A moment of jaw dropping shock (political)

[Pure]

note on 'conservative'

rg may agree with the list, and it somewhat applies to "conservatives" outside the US.

US self labelled conservatives is usually quite a different beast: they believe in a strong federal government, strong military. the term "cultural conservative" also applies, which means that they wish the government to encourage moral behavior and other social traditional goals such as man-woman marriage.

US conservatives, rare, who somewhat fit the mold: William Buckley and columnist George Will.


Colly and to some extent JBJ, here in AH, fit the mold. Amicus does not, since he favors an abstract program of "pure capitalism." The fact that British tradition, including its Conservative Partly, has veered from the pure ideal, almost from inception, means nothing to amicus.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

rg may agree with the list, and it somewhat applies to "conservatives" outside the US.

US self labelled conservatives is usually quite a different beast: they believe in a strong federal government, strong military. the term "cultural conservative" also applies, which means that they wish the government to encourage moral behavior and other social traditional goals such as man-woman marriage.

US conservatives, rare, who somewhat fit the mold: William Buckley and columnist George Will.


Colly and to some extent JBJ, here in AH, fit the mold.

Indeed. From my post No. 46 here, the list describes a Burkeian conservative, to be precise. The philosophical orientation embodied in the works of Edmund Burke. Unlike the modern usage, "conservative" in this sense actually means something more than a collection of disconnected biases with a reactionary tendency.

 

[Pure]

i like your last sentence, roxanne.

it mystifies me why there is this clumping in the US, of so called 'limited gov't' people and bible belters who want prayer in schools.

incidentally i did not put you on the short AH list, because my impression is that your 'burkean' side is no more than say, 50%.
IOW, you have a plan. an ideology, in rg's terms. putting it slightly differently, the criterion

a deep suspicion of utopian promises, applies to you only partially. you believe firmly in the market as generator of solution to social probs.




rox The philosophical orientation embodied in the works of Edmund Burke. Unlike the modern usage, "conservative" in this sense actually means something more than a collection of disconnected biases with a reactionary tendency.

 

[rgraham666]

Edmund Burke was a conservative?

He fought a life long battle against slavery. He was a supporter of the American revolutionaries. However he fought against them being represented because he knew that would mean seating elected slave-holders. He also fought against the American's insistence that the Quebec Act be overturned. This act gave citizens rights to French Canadian Catholics, and many English Protestant Americans didn't like this idea at all.

He also pushed for Warren Hastings to be punished for his actions in India.

Burke was no conservative, not at all.

 

[Pure]

rg,

as you know, in Canada, the party used to be 'progressive conservative'. to say "we do NOT oppose all change!"

i see no intrinsic reason a conservative would have to oppose racial equality... even women's equality. the appeal might be to tradition, e.g. rights established in Britain, or in the US Bill of Rights. (amicus here, typifies the US so called 'conservatives', who tend to be racist and sexist-- view social and political inequality as tradition to be defended.)

the term is so debased in north america as either 'reactionary' or "free market"... the latter is NOT part of the basic definition, despite your source!!

 

[amicus]

I would like to point out once again, the handful of radical leftists on this forum and their modus operandi of criticizing America, Capitalism, and now Conservatism as a ploy to detract from the slave states they advocate.

They do that because they can not and will not defend even the moderate Socialism of Canada and Great Britain, and never, ever, defend the principles of Marxism that they subtly advocate without end.

It is easy to understand why. The basic principles of any and all totalitarian regimes is to sacrifice the the individual, his rights and property to the state, to be redistributed along some grandiose Utopian scheme.

In the United States, every experiment with socialism has failed miserably, from the Social Security and Medicare scams, to failed and failing forced public education.

Democrats, cowardly socialists at heart, are fond on 'Nationalizing' private industry, even ole Harry Truman was about to 'draft' railroad workers who were striking and now the Dems are toying with Nationalizing the oil industry, aka dictatorships around the world.

The reason the 'usual suspects' the collaborating cadre of far left activists on this forum won't defend their political and economic views is because they cannot and still maintain the transparent facade of concern for the 'civil rights' of the individual. All civil rights are abrogated under their vision; I know it, they know it and you should know it.

Amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

There's a big disconnect between what you would like to point out-- and the point you make clear.

You talk about other people, but you tell us about yourself.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

i like your last sentence, roxanne.

it mystifies me why there is this clumping in the US, of so called 'limited gov't' people and bible belters who want prayer in schools.

incidentally i did not put you on the short AH list, because my impression is that your 'burkean' side is no more than say, 50%.
IOW, you have a plan. an ideology, in rg's terms. putting it slightly differently, the criterion

a deep suspicion of utopian promises, applies to you only partially. you believe firmly in the market as generator of solution to social probs.

That's a fair characterization of me, especially if you add at the very end, "under a rigorous application of the rule of law" - by definition that applies to market players on all sides as much as anyone.

The political "clumping" you cite is a product of the US's first-past-the-post congressional election system. That intrinsically imposes a two-party system, which means coalition politics, "cross-pressured" voters, and clumping on both sides. This is why it's unfair, BTW, to sneer at an individual for their choice to vote for one party or the other. Groups like the Libertarian Party and Naderites aren't real parties, they are "educational institutions," although most of their members - who refuse to accept being cross-pressured - live in denial of this.

Edmund Burke was a conservative?

He fought a life long battle against slavery. He was a supporter of the American revolutionaries. However he fought against them being represented because he knew that would mean seating elected slave-holders. He also fought against the American's insistence that the Quebec Act be overturned. This act gave citizens rights to French Canadian Catholics, and many English Protestant Americans didn't like this idea at all.

Burke was no conservative, not at all.

Burke was/is the conservative. His Reflections on the Revolution in France laid out the core principles of the philosophical/political orientation; the laundry list in the OP is essentially cribbed from that book. As I said in my previous posts, in the US at the present time "conservative" has come to mean nothing more than a collection of disconnected biases with a reactionary tendency. They are the ones who are "no conservative at all." This is not, BTW, a product of that same "clumping;" rather, it's caused by an absence of principles. This is all why I bristle at being labeled a "conservative," but if you call me a Burkeian conservative I'll say, more than a bit, but not quite accurate, per Pure's characterization of me above.

 

[Handprints]

That intrinsically imposes a two-party system, which means coalition politics, "cross-pressured" voters, and clumping on both sides.

Food for thought: here's a thumbnail list of ways to recognise a European conservative.

Pro economic integration, neutral to slightly uncomfortable with "universal" human rights, and reflexively suspicious of anything else that comes out of Brussels.

Uncomfortable with how we're going to deal with having Turkey as an EU member (while seriously wishing Greece would just get over itself and start being constructive.)

Anti-utopian and willing to vote for anyone who's party platform is a variation on: you're going to have to do the work, we'll try to ensure you get a fair return for it.

Unable to conceal their loathing for any politician who brings evangelical Protestant principles into the arena (ex Northern Ireland, natch.)

Vehemently anti-handgun but pro huntin'/fishin'/shootin' with stringent licensing.

Pro higher education - specifically the preservation of elite universities with merit-only entrance tests (and highly torqued when these same institutions start dropping requirements for those from less privileged backgrounds).

Very big on public nuisance/law and order policing.

Thinks government support for the arts is a necessary precondition for any society worth living in.

Won't eat GM foods and thinks fat children in Europe's playgrounds are both an abomination and evidence of all that's wrong with the Americanisation of local diets.

Suspects globalisation is, in the long term, a lot better for the EU than the US.

Prefers English-look clothing but in Italian and French cashmere...

Find someone who ticks any three of those boxes and chances are you're looking at a Euroconservative. Chances also are he/she will have read Burke and found him of interest, although a bit unrealistic in application.

Hope that's of interest,
H

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Food for thought: here's a thumbnail list of ways to recognise a European conservative.

Pro economic integration, neutral to slightly uncomfortable with "universal" human rights, and reflexively suspicious of anything else that comes out of Brussels.

Uncomfortable with how we're going to deal with having Turkey as an EU member (while seriously wishing Greece would just get over itself and start being constructive.)

Anti-utopian and willing to vote for anyone who's party platform is a variation on: you're going to have to do the work, we'll try to ensure you get a fair return for it.

Unable to conceal their loathing for any politician who brings evangelical Protestant principles into the arena (ex Northern Ireland, natch.)

Vehemently anti-handgun but pro huntin'/fishin'/shootin' with stringent licensing.

Pro higher education - specifically the preservation of elite universities with merit-only entrance tests (and highly torqued when these same institutions start dropping requirements for those from less privileged backgrounds).

Very big on public nuisance/law and order policing.

Thinks government support for the arts is a necessary precondition for any society worth living in.

Won't eat GM foods and thinks fat children in Europe's playgrounds are both an abomination and evidence of all that's wrong with the Americanisation of local diets.

Suspects globalisation is, in the long term, a lot better for the EU than the US.

Prefers English-look clothing but in Italian and French cashmere...

Find someone who ticks any three of those boxes and chances are you're looking at a Euroconservative. Chances also are he/she will have read Burke and found him of interest, although a bit unrealistic in application.

Hope that's of interest,
H

Very interesting. Essentially, a different collection of "disconnected prejudices," not bound together by any overriding political, economic or ethical principles. Blech.

I could give a generous interpretation to a few of those:

"Neutral to slightly uncomfortable with 'universal' human rights" is because they know that this is code for "positive rights" - socialism, welfare and wealth redistribution. As oppose to human rights properly understood, which is "freedom from coercion, from the arbitrary power of other men" in Hayek's words - the right to be left alone.

"Reflexively suspicious of anything else that comes out of Brussels." That's because what primarilly comes out of Brussels is stifling regulation to such an enormous extent that it's destroying freedom and is generating economic sclerosis.

Otherwise I see a lot of very unattractive elitism and class-ism.

 

[Handprints]

Otherwise I see a lot of very unattractive elitism and class-ism.

No doubt. It's a list of the more visible characteristics and they're not necessarily the most attractive.

I could have added: favours a modern, professional, well-funded military; thinks economic decisions should be taken by professionals at central banks, not politicians; believes that a mix of public and private health care works best; believes in a strong, independent civil service; strong on landowners' rights...

I suppose the point is that signifiers of conservatism are typically highly local and almost as typically unattractive to conservators of other traditions. That's largely what I meant by the comment about Burke in application. Euroconservatism, like pretty much every other strain of on-the-ground politics in Europe, is significantly less ideological than it is in the US (outside the extremes of the nationalist/fascist wing). That, I think, is one of the reasons that Americans have such difficulty understanding EU politics: they try to make every stance/decision they see in Europe a representation of a deeply-held belief. Our real-world politics typically aren't that formulaic or dogmatic. That takes us back to the US political duopoly, which, I suppose, encourages people to think in black and white...

Best,
H

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

No doubt. It's a list of the more visible characteristics and they're not necessarily the most attractive.

I could have added: favours a modern, professional, well-funded military; thinks economic decisions should be taken by professionals at central banks, not politicians; believes that a mix of public and private health care works best; believes in a strong, independent civil service; strong on landowners' rights...

I suppose the point is that signifiers of conservatism are typically highly local and almost as typically unattractive to conservators of other traditions. That's largely what I meant by the comment about Burke in application. Euroconservatism, like pretty much every other strain of on-the-ground politics in Europe, is significantly less ideological than it is in the US (outside the extremes of the nationalist/fascist wing). That, I think, is one of the reasons that Americans have such difficulty understanding EU politics: they try to make every stance/decision they see in Europe a representation of a deeply-held belief. Our real-world politics typically aren't that formulaic or dogmatic. That takes us back to the US political duopoly, which, I suppose, encourages people to think in black and white...

Best,
H

Hmmm - my previous posts in this thread were pointing out that "conservative" in the US has come to mean something not at all ideological, but merely a collection of disconnected predudices with a reactionary tilt. Goldwater and Reagan were much more ideological, but there was still an element of what I'm describing. In contrast Burke (and classical liberalism) are based on coherent and logically consistent sets of ethical and philosophical principles.

 

[Handprints]

Hmmm - my previous posts in this thread were pointing out that "conservative" in the US has come to mean something not at all ideological, but merely a collection of disconnected predudices with a reactionary tilt. Goldwater and Reagan were much more ideological, but there was still an element of what I'm describing. In contrast Burke (and classical liberalism) are based on coherent and logically consistent sets of ethical and philosophical principles.

"A set of disconnected principles with a reactionary tilt" is usually how people with a brain describe ideologies they don't like...

I think if we trace the evolution of conservative thought in the US and Europe through the 20thC, the most apparent current differences begin to emerge in the mid-to-late 60s.

Pre-WW2 period, US conservatives had a set of ideological tenets that were pretty universally shared: anti-semitism, pro-segregation, corporatism and a more-or-less mercantilist view of your hemisphere. Europe's were, to be blunt, on autopilot after the decimation of the upper classes in WW1 and were, by and large, in favour of whatever nationalist programme looked likely to offer a non-communist way forward while restoring some self-respect. (That didn;t work out so well for us, by the way...)

Post-WW2, I agree that pre-Goldwater (pre-Buckley?) conservatism in the US was less overtly ideological and perhaps more like the pragmatic version common to Europe. Perhaps that's why Eisenhower is so much better thought of in Europe than in the US. By 1970 at the latest, even (in my view) American and European conservatives who admire Burke immensely don't have that much in common any more - and less so now.

How do you get from then to now? I rather like Buckley as one of the visible agents of change in the US right: he gives a more Burkeian vision of economic equality as the means of maximising freedom, rather than corporatism (miltary/industrial or otherwise) and offers an alternative to reflexive prejudice. That gets picked up as means to seize back political territory from the coercive/corrective approach to equality adopted by the democratic party and left. What gets swallowed, along with the useful medicine, in my view, is a belief in the power of the marketplace that far exceeds any real-world evidence of its abilities: a fundamental unwillingness to admit there are preconditions for market-driven economics to work or, worse, a belief that those preconditions exist universally, are hidden only by bad government choices, and that the establishment of market-driven economic policies will somehow cause them to spring into evidence. (Sidebar: Britain's Buckleyites - the Adam Smith Institute - scored their success by convincing key Conservative politicians - Thatch, Brittain, et al - that the UK actually did have the preconditions, much to the left's shock and dismay.)

In Europe, the progress of conservative thinking has an enormously different set of influences. I think the top three for Burkean types were: having to find a way to coexist peacefully with pure-red communist neighbours (Hungary and Czech convinced us that the middle ground wasn't going to be found in the East); watching our former colonial playgrounds disintegrate under the influence of both leftist and rightist political regimes; a fundamental distrust of policy answers bred of our nationalist experiences.

If we can agree that, since about 1975, conservative thinkers have seen their preferred policies put into practice more often than not in both the US and the EU, whose approach to conservatism is working better? I think there are two ways to test.

The first is straight math: list all 50 states and all 10 original EU countries, then put a few economic growth indicators next to them - maybe GDP per cap, PPP income per cap and % disposable income since 1975. If you want to guess where a given state/country will appear on the ranking order, you only need to know three things: % urbanisation of population (Hey kids, if you want to be rich, don't be a farmer, be a city-based global agribusinessman!), % university educated population and % highly observant religious population. It's pretty much a tie (although better education in the bible belt for the past 30 years would likely have given you a slender lead.)

The second, more subjective, test is: who's polity is now more easily swayed by ideologues? I don't think it's us and I think that's the kind of polity Burke hoped his prescriptions would produce.

Hope that's of interest,
H

 

[amicus]

An interesting exchange of ideas between two I enjoy reading on this forum.

A curious simularity in tone I perchance detect, one of sophisticated aloofness, as if one were indeed above the fray of the common everyday world on one hand and purely intellectual and unemotional on the other, as if those mundane attributes are for others to experience.

As R said and H agreed, elitism and savoir-faire, a sense of knowing just what to say in every situation without investing personal commitment.

I wonder how one acquires that degree of disdain for the human condition?

'economic integration', I suppose means that purported ideal mix, Keynesian style, with variations of course? Somewhat like a bartender watering the whiskey until the customers complain, I venture.

'Universal Rights' und Bruxels, what, are we going back to Hume and de Jouvenal and that crowd or are we more modern in our dislike of absolutes? 40 years ago, I could have offered a more air tight critique and name drop like all get out, but I tire of the game.

'Turkey & Greece", a little insider information there as Turkey is oft thought to be the key factor between Europe and the Middle East, with a wrong move fomenting conflict on a regional scale and an interruption on a huge economic scale.

The only reason Euro Conservatives might be thought to be 'anti-utopian', is because one or more still harbour obscene thoughts of world status in something besides chocolate drops or escargot & absinthe, or fine engineering.
And, a 'fair return' based on anything but the market place, usually directed toward social amenities rather like bread and circuses.

'loathing of protestant principles...' rather like Hussein Obama, criticizing the poor folk for clinging to their Bibles and their guns, another expression of distaste for the uneducated masses who still have faith.

Mentioning guns, now, the usual 'Clinton' line, whereas common knowledge is they want their guns to at least resist an oppressive government since no one hunts anymore.

Yeah, I know, macho SOB that would even think of defending ones own using firearms, but then, I have a foot in another generation where we actually valued our lives and our possessions.

Ah, yes, always the 'pro-education' bromide, at least moderated by the, 'merit only' caveat, which has been passe' every since equal opportunity reared its ugly head and you know it. Get state funds, accept minorities and not on a merit basis.

'public nuisance...' ah, yes, let us not have fireworks to celebrate Independence, dangerous, very dangerous. And indeed let us not be flatulent in public, certainly politically incorrect to the sensitive female noses that abound.

And you can march with a Swastika in front of a synagogue, but you may not even carry a sign in front of an abortion clinic, yeah, I know just what kind of order you want, mine herr.

And yes, tax the working man to provide a sinecure for artists who can't make a living on their own, works for me, sure it does.

'fat children, Americanization of diet, oh, my, your children are starving and poor? The ones you import since you are sterile yourselves? Such a pity! Most Europeans don't get red meat even once a month? And fish is rationed or contaminated by the sewers of Venice? Oh, my, I feel your pain! No wonder you hate those plump American tourists and those horrid dollar bills that fuel your ancient sites!

Well, I guess I have had enough fun for one outing. Have you been in Taipei 101, the tallest building in the world yet? Did you know that eight of the ten tallest buildings in the world are in Asia? Yeah, I bet you do.

Amicus...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Over at another forum I followed a link to this article.

When I read this particular piece of it I had a moment of self revelation.



Holy shit! I'm a conservative!



Well, I don't share the author's view on every point. But overall I'm far more in agreement than disagreement.

a reluctance to discard or tamper with traditional social arrangements;
Oh, I am very excited with the idea of tampering with traditional social arrangements.

respect for the market as the generator of wealth combined with a wariness of the market’s corrosive impact on humane values;
Conservatives nowadays don't believe the market has any corrosive impact on humane values. Or they don't care.

I say wealth is not God and that it has to be put back in its place.

 

[rgraham666]

Thanks Handprints. I always like to see you show up in these threads. You add a perspective that's very useful and, to me, interesting.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

"A set of disconnected principles with a reactionary tilt" is usually how people with a brain describe ideologies they don't like...

. . . What gets swallowed, along with the useful medicine, in my view, is a belief in the power of the marketplace that far exceeds any real-world evidence of its abilities: a fundamental unwillingness to admit there are preconditions for market-driven economics to work or, worse, a belief that those preconditions exist universally, are hidden only by bad government choices, and that the establishment of market-driven economic policies will somehow cause them to spring into evidence. (Sidebar: Britain's Buckleyites - the Adam Smith Institute - scored their success by convincing key Conservative politicians - Thatch, Brittain, et al - that the UK actually did have the preconditions, much to the left's shock and dismay.)

. . . Hope that's of interest,
H

Great, I love the social history lesson.

On the first quoted point, what you said does not apply to me; there are ideologies I don't like that I agree are based on logically consistent theories (marxism). BTW, I think I misquoted myself there; the phrase should be "disconnected predudices," not "disconnected principles." The thing I'm criticizing is the abence of any principles.

Also BTW, I think we may be using "ideology" in two different ways. You in the political sense - "what policy preferences goes with what" under a particular party's banner, which given our two-party system, in the U.S. never describes a logically coherent ideology in the sense that I am using the word: A set of policy preferences that follow from a single overriding principle, like marxism or classical liberalism (these arise from different hypotheses about the nature of man).

On the second quoted point, the essential precondition for the marketplace to accomplish the magic that free-marketeers like me believe it is capable of is the presence of the rule of law.

Rule of law is a much bigger, more portentuous and more constraining on political actors than people imagine. It would preclude any form of corporate welfare or rewarding of rent seeking, for example, because the essence of the ROL is that every person is treated equally under the same fixed, predictable, no-exceptions law. It would preclude that form of property rights violation that consists of you, Mr. factory owner, dumping your soot on my lawn. Criticisms of "free markets" are usually in fact instances where the rule of law has been suspended.

Statists beware: Who do you think does the suspending? Sure, rent seeking corporations seek the special privileges and immunities - they always will - but it's politicians and governments that deliver them.

 

[Handprints]

Great, I love the social history lesson.

Sorry - didn't mean to lecture. I'm on a ton of codeine trying to bring my gut into line so I'm probably all of excessively literal, disjointed and tone-deaf right now. With that in mind...

Also BTW, I think we may be using "ideology" in two different ways. You in the political sense - "what policy preferences goes with what" under a particular party's banner, which given our two-party system, in the U.S. never describes a logically coherent ideology in the sense that I am using the word: A set of policy preferences that follow from a single overriding principle, like marxism or classical liberalism (these arise from different hypotheses about the nature of man).

Fair enough. There is, I think, some relation between principles, logically consistent or not, and efforts at implementation. But, since almost every party in the US and Europe can (or at least would) lay some claim to Burkean influences, there likely isn't much point to arguing flavours of conservatism-as-heritage.

On the second quoted point, the essential precondition for the marketplace to accomplish the magic that free-marketeers like me believe it is capable of is the presence of the rule of law.

Rule of law is a much bigger, more portentuous and more constraining on political actors than people imagine. It would preclude any form of corporate welfare or rewarding of rent seeking, for example, because the essence of the ROL is that every person is treated equally under the same fixed, predictable, no-exceptions law. It would preclude that form of property rights violation that consists of you, Mr. factory owner, dumping your soot on my lawn. Criticisms of "free markets" are usually in fact instances where the rule of law has been suspended.

I think you've hit on one of the key differentiators between American pro-market belief and, well, almost everyone else's. I'm not disputing the necessity of rule of law but I don't particularly see its primacy among a set of other preconditions, the two most important of which are capabilities (in the Sen sense) and a widespread belief among the polity that their government more or less the one that they would choose.

We've done the capabilities round before, so I'm not going to labour it when I've already been trying your patience in this thread. The second one, I think, explains why very market-oriented places such as Argentina, Lebanon and Greece were all disaster areas in the 70s. They had the capabilities (excellent ones, by regional standards), they had very tight rule of law with, in most cases, remarkably little corruption. They still fell prey to hyper-inflation, mass exoduses (exodi?) of professionals and the business class, economic stagnation, loss of trade and every other economic ill we can list.

The economic remedies suggested by the US (and the World Bank and, to a slightly lesser extent, the IMF) in all three cases are pretty much the same recipe that hasn't typically worked elsewhere in Africa, Central and South America and Asia: enforce the law (especially laws concerning property and contract), embrace market principles in regulation and policy, then trade your way to a better life. Even having three out of four pre-requisites for the market to do its thing (gov't in favour, rule of law, compelling evidence of capabilities) won't work if the social contract between polity and government isn't strong.

Why don't I rate rule of law as high as capabilities and a government validated by the polity? Because significant sustainable economic progress actually happens in places that have the latter two but limited RoL (see Russia in the 90s, Shenzhen right now et al). Longer-term, you need all of them; for a kick-start, you need the others more, in my view.

Since there has been remarkably little variation in the recovery recipe offered by the US in the past 50 years, that point seems not to have been grasped where you live. I don't think I'm alone in that belief: if you re-read the negative comments offered by foreign government officials about Wolfowitz's World Bank appointment, you'll see any number of echoes of the opinion I'm offering.

Why isn't this point accepted as readily in the US as elsewhere? I can't help wondering if it's because you have almost no experience as a full-on, no-proxies colonial power. The post-colonial experience is certainly what taught Europe (and the former colonies) about the unidirectional relationship between government's domestic legitimacy and economic progress: a government domestically perceived as legitimate can screw the pooch perfectly well but might not; an illegitimate one will every time.

This, I think, is a genuine ideological difference between market-oriented US thinkers and everyone else: that RoL is the sole important prerequisite. The rest of are pretty sure it isn't and our belief is what informs (even among US-friendly pro-market types like me) suspicions about the underpinnings of US-led economic development/nation-building efforts.

Hope that's more on point and less annoyingly pedantic.
H

 

[rgraham666]

Handprints? My own feeling on the U.S. free marketers is that they've forgotten a simple little piece of wisdom. "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

I regard pretty much everything human beings have created as a tool. Government is a tool, business is a tool, law is a tool, etc. as nauseam. They can be used only as the users direct them. That use can be good or evil, but the tools themselves are not.

To drag up a tired metaphor I created years ago, a shovel can be used for many things. I can dig a garden or a ditch with it. These are good things. I can gut or brain another human being with it as well. That isn't a good thing. In neither case is the shovel at fault, I am.

Unfortunately people tend to attach ethical qualities to their tools. Which is what has happened to the U.S. free marketers. Business, in their minds, is good. Therefor anything business does is good. They've replaced ethics with business.

Too bad these aren't the same things.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Food for thought: here's a thumbnail list of ways to recognise a European conservative.

Pro economic integration, neutral to slightly uncomfortable with "universal" human rights, and reflexively suspicious of anything else that comes out of Brussels.

Uncomfortable with how we're going to deal with having Turkey as an EU member (while seriously wishing Greece would just get over itself and start being constructive.)

Anti-utopian and willing to vote for anyone who's party platform is a variation on: you're going to have to do the work, we'll try to ensure you get a fair return for it.

Unable to conceal their loathing for any politician who brings evangelical Protestant principles into the arena (ex Northern Ireland, natch.)

Vehemently anti-handgun but pro huntin'/fishin'/shootin' with stringent licensing.

Pro higher education - specifically the preservation of elite universities with merit-only entrance tests (and highly torqued when these same institutions start dropping requirements for those from less privileged backgrounds).

Very big on public nuisance/law and order policing.

Thinks government support for the arts is a necessary precondition for any society worth living in.

Won't eat GM foods and thinks fat children in Europe's playgrounds are both an abomination and evidence of all that's wrong with the Americanisation of local diets.

Suspects globalisation is, in the long term, a lot better for the EU than the US.

Prefers English-look clothing but in Italian and French cashmere...

Find someone who ticks any three of those boxes and chances are you're looking at a Euroconservative. Chances also are he/she will have read Burke and found him of interest, although a bit unrealistic in application.

Hope that's of interest,
H

Maybe I misread this, and probably someone else said this (usually the things I think are important I miss the opportunity to say, lol) but I think I was thinking this in part when I posted on Friday. Particularly when I posted:

"I pose a question: When does Abortion become a "conservative" topic? It's been legalized for over thirty years in the US. Not long ago, it was a major concern to people that Rowe vs. Wade be overturned. Why isn't the struggle about "conserving" the option to abort?"

I think a big part of what's going on in American politics (and most likely politics everywhere, and it's probably always been this way) is that we've disagreed on specifics, and focused on them, and ground our teeth over them, until we've decided the opposer's viewpoints are a disease. I'm not implying that either Conservatism or Liberalism, in any form, are diseases; merely that they are often seen by the opposing side with similar disgust. These viewpoints are symptoms of a larger mindset. The mindset can remain the same, while different people of similar mindset may have different symptoms of the "disease." And as time passes, the symptoms wse each possess can change, as can they alternate from illness to illness.

That whites males held superiority over minorites was once the conservative view in the US. I don't believe it is any more.

Maybe it's just me.

Q_C

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

HP: Sorry - didn't mean to lecture. I'm on a ton of codeine trying to bring my gut into line so I'm probably all of excessively literal, disjointed and tone-deaf right now. With that in mind...

Not at all - I was sincere in expressing my appreciation.

HP: Fair enough. There is, I think, some relation between principles, logically consistent or not, and efforts at implementation. But, since almost every party in the US and Europe can (or at least would) lay some claim to Burkean influences, there likely isn't much point to arguing flavours of conservatism-as-heritage.

One could just as easily say that "almost every party in the US and Europe can lay some claim to marxist influences." IOW, having some "influences" is not the same as being informed by a consistent and logical set of policy preferences that follow from a particular ethical, philosophical or economic principle.

I think you've hit on one of the key differentiators between American pro-market belief and, well, almost everyone else's. I'm not disputing the necessity of rule of law but I don't particularly see its primacy among a set of other preconditions, the two most important of which are capabilities (in the Sen sense) and a widespread belief among the polity that their government more or less the one that they would choose.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on Rule of Law's primacy, but I don't disagree with your other prerequisites; in particular I find the domestic legitimacy one intriguing.

Ciao

 

[WRJames]

I think Europeans have a tendency to be more orderly in their approach to things -- in education, for example, they will estimate how many they need in a particular profession, and then train that number. It seems as if European labor laws are designed to ration out the amount of work available so that everyone gets a little.

To an American this approach -- let's not work too hard or we'll use it all up -- seems laughable. And the European education system which more or less seals your fate based on tests early in life -- flies in the face of all the evidence of late bloomers.


Of course, Europeans (and Canadians) look at the lack of a safety net in the US with some astonishment.

The challenge for both "liberals" and "conservatives" is to find a mix that actually works -- that avoids high unemployment and economic stagnation, but at the same time provides a reasonable level of basic entitlements -- education, health care, food and shelter -- to all citizens (or residents!) regardless of their employment status.

 

[Pure]

note to rox

RARule of law is a much bigger, more portentuous and more constraining on political actors than people imagine. It would preclude any form of corporate welfare or rewarding of rent seeking, for example, because the essence of the ROL is that every person is treated equally under the same fixed, predictable, no-exceptions law. It would preclude that form of property rights violation that consists of you, Mr. factory owner, dumping your soot on my lawn. Criticisms of "free markets" are usually in fact instances where the rule of law has been suspended.

Statists beware: Who do you think does the suspending? Sure, rent seeking corporations seek the special privileges and immunities - they always will - but it's politicians and governments that deliver them.

===

interesting, rox, the attempt to make rule of law the remediator of market problems. classically, laws against force and fraud.

those cannot suffice, so you appeal to some hypothetical 'tort' law, whereby Jane Doe, waitress, whose kids are poisoned by factory spew, sues the corporation owning the factory. and with lots of Jane Does, the factory, hypothetically cleans up its act.

the course of reality is somewhat different as witness tobacco companies beating back claims for years.

let me ask you this, rox: US HAS rule of law. even a few poorly enforced environmental laws with ridiculously low fines. is this your 'best case' scenario? well, it doesn't work too well, does it? from Love Canal to the Great Lake Sewers.

California, with some state laws, fought by "libertarian" persons such as you, managed to reduce LA smog. i propose this sort of thing is one of the few 'bright spots,' and iirc, the folks you support in Washington are attempting to get Calif. to weaken its standards.

I'm sure if i mentioned a nation with truly strict laws about pollution, you'd say it was 'statist.'

so, you hold that tort actions work. and that's all that's needed to correct mines and factories that poison. well, tort legal actions flourish. are they working in the US. show some examples.

Sure, rent seeking corporations seek the special privileges and immunities - they always will - but it's politicians and governments that deliver them

you cannot be this naive, even though you hate marx. the politician that 'delivers', like Phil Gramm in the US who gave speculators a free pass, is in there because his campaign was funded by these corps.
not suprising that the politician delivers. McCain too is a good example. Businesses wants illegal labor; he does his best to keep the border open and enforcement laughable.

so three questions:

1.Are US laws adequate to protect the environment?

2. If not, what new federal ones to you suggest?

3. How do you propose to get such laws passed, if Republicans and allies continue to hold 40+ seats in the US Senate.

Your scheme, be it tort law or federal criminal law, is utopian. Pie in the sky. Wont work. Evidence: It hasn't.

For it to work you'd need an angelic legislature peopled with Roxannes, quasi objectivists beholden to no special interests.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

RARule of law is a much bigger, more portentuous and more constraining on political actors than people imagine. It would preclude any form of corporate welfare or rewarding of rent seeking, for example, because the essence of the ROL is that every person is treated equally under the same fixed, predictable, no-exceptions law. It would preclude that form of property rights violation that consists of you, Mr. factory owner, dumping your soot on my lawn. Criticisms of "free markets" are usually in fact instances where the rule of law has been suspended.

Statists beware: Who do you think does the suspending? Sure, rent seeking corporations seek the special privileges and immunities - they always will - but it's politicians and governments that deliver them.

===

interesting, rox, the attempt to make rule of law the remediator of market problems. classically, laws against force and fraud.

those cannot suffice, so you appeal to some hypothetical 'tort' law, whereby Jane Doe, waitress, whose kids are poisoned by factory spew, sues the corporation owning the factory. and with lots of Jane Does, the factory, hypothetically cleans up its act.

the course of reality is somewhat different as witness tobacco companies beating back claims for years.

let me ask you this, rox: US HAS rule of law. even a few poorly enforced environmental laws with ridiculously low fines. is this your 'best case' scenario? well, it doesn't work too well, does it? from Love Canal to the Great Lake Sewers.

California, with some state laws, fought by "libertarian" persons such as you, managed to reduce LA smog. i propose this sort of thing is one of the few 'bright spots,' and iirc, the folks you support in Washington are attempting to get Calif. to weaken its standards.

I'm sure if i mentioned a nation with truly strict laws about pollution, you'd say it was 'statist.'

so, you hold that tort actions work. and that's all that's needed to correct mines and factories that poison. well, tort legal actions flourish. are they working in the US. show some examples.

Sure, rent seeking corporations seek the special privileges and immunities - they always will - but it's politicians and governments that deliver them

you cannot be this naive, even though you hate marx. the politician that 'delivers', like Phil Gramm in the US who gave speculators a free pass, is in there because his campaign was funded by these corps.
not suprising that the politician delivers. McCain too is a good example. Businesses wants illegal labor; he does his best to keep the border open and enforcement laughable.

so three questions:

1.Are US laws adequate to protect the environment?

2. If not, what new federal ones to you suggest?

3. How do you propose to get such laws passed, if Republicans and allies continue to hold 40+ seats in the US Senate.

Your scheme, be it tort law or federal criminal law, is utopian. Pie in the sky. Wont work. Evidence: It hasn't.

For it to work you'd need an angelic legislature peopled with Roxannes, quasi objectivists beholden to no special interests.

Try to expand your horizons beyond America-bashing just a bit, Pure.

First, relevent pollution laws go back only to the early 1970s in this nation, so your poster-child horror stories dating from before this era are hardly relevent.

Second, the U.S. has a better actual enviro record than almost any other country. Certainly orders of magnitude better than the workers paradises that you presumably defended before 1991, and continue to defend in the case of places like Cuba.

Third, this thing we call industrial civilization is brand new in the world, barely 200 years old. Compare where we are now to the "satanic mills" of the mid 19th C; consider the massive improvement in enviro quality that has come with every generation. We are new at this way of living, yet even after just a couple hundred years we're getting much better at it. The world didn't begin when us here were born, and won't end when we die, so lets try to keep some historical perspective in mind when we discuss matters like this, eh?

Finally, what is the social factor that creates the public demand for a clean environment? You know what it is: Wealth and affluence - the products of a capitalist economic system. That which increases wealth and affluence has the indirect effect of creating a cleaner environment. That which decreases it has the opposite effect. The most important thing enviros could do to improve the world enviroment is to keep the doors to free trade open so that China and other big developing societies quickly attain that level of economic comfort and security at which their populations raise the value they place on a clean environment.

 

[Pure]

Second, the U.S. has a better actual enviro record than almost any other country

show the evidence.

it's evident from rox's post, that rox counts on existing laws to do the job. of course the right wingers fought those laws. iow, 30years back rox, thinking as she does now, would equally say, "the laws are fine." as to the whole idea that 'rule of law' and relatively unrestrained free market will lead to environmental protection, her claims are without evidence. if she cites the US, one must remember that out of the other side of her mouth is the claim that the US is heavily leaning towards socialism, is run by 'statists' etc. so it's a dubious example of 'free market' under rule of law. in fact it has no 'free market' in a number of things, from oil and natural gas, to building aircraft

rox give no significant means by which those residing near industrial or mining polluters can enforce 'property rights'; could many lawsuits by 'little guys' reduce pollution of their lands. remember that the polluters are writing the laws under which the suits are brought. the polluters' politicians are appointing the judges that rule on the lawsuits.
---

NOTE: as to rox's admiration of 'rule of law' as somehow good in itself, i'd remind her that Hitler came to power under rule of law and held onto it with rule of law.

any dominant social entity--e.g. the wealthiest stratum-- or coalition of them-- American Association of Manufacturers--can get the laws it wants, passed. the nazi party being another example. these entities draft laws for their hirelings in the legislature to introduce. a recent example of this new laws reducing 'estate taxes,' supported by Congress: these benefit mainly the top 1% of earners.

i think the concept rox is looking for is called "independent, noncorrupt judiciary." this can obviously be a force for betterment, depending on whom they sympathize with.