Market Based Morality?

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.
In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: empathy — citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility — acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions. Empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.
The conservative worldview rejects all of that.
Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.
But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?
The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.
The market itself is seen in this way. The slogan, "Let the market decide" assumes the market itself is The Decider. The market is seen as both natural (since it is assumed that people naturally seek their self-interest) and moral (if everyone seeks their own profit, the profit of all will be maximized by the invisible hand). As the ultimate moral authority, there should be no power higher than the market that might go against market values. Thus the government can spend money to protect the market and promote market values, but should not rule over it either through (1) regulation, (2) taxation, (3) unions and worker rights, (4) environmental protection or food safety laws, and (5) tort cases. Moreover, government should not do public service. The market has service industries for that. ........................................

George Lakoff is Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley. He is the author of The California Democracy Act, a grassroots California ballot initiative now organizing public support...

His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper.

The proof is in the pudding.

Definition by one's enemies is rarely flattering .................................

.......................... and even more rarely accurate.

ziggy wrote:we should keep that in mind when conservatives of every make and model seek to re-define liberalism.

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Political Liberalism is an update to John Rawls' Theory of Justice (1971) in which he attempts to show that his theory of justice is not a "comprehensive conception of the good", but is instead compatible with a liberal conception of the role of justice: namely, that government should be neutral between competing conceptions of the good. Rawls tries to show that his two principles of justice, properly understood, form a "theory of the right" (as opposed to a theory of the good) which would be supported by all reasonable individuals, even under conditions of reasonable pluralism. The mechanism by which he demonstrates this is called "overlapping consensus".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Liberalism

Economic liberalism is the economic component of classical liberalism.[1] It is an economic philosophy that supports and promotes laissez-faire economics and private property in the means of production. Proponents of economic liberalism believe political freedom and social freedom are inseparable with economic freedom, and use philosophical arguments promoting liberty to justify economic liberalism and the free market. Although economic liberalism can be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, it tends to oppose government intervention in the free market that inhibits free trade and competition. Economic liberalism contrasts with mercantilism, the social market model, economic planning, socialism,[2] and fascist economics.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism

Social Liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in that it believes it to be a legitimate role of the state to address economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[1] Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following the Second World War.[2] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

Modern American liberalism is a form of social liberalism developed from progressive ideals such as Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. It combines social liberalism and social progressivism with support for a welfare state and a mixed economy. American liberal causes include voting rights for African Americans, abortion rights for women, gay rights and government entitlements such as education and health care.[1]

Keynesian economic theory has played a central role in the economic philosophy of American liberals.[2] The argument has been that national prosperity requires government management of the macroeconomy, to keep unemployment low, inflation in check, and growth high.[2] John F. Kennedy defined a liberal as follows:

“ ...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal'.[3] ”

Most American liberals support a mixed economy because they fear the extremes of wealth and poverty under unrestrained capitalism; they point to the widespread prosperity enjoyed under a mixed economy in the years since World War II.[4][5] They believe that all citizens are entitled to the basic necessities of life and they champion the protection of the environment.[6][7] Modern American liberalism is typically associated with the Democratic Party.[8]

As of June 2010, 40% of American voters identify themselves as conservatives, 36% as moderates and 22% as liberals.[8] There has been a high level of stability over the last two decades. In 1992 40% of voters called themselves conservative, 35% moderate and 18% liberal[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.

Democrats help radical conservatives by accepting the deficit frame and arguing about what to cut. Even arguing against specific "cuts" is working within the conservative frame. What is the alternative? Pointing out what conservatives really want. Point out that there is plenty of money in America, and in Wisconsin. It is at the top. The disparity in financial assets is un-American - the top one percent has more financial assets than the bottom 95 percent.

They help conservatives when they neglect to remind us that pensions are deferred payments for work done. "Benefits" are pay for work, not a handout. Pensions and benefits are arranged by contract.

.....candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: empathy — citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility — acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions. Empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The politicians & media mouthpieces that Lakoff calls conservative are radicals who want a restoration of the economics of the late 19th-century era, a time of misery, powerlessness, & lack of freedom for working Americans and unrestrained power & privilege for the wealthy barons of commerce and industry.

ziggy wrote:

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.

The politicians & media mouthpieces that Lakoff calls conservative are radicals who want a restoration of the economics of the late 19th-century era, a time of misery, powerlessness, & lack of freedom for working Americans and unrestrained power & privilege for the wealthy barons of commerce and industry.

The politicians & media mouthpieces that Lakoff calls conservative are radicals who want a restoration of the economics of the late 19th-century era, a time of misery, powerlessness, & lack of freedom for working Americans and unrestrained power & privilege for the wealthy barons of commerce and industry.

What is your basis for this? Who has specifically called for this?

"Lack of freedom for working Americans..."? Perhaps you never heard of the Berlin Wall? It was not built to keep foreigners out. It was built to keep East Germans in. This is the lasting monument to socialism. This is the symbol of the "caring" and "empathy" you mistakenly seek.

"Oh," you might say, "This time will be different. True socialism was never given a try." Sure it was. Mussolini was a socialist long before he was a fascist. The legacy of socialism is poverty, misery, and failure.

And while you're at it, why don't you see if you can answer this one. How does neutering labor unions of public employees empower corporations considering it's not corporate profits public union workers are taking money from, it is honest, hardworking tax payers, the ones who have no voice at the table during negotiations.