sitting members.
Pedophile is the next big protected class to be added to the rainbow flag of "tolerance" or whatever, so if one of the other board members doesn't want to work directly with a pedo/ rapist that's just too bad.
Next up after pedo's: rapists (as long as they're not the evil white cis-male variety). Bank on it.
I agree. I’ve predicted this for over a decade. Although I thought there would be a detour to champion the polygamists first. Nd rapists will be the next logical step after pedos. The democrats are already working hard to eliminate all right to self defense, so championing sexual assault isn’t much of a stretch after they turn ‘rapist’ into a sexual orientation subject to legal protections.
They'd never take the polygamists. Most of those are in some breakaway LDS sect here in the US, and they're not exactly LGBTQAI+ASAPPDQWTF friendly.
Polyamory is huge in urban centers.
Neither are the Muslims though. And the democrats treat them as at least a quasi darling class. Although some religious fundamentalists are more icky than others to the democrats.
The democrats are already working hard to eliminate all right to self defense, so championing sexual assault isn’t much of a stretch after they turn ‘rapist’ into a sexual orientation subject to legal protections.
Also notice how the people most likely to be negatively impacted by all these groups they keep adding to the permanent victimhood collective are either women or children (or both)?
Normal non-crazed woke women: "We don't want to have to have share restrooms and locker rooms with trannies, especially ones who still have 'lady dicks!' And we also don't want to have compete against biological men in women's sports!"
Wokeists: "You transphobes!"
Normal non-crazed woke women: "We don't want to have to work side by side with known pedophiles and rapists!"
Wokeists: "SHUT UP AND TAKE IT BIGOT!"
Oh yeah, and since I just got around to clicking the link and reading the story, why am I not surprised that Shanee Colston, the board member defending having a pedo/ rapist added to the board, is a fat double-chinned bint with dreadlocks, a pierced lip, and droopy eyes that make her look stoned or half asleep (or just plain stupid) and the pedo looks like a homeless drug addict himself?
These fucking people...
They're not people
Update:
https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/1659329013951913984?t=hP55ctDkQ-CKoLRdlC3d9Q&s=19
The fact that she started fake crying for help as if she was in physical danger and she started fake crying, this gives the basis to suspect her of being a white supremacist. And I still stand by that suspicion
Reality: Five teenagers attempt to steal a bike from a woman and film it.
If only someone had tossed them a basketball...
Marco Rubio... pfft.
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ......
SITE. ——>>> DOLLARPAY.COM
Says a lot, doesn't it? It's interesting how they keep highlighting RINOs who are out of favor with conservative voters to indict conservatives and the right.
I would take this somewhat seriously if ESG had been covered in the same way or if she noticed that this is a small reactionary response from "conservatives" to the implementation of ESG
They also refer to illegals as immigrant, and lump illegals in with people who are legitimate legal immigrants to push their open borders narrative. That sort of disingenuousness is a hallmark of leftist propaganda.
"Marco Rubio… pfft."
Marco Rubio is a RINO. Liz Cheney is a RINO. Justin Amash is a RINO. Adam Kinzinger is a RINO. So is Mitch McConnell (sometimes), Kevin McCarthy (sometimes), George W Bush, Jeff Sessions, James Mattis, John Bolton, John Kelly, and Nikki Haley (sometimes).
It appears that the definition of RINO isn't connected to the length of time someone's been a Republican or the conservatuve principles they believe in and advocate for. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there must be a connection between all these people the hard right calls RINOs. What could it be?
I’m happy to see them go, Wong with the entire democrat party.
Conservatives Pushing 'Common Good Capitalism' Sound a Lot Like Progressives
It's like there's a uniparty, or something.
or something
Clusterfuck. And not the ancient Roman bathhouse kind of clusterfuck, the 90s-era rave-style ones with grungy gas lighting on the wall and all kinds of glowing shit everywhere.
As someone whom the Reason authorship would probably refer to as a right-leaning conservative who's witnessed neither the rise in Christian Nationalism nor the rise in Common Good Capitalism (Is the supposed progenitor, Rubio, even running for Pres. this time?), this seems an awful lot like Libertarians trying to gaslight people about the evils of Republicanism or glowie-adjacent progressives gaslighting libertarians to impugn Republicans whom nobody cares about for them.
Shortly after Rubio's "Common Good Capitalism" talk, Kevin Williamson pointed out that it's amazing how often politicians' ideas of the "common good" just happen to coincide with the discrete good of a powerful constituent. For example, Marco Rubio's unfailing support for protectionist tariffs on sugar, on grounds of *national security.* Surely we can all agree that national security is a big part of the "common good," right? Exactly how imported sugar is a threat to our national security isn't clear to me. What's clear to me is that sugar tariffs benefit Florida sugar barons, at the expense of everyone else who consumes sugar. But hey, "common good."
Wait til you get a look at the Inflation Reduction Act.
Or the Affordable Care Act from back in the day...
Hey, why bother having a big government if you can't control people, including the stuff they think they own?
And why even run for office unless you get to tell the big government what to do and who to fuck over?
"Reason libertarianism" is all the rage these days with national libertarians. But what exactly is it, you may ask? That's a good question. As far as I can tell, it's a lovely sounding name for imposing one's preferred economic and social policies on Americans while pretending to be "improving" capitalism.
Ctrl+f "progressive": 1 result... in the title. Nowhere in the body of the article.
Ctrl+f "environm" (as in ESG): 0 results.
So the article titled as though Conservatives and Progressives were equally bad, even though the Progressives are in power, doesn't even actually criticize any Progressive policies, or the crown jewel of them that they are actualizing/enforcing, just invokes a couple names in order to 'to be sure' the whole affair?
Once again, if this is libertarianism, you can keep it.
She did the same thing attacking the gop budget cuts tied to debt ceiling being just as bad as democrats asking to increase spending.
I thought the first part was pretty funny because the vague invocation of aspersions means it actually applies to things like 'civil libertarianism'. Gay wedding pizza caterers don't improve capitalism either... unless you're trying to impose your economic and social policies on people.
Wow, you really have an obsession with ESG. Why do you hate people who make different choices than you?
Oh, wait. You're a cultural conservative. Never mind.
WHich must mean you have no set definition for either, so let's just drop the hissing and scratching...There can only be one Conservatism since from Burke on C. refers to principles and never to the how of things.
Another thing to clear up, the matter of serving two masters. Are you claiming -- or are they claiming -- that the Common Good and Capitalism always flow on parallel tracks. Surely not.
So this article is a mess. Using all these words that you can't tie down at all.
Russell KIrk said a long time ago that Libertarianism and Conservativism only share one thing and can only share one thing, a distrust of centralized power.
So, in my world you article repudiates Libertarianism and starts with the first principle of Conservatism :
“Liberty does not exist in the absence of morality.”
― Edmund Burke
WE are a Christian nation and that is our only hope
The NAP doesn't require religion.
““Liberty does not exist in the absence of morality.” ― Edmund Burke
Morality as defined by who? It seems that cultural conservatives are always eager to claim morality is a defined thing, but can’t actually say what that definition is. Probably because it isn’t as cut-and-dried as the self-righteous pretend.
Plus, of course, morality conflicts with core cultural conservative positions on a regular basis.
WE are a Christian nation and that is our only hope”
No, we aren’t and no, it isn’t. Theocracy is the enemy of liberty, not its ally.
Our only hope is to support diversity of beliefs and the free speech that makes it possible, plus oppose government force punishing dissent.
"Common Good Capitalism" is just a warmed over euphemism for fascism. Go read Mussolini's definition of fascism. That's what it is. Capital in service of the state and culture. It's not all of fascism, but it certainly qualifies as economic fascism.
It's Old World nationalism.
Sounds more like common good fascism.
Even more fundamental than the lies and myths told by common good capitalists is the abuse of the definition of capitalism underlying their criticism. Although capitalism can be stretched a little bit to cover the institutions and constitutional framework necessary for it to operate, the definition itself is very simple: it assumes private property rights, specifically the right to use one's property for one's own good and the right to earn interest by lending your money; and the right to keep the profits of your labor, production and investments. This is all that's necessary to form capital-based infrastructure and production. It says nothing about the fairness of who wins and loses within the system. It promises nothing about who might benefit with or without personal contributions to the system. And there is absolutely no excuse for anyone to blame perceived social problems on capitalism in a vacuum. The only time "social problems" can even be considered concerning the economic system is in comparison with other potential economic systems, which is what this article is about. Pragmatically, free market capitalism leads to unrivalled outcomes compared to any other system anyone has ever proposed so, of course, they don't want to talk about that!
No government relies solely on capitalism but rather on a mixture of capitalism coupled with socialism. The socialism is usually in the form of safety nets. It is the mixture of the two system that sets up a countries economic system. Blended correctly the hybrid system allows for individual success while providing peace of mind should a person truly need assistance. Problem we face including "common good capitalism", is that it may do neither of the things needed. Putting too many restrictions on the free market and providing a greater safety net than is truly needed. Politicians of both sides are likely to support what seems a short term good at the expense of a long term bad move.
Amen, MWAocdoc!
No market is truly a free market and one thing I have argued is that the current American capitalist system is too weighed to the wealthiest. I would like to see a system that is more middle class focused. I think that for too long the wealth focus capitalism has tried to pump money into the wealthiest people with the idea that it will trickle down. This has been accomplished by tax cuts to the wealthiest, an overly complex tax code, and rules favoring management over labor. Getting rid of the wealth focus would help and a move to a middle class focused would be best. A strong middle class will provide a strong economy and a strong democratic government.
One note about management and labor. If labor had stronger footing with better unions, then labor could negotiate with management and there would be less need for government regulation of labor practices.
“No market is truly a free market and one thing I have argued is that the current American capitalist system is too weighed to the wealthiest”
This is a result of crony socialism. Predominately, but not exclusively from democrats.
But using governement to tilt the market towards teh middle class means we don't have a free market anymore, but a government managed market. Anytime you use the state to influence the market it will no longer be free.
What is needed is to get government OUT of the market. Stop protecting market failures. Let the banks fail. Let the investors lose money. Let failing business fail. Moral hazard now runs our banks and biggest firms entirely because government has been busy bailing out failures and making the successful pay for it.
They’re not conservatives. They have no philosophical set of beliefs. They project an attitude of conventionalism as confederates meant to move the back half of the herd toward progressive statism. They are convictionless professional stand ins for oligarchs.
I'm really curious what principles modern conservatism actually supports.
Same as it ever was: keeping things the way they are. Losing as slowly as possible.
Conservatism, BY ITS NATURE, supports exactly the same PRINCIPLES it always did. Those claiming to be conservatives are an entirely different issue.
Lincoln stated them very often but let's go to Coolidge since he was answering folks who went beyond you and just said there are none
" If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress."
MD, if you are an adult, say over 25, 30 it does not speak well for you that you have had this question all your adult life and are still in the dark.
Edmund Burke recognized that liberal democracy was here to stay and that the most conservatism's most effective efforts were best directed as acting as a counterforce to the worser statist impulses of liberalism.
If the GOP would focus on this instead of losing culture wars that make it obvious they have no interest in governing nor any useful ideas about it, they might actually accomplish something for GOP voters.
I see. So, according to your interpretation of Edmund Burke, liberalism is an all-encompassing totalitarian cancer and the real problem lies with conservatism fighting it in all the wrong places.
Gosh, it's almost as if you've never read Burke!
Not almost. He wouldn't recognize Burke if forced to read something he wrote.
I am not in the mad.casaul camp but yo are in the wrong.
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity,—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption,—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
― Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly
There you are again.
So now I will bring in Lincoln because he is someone you would attack for focusing on slavery inistead of governing.
But where you get that Edmund Burke characterization is puzzling. Culture wars were primary for Burke. What do I get wrong in this quote, which is very much in the stream of Washington's and Adams' thought
"“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity,—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption,—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
― Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly
No matter what you call it, we ALL do better when we ALL do better. Of course "better" is debatable. But - huge income inequalities are ABSOLUTELY NOT the way to a better future, for ANYONE.
Actually, income inequalities are NECESSARY to a better future. The alternative is to OBLITERATE the incentive to improve.
The only people talking about this are leftists trying to sow discord.
It's another 'look what the right is doing' mirage.
'This thing we made up that we say you're doing and believing in is actually a thing you claim to be against'
Fuck off, slavers
Dear author,
Please stop calling RINOs "Conservatives."
Thanks
Unfortunately, they won't do as you ask.
They also won't acknowledge that Republican does not = conservative.
You know who else supported "The Common Good..."?
"Common good capitalism" is all the rage these days with national conservatives.
DEAD WRONG. It is all the rage with many that CLAIM to be conservatives. Anyone that supports it is NOT conservative in any rational sense of the word.
Certainly not true for conservative Catholics and Jews, though
You had a choice of headlines but rejected the obvious ones. i do wonder why
PRogressives Pushing “Common Good Capitalism” sound a lot like Conservatives REJECTED Capitalist Pushing ‘Common Good Capitalism’ Sound a Lot Like Progressives REJECTED Capitalist Pushing ‘Common Good Capitalism’ Sound a Lot Like Conservatives. REJECTED
From a Rhetoric standpoint I think you wanted most of all to make the point that you don’t think ANY of those terms has a real meaning. Not Conservative, not Capitalist, not Progressive.
Just for kicks find me a definition of “Common Good” that doesn’t already give away your religous and political prior commitments. Really, this will be instructive for you
The Catholic Church is the main carrier of the idea of "common Good" into modern times...and they are confused
Aristotle says in Book 3 the Rhetoric that "to speak well is to speak using specific names for things and not general ones"
All the better to play "boaf sydez" with. Never mind that current economic (and political for that matter) fascism is coming from Democrats. It's all the better to paint those icky Republicans who won't let them hold drag shows in from of kids or allow open borders as mean and ugly by Veronica.
Correct.
This is what I keep trying to tell yall.
The democrat party is now firmly neo Marxist. There is no way it can continue to exist and still have a constitutional republic.
And people living secure enough lives that they can afford the luxury of not aggressing...