Talking with people who vote Conservative – Insight into the 1000km stare.

Hi Arb,

You always have very well-articulated points in your arguments, something which I always appreciate. As someone who considers themselves a conservative, I’d like to respond.

First, often the differences aren’t in the theory behind our positions, but in their application. I find often that the arguments from the left are very high-level, and miss a lot of the pertinent details on the ground.

For instance, your comment that “dealing with the precursors to crime and criminality – poverty, discrimination, and inequality… is a much more efficient and effective way to deal with crime in a society”. How much time do you think is required to solve these issues, and what do you propose happens in the meantime?

The deterrent of prison aside, many of these criminals need to be kept apart from society while all this nice and hopeful reform is going on. Yes, all this social reform is great, but in the meantime we need more enforcement, punishment, and incarceration as key and necessary factors in reducing (not solving) the issues that exist out there. Not the “why did Johnny do this?” issue, but “how do I keep Johnny from stealing my stuff or murdering my family while his head’s being sorted out” issue.

Also, because of the “innocent until proven guilty” position we have, we often have to wait until someone’s actually committed a crime before any of these social programs and resources can kick in. Otherwise, how do you distinguish between those wanting to commit a crime from those who actually will? Isn’t it more “efficient” to address this issue at the bottom of the funnel rather than the top?

Second, I disagree with your position on what the precursors to crime are. You suggest environmental factors, that we’ve somehow created this evil world around all the people who would have otherwise NOT become criminals. I disagree, and this is what I feel is a major flaw in the left’s position. The left prefers to blame society – this nebulous, diluted, moving target and faceless enemy rather than the people who are usually most responsible (for example) for a child’s delinquency – the parents. Poverty is a precursor to crime only when the person decides to use it as an excuse. Same with discrimination. These become the convenient excuses that every child abuser, neglecter, juvenile delinquent, and hardened criminal uses to pass of responsibility for their own actions. I never see ANY left-leaning, liberal blog or advocate who places the blame where it should be placed – on the offending individual or their parent, and in the penal system where this wordview is in force, the results speak for themselves. The movie “Dear Zachary” is a shining example of this.

Third, the vehicle for your proposed solutions. More money and left-leaning thinking into public coffers only produces more poorly behaved children, juvenile delinquents, and parolees going free to recommit murders. If you’ve worked directly as or with any elementary teachers, prison employees, police officers, or social workers, you know this.

Sure, there are statistics to say the opposite, but I challenge those who are producing the statistics. In the areas I’ve worked in personally, they are horribly flawed and designed mostly to cover people’s own asses and protect their own jobs. I have not seen more money into the Alberta education system produce smarter or better-behaved children, reduce poverty, or reduce the amount of crime beyond any other factor than sheer luck could have produced on its own.

I guess all-in-all, my position from the right is that almost always on the left, the blame is missplaced to such a degree that any sort of solution proposed is either so general it’s effectively wrong, or so slow that it’s ultimately ineffective.

The position on the left seems too often to be theory-driven to the point where they’re negligent of (or apathetic towards) any on-the-ground actual results, and the position on the far right seems too often to be that correlation is causation, and where the “bigger picture” gets overlooked. I’m all for finding an effective balance between the two, but I don’t see it happening through those on the left with a world view that never seems to acknowledge or criticize the responsibility of the individual.

LikeLike

Inserting a “my next reply will be a short one, honest!” guarantee here, Arb. :)

LikeLike

I’ve heard about this book as well (or rather, the characters). Thanks for the links. Looking forward to reading it.

LikeLike

“More money and left-leaning thinking into public coffers only produces more poorly behaved children, juvenile delinquents, and parolees going free to recommit murders.”
Stated the way I did, yes this is largely an emotional response, and you’re correct in pointing out that I’m not basing it on any data. Let me restate my point/argument in the context of the original reply:

We’re in a society that loves to blame everything else but itself. I argue that the problem isn’t the school system, it isn’t the jails, it isn’t the free lunch program. The problem, in my opinion, is parents who adopt a left-leaning ideology that absolves them of any ownership of their situation when that ownership is clearly their own. The problem is a socialist ideology that, seemingly out of fear of offending sensitivities, prefers to lump the abusers in with the needy so that those who the benefits are truly intended for only receive a fraction of them.

No matter what social program exists around somebody, the difference to me has always comes down to their individual choices. Everything that’s said here does zero to acknowledge that, best I can tell, and yet that is clearly at the core between those who improve their situation vs. those who don’t (note I’m excluding here those who CAN’T). What good, then, is throwing more money at systems which ignore the true basis of personal change? What good does it do, also, to automatically dismiss those who are critical of these systems’ inefficiency and in some cases, outright danger?

“You know what would have helped? A school breakfast/lunch program for all students (yes a program funded by the government that benefits others, dirty socialism at its worst)…
Arb, please. You’ve accused me (falsely) of calling all poor people lazy, now I’m supposedly arguing for children going hungry, save for some government program? You’re playing the classic liberal bleedheart card here for no reason. I said no such thing against school lunches or feeding kids, and you know that.

Btw, As a kid myself our family was making lunches for these kids when I was going to school in Alberta, so I do know what you speak of. My mother was a teacher, dealing with the coded kids you mention – kids going weeks without lunches, wearing the same clothes, no school supplies, etc.. (There’s currently a lice problem going through the school division, btw)

You continually try to paint me with the “anti-government/anti-social” brush, when I’ve stated many opinions to the contrary, such as regarding health care. Throw “school lunches” in there, now, too, but let’s get back to my point: a far left ideology lumps those who can’t afford food for their kids with those who, for a number of reasons, don’t care to. That same ideology keeps teachers underpaid and under-resourced, and supports a system that puts good teachers in the same pile as shitty teachers – again, ignoring/denying the responsibility or ability of the individual. It’s a system that’s almost entirely built upon unearned entitlement, and yet we wonder why kids have such a sense of unearned entitlement these days? Do you blame the right for this result?

If you’ll note, I’d also criticize a far-right view here, which in the case of school lunches would be likely, “make the parents pay for it”, and an argument against government waste. My position – government is the only way it can be guaranteed to a minimum standard. No, it wouldn’t be perfect, but so what – at least it’s there.

Overall, I support more of this approach when it comes to social spending: http://evidencebasedprograms.org/wordpress/

And to your comment about my “ivory tower”: I don’t need a study to tell me 1/2 the teachers at my mother’s school are useless. The other half of the teachers, the kids, and a number of the RESPONSIBLE parents are proof. Conversely, I also don’t need a study to tell me the good ones are underpaid and under-resourced. That’s not coming from some “ivory tower”, it’s coming from educated and objective observation at the ground level where I’m seeing more than just typing – much the same kind of observation that you can offer as a university prof.

Now, I’ve never been a social worker, but I’ve done everything possible to walk a mile in their shoes before being critical of that system. Same with education, same with military, same with law enforcement. With that, I do have criticisms however I’m the first to let a social worker, teacher, cop, or soldier correct me on them, or offer alternate positions to my views.

Conversely, I see a lot of people here act all anti-corporate when I haven’t seen anyone who has ever actually owned or run a legitimate business. Then, they criticize the right for being ignorant and unsympathetic/empathetic – that they’re ignorant, they don’t listen, they don’t read, etc.. Yet from where I stand, that’s exactly what everyone seems to do here.

p.s. an interesting article on prevention vs. punishment that echoes my own views.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1923144,00.html

LikeLike

“And we both know that prisons most certainly “fix” people so they can fit seamlessly back into society. So what is to be done?”

I don’t think that’s entirely certain. There’s people who prison scares straight, and others who come out more hardened and bitter. (link from another reply: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1923144,00.html) What’s the right mix? I don’t know.

As a juvenile, I avoided JDC but my friends were kids who were in and out of there all the time. The ones who were in there a lot simply got used to it, which, I agree, made them think that’s the best they could do in life. Those of us who avoided it or were only in once, vowed never to be in there (again). Same with those I know in adult prison.

The thing is, it’s not the prison per se, it’s the other convicts. So as a poor answer to “what is to be done?”, I think a start is to keep minor criminals out of jail. I would propose a military boot camp for juveniles that builds discipline, self-respect, and confidence rather than removing it.

For white collar criminals, I’d throw them into the hardened criminal population. They won’t turn into tattooed gangbangers, and if anything, they’ll be constantly in fear of being beaten or raped by them. White collar jail is too much a country club.

As for the “career” criminals, depending on the severity of the crime, I’ve got a few “out there” ideas that I’ll save for another post. :)

LikeLike

I’m really frakkingly-hyper-intensively-interested on your hearing your solutions to this, because most conservative solutions that deal with high-risk youth often end with having them incarcerated for long periods of time.

I don’t have a blanket solution. As for conservative offers that I’ve seen/read about, they seem largely based upon scaring someone straight. I don’t disagree with that, but I don’t fully agree with it either. It’s like a company – sometimes the carrot works, sometimes the stick. It depends on the individual.

With that, I come back to my left vs. right position. The left proposes usually a top-down approach for many reasons, which I think creates as many problems as it tries to solve.

With all the PC crap we have going on right now, all kids get first place ribbons, and you can’t call a kid “bad” based on his behavior. How does that build self-esteem? Those teachers who truly have a gift in connecting with kids – the ones who kids remember and admire well into adulthood – why aren’t they rewarded, either financially or otherwise, for exceptional performance?

Why not make parents accountable for their kid’s grades (improvement first, maintenance second)? What about making parents accountable for their kid’s behavior? (Oh, right, because the PC system says that you can’t call a kid “bad”). How do we discourage unwanted pregnancies? How do we discourage “kids for cash” welfare abuse? How do punish a mother for drinking during pregnancy, or effectively prevent it?

Teachers and social workers get the shit end of the stick with all of that. Imagine a doctor, nurse, or shrink that had to spend 240 days a year with a patient? Yet teachers do. Social workers, same thing.

If I had to invent a solution, it would be directed at the leverage point which is the parent. Better parenting = less stress on the hospitals (ex: FAS), = less stress on teachers, = Less welfare, less crime, etc. There are a vast number of role models from every background and every economic or social situation which could serve as examples here to be modeled.

I would also support mandatory military service. Not necessarily gun-in-hand, could be logistics or peace corps type stuff. I know this would have smartened me up years before I finally did. Among other things, I think it gives us some sense of a higher authority.

Beyond that, I don’t know. We can only start with our own, and so many of us don’t even do that.

LikeLike

It’s a busy week Vern, I have several replies formulating, but not the time to get them up. I managed a Wednesday off, so I’ll see what I can do. :)
Not sure if this is under the right thread, but just wanted to say, “No rush!” on the replies. I’d welcome some knee-jerk, emotional responses that don’t take days to think or write out – would make things feel more “equal”. haha

LikeLike

I know Vern, but sometimes being told what it is like in the trenches, when you’re actually in the trenches, makes one mad. And you succeeded :) But with a little time and space I can reformulate my answers and approach to a more appropriate level.
That almost sounds like a suggestion? :) I re-read my one reply and realize there was more frustration and tone there than I originally intended. Apologies where necessary. As for appropriate, your choice whether to be or not, but I appreciate the responses and dialogue either way.

If I can go back to where this all started, it’s that I believe socialism is far too blunt an instrument for some things, and “pure” capitalism is far too fine for others. I also believe positions/ideologies that are based upon either come with a degree of ignorance that it seems we both find frustrating. Your post talked about it occurring on the right, whereas I find a similar level of ignorance occurs on the left which leaves people at a net zero.

My argument lies with the fact that you cannot punish someone into obedience, because once offenders leave their structured environment they most likely will revert back to their old habits.
That seems absolute? I was punished into obedience many times, and feared parental discipline far more than teacher or court discipline. It’s sad nowdays that “structure” only seems to occur in jail.

What opposes this community based approach? The competitive atomizing nature of capitalist society, its hard to share community when work expectations are so very high that there is no time be in the community and get to know your neighbours.
Or one’s kids! I happen to agree – it is atomizing. However, I love it. Better that than a system keeping me down. :)

LikeLike

A question though, did you learn the lesson, or did you learn to fear the authority that it emanated from?
I didn’t learn any lesson at all, except a desire to avoid punishment. Fear kept me away from the wrong things and more towards the right things. Otherwise, I would have succumbed to peer pressure (another fear) every time. Thankfully, the fear was there long enough for me to finally clue in that I did actually have potential. Somewhere along the way I found some self-worth, and realized that people were trying to protect me from permanent mistakes, not drive my sense of self-worth even further down.

I agree about the child and the role vs. the phase of the problem child. Big believer in systems, that often the child is an indicator of a breakdown in the bigger system and not the problem themselves.

“Kids do well if they wanna” vs. “Kids do well if they can”. It’s a hard argument to separate in those terms. I watched the video, and was disagreeing right up until 3:28 when he said “something must be getting in the way”.

In the context of our discussion, does poverty get in the way? To me, financially – of course, but mentally – not on its own. It requires a decision (conscious or subconscious) that poverty is all one can ever have or can expect. It’s a belief that one’s self worth is equal to their circumstances. Maybe that belief gets reinforced by bad parents, by poor teachers, by the kid’s peer group, but to me it’s still a choice on some level.

Consider Liz Murray’s story.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/26/liz-murray-bronx-harvard

To me, the “can” starts first with the knowledge that people always have a choice, and second that their choice can have an impact. I think often-times the social systems we have are too quick to label, group, and homogenize which takes both the recognition and power of that choice and the perception of its impact away. Look at good teachers – how many of them feel empowered to go outside the norm to reach their kids, but then give up because they believe the system that they’re in will either oppose it, abort it, or negate it? My mother is a retiring teacher and is refusing to have any of her grandchildren go through “regular” public school for those reasons – it doesn’t teach kids choice or responsibility, and it removes a teacher’s choice and yet adds on to their “responsibility”. I don’t think more money will help there, and that only a parental “wake up call” will.

The capitalist system keeps people down in a different way (see wage stagnation and the continued socialism of the rich)
Companies do a great job of convincing people they are helpless without them, just as politicians do. Some companies even make politicians feel they are helpless, but all of this is fueled by individual greed, not corporate greed.

Keep in mind, too, that capital isn’t just financial. There is also emotional capital – the emotions that get triggered and cause people to get off their wallets. The reality is most adults have little to no emotional maturity – they aren’t in control of their emotions in some cases, and are addicted to certain emotions in others. They try to act all rational, but it’s their emotions that are truly in the driver’s seat. Unless either a) a significant emotional event occurs which causes a breakthrough, or b) someone is in an environment where their emotional maturity can develop, people get screwed no matter what system they happen to be living under – socialist, capitalist, or otherwise.

What you’re talking about with wage stagnation fits into this. If people wanted to do better, could they? Perhaps. If they could do better, would they? For the most part, honestly, I don’t think so. Only a select few. The rest trade growth for security, which is why many in the end feel unfulfilled and are looking for either a temporary fix (drugs, alcohol, “toys”, shopping, eating, cigarettes, TV, etc.) or a more permanent one, like blaming government, big business, the Chinese, illness, or whatever in order to get a sense of significance.

I believe CEO salaries have gone to ridiculous levels, but also that some of the wage stagnation data may be incomplete or misleading (ex: did these people take employee stock options in lieu of wage increases?) Nonetheless, my overall belief is that wage stagnation occurred largely for the reason that people traded growth for security, and had assumed that their investments rather than their salaries would be what ultimately took care of them. Instead of investing in a better education or more valuable set of skills, most chose instead to invest in a bigger house and nicer clothes. Those who took more risks (legally and ethically) through the only system that allows and rewards them for doing so (capitalism) should not be punished for that.

LikeLike