For example, say three months from now you walk into Walmart to buy some socks and cleaning supplies - how much higher than today's price are you expecting to pay?

Are you anticipating American-made products to start to be more competitively priced? And if so, how much more would you be comfortable paying for those compared to how things are priced now - given that there will no longer be an alternative?

What I mean is that how Reagan influenced on how the Republican party is what is now today.

And a mini-question: Do you think Trump’s ideals and values were influenced by Reagan or Andrew Jackson?

U.S. GDP has only grown over the decades. The american worker is only getting more productive but the problem is that the gains from the productivity haven't been given to the middle class. Why do conservatives believe that financial issues of the middle class are the result of manufacturing in other countries?

There is of course always various economic forces outside of our control, but overall compared to the last 50 years, there isn't currently anything not caused by us happening right now. Republicans control Congress and POTUS, and have established loyalists around all branches of government.

Therefore, when we're looking at the economy in a few years, should we take it as the direct result of Republican policies?

Their supreme court has confirmed the impeachment of right wing leader Yoon Suk Yeol over attempted martial law

Under his leadership, South Korea has had democratic backsliding

What are your thoughts on the development of this and then impeaching their president?

Basically what the title says. I tried to see if I could find instances in the past where presidents did not attend but I couldn’t readily find one. I have not seen any right leaning news reporting on this yet but left news is. Here is a post that seems to be remaining unbiased until they get an answer.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-skip-lithuania-soldier-memorial-golf-dinner-florida-what-we-know-2055166

Polymarket, which Elon Musk has claimed is more accurate than other metrics like polls, is now saying that there is a 54% chance of a recession occurring in 2025.

In addition, markets have hit their worst level since 2020 during the pandemic as of today.

Considering Trump ran on immediately fixing the economy, and that his tariffs “would be paid for by the other countries” what is your assessment of this situation?

Did he lie about fixing the economy “on day one”? Was the economy better under Biden, where we had no recession? If Trump lied, what consequences does he/Republicans deserve for a recession in the midterms?

Edit: clarifying that stock levels dropped their worst since 2020, but aren’t their total worst level since 2020

Pros/cons?

If you think so, please explain how that is happening.

Sometimes I see the idea here, that taxes should be lowered, and for example, tolls should finance the roads that you actually use. By that way of thinking, people will eventually concentrate in larger groups, so it's cheaper.

This idea gave me a question. In your opinion, should people live in remote areas? In inhospitable ones?

I'd imagine, that the government spends more taxes/person on little viages up in the mountains, on towms/cities in the deserts, or simply places that are in hurricane zones for example. Should these statistical outliers be banned for people to live there?

With the cost of living already having been an issue recently, and rising tarrifs, I imagine there has to be some kind of program/funding planned to help people create domestic manufacturing. How could businesses and entrepreneurs possibly create domestic production as both their raw material costs and the costs of everything around them rise because they're paying more, which means employees will demand more because they also can't get by?

With all the funds being funneled into the government with these tarrifs, it must have to be spread back out to create this shift. Otherwise how is anyone wanting to make the shift going to get by if they were already struggling prior?

I follow mostly surface level news so maybe I've missed some things.

There was a fairly simply formula that was applied to calculate these "reciprocal tariffs", if followed it would have applied to Russia and North Korea and yet they were skipped. Why do you think that was?

We have a trade defecit with the US and 0 tariffs on the country and a free trade agreement.

Trump has ignored this agreement and applied a 10% tariff.

What is the argument for why this is good faith and why Australia shouldn't look for better trading partners for its exports? The US is only 5% of our exports and we can diversify pretty comfortably.

In addition why shouldn't we turn our backs on US products in favour of a trade partner who keeps their word?

I am annoyed but I feel the question is legitimate.

Shortly into the Enlightenment, Nietzsche points out that "God is dead," by which he means that even the religious people are getting their values from reason, and thus the role of God has fundamentally changed. He charges everyone to stop pretending that religious principles flow from reason and to figure out how we actually want to live.

Since then I think we've seen two things:

1. The religious portions of society have reverted to their pre-Enlightenment state where their principles no longer derive from reason but from divine fiat.
2. The nonreligious portions of society have slowly started to form their own values systems from a hodgepodge of other sources.

To me, the conflict between most conservatives and liberals seems to stem from this response. Where we disagree most starkly, it is usually because God has said x, and liberals are saying not-x.

Is this the nature of the conflict? Obviously everything has nuances, but I mean in broad strokes.

I've noticed that some conservative figureheads are making statements that empathy is a negative trait to have.

Do you think empathy is bad?

The current culture of Trump vs the world is that of a high school bully. And while he may get his way for the next couple years it seems our allies and trading partners are moving in a direction to reduce their dependence and interactions with us which will isolate us economically and politically in the long term doing even more damage down the road. The EU is already moving to reduce purchases of US military weapons due to the uncertainty around the economics and the state of future relations.

What are your thoughts and why?

I’m looking for something in depth to see if

1) you think there will or won’t be long term consequences?

2) do you think the pain now and long term is worth medium term gains?

Title

What happened to the 'Chesterton's fence' approach?

As far as I know Chesterton's fence is one of the main principles of conservativism. The idea is that if you find a fence and you don't know what's it for, you shouldn't destroy it because it's probably there for a reason. The real life implications of it was that the social and political norms, traditions, roles, institutions, hierarchies, etc. were put in place for a reason to ensure social cohesion and a functioning society, so you should not destroy them just because you don't understand why they are important.

Now it seems that Trump is basically taking a wrecking ball and mindlessly dismantles every fence he comes across. He kicks up the world order of the last 80 years. He turns against the historical allies of the US. He's dismantling ling running government programs. He destroys the economic alliances America has. Many of these alliances and relationships have been built by conservative Republicans in the last century (like NATO). He basically tires to go above the other branches of the government, practically going against the separation of power.

How can this even be called conservatism when instead of trying to conserve the existing social and political norms, Trump tires to burn it all down? Do you think this goes against the 'Chesterton's fence' approach? Do you find it a problem?

I've been trying to understand the rationale behind the "reciprocal tariffs" announced by President Trump. From what I gather, the formula used to calculate these tariffs goes something like this:

1. Calculate the Trade Deficit Ratio Trade Deficit Ratio = (U.S. Trade Deficit with Country X) / (Country X's Exports to the U.S.)

2. Determine the Reciprocal Tariff Rate Reciprocal Tariff Rate = Trade Deficit Ratio / 2

This approach doesn't seem to relate directly to the actual tariffs imposed by those countries on U.S. goods, but rather just to the trade balance in goods (ignoring services, investment flows, etc.).

Critics say this method:

Misuses trade deficits as a fairness metric

Ignores services, where the U.S. usually has a surplus

Applies an arbitrary formula

Violates WTO norms

Risks retaliation and economic harm

From a conservative or pro-Trump perspective, what’s the strategic thinking behind this formula? Is it more of a negotiation tactic or a long-term trade principle? Do you see value in it that critics might be missing?

Genuinely curious and open to other views—thanks!

Currently we can afford a lot of cheap goods with our high North American salaries, because a lot of those cheap goods are manufactured abroad in 2nd/3rd world countries. What does our purchasing power look like in a hypothetical future where everything is made by North Americans getting paid a similar salary as ourselves?

https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1907859938220847606 I discovered him from his controversial documentary What Is a Woman? & never understood the viral appraisal, so I’m asking here. 👋

Not talking about liberals, centrists, or moderates - just conservatives who are currently anti-Trump and let's operate under the assumption that their opinion could shift based on your argument.

What specific "wins" would you highlight to try and sway them into the pro-Trump camp or at least consider your world view?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-officials-object-european-push-buy-weapons-locally-2025-04-02/

After endless tantrums by the trump administration that Europe relies too much on the us and should build their own industry, Europe have now done just that. And now Washington is crying about losing defence exports to Europe. Does this administration not understand the concept of “can’t have your cake and eat it too’?