Toxic Masculinity

There is another reason that I left the right that has less to do with economics and more to do with culture. This has become a reason I actually detest the right: toxic masculinity. I absolutely hate it and it has strongly diminished what respect that I had for right as a cultural community.

                                                       Toxic Masculinity

I am not going to define it here so much as describe it. "Toxic masculinity" is not some left-wing myth. It is something that I have observed all of my life, even before I became aware of the term, which was actually quite recent. But the mentality exists and I have even been a victim of it. I will give four examples from every day life to illustrate that it's very real. Just to be crystal clear: I am not suggesting that masculinity per se is awful, stupid, or even evil. I have nothing against masculinity in and of itself. However, when masculinity becomes abusive, it becomes something shameful and disgusting. Masculinity, in my view, can take positive and negative forms just as femininity can. So what examples can I provide?

My first example is how men mistreated other kids when they were kids. I remember when I was a kid in elementary, middle, and high school. I wasn't a very cerebral kid; rather, I was into art, fantasy,and science fiction. I wasn't into sports. However, I noticed that, beginning in middle school, I was insulted with words like "nerd", "geek", and (later) "dork". I dressed much more conservatively than the other kids did and I "lived in my head" because I would constantly daydream. Later, in high school, I became focused into academics and became academically-inclined. I was mistreated because I wasn't into sports. I experimented with sports when I was in grade school: I tried basketball in the 5th grade when I was a student at Alisal Elementary in Pleasanton, California.

I wasn't a physically aggressive and athletic kid. Besides not being athletic, I was actually a very puny kid. Although I had a sweet tooth and indulged it almost every day by drinking soda, I was very slender. I was considered a "wimpy" kid and I was bullied, especially in middle school. I didn't pursue girls (well, maybe a tiny handful of girls), I wasn't trying to "score" with "chicks". When I got into high school, I wasn't into cars, the outdoors, or anything else that was considered manly. If anything, I was very emotional at times. Now, bear in mind, that throughout high school, I was a dye-in-the-wool Reagan conservative. So any accusation that I was somehow some "liberal girly-boy" was laughable.

The worst of all were the fights. I was a peaceful student and my approach to all conflicts was irenic. Fighting was the last resort when all peaceful solutions failed. I deeply regretted war but felt it was sometimes necessary. I got into my fair share of fights but I hated them. There were some kids who had a bad attitude and practically went around looking for trouble. There was one time I got into a fight with a kid but that is only because I was sick of his attitude towards me. He pushed me and so I clinched my fist and clobbered him. If he hadn't pushed me, I would have gone on like nothing was wrong but that act of physical aggression pushed me over the line.

It seemed like some kids loved fights. Being able to beat the living snot out of someone somehow proved what a man you are. When I was in high school, there was this one bully in my economics class who told me that if a boy doesn't like to fight, it was because he was a (weakling; not the exact word he used). I thought fighting was stupid. It takes a big man to fight, sure, but it takes a bigger man to walk away from a fight. Most fights are over stupid things by people who are just being stupid. Intelligent people resolve their differences or conflicts by reasonable and calm means. But yet, there were some kids, clearly bullies, who went around looking for fights.

Another example is the blatant homophobia that I see. Guys who are guilty of toxic masculinity are very strongly homophobic. They are utterly repulsed by the thought that two men could be in love and worse, express it in sexual ways (I have to wonder how these guys would react if they saw two very attractive lesbians make out in front of them). They will talk about gay men in derogatory ways behind their backs (i.e. "Did you see those two fags holding hands?" "Yeah, that gay- shit makes me sick"). Sometimes they will do it openly in public and insult gay men to their faces.

I have been a victim of this as well. I have been called homophobic slurs. I remember one time standing at an intersection in my hometown and there were these two guys in a truck. They were facing the same direction that I was facing but they were clearly going to turn into a different street. One of the guys yelled at me, "Faggot!" and the other guy yelled at me, "Fuck you, queer!" I didn't say anything; the last thing I wanted to do was cause these guys in the truck to pull over and try to cause a physical altercation. Besides, it was years since I took any martial arts courses and I never achieved advanced status, so it wasn't as though I was in a position to take these two guys on.

My last two examples of toxic masculinity are sexism. My third example is something that has been described as "locker room talk". This is where two or more guys talk about a woman in very sexually explicit detail. A guy may talk about a woman's butt, her breasts, any other part of her in a sexually explicit way and sometimes the conversation will cross the line into what these guys would love to do with such a woman if they could cross the requisite boundaries and given a full green light. Unfortunately, I have seen this outside of locker rooms. When I worked as a student at Cal State East Bay, I was employed buy a food services company that contracted with universities. I was in a kitchen, working on something, when a guy talked about a female officer manager and made a gesture about her chest and how much he was attracted to her. I complained to a female chef about it.

The last example is sexist in the sense that guys guilty of toxic masculinity will vilify other guys because they don't aggressively pursue romantic or sexual interest in ladies. This isn't homophobia so much as it is an attempt to vilify guys for not being sexually aggressive. Sexual aggression is men is seen as a virtue by men who are considered manly. If a guy doesn't actively pursue interest in a woman or, worse, is actually shy around women, he is castigated for it. If he doesn't pursue interest in a woman, if he doesn't act confident around women, he is vilified for being a "sissy" or, worse, a "pussy". Guys who not only pursue women but succeed in sexual conquest, especially in a casual and promiscuous manner, are admired and glorified for it. Guys who don't, are treated like dirt for it.

                                             The Right and Toxic Masculinity

So why do I detest the right, then? Because I see toxic masculinity in the right. I believe that the lion's share of the blame goes to Evangelicals like James Dobson. Now, of course, to a lot of people on the right, there is no such thing as "toxic masculinity". All masculinity is healthy and normal. What about the kids who are vilified for being "nerds"/"dorks"? Well, they are nerds and dorky. If they don't like sports, if they aren't physically aggressive and hyper-competitive, and prefer either art and fantasy or something cerebral like science and mathematics, then they deserve to be castigated for it. What bout homophobia? Well gays, bisexuals, transgender people are freaks and perverts, so they deserve to be treated like crap. God only created people to be heterosexual, so if these degenerates want to rebel and disobey the divine order of creation, they will have to suffer the consequences. What about sexism? Locker room talk is just "guys being guys". The lust is regretful; lust is sinful and people should save their urges until they are married. What about guys who are vilified because they aren't sexually aggressive around women? They deserve it. God created men to be the pursuers and any guy who isn't a pursuer, is a wimp period. He needs to pray that God will help him grow some balls so he can be manly and pursue women but the women have to be godly and chaste.

Bear in mind that I grew up in a politically and theologically conservative family. My dad was a quasi-fundamentalist while my mother was a fundamentalist. My dad was a minister and my mother was a music leader in our church. Now my dad preferred that his boys be manly, masculine, and athletic but my youngest brother and I clearly weren't. It was a long time in coming but my dad accepted that my youngest brother and I weren't into manly things. Both of us were emotional, kind, very gentle, and thoughtful. My younger brother was a tough kid; very athletic, very competitive, very aggressive. He loved baseball with a passion. I loved art and my youngest brother loved music. My dad was like my younger brother. My dad was athletic, somewhat aggressive, but not very competitive. I have been called "effeminate" which I considered a very polite way of saying that I was a "girly-boy". In fact, I have often gotten the impression from Evangelicals that "masculinity" is considered a requisite for holiness. The reason, however, that I see toxic masculinity in the conservative movement, I am convinced, is because it was introduced by churches.

Like I said before, I blame Evangelicals like James Dobson and his ministry "Focus on the Family". I have seen toxic masculinity from people who promote organizations like "Promise Keepers". It's this idea that God created men to be physically aggressive, very competitive, and very athletic. Thus, what is traditionally masculine is just part of the creative order of God. The biggest difference that I have observed is that in "heathen" culture, causal promiscuity is praised while in Evangelical culture, premarital chastity is praised. In fact, "locker room" talk is discouraged, not because it is disrespectful to women. Rather, because men are indulging their lusts. A man is expected to pursue romantic interest in women, absolutely, but it has to be within a "godly" context. When a man has a good paying job, has shown himself approved to God and believers, then is a man encouraged to pursue romantic interest in a woman and she has to prove herself to be godly and ready to raise a Christ-centered family.

                                                           Right-Wing Hate

So, why have I lost respect for the right? Because of the very abusive attitude that conservatives have towards people who are not manly, especially liberals. I am not a liberal but, like liberals, I have been vilified by people on the right. Conservatives love to call liberals, especially men, names like "snowflakes", "girly-boys", and "sissies". This isn't meant in jest, as though these epithets are examples of good-natured ridicule with no harm intended. These insults are meant as serious put-downs; they are attempts at character assassination. For a grown man to be emotionally sensitive is seen as not merely shameful but positively disgusting. That is why a conservative will try to seriously shame a liberal man for being sensitive. That's where the word "snowflake" comes in. People aren't supposed to be sensitive and delicate like a snowflake is. Men are supposed to be tough and nothing should rattle their cages or "get to them".

It disgusts many conservatives that a grown man would be gentle. Grown men are supposed to be  physically aggressive, and sometimes even cruel. A cruel display of aggression is actually admired. This is why some conservatives seem to me to think more highly of bullies than their victims. The victims of bullies are wussies who deserve the cruel treatment that they get while bullies are admired for their aggressiveness. Conservatives have convinced me that they absolutely detest anything that reeks of femininity in men. The very insult "girly-boy" seems very misogynistic to me. It holds little girls in contempt as though they are just the gutter of humanity and any guy who resembles anything as loathsome as a little girl, deserves to be treated like total crap for it. This attitude from conservatives towards guys who lack masculinity or show little of it is rooted in hate. Words like "snowflakes", "girly-boys", "pussies", or what--not, are meant to be abusive in nature because they are grounded in hate.

What does it really matter that some guys are emotionally sensitive? What does it matter if some boys are into art, music, or something more cerebral? If a conservative thinks that two men in a committed relationship are acting sinfully, so what? That person needs to keep such beliefs to him/herself. What does it really matter what two men or two women do in their private lives? So what if a guy doesn't pursue romantic interest in women? What does it matter if a guy does't like sports, doesn't have a competitive bone in his body, or just isn't aggressive? I don't understand why some conservatives cannot keep their thoughts and opinions to themselves. You would think that if a Supreme Being cared about the behavior, relationships, and attitude of some people and found it offensive, that Being can do something about it. I would think that if God is real and takes offense at same-sex relationships or a man not liking sports, God would intervene and change things; not leave it in the hands of his supposed followers.

                                                           Conclusion

Toxic masculinity is the biggest reason I am not a conservative. Even if I was in favor of "free-market capitalism" and against abortion, I would have a hard time considering myself a conservative given this repulsive machismo. I have nothing against people who like sports, people who are competitive, nothing against guys who love to chase women, against guys who are into the outdoors, hunting, or whatever is considered "manly" these days. If two guys who want guzzle down beer and impress each other about their sexual escapades, that is their business. I am offended that any woman would be treated as a mere object of male gratification but if guys want to lust over a woman's butt, her breasts, or anything else that turns them on about her, I am content to let them do it. I am content to let each person peacefully pursue that person's desires as long as only legally consenting adults are involved. I honestly don't care if someone likes sports, loves to work out, or if a guy thinks he's a "lady's man".

I have come to accept that my fellow members of the GLBT are worthy of total love, respect, compassion, and the same rights as others. What two or more legally consenting adults do in their private lives is their business and no one else's. Now readers understand why I detest toxic machismo; I have seen the hate that fuels it and the harm that results from it. I have no respect for anyone guilty of it and this is especially true of conservatives who embrace it. If people believe that God has desired (toxic) masculinity as part of some "divine order"-fine. They can keep this to themselves. If a lack of masculinity or worse, same-sex attraction disgusts them, too bad. I am not going to change these right-wingers and I am not even tempted to. As long as they keep their garbage to themselves and don't attempt to abuse or harass others, I will keep my peace. I am not going to pretend for a moment, however, that conservatives who display toxic masculinity are deserving of respect.

Saving the Economy

I have been watching the news lately and at least some Democrats believe that the existing "stimulus" plan to help the economy has been insufficient. The U.S. Treasury has been issuing checks to some Americans for $1,200 dollars. However, I am doubtful that this will be enough. I am thinking that as long as the Coronavirus is actively infecting people, the government will probably want to do more to help people out and the plan to pay all qualifying Americans about $2,000 dollars a month, guaranteed for about half a year, is looking more and more attractive to me. In fact, I have become quite sympathetic to the idea of the government doing more to help ordinary citizens out. Now, I do't want readers to take this to mean that I favor hand-outs. Rather, I favor hand-ups and I always have. It seems that the Democrats favor hand-ups these days despite being accused of the opposite.

                                                      Compassionate Conservatism

I used to proudly embrace the term "compassionate conservatism" despite the fact that I believe that former President George W Bush made a joke of it. I believed, generally, that we should have free-market economics, sure, but that we should be striving to conquer poverty at the same time. I favored short-term solutions to the problem of poverty while believing that, in the long-run, creating a robust economy with plenty of jobs and providing incentives for big businesses to pay decent wages for their employers was the most compassionate way to go. I remember reading about the ideas of a negative income tax and a universal basic income. I was strongly in favor of these ideas. I was opposed to the idea of the government forcing businesses to pay their employees a high wage but I believed that the government could simply make up the difference. I liked the idea of a negative income tax and I was surprised and delighted to discover that the late economist Milton Friedman argued for it in his book, Capitalism and Freedom. To me, if we didn't have a progressive income tax or if we didn't somehow compel businesses to pay higher taxes, all wasn't lost-the government could let businesses pay a mediocre wage or even a low wage while the government could pay citizens more money. This was dependent on income; people who had low-paying jobs would get more money while people with higher income would get less money and those who had excellent wages or salaries would not get any money. 

I was surprised and delighted to read about a similar proposal in a book titled In Our Hands by Charles Murray. Murray, a "right-libetarian" was arguing for a "basic universal income". I read his book and it seemed like a fantastic idea to me. We could eliminate poverty, give people enough money for health insurance, and we could also get rid of the welfare state. This was just the kind of idea that a compassionate conservative could embrace. I did embrace it. The biggest objection was that it would kill the incentive for people to work but my fellow conservatives were missing the point- if we could accomplish the same goals as the "Great Society" program of New Deal liberals and replace the "Great Society" program with something much simpler, something that cost less than the current welfare state, why not do it? I strongly disliked people abusing the system and acting like parasites but that was going to happen anyways. It's better to have a more cost-effective system in place and save taxpayers money despite it being abused by people who had little-to-no incentive to work rather than what I feared was the alternative-what I termed "economic Darwinism". 

In my view, one had to be a misanthrope not to get on board with this. A "negative income tax" (hereafter NIT) or a "basic universal income" (hereafter BUI) would best solve what I thought of as the "freedom-fairness" dilemma. This dilemma presented both "freedom" and "fairness" as horns of a dilemma. The "freedom" referred, of course, to "negative freedom". New Deal liberals and New Left progressives seemed, to me, to favor the "fairness" side, but often at the expense of freedom. Conservatives and right-libertarians favored the "freedom" side at the expense of fairness. Conservatives seemed to favor absolute freedom, even if that meant people living in horrific poverty and earning low wages. Liberals, it seemed to me, favored absolute fairness, even if that meant taking away some people's freedoms in the process of trying to create a fairer system. I still favor conquering poverty by some means of supplementary income, whether it's a NIT, a BUI, or something else. If raising taxes on businesses or legislating a "living wage" into existence will hurt the economy, we should at least have supplementary income even if we have to find alternative ways to finance it. However, if having a new "New Deal" is the best way to achieve an excellent economy, then I am in favor of it! 

                                                                A Neglected Plan

I was surprised to learn of a new plan that was suggested years ago. I read about it in a local newspaper one day and I immediately developed a liking for it. It was a plan dubbed "Remortgage America" and it was a "financial stimulus" idea that advocated giving loans to Americans. The website no longer exists but I was able to find it on an internet archive website. According to this plan, all US citizens would be offered a 30-year mortgage with a 1% fixed rate of interest and people who accepted this mortgage would only have to pay interest for the first two years. As the website described it: "All financially qualified U.S. citizens, not just those in danger of immediate default, would be able to finance a new or existing primary residence, with a $500,000 lifetime limit". The reason is that this plan was created on the conviction that the only answer to the "Great Recession" was a low interest rate on houses. This plan would refinance the existing mortgages on existing houses, cutting the payments in half, and putting money in the pockets of people to spend money. They could save their houses and could go out spending money. 

I really liked this plan because I could see that it was clearly a hand-up and not a hand-out. The government wasn't just giving money to people to do whatever they wanted-no questions asked. People could use the mortgage with a much lower interest rate, pay only the interest rate for the first two years, prevent foreclosures and even increase the values of their homes. The money spent would go into the economy as people spent the money on goods and services, so that businesses would expand and as tax revenue came in, the money that was given to citizens would come back in. The government wouldn't have to spend a lot of money in the form of unemployment benefits and welfare checks, saving money both at the state and federal government, which would, combined with tax revenue, would create a windfall of cash that could cure the national debt. In other words, this would truly be a hand-up that would create a tide lifting all boats. I was impressed as I read this and while I wasn't absolutely certain that it would work, the reasoning explained on this website convinced me that it deserved serious discussion and debate. I became very favorable to this idea. 

Sadly enough, I don't remember this plan ever being discussed. I wish I had registered as a Democrat in those years because I could have easily have put this plan before my local Representatives. This plan, it seemed, would have benefited everyone and it seemed like a true hand-up rather than the NIT and BUI. Because the revenue being loaned out would ultimate come back in the form of revenue, it was easier to defend. This plan wasn't without questions, though. Suppose that this plan was implemented and the housing market was salvaged and the debt was eliminated in less than 20 years. What about those who didn't qualify for the plan? What about those who either lived in low-income housing projects or who lived in apartments and lived paycheck-to-paycheck? How would this plan assist them? Would we have a NIT for citizens who didn't qualify? What about big businesses and corporations? Would the CEOs qualify as well? I didn't know all of the details and since I wasn't a professionally trained economist or an accountant, I felt that I wasn't in a position to make a very informed judgment on this plan. I don't remember any member of Congress discussing this plan. 

                                                          Saving the Economy

I have become very sympathetic to a NIT or BUI. As I see it, we really have two options if we are going to retain our capitalist economy. We can go for another "New Deal" as Paul Krugman and others advocate, or we can try a "fair-market" solution such as a NIT or BUI. If we ever have another housing problem, like we had before the "Great Recession", I am going to do my best to get the above plan in front of my local Representatives. Heck, I will even run for Congress myself and introduce the "Remortgage America" plan as a new bill and I will debate it until I see it either passed or go down in flames. Now that we have the Coronavirus to contend with, we are seeing debates on how to salvage the economy. A stimulus package was passed with bipartisan support and signed by President Trump into law. Part of this package, the CARES Act, was to give all Americans below a certain income level, a $1,200 dollar check. I have seen another plan proposed, for which all Americans below a certain income level would get $2,000 dollars, per month, guaranteed for six months or when unemployment falls below the level where it was before the Coronavirus started affecting the economy. I don't know if this will work but I am very sympathetic to this plan. 

Even after we eliminate this virus and all Americans who don't have some kooky attitude towards vaccination are properly vaccinated against this virus, I believe that we need to do something to help fix the economy. Right now, I am currently reading a book titled The 2% Solution. The book's author, Matthew Miller, argues for a plan that would allow for universal healthcare and a living wage while reducing the government. Plans like this intrigue me. I want to finish reading it and I plan to blog about it when I am done. I am a proponent of universal healthcare and I am very sympathetic to the idea of a living wage. In a future post, I will discuss my thoughts about the living wage. In an earlier post, I described myself as a "fair-market capitalist". As I see it, we have two options: we can either have a living wage or we can let businesses pay whatever wage that they want and we can offer supplementary income to make up for whatever employers lack in terms of the income that they get from work. It seems that the only alternative is "free-market capitalism" which will take us down the road, in my view, to sweat shops, low wages, widespread poverty, and a wealthy elite who live like kings compared to the rest of us. 

                                                             Conclusion

Whether we're "compassionate conservatives", "fair-market capitalists", or "New Deal liberals", we can still come together and do something to help our fellow human beings. I believe that there is a way out of our current mess. I am hopeful for the future. However, I am not hopeful for a bright future if we allow Republicans, especially the "free-market" conservatives a voice in our policy. People like Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump give me no hope whatsoever. As long as we have right-wing outlets like talk radio and pro-Trump outlets like Fox News, I question just how long America will survive. So, why am I hopeful? Because I am a man of compassion. I love my fellow human beings despite how disappointed I can be at times. It's people like me, who love their fellow human beings, want to save the economy, and improve human lives who are the true "patriots". I am a proud American  and I want to do whatever it takes to improve the quality of life for all of us. Whether it's a BUI, a government-loan program for all Americans, temporary stimulus checks, or a living wage, we can help our fellow human beings. 

Leaving the Right

Why am I a former conservative? There are actually a number of reasons. A couple of them are economic and I will discuss them in this post. 

                                                                  Free-Market Capitalism

First of all, I no longer embrace "free-market capitalism" as my my choice of economic theory, especially with regards to the business cycle. This doesn't mean, of course, that I am a Marxist or any kind of socialist. What I have come to embrace, instead, is something I term fair-market capitalism. Fair-market capitalism is an alternative to free-market capitalism in the sense that it advocates 1.) fair wages, 2.) fair taxes, and 3.) a fair prices. However, before I get into discussing fair-market capitalism, I want to explain why I am no longer an advocate of "free-market capitalism", which is very popular in the GOP, especially among conservatives. 

On the face of it, "free-market capitalism" seems like a very wonderful and attractive approach to economics. All individuals, freely pursuing their own economic self-interest, are able to engage in market transactions and these market transactions are based on a voluntary mutual exchange. There is no unnecessary government intervention wasting tax-money, no police state to dictate the terms of the exchange, and no force or fraud perpetuated by anyone to force both buyers and sellers to engage in a certain way. Sounds great, doesn't it? In fact, that is what I suspect the free in "free-market capitalism" refers to: it refers to negative freedom. Negative freedom is to be free of any force or fraud, whether perpetuated by another party or by a state force, to do something that you clearly do not want to do for an unnecessary reason. This seems wonderful and necessary, so what could be wrong? Doesn't everyone want to be free? 

I have nothing against free, voluntary exchanges between two consenting parties, especially if one party is a consumer and another party is a seller. Heck, I do that myself: I am both a consumer and a seller. The problem is that negative freedom can lead to horrible consequences, in my opinion. As I see it, negative freedom will not only encourage some sellers to overprice products and services, but it will encourage them to underpay their employees. Without a standard minimum wage, some business owners or corporations will, if they are given negative freedom, will be happy to exploit their workers by paying them very low wages.  I have known some conservatives who want a very lightly regulated economy, if any regulations at all. 

But if we have very few to no regulations, what is going to stop some businesses or corporations from operating sweat-shops, paying so-called "starvation wages", and operating very unsafe and hazardous work places? What is to stop some businesses from overworking their employees for very little pay? What is to stop them from forcing entire families, including children into the work place, to work long hours with very minimum pay? I am convinced that "free-market capitalism" is what we had when we went through the "Gilded Age". So, in contrast to "free-market enterprise", I believe that we need fair wages, fair taxes, and fair prices This is contrast to very low wages, a tax system that benefits the wealthiest Americans at the expense of everyone else, and price gouging that is caused by greed. 

                                                                   Supply-Side Economics

Supply-side economics has become the doctrinaire school of economics among most conservatives. This is despite that most academic economists, that I know of, do not embrace it. Heck, I read that former President Bush, even though he became Ronald Reagan's choice for Vice-President, referred to it as "voodoo economics". Supply-side economics, with a few modifications, is essentially the classical theory of the business cycle, based as it is on something known as "Say's Law of Markets". The modifications seem to have been introduced by the economist Arthur Laffer. Laffer is especially famous for his "Laffer Curve". In my right-wing days, I read that this curve was to show the "Law of Diminishing Returns" as it applied to taxes. One of Laffer's allies and disciples, Judge Wanniski wrote a book titled The Way the World Works. In it, he explicated the Laffer Curve and defended it. Wanniski went further than this: he introduced his own hypothesis as to the cause of the Great Depression. It was the result of the "Smoot-Hawley" tarrif". 

I never knew any of this when I was a kid in high school. My dad, for instance, never knew who Laffer, Wanniski, or any of the other intellects behind supply-side theory were. Heck, I never heard it mentioned in college when I attend meetings of the Las Positas College Republicans, of which I was at one time a Treasurer and then later, Vice-Chairman. I don't think anyone in that club knew of Laffer, Wanniski, and others, such as Bruce Bartlett. The biggest news of the day, for us, was that Bill Clinton was on the road to being impeached and we were happy that a Democrat was going to be ousted from office and that this perverted son-of-a-bitch was going to be packing and sent back to Arkansas with his loathsome wife. A buddy of mine, had a book economics that was a must-read for conservatives, but he never discussed any of it with me. It wouldn't be until years later that I would actually read any "conservative classics". 

I got into reading about supply-side theory when I was a university student. I was looking for books on Keynesian economics when I came across a book titled Say's Law and the Keynesian Revolution. This was a book that defended Say's Law of Markets and the classical business cycle theory. This book, written by Steven Kates, was not intended as a defense of modern supply-side theory. However, it got me interested in the subject. Some time after I graduated from California State University, East Bay, I discovered Wanniski's book and I started reading it. It had an explanation of the Great Depression that sounded reasonable but, then again, Milton Friedman also had an explanation that sounded reasonable. Friedman was not a supply-sider; he had his own approach to economics that was as contrary to Keynesian economics as supply-side theory was. Friedman's approach was known as "monetarism". However, as I continued to read and looked for other books online about the subject, I came across something that would strongly contribute to me leaving the conservative movement for good. 

This was a book titled The New American Economy by Bruce Barlett. Bartlett has some impressive credentials. He was an economic adviser to Ronald Reagan, he had worked in the Treasury Department under George Bush, he had helped to write the "Kemp-Roth" tax bill, which was the piece of legislation that introduced Reagan's tax cuts. Barlett had worked for the Heritage Foundation and other think tanks. He would also write a book that ruined his professional career: Imposter, which was a critique of George W Bush. This book cost him his job and his friends. I purchased both books and both proved extremely insightful for me. I read The New American Economy (hereafter NAE) in roughly a week's time. I read it in the morning and evening on train rides to and from work. This book, while probably boring to many Americans, was a page-turner for me! It was fascinating and enlightening. 

As I read it, I realized that Bartlett had come to the annoying conclusion that John Maynard Keynes had been right about the economy. But it seems that Keynes was also largely misunderstood, even by both politicians and economists who were, otherwise, his disciples. Keynes advocated for deficit spending when depressions hit but, after the storm passed, we should go back to implementing classical economics. For a number of conservative critics, Keynes's theory of the business cycle was refuted by "stagflation" of the 1970s. Bartlett argued to the contrary; most people reading Keynes' major work The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money might get the impression that deficit spending is the magic motor that will keep the economy running but that wasn't true. Bartlett succeeded in clearing up some serious misconceptions about Keynes. 

However, what impressed me most was the ending of the book. Bartlett argued that Keynes, in his later writings, endorsed many of the insights that conservatives accepted in their advocacy of supply-side economics. In other words, what was true about supply-side economics was already anticipated and argued for by Keynes in his later writings. Keynes wasn't repudiating his earlier theory about the business cycle or the need for deficit spending to cure a depression; Keynes was simply arguing that deficit spending should get us out of a depression and when it worked, we can then return to a classical approach. Furthermore, everything that is true about supply-side theory has been incorporated into modern economic theory. "Conservatives" according to Barlett, "should declare victory and go home". In other words, all of the important insights that conservatives had to offer, which was everything that was true about supply-side theory, became a part of mainstream economics; the wheat made its way into the bread while the rest of it was just kooky nonsense. 

Another takeaway from this book, was that the "Smoot-Hawley tariff" was an important, contributing factor to the Great Depression but wasn't the sole cause of it. Wanniski was right to a large extent, Barlett seemed to be arguing, but overstated his case because he failed to understand Keynes' critique of Say's Law of Markets. Furthermore, as much as it annoyed him, Barlett found himself in large agreement with the liberal economist Paul Krugman and endorsed Krugman's policy prescriptions. When I finished reading Bartlett's book and began to digest what I read, trying to incorporate its insights into my own knowledge, I came to realize that many conservatives were clinging to supply-side theory out of doctrinaire loyalty to their anti-state philosophy and not because of any serious and informed study of economics. To date, I have never seen a conservative pen an informed study of Keynes writings, showing what is wrong with Keynes critique of Say's law. I have read a few critiques such as Henry Hazlitt's book The Failure of the "New Economics" but Hazlitt's treatment of Keynes technical and mathematical critique struck me as very inadequate. 

Bartlett's book had the affect of ultimately breaking me away from the conservative movement. Among other things, it led me to conclude that the right, for the large part, is antiintellectual. Conservatives need not be total Keynesians. They need not agree with everything or anything Keynes wrote but I doubt that a lot of conservatives have seriously engaged with Keynes' body of work and I doubt most of them have the advanced training, both economic and mathematical, to successfully evaluate his work. I am not saying that I am a Keynesian myself right now; there is a lot of Keynes work that I have to study for myself. But I  suspect that so many people on the right stubbornly cling to dogmas and do not take mainstream theories of any kind seriously. They cling to supply-side theory for the same reason that they will cling to creationism. They have no more use for the writings of Keynes than they have for Darwin or modern evolutionary biologists. 

I still have a lot of unresolved questions left after having finished Bartlett's book. I understand that Bartlett thinks that Keynes has been largely vindicated by modern economics. If so, what are we to make of Milton Friedman's school of thought, "monetarism". I have read from Krugman that Friedman predicted that "stagflation" would occur (on logical grounds) before it hit and monetarism is a serious school of economic thought. Supply-side economics, then, according to Bartlett is dead and all that has been useful is a part of mainstream economics ( the so-called "necoclassical theory" I am assuming). Is monetarism dead? Has there been anything insight about it that has, likewise, been incorporated into mainstream economics? I have a good idea of where Bartlett agrees with Krugman but I am not sure about where they disagree if they still do. I get the impression that while Bartlett thinks that supply-side insights have been incorporated into modern economics, Krugman thinks that there was never anything insightful that conservatives in general, supply-siders in particular, have ever contributed to modern economics. In other words, I get every impression that Krugman thinks that supply-side economics is, to borrow a phrase from Bush. "voodoo economics" through and through. 

                                                       Conclusion

I am a fair-market capitalist. I am not a supply-sider and now that I have a better understanding of this theory and of Keynesian economics,  I lean more towards Keynes these days than anyone on the right. I lean more towards the "neoclassical" theory. I take mainstream theories of every kind very seriously although I don't always agree with what may pass for "mainstream" in any given academic context. But suppose that Barlett is wrong. If Bartlett is wrong about this or that point, or worse, entirely wrong in concluding that Keynes was right about deficit spending, then it's no big deal for me. However, I wouldn't embrace conservatism again. Unlike many conservatives, I don't have any philosophical or religious allergies when it comes to government intervention, whether it's a health regulation like clean air and clean water or regulating the business cycle so that we don't slip into a completely avoidable recession. In the end, it's the "anti-academic" or the "anti-intellectual" attitude of the right that bothers me the most. I don't have to agree with Bartlett about Keynes to realize that the right is intellectually bankrupt and will embrace supply-side dogma even if this theory contains intellectual rot. 

Bruce Bartlett used to be a Republican but is a self-declared independent. I, too, used to be a fellow Republican; I was a Reagan conservative in my youth and for a period of time, I considered myself a "secular conservative" years after I renounced my religious beliefs. I don't know that Bartlett would agree with my self-descriptive label "fair-market capitalist" although he may be very sympathetic to it. I don't know. I am acquainted with him on social media. Bartlett wrote an article called the "Revenge of the Reality-Based Community" that described his evolution from a conservative-libertarian in the GOP to an independent who is without a home. Maybe Bartlett might prefer to think of himself as a "conservative-in-exile". I don't think of myself as a conservative at all anymore. I think of myself as a moderate and a centrist. In fact, embracing a Keynesian outlook, including Keynes later writings about returning to a classical approach after deficit spending has cured us of a recession, maybe the most moderate position a person can take with regards to the economy in general and the business cycle in particular.  

In concluding this post, I am not a conservative anymore, partly because I consider the modern conservative community to be intellectually bankrupt. My suspicion is that many conservatives simply do not realize what havoc a truly "free-market" approach to economics will unleash on society. They want to be "free" but I don't think a lot of conservatives have an idea just how unfair their approach to the economy is. As Americans we should be forever done with sweatshops, the exploitation of labor and children, long work weeks, a lack of regulation that can damage our air and water supply as well as other environmental damage their approach may cause. Yet this is exactly what I am convinced that a free-market approach will result in. I am also not a conservative anymore because Bartlett has convinced me that many conservatives are living in the dark; their antiintellectual attitude has resulted in them ignoring mainstream economics, how it got to be that way, and whether or not John Maynard Keynes has anything important to say about the economy. If Keynes is right, how would conservatives ever know if they ignore him because their dogmas are more important than facts? 

An Ex-Republican, Now Democrat

I have decided to start this blog because I am an ex-Republican who eventually became a Democrat. It was last year that I decided to convert to being a Democrat after being an independent for a number of years. I have decided to start this blog right here, rather than on a professional blog, because I have a very small budget and I hope that if this blog grows in popularity, then I can switch to a more professional one. However, I wanted to get the truth out and get facts into the hands of my fellow Democrats. But, before I do this, I want to explain a number of facts about myself in the way of an introduction.

First of all, who am I? My name is Matt and I am a resident of California. I grew up a preacher's kid and in a very conservative family. Both of my parents are strong Reagan conservatives and both are registered Republicans. So, having grown up in a household that was conservative, both religiously and politically, I know the conservative mind quite well. Now bear in mind, I don't claim to be an expert on politics or an established authority on conservatism. I have no Ph.D. in political science but I don't believe that the vast majority of Republicans have one either so I don't believe that many Republicans have a special leg up on me in that regard. However, I do have one thing that speaks in my favor. I know how many conservatives think and act and so, knowing what I know, I can help my fellow Democrats out.

So, why on Earth did I quit the Republican Party? Why did I eventually become a Democrat? To explain why I became a Democrat, it is helpful to understand why I abandoned conservatism. First of all, I abandoned conservatism because I believe that it is a pseudo-intellectual ideology that is grounded in fear, hatred, arrogance, and ignorance. This is not to say that there aren't intellectuals who are conservatives or who have embraced a respectable conservatism in the past. I believe that there are and have been.This isn't to say that there are no conservatives who aren't loving and generous people; there are. This also isn't to say or suggest that all conservatives are fearful; I know some who live lives of hope and love. There are also some conservatives who highly educated people but how informed some of these people are is a matter of debate.

 Second, I abandoned conservatism because what I detest about it the most is a toxic masculinity that I see from it. As I will explain in a future post, this isn't some left-wing myth; toxic masculinity is very real and it infects the conservative movement as a culture. I detest this kind of masculinity and I see it as being very destructive. I have no respect for people who I describe as being "muscular conservatives" and there are plenty of them. Words like "snowflake", "girly-boy", and even words like "faggot" and "sissy" are beloved epithets of muscular conservatism. Not all of these words make it into popular trade books published by the modern right but they come into open display in conversations that I have been a part of and comments on both social media and news outlets. I have observed this kind of atrocious masculinity growing up and I have been a victim of it.

Third, I abandoned the conservative movement because of the blatant hypocrisy that I have seen. Many conservatives accuse the left of demonizing them but I have seen a number of conservatives do the exact same thing. I have seen conservatives gripe and whine about just how nasty and insulting people on the left can be. And I have seen some liberals do this, unfortunately. But I have seen conservatives give as good as they get and when people on the left sink low, I have seen these same conservatives sink just as low. I thought conservatives, as a whole, were more sophisticated than that but they certainly fooled me. I don't want readers to get a false impression here. I am not a liberal and I am not defending liberals when any of them sink low and insult the right when it's completely unnecessary. It's not so much conservatives fighting back that I take issue with; it's the hypocrisy of condemning left-wing behavior, especially when it's abusive and then resorting to that same behavior.

Another reason is that I see conservatism as tied to the hip of theologically conservative religion. Most conservatives that I know of are antiabortion, antievolution, against same-sex marriage, believe that climate change is garbage, and are against the adoption of children by same-sex couples. Why? Because of their theological views. Political conservatism in its current form is tied to the hip with religious conservatism. I am not a religious conservative although I used to be. I considered myself a born-again Christian from age 14 to 24. If I have anything that can be considered a religious outlook, it is very similar to Albert Einstein's view: I have an humble appreciation and awe for the the natural world, its laws and evolution, and an admiration for science as a method for understanding. However, I am not a panentheist as I am convinced that Einstein probably was.

Finally, I see something very dangerous in the modern conservative mindset. I see a very authoritarian mindset in the modern GOP that strikes me as being very dangerous. I will explain this in greater detail in future blog posts and I will share the information that led me to this conclusion. I will explain why I am a Democrat. I know that the Democratic Party is not perfect and I believe that it has a lot to apologize for. But the Democratic Party has improved and I have uncomfortably joined it. But I am done with the GOP for the foreseeable future, possibly forever. I am not alone; there are other conservatives who are done with the GOP and people who are former conservatives whose research has informed my views. I will share my research and my thinking with readers who might appreciate a unique perspective from me.

I became a Democrat because I support same-sex marriage and I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. I became a Democrat because I don't believe that supply-side theory in general, and tax cuts in particular, are always the keys to economic growth. I became a Democrat because I consider evolution to be established science and I strongly suspect that climate change is as well. I became a Democrat because I believe that the Democratic Party, despite its flaws, mistakes, horrible history, and some crappy people, has become- ironically-our best hope for making the USA a better country. The GOP can do so much better but because of the rise of modern conservatism and its antintellectualism, has done awful and I only expect it to do much worse.

Just so that readers know, I don't claim to be someone of prominence within the GOP. I am not some power-broker, some high-ranking chairman, an important author or someone of influence. I wish I was. I registered as a Republican when I was 18 and I was in college. I attended Las Positas community college in Livermore, California. I was the Treasurer of the College Republicans and when leadership changed hands, I then became the Vice-Chairman of the club until I graduated in 1999 with an A.S. in biology. Some people who grew up in a Democratic household or have been political progressives all their lives and cannot imagine how anyone could be a conservative in this day and age might find what I post here to be fascinating and even illuminating.

I hope I can inform some people. If I can convince one person how dangerous the GOP is to America especially in the "Age of Trump" as I call it, and how rotten an ideology conservatism is in America. I will have done my job. There is a lot of nonsense out there. I want readers to know that I don't plan on posting every single day. I plan to post once or twice a week if time permits. For right now, I won't have time to engage in conversations with people on this blog, so I will temporarily disable comments. But if something comes up that I find worthy of commenting on, I will likely make a response, especially if someone posts something in rebuttal to anything I have put on here.

Having said this, here is what you will find on this blog:

1.) a critique of modern conservatism
2.) a critique of modern conservative religions
3.) the documented lies, mistakes, and nonsense coming from Donald Trump and his apologists
4.) a defense of facts, especially scientifically and historically established facts disdained by the right
5.) a strategy for defeating conservative Republicans, both in theory and practice
6.) a critique of the political spin offered by pundits on right-wing radio and Fox News
7.) hopefully valuable insights and commentary that is independent and fact-checked
8.) a hopeful vision of what America can be: a country that is truly free and fair for us all

Lastly, I will do my best to make sure that my blog articles are factually correct. I take responsibility for any errors of fact, poor grammar and spelling, and any mistakes that readers encounter in this blog. All that might be wrong on this blog is my fault and I own up to my errors. While I don't promise that this blog will be completely error-free, I can promise to do my best to try to minimize my errors and correct them whenever they arise. My best hope is that this blog can help move the conversation forward and this is my contribution to helping make the USA the best country that it can be!

Thanks for stopping by and reading this!

Matt