Conservative Philosophy

Great Debates
41

Maeglin:

Not at all. I just don’t understand how you daddle me with a lebel based on a single analogy. One can believe that two things are similar to some degree without being the same. Besides, I don’t beleive in Memes.

I disagree on several grounds.

  1. any ideology or philosophy can be perverted.

  2. I don’t think there’s a pretext of ultra-rationality inherent to conservative thinking. Many cornerstone’s of conservatism, like traditional morality, a cleaving to the family unit, and in some cases an emphasis on religion, defy rationalism. Pragmatism is more like it, founded on a respect for unseen consequences that may occur from tampering clumsily with the complex interactions of society.

  3. Conservatives get every bit as emotional about their beliefs as anybody else.

Perhaps when we’re finished with this, we can start another thread on Social Darwinism, and the similarities between a changing society and evolving organism. In brief, I think the trap in Social Darwinism, is making too much of a few interesting similarities, much like somebody equating the growth of the internet with the evolution of a “world-mind.” Sounds nice, works for a little bit, but in reality it’s mostly bullshit.

BTW.

  1. I am very uncomfortable with the term “Social Darwinism,” and find it to be an abhorent philosophy that has little place in this discussion.

  2. I think your pretty much dead on in your military analysis with the exception that while I think the U.S. military is surpassingly well-trained and equipped, I’m not so sure one can claim they are the greatest fighting force of all time. People who have fought the Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, and the Isrealis in modern times, might disagree. A historical case can ber made for the Roman Legionnaire and the previously mentioned Sacred Band as well. There have been quite a few bad-asses in History.

Thanks for the compliment (Conservatively speaking, I have to roll mine up and tie it to my leg every morning so I don’t trip on it) :slight_smile:

42

Milosarian:

I’m not too concerned over what direction this thread takes. My only hope is that it remains as rational, interesting, and thoughtful as it’s been so far. I very much appreciate everybody’s contibutions, and the tone they’ve been offered in.

Matt_mcl:

An excellent point. In many cases, I think it’s a fallacy to draw liberal/conservative generalizations across party lines when speaking of individual politicians.

I.E. I find Bill Bradley is an excellent example of Goldwater conservatism in many respects, and if one examines what Bill Clinton actually did while in office, it is hard to categorize him as pure Democrat/liberal.

Alessan:

Indeed. I can think of our own Revolutionary War as an example when it was time to sever the ties that bind. To make another analogy, there are times when it no longer makes sense to fix up that old clunker, and you are better off buying a new car. I don’t think that Conservatism advocates endless stagnation any more than liberalism would suggest throwing out a car when the ash trays get full.

I sure hope so. I think extremists are a brand unto themselves. As I’ve said before, zealots and fanatics of any kind basically stink as far as I’m concerned. I think the best conservatives tend to be fairly liberal conservatives, always seeking to tweak and improve the system. The best liberals are conservative liberals who seek to preserve the fine and worthy aspects of society while instituting necessary change. I would highly recommend reading the Conscience of a Conservative. You might be surprised at what you find therein. At the end of this post I’ll show a link to an excellent essay by PJ O’Rourke, a reformed liberal :slight_smile: on conservatism that is particularly good.

Absolutely. I guess we’ll meet when the time comes to man the walls :slight_smile:

Here’s the O’Rourke link:

“How to explain Conservatism to your Sqishy Liberal Friends”

http://www.web-presence.com/mac/pjhowto.html

43

So far we’ve talked about the very basic philosophy of conservatism.

What I’d like to suggest next is that we move from Conservative theory of society, and state, and move towards conservatism and the rights and roles of the individual within society.

I find the O’Rourke piece I cited above to be exceptionally enertaining and informative, and I think we’ve lain a nice context where we can move on and get more interesting.

If anybody is willing to do so, I’d love to see you read that piece and share your comments.

44

It especially speaks well as to why conservatism is not “Social Darwinism.”

It also has a fantastic focus and accomplishes an excellent groundwork for entering the monetary and personal responsibility areas of conservative thought.

I’d be especially gratified if Stoidela were to read/reread it, as she’s been one of the most vocal debater’s who equates conservatism with selfishness. I’d be honestly curious and thrilled to hear your thoughts on it.

45

I doubt that the terms of our discussion are adequate. The phrase “conservative” is indistinct. I, also, admired Barry Goldwater, if one person embodies the notion of the honorable opposition, he’s the one. He failed to support the civil rights movement as early and as strenuously as it deserved, but all in all …

By polar opposite, Richard Nixon (who, for the purposes of this discussion I will define as a “slimeball”) also billed himself as a conservative. And was supported to the bitter end by those Republicans who were quick to bill themselves as conservative. The only thing these two politicians shared was party affiliation.

So what is it, actually, that is to be conserved? What is to be done?

Well, power of course. If the power is held by the just and the wise, how can any sensible person object, who would have raised an opposition to Solomon?

Well, yes. Wouldn’t it be loverly?

The struggle between the powerless and the “ruling class” is real. In a morally neutral perspective, the struggle is nothing more than that, a Darwin/Marx clash of forces.

In that view, “conservative” means nothing more than a “class” seeking to preserve its power. Political conservatives, then, would be those persons who rather like the division of the Pie, and are warmly unsympathetic to redistribution. In rough outline, this defines the “political conservative”.

Let the other “conservative” be called a “social” conservative, more jealous of standards of behavior. Things are “changing too fast”. Disco bars full of gay people and weirdos on drugs is the nightmare that haunts them, not the unfair taxation of the frugal and prosperous. In terms of political power, they are more or less egalitarian, since they believe that the “real” majority feels as they do.

They want government to curtail immoral behavior, and are less concerned about the injustices of too much economic redistribution.

You will not get their pulse pounding about the horrors of inheritance taxes, but they will pay an astonishing price for a War on Drugs. Far more than they are willing to spend on a war on AIDS.

So I ask anyone who defines themselves as “conservative” What is it, exactly, that you want to “conserve”? Is the distribution of property and privilege as it should be? Would a compulsory redistribution of wealth be unjust, by definition? Or would you happily melt down your SUV if it would provide health care for 10 American children? (I would. Yours, of course.)

Or are you more concerned about the degeneration of moral standards? As in “Sex, Drugs, Rock n’ Roll, and Secular Humanism”. Did you read Robert Bork’s “Slouching towards Gomorrah”, nodding your head and murmuring?
I would ask, if it isn’t that much of a hijack, for those posters who define themselves as conservative be more specific as to what they are anxious to preserve.

Status Quo.

Yes, better than it was. No, not nearly good enough. What is it you want to keep?

46

Thanks for the link, Scylla. I’ve read some of O’Rourke’s books and articles before, and enjoyed most of them (although if we ever meet, we’ll have serious words concerning his descriptions of the Israeli Army in Holidays in Hell). I’ve always found him funny, intelligent and observant - qualities which almost make up for the fact that he’s a cynical old misanthrope. :smiley:

47

Milo - you and I agree almost 100%

Stoidela - you seem to think that because some people think the economy is more important than social issues that we are selfish.

I personally believe social issues are important, but you can pass all the social reforms you want. But if people don’t have jobs or money it’s not going to matter much.

Now, if you have a nice strong economy where most everyone who wants a job can get one, then you can start working on social issues.

48

elucidator:

For the record, Barry Goldwater actually did a lot more for civil rights, particularly for blacks in the military than most activists I can name.

I’m sorry that he didn’t choose to march and wave banners, and preferred to actually quietly and without fuss accomplish things.

In the new prologue to his conscience of a conservative it is mentioned that he was the prime mover for equal rights in the military. He commanded a black division And fought tenaciously for an equal role and integration. Moreso, as I stated earlier he was also at the forefront of gay rights. Both times, he was quietly making progress long before it became a cause celebre. His style of appealing to people’s better nature to institute change, rather than confrontational activism which tends to get people to dig in their heels is much to be admired.

49

elucidator:

I think your ideas of consevatism as a preservation of class inequalities by the “haves” against the “have-nots,” is both fallacious and partially disingenuous. Much of this was discussed by PJ O’Rourke (a reformed liberal) :wink: much better than I.

If you’ve read Hunter S. Thompson’s book on the Hell’s Angels, you’d be surprised to find that the politics of this disenfranchised class were extremely conservative. This is what led to their falling out with Kesey, and his bunch.

Furthermore, if you take a look at the most recent election map, you’ll see that the lines were not drawn based on wealth. The working “class” of America tends to be strongly Republican/conservative. The party lines seemed to be drawn more as urban/rural in this election. I would think the conflict is centered more on morality, entitlements and religion.

I find the whole idea of conservatism as a preservation of the an elite ruling class to be nothing more than a bag of bullshit, and its propagation as dishonest as creation science.

What you say about Nixon is true. He did however, have enough honor left to resign. Which was the best thing he could do.

So what do I wish to conserve.

I wish to conserve my individual freedoms and responsibilities rather than give them away to the Federal Government.

The government should be a remedy of last resort rather than big brother getting involved in my life on a day to day basis.

I wish to conserve the right to raise and educate my child as I see fit.

I wish to keep and preserve the fruits of my labors and dispose of them as I see fit.

Al Gore talked a lot about what he was going to give the American people. This really stuck in my craw. Neither Al Gore, nor the government can give us anything at all. It is ours to begin with, and every time we assign responsibility for it to the government, we give up a little bit more of our freedom and personal responsibility.

Those things need preservation.

50

As I pointed out, I too rather admire Goldwater. I felt that he failed to support the Civil Rights movement as openly and forthrightly as he should have. Please correct me if I’m wrong (as if I had a moment’s doubt), but didn’t he vote against the Voting Rights act of '64.

As to Mr. O’Rourke, I think hes thoughtful, funny, and I haven’t missed a book yet. I have heard quite enough about his drinking problem and how he used to be a hippy. It ain’t like he was Saul on the road to Damascus. He just got a better offer. And if he’d stuck to pot rather than Jim Beam, he’d have been better off. Ask Willy Nelson.

51

Quite. My very own Gramma is an example. A life-long union/labor type person, she ended up voting in the last years of her life Republican, precisely as I’ve outlined: not because of fiscal policy, but because of the culture shock which results in “Going to hell in a handbasket” syndrome. The monied interests exploit this to thier own ends.

(Well, jeez, Scylla. Didn’t say anything about your mamma! Kinda shuts down the dialogue.)

To quote Will Rogers “It ain’t a crime to be poor, but it might as well be.” Does a rich guy worry about day care? Hate his job, want to quit but afraid his kids won’t have health insurance? In America, money is life itself. An inequitable distribution of wealth is unjust on a fundamental level. Of course, if you wish to believe that the most common route to wealth in America is virtue, prudence and hard work, feel free to do so. Good luck.

I hungry child in Bangladesh is a tragedy, a hungry child in America is a crime.

52

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by elucidator *
**

I didn’t say anything about your Mom either. You’ve misconstrued my comment (and I have no idea how,) into a personal attack on your Mom.

Regardless, I meant no offense, and am sorry to hear that your mom is a victim of the conservative illuminati and their conspriacies.

The idea of a conservative conspiracy is what I consider bullshit, and what I think is irresponsible to propagate. If you wanted to make a good conspiracy to keep people in their place, you wouldn’t do it through the conservatives, you’d do it by misdirecting the liberals probably by giving them false and meaningless causes to fight about thus camouflaging the real issues.

Hmmmm.

Now that’s an interesting thought.

Actually, PJ’s conversion came from the realization that while Liberalism was an awful lot of fun, it wasn’t particularly practical. So, he decided to cheer for the winning team. As he says “Age and guile beats youth and a bad haircut every time.”

53

Scylla, I think there is some truth to this. Clearly, the Republicans have managed to win over a reasonable part of the white working class on just the sort of issues that you mention, although you have to be a little careful here…There is still a correlation between income and voting. Here it is in this year’s election from the NY Times (based on the exit poll surveys of Voter News Service. The first numbers are family income and the next are percentages for Gore, Bush, and Nader respectively:
Under $15,000: 57 37 4
15K–30K: 54 41 3
30K–50K: 49 48 2
over 50K: 45 52 2
over 100K: 43 54 2

You are right though about the urban/rural split being even more dramatic:
Pop. > 500,000: 71 26 3
Pop. 50K–500K: 57 40 2
Suburbs: 47 49 3
Pop. 10K–50K: 38 59 2
Rural areas: 37 59 2

54

jshore agreed with me?

Damn, that doesn’t happen to often. :slight_smile:

55

Scylla–Yeah, I guess not. But, if you want some disagreement, I just read that O’Rourke piece and I can’t say that I am overly impressed. I mean it is not a completely unreasonable explication of libertarian–conservative (as opposed to religious or social conservative) ideals…But I also see lots of problems with his logic. A few to throw out:

(1) Well, it is great to equate Sweden with ABBA and Volvos and a high suicide rate. But, I think you have to make a more serious argument about why a stronger welfare state government like that doesn’t work than that. I’ve been to Sweden only very briefly but spent several weeks in Denmark, and I think there is a lot to admire in their society. Are there problems too? Sure, but I think this kind of cavalier dismissal of places that have chosen a less conservative approach and are doing quite well, thank you, is really quite closed-minded.

(2) He completely fails to recognize the influences of corporate power. What does he think that in the absence of government people just work as individuals? The problems he speak of inherent in committees, bureaucracy, etc. exist whether or not you have a strong government…As I have told you before, he’d need only come to my place of work to see that.

(3) He is very naive about the role of “charity” to provide for the common welfare. Doesn’t he realize that government solutions rose out of the problems associated with Dickensonian laissez-faire capitalism? Many problems just were not being adequately addressed.

One of the problems I see with libertarian/conservative thinking is it seems to see the evils associated with only one kind of power—government power. Yes, government power can be dangerous and government must be held accountable (which, by the way, people like Ralph Nader, who is not a conservative I think you’ll agree, have in many ways led the charge on). But, there is also the power that comes, for example, with a great deal of economic control…e.g., corporate or personal wealth. Power, for example, over the sort of news that we hear, the quality of the air that we breathe, even the sort of things we are taught to value. (I speak in the last phrase about the rampant materialism that drives our corporate/market-dominated culture.)

So, there are a few thoughts for you on the O’Rourke article.

56

P.S.–I was at Barnes & Noble last night and was browsing through Robert Bork’s “Slouching Toward Gommoreah.” One thing I noticed on the cover was a blurb describing him as the nation’s foremost conservative intellectual, or something like that. Someone on your side might want to hunt down the person who claimed this and kill them for doing such a disservice to the conservative cause, don’t you think? Seriously though, while I respect your take on “conservative” philosophy, I don’t think you can blame us for sometimes defining it differently than you do when there are people around making statements like that. Clearly, what “conservative” is is often in the eyes of the beholder.

57

Oh…geez…when it gets to be late at night, my resistance to adding “just one more point” seems to drop through the floor.

Here’s another thing I don’t see reflected in O’Rourke’s piece (although admittedly, he just may have left it aside). But, that is what to do about the various externalities that exist in the market system. I mean, I sometimes think that I believe in market economic theory to a larger extent than those who profess great fervor for the holy “free market.” In what sense can one justify the current price of gasoline at ~$1.60 per gallon when the evidence is that the external costs suggest the price should be way more than that? I have yet to see a compelling argument for not trying to tax the price to a point that better reflects those external costs (or otherwise push the costs back to the producer or consumer).

58

Scylla,

Why hath thou forsaken me? I take you up on your offer to debate O’Rourke’s article and you disappear!

59

Jshore:

Sorry, I got distracted by hunting and my testicle.
point 1. Actually O’rourke wrote a lengthy seperate piece on Sweden that appears in one of his books. He’s quite detailed, and makes an interesting argument that the success of Sweden has to do a lot more with the nature and culture of Swedes, than their form of government, in much the same that great actors can make a bad play entertaining. I can’t find a link to that piece, but it’s in his book Eat the Rich. Even though he’s very short on the subject in the piece I’ve linked to, it’s not just an off the cuff observation, but one he put research into.

point 2. Same as above. Lots of essays on corporations and how they work in that book. Naturally the essay you read wasn’t all encompassing. You’ll recall we’ve spoken before about the idea that the competitiveness of a corporation streamlines its bureacracy relative to the piggish monopoly of government.

point 3. I’m not so sure that that is true. Can you back it up?

The idea that those who posess more power or wealth are somehow more evil then their proletariat brethren is simple bullshit.

An evil man with power has a capacity for greater harm than one without of course. But, there are all kinds of power as one who has been mugged in the Port authority can tell you. Wealth and power, or the lack thereof cannot be a criteria for judgement.

We also live in a free country, so if one chooses to be a greedy bastard, one has that right. I have a big problem with attempting to legislate morality in this fashion.

Wealth and power does not imply guilt.

Re: Bork

Bork has had some interesting things to say, as has Jesse jackson, and even Rush Limbaugh from time to time. One needs to discuss the arguments made on their merits, not by who made them.

Re: externalities

You gotta be careful with those. It’s an interesting idea, but not very accurate. Grant one externality, and you have to grant them all. Pretty soon the cost of an egg incorporates the mining of minerals and chemicals to create fertilizer, to grow the feed that fed the chicken who produced the egg. These things are actually there own commodities, goods, and services and are accounted for on their own. If you try to account for them your way, you count things several times. If you wish to avoid this you would have to fractionalize the attribution of these externalities across the board. An impossible task.

To borrow an analogy from Douglas Adams, counting externalities is like trying to derive today’s stock prices from a piece of pound cake, because of the fundamental interconnectdness of things. Not very practical.

In short, externalities are amusing, and interesting as they can describe costs which have not yet occured, but they are no means hard data that should be accounted for.

For example. 100 years from now, people may be mining landfills for valuable old tires. They might be a resource. How do you decide to externalize their long term disposal cost today?

In short, externalities are pretty close to sheer bullshit.

60

Scylla, well I’d be curious to read about what he has to say about Sweden and about how corporations work. I do have one of O’Rourke’s books: “Parliament of Whores”. Can’t quite remember how far I read in it.

I wouldn’t doubt that there are certain things about Swedish society that make it particularly cooperative; I would say that is true about the Danes too. And, yet, I don’t believe that we are such “bad actors” that we are incapable of, say, having to have a single-payer health care system, like all the other Western democracies.

As for corporations, it’s funny because just today a few of us were talking at work about the latest fiascos involving computer purchasing. (Basically, when I ordered my home computer from Dell, I got it in 6 days and it worked; when we order computers at work, it takes months, they get the order wrong, and then it doesn’t work…And, I don’t mean this sometimes happens; I mean it basically always happens.) The topic enlarged to this more general issue and I told them about talking on this message board with various libertarian types who seem to believe that corporations / the market are so efficient and there’s no problems of bureaucracy, etc. They were all very amused! One of them asked me: “Don’t these people read Dilbert?” (One of the more cynical was of the opinion that market forces might eventually win out…But said it can take a long time for a big company to die!)

No, they are not more evil. They are just more powerful, as you say. People who have unrestrained power have a tendency to abuse it. And, as for your Port Authority experience (I’ve been mugged once too actually), that is why we have police so that people don’t abuse power they have to take money from you. I’m just saying we need “police” in the form of the government to protect us from other forms of abuse of power…economic power. (And then we need the different branches of government to protect us one from the other; and citizens watchdog groups like PIRG and Common Cause and ACLU to also protect us from the government. It’s all a big balancing act. You libertarian-conservatives seem to advocate unilaterial disarmament of the government side.)

Well, my point here is just that you often accuse us liberals of misinterpretting what conservatives stand for. And, I am always trying to argue that, unfortunately, what is called conservative…even in a self-described way…varies quite a bit. This is why I have taken to referring to your point of view as libertarian-conservative. People like Bork, Lott, Limbaugh, Rehnquist, et al. are more “authoritarian-conservatives”. They, in my opinion are the worst! At least libertarian-conservatives are half-right!

I grant you that it is not always easy to figure out the externalities and that, if they are not too large, it is probably not worthwhile to correct for them…But, when they are large, whoa!! I mean, what exactly are you basing your whole “free market” beliefs on (e.g., that a good such as gasoline with large externalities is correctly priced)? Don’t tell me it is market economics because you have violated one of the assumptions that allows you to prove in market economic theory that the price is in any way correct (in terms of maximizing efficiency, people’s utility functions and all that groovy stuff). If you believe that gasoline is “correctly” priced at ~$1.60 per gallon, you might as well also believe in the tooth fairy!