A lot to unpack here:
Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
That was the conservatism that I grew up on and adopted. In the interim, two things have happened. First, the Republican party came under the thrall of what I describe as a "criminal mindset" - what I mean is that consequences don't matter.
... That sympathetic part of their brain "turns off."

That is, I think, what has happened to the Republican party, and by proxy, conservatism. Beginning with Nixon, it became manifest (although it appeared sporadically before then). People supporting/excusing and defending Nixon's and Agnew's criminality were infected and the contagion spread. With Reagan, and Reagan-worship it became habit, and with Newt Gingrich it became weaponized more effectively than Atwater. Trump, I've said, is the symptom, not the cause.
It was a group of Republicans, led by Sen. Goldwater, who told Nixon that his support on Capitol Hill was gone. Nixon realized that that he would be impeached and so he decided to resign. The infection was checked and did not spread. The low opinion of the Republican Party, thanks to Nixon, kept it in check. Regan worship was very bipartisan. A President doesn't win 49 of the 50 states when he is reelected if he is not very popular with both Republicans and Democrats.
I'm afraid that kinda missed my point, actually. Goldwater and the others weren't "cured" - they were carriers. The infection did spread, and, like herpes, erupts occasionally, as it did with Reagan. Reagan was a vector, spreading the infection with false nostrums about "welfare queens" and "lifting boats", while pursuing really inhumane policies. We now know he shared the same racist beliefs Nixon did.

Reagan-worship was not, and is not, bipartisan. Nixon also won reelection overwhelmingly... shortly before impeachment proceedings began.
Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
Now, I want to note here that a similar pattern occurred in the Democratic party, too, but it was more specific. Dan Rostenkowski, Wilbur Mills and Bill Clinton were exemplars of that. It is associated with the length of time a party is in power, and the increasing brazenness that occurs and that getting away with petty acts of criminality engenders - the habit of petty crimes leads to brazenness and bigger crimes.
Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
o, in the Democratic Party it was more widespread. [NOPE.
Not even close.] Most of the political machines that have existed in our country were run by Democrats. [ANCIENT history. Really.] I agree, as Lord Acton said power corrupts and it doesn't what what political party you are a member of.

(Should I be nervous? Twice on Friday the 13th NW Ponderer and I have agreed on something.) shocked

Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
I think, though, that the general tenor of conservatism makes the Republican party more susceptible to virulent outbreaks. Conservatism proponents tends to be more "aloof", high-minded, and mechanical in their language and approach - already leaning into non-sympathetic thought patterns. Democrats, in contrast, tend to emphasize their sympathy and even bleeding-heartedness.

That leads me to my second point and where my schism with conservatism occurred. I became aware - too slowly, I admit - that conservatism had excused a multitude of sins in the service of their aloofness from humanity. Racism, xenophobia and sociopathy lingered beneath the surface. When discussing economic and political theorems, pretty considerations like the impacts on workers and the citizenry get ignored. They forget that "creative destruction" means loss of jobs, economic turmoil, even starvation and death. "Tough on crime sentencing" means depriving households of breadwinners and exacerbating poverty. "Colorblind" policies cover blatant discrimination baked into society.
Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
The "conservatism" NW is referring to was not limited to the Republican Party. Racism and xenophobia have unfortunately a long bipartisan history in America. [Agreed, but... current history (post 1960s) is quite different. That has to be acknowledged.] Creative destruction creates jobs and prosperity. [For some. As well as poverty, inequality, and unemployment, which was my point.] A thriving growing economy will always be one in turmoil.
Now interlineations and asides will not suffice. I disagree. A thriving, growing economy will be disruptive and dynamic, but does not inevitably require turmoil. If approached intelligently, disruptions can be minimized, not exacerbated, and dynamism harnessed and directed. But, that requires consideration of "externalities" - something that definitely exists, but is assiduously ignored and denied by capitalists of a certain ilk.

Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
The "discussion of economic and political theorems" is when our government is given more control over our economy.
Um, no. (Actually kind of a non sequitur.) Often, and most destructively, precisely no. Laissez faire policies are born of economic theorems, and not practical intelligence. They assiduously avoid dealing with realities in favor of preferred expectations.
Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
No government can do that as well or as productively as the private sector can.
Now we're into rote recitation of party-line nostrums. Evidence? SUPPORT? Or is the statement intended to be a tautology? I can provide a direct contradiction to the Statement: China. China Used More Concrete In 3 Years Than The U.S. Used In The Entire 20th Century. Indeed, if we don't accept the lesson of, and adapt to, China's aggressive economic posture, China will absolutely eat our lunch.

Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
If the breadwinner of a family is convicted of crime should they be let free just because their family will suffer? [Sometimes, yes. Did you never see/read Les Miserables?] If that happens then anyone who is the "breadwinner" of a family has just been given a get out of jail free card and the safety of society ceases to exist.
Again, evidence? SUPPORT? What is your "theory of justice"? What is the purpose of the penal system? Do the issues of compassion, causality or reformation/rehabilitation have any bearing?

Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
When a person is not identified by the color of their skin, but rather as Martin Luther King, Jr, said "by the content of their character" then discrimination is removed from society.
In an ideal, or just world, I agree. That, unfortunately, is not (as Dr.King was stressing in that quote) the world in which we currently live, but aspire to.
Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted by MW Ponderer
When you combine the latter with the former, you get an epidemic of inhumanity.
It is NW's views that would create an epidemic of inhumanity not conservatism.
What utter nonsense. An epidemic of inhumanity is what we have under the current rubric of "conservatism".