We Need To Stop Calling Ourselves Conservatives

[Cherico]

Im of the opinion that the world is going to be a pretty fucky place for years if we are lucky, decades if I'm right but that there will be good times again eventually.

Its just going to suck getting from point A to point B.

And I mean really, really, really, suck.

 

[Abhorsen]

And without national level power, those local moves won't stick or spread, and can be reverse themselves by edicts from DC or rulings by SCOTUS.

No, they won't be. That's the nice thing about federalism. You know, ike how my numerous examples showed how we are right now winning?

The car is going to get gas no matter what, the only difference is your idea doesn't even attempt to regain control of the steering wheel.

No, it doesn't have to. That's the part you are missing. It has been shrunk in the past, it can be again.


And the idea that control of the steering wheel matters is the illusion they sell you the gas on. It's not hooked up. You need brakes.

I read it, and saw the usual AnCap/libertarian lines that are behind the times and which are ultimately self-defeating.

You do not win the PR war by trying to shy away from power, you win the PR war by taking power in society and media, and showing the Lefties lies about the Right are just that, lies.

"I want to win a PR war by doing the same thing the right has lost every PR war by doing." Yeah, hows that worked out the past 70 years of the right trying and failing at this?

Unless by power in society and media you mean organic power that comes from just honestly telling the truth, and watching as small government wins and big state governments crumble? Cause that's the libertarian way. But if you mean by using government control to do that, you guys have tried that over and over again and failed each time. It's laughable you think that this time daddy government will help you.

And 'getting rid of government' is a worthless take that does nothing but show you just want to virtue signal to other AnCaps and the 'small gov right' about how 'pure' you are.

You aren't getting rid of government, you aren't likely to be able to shrink it meaningfully, and you will make even more parts of the center look at libertarian as out-of-touch ideologues.

What I want isn't authoritarianism, however I am not naive enough to believe that the Right can accomplish many of it's stated goals without controlling just as much of the gov as the Left currently do. Which means the Right and libertarians are already decades behind the curve.

Deal with the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.

"WAAHHHH, you can't shrink government"

*Laughs in NH*. *Laughs in FL*. Thatcher's laughing at you too, btw. So is every state that legalized Marijuana. Same with all the states that refuse to cooperate with feds when it comes to gun control. This is just a dumb take that isn't reflected by reality. The only thing real about it is that there are a bunch of conservative/right leaning people who've given up and accepted leftism in deed, as much as they pretend otherwise, and you are one of them.

The only thing that matters is government size, as if it's big, they will crush you no matter who you are. Your naive belief that you can use it for your own ends is simply hilarious if it weren't what caused the problem in the first place.

You:

because that's functionally impossible.

The left is in a purity cycle and is an environment of constant witch hunts. Keeping them happy is impossible, apeasing them increasingly difficult. They currently hold the whip hand yes but they make enemies where ever they go. The pendulum will turn it will just be a really hard and difficult path.

Barcle has decided to suffer along side the people who are also fucked rather then get into a cultist race that simply can not be one and barely even survived.

No, he's gone from running with them to trying to out race them to hell. It's not a viable solution (as the right is slower by nature), and it gets you to the same awful place regardless of who wins. Government has never been an answer. He's improved from a supporter to a useful idiot.

 

[Skallagrim]

You:

Yes -- If one wants a good example of what conservatism should really aim for, Tolkien is in fact a great example. Both in his writing (all about how dangerous power is, and how it shouldn't -- and can't be -- "used for good") and in his life (very traditionalist and very unwilling to impose his views on others; aware of the many blights upon the world, but always seeking out the spots of beauty and light).

 

[Bacle]

Nice way to snip the convo and smear me at the same time, real clever./s

You seem to have missed the part where I gave a clear example that proves my point.

Your example is not really applicable to US politics, because guess what, no one (outside fools) expects a US politican to be even close to what Jesus was, even if they do worship him. And the US electorate is more than just Christians, too, and politicians have to keep that in mind.

Once again, your cognitive dissonance strikes. You say that you "deal with the world as it is", but the opposite is true. The advice you give to conservatives always boils down to "be more centrist, guys! stop being so conservative!"

Have you considered there might be more people in the center than on the Right or Left? Or at least more people on the fence, in the center?

Elections, when secure, are won by addition, not subtraction; the more you go hard right, the easier it is to lose part of the center at the cost of a smaller gain on the other end.

It's a numbers game, and it's a ROI calculation; moving towards the center hs the potential to net more votes than by trying to keep pushing further Right all the time, or go into purity spirals about what is 'Right Wing'. Standing on principle may sound well and good in an epic drama, but in the real world gas prices, Hollywood opinions, the views of Ivory League academics, and of just random famous people do matter, no matter how much the Right wish they didn't.

It boils down to better political ROI focusing on the issues and things that matter to fencesitters in the middle, than to preaching to the choir/already converted.

What a coincidence: you're a centrist who was disappointed with the Democrats swerving hard to the left, so you hopped onto the GOP bandwagon, and now you want to turn the GOP into a centrist party. Your advice is never "what's good for conservatives", because in reality, you are completely unable (or unwilling) to make any distinction between "what's good for conservatives" and "what Bacle happens to like (which is turning conservatism into centrism)".

Well, I think I'd have a better view of what the situation is like on the ground than foreigners like you.

I've noticed a lot of foreign conservatives like to come and try to tell US conservatives how to operate, but hate when US 'centrists' tell them that they're ideology just isn't useful for the US political scene.

A moderate person in the US is more likely to have a realistic view of US politics, than someone who from a foreign nation the size of a postage stamp.

You do nothing but focus on "the world as you wish it to be".

If there's one thing for certain, it's that the right will never benefit from adopting your mindset.

And the idea you have a more realistic view of the US domestic scene than I do is laughable.

No, they won't be. That's the nice thing about federalism. You know, ike how my numerous examples showed how we are right now winning?

Federalism is a nice feature, but it is not a replacement for the power in DC, and most state level powers effectively exist at the whim of DC, who can and will issue edicts if it feels the need/desire, as the Wu Flu showed.

No, it doesn't have to. That's the part you are missing. It has been shrunk in the past, it can be again.

And the idea that control of the steering wheel matters is the illusion they sell you the gas on. It's not hooked up. You need brakes.
"I want to win a PR war by doing the same thing the right has lost every PR war by doing." Yeah, hows that worked out the past 70 years of the right trying and failing at this?

Unless by power in society and media you mean organic power that comes from just honestly telling the truth, and watching as small government wins and big state governments crumble? Cause that's the libertarian way. But if you mean by using government control to do that, you guys have tried that over and over again and failed each time. It's laughable you think that this time daddy government will help you.

Libertarians have no answer for how to deal with international fuckery like the Wu Flu and the continuing fallout from it, or how to rein in Putin without getting into WW3 or betraying Ukraine.

AnCap's have no answer for things like asteroid hunting/observation/deflection missions, or many 'non-profit/not-for-profit' gov ventures done by them, because no private entity has the resource, ability, or sometimes equipment to deal with shit. We need the gov for shit like the EPA and OHSA, who's regs are often written in blood, or the Corp of Engineers to deal with major civil work.

I wish libertarians were more effective and realistic about things, so they could be a viable third party, but people like you and others have convinced me the libertarian party is mostly about being up it's on ass about psuedo-AnCap bullshit and personality fights.

The fucking Ferengi Rules of Acquisition are a more coherent and ideological useful tool than AnCap libertarians are these days. Because at least the Ferengi don't hide they worship the Almighty Dollar at the end of the day, the way AnCaps do.

"WAAHHHH, you can't shrink government"

*Laughs in NH*. *Laughs in FL*. Thatcher's laughing at you too, btw. So is every state that legalized Marijuana. Same with all the states that refuse to cooperate with feds when it comes to gun control. This is just a dumb take that isn't reflected by reality. The only thing real about it is that there are a bunch of conservative/right leaning people who've given up and accepted leftism in deed, as much as they pretend otherwise, and you are one of them.

You conflate federalism jurisdictional boundaries being respected with 'small gov good, small gov winning', rather than DC letting them as 'small potatoes' and just letting the courst (and the Dems lawyer friends) do their work.

And the Wu Flu+stolen election showed that any idea there are limits on our gov's power are illusions, at the end of the day.

The Dems have been stopped more by their own ego, pride, and infighting, than by the Right, for a long time. Dobbs was a rare pure W for the Right, and the 2A stuff was nice.

The only thing that matters is government size, as if it's big, they will crush you no matter who you are. Your naive belief that you can use it for your own ends is simply hilarious if it weren't what caused the problem in the first place.

See, that's the thing; I know they could crush me, or any of us, on a whim.

I've just learned to live with what I cannot change, instead fighting futile battles out of pride. There are still absolutely fights the Right can win, and a lot of them; it just needs to stop wasting time on some fights it cannot achieve victory in anymore.

"Small gov, best gov" is one of those fights.

Short of a nuclear war, the gov ain't getting smaller, though the bad actors in it can be defanged in other ways.

You:
View attachment 1519


No, he's gone from running with them to trying to out race them to hell. It's not a viable solution (as the right is slower by nature), and it gets you to the same awful place regardless of who wins. Government has never been an answer. He's improved from a supporter to a useful idiot.

You:

 

[Abhorsen]

Short of a nuclear war, the gov ain't getting smaller, though the bad actors in it can be defanged in other ways.

At this point, I've given up responding to you as most of your points are calcified ignorance about libertarian solutions (seriously, pretending that the US should care that Ukraine got invaded? Not our business. Sell them weapons, but that's about it). You could at least rebut the numerous examples I gave? Oh, wait, were those fatal to your fatalistic surrender monkey worldview? So you just dismissed them as small potatoes? First, wrong. You don't seem to know how things operate at all though, so not a surprise. Second, Thatcher (again).

Seriously, this compounded ignorance combined with insisting that all parties act as you wish exposes why you are frustrated with us. You are an old school dem who still believes, laughably, that government is the solution (no, none of your examples given are real reasons to have government, all can be replaced with private solutions/lawsuits/doing nothing). Meanwhile, we are watching as the government exposes that it is full of lies and laughing as we win by moving someplace we like better, and making the local rules as we wish it.

 

[Skallagrim]

Nice way to snip the convo and smear me at the same time, real clever./s

Your misplaced sarcasm notwithstanding, the derision is simply what your persistent lies tend to invite.

And I know I'm fairly clever, I don't need you to tell me that.

In any event, the rest of your post completely proves my point, so you're doing my work for me. Keep it up!

A moderate person in the US is more likely to have a realistic view of US politics, than someone who from a foreign nation the size of a postage stamp.

This part in particular (which you repeat about four or five times in different iterations) deserves a special mention, though, because it illustrates the special way in which you are being unnecessarily dense here. To elaborate: your argument is equivalent to a typical afrocentrist saying white historians aren't allowed to have an opinion about African history because they're not African. That's the intellectual level you're operating on. Improvement recommended.

What you've also failed to consider is that other categorisations than your favoured one might actually be possible, and make more sense. Even if you assume the premise of "only [X] may have an opinion on [Y]" holds true, then your argument is still shit. Consider the following:

-- Bacle: "An American moderate, by default, has a better understanding of conservatism in America than a foreign conservative!"

-- Response: "A foreign conservative, by default, has a better understanding of conservatism in America than an American moderate!"

Both those statements use the same exact argumentation. They just consider different linear relations to be more significant. Both may have merit, and the one that has it right may in the end not be yours. It is my view, however, that neither has merit. Because of the "by default" in that sentence. You assume stuff is true by default; that a foreigner understands less by default. And that's your biggest error.

 

[Bacle]

At this point, I've given up responding to you as most of your points are calcified ignorance about libertarian solutions (seriously, pretending that the US should care that Ukraine got invaded? Not our business. Sell them weapons, but that's about it). You could at least rebut the numerous examples I gave? Oh, wait, were those fatal to your fatalistic surrender monkey worldview? So you just dismissed them as small potatoes? First, wrong. You don't seem to know how things operate at all though, so not a surprise. Second, Thatcher (again).

Seriously, this compounded ignorance combined with insisting that all parties act as you wish exposes why you are frustrated with us. You are an old school dem who still believes, laughably, that government is the solution (no, none of your examples given are real reasons to have government, all can be replaced with private solutions/lawsuits/doing nothing). Meanwhile, we are watching as the government exposes that it is full of lies and laughing as we win by moving someplace we like better, and making the local rules as we wish it.

Thank you for showing yet again why US politics is so FUBAR; even the 'third option' in the Libertarian Party is full of idiots and ideologues.

Guess what, radiation don't give a fuck about politics, and guess what can happen when some retards decides to use Chernobyl as an armor corridor and military instillation? UXO+rads that can be carried on the wind equals issues for anyone in the Baltics, never mind any of the other numerous reason we are rightfully supporting Ukraine, that alone is reason enough to get involved.

This part in particular (which you repeat about four or five times in different iterations) deserves a special mention, though, because it illustrates the special way in which you are being unnecessarily dense here. To elaborate: your argument is equivalent to a typical afrocentrist saying white historians aren't allowed to have an opinion about African history because they're not African. That's the intellectual level you're operating on. Improvement recommended.

What you've also failed to consider is that other categorisations than your favoured one might actually be possible, and make more sense. Even if you assume the premise of "only [X] may have an opinion on [Y]" holds true, then your argument is still shit. Consider the following:

-- Bacle: "An American moderate, by default, has a better understanding of conservatism in America than a foreign conservative!"

-- Response: "A foreign conservative, by default, has a better understanding of conservatism in America than an American moderate!"

Both those statements use the same exact argumentation. They just consider different linear relations to be more significant. Both may have merit, and the one that has it right may in the end not be yours. It is my view, however, that neither has merit. Because of the "by default" in that sentence. You assume stuff is true by default; that a foreigner understands less by default. And that's your biggest error.

Your error, as even shown in this post, is thinking 'what conservatives think about themselves' matters more than 'what moderates think about conservatives'.

This is what I meant about internal propaganda on the Right; thinking that preaching to the choir is more important than trying to convince fencesitters.

And yes, I am dismissive of what a lot of foreign 'conservatives' say about US politics, when it comes to telling people on the Right how to act. Because the fact is, your political systems are often much different than the US, exist in much different cultures, and often foreign conservatives egg on the stupidest ideas of the US Far-Right, seemingly because you want the US to 're-export' it back to you, to save you from your own lefties.

"If the US Right 'moderates' to help the center, what hope do the Far-Right in other nations have of doing better?" I think is the real feeling behind a lot of the way foreign 'conservatives' try to push their politics onto US 'conservatives'.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I've just learned to live with what I cannot change, instead fighting futile battles out of pride. There are still absolutely fights the Right can win, and a lot of them; it just needs to stop wasting time on some fights it cannot achieve victory in anymore.

buddy, I'm going to be as blunt as I can you're not going to live under your own ideology. Say the right did become the uber-big government leftist-lite that you think it should be, hating illegal immigration and trannies isn't going to be enough to save you. After all "you aren't part of the tribe, you weren't there from the beginning, you were a leftist that turned tail when
the effort was no longer profitable." if this ideological revolution that you want occurs people like you will be up against the wall either metaphorically or worse because guess what ALL big government power ideologies turn into a massive purity spiral. to use Lord of the rings since that is being referenced a lot, you can't survive joining Sauron, you can't survive fighting The Ring. Well guess what you won't survive using the ring either. Your a dead man walking. but if that's the case, instead of trying to buy yourself just a little bit of time by appeasement, stick to your principles and face your death with courage. I want to live too but I rather die keeping to my principles than live giving appeasement to the agents of the devil.

 

[Abhorsen]

Guess what, radiation don't give a fuck about politics

I love how you say this, but encourage the US to intervene/aid in Ukraine vs a nuclear armed country. No, the US should be offering to broker peace and its companies selling weapons, that's about it.

 

[Skallagrim]

Your error, as even shown in this post, is thinking 'what conservatives think about themselves' matters more than 'what moderates think about conservatives'.

No. You fail to grasp what is at stake. You think in terms of popularity contests. You want to cater to the masses to make them yours. You are, as this citation proves beyond a doubt, concerned with what other people think about you, or your movement, or your goals. And you think that what you must sacrifice for that is what you "think about yourself".

But that's not the thing at stake here. Not at all.

It's about what you know about yourself. It's about your character, your dignity, your honour and your integrity. These, you would cast aside to "win". And you may even be willing to do that, but rather the point of conservatism is to not do that.

You think the way to victory is through the teeming masses, but it's not to the masses that the ultimate victory goes; but rather, to the remnant.

To a conservative, that phrase requires no elaboration.

Fundamentally speaking, you and I may be looking for a different kind of victory.

 

[Bacle]

buddy, I'm going to be as blunt as I can you're not going to live under your own ideology. Say the right did become the uber-big government leftist-lite that you think we should be, hating illegal immigration and trannies isn't going to be enough to save you. After all "you aren't part of the tribe, you weren't there from the beginning, you were a leftist that turned tail when
the effort was no longer profitable." if this ideological revolution that you want occurs people like you will be up against the wall either metaphorically or worse because guess what ALL big government power ideologies turn into a massive purity spiral. to use Lord of the rings since that is being referenced a lot, you can't survive joining Sauron, you can't survive fighting The Ring. Well guess what you won't survive using the ring either. Your a dead man walking. but if that's the case, instead of trying to buy yourself just a little bit of time by appeasement, stick to your principles and face your death with courage. I want to live too but I rather die keeping to my principles than live giving appeasement to the agents of the devil.

See, this all pre-supposes that mass authoritarianism is the only end state that can come from accepting that shrinking the gov just isn't realistic, and that shrinking the gov is the only way to 'fix' the issues plaguing us.

This isn't about me worshipping the gov, it's about me not being naive enough to think we can have a functioning, survivable society these days without some sort of government above the local/regional level.

Federalism is nice, but the Wu Flu showed the limitations to it's ability to keep DC from going full retard; only by controlling power in DC can we keep something like the Wu Flu/Wu Flu vax bullshit from happening again.

What we need is to actually clean house in the gov, maybe combine/toss a few agencies who've lost public trust, and actually hold our leaders accountable to the same laws we are subject to; none of that can be accomplished by just going 'shrink the gov'.

I love how you say this, but encourage the US to intervene/aid in Ukraine vs a nuclear armed country. No, the US should be offering to broker peace and its companies selling weapons, that's about it.

Yes, because I understand Putin/Russia are not rational or good faith actors, so there is no point negotiating with them, unless it's with a metaphorical gun to their head.

That they used Chernobyl in such a fashion, and then gave conscripts pre-accident maps while digging in the Red Forest, shows the level of stupidity, incompetence, and irrational behavior that showed Putin was insane, and his actions leading up to this conflict and since show he cannot be trusted to act in good faith.

If Putin is able to use nuclear blackmail successfully, it will make things so much worse for everyone on this planet, and Putin won't stop with just Ukraine. He will send 5 guys to Poland and say 'ours now' and dare anyone to invoke Article 5, because he just got away with nuclear blackmail once, why not try again?

No. You fail to grasp what is at stake. You think in terms of popularity contests...

US elections are popularity contests, not sure why you would ever think otherwise? I mean it's also a multi-generational cold war in a lot of ways, but it is still a popularity contest at it's heart.

And the fact is, what conservatives think about themselves matters less, for votes and political power, than what fencesitters in the center think of them.

You are right we have very different definitions of victory, and guess which definition of victory actually is used by the majority of the US electorate.

 

[Sailor.X]

What's this we stuff. I have always called myself a Moderate.

 

[Skallagrim]

You are right we have very different definitions of victory, and guess which definition of victory actually is used by the majority of the US electorate.

The same one that was used by Nero, I daresay.

for votes and political power

You crave this, and it controls you. I would refuse it if offered, and it has no power over me at all. You see pigs wrestling and you jump in to join them, thinking you'll win with all your strategic brilliance.

Meanwhile, at the end of the day -- "win" or lose -- you're tired, bruised, scratched, covered in mud, stinking and debased -- and I've spent the entire time sitting on a near-by terrace, sipping a glass of wine, looking at your antics with a mix of amusement and despair at such madness. Not a speck of mud on me.

Which one of us was smarter about this?

 

[Bacle]

The same one that was used by Nero, I daresay.

No, just not the Tolkien-ish/Epikourus-ish fantasy of victory that you seem to hold to.

You crave this, and it controls you. I would refuse it if offered, and it has no power over me at all. You see pigs wrestling and you jump in to join them, thinking you'll win with all your strategic brilliance.

Meanwhile, at the end of the day -- "win" or lose -- you're tired, bruised, scratched, covered in mud, stinking and debased -- and I've spent the entire time sitting on a near-by terrace, sipping a glass of wine, looking at your antics with a mix of amusement and despair at such madness. Not a speck of mud on me.

Which one of us was smarter about this?

You assume that I think anyone can stay clean of it of the mud; that is Epikourus's/your delusion about the world.

Plato was right about politics, no matter how much you or I dislike what he said.

Because do not mistake me for someone who loves big government; I just know the practical and realistic limitations on trying to 'skrink' the gov, and that not all 'private' options are better, as AnCaps want to believe.

Just look at 'private' prisons for why some parts of the govs functions should not be privatized.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Because do not mistake me for someone who loves big government; I just know the practical and realistic limitations on trying to 'skrink' the gov, and that not all 'private' options are better, as AnCaps want to believe.

Satan doesn't need you to love him, He just needs you to renounce your principles and surrender to him.

 

[Skallagrim]

You assume that I think anyone can stay clean of it of the mud; that is Epikourus's/your delusion about the world.

You openly state that you want to jump in. You can choose not to do that. Avoiding madness is the opposite of a delusion, but explaining that to you seems futile, because you are obsessed with the mud-pit. You see it as the entire world, and can't see that there are other things beyond it.

That's why my supposed "delusions" give me a happy life where every moment of peaceful enjoyment is a victory in itself, and your "realism" ends in bitter despair, for even its victories are only ever hollow.

 

[Bacle]

Satan doesn't need you to love him, He just needs you to renounce your principles and surrender to him.

'Perfect is the enemy of good enough.'

Guess what, admitting when shit isn't working anymore isn't 'giving up your principles', nor is adapting tactics on a changing social battlefield.

However, so much of the Right likes to engage in purity spirals about what 'a true conservative/true conservatism is', that it rather mirrors the Left's own purity spirals in how it tries to pretend the view from outside parties doesn't matter, only internal definitions.

It's rather like the tranny shit in that regard; what 'conservatives' self-ID as matter more to them than any input from the outside that tells them otherwise, even with evidence.

Horseshoe theory in action again, I guess, and another round of internal Right wing propaganda.

You openly state that you want to jump in. You can choose not to do that. Avoiding madness is the opposite of a delusion, but explaining that to you seems futile, because you are obsessed with the mud-pit. You see it as the entire world, and can't see that there are other things beyond it.

That's why my supposed "delusions" give me a happy life where every moment of peaceful enjoyment is a victory in itself, and your "realism" ends in bitter despair, for even its victories are only ever hollow.

And you're 'just let me grill' attitude (which is what your ideology/Epikourus's ideology amounts to in the modern day) is why the Left and the Marxists push them have gotten so much ground.

I mean, I do understand and even sympathize with your ideology a bit, because I have felt similar things before about life; I just wasn't naive enough to ignore the lessons the Wu Flu, the attacks on Trump, and the stolen election have taught me. I was never naive enough to think that 'if you stay out of politics, politics will leave you alone', because I came from Hard-D political families and saw how the political sausage is made. I want none of it, but that does not mean I'm going to pretend it doesn't have power regardless of how I feel about it.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

'Perfect is the enemy of good enough.'

and good enough quickly turns into the enemy of morality and principle, guess what we tried things your way too it was called the skeptic community "Oh hate SJWs? that's good enough come on in!" and so long as everything just consisted of pointing and laughing at Anita Sarkeesen and the like everything was ok, and then that enemy died and everything fell apart because guess what, contrary to what Star Trek and Independence day want to preach, sharing a common enemy is not enough to have a stable cohesive unit, you have to have something called shared principles and morals. At some point, you have to stop moving and giving ground for the sake of being "Good enough"

 

[Skallagrim]

I want none of it, but that does not mean I'm going to pretend it doesn't have power regardless of how I feel about it.

Within the scope of your actions, it has the power you give it. You want to give it power; I give it none.

Any power that it has outside the scope of my actions, it had anyway, and that is best handled by avoiding the thing altogether.

If your idea was "I can infiltrate the government to weaken it", I could even understand that attitude (although it is futile). But you want to control power, rather than seek to weaken or abolish it. And that's the madness.

Because at the end of the day, I'm still grilling, as it were. I don't even ask for permission. Meanwhile, you're in the middle of a shit-fight, which is escalating all the time. So, again: who's being silly here? Maybe some mud will eventually land on me, but you are going to trampled completely.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I occupy a happy middle ground.

Government should be shrunk as it has vastly overstepped its mandate (and made a mess in the process)

Revolutionary leftists must also be taught that entertaining sedition, if not treason, has consequences. At the very least get them out of the sodding schools.