For too long American-Conservatism and it's foot soldier have criticized liberalism and the war on poverty as a bottomless pit of spent money.
The Bottomless pit of spent money critique is also used to deride and dismiss demands to fund public education.
Conservatism critique is summed up as despite the amount of money spent on the war on poverty and public education. Issues still persist and exist, so liberalisms approach has been wrong and only conservatism's intellectual-liberalism and its personal responsibility and social engineering narrative will allow redemption for the poor and non-unionized teachers [euphemestically presented as charter schools] will save public education
Our political-economy, however, reminds us that the conservative critique on both accounts is false and outright deceptive.
No one will dare argue that nevertheless the bottomless pit of taxpayer money spent on waging wars. The idea and its practice of waging war is a failure because not only is war still with us but is constant as the sun rising
so we should promptly embark on the ..... Beating swords into plows .....delusion and stop pouring taxpayer money into the bottomless pit of the nations military, intelligence agencies and the state organized violence of law and order which is also another bottomless pit of public expenditure, because nothing seems to indicate that crime is deterred or reformed.
But as soon as the question is: How is value [money] interacted with, who has access to it
we encounter the distortion of what is good for the goose
isn't good for the gander or the pot can with a straight face `a la the banal and fatuous pronouncements of
Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute, on work and dignity and
Amy Holmes cohost of PBS In Principle. [who hasn't encountered nothing pre-fixed conservatism that doesn't cause her orgasmic swoon] call the kettle black
In furious reaction to any attempt and effort at showing that certain unresolved and unsettled accounts of our political-economy are inherent saboteurs on the question of poverty.
Conservatism and its intellectual-liberalism has long given up any pretense to "thought" and embraced its true calling: the deification cult of the reactionary Ronald Reagan. So it's contemporary practice when not doing 3-legged and sack races with every
last slithering denizen from not the mere unjust side of history but the wrong side of it, almost accomplishing the impossible of stepping outside of it
the incredulity of what it has become escape it, as it negates its own dignity, a dignity, to let Authur Brooks lecture us, its lack is what ails American Poverty.
Conservatism has no issue with the antagonism of a national-economy maintained on taxpayer money going to bomb makers, missile makers, handcuffs, and shackles manufacture, police uniforms makers for the primary purpose of money distribution for the employment of a majority white worker. Or taxpayer money subsidizing all sectors and activities of the American political-economy from the industrial-practical to hair-brained enterprise but not limited to charlatan think tanks i.e American Enterprise Institutes, for the specific purpose of money circulation and redistribution. But as soon as the same identical logic of government created money underpins a response in the war on poverty and is circulated to the welfare recipient
[and should be noted has enabled, catalysed and accelerated the wealth accumulation of
Walmart Inc. and it's contemporaries catering to the welfare recipient] which by the way is at a far lesser amount than what is given to the bomb-making white worker whose existence as a worker is primarily due to randomness of being born white. Conservatisms intellectual-liberalism emerges in reaction to if not insidiously misanthropic arguments, dubious ones that amount to: The American poor of whom a majority, by the way, work have not embraced enough the
Auschwitz Death Camp motto of work will set you free [which Arthur Brooks of AEI shouldn't have any problem in finding his dignity supposition in it] or the fact adults are reduced to raising families on
McDondalds wage isn't basis enough to raise the minimum wage because Conservatism's intellectual-liberalism supposes fast-food wages are intended for teenagers.
Conservatism has been getting away with its snake-oil, charlatan analysis because the Progressive critique and its liberal worldview has yielded one too many times
By Apropos
Related Reading
