College of Political Knowledge
Subject: Conservatism
Today is my final day of policy and issues analysis for the coming year……today I want to focus on politics.
Remember Mad Magazine and its strip Spy vs Spy? Real life has a situation as comical as the strip…..that situation I will call conservative vs conservative. It seems that the conservative movement is attacking itself…..why?
An excellent question! It appears that everyone in the “conservative” movement is trying to redefine what it is to be conservative.
I am an old fart and educated in the ways of political philosophy and in my studies I found NOTHING in the modern conservative movement that bears any reflection of the conservatism of Edmund Burke. Of course we could always say that we, as Americans, have a unique brand of conservatism…….yes we could say that but it would be bullsh*t.
Conservatism….real conservatism means…….a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and opposes rapid change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to “the way things were.” The term derives from conserve; from Latin conservare, to keep, guard, observe. To a conservative, the goal of change is less important than the insistence that change be effected with a respect for the rule of law and traditions of society; since the 1940s the term has been closely associated with preservation and promotion of capitalism and opposition to liberalism, socialism and communism. (thanx to wikiquote)
But in today’s American political climate, conservs are not true conservs but rather a neo-liberal. That’s right if you adhere to the percepts of the GOP or the Tea Party you are a neo-liberal.
Think not? Then answer these questions…….do you hold any of these ideals sacred?
- THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating “free” enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers’ rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say “an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone.” It’s like Reagan’s “supply-side” and “trickle-down” economics — but somehow the wealth didn’t trickle down very much.
- CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply — again in the name of reducing government’s role. Of course, they don’t oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.
- DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.
- PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.
- ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF “THE PUBLIC GOOD” or “COMMUNITY” and replacing it with “individual responsibility.” Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves — then blaming them, if they fail, as “lazy.”
Do you like the sound of any of the above? If your answer is yes then you are a NEO-LIBERAL! Congrats! Did you notice there is NO mention of a “moderate conservative”? That is a new term coined by the media to explain what cannot be explained. If you are moderate does that make you a centrist?
Meanwhile back to the conservative movement…..who decides who is a conserv? There are many sub-species of conservative thought…..there is the liberal conserv…..the libertarian conservs…..fiscal conservs……religious conservs and my fav “progressive conservs……my point is that there are many many strains of conservatism and to belittle someone for not being conserv simply because they will not agree with you is nothing short of MORONIC!
Just like all Americans need to find a way to work together to move this country forward….so should the conservs….if they cannot move forward then they will remain just a minor player that has nothing but NO as a platform……maybe that is what these tools from the Tea Party want….if they have NO plans to govern then it is easy to be a thorn in the foot of democracy…….maybe that is all they aspire to…..there is NO future for the conserv movement as it is today………and unity is not something they understand only on their terms…nothing these will do…….the movement is screwed!
I was always under the impression that both neo-liberals and neo-conservatives put the free markets out in front of their political philosophies, with the neo-liberals justifying such action to improve social conditions where conservatives would use it to further coporate citizenship.
Personally my view of what makes up the GOP today falls under a heading I call capitalist Libertarian. Some of their roots lie in such organizations as the John Birch Society and in the Randian philosophy of Objectivism, that puts self-interests over social needs.
Larry, my problem is that both parties adhere to the neo-liberal tenets…….some more radical than others but basically the same disastrous policies……
Come on Chuq. It’s disingenuous to make the claim that the GOP or the Tea Party has the desire to liberate “free” enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes, as well as cut expenditures for social services like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply —
and I could go on but there is no need. I don’t know when the typical liberal will finally realize that Republicans are not conservatives … two vastly different entities.
~~~
It disappoints me immensely that I haven’t found one left-leaning person who hasn’t fallen for the “conservatives hate the poor, the hungry, the needy, the government,” line of certified b.s.
I’m not even going to attempt to explain the conservative position. It disappoints me because reading the above from you is nearly identical to reading the bizarre musings over at the American Liberal Times, and I swear to gawd, I can’t get through even one post there without feeling myself slip out of reality, because it’s like reading fantasy. I’ll give you credit for being much more articulate though.
What I did was point out that true conserv beliefs have nothing to do with what is happening today, from purely political philosophical point, neo-liberalism is what all conservs say is a conserv belief…..maybe if you want to make up the stuff….personally, I understand a true conserv point of view, maybe not agree, but understand…..the conservatism of Burke…..we can always say that we Americans have our own version but that is just trying to make sense of what is happening. The 2 parties are basically the same….the so-called liberalism of Clinton/Obamna is not liberal and believe me it is no where near socialism. But then that is a matter of opinion and I do not want to change your mind just want people to think about the whole system not their little corner of it.
I do not think that a good conserv hates the poor….but if you listen to the so-called spokesmen one could get the wrong idea…..there is hate if there were not then there would be NO need for name calling or false accusations…as long as both sides see demons with every word then theis country is in truly SAD shape.