the reason I know “fiscal conservatism” isn’t real is that most fiscal conservatives, when you explain this to them, are willing to pay extra just so people who don’t “deserve” a benefit don’t get it
the reason I know “fiscal conservatism” isn’t real is that most fiscal conservatives, when you explain this to them, are willing to pay extra just so people who don’t “deserve” a benefit don’t get it
My boomer mom, raised Lutheran, has a strange obsession with who “deserves” this benefit or that. Can’t talk her out of it, even when I point out that providing blanket benefits is faster and less expensive.
"Fiscal conservativism" has always been code for "no money for black people." They have a lot of codes for that, actually.
Means testing is just bad. I am done pretending that it's in good faith, when the primary purpose is to give a salve to people who could have benefited in the past, and to make up a strawman to attack.
Fiscal conservatism works the same as the rest of conservatism: the conservation refers to hierarchies, not resources.
Yep, their identities are invested in having hierarchies that give them the status of "righteous worthy," regardless of their income. When you say, "pay/house/help everyone, it's cheaper," you're taking away their status as righteous worthy. W/out it, what are they? They'd rather die.
It’s so trivial though! It means nothing. But maybe I don’t get hierarchies.
A lot of it in U.S. has to do w/ the type of churches & the communities you're in from them, which run whole towns in more rural parts. You're in or you're out. If you're in a dominant group (such as white,) you have cultural rep advantages & better economic ops. They get to be the good lordlings.
This friend of mine has to work for racists. She’s like a white person whisperer. She has zero animosity or resentment for racists. She just accepts them as they are. This is how she survived I guess? But their reasoning doesn’t change? She has universal love for all. They stay just as racist.
Bc their lordling status isn't being challenged. We're all raised in these hierarchies & marginalized folk have to deal w/ not setting us off in the day to day. "Fiscal conservatives" see themselves as practical, beneficent lordlings - still bigots but they're not the directly violent 1's, you see.
For sure when you look from a distance you think ‘how do you wallow in the lies like that…you must know…’ But when you get close you see the whole mental architecture that they use to uphold it and it’s very chilling. The emotional capacities are so stunted. Inner humanity has been damaged. Scary.
Yes, but it's also all of us. Our society taught us & it's very easy to forget & pull rank w/ those who are marginalized to your lordling status. Bc we see it as our worthiness as individuals rather than a cultural rep that's handed to us. To give it up takes conscious effort. RW'ers are too scared.
It’s true. You have to examine situations and even your own mind all the time to see ways that you are playing into it and reproducing it— and figure out methods to disrupt it. It’s very insidious. But many cultural systems have NO TOOLS for this. They’re designed to prevent that. Disheartening.
An example—it’s better than nothing!—is that I know a Black woman in the South who lives next door to a huge racist. He saw her struggling so started coming over to fix things in her yard! Then down all his flags. (She didn’t ask he just did it.) She became an ‘us’ to him. He won’t truly change tho
For him, bc he's white, he's inherently superior, good, meritorious, etc. (cultural rep) & Black folk are inherently inferior, lazy, bad, etc. (marginalized peasant). But there can be good peasants, partial exceptions. She's not "us", but she's not quite "them" & he can help her as a neighbor.
I know racist minds have been destroyed by racism on one level but seeing it close up the way she has gotten me to do—I just feel so desperate for this whole worldview to end forever. Reconstruction was our chance but we have to do it. How anyone can want that ‘culture’ to survive…it’s maddening.
Yes, I guess that’s it. The South is a trip. She is 82. You would not believe the intimacy between her and these racists. And she knows what racism is, she has a very good analysis. She knows just how they are. They are like children to her, though. They need her to be kind so she is kind.
But if you help all Black folk, as part of helping everyone, then you're getting rid of "us" as the superior righteous worthy; you're changing the social order, removing the hierarchies that give him status & power, elevating inferiors as equal, pointing out his status as righteous worthy was false.
Right. It HAS to end. It’s like a horror movie but with millions of people.
True. Many years I spent trying to understand these people. The best insight someone gave me was EXACTLY that. It’s all ‘us v. them.’ In puzzling about the ludicrous tendency for inconsistency—because they DO use moral ideas— I hadn’t realized that was their moral framework. Racism is the cause.
I often have this argument with people regarding homelessness. It would be way cheaper just to house people, and far more likely to lead to people getting their lives back together. Instead we pay more to house people in hospitals or prison.
They are as real as deficit hawks.
Hello my friend, I need a minute of your time to share my post so that I can move my family to southern Gaza (safe haven) Please
Yes, a lot of things they hate will save money.
Sometimes I think we'd be better off to call ourselves pragmatists rather than liberals or progressives. That was always my critique of the GOP before it became completely batshit. It was that they always put ideology ahead of everything, including pragmatism. Sure, in an ideal world everyone would
be able to take care of all of their own needs. We don't live in that world. That world does not exist. We need to address problems for the world we live in, not the ideal one in your head.
I don't think people are naturally pragmatists. I don't care that feeding the hungry and housing the homeless is cheaper, I care that it's right. And I don't want policy to change if later grinding up the homeless to feed the hungry becomes cheaper.
Not all people are you. Some of us are naturally pragmatists. Republicans like to pretend that they are, though they aren't. Which is why I like to point out to them that they aren't, because generally, they don't give a shit about ethics or morality.
That sooner people understand that conservatives are, for the most part, bad, cruel people and not folks with legitimate concerns about spending, the better.
JK Galbraith: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
I'm obsessed with this issue and talk about it to anyone who will listen. We spend millions of dollars just to make sure that if someone's income went up by $5, they no longer receive benefits.
Here in the UK it’s been proven time and time again that reviews of PIP (Personal Independent Payment) claiments cost way more money than they save. Benefit fraud is so low it’s virtually non existent, but the media are always trotting out some goober who claims, but has been filmed lifting weights
Absolutely the case. Even the people who administer social safety net programs are terrified that they might accidentally help someone too much. It's an endemic monomania.
Fiscal conservatism is really just petty meanness masquerading as responsibility. They're preserving a social pecking order, not saving money. The pecking order is ultimately far more costly than egalitarian policy, but egalitarianism doesn't make them feel superior.
I used to reflexively say I was “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” but I got cured of that by the 2009 healthcare debates, like oh you mean nationalized care actually SAVES money, seems like a no-brainer to do that then
Americans by and large are more concerned with what is "fair" rather than what is "efficient".
There was some society-modeling work I saw a few years ago that found cooperative societies “won” but were size limited. However, they could be larger by including “punishers” (peeps who penalized bad actors at large personal cost).
There is some evidence for a genetic component to conservatism— now maladaptive, I would say (our comms make our societies “smaller”).
You’re saying the cruelty is the point.
"Fiscal conservatives" would rather house people in the most expensive way possible (jail) rather than just give them a place to live.
Its just puritanism by another name! Oh they didnt work hard enough? DENIED!!!!
God, yes - the yawning horror of someone getting something, while not being perfect in every way by MY personal measure.
The cruelty is the point.
Hell, they’re willing to pay an additional marketing fee to promote imaginary talking points supporting it. All out of spite for their fellow man
There is only one good kind of means testing, and that is progressive taxation.
Two types of people in this world. When someone comes up to them asking for help, the first says “how can I help?” and the second says “do you really need/deserve my help?”
I sometimes wonder if this is due to the inability to understand or accept contingency/arbitrariness. The people who think they ‘earned’ everything but nobody else ‘earned’ anything. Or the people who want to think they are immune from the afflictions of life. Like if you do everything right.
It’s true even knowing about contingency/arbitrariness might not work…because I always feel guilty things worked out for me and not for so many other people in my family. This was 100% luck. I had better luck. So why do I feel guilty? I can examine it rationally but I still have the feeling.