Obama V. Romney
- Thread starter Leo
- Start date
vimothy
yurp
Personally, I would struggle to answer the question: What principles unite the different factions of the conservative movement? I don’t see that there are any such principles.
Droid says that the average big-C Conservative in fact unites all three factions. It is even possible, it seems to me, to go further: the average American voter unites all three factions. Hell, there are probably enough religious, hawkish and pro-business types to affect the Democrat average. Isn’t Obama waging drone war in the Hindu Kush? Hasn’t he kept Wall St relatively fat and happy? Indeed he is and indeed he has.
Craner says that all parties are coalitions of disparate interests, morphing this way and that as alliances are brokered or shattered, leaders come and go, times change and so on. Why can’t the Republican Party as an institution find its feet, put competent grown-ups like Bartlett and Frum in charge, reassert some authority and rediscover the pathway to power?
I think they’re both fair comments. On the other hand, I still think that the America conservative movement can be characterised in terms of a few mutually incompatible groups. If we forget about your average voter and the GOP itself, and think instead about the essence of, say, libertarianism, it’s clear that it is in conflict with the essence of traditional or religious conservatism. At least it’s clear to me. The two philosophies are antithetical.
No reason why a person can’t agree with some aspects of each, of course. I think that Murray Rothbard once stomped out of a dinner with Ayn Rand after she tried to get his wife to publicly renounce God, declaring her to be bat-shit crazy. And isn’t Ron Paul a fairly conservative Christian?
Nothing is ever going to change this fact—if it is a fact—because if it could, we wouldn’t be talking about the things that are essential to neoconservative or religious conservative philosophy.
That’s why, every time conservatives lose, we go through another iteration of the cycle, where there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth over who should be thrown from the troika. Foreign policy hawks don't actually care that much for religious extremists, and neither of them particularly care for dope-smoking, America-hating libertarians.
Droid says that the average big-C Conservative in fact unites all three factions. It is even possible, it seems to me, to go further: the average American voter unites all three factions. Hell, there are probably enough religious, hawkish and pro-business types to affect the Democrat average. Isn’t Obama waging drone war in the Hindu Kush? Hasn’t he kept Wall St relatively fat and happy? Indeed he is and indeed he has.
Craner says that all parties are coalitions of disparate interests, morphing this way and that as alliances are brokered or shattered, leaders come and go, times change and so on. Why can’t the Republican Party as an institution find its feet, put competent grown-ups like Bartlett and Frum in charge, reassert some authority and rediscover the pathway to power?
I think they’re both fair comments. On the other hand, I still think that the America conservative movement can be characterised in terms of a few mutually incompatible groups. If we forget about your average voter and the GOP itself, and think instead about the essence of, say, libertarianism, it’s clear that it is in conflict with the essence of traditional or religious conservatism. At least it’s clear to me. The two philosophies are antithetical.
No reason why a person can’t agree with some aspects of each, of course. I think that Murray Rothbard once stomped out of a dinner with Ayn Rand after she tried to get his wife to publicly renounce God, declaring her to be bat-shit crazy. And isn’t Ron Paul a fairly conservative Christian?
Nothing is ever going to change this fact—if it is a fact—because if it could, we wouldn’t be talking about the things that are essential to neoconservative or religious conservative philosophy.
That’s why, every time conservatives lose, we go through another iteration of the cycle, where there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth over who should be thrown from the troika. Foreign policy hawks don't actually care that much for religious extremists, and neither of them particularly care for dope-smoking, America-hating libertarians.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
fiscal conservatism for one. israel for another. dislike of big government. the man did work at AEI for the better part of a decade.
craner
Beast of Burden
They all hate pornography. Does anyone else remember Frum's warm obituary for Andrea Dworkin? No? I do.
The broad thing that they all agree on Vim -- apart from the farther-out libertarians who are barely part of the GOP anyway -- is the cultural war. That's what really divides Democrats from Republicans -- how they view the Sixties.
The broad thing that they all agree on Vim -- apart from the farther-out libertarians who are barely part of the GOP anyway -- is the cultural war. That's what really divides Democrats from Republicans -- how they view the Sixties.
D
droid
Guest
Hey - Im a dope smoking libertarian with at least some sympathy for Dworkin.
Maybe I should move to Washington.
Maybe I should move to Washington.
D
droid
Guest
lol. I can suckle the public sector teat like never before AND send drones after those who disagree with me on the internet.
Im off to pack.
craner
Beast of Burden
Maybe the Libertarian Republican is not a faction at all. There are small-state, low-tax, free-marketeers who are also moderately religious and subscribe to a robust and moralist foreign policy. They believe in the whole package of conservative ideas that blend libertarian, religious and neoconsertiave impulses and persuasions. That, in various configurations, is probably the mainstream republican voter. The pure Libertarians tend to be out of sympathy with much of what both major parties stand for, endorse and do in government (naturally). They are fringe people.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
the last decade has been really polarizing for conservatives, over both Iraq and social issues (specifically gay marriage, as well as abortion which is always festering underneath the surface). so even though those differences - which are inevitable in any organization so large - have always been there they've really risen to the surface.
I'm not sure how much this Republicans should blame on GW and his legacy and how much they should blame on their long-term strategy of pandering to the hard + religious right, which was always bound to blow up in their faces. William F. Buckley led - as I'm sure Craner is aware - a long, brutal scorched earth campaign in the 60s and 70s against the fringe types in order to make the GOP respectable. the irony is that they've gradually been allowed in over the last 30 years, from Ralph Reed on on down, by people who should've known better. the thing is, David Frum is no Buckley, and I don't know if the current moderate GOP has the will or the ability to do the same thing now. not to mention the massive, glaring demographic issues which override pretty much everything.
I'm not sure how much this Republicans should blame on GW and his legacy and how much they should blame on their long-term strategy of pandering to the hard + religious right, which was always bound to blow up in their faces. William F. Buckley led - as I'm sure Craner is aware - a long, brutal scorched earth campaign in the 60s and 70s against the fringe types in order to make the GOP respectable. the irony is that they've gradually been allowed in over the last 30 years, from Ralph Reed on on down, by people who should've known better. the thing is, David Frum is no Buckley, and I don't know if the current moderate GOP has the will or the ability to do the same thing now. not to mention the massive, glaring demographic issues which override pretty much everything.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
by today's standards Nixon and Reagan were both center-right liberals in more ways than not. of course they operated in the days before Grover Norquist. that's the point - that the respectable, moderate gatekeepers have let all these people, partly for pragmatic reasons, partly through (some) shared ideology, and partly through just taking their eyes off the ball.
vimothy
yurp
One problem for conservatives is this:
A fundamental principle of modern life in general and modern government is particular is to look at society as a kind of technology, and therefore at social problems as technical problems. Technical problems admit technical solutions, and technical solutions require competent technical experts: your academics, “wonks”, bureaucrats and so on.
This is problematic for conservatives for two reasons. One is that this is inherently un-conservative, so that there is antagonism between conservative philosophy proper and the basic mechanics of rule. The other is that (perhaps as a consequence of the former), conservatives aren’t able to call on a body of conservative experts, having to rely instead on opinion from institutions that are basically liberal in character.
A fundamental principle of modern life in general and modern government is particular is to look at society as a kind of technology, and therefore at social problems as technical problems. Technical problems admit technical solutions, and technical solutions require competent technical experts: your academics, “wonks”, bureaucrats and so on.
This is problematic for conservatives for two reasons. One is that this is inherently un-conservative, so that there is antagonism between conservative philosophy proper and the basic mechanics of rule. The other is that (perhaps as a consequence of the former), conservatives aren’t able to call on a body of conservative experts, having to rely instead on opinion from institutions that are basically liberal in character.
craner
Beast of Burden
Exactly, I was totally getting at this by bringing up the John Birch society. And I was even going to say (but refrained from doing so) is that the conservative movement does not have another Buckley, and it needs one. Trouble is, those kind of people are extra-ordinarily rare.
And for once I also agree with the relevance of demographics.
craner
Beast of Burden
Well, State is liberal in tendency, but DOD certainly isn't. Is technocracy inherently liberal? Republicans advanced the mechanics of Washington wonk-land in the 1990s, with their think tank and policy forum networks. The Bush 41 administration was super-technocratic, not at all instinctive or moralistic.
vimothy
yurp
I guess that it's a measure of our differences, but I would say that Nixon and Reagan were centre-right liberals, i.e., objectively speaking, but by today's standards they are raving right-wing lunatics.
Similarly, the issue with the GOP is not that they admitted too many crazies, but that the centre is moving leftwards, so that it's a bigger and bigger stretch to be a moderate.