Okay, another bump.
Not one Republican or "conservative" has come forward to articulate a single policy, idea or vision being advanced by the current Republican cabal.
Not even the bad or terrible ideas that are held to be great ideas by Republican leadership (e.g. voter suppression, lower taxes on the rich etc.).
None of them has come forth here (or anywhere else on this site AFAIK) to condemn The Big Lie or those who promulgate it.
It really does appear that our resident "conservatives" are the equals of the intellectually, ethically and morally bankrupt leaders of the right wing extremist movement that is afoot in the United States.
I largely agree with your post. But, as a centrist, I'll admit that traditional Republican values are not quite wrong.
I don't think there are any 'centrists' in US politics; The term usually means "between Republican and Democrat", which is a distinctly right-wing position, lying as it does between the right-wing Democrats, and the far right Republican parties.
Regardless, as a socialist, I will say that traditional Republican values are very wrong indeed, as they are based on a number of false assumptions.
Reliance on family rather than government,
Which inevitably means that those whose families are non-existent, are unable to help, or are unwilling to help, are left helpless and struggling.
Family is brilliant, if you are fortunate enough to have one, and it's one that likes you, and can afford to help you. But lots of people have no family. And far more have family that have disowned them, for important reasons like being unconvinced by the rest of the family's religious beliefs, or having a partner who is the wrong colour, or the wrong gender, or the wrong social class. And plenty have loving families every member of which is struggling, and who can at best provide emotional, but not material, support.
Reliance on the family and not on government is an idea that looks great to people who fit the Republican mould. But it's ultimately just a way to perpetuate economic divisions, social divisions, and the intolerance of diversity. It's great for comfortably well-off conformists, and awful for anyone who lacks wealth, or who desires freedom.
letting the market determine wages,
Which is a poor idea, because the market in wages isn't fair or free. At the very least, wages need to be negotiated between parties of similar experience and expertise in such negotiations. Employers typically have an HR department that includes people whose entire career has focused only on the negotiating of pay and conditions. To expect a boilermaker or computer programmer to negotiate against such an expert is crazy - you wouldn't ask an HR staffer to weld, or write code, for the exact same reason you shouldn't expect workers to be able to negotiate a fair wage and conditions.
This can be mitigated to some extent by having unions, who can employ negotiators who might achieve comparable expertise to their opposite numbers in HR. But largely it's necessary to set some rules to minimise the inequity inherent in the system - if you don't find work, you risk starvation and homelessness. If your boss can't recruit a new employee, he risks failing to grow his business as fast as he would have preferred. That's not quite an equal distribution of risk right there.
There are plenty of things that can mitigate this inherent inequity. Unionisation, minimum wages (universal and specific to particular kinds of employment), Universal Basic Income, generous unemployment benefits, etc.; Regardless of which of these you like or dislike, it's certainly not the case that a free market for wages is a good idea.
reduced government red tape,
Government red tape is one of those things that's obviously bad in general, but which inevitably turns out to be good in the specific. "Red Tape" is a whinge, like "why don't they go after the real criminals"; It's almost certainly a complaint about being forced to consider the needs or rights of others, or to look at the wider picture. "Bloody red tape" is what stops me from dumping industrial waste into the nearest river, or speeding up production by taking the safety guards off the machines, or doing any of dozens of other things that would hurt others, but which I don't immediately see as problematic.
Feel free to post a specific example of a valueless regulation or law that causes delays or reduced profits or inconvenience, without having a valuable benefit in protecting health and safety, or preventing crime. I don't think there are enough such examples to be worth the effort of eliminating them.
Which is the only good one - but suffers from being too vague. What constitutes "personal freedom" varies depending on who you ask. It's a meaningless platitude, without specific examples of freedoms that are being abridged and that should be restored.
— these are all good ideas that have strong merit, if not taken to an extreme.
Yes, "conservatives" DO take these ideas much too far. I understand that. But the core of their belief system is not wholly rotten. It would be good to have a wholesome conservative party in this country to help temper left-wing excesses.
"Wholesome" is only a bee's dick from "God fearing". It's a weasel word used to promote compliance with unspoken norms, and is the very antithesis of freedom.
The US doesn't have a left-wing. Left-wing excesses won't need tempering until you get a left-wing to start exceeding.
