The failure of conservatism and conservatives

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

I guess this is my political science day.

Ok, the topic at hand has been conservatism vs
liberalism. I maintain conservatives are a very confused
bunch. After some thought and stealing some articles
from various sites, I have the means to show why
conservatives are insane.
The conservative argument goes like this,
in domestic policy, the government is the enemy.
you always hear conservatives less government is
better and no government is best, (IMP’S argument)
We need to scale back government spending and
regulations that tie up business in red tape. (JERRY’S argument)
The public school’s are failing and need an injection of competition,
(Aspacia’s argument) Too many welfare programs are out of
control. Taxes are too high and too complex, (every conservative
that ever lived) Politicians and bureaucrats shouldn’t run
our lives, lest liberty be lost, (IMP AND JERRY AND ASPACIA)
Lets return the government to the people.
That is the domestic argument of the conservatives.
Now comes the confusing part.

On foreign policy, we are surrounded on all sides by enemies.
Dangers lurk everywhere. (IMP AND ASPACIA) We need to
strike them before they strike us. We must not shirk our
responsibilities to ourselves and the world. We need not fear the use
of power, even war, even relentless global war. We cannot
cut defenses, our allies need us. We need not listen to the
cowards who would recoil from this struggle against evil
because freedom isn’t free. If anything, we need to beef up
military spending.

So far so good, we have tapped into the conservatives argument
for the last 70 or so years. But there is a problem,
or really a contradiction. The problem is in the domestics area
the government is seen as the coercive enemy that takes
from people and saps their productivity. It cannot perform tasks
as efficiently as property owners. The government is seen
as hurting people rather then helping people. The government
does not know best. Our choice is government OR liberty.

But in foreign policy, the analysis is reversed
The assumption is that American people and the
government are unified is integral to the analysis,
we say “our” and “we” in referring to the government
in regard to foreign policy. Recall if you doubted
bush in regards to Iraq or torture, your patriotism was
questioned. You were called a traitor, for doubting
the government. For a conservative, in domestic issues
the government is a danger and needs to be corralled,
whereas in foreign policy the government is assumed
to know best. How is it that possible?
The key question for a conservative is taxes. Less taxes
is always their mantra, but taxes for war is not a burden,
but the price we pay for civilization. The largest and most
violent government program of all-namely war- is not
imposition with unintended consequences but is
essential and praiseworthy effort at protection.
How is it the the right wing view that the state should
be expansionist and imperialist aboard( IMPS VIEW)
but do nothing at home beyond the limits set forth
in the constitution. The view that the government can
engage in all out war abroad, but otherwise domestically
leave people free to manage their own affairs is
absurd. So the problem of conservatives is this,
government is seen as a menace, something stupid,
inefficient, brutal, isolated from real life, and the enemy of liberty.
The other hand is government is seen as smart, all knowing,
a friend to all, in touch with life around the planet,
and a friend to liberty everywhere, (BUSH’S spread
of democracy no matter what the cost is a good example)

Harry browne said it best: “The government that’s strong enough
to give you what you want is strong enough to destroy you”

So domestically, government is bad, but foreign the government
suddenly becomes good. How is that possibly?
This is the petard that conservatives get hung on.
This is the failure of conservatives. That they have
two minds on government. One good, one bad.
They are trying to have it both ways.
And that is the road to failure.

Kropotkin

2

This post, will, I’m sure, stir up some major controversy.

I think you’re quite right though Peter. I don’t know about the summaries of ILP member’s opinions as I wasn’t around when those arguments were made but I definitely think you’ve summed up what I see as the conservative position.

I’ll be interested to see what comes of this…

cheers,
gemty

3

My guess is, the quieter this post is, the more likely
the conservative bunch here admits it true.
Silence is consent.

Kropotkin

4

I’d say part of it is closing ranks. When I am discussing Eastern Philosophy with Mastriani, Tentative, and LiquidAngel, I argue vociferously that they are wrong, wrong, wrong. Yet, when someone (like Tab) come in and challenges the entire validity of Eastern Learning, I close ranks with them in order to form a unified front. We are ultimately more alike than we are different, and, while we hold the small things which seperate us as being of vital importance, they pale in comparison to the differences with a totally alien foe.

I’d say that, while this strategy can be somewhat myopic, it is better than the alternative. The British conquored Africa by pitting local tribes against one another, and they maintained control over India by exacerbating the Hindu/Muslim divide. Strength through Unity is a cornerstone of most conservative ideologies.

But then, what’s next? I believe it was Joseph Cambell, though it may have been a different scholar of the same cloak that said the conservative ideology is essentially Patriarchal. Strong emphasis on Order, Obedience, Punishment, ect. Viewed in that light, I’d say that Conservatism is fairly easily understood.

Especially in terms of out-ward looking. How many Men do you know that keep their lawns beautiful and devoid of something as minor as crabgrass, yet they live in absolute squalor and eat nothing but take-out? That’s the world the Conservatives are shooting for.

5

Conservative actually want a return to the middle ages.
That is the ideal world according to an conservative.
Actually during the reagan years, they (conservatives)
would actually even admit this. Think about this for awhile.
Why would they pine for the middle ages?
The answer is very revealing.

Kropotkin

6

Hi Peter, I think it’s only confusing when you clump them all together.

Your post just recognises the various strands of conservatism and the conflicts between them. In particular, between the administration’s ideology of neoconservatism, with emphasis on aggressive foreign policy and national security, contrasted with the more traditional classical conservatism. For any doubt regarding the neoconservative agenda, have a quick scan through the Statement of Principles on the ‘Project for a New American Century’ website. [ HERE ] The message is quite clear.

In answer to the original statement, I don’t think conservatism has failed. I just think your implied definition of conservatism isn’t specific enough to question the varying ideals of the individual strands.

Regards, Tommy

7

As Tommy says, you are attaching the same label to people who are very different. My take on the three that you are mention is:

Jerry – Jerry is an economic liberal and believes that government should not interfere with consensual exchanges between two people. However, as the ownership of property is an integral part of his economic system, government should exist to protect this from internal and external aggressors.

Imp – From Imp’s posts I get the ‘make hay while the sun shines’ adage. If there is something you want, take it. If someone gets in the way, push them out of the way. If you can’t push them out of the way, make friends with someone who can. If a problem exists between you and someone else, eliminate the ‘someone else’ and the problem goes away.

Aspacia – I haven’t got a clue about Aspacia’s political leaning, but suffice to say it is nothing like the two above.

8

Peter,

Delboy knows me well. This from many conversations over many beers. (Although I can never get Delboy to pick up the tab at the end of the night).

This on the other hand doesn’t represent my position at all.

9

This is because I am a poor communist and you are a rich capitalist :smiley:

10

Peter: So domestically, government is bad, but foreign the government
suddenly becomes good. How is that possibly?
This is the petard that conservatives get hung on.
This is the failure of conservatives. That they have
two minds on government. One good, one bad.
They are trying to have it both ways.
And that is the road to failure. "

Jerry: This on the other hand doesn’t represent my position at all.

K: I did not represent your foreign views. Reread what I wrote.
I mention your name on domestic issues, I did not mention your
name on foreign affairs. I specifically mention IMP and Aspacia,
not you. You have not really talked about foreign affairs, that I have
noticed, so I did not say your name.

Kropotkin

11

Fair enough, Peter.

This word ‘conservative’ gets tossed around pretty lightly around here and I am always wary of being painted with the proverbial broad brush. I am actually quite radical when it comes to my beliefs regarding individual liberty.

12

Hello Peter:
— So domestically, government is bad, but foreign the government
suddenly becomes good. How is that possibly?
This is the petard that conservatives get hung on.
This is the failure of conservatives. That they have
two minds on government. One good, one bad.
They are trying to have it both ways.
And that is the road to failure
O- Goverment is a necessary evil. There are certain uses for goverment but goverment should not substitude for a mom’s tit. And it’s best service is as a world front.
You are trying to converge two different spheres: Domestic and foreign
The domestic side abhors fetters that impinge on it’s own vitality and saddles it with the misfortune of others. Man is an egotistical animal, but again it operates at different levels, which finely described as concentric circles.
While we may disagree with members of our family, perhaps our mom, but were someone from outside come and say anything about your mother, you would probably punch them. You might have disagreements and partitions within a nation,s govt (democrats/ republicans), but given an outside threat, both side embrace and face the enemy in a unified show of force (famously expressed after 9-11).
This is because we observe our own interests in all situations. It is me against you, or us against them.
Domestically or individually, we do not want our freedom limited by an overbearing govt. Globally or in common with other individuals, we do not want our nation to be limited by other nations. So where is the discrapancy here?

13

Peter:
— So domestically, government is bad, but foreign the government
suddenly becomes good. How is that possibly?
This is the petard that conservatives get hung on.
This is the failure of conservatives. That they have
two minds on government. One good, one bad.
They are trying to have it both ways.
And that is the road to failure"

O- Government is a necessary evil. There are certain uses for government but government should not substitute for a mom’s tit. And it’s best service is as a world front.
You are trying to converge two different spheres: Domestic and foreign
The domestic side abhors fetters that impinge on it’s own vitality and saddles it with the misfortune of others. Man is an egotistical animal, but again it operates at different levels, which finely described as concentric circles.

K: Is it a necessary evil? that alone makes me wonder. My mom
is 71 and I rather not think about that tit. hmmmm. anyway,
back to your point, I am not trying to converge two different spheres.
My point is simple, conservatives feel that government is evil domestically
and needs to be reduced, less taxes to fee the evil beast of
government, All the rhetoric we have heard from the GOP for
last 40 years. Yet, suddenly when it comes to government
in foreign affairs, it can’t do any wrong, its always right.
To wit, disagreeing with bush in the Iraq affair is to
be a traitor, to say torture by the military is wrong
is to be “not supporting the troops”. You have heard it over
the last three years. Any who doubt bush has been tar and
feathered with the stain of unpatriotism when it comes to
Iraq. This very same government that is deemed evil
and a burden to mankind domestically, is praised
and defended in matter of foreign affairs.

O: While we may disagree with members of our family, perhaps our mom, but were someone from outside come and say anything about your mother, you would probably punch them. You might have disagreements and partitions within a nation,s govt (democrats/ republicans), but given an outside threat, both side embrace and face the enemy in a unified show of force (famously expressed after 9-11).

K: And bush played politics in instead of keeping the country unified.
But that is another story.

O: This is because we observe our own interests in all situations. It is me against you, or us against them.
Domestically or individually, we do not want our freedom limited by an overbearing govt. Globally or in common with other individuals, we do not want our nation to be limited by other nations. So where is the discrepancy here?"

K:You make a distinction that bush does not make. Globally or in common
with other individuals, we do NOT WANT OUR NATION TO BE LIMITED
BY OTHER NATIONS. We are not talking about a nation,
we are talking about a small group of people, of maybe
5000 people. That is all the members of al quida.
But back at the ranch, the idea that the government is
meddlesome and a danger domestically and yet in foreign
affairs is competent and efficient. What happens within
borders that makes it incompetent and inefficient and
outside of our border efficient and competent. Is there some
magic dust at the border that improves our government once
it goes beyond our borders. That is the question?
Why inside our borders is different then outside our borders
with the same government?

Kropotkin

14

So how many self-proclaimed conservatives here believe that cutting taxes and going to war at the same time is a good thing?

How many agree with Cheney’s reported comment, “Deficits don’t matter?”

Omar,

Referring to human nature or family metaphors doesn’t make a contradiction any less a contradiction. Foreign and domestic spheres are never completely separated though they may be separated in the mind of a voter.

15

disagreeing with bush has never made anyone a traitor, the only people saying some thing this simple minded are just that
disagreeing with any president is just fine

same as above, though i have never heard this said, mostly ive heard that if you say things like “torture by the military is wrong” means

  1. you are right
  2. you have no idea what real torture is

president Bush is in politics
politics have NEVER unified the country, everyone thinks it should be run differently

and we are not only dealing with al quida, we are trying to deal with the hart of the terrorism that al quida is mearly a part of

i’m ok with going to war and cutting taxes, i just think we should cut some of the other usless programs ie, tanif, food stamps, and most of welfare, and all of social security

i do, if you really want to fix the deficits, cut all are usless welfare programs, social security, and demand all of the money we have lent/given to all the other countrys of the world

16

So you think David Horowitz is simple minded? Or do you buy the idea that dissent is fine but that’s not dissent, that’s treason?

Yeah, except you forgot outright denial and outright assent.

Where is that hart? Can I get a beer there?

You do realize that this was the first time any administration has done such a thing? And, uh, you changed the subject. Don’t really want to talk about it?

And again a muffled assent and then you change the subject. This is always the strategy of conservatives these days. It’s a shame really. Conservatives used to be fun to talk to.

17

Hello Peter:
You have a mixed bag here. Are you discussing the failure of conservatism or the failure of the Bush admin the last few years?

K: My point is simple, conservatives feel that government is evil domestically
and needs to be reduced, less taxes to fee the evil beast of
government, All the rhetoric we have heard from the GOP for
last 40 years.
O- I believe in the autonomy of men. This country was founded on conservative ideals, so that while it does flirt with liberalism/socialism, it always retrurns to type. How about less taxes, less goverment (welfare), more jobs, and more personal accountability?

K: Yet, suddenly when it comes to government
in foreign affairs, it can’t do any wrong, its always right.
O- You generalize, Peter. Be fair. I have not defended all the govt does, or has done, but in foreign policy, both parties have a list of sins and in both the same phenomenon of patriotism has emerged. It is a phenomenon, not a general rule. Did Democratic administrations do everything right? What is defended is the nation, not the party. From a military point of view, I can only offer that to us it does not matter if he is a democrat or a republican. he is the Commander-in-Chief.

K: To wit, disagreeing with bush in the Iraq affair is to
be a traitor, to say torture by the military is wrong
is to be “not supporting the troops”. You have heard it over
the last three years.
O- Disagreeing with Bush is a liberty we defend in this country. You might be called names, Peter, but no one has been treated as a true traitor, i.e Capital Punishment, over their disagreement with Bush. In a democracy such as ours, the president is not the unanimous choice of the people, but of the electoral (and that is fuzzy) majority of the people; so it makes perfect sense that there will be critics and anyone who labels you this or that is a retard. Pay no attention to them.

K: Any who doubt bush has been tar and
feathered with the stain of unpatriotism when it comes to
Iraq. This very same government that is deemed evil
and a burden to mankind domestically, is praised
and defended in matter of foreign affairs.
O- It is not “this same govt”, Peter. When I say that govt is a necessary evil, I do not mean by that that Bush’s admin is evil and Clinton’s was good. I say that all govt is a necessary evil, be it republican or democrat. That does not mean that I have a problem with Bush’s domestic agenda, or that I think it is domestically an evil while the Clinton’s govt was not.
In it’s domestic aspect, I want govt to be small, not because it is evil, incompetent etc, but because I am not a socialist. We are a capitalist nation and conservatism is capitalism, in my opinion.
Let me ask you: Have you ever lived in a Socialist country? Have you any real idea of what is big goverment?

K: And bush played politics in instead of keeping the country unified.
But that is another story.
O- I’ll be listening when you tell the tale.

K:You make a distinction that bush does not make.
O- I am talking about conservatism, not Bush’s govt. If you want to talk about the failure of conservatism then you will allow other opinions and not just Bush’s.

K: Globally or in common
with other individuals, we do NOT WANT OUR NATION TO BE LIMITED
BY OTHER NATIONS. We are not talking about a nation,
we are talking about a small group of people, of maybe
5000 people. That is all the members of al quida.
O- that is so naive, Peter. I have to say it even if it is rude to say it, because Al Quaida is not the only group of terrorists. You have plenty others that have over the years been a torn to the US and it’s allies. Secondly, it is an ideology that reaches more than 5,000.
If you are talking of conservatism in general then the above is true; if you are talking of Bush’s policy in general then you still have to understand that our nations foreign strategy is not just aimed at Al Qaida but recognizes, rightly or not, other nations, such as North Korea, who wants to black-mail the desicions this govt makes. Do you disagree with the statement? Do you want our country to be limited by other nations?

K: Why inside our borders is different then outside our borders
with the same government?
O- Read explanation above as to why your question confuses conservative ideals with Bush’s competence. It does not matter if Bush was the greatest domestic administrator this side of Clinton…I don’t want big govt. The greatest domestic policy would be a socialist policy and that is something I don’t want. I have been there.
there is nothing that happens at the border that makes me change my mind, nor anything that happens within the borders.
The ideal of the conservatist, and I am one, has nothing to say on the ability of goverment. we don’t want the competence to be concentrated on a governing body but on each individual. This democratic ideal reaches back to the Greek Ideals.

Brad, I see no contradiction. I don’t want big govt, but that does not mean that I do not want a govt at all or that just because I don’t believe that we should have high taxes imposed on me for other’s free healthcare, that this is because I think the administrators are bad/evil. It is simply a preferrence based on experience.
Again, foreign relations are the most important aspect/use of any administration. Goverment did not dawn upon mankind because of the services it could provide, but the protection it promised. It’s most distinct qualities are a police and a military, not healthcare or unemployement benefits, or social security. So it seems most natural, rather than a contradiction, Brad.

18

No kidding. aspacia is simply a patriot who realizes that both the liberal and conservative leaders are as corrupt as any other world leaders including the Kofi Annan and his ilk in the UN. In order to survive, we must play the game and understand that we have enemies who want us annihilated. This is one issue with which I agree with Bush.

Economics are a major factor regarding what occurs in the US and other countries with the advent of globalization, which many are fighting, but will probably lose. Eventually, globalization will take control unless there is another huge plague or World War. If neither occurs, then aspacia believes that the billions of people worldwide will begin to make demands on the various governments and corporations to better wages and working conditions. This will not occur during our lifetimes as unions are being hammered big time. Thank you Coolidge, Reagan and Bush. Growl. I do not mean Communism or Socialism, just a general improvement in the well-being of billions. Remember, Communism and Socialism make people equally poor, whereas Capitalism generally makes people unequally rich (Friedman). If people are free to own land, and create wealth for themselves, they and the society tends to thrive. If stiffled under too much govenment control, with no rewards for hard work and excellence, humans will lack the will to strive to excellence.

At the moment, we are dealing with this phenomena, much like we dealt with the Industrial Revolution when millions were disenfranchised.

I welcome technology and the integration of billions as the initial friction will eventually wear off and the sense of “other” will dissipate.

With regards,

aspacia
Deist, Feminist Goy, Patriot and Zionist.

19

Not that any of you will care:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_conservatism

20

Not really, I have been busy studying as I have a nasty test coming up and no it is not the Praxis, but some other nasty, new test. At the moment, I am living in a nice box, with zero funiture except a desk, a wonderful comfy chair, and a queen size air mattress. No tables, lamps etc., the bare minimum because if I decide to stay and my signifcant relocates, we have a house chock full of furniture, China Hutch, Queen Anne sofa and chairs, piano and much more. My point is, that during the day I study, and post when the sun is not shining as there is insufficient light for reading.

Peter, I am neither Democrat, Republican, liberal or conservative, I am me and may agree or disagree with certain claims from both camps, and have zero allegience to either. Just a realist who understands that corporations are competing with each other to survive. Luckily, they are now cooperating with each other, streamlining and integrating, and we are benefitting from this. Toshiba and UPS integrate to improve profits, ditto Wallmart and many other businesses. If businesses go under the workers will really suffer.

With regards,

aspacia :confused: