Conservatism and intelligence

[Scarfman]

I've long thought the difference between the left and right is that the right see's issues as black or white, whilst the left see's grey. I do not think there is neccissarily a great difference in intelligence in an IQ sense, but rather a broader type of intelligence encompassing more critical thinking, reasoning and the ability to empathise.

You've said what I was trying to say, but more clearly and concisely. Cheers.

Evidence of this is the fact that society is almost always progressing to the left with time. Ideas of greater fairness, equality and total human progression are all the domain of the left.

Is that true since 1980? The welfare state has been significantly dismantled, discrimination has become mainstream, and we're told that we can't afford to fund hospitals and education any more. Like you, I see a long trend to the left (we don't hunt witches, or lynch too many people any more, nor give smallpox-infested blankets to Aborigines) but I think the last 30 years have been moving the other way. All the best rheoric has come from that side, too. Hardly anyone from the left is willing to stand on a platform of social justice, and if they do (like Bob Brown) they are told that it's all wishful thinking and they're not engaging with reality.

 

[Cutter]

@Lior - Until I got to your third paragraph, I almost thought we were welcoming Uncle Rupert himself to the board. I find all mainstream Australian press fairly unhelpful. It seems to me that there are few good journalists at those organisations plying their trade without heavy restrictions or in a way which allows quality traditional journalism.

A quality journalist and author is George Megalogenis. If you haven't read his most recent book, "The Australian Moment", you should do so. Peter Hartcher's "The Sweet Spot" is also good albeit a little less intellectual (not that that is bad!).

@ Schadenfreude - yes, that is the point I was making.

 

[Schadenfreude]

I have so many issues with what you say here, but let me ask a couple of questions first:
1. What political system is furthest to the left?
2. Does it result in fairness, equality and human progression?

Can I answer your question with this?
1. What political system is furthest to the right?
2. Does it result in fairness, equality and human progression?

If you think the political right is some kind of safe haven and we should all move that way, you're deluding yourself.

 

[Scotty]

If you think the political right is some kind of safe haven and we should all move that way, you're deluding yourself.

Where did I suggest that? I am just trying to point out the hypocrisy that comes from the left thinking that they have the sole rights on equality, compassion and fairness. To be frank it is complete bullshit (as your graph supports).

 

[Joe Mac]

I've long thought the difference between the left and right is that the right see's issues as black or white, whilst the left see's grey. I do not think there is neccissarily a great difference in intelligence in an IQ sense, but rather a broader type of intelligence encompassing more critical thinking, reasoning and the ability to empathise.

Evidence of this is the fact that society is almost always progressing to the left with time. Ideas of greater fairness, equality and total human progression are all the domain of the left.

However none of this is totally relevant in a real world situation as political parties are an institutionalised form of the ideology and even if the mission statement says one thing, there are almost always contradictory in their actions.

All developed societies move further toward the left. And throughout history, every major economic power has met its decline through credit issues. FACT. Socialist Europe is going through this at the moment. America is five years from a credit crisis themselves, lead by their most leftist state California. The problem with the left is that they spend too much money trying to pay for their ideals under the false pretence that they can solve societies problems, with political policy. The reality is that politicians rarely succeed in anything but creating societal imbalances which in the long run, end up hurting the people more that they have tried to help all along.

Poor economic management is why I vote conservative, its got nothing to do with gay marriage and immigration. Both of which I am pro.

 

[Bowside]

All developed societies move further toward the left. And throughout history, every major economic power has met its decline through credit issues. FACT. Socialist Europe is going through this at the moment. America is five years from a credit crisis themselves, lead by their most leftist state California. The problem with the left is that they spend too much money trying to pay for their ideals under the false pretence that they can solve societies problems, with political policy. The reality is that politicians rarely succeed in anything but creating societal imbalances which in the long run, end up hurting the people more that they have tried to help all along.

Poor economic management is why I vote conservative, its got nothing to do with gay marriage and immigration. Both of which I am pro.

But is conservative economic management actually any better?

In two of the examples you used (america as a whole, and California), the conservative republican party were in charge for the best part of the last decade. The economies of both are now on the road to ruin as a result of a decade of poor management.

Conservative thinking has fucked america, because they are too unwilling to change their systems and admit they have done things wrong. They just want to use their constitution as black and white supreme law, but the document is not relevant in the same way it was when it was written.

The euro's problems are much the same as Americas, but they have occurred for different reasons. They should have either gone all out when forming the euro and ceded all power to a central European government, or not formed the euro at all.

 

[Joe Mac]

But is conservative economic management actually any better?

In two of the examples you used (america as a whole, and California), the conservative republican party were in charge for the best part of the last decade. The economies of both are now on the road to ruin as a result of a decade of poor management.

Conservative thinking has fucked america, because they are too unwilling to change their systems and admit they have done things wrong. They just want to use their constitution as black and white supreme law, but the document is not relevant in the same way it was when it was written.

The euro's problems are much the same as Americas, but they have occurred for different reasons. They should have either gone all out when forming the euro and ceded all power to a central European government, or not formed the euro at all.

I think America is a bad example here. The blow out in their budget under a conservative government was to do with a war which inevitably costs a lot of money.

A better example is the UK where the welfare state created by the Labor party has mean't the Tori's have had to make mass cuts to government spending which is significantly jeopardising the recovery after GFC just to maintain their credit rating.

Europe is another prime example of how poor economic management by the socialist governments has crippled their respective economies. It's easy to say they should have created a fiscal union however, this would never have eventuated as the socialist countries like France would never acceded any type of power to a country like Germany, even though they have a much better track record of economic management. Watch what happens to France in the coming months/years; http://www.economist.com/node/21557318

Locally, the difference in economic management between the Labor and Liberal parties make another prime example. Even though Keating implemented some excellent capitalist measures such as giving independence to the RBA and floating the Aussie dollar, it could easily be argued that these measures were the global norm and would have been implemented by whoever was in power at the time. When the Howard goverment got into power, they also had to make huge cuts into spending before they could balance the budget. He was the best of the Labor leaders by a long way and still cannot considered a good economic manager by any means.

The current crop of Labor are up there with the worst we have had. On one hand they constantly talk about a surplus and then on the other hand have had the raise our debt ceiling from 200Billion to 250Billion in year 1. Then 250B to 300B in this fin year. What a joke.

 

[Cutter]

You're cherry picking (eg. not the US because it doesn't suit me). You're also not proving a great historian. The Hawke/Keating government implemented huge structural reforms which were essential to the health of the economy. Anyone would have done it? You're dreaming. Compare Howard's years as treasurer (which immediately preceded Keating's). The Howard/Costello government was also responsible for some important reforms in its early years but lost its way playing politics.

Good economic management is not exclusive to conservatives.

 

[Joe Mac]

You're cherry picking (eg. not the US because it doesn't suit me). You're also not proving a great historian. The Hawke/Keating government implemented huge structural reforms which were essential to the health of the economy. Anyone would have done it? You're dreaming. Compare Howard's years as treasurer (which immediately preceded Keating's). The Howard/Costello government was also responsible for some important reforms in its early years but lost its way playing politics.

Good economic management is not exclusive to conservatives.

I'm not cherry picking anything. I acknowledged that they did some good things (which were also done my nearly all western economies around the world at the same time- hence the point) but overall their policies put the Howard/Costello government into a position where they needed to aggressively cut spending before returning to a surplus. This was detrimental to the economy over those years with such deep cuts inhibiting growth.

The point about the war is also valid. No matter who was in power, there is no way they would have been able to fund a war and simultaneously keep government spending in check. Therefore how can you judge the republicans on economic management in a time of war?

You say that good economic management is not exclusive to conservatives but the only good economic manager from a Labor/democratic party I can think of was the Bill Clinton's Democratic party in the 90's. Can you name another?

While it certainly isn't conclusive, there is enough evidence to conclude that good economic management is rarely associated with Labor/Dem parties and therefore an intelligent reason not to vote for them...

 

[Scotty]

I am interested in what people believe/prefer when it comes to equality:

A) equality of outcome, or
B) equality of opportunity

 

[Cutter]

I'm not cherry picking anything. I acknowledged that they did some good things (which were also done my nearly all western economies around the world at the same time- hence the point) but overall their policies put the Howard/Costello government into a position where they needed to aggressively cut spending before returning to a surplus. This was detrimental to the economy over those years with such deep cuts inhibiting growth.

The point about the war is also valid. No matter who was in power, there is no way they would have been able to fund a war and simultaneously keep government spending in check. Therefore how can you judge the republicans on economic management in a time of war?

You say that good economic management is not exclusive to conservatives but the only good economic manager from a Labor/democratic party I can think of was the Bill Clinton's Democratic party in the 90's. Can you name another?

While it certainly isn't conclusive, there is enough evidence to conclude that good economic management is rarely associated with Labor/Dem parties and therefore an intelligent reason not to vote for them.

In respect of the US: A decision to spend money on a war is still a decision to spend money. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not defending their shores. It was discretionary spending. The budget deficits run by the Bush government during this period are not exclusively due to the wars and are enormous by any standard.

In respect of Hawke/Keating: read the books I mention above. I know you're a reader so they'll give you a bit more background on the period in question. It will also demonstrate that the Hawke/Keating government is an extraordinarily well credentialled economic manager. I think history may also be kind to Wayne Swan (he's received accolades as a treasure whereas none of Keating, Costello or Howard ever have). What history won't forgive this government is watering down the mining tax.

Howard and Costello were in power during the longest economic expansion in modern history and did not do enough with the bounty. Their credentials are strong, but they could have done so much more.

Most of the Nordic countries have run successful social democratic governments for many years.

Your contributions are normally very well thought out, but in this instance I think you're missing something.

 

[Scarfman]

Joe Mac - you introduce this long sense of history then just point to the current Euro crisis. I don't think Rome fell from being too left-leaning.

Australia has just survived the GFC better than anyone else. I think Keating, Costello and Swan all deserve credit for that.

And this:

Therefore how can you judge the republicans on economic management in a time of war?

Is a "wow" moment in your logic. It is republican policy to be aggessive and expansionist (do you know about The American Century?). And yet you pleaed - "how could it be helped?" Well, looking for Osama bin Laden in Baghdad didn't help.

 

[Joe Mac]

In respect of the US: A decision to spend money on a war is still a decision to spend money. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not defending their shores. It was discretionary spending. The budget deficits run by the Bush government during this period are not exclusively due to the wars and are enormous by any standard.

In respect of Hawke/Keating: read the books I mention above. I know you're a reader so they'll give you a bit more background on the period in question. It will also demonstrate that the Hawke/Keating government is an extraordinarily well credentialled economic manager. I think history may also be kind to Wayne Swan (he's received accolades as a treasure whereas none of Keating, Costello or Howard ever have). What history won't forgive this government is watering down the mining tax.

Howard and Costello were in power during the longest economic expansion in modern history and did not do enough with the bounty. Their credentials are strong, but they could have done so much more.

Most of the Nordic countries have run successful social democratic governments for many years.

Your contributions are normally very well thought out, but in this instance I think you're missing something.

I am a big fan Paul Keating and have attended quite a few events to hear him speak on his time in power and as treasurer. I have also looked extensively at his economic record after originally believing him to be one of our great economic managers. The main pro's of his rule are:

Pro's of Keating:
Eliminated centralised wage fixing
Floated AUD
Independence to the RBA
De-regulated banks
Created APEC Conference

These are all good micro-economic reforms however, there are very few people that would have argued that these would not have been implemented by anyone else in power at the time seeing they were being undertaken by Western countries globally. Unfortunately, after arguing in his corner for many years, I believe that he was only an average economic manager because the spending by his government was excessive, particularly while he was the countries treasurer. It is this undeniable trend between Labor/Liberal governments where the former spends excessively and the latter must reign in these measures with unpopular policy, that provides the strongest proof that one party is better at managing the economy than the other.

What more would you have had Costello and Howard do? Their job was to keep the Australian economy moving forward and growing, creating stability to attract new investment. Sometimes less is more...

The award that Wayne Swan won is the Euromoney Finance Minister of the year award which is a joke of an award. Example of other past winners is Russia's Anatoly Chubais, who only 9 months later presided of the Russian debt crisis which sent shocks through the global economy. Argentina's treasurer was also awarded the award, a country who also defaulted on its own bonds.

The Nordic countries are an interesting study. With some the world's strictest immigration policies and largest cultural differences to neighbouring regions, these countries were able to implement extreme tax measures on businesses and high earners. History has shown that such measures will drive businesses and high earners to find alternative places to do business however the large cultural divide meant that these people decided to stay within the system rather than leave. If you delve deeper into their system you will see that it was never so rosy. House prices were obscene and it was considered largely impossible for many generations to own their own house/apartment. With a big change in policy on immigration and tools such as the internet opening up this part of the world, we have seen the foundations of this system start to crumble. For example, the entire car industry went bankrupt (and is now owned by Chinese organisations).

You criticise my point of view and me and provide little evidence of contrary. Even though I think I am pretty balanced on the issue, giving credit where credit is due.

You are the one who seems to be missing something.

 

[Joe Mac]

Joe Mac - you introduce this long sense of history then just point to the current Euro crisis. I don't think Rome fell from being too left-leaning.

Australia has just survived the GFC better than anyone else. I think Keating, Costello and Swan all deserve credit for that.

And this:



Is a "wow" moment in your logic. It is republican policy to be aggessive and expansionist (do you know about The American Century?). And yet you pleaed - "how could it be helped?" Well, looking for Osama bin Laden in Baghdad didn't help.

I was only using recent examples to ensure it was relevant. Rome like the British Empire fell down because they spent more than they could afford to. I challenge you to show me a world super power that hasn't failed from spending themselves into obvlivion. To claim that Rome did not move more to the left through its reign over the known world is comical. They went from Ceasar to the republic albeit it wasnt a straight road to get there.

Again the point here was that policies of the left have a tendency to decrease national productivity, create economic imbalances and cost a hell of a lot of money. It is these types of policies which create over spending and lead us a step closer to bankrupting the economy and hurting the people they were trying to originally help in the long run.

America were attacked and they reacted. Whether that was the right decision is irrelevant to the discussion. There have been political parties on both sides of the spectrum who have had to go to war and no politcal party is expected to be a good economic manager when bigger issues such as WAR are a priority. I am saying that if you want to compare the differences between two parties you should exclude all wars and measure their abilities at peace time to gauge which party were the better manager.

Australia has survived the GFC better than any other economy because of China and their demand for our resources. Politics has had little to do with that. The Australian Labor party are extremely fortunate that the minerals are in the ground and cant be moved to another country because if it were any other industry that propped up our economy, it would have relocated to Singapore or Hong Kong or Switzerland by now.

Their current policies are extremely effective in pushing other businesses and industries to consider relocation...

 

[Cutter]

I was only using recent examples to ensure it was relevant. Rome like the British Empire fell down because they spent more than they could afford to. I challenge you to show me a world super power that hasn't failed from spending themselves into obvlivion. To claim that Rome did not move more to the left through its reign over the known world is comical. They went from Ceasar to the republic albeit it wasnt a straight road to get there.

The reasons civilisation's collapse are more complex than you suggest. Read Jarrod Diamond's Collapse.

 

[Joe Mac]

The reasons civilisation's collapse are more complex than you suggest. Read Jarrod Diamond's Collapse.

Anyway, we are going around in circles.

At the end of the day when it comes to economic management, the difference between a democratic type party or a conservative type party is their view on how best to help society acheive a higher level of prosperity.

A democratic party believes in spreading wealth by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. In theory, this seems fair and the best path to success, (much like communism seems fair and the best path to equal prosperity).

A conservative party believes that by stimulating economic growth through creating a business friendly environment, maintaining the financial incentives of entrepreneurship and success in business, you will create more jobs and provide more prosperity for all people in the economy.

Whether you believe the democratic path or the conservative path, it is impossible to argue that the democratic style of leadership encompasses better economic management and that is what we originally sought to discuss.

 

[Cutter]

We're moving into the territory of why government exists and its role. Scarfy must be fuming. Irrespective, you've simplified a complex problem into an imperfect black and white statement.

Perhaps that leads us back to the point someone raised earlier that the right sees things in black and white and the left in shades of grey.

Your final statement is not true by definition. You've been arguing about it with me.

 

[Joe Mac]

We're moving into the territory of why government exists and its role. Scarfy must be fuming. Irrespective, you've simplified a complex problem into an imperfect black and white statement.

Perhaps that leads us back to the point someone raised earlier that the right sees things in black and white and the left in shades of grey.

Your final statement is not true by definition. You've been arguing about it with me.

This is politics and the goal posts move to win votes. For this reason you are right that there is no clear definition however, the basic premise behind the statement is hard to argue against and is largely correct. As correct as you will find in any topic in politics.

Apologies Scarfy for high-jacking your thread.

 

[Scotty]

Slight digression from the left is smarter than the right discussion. In the hope that one day Scarf will talk to me again (and possibly even respond to my query regarding whether politics was in the original study at all, or it was just defined as 'socially conservative people'), I will say the following:

I agree that those that exist on the far right are more stupid than those on the left. How people can have prejudices for no good reason is a prime example of a combination of stupidity and acceptance of what others tell them.

I will however also say that those on the far left are also less intelligent than those at the centre left, centre right or just plain centre. Some of the ideas and policies that come from the far left are quite clearly unsustainable and damaging to both cultures and economies - and yet they have no ability to think through the issues past their ideology.

I strongly disagree that centre right are less intelligent centre left.

 

[Schadenfreude]

It's odd that "free marketers" which would normally be considered socially conservative have such anarchistic tendencies eg deregulation.

Does that not just indicate blind self interest, devoid of any political belief?