Yet Reagan got taken to the cleaners on domestic spending because he wanted the military buildup to bankrupt the Soviets, so went the horse-trade with Tip...he was acting pragmatically, not conservatively in that instance. And Newt’s day in Congress was the time when the first economic bubble was created (the DotCom) and the Congress gave birth to the second bubble (the Housing Market). So even a part of the government being more conservative does not give us very good test of the more vs. less assumption. Conservatism never had its day in modern history...and now it has been co-opted by those with other agendas. In part that is undoubtedly due to conservative thought being overwhelmed by modern society. Very few conservatives actually exist today, certainly not enough to enact policy on a national level in a society rapidly becoming socialist.
And that’s the rub in the end, even if a pragmatist took power, it would be fleeting likely in socialist dominated world where internationalism is the rule of the day.
That’s too defeatist. The way the left radically changed public opinion on same-sex marriage, and influenced the government to allow it, shows that a small movement can grow and achieve major change. Being relentless, believing in your cause, never giving up but also being strategic and cautious at times is all a part of succeeding at that.
I don’t think conservatism promises that an economy will not go through ups and downs on its own. That is the natural cycle. I don’t think the dot-com bubble was government-caused. It also wasn’t a huge devastation...it was a manageable dip. The housing bubble certainly was government-caused, but it was NOT because of conservative policies at all. That was entirely a result of Fannie and Freddie running the housing sector, something that was not created by conservative government. No conservative government has been very successful at ripping down many existing social programs. We did get welfare reform in the ‘90s and saw good results from that.