You're forgetting all the steps about purposely cutting, gutting, kneecapping, etc important government functions when voted in and then pointing around while saying "look how bad government is at doing things!"
... that feedback loop describes plenty of "liberals", or rather left-wingers, whatever that actually means. The only way I could see someone thinking this is an exclusively conservative phenomenon is if they've never met any far leftists, or if they are far leftists themselves and believe they are more moderate than they are. Were movements like Occupy Wallstreet, Black Power, The Weather Underground, et al. actually cheering on the establishment and promoting conservative values?
While I think you have identified something real, it seems you're implying some form of intent on a large scale. I don't think the vast majority of disaffected conservatives are preaching faithlessness in an act of pretentiousness; they may actually have reasons to have little faith in government that are being dismissed, and aren't simply trying to corrode society for some ulterior motive like creating an ethnostate or whatever. Just saying your view comes off as a caricature, to say the least.
Once again discussing this: this is a non-falsifiable conspiracy theory. There is no outside measure of success of government programs, and no path to failure.
There is also little-to-no constraint on resource consumption, so government is the ultimate paperclip-maximizer.
Anyway, it’s nice that you’ve invested so much in theorizing and hypothesizing about something you very clearly do not relate to, but it is deeply disconnected from practical reality of resources in an economy.
The context of this one is inflation, and the tracking of it. The statement is that there is an army of government analysts working on it, to get it right.
The reality that I subscribe too (see what I did there?) contains the fact that the government continuously changes the metric from which inflation is measured. And how unemployment is measured. And how much money is in circulation. Until those numbers (and plenty of others) look better than the previous set of numbers.
These kind of comments are the strangest imho. Do we really need an official declaration to deduce someone who says something as clear as "[I don't have] faith in government that you have currently."? Even if they then claim to be something else -- or even against conservatism -- they still are using the exact same rhetoric GP points out that American conservatives use to unjustly cast doubt on government. It's not helpful to seek out explicit information like this. "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
This is exactly how I end up being labeled a conservative, besides the fact that I like to shoot guns.
I don't have faith in government. Government is merely a necessary part of the equation. In the eyes of some, this makes me a conservative. Conserving what? I think taxes are necessary, that social programs can do good (including forms of welfare), that no one should be discriminated against, and that the God of the Bible does not exist. Somehow that's not enough because I don't subscribe to the theology of government.
Seriously, I don't know why you think lacking faith in government is a good metric for guessing whether someone is a conservative, as if it even matters for such a comment. Do you assume someone is Black because they say they like basketball?
I think it’s because you pick government. I don’t have faith in any large organization public or private not being corrupted. So if you merely don’t have faith in government, it implies you do have faith in non-government entities.
> Seriously, I don't know why you think lacking faith in government is a good metric for guessing whether someone is a conservative, as if it even matters for such a comment. Do you assume someone is Black because they say they like basketball?
This is a terrible analogy and it's clear you didn't read my comment. First, I didn't say you're conservative, I said you used the exact same rhetoric conservatives use, which is a factually correct statement. Second, liking basketball and relating that to an ethnic group would not be observing that someone uses the same kind of rhetoric as an ideological group. You can be non-conservative but still use conservative rhetoric. You can be non-conservative, have conservative opinions but use non-conservative rhetoric, e.g. I am pro-guns but it is for entirely different reasons than conservatives. You can be otherwise non-conservative, but be pro-guns for the same reason conservatives are. In that case, it's fair for people to point out that you're using conservative rhetoric.
> Seriously, I don't know why you think lacking faith in government is a good metric for guessing whether someone is a conservative, as if it even matters for such a comment. Do you assume someone is Black because they say they like basketball?
Yes. An official declaration from that person’s mouth is required because there’s a very good chance you have no idea what’s in their heart, nor how they view themselves.
Jimmy Dore is leans left but criticizes them when he sees fit. Tucker Carlson leans right but criticizes them when he sees fit. Both get completely mischaracterized by ignoramuses on both sides.
It is much better IMHO simply to comment on something someone has said directly, without trying to apply labels you imagine to be true.
> Equate others' continued faith in said government with naivety
To be fair, most people's trust/reliance in the Federal government is based out of naivity or lack of knowledge. Considering most news today is just regurgitating government press conference talking points, it's not surprising most people's knowledge stops at naivity.
Yes, most news on many topics like inflation reports, job numbers, etc. is just news reporters restating exactly what the government official says. This was very apparent under Covid when news agencies just repeated what was said with their own bias spin thrown on it. Most attempts at independent journalism that started with skepticsm was instantly lambasted as fake news or misinformation.
Most news does not come from the government. The problem is there legitimately was fake news and misinformation during Covid. Government at least tries to get it right while acting cautious. To expect the government to wait until it’s certain about something when it could instead save hundreds of thousands to millions of lives by being proactive is the radical position.
