> Solving it will require a broad shift in an American culture that celebrates the accumulation of wealth and too often turns a blind eye to — or even glorifies — the success of the white-collar criminal.
Food for thought: what does the phrase "law and order" mean to you? Does it mean to aggressively prosecute all crimes, or certain more visible crimes? I don't think I've ever seen the phrase "law and order" applied to white collar criminals.
In America, the correct phrase should be "rule of law." Under a "rule of law" society, white collar criminals would be prosecuted. As to aggressively, no, not necessarily. Predictably and fairly are much more important.
> Many conceptions of the Rule of Law place great emphasis on legal certainty, predictability, and settlement, on the determinacy of the norms that are upheld in society, and on the reliable character of their administration by the state. Citizens—it is said—need predictability in the conduct of their lives and businesses. There may be no getting away from legal constraint in the circumstances of modern life, but freedom is possible nevertheless if people know in advance how the law will operate and how they have to act if they are to avoid its having a detrimental impact on their affairs. Knowing in advance how the law will operate enables one to plan around its requirements.
The notorious "repetitive beats" section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Public_Or... is the kind of thing I mean; rave culture involved fairly minor crimes, trespass and noise pollution, but because it annoyed the rural middle class there was huge demand for a clampdown.
The country operates on the same principle — the “criminals” who get punished are the guys who sow chaos and disrupt the real racket in town, which is Corporatism.
Well normally it is applied when one side in a politically charged issue is running cover for some crime and the other side wants to highlight this.
I'm not sure who provides cover for white-collar criminals - but I'm sure once you find them you will soon hear the phrase law-and-order coming from the opposing political side.
We need real conservatives today. With a strong outlook for the future. Not the 60-year-old pant-shitters given up on the ideas our society was built upon.
Conservatism as an idea is morally deficient. We live in a changing world, especially at some periods, and what we need is adaptation of agreements to new ways of life propelled by increasing possibilities, from tech and quality of life.
There are places for conservatism, stemming from slowly changing human nature, but for now it looks more like an exception than the rule.
Popular vision of conservatism is hardly defendable today. Real - real - conservatives today would be progressives. AOC, Sanders, this kind. Not because they propose sticking with non-working mechanisms - they don't - but because they correctly see the ideas, intents of rules proposed for society - at times when changes weren't that stark.
Edit: this is an opinion.
There is no justification to many thought platforms - but that doesn't mean they can't be wrong.
Vaccination is actually a pretty conservative option politically.