There are two core components of the progressive/utilitarian political philosophy that has dominated Rhode Island government for decades and led to its current state.
1. The ends justify the means. The ruling class and its progressive supporters hold that bad actions (loaning public money to private businesses, discriminating based on race, dishonesty, supporting questionable candidates, tolerating union abuses, increasing waste and bureaucracy, encouraging dependency) are all justified if they lead to good outcomes. What this motivation ignores is that poisonous actions beget poisonous outcomes and end up destroying the utopian end goal through a corrupted process. In a properly functioning society, people are encouraged to act based on categorical principles instead of utilitarian calculations to achieve personal preferences through force.
2. Perverse incentives don't matter. The ruling class and its progressive supporters hold that attractive or well-intentioned policies (generous welfare, benefits for illegal immigrants, extension of unemployment for years on end, disability without rigorous screening) can ignore the most likely or worst-case human response that the policies incentivize. The justification is that deficiencies can always be mitigated later through subsequent laws or ignored by discretion if the situation warrants. The unfortunate reality is that perverse incentives inevitably lead to perverse outcomes. Responsible public policy accounts for human nature instead of ignoring it with the idea of managing it later or dealing with it on a case by case basis.

The vast majority of Rhode Island residents agree with these core progressive principles. They may not be able to articulate them, but their votes and actions lend them support. It's an engrained, outcome-driven, "quick fix" culture that has taken a century to develop and will take at least that long to undevelop. The predicable result is that the state has become more ethically and economically dysfunctional over the past several decades as corrupt means lead to corrupt ends and bad incentives lead to bad outcomes. Unless we can somehow change these core philosophies of the state, nothing will change. I see no evidence that this is possible or likely.

"Human beings are rational"

I'm discovering more and more that they often aren't. While most of us seem to be good at evaluating obvious value propositions right in front of our face, we seem almost completely unable to make long-term decisions rationally.

Economists and sociologists are seeing this, too. If you offer someone $20 now or $25 next week (1300% annual interest!), they almost invariably go for the $20 now.

Rhode Islanders have doubled their gambling since 2004, that's something like $1,400 average per-capita additional spending on a virtually guaranteed loss. Our response to stagnant wages, rising prices, and decreased fiscal security is to GAMBLE MORE?!

Seeing these part of our nature, it's easy to see why people vote for politicians who promise more than they can pay for.

Perhaps most strikingly, I've seen more and more self-described 'poor' people skipping the whole 'value assessment' part of purchasing, they just get what they want, regardless of unit cost, because 'I'm poor and this is my luxury. And so is this. And this. And cable TV. And not paying rent. And $200 jeans. And an iPhone. And a Lexus. And a big screen TV from Rent-a-Center.'

"The ends justify the means."

What utter nonsense and false framing. Not worth a serious response. You really don't understand progressives, semingly at all.

Say, what's the Republican view on torture these days? How about violating other nation's sovereignty?

The "progressives"have what they want-let them live and die with it.The hell with them and really-why waste another second communicating with the bastards?

It is emphatically *not* nonsense, Russ. You dislike this characterization of your movement, but every position your fellow progressives on RIFuture espouse boils down to the ends justifying the means. Tolerating NEARI intimidation tactics: they represent public teachers, so their unethical behavior is justified. 5-6% COLAs and disability abuse: the money is going to the middle class, so it's okay. Affirmative action: discrimination is okay if it's rectifying past discrimination. Gordon Fox: He's a crooked politician, but he'll get us gay marriage. Cicilline: He lied to the voters, but he's a progressive voice in Congress. RIEDC: We're gambling taxpayer money and corrupting the economy, but we can use it to fund industries progressives like. Every single position is a utilitarian calculation about how to get the ends you favor while turning a blind eye to perverse incentives and the eggs that will be broken while making the omelette.

As for your counterexamples, I'm not a Republican or a neoconservative, so perhaps somebody who is either would be willing to defend those practices I abhor.

mangeek: ""Human beings are rational" et seq

While this may, or may not, be the case; there is still the attraction of the simple.

Yesterday morning I visited Dunkin Donuts and chatted with a woman who claims to run an escort service, sometimes she describes this as "catering". She lives in Massachusetts. I don't even know her name, but she has seemed intelligent.

While discussing the election I was struck at how she was attracted to simplicity. "Women voted against Romney because he would end abortion. Women have a right to do whatever they wish with their bodies". She could not answer why they should not be allowed to put drugs in their bodies.

On the suicide initiative, "People intent on suicide will do it anyway". She could not formulate an answer to "If you were walking across a bridge and saw someone preparing to jump; would you try to persuade them otherwise, or would you offer a push? I understand that initiative failed because voters believed the law to be poorly drafted. Perhaps, if they know someone truly suffering, they prefer to rely on Hospice's instructions on how much morphine will kill them.

She was also convinced that it was Ryan who made the comment about the body having natural defenses to rape. She would not hear otherwise.

"I'm not a Republican or a neoconservative..."

Sorry, did you vote for Gary Johnson this election? Who were Romney's foreign policy advisors?
www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/12/the_romney_cheney_doctrine?page=full

Note, I felt strongly enough about those issues and others not to vote for Obama. I say, people in glass houses, etc. etc.

The rest is just nonsense ranting.

The problem is the decrease in the number of people even willing to have reasonable constructive debate on ideas. Demagoguery and simplistic rhetoric rule as shown in the Warrington Faust’s example.

I consider myself conservative but cannot fathom how anyone can listen to Rush Limbaugh and reasonably think to themselves “he has a good point”. And he is by far the most listened to person in the US though I understand some of his listeners do so to be enraged and do not share his view.

The reality is that, unfortunately, there are far fewer people in between Rush and say, Keith Olbermann. I’ve read that over 70% of white people voted for Romney (mostly male) but only 10% of African-Americans voted for him. That’s amazing to me. In other words, the racism card still works against Republicans. I also recall reading about Clay Aiken saying how any woman or minority who was at the RNC should be ashamed of themselves. Seriously.

Politics is now totally adversarial and the left is now winning the demagoguery fight. What is so dispiriting to me is not that the left is winning that fight, but that demagoguery is clearly an effective mind-changer. There is not battle of ideas because too few people want to discuss ideas. The electorate has become intellectually lazy in my view. Why discuss an idea when one can just win by name-calling? Yes, Republicans support rape, would ‘put them back in chains’ while taking money from the poor and give it to the rich. The problem is that there are too many people who believe that just as there are too many people who believe Obama is the next Mao Tse-Tung. No debate can bridge that gap and the gap is getting wider.

My main point is the intellectual laziness of more and more people and how it affects decision making. For me, I first noticed it with the OJ trial and has gone downhill from there.

"Sorry, did you vote for Gary Johnson this election?"

I stayed home because I don't like either national party and I don't know enough about local Virginia politicians to make an informed decision. The voters seem to have the situation under control because taxes are low, corruption is low, and quality of life is high. If I were living in an overtaxed, overregulated, corrupt state that dabbles in central economic planning and provides wretched public services, then I might have decided differently. But I already voted with my feet by moving out and in doing so denied Rhode Island politicians hundreds of thousands of dollars in future tax revenue to misspend, so I've done my part.

"The rest is just nonsense ranting."

Insult my characterization all you like, but it's not nonsense, it's true. You can't dispute any of the concrete examples I listed, and I can offer a dozen more examples if you'd like. Progressivism boils down to ignoring perverse incentives and the ends justifying the means. If you can explain to me how this is not the case with reference to the above examples, I'm all ears, but since it's conveniently "not worth a serious response," I won't expect one.

Happy 8th Anniversary Anchor Rising. Wishing you all the best...Sammy

"You can't dispute any of the concrete examples..."

And you think grandmothers should drown in their attics so you don't have to pay a couple cents more at the gas pump. Please prove that you dont' hate grandmothers. Quite fun! (and total nonsense)

Russ - Just because I'm not giving the same favorable characterizations of progressivism that you would choose doesn't mean that I'm spouting "nonsense." All of my statements have a factual basis and many of them are not even in significant dispute. Those are in fact things progressives have supported, and those same basic justifications have been offered on RIFuture and other blogs for everything I list. Saying progressives supported Fox and Cicilline this election for utilitarian reasons, or saying that progressives support affirmative action because they feel the discrimination is justified, isn't the same as saying fiscal conservatives want grandmothers to drown. You're taking what are essentially reasonable differences in characterization and comparing them with ludicrous hyperbole for the purpose of avoiding discussion entirely. If you disagree with my characterization of progressivism, nothing is preventing you from responding with a reasoned discussion of how the ends don't justify the means to progressives and offering counterexamples or recharacterizing mine. Saying it's "not worth a serious response" and storming off is a cop-out.

msteven:
"I’ve read that over 70% of white people voted for Romney (mostly male) but only 10% of African-Americans voted for him."

I thnk you got the numbers wrong, although they are not finalized yet. It does seem true that 71% of white males voted for Romney. 10.3% of voters were black. 12.4 were Hispanic. Blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama. I have not seen a Hispanic breakdown. Obviously, Republicans are having a difficult time connecting with minorities. It is sort of the reverse of what Howard Dean said of the Democrats being unable to connect with "those guys with Confederate flags on thier pick ups".

As Obama appears to have wom with a 2% plurality, it could easily be said that blacks gave him the victory. Of course, the same could be said of Hispanics, women, or any other identifiable group.

republicans can see the shift, by 2050 whites will be a minority. They have to do something. I think what we have is known as "tribal politics".

Warrington:
My concern is that nothing can be done. Republicans are stained (unfairly) by slavery, KKK and racism. I think time has proven this generalization to be effective. Minorities that are conservatives are viewed as traitors or my personal favorite “RINO” (i.e.: Colin Powell). They are also ignored or attacked by the increasingly biased media. The conservative message “should” apply regardless of race or gender. But it clearly does not and that is at least partially due to the stigma of racism.

I’m not saying this is fair but I do think it is an unfortunate reality.

First, congratulations on completing 8 years of Anchor Rising.

I am reading a few conservative sites these days who seem to be in despair that the voters have so completely rejected the Republican positions and slates of candidates this cycle. What I don't understand is how anyone could think that the national Republican party platform, candidates, or positions could possibly be thought of as conservative. Romney's foreign policy seemed to be "Four More Wars!" and the intrusions into personal liberties called for by the evangelical base were horrifying. The fiscal policy was arrant nonsense. I found myself unable to vote for either national candidate, once again.

I grew up in the days of the Rockefeller Republican and the Sam Nunn/Henry Jackson Democrats - strong defense backing up a modest foreign policy, socially moderate, attentive to infrastructure and the social safety net, and fiscally sound. Where did these folks go?

First, congratulations on completing 8 years of Anchor Rising.

I am reading a few conservative sites these days who seem to be in despair that the voters have so completely rejected the Republican positions and slates of candidates this cycle. What I don't understand is how anyone could think that the national Republican party platform, candidates, or positions could possibly be thought of as conservative. Romney's foreign policy seemed to be "Four More Wars!" and the intrusions into personal liberties called for by the evangelical base were horrifying. The fiscal policy was arrant nonsense. I found myself unable to vote for either national candidate, once again.

I grew up in the days of the Rockefeller Republican and the Sam Nunn/Henry Jackson Democrats - strong defense backing up a modest foreign policy, socially moderate, attentive to infrastructure and the social safety net, and fiscally sound. Where did these folks go?

"Romney's foreign policy seemed to be "Four More Wars!" and the intrusions into personal liberties called for by the evangelical base were horrifying. The fiscal policy was arrant nonsense."

Sounds more like a regurgitation of something you read on RIF. What wars? What personal liberties? Arrant nonsense? What the hell do you call the current administration's fiscal policy or lack of one?

Msteven "Republicans are stained (unfairly) by slavery, KKK and racism"

You bet it is unfair. "Radical Republicans" the "Party of Lincoln" who brought about abolition. They also gave us a truly repressive "reconstruction". This explains the Democratic "solid South", but seems at odds with the idea that blacks are solidly Democratic. The KKK, definitely got its start in the Democratic South. Being a blue collar organization it did advance into the North when "Catholics and other immigrants" became the problem. Most former Congressmen in the KKK were Democrats.

"Racism", I am just old enough to remember "Jim Crow" when visiting my family in the South. That was the era of the Democratic "solid South". To be fair, my early memories and stories from my older relatives, suggest things were not much different in Providence. Blacks were segregated in movie theaters, balconies (remember those?) were called "Nigger Heavens". The difference, as it appeared to me, was that in Richmond "Jim Crow" was codified, in Providence, it was simply "understood". I remember it was on the Princess Anne Ferry, from Maryland to Virginia, where everything changed. Two water fountains, two men's rooms, Colored carry out signs, etc.

I repeat myself, but I have never forgotten a black client. I mentioned my family was from Virginia/North Carolina, he responded "If you are from North Carolina and you don't want to deal with niggers, you'll say so. Up here we don't know who we are dealing with".

"First, ideas can change. Human beings are rational"
Justin...really? When emotion rules the day rationality bites the dust. The national media helped cover up Libya (remember the CNN debate moderator Crowley helping Hussein lie?), the VP debate moderator Radige assisted idiot Biden, Fast and Furious (guns sent by Husseins administration to Mexican drug lords to gun down Americans) not even covered. But A-HA! Romney ran Bain Capital...NOW that's a story...AND...he's gonna mess with womens vaginas by denying them birth control. In today's American Idol cell phone drone society rationality is not a requisite> A TWITter account and FACEbook drivel are de rigeur of the masses. Romney was flawed but Hussein was propped up after he kept falling down. In a rational world society would not re-elect the party that destroyed their economy with corruption and cronyism. In RI the "Independent Man" has been bought off with a patronage job. It was the rational thing to do.

My one question is (and I hope it's answered):

Why aren't other folks allowed to blog here?

Sure, sometimes RIFuture can be a mess, but they have historically allowed most folks to post, with some obvious editorial slant and comb-through. Its publicly understood that anchorrising is the right-wing counterpoint to Bob's (formerly Matt's) left-liberal site. What message is this sending? Is conservatism a closed-shop?

So why not more voices? I hold strong conservative views on certain issues, AS DO MANY RIers.. But apparently I'll never post them here. I refuse to post my "progressive" collections of thoughts on rifuture because I still have no appropriate place to put my right-leaning musings.

"Sure, sometimes RIFuture can be a mess, but they have historically allowed most folks to post, with some obvious editorial slant and comb-through."

I'll let someone else answer about this blog but have you ever tried to post a story with a conservative slant on RIF? While I haven't either, some of us have been temporarily and permanently banned for just making opposing comments over there. Dan's banning was celebrated. I've had numerous comments with references to legitimate news stories deep sixed. I wouldn't give RIF any credit for being an open venue.

Mike - I believe guest contributors are allowed to post under the Town Crier label (or something similar) with a $50.00 payment. I agree with this policy because it maintains a certain level of quality and forces people to think about what they are writing and whether it's worth the expense (when things are free people don't value them - conservative philosophy at work). You mentioned RIFuture: they let anyone post and as a result the level of quality is somewhere between gutter and mad ravings. Alias Smith posted an edited picture of Brendan Doherty for commenters to throw rotten vegetables at. Frymaster posts 10-page schizophrenic rants that look like something out of A Beautiful Mind. The NEA union freely uses the site the spread its ludicrous propaganda. Even Bob Plain's posts range from decent to drivel when he's churning out his "grab bag" posts about everything and nothing ("Look at what Mitt Romney said yesterday... what a jerk!" Next topic -")

The reason I visit this site is because the posts are high quality and they make me think about issues in different ways.

Fair enough, you answered my question.

I do think the $50.00 amount (if that is still accurate) for guest posts may be a bit too high, now that I mention it. Something like $15 might be more reasonable - that would prevent the kind of Facebook-screed-quality rubbish that gets posted on RIFuture, but it would be less of a financial hurdle and more people might take advantage.

I'll have more of an answer for Mike later, but I wanted to clarify that the $50 Community Crier option is intended for content that is more like an advertisement.

The Engaged Citizen option doesn't cost anything, but it's for essays that are more like op-eds than press releases.

I'd just worry about the TOMMY CRANSTONs of the internet having a voice on the front page. I think the AR team does a really good job as-is. You can usually email the editors if you want to see their take on something posted in the next few days.

While we're on the broader topic - we should have an AR hangout some night this winter. I'll be back in Rhode Island sometime in December, I just have to book flights.

I think others have offered most of the rationales that I would state in response to Mike. It was never our intention to create a completely open forum, because our objective hasn't been so much to offer our side a forum in which to express itself, but a location in which the events and issues of the day are presented fairly, but from the perspective that our side takes on the world. The idea is to explain, perhaps to persuade. A certain care about who can take to the main page is therefore in order.

Obviously, Anchor Rising is still a relatively small player in the state, so we can't really be judged against the larger political and policy trends in the state. But I think it's an important bit of operational evidence that RIFuture is now on its fourth owner/operator.

"an AR hangout some night this winter"

YES! Anyone object to the German Club in Pawtucket, or perhaps the GCB on Brown campus? Both have great stuff on tap at very low prices, and profits generally go to good social causes like animal shelters, etc.

Max:

wars - Romney seemed to outsource his foreign policy to the Bush neocon crowd; he, they, and his main surrogates spent the campaign demanding intervention in Iran, intervention in Syria, action against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, reversal of the Afghanistan withdrawal (with some rumblings sotto voce about returning to Iraq) as well as a trade war with China and for dessert, a return to Russia as our most significant enemy. This just isn't a conservative position. What happened to maintaining a strong defense (and by that I don't mean a bloated arms-procurement effort shaped by lobbyists and defense contractors masquerading as a strong defense) and a sustainable network of international military defense partnerships? Romney seemed quite comfortable with the imperialist yearnings of the House of Bush, and that scares me.

Personal liberties - let's start with the personhood amendment and its effects on long established rights to privacy as it pertains to contraception, infertility treatment, and abortion under extreme circumstances. The anti-gay marriage efforts; marriage if anything should be a conservative value. And proceed to the voter suppression efforts, the "papers, please" laws... I won't get started on the massive invasion of civil rights that is the Patriot Act... that's a sin against conservative values perpetrated by both sides in a pathetic effort to insure, not safety, but an impression of safety.

The economy is a mess and I think neither side has any idea how to broker a responsible solution. Romney/Ryan's budget certainly doesn't do it - the 2 trillion increase in defense spending alone should have conservatives gasping for air (unless, of course, it's needed for an undisclosed expansionist neocon military agenda abroad) and the flat refusal of either Romney or Ryan to be specific about the details of the budget-balancing reductions to tax loopholes and discretionary program cuts is flatly irresponsible.

My point is that Republican and conservative no longer overlap to the degree that this conservative can feel comfortable voting for Republican candidates at the national level. (I didn't vote for Obama, either.)

I think that a true conservative agenda - strong and agile defense based on defense, not belligerence; a government properly sized and resourced for the functions appropriate to government, support for common infrastructure projects which cannot reasonably be done by states or private corporations, a modest safety net aimed at temporary support and return to self-sufficiency, rigorous separation of church and state and also of the state from personal liberties - would find a ready response from a majority. Right now it's not that many of us don't trust conservatives - we don't trust republicans.

What is RIF?

Mangeek - Sounds good to me. Both locations are near my family's home (which I have been desperately trying to get them to sell for the past year). The best way would be for someone to post their e-mail address and then coordinate with respondents.

Zelda:

You can't hear what you don't listen too.

"an AR hangout some night this winter"

YES! Anyone object to the German Club in Pawtucket, or perhaps the GCB on Brown campus? Both have great stuff on tap at very low prices, and profits generally go to good social causes like animal shelters, etc.

Posted by mangeek at November 9, 2012 2:19 PM
sounds great count me in

Zelda,

Scoop Jackson's policies with regard to the Soviet Union were at least as bold as what you casually call Romney's support for "action against" the Muslim brotherhood. It was Jackson's opponents who believed that American criticism of illiberal (or worse) adversaries was unacceptably belligerent.

The idea that conservatism requires uniform left-wing positions on social issues is nothing more than a post-modernist word game. One of the many problems with this is that once you grant the left the absolute power to define acceptable positions on social issues, there will be no break on the growth of what the "functions appropriate to government" are, e.g. "separation of the state from personal liberties" becomes "must support taxpayer funding to create universal access to 'family planning'". We saw that in this very election.

Andrew,

You state the case too mildly. Simply put, fiscal conservatism cannot exist without social conservatism.

By its nature, government gives some people claims to other people's resources. Fiscal responsibility therefore requires either an unaccountable authority that can grant or reject those claims OR a requirement that citizens take responsibility for themselves. Option 2 becomes option 1 unless the mechanisms for enforcing that responsibility are social and cultural.

We can debate whether option 2 can coincide with such things as same-sex marriage, but that's rarely the case made for them.

Justin - I'm in agreement to an extent. Culture is extremely important, as is maintaining the integrity of key institutions. You'll find that many, if not most, libertarians are quite socially conservative in their private lives. Economists learned after the collapse of the Soviet Union that haphazardly instituting market mechanisms in the kleptocracy that remained without a bedrock capitalist culture of trade and societal trust in place was a recipe for failure. I just happen to believe that gay people can feel love and form strong family units as well as (at least) a significant portion of the heterosexual population - a question of fact, I suppose. No argument from me that government shouldn't be funding abortions, and I tell the Planned Parenthood folks as much when they accost me on the walk home from work a few times a month. On the issue of whether a fetus is life, I subscribe to the less black-and-white idea that different states of life may have different value, e.g., someone suffering brain death in a permanent coma is a less meaningful life than a fully functional human being.

"What is RIF?"

RIF is rifuture.org, a progressive blog currently run by Bob Plain.