Dominionism, Christianity and the United States

[Cyrano Johnson]

Not trying to paint all home-schooling with the same brush, of course. There is a subset of it that isn't related to what I describe above.

[Oniya]

Didn't think so - and I know I'm not the typical example of... well, most things.    I'm more of a 'home supplementer'.  We read science books, and epic poetry, and 'just-for-fun' books that range from YA on up.  (One of the first books I read to her on stroller walks was 'The Hobbit', we've read a lot of Redwall and Riordan, and she inherited my copy of 'The Phantom Tollbooth' years before her teachers decided to show the kids the movie.)

[Trieste]

I find it extremely difficult to believe that a sizeable chunk of US conservatives do not wish to be identified with religious conservatives. I realize that I'm going to ruffle more than a few feathers, here, but if the voting public did not want religious nutjobs to continue to be the face of conservative politics, they would stop electing them. Not to put too fine a point on it, but these people have been and are still elected officials. You know, with the votes and definite term lengths and stuff. So, there's that.

Second, government should be small because it is notorious for wasting money except for the part where private corporations rely on government institutions to do their job for them because a) they've done things that the private corporations can't or won't invest in and b) they continue to do it reliably. The easiest example of this that I can think of (off the top of my head anyway) is the fact that privatized couriers like FedEx and UPS rely on the USPS to finish up their deliveries to the more rural parts of the country. Further, what constitutes waste? To you, waste might be that the government is charging only 6% on new student loans when students surely value their education at a higher interest rate. To someone else, waste might be the fact that Texas is paying its state legislature money to attend a special session (a second one, natch) to pass legislation that is probably going to be shot down in the SCOTUS - after more taxpayer money is spent on the litigation. To me, government waste is the DEA carrying out drug raids on state-licensed marijuana dispensaries, or the idea of a physical fence along our southern border. Because a fence will totally be effective. So which one is wasteful? Are they all wasteful? Well, not everyone would say so. I mean, clearly Rick Perry doesn't think so, at the very least.

So first, I challenge the assumption that the government wastes more money than a corporation does. Second, I challenge the assertion that a sizeable chunk of conservatives in this country do not want religious conservatives in office. A moderately vocal minority? Okay, maybe. But not a majority - and I don't think it's unreasonable to make assumptions about conservatives based on the majority of conservatives in the US.

And quite frankly, until and unless conservatives stop focusing on small-government-that-they're-trying-to-shove-up-my-uterus and fuck-the-brown-skinned-people types of conservatism and start focusing on how-do-we-get-people-jobs conservatism, there's not going to be a whole lot of trust thrown in the direction of conservatives from people who don't want a theocracy.

[CaughtByMoonlight]

I find it extremely difficult to believe that a sizeable chunk of US conservatives do not wish to be identified with religious conservatives. I realize that I'm going to ruffle more than a few feathers, here, but if the voting public did not want religious nutjobs to continue to be the face of conservative politics, they would stop electing them. Not to put too fine a point on it, but these people have been and are still elected officials. You know, with the votes and definite term lengths and stuff. So, there's that.

Second, government should be small because it is notorious for wasting money except for the part where private corporations rely on government institutions to do their job for them because a) they've done things that the private corporations can't or won't invest in and b) they continue to do it reliably. The easiest example of this that I can think of (off the top of my head anyway) is the fact that privatized couriers like FedEx and UPS rely on the USPS to finish up their deliveries to the more rural parts of the country. Further, what constitutes waste? To you, waste might be that the government is charging only 6% on new student loans when students surely value their education at a higher interest rate. To someone else, waste might be the fact that Texas is paying its state legislature money to attend a special session (a second one, natch) to pass legislation that is probably going to be shot down in the SCOTUS - after more taxpayer money is spent on the litigation. To me, government waste is the DEA carrying out drug raids on state-licensed marijuana dispensaries, or the idea of a physical fence along our southern border. Because a fence will totally be effective. So which one is wasteful? Are they all wasteful? Well, not everyone would say so. I mean, clearly Rick Perry doesn't think so, at the very least.

So first, I challenge the assumption that the government wastes more money than a corporation does. Second, I challenge the assertion that a sizeable chunk of conservatives in this country do not want religious conservatives in office. A moderately vocal minority? Okay, maybe. But not a majority - and I don't think it's unreasonable to make assumptions about conservatives based on the majority of conservatives in the US.

And quite frankly, until and unless conservatives stop focusing on small-government-that-they're-trying-to-shove-up-my-uterus and fuck-the-brown-skinned-people types of conservatism and start focusing on how-do-we-get-people-jobs conservatism, there's not going to be a whole lot of trust thrown in the direction of conservatives from people who don't want a theocracy.

Hear, hear! While I'm trying to be so polite and respectful (keeping in mind how I'd like to be spoken to myself) you just let rip. Thank you. Sometimes polite doesn't get the job done. I live in one of those rural places where I get all my packages delivered by USPS, even if starts out from FedEx. (UPS has a branch around so they send the actual UPS lady... imagine.)

I also live near the border and while no one here really wants the "fence" no one seems to have an issue with a border checkpoint station on every road leading to the interstate. So I drive to work, getting stopped every day at said station and asked if I am a citizen. Since most of the USBP guys look about 12 years old, it's all I can do not to say "Longer than you sweetie!" and peel out.

I do think there's going to have to be some kind of conservative bite-back to get their party back from Crazyville.

Thank you for posting.

[Trieste]

I don't think I was impolite, but I apologize if it came across that way.  I do get tired of the "We are not our wingnuts!" defense when the wingnuts keep getting elected. Okay, well, if American conservatives think these people are as crazy as independents and liberals do, then it's time to vote them the hell out. I guarantee you that it's not moderates and liberals who are voting these people in, after all.

[Sabby]

I do get tired of the "We are not our wingnuts!" defense when the wingnuts keep getting elected.

The best response I ever heard to that defense was "If those are your Fundamentalists, then I think there might be something wrong with your fundamentals"

[Valthazar]

Trieste, I think many of the views you are vocalizing are the sweeping media stereotypes of liberals and conservatives that detract from the real issues at hand.

The reality is that the vast majority of Americans do not know very much about economics or how the legal system works.  As a result, the media has managed to make social issues (gay rights, abortion rights, etc.) as an easy way for a person to "choose" their political orientation.  For example, the small-town, uneducated conservative Christian will simply vote along the same lines as his/her church, simply because their candidate opposes abortion.  On that same token, the college-going, hipster college kid will simply vote for a liberal politician because they support gay rights, abortion rights, etc.  What we, as informed citizens, need to realize, is that whether or not these social issues are important or not, this Democrat vs. Republican political system is doing nothing but causing divisions between us without focusing on issues that truly matters (economics, politics, foreign policy).

You ask why the conservative voting block continues to vote religious nutjobs into Republican office.  It is because there is a division in the conservative party at present - with rational-minded, economically-aware conservatives straying further and further away from where the Republican platform presently is.  The only "galvanized" group that has the pulsating social-energy as the liberal movement's social-energy of abortion rights, gay rights, etc. is the radical Christian right, who has a very passionate social movement of their own to stop abortions.  As a result, this type of group gains a lot more political foot-hold among the uneducated class - and is ultimately voted into Republican office.

You need to realize that these are just games that the media is playing on us - creating a Democrat vs. Republican split, and combining social issues with economic ones.  I am assuming that when you think of conservatives, you immediately think of uneducated, intolerant, radical Christians.  However, I urge you to ask the question of why most college students these days define themselves as liberal.  Is it because they agree with liberal economic policies?  Perhaps - but I would make the case that most college students these days (who are not Business or Econ/PoliSci majors), have no clue what is going on in the government as far as economic policy or foreign policy.  I would argue they label themselves as liberal because they support the social policies of the Democratic party.  The social policy issues are much more digestible to the average person.

I am a full supporter of gay rights and abortion rights, but frankly, I think that continuing to make these types of issues the centerpiece of any sort of political party is dangerous.  I am by no means saying these are unimportant issues, because they definitely are - but making them the centerpiece often galvanizes people to align themselves with a political party for the wrong reasons.

[CaughtByMoonlight]

I don't think I was impolite, but I apologize if it came across that way.  I do get tired of the "We are not our wingnuts!" defense when the wingnuts keep getting elected. Okay, well, if American conservatives think these people are as crazy as independents and liberals do, then it's time to vote them the hell out. I guarantee you that it's not moderates and liberals who are voting these people in, after all.

Not at all - I admire your ability to be the "tell it like it is sister" here. Your argument is completely sound and I was thinking about this in the shower. (Everyone thinks deep thoughts in the shower, right?) It used to be that white Christian people could look around and feel superior. Nowadays, it's clear that any one type of person is NOT superior to another, and rather than feel "Hey, isn't it great that we are equal under the sun?" some of the formerly superior have gotten crabbed and mean over it. They want their superiority back. So now, maybe it will be through Christian Dominionism. (Which might explain why part of their manifesto is that "multiculturalism is a pagan notion".)

Again, thanks for posting.

[Trieste]

@Valthazar:

I think that you missed the fact that I referred to religious conservatives as the nutjobs and then conservatives in general which is, in the context of my post, a more general label. It's complicated and I realize that, but you can't honestly expect someone who is not-a-conservative to believe the constant cries of "This is not my conservatism!" when the conservatives we see in offices are people like Boehner, Ryan, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, etc. And it's not just on a national stage - it's in local elections, which are arguably the ones that affect Julie and Joe American the most. State legislatures are the ones passing Voter ID and This Is A Women's Health Bill Honest We Swear crap.

Why are college students identifying as liberal? It could be social issues, or it could be that Oregon's (Democrat-controlled) legislature is passing measures to eliminate student debt through their new Pay It Forward program while the Republican-controlled legislatures in Ohio and Texas are (yet again) in the news for anti-abortion bills that have nothing to do with the debt problem that college students face right now.

Meanwhile, Scalia is writing snarky commentary about how the rest of the court is delusional when they dare to try to put a social issue to rest nationally.

Plus there's the fact that the concrete part of my post regarding what exactly comprises fiscal waste went ignored in favor of getting annoyed with me for generalizing while at the same time generalizing about a whole demographic of up-and-coming voters.

Not at all - I admire your ability to be the "tell it like it is sister" here. Your argument is completely sound and I was thinking about this in the shower. (Everyone thinks deep thoughts in the shower, right?) It used to be that white Christian people could look around and feel superior. Nowadays, it's clear that any one type of person is NOT superior to another, and rather than feel "Hey, isn't it great that we are equal under the sun?" some of the formerly superior have gotten crabbed and mean over it. They want their superiority back. So now, maybe it will be through Christian Dominionism. (Which might explain why part of their manifesto is that "multiculturalism is a pagan notion".)

Again, thanks for posting.

Shower-time is my think-time, too... provided I'm awake enough for coherent thought.

[CaughtByMoonlight]

Trieste, I think many of the views you are vocalizing are the sweeping media stereotypes of liberals and conservatives that detract from the real issues at hand.

The reality is that the vast majority of Americans do not know very much about economics or how the legal system works.  As a result, the media has managed to make social issues (gay rights, abortion rights, etc.) as an easy way for a person to "choose" their political orientation.  For example, the small-town, uneducated conservative Christian will simply vote along the same lines as his/her church, simply because their candidate opposes abortion.  On that same token, the college-going, hipster college kid will simply vote for a liberal politician because they support gay rights, abortion rights, etc.  What we, as informed citizens, need to realize, is that whether or not these social issues are important or not, this Democrat vs. Republican political system is doing nothing but causing divisions between us without focusing on issues that truly matters (economics, politics, foreign policy). ... 

Pardon me for not fully quoting you... However, I want to focus on this part. It is not simply a media focus on these things driving certain people to vote the way they do. When you say that some people will vote along the same lines as their church, you hit it on the head. Some churches, particularly Fundamentalist churches, have made a point of saying that voting AGAINST certain candidates dooms the church member to perdition. I know because I work with one of these people who votes their religion every single time. Candidates have discovered this and now make a point of playing up to it. The "Vote for Me or Go to Hell" candidates are getting an upper hand. And not because of the media, thank you. Most of the media I, myself, pay attention to has a lefty slant, naturally, but they report what some of these "God-botherers" are saying. In full, no redaction. And they are pretty damn scary. So, when people of faith are being led by the nose that way, they tend to forget that there are larger matters.

*sigh*

[Valthazar]

Why are college students identifying as liberal? It could be social issues, or it could be that Oregon's (Democrat-controlled) legislature is passing measures to eliminate student debt through their new Pay It Forward program while the Republican-controlled legislatures in Ohio and Texas are (yet again) in the news for anti-abortion bills that have nothing to do with the debt problem that college students face right now.

There is a prevailing stereotype that Republican proposals are inherently against the poor and antagonistic in nature, while Liberal proposals are inherently supporting the poor and rational in nature.  This type of thinking is dangerous for a country, since it limits our opportunities for disagreement, and places far too much trust in politicians of a certain political party.  I will openly admit that many liberal political ideas are good ones, but I disagree with many of them as well.

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but let me give you an example of why a moderate conservative (who is certainly not part of the 1% elites), would disagree with Oregon's Pay it Forward Program.  By opening the flood-gates to higher education, and having every student eligible for a 4-year public education without financial consideration, the demand for 4-year public education would sky-rocket.  Many students who would previously have attended a trade school or entered the workforce may now opt for a 4-year education.  With no competitor to the 4-year public education system (since it would be debt-free now, and our society views the 4-year education as the pinnacle of education), the university itself (which is internally regulated), would be free to naturally elevate tuition progressively, without any decline in demand.  So while the students would be debt free, and would only be paying 3% of their income, Oregon's tax payers will be on the hook if it ever becomes unaffordable.  Long term, I am interested to see how Oregon fares with these lofty promises it is making.

Trieste, I fully respect your perspective on these issue, and I hope you would respect mine as well from an economic standpoint.  These are the types of efficient discussions that should be taking place between liberals and conservatives - but unfortunately, we live in a society with many uneducated individuals who view politics are being a sporting match of egos.  I fully agree that the Christian Right-wing has hijacked the Republican party, but I would also make the assertion that the Social-Liberal ideologies of the Democratic party have given most Americans a false trust of Dems being the "rational" ones, preventing any sort of effective discussion.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Many of the conservatives I know are actually ashamed of the religious right in their party.  One of my friends wants very much to see a purge of that segment from the party platform.  Another of my friends is an atheist that is generally disgusted with that segment of his party.  I would say pretty much every conservative I am personally in contact with wants that part gone.  Yet there is a great deal of schism in the party from what I can observe.  Libertarians are draw in large part from the Republic party, Tea Party is drawn largely from the Republican party and there is a growing segment of Objectivists inside the party.  So I can agree that many conservatives do not like the direction of their party.  The problem is that these vocal, religious right candidates gain so much of the money.

To me that is the suspicious part of their getting into office, the amount of money they raise in a short period of time.  Most of this money comes from organizations setup by very wealthy corporations and donation groups.  Supposed grass roots organizations that are backed by billionaire contributors.  Paul Ryan is one such candidate with his economic bill that fell apart under scrutiny and was blatantly established under the tenets of Ayn Rand and openly criticized by even the Catholic Church as being against the tenets of Jesus Christ for how the poor and disabled were treated under that plan.  This bill would have expanded the power of the wealthy to untold heights.  Almost the entire Tea Party movement was supposed to be grass roots America and simple digging under their contributor list shows a great many oil tycoons and hedge fund companies.

Conservatives do have a largely undeserved reputation of disdain for the poor.  Remember a conservative economist is the one who developed the idea of a reverse income tax code and another one proposed minimal payments to the poor.  Essentially conservative economists understood that the poor funnel, more than the rich, money into the local economy because the poor spend their money on food, luxury items and education for their children.  The wealthy stand on the shoulders of the poor in the sense (not trying to paint them negatively but the wealthy do benefit from our system) and invest much of their money into their companies, which do provide jobs that help the poor and so the system helps itself.  Such insight has been lost in recent decades as the Republican Party has turned to tactics of fear and shame to raise money and interest.

As for small government versus large government, I think anyone that says a small government can regulate a super power country effectively is delusional.  The United States of America is one of the largest and leading countries in the world on many fronts.  Such a country being run by a multitude of fiefdoms in this age of global economies and second-by-second information is a dangerous illusion that should be abandoned.  While the federal government can certainly turn some of direct rulings and operations over to a state government, much like a business owner letting store managers run their own stores, the federal government needs the ability to set the tone and pace of the country.  A simple look at the current goings on of the states is more than enough to see this as true.  Rising college debt, rising medical costs, rising national debt, and Texas wants to rush an anti-abortion bill through their local Congress that will no doubt be struck down in federal court because they apparently have nothing better to do.  By the way this is the second push of this bill.

There is some sort of idea in this country that everyone’s problems are their own.  Education is not a family-to-family problem, but a national crisis.  This country is hemorrhaging for trained and qualified workers, but education moves further out of reach.  Debt is climbing as students are funneled into the education system that is not preparing them for work.  As such foreign education systems are out pacing our own and their well trained work force is replacing ours.  Hell, we are importing them and trying to change our immigration laws to bring more of them to our country.  Healthcare is not a personal problem, this is a national one.  People get sick and these same people are the ones that work in factories, call centers, doing maintenance and so on.  That guy coughing on the street corner is the same man flipping your burgers.  A healthy nation is a nation that can work, provide taxes and support a powerful government.  The Articles of Confederation fell apart because people quickly realized that a multitude of small governments could not handle national problems.  This is even truer today than yesterday.


--Sorry..kinda posted without being done.

[Callie Del Noire]

I don't think I was impolite, but I apologize if it came across that way.  I do get tired of the "We are not our wingnuts!" defense when the wingnuts keep getting elected. Okay, well, if American conservatives think these people are as crazy as independents and liberals do, then it's time to vote them the hell out. I guarantee you that it's not moderates and liberals who are voting these people in, after all.

I don't know if I qualify as a conservative.. given my outlook on some things.. but I DON'T vote one party. Haven't since my very first ballot back in the Reagan/Bush era. My dad told me about a 'Yellow Dog' X-er. and I refused to let party be the sole determinant of my vote. That being said..there are a lot of folks who go 'Well they support my outlook on THIS ISSUE.. ' and then get upset when it gets ignored in the rush of the candidates to do something that is 'more important'.

[Trieste]

People posted while I was writing this and I haven't had a chance to read the posts so please note that this post is in response to Valthazar's post, for the most part.

I have the impression that trade school attendance is already in decline, but I don't have (and am currently too lazy to look up) the numbers at hand to back it up. If you are knowledgeable on the numbers, here, please feel free to correct me. Whatever the case, unless Australia (on which Oregon modeled their program) has a tragic dearth of plumbers and electricians that has been kept a deep, dark secret, I don't think it will have that much of an effect on 4-year attendance. As it stands, 4-year colleges are already considered such a necessity that students are willing to mortgage their futures to go there, and Oregon has stated that it has plans to control rising tuition as well. I don't know how successful they will be, but apparently the potential for abuse by colleges has been recognized. It does seem to be a lofty plan with all the best intentions.

Which is part of what would make it so appealing to college-aged voters. I can't comment on the wisdom of choosing to identify as liberal based on things like the Oregon initiative, and both candidates in the past election cycle made campaign promises not to allow interest on federal student loans to double this month, so neither Obama nor Romney could be said to have kept that particular pro-student stance. But from my perspective, it seems that the Dems are more actively courting young voters and minority voters than the GOP.

Further, as a college student, who are you more likely to idealize: Ginsberg or Scalia? (Or Alito versus anyone who doesn't roll their eyes during the State of the Union because what the fuck Alito.)

In the meantime, the GOP's idea of a hip new candidate is Rubio, who is arguably more famous for drinking water than for his actual policies, or maybe Ryan. And Ryan came across as the over-eager, gym-obsessed kid brother of Grandpa Willard. Not exactly high-appeal for a demographic that is statistically more sedentary and concerned with where their future is going to come from.

And finally, I think you might be taking a bit of the (admittedly snarky) criticism I have for the GOP/faces of the conservative movement in the US as criticism and snark against you personally, Valthazar. I think that unexamined views are weak views and I'm happy to discuss stuff with you. Please do understand that I'm not trying to call you out, I'm not trying to be combative - but I am very openly skeptical of the "this conservatism is not my conservatism" stance that I have seen taken up by a relatively disturbing number of self-identified conservatives. If having your own reputation besmirched by the crazies that have taken over the GOP and the conservative label in general is not motivating enough to get moderate conservatives to the polls, it's worrisome. I have to say that I interpret it as some level of complacency in the craziness and that - that I would criticize. A lot.

[Kythia]

I have the impression that trade school attendance is already in decline, but I don't have (and am currently too lazy to look up) the numbers at hand to back it up. If you are knowledgeable on the numbers, here, please feel free to correct me. Whatever the case, unless Australia (on which Oregon modeled their program) has a tragic dearth of plumbers and electricians that has been kept a deep, dark secret, I don't think it will have that much of an effect on 4-year attendance.

I kinda hate to do this, but...

One of my friends has just emigrated to Australia.  They got in because her husband is an electrician and, every year, each of the Australian states has to "import" a certain number of electricians and other craftsmen because, sorry, there is a tragic dearth of them.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I think I would rather be the country importing electricians and craftsmen that the one having to import top level executives and high-tech workers.  No offense to the electricians or craftsmen.

[Kythia]

Oh, I fully agree.  Just making the point that the knock on effects Valthazar predicted are seen in the wild, not making any claims about whether or not they're an acceptable side effect.

Edit to add: 
http://www.nationalvisas.com.au/blog/australian-news/skill-shortage-in-australia-is-getting-more-serious-than-ever/
http://www.workpermit.com/australia/skills_shortage.htm

[Trieste]

I kinda hate to do this, but...

One of my friends has just emigrated to Australia.  They got in because her husband is an electrician and, every year, each of the Australian states has to "import" a certain number of electricians and other craftsmen because, sorry, there is a tragic dearth of them.

I should have worded it better, but to me the question would be whether Australia is seeing the same more of a shortage than we see in the US or whether their lack is keeping pace with the lack in the US. Given the difference in education systems, it would be the differences, not the overall shortage, that would be relevant. I would think.

Edit for derpiness. Need to proofread better.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Honestly the United States would be in a better position to solve this problem.  Much of our current infrastructure projects are handled by immigrant population as is.  Many of the immigrants from Central and South America are craftsmen and willing to be trained.  Australia suffers from being an island continent with little access to such labor, whereas we are already having a problem containing such a labor force.

[Callie Del Noire]

I should have worded it better, but to me the question would be whether Australia is seeing the same more of a shortage than we see in the US or whether their lack is keeping pace with the lack in the US. Given the difference in education systems, it would be the differences, not the overall shortage, that would be relevant. I would think.

Edit for derpiness. Need to proofread better.

Might not be a lack Trieste.. it might be that demand is outpacing native supply. Australia is still a growing nation in a lot of areas with lots and lots of open territory. One of the reasons the Navy didn't like to bring in the entire battlegroup into port there once upon a time was there were a LOT of 'port call marriages'. A guy would meet a girl..then vanish.. and we'd get a message via the embassasy that 'Airman so & so' is staying in Australia to be with his wife.

Doesn't happen that often anymore..but it did for a long long time. I didn't believe it myself till one of my duty officers pulled out an OLD log book from the first Gulf War and showed me an entry. (He kept a few of them around for examples, made for interesting reading at times)

[Cyrano Johnson]

There is a prevailing stereotype that Republican proposals are inherently against the poor and antagonistic in nature, while Liberal proposals are inherently supporting the poor and rational in nature.

There isn't a Liberal party in the States last time I checked. I thought we just got done establishing that liberals and conservatives can work together rationally on issues they agree on; that's the Democratic Party, right? Which ranges from right-wing Blue Dogs to Dennis Kucinich on the sort-of "left." [Not that all internal Dem politics consists of "working together rationally," obviously. But it does happen, and Obama really is the poster-child of that tendency. Which aside from his race is a big part of why so many Repubs resent him so bitterly.]

The prevailing "stereotype" about Republican hatred of the poor and general antagonism to anyone not of the movementarian fold is based on fact, however. It's not a misrepresentation or a distortion to say so: it is their message, and their tactics, and their choices that have established it beyond the shadow of a doubt. The examples of this are so numerous, so prevalent within the party and its media, and its pretensions toward caring about general prosperity by now so flimsy that when Mitt Romney got caught with his "it's my job not to worry about 47% of Americans" gaffe, the only surprise was that anyone pretended this was a surprise. That kind of thinking, and that contempt for the supposed whining of the masses for "entitlements," has been the cornerstone of Republican policy for decades*. When old Dubya used to tell rooms full of billionaires "This is an impressive crowd. The haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base," that was the core messaging of the Republican Party. It still is. It's not subtle, and aside from various attempts at obfuscation when the wrong people notice and comment on it, it's not hidden.

[* EDIT: Well, that's a bit of an overstatement. That general mentality has certainly been in the party for decades, and frequently at its helm. But as a question of degree, it's certainly more dominant since the turn of the century than ever before.]

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but let me give you an example of why a moderate conservative (who is certainly not part of the 1% elites), would disagree with Oregon's Pay it Forward Program.  By opening the flood-gates to higher education, and having every student eligible for a 4-year public education without financial consideration, the demand for 4-year public education would sky-rocket. [remainder snipped for brevity]

The demand already has skyrocketed. In the workplace. That's why you need an educated workforce in a modern society. Also, if you want that workforce to be able to spend money, maybe even save a little so you can enjoy a relatively stable financial system, it helps if it isn't servicing vast, crushing debt loads.

Is that really a common "moderate conservative" critique of Pay It Forward? Because that's horribly weak, I've gotta tell you.

[Callie Del Noire]

A 'Demand for higher education' example. I am an EXPERIENCED avionics technician. I have 15 years experience on aircraft experience, including the outright modification of two aircraft to conform to new mission profiles. I helped design/remove component layouts that were required for new Naval missions. This included conforming to very stringent mission and safety criteria, such as aircraft hardware mounts that had to tolerate 15 lateral g's of force in one case (I HATED that job).

To do the same level of job work in the civilian field (without the extreme safety criteria) I have to have a degree in Electrical Engineering and/or structural engineering. Despite the fact that 80% of what you learn on either degree does not directly reflect to the needs of the field. I have been told by DOCTORATES in the field that I have the knowledge/job skills and was actually offered jobs at the time (while I was still in service) but now? Suddenly to do my job, despite having FIVE times the experience the ad requires, I have to had a 4 year degree (among the choices they are looking for is the degree I am currently working in in Network administration), a FAA certification that is basically 'how to do paperwork that you'll never see' AND an Airframes & Power Plant License (A&P). Yet, if I don't have these qualifications.. none of which fit my job, I can't even apply for the job at Boeing or Lockheed, despite the fact that I have Field and Design Engineers tell me I have the skills they need to work on the aircraft and build the simulators.

[Valthazar]

The demand already has skyrocketed. In the workplace. That's why you need an educated workforce in a modern society. Also, if you want that workforce to be able to spend money, maybe even save a little so you can enjoy a relatively stable financial system, it helps if it isn't servicing vast, crushing debt loads.

Is that really a common "moderate conservative" critique of Pay It Forward? Because that's horribly weak, I've gotta tell you.

Again, I don't want to sidetrack this, but I can clarify my views on this.

You say that the demand for higher education has already skyrocketed, and that a modern workforce requires higher education.  I would agree with you on this statement - and while many would say this is the result of a globalized economy, I would say it has more to do with a saturation of degree holders.  In other words, too many people who previously would never have needed to go college, are now going to college.  I work in higher education, and I can tell you honestly that college education standards have fallen considerably in recent years.  You would be amazed how many college freshman are unable to string a simple sentence together.

The next question is, why has the demand for higher education skyrocketed?  In the past, if you wanted to attend college, you would go to a bank to obtain a student loan, since the student loan industry was privatized.  In essence, the bank was taking a gamble by offering the loan.  If they gave a loan to a student who would not be able to pay it back, they would lose money.  As a result, they would ask to see a copy of your grades, use formulas to predict your probability of graduation, and expected income for your major, and either approve or deny the loan request.  This is a similar process as is now required to obtain a business loan or personal loan.

However, ever since the government has started offering federal student loans that are guaranteed to all students, these requirements are now dropped.  In other words, a student with a 2.1 GPA graduating high school, who clearly is very unlikely to do well in college, will be granted a federal student loan.  Because many up-and-coming colleges and universities are strapped to obtain cash, many of these institutions will unfortunately accept these at-risk students, and put the onus on the professors to "somehow" get them to graduate in 4 years.  Professors, in their desire to maintain their reputation, will be forced to bend the rigidness of their academic standards to get the majority of their students to pass - creating a situation where college standards decline.

So no, my perspective on this issue is not horribly weak - it simply represents a different perspective than yours.  Programs like Pay It Forward will simply exacerbate this situation by flooding the 4-year college market.  Many of these at-risk students don't have the skills required to find employment in college-level careers post-graduation, and many of these students dropout before graduation itself.  These students, had they considered other avenues like in the past - learning a trade, starting a business, doing an apprenticeship, etc, may have thriving careers.

Unsurprisingly, many of the trade professions (AC repair, electrician, plumbers) are the last bastions of job security in the United States.  I think Callie Del Noire's situation is all too common unfortunately, where people in careers that never needed college degrees in the past, now suddenly require them due to over-saturation.

[CaughtByMoonlight]

I have one comment about the sudden "need" for a college diploma to get a job: There are people hiring who have mistaken a degree for an education.

My one actual degree is in culinary arts. As mentioned above, I am an autodidact with a fairly well-rounded education. Not a degree. But an education. I am surrounded by degree-festooned individuals who do not know the meaning of the word "festooned".

It's disheartening.

[Caela]

A 'Demand for higher education' example. I am an EXPERIENCED avionics technician. I have 15 years experience on aircraft experience, including the outright modification of two aircraft to conform to new mission profiles. I helped design/remove component layouts that were required for new Naval missions. This included conforming to very stringent mission and safety criteria, such as aircraft hardware mounts that had to tolerate 15 lateral g's of force in one case (I HATED that job).

To do the same level of job work in the civilian field (without the extreme safety criteria) I have to have a degree in Electrical Engineering and/or structural engineering. Despite the fact that 80% of what you learn on either degree does not directly reflect to the needs of the field. I have been told by DOCTORATES in the field that I have the knowledge/job skills and was actually offered jobs at the time (while I was still in service) but now? Suddenly to do my job, despite having FIVE times the experience the ad requires, I have to had a 4 year degree (among the choices they are looking for is the degree I am currently working in in Network administration), a FAA certification that is basically 'how to do paperwork that you'll never see' AND an Airframes & Power Plant License (A&P). Yet, if I don't have these qualifications.. none of which fit my job, I can't even apply for the job at Boeing or Lockheed, despite the fact that I have Field and Design Engineers tell me I have the skills they need to work on the aircraft and build the simulators.

Situations like this drive me insane. In my personal opinion  we have put far too high a premium on "Higher Education" to the detriment of our work force. I mean seriously, why is some 25 year old who knows how to take tests and write papers considered a better candidate for a job (with NO experience doing it!) than Callie who has been DOING THE JOB for 20 years? This is utterly backward.

Yes, some jobs do require the education and the skills learned in Universities, but not every job requires a Bachelors. I mean really, why does someone doing Data Entry, need a Bachelors in History? Or a Car Salesman need a Bachelors in English? Neither of those degrees has anything to do with the job being done and yet someone with some sort of Degree will be hired over someone with experience whether it's relevant or not.

Personally, I'd like to see more companies doing something similar to what a lot of hospitals are willing to do to get new nursing staff. You can hire into an entry level position at a hospital (say Housekeeping or Food Service, whatever) work there for a certain amount of time (my hospital is I think one year) and then you become eligible to apply for tuition reimbursements. A LOT of people do this. The hospital will base the reimbursements on your grades, giving incentive to study hard and do well, you get an education and you agree to work for them for a set amount of time when you graduate, or pay them back. It works out well for everyone and no one goes into life crushing debt.

Granted it wouldn't work for everyone, and it wouldn't work for every company, but it certainly makes more sense than getting a four year degree that you can't use for anything except to say you did it.