> 1. fair, and Americans immediately suspect that humans tend to favor their friends
> [...]
> Unfortunately Americans don't even really get fairness in practice.
You seem to believe that suspicion is US-specific? Why doesn't this apply to, say, Germany?
There's a saying for this, I believe the English one is: "Every man’s censure is first moulded in his own nature."
> This is why conservatives sometimes have a point - many regulations not only do not do anything for the public good, but they actually help entrenched interests.
They're just appealing to the common man who hates the rules, who doesn't like bureaucracy, or pay their tax even though all these rules within the law serve purposes. Also, if you look at the recent track record of a conservative (Bush) it isn't as if he simplified the books of law by say 1/3 due to removal of laws, or ensure that a law like the Espionage Act of 1917 or the PATRIOT Act aren't unnecessarily broad (oh wait, Bush enacted the PATRIOT Act). Or, they're going after international treaties which don't suit them such as international Co2 emission goals (Trump). In my country, someone like Wilders also abuses the "we're going to lessen the rules". It is empty marketing, nonsense, and populism. Nothing more, nothing less.
I didn't talk about other countries because I don't have as much direct experience dealing with them.
I do think that Americans tend to have a much rigid view about corruption, fair dealing, and law than say Chinese people do. In some situations that rigidity is helpful, and in others I think it's actively harmful.
As for your opinion of conservatives: I pretty much agree that their attack on the federal government in particular is motivated by naked self interest, and they are not the ones who can 'fix' the ills of the federal bureaucracy (at least not without enormous amounts of harm along the way).
But that doesn't mean that their criticisms should be completely ignored. The best sort of marketing is that one that mixes lies with truth.
I think when conservatives assail the federal bureaucracy for being huge, unaccountable, and grossly inefficient, they are largely correct, even if their proposed solutions would probably make things even worse.
Unfortunately this has become a political point that those on the left largely don't want to concede because it complicates the argument for expanding health care.
> They're just appealing to the common man who hates the rules
Actually, the urban poor vote strongly Democratic. It's small business owners who are the target of this rhetoric, and it's because there's a lot of truth there: the cost of regulatory compliance often falls most heavily on small businesses that have just over 10 workers.
They are too small to achieve scale and amortize compliance costs over many people. Small businesses and entrepreneurs are definitely people Democrats should support and help, but I have literally never seen anything on the platform that would make their lives easier.
Thanks for the clarification, makes a lot of sense regarding that your post is US-centric.
It seems the US is #18 on the Corruptions Perception Index [1] behind New Zealand, Singapore, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong (in contrast to China who are #74) and a whole slew of European countries. Note # doesn't say much about absolute numbers.
> Actually, the urban poor vote strongly Democratic
Not sure what urban poor exactly means but I've seen a documentary series [2] about certain groups and why they voted for Trump. Because he's anti-establishment. They see him as a potential savior whereas Clinton was seen as the status quo. It would not surprise me if these people would normally vote Dems but this time they did not. Anyway, if they vote Dems, then they're a potential target for this rhetoric by the Reps.
> It's small business owners who are the target of this rhetoric, and it's because there's a lot of truth there: the cost of regulatory compliance often falls most heavily on small businesses that have just over 10 workers.
Or maybe they’re a coalition, encompassing factions of vastly different ideologies and priorities who internally struggle for directional control of the party, but always need to keep the other factions pleased enough. Just like the other party. Don’t let yourself by blinded by partisanship. Your post is kind of absurd as a reaction to someone suggesting that maybe some of the other party’s ideas are sensible.
Not sure how that's a coherent reply to that specific post but as an overall response to my expressed viewpoint I get it.
I'm European, for me practically all politicians in the US are extreme far right. Its just that generally the Democrats are slightly less extreme, and perhaps slightly less authoritarian (following politicalcompass.org theory of x-axis and y-axis [1])
I do agree that one should never dismiss a party, especially not in the United States of America which is practically a two party system where you pick Red or Blue. Because you never know which candidate is put forth. Less short-term wise we've also seen shifts in party politics, for example the neo-conservatives taking over the Reps.
> 1. fair, and Americans immediately suspect that humans tend to favor their friends
> [...]
> Unfortunately Americans don't even really get fairness in practice.
You seem to believe that suspicion is US-specific? Why doesn't this apply to, say, Germany?
There's a saying for this, I believe the English one is: "Every man’s censure is first moulded in his own nature."
> This is why conservatives sometimes have a point - many regulations not only do not do anything for the public good, but they actually help entrenched interests.
They're just appealing to the common man who hates the rules, who doesn't like bureaucracy, or pay their tax even though all these rules within the law serve purposes. Also, if you look at the recent track record of a conservative (Bush) it isn't as if he simplified the books of law by say 1/3 due to removal of laws, or ensure that a law like the Espionage Act of 1917 or the PATRIOT Act aren't unnecessarily broad (oh wait, Bush enacted the PATRIOT Act). Or, they're going after international treaties which don't suit them such as international Co2 emission goals (Trump). In my country, someone like Wilders also abuses the "we're going to lessen the rules". It is empty marketing, nonsense, and populism. Nothing more, nothing less.