What is a conservative?

Oh, if I had been at Berkeley that day I would have had the perfect comeback line:

"But we have something the autoworkers have never had--brains. How dare you compare us to the surplus population?"

And the sputtering would have been wonderful to see.

I really wish all the branches of the conservative movement would call a cease fire on each other . I think it is doing a lot of damage. I am not saying there should not be debate but the rhetoric is getting poisonous and destructive and has been for some time.

I got into this argument last night. People were saying John McCain was a moderate or liberal. What? I see this all the time. It is hard to see someone that has an American Union Conservative rating like he does as some moderate. True he took some positions that many disagreed with on immigration(in which there is not one conservative position, drilling in Alaska, the gang of 14(which I supported) etc etc. But his Cardinal sin was campaign fiance reform(which I opposed) that pretty much made him public enemy number 1 among many inside the beltway groups.

Huckabee has been called a Christian Socialist at the National Review and the Club for Growth types call anyone that entertains a gas tax a liberal. I am even hearing this charges against people like Jindal and Palin. It gets all silly after a while.

Political Conservative – the government should not interfere in what goes on between consenting adults

Social Conservative – sex should only occur in the bounds of holy matrimony and the government should encourage/enforce this over the citizens

Neo Conservative – will castigate others over their immorality conveniently forgetting what they and theirs are doing behind closed doors.

I agree with Connor in that I don't have a problem with people being issue-specific conservatives. Some are fiercely pro-gun and pro-national defense while being a downright bleeding heart on gay marriage and abortion. That's fine. Just don't use the generic label of 'moderate'. Be specific. Otherwise the implication is that Moderate politics are the reasonable side of the party, when quite frankly they are simply mainline liberalism.

As long as there is religion, there will always be social conservatives. The greater the adherence to an absolute standard which is derived from religion, the more socially conservative a community or culture will be.

Political "conservatives", on the other hand, will continue to die out. Today's "conservatives" can do nothing more than attempt to hold the line against further change. You simply can't conserve that which you no longer possess.

There will, however, arise a radical political movement in this country, much like the great radical reformation/restoration movements seen over the past 400 years, which will challenge the status quo. We're long overdue for a revolution in this country.

-Matthew

What is a conservative?

Judge Richard Posner on both his blog and in his book ("A Failure of Capitalism ...") represents the direction that I would like conservatives to move toward - and away from the ideologies and all of the variations of magical thinking that Movement Conservatives cling to as principle.

People fight over the name 'conservative' as if it were an honorific.

First establish an honorable position, and then people will fight to join it no matter what it's called.

Barbara Ehrenreich has to be the worst choice ever as a commencement speaker. So notoriously positive and upbeat she is.

The part I don't get is why Americans are so conservative relative to Europe when the vast majority of us are descendants of people who made the very unconservative decisions to leave the village and the country of their birth to come to America.

At the same time, 'America' was (and is) a European colonization project whose ultimate success has never been assured.

The part I don't get is why Americans are so conservative relative to Europe when the vast majority of us are descendants of people who made the very unconservative decisions to leave the village and the country of their birth to come to America.

The big difference is the South. Take away the South, and America's politics would be very similar to Western Europe's. But the dominant Scotch-Irish culture of the South makes it a kind of a giant Northern Ireland, and one that has always had a wildly disproportionate influence on national politics.

Also, remember who it was who made those decisions to emigrate. It was basically (a) people looking to make money, and (b) religious fanatics who couldn't accommodate themselves to the dominant faiths of their home countries. Is it really surprising that American conservatism, as a descendant of both groups, makes a quasi-religion of low-tax, low-regulation capitalism?

The part I don't get is why Americans are so conservative relative to Europe "

Bit of a straw-man. Europe can be pretty conservative. But you must remember that Europe is radically different to America in many ways;

1) Class. We have a landed aristocracy and a 'proper' working class. This means that our conservatives were based around the aristocracy, the liberals around the bourgeouis industrialists and the socialists around the working class. Something which never happened in america. You (in european terms) have two pro-business liberal parties.

2) Territory. Two issues, most of the countries in europe were at some point in the 20th century ruled over by either germany or the soviet union. Secondly, europe spent much of the last 2000 years trying to kill each other. This implies a radically different attitude to issues like national sovereignty and defence. But also, the strength of the state. A strong state and ruling class meant you weren't as likely to get obliterated. Britain was the exception due to the natural defence of being an island, which may explain the anglospheres tradition of liberalism.

3) Nationality. All American's (except african americans and native americans) ancestors volunteered to come to an america which embodied ideas of popular constitutionalism, natural rights and religious freedom. My English ancestors came over with the ice age. You can see how this might have affected communitarianism, ethnic issues, patriotism and nationalism.

4) Religion. Different countries had different attitudes to this, but generally we either ended up with largely homogenous religious identities, (Spain, Italy, Greece, Ireland). Outright violence against a landed, wealthy, powerful ecclesiastical elite, (Britain, France) or ongoing social tensions (Northern Ireland, The Netherlands or the former Yugoslavia.) We came late (or not at all) to the religious pluralism that america began with.

There are other issues, but if you look at europe you may be able to see why movements such as Gaullism in France, with it's strong statist tendency and an economic policy best described as 'dirigiste' are counted as conservative, while parties such as the American Republicans would be considered radical.

Also, remember who it was who made those decisions to emigrate. It was basically (a) people looking to make money, and (b) religious fanatics who couldn't accommodate themselves

I would question this as accurately describing the circumstances of all immigrants - most of those colonial era scotch-irish came here as indentured servants - like the slaves they had no choice. Certainly the famine Irish and the Scots who came here as a consequence of the Clearings came reluctantly - and in many cases were sent here by the landowners ( who paid their passage) to get rid of potentially dangerous surplus labor.

My English ancestors came over with the ice age. You can see how this might have affected communitarianism, ethnic issues, patriotism and nationalism.

I think this is a striking difference between the US and Europe. I continue to be amazed when I meet Europeans who live in villages their ancestors lived in literally a thousand (or more) years ago. Most Americans cannot even say their ancestors fought in the Civil War yet an Englishman can feel secure in saying his ancestors fought at Crecy or Agincourt. This I think creates a sense of place we lack here. it also creates a common history that we also lack.

genuinely capitalist economy does promote virtue as it did in Victorian Britain

um - well - how virtuous were those Victorians really? I agree there was a sense even among the very wealthy in America (Rockefellers etc) that the wealthy had an obligation to the community. But the disparity in the distribution of wealth was extreme, most people were working class and their lives were brutally hard, child labor was the norm, people worked long hours 6 days a week, and profit was squeezed out of the working class to support lives of such extravagance among the wealthy that we still gawp at their palatial homes. The above mentioned Clearings in Scotland and the Great Hunger in Ireland are hardly examples of virtuous behavior.

What is worthwhile about a conservative temperment to me is that at its best it cautions against radical change and values family and community as the foundation of society. Contemporary conservatives seem so wedded to laissez faire capitalism that they fail to see that it is precisely that capitalism they so favor which has been destroying families and local communities. Until we see a conservative movement which starts with what is best for families and local economies the conservative movement will leave us with nothing to support. Personally, I would love to hear a "conservative" politician talk about distributism instead of free markets.

Most peoples of the Americas are more conservative than their European equivalents. The Dutch territories in the Caribbean are much more conservative than the Dutch at home. In fact colonies/descendants-of-colonies in general are often more conservative than the motherland. This is common enough I think there was some historical study on it.

In some cases colonists are intentionally creating a traditional realm that has vanished, or is vanishing, at home. Kane is sort-of confusing the South with Appalachia. The South was largely a creation of English aristocrats, or those who admired aristocrats, and intended to maintain a quasi-feudal system dying out at home. At first they got Scots/Irish/Peasants to come in and be the indentured servants. Then they brought black slaves to be somewhat serflike. Some slavers would even intentionally dress their slaves like English manservants and give them lower-class English names.

In other cases the colonists feel a greater need to maintain traditions to compensate for the sense of loss and homesickness. After the first generation those just continue by inertia to a degree.

The idea that "rootedness" makes conservatism seems logical, but I don't think it corresponds that well to reality.

True, pure or whatever, you seem not to have grasped the point, so I will re-iterate.

A laissez-faire economy cannot be the cause of social decay in Britain or the U.S. because a laissez-faire economy does not exist in either Britain or the U.S. One does not need to be beholden to Austrian economics to recognise that, merely have a reasonable sense of history and perspective.

Once upon an time even committed Keynsians admitted that once a government started appropriating >25% of G.D.P. it was pointless to talk about a free economy. Those were the days; now opposing further expansion of the behemoth state renders one a "neoliberal extremist" or some other spectre of the imagination.

The "point" about the "Austrian School" is that it belongs not on the fringes of conservatism, but outside the tent, even big tent conservatism.