HikerGuy83
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2021
- Messages
- 7,279
- Reaction score
- 2,934
- Location
- Arizona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I want to extend a point I made earlier in the discussion, quoting Hayek:
I believe this is exactly where "conservatism" should be, in principle. I think most of us agree that Donald Trump is not a "conservative" in any traditional sense.
Conservatism, in my estimation and epistemology, as in Hayek's, is supposed to be a moderating force. It, philosophically, is about experience over theory, the known versus the not-yet-known. But, where it has gone off the rails for some time is, ignoring what is known.
For example, we know that racism exists, and that much of the economic and physical infrastructure of our nation was conceived and constructed during juridically-sanctioned discrimination. Equality being a foundational aspiration of our nation should, to a traditionalist, militate against maintenance of such unequal structures. Yet, conservatism, in practice, seeks to keep them intact. As another example, we lived through the fascism that destroyed much of the world in the middle of the last century. We watched as it grew, so we know the process by which it develops and the signs of its development. Yet, modern conservatives revel in the authoritarian tendencies from which it springs, in contravention of "law and order", and the norms of "liberty" that are traditional. Right wing authoritarianism is anathema to the themes of tradition that conservatism lauds.
How do we reconcile these contradictions?
Not to get too far from the focus of the topic, but I see the devolvement of the Republican party - the current home of conservatism in America - as an iterative process. Prior to the post-Civil War period, conservatism and progressivism was divided between the parties, depending on the topic. With the rise of the industry "barons", however, the economic conservatism became the province of Republicans, and has been since.
Tied to that was the xenophobia - a conservative staple - that resulted in the Chinese Exclusionary Acts of 1875 and 1882. Before that, it was a social gems These were the beginning of border closing and the adoption of the policies of exclusion that have been a central tenet of conservatism since. The economic arguments have mutated over time, but the impetus has remained the same. It also presaged the open racism that migrated from the Democratic to Republican parties in the 20th Century.
As late as the election of 1968, social liberals could still be found in the Republican party, but the purge began with the massive importation of Dixiecrats into the party during the 60s. They brought with them virulent racism and illiberalism regarding religion. It was also the heyday of the John Birch Society and "Bircherism".
I disagree, and so does my friend HikerGuy83:Conservatism does not change.
... Conservatism, as a philosophy, is still what it was when first articulated. It has not changed in spite of being dropped or ignored.
Conservatism, by nature has to change as circumstances change. I suppose from a philosophical standpoint, the constant is changing as slow as practicable, but here's where that breaks down: When failure to adapt leads to crisis, changing slowly is not practicable.Again Conservatism, as defined by Hayek, would not have the ability to think about making changes.
I disagree. One of of Kirk's principles (his tenth) is:
Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
It is a matter of degree and mutual agreement. Conservatives are not going to support broad and "radical" change.
It's not left or right, actually, but who is more practical. Failure to address climate change, for example, is leading to a tipping point, and we are being faced with multiple crises all at once - wildfires, extreme weather events, rising tides, sustained drought, loss of crops and a failing water infrastructure. Failure to address affordable housing is leading to housing shortages, runaway price rises, and social strife. Failure to address racial inequality is leading to all kinds of social defects. Failure to address tuition inflation is making education unaffordable and harming the economic prospects of a significant portion of the population, as well as the economy, generally.That might not work for some (the left), but it's part of the basic nature of conservatism.
Ignoring racial inequality is not a solution, either, is it? It needs to end, it needs to be called out, but you don't see conservatives doing that at all, do you? Instead, they resist every modification no matter how meritorious. And yes, some do it for the same old reasons.So you could ask if allowing "racism" to exist and killing it by degree's is O.K. ? I would contend that you are not going to change it any faster than that. And if you push to hard to fast you will find opposition for more than a few reasons (and calling conservatives racist is a silly response).
No, I emphatically did not.I think you mean evolutionary process.
Was that my implication? Sorry, I I guess I should have been more explicit. It IS a one-sided problem. I am well aware of where it originated from, and it has always been a conservative issue. The party affiliation may have changed, but the core location has not. It is sophistry to argue that "well, the Democrats started it." Yeah, they started it when they were the conservative party, and the Republicans adopted it along with the mantle of convservatism.And while I think your short description is worth thinking about....there is a growing feeling that racism still exists at the same level as it did back when the dixiecrats did start to bring their thinking with them. And you might consider where they originated from. So, I question the (implied) claim that this is one sided.
ya think? supposedly?Trump supposedly gave voice to latent racism
Don't sugar coat it, tell it like it is.that has simply been supressed with no outlet (but, nevertheless existed...which is the key point). While I don't fully agree with this, I do believe that his in-your face approach did embolden some people to be more vocal.
And who, my friend, is going to address it? That's the problem. Only "liberals" are willing to raise the question, but as soon as it is identified as a "liberal" issue, who opposes it? Why do you think they do so?People didn't like it...but it certainly revealed an issue that was going to remain until we address it at it's roots.
I disagree, and so does my friend HikerGuy83:
Conservatism, by nature has to change as circumstances change. I suppose from a philosophical standpoint, the constant is changing as slow as practicable, but here's where that breaks down: When failure to adapt leads to crisis, changing slowly is not practicable.
It's not left or right, actually, but who is more practical. Failure to address climate change, for example, is leading to a tipping point, and we are being faced with multiple crises all at once - wildfires, extreme weather events, rising tides, sustained drought, loss of crops and a failing water infrastructure. Failure to address affordable housing is leading to housing shortages, runaway price rises, and social strife. Failure to address racial inequality is leading to all kinds of social defects. Failure to address tuition inflation is making education unaffordable and harming the economic prospects of a significant portion of the population, as well as the economy, generally.
Ignoring racial inequality is not a solution, either, is it? It needs to end, it needs to be called out, but you don't see conservatives doing that at all, do you? Instead, they resist every modification no matter how meritorious. And yes, some do it for the same old reasons.
Conservatism, by nature has to change as circumstances change. I suppose from a philosophical standpoint, the constant is changing as slow as practicable, but here's where that breaks down: When failure to adapt leads to crisis, changing slowly is not practicable.
"to be a conservative today, you have to oppose much of what the Republican Party has come to stand for."
Rusty Bowers gave moving testimony to that committee in support of conservative values.
I think you just repeated what I said in about 4 times as many words. "I suppose from a philosophical standpoint, the constant is changing as slow as practicable."No it does not, and, in fact, it can't. Conservatives might change as circumstances change, but not the philosophy itself.
First, if that were the case, you'd never be able to pin it down.
Second, by it's very definition, one you seem so anxious to plaster on it, it can't.
The conservative rmovement itself might change, but the basic philosophy remains as it always has.
What you are describing is a situation where CONSERVATIVES don't change......
Moderator's Warning: |
I have to question if preserving democracy has been a core conservative value over the years because this recent attack on democracy is well not exactly a new concept. I dont mean this as an attack but this value to me seems to be very inconsistently applied.Inside the Completely Legal G.O.P. Plot to Destroy American Democracy (NYT, Opinion).
Although this video is ostensibly political in nature, it is not. It is about the struggle to preserve "democracy", one of those core conservative values in the face of a concerted effort to destroy it. It's 25 minutes, but I think it is deserving of a viewing and relevant to this discussion.
It is a pleasure to see an actual discussion rather than the usual one-upmanship on DP. Brooks is centered in spirituality. He writes, "true conservatism’s great virtue is that it teaches us to be humble about what we think we know; it gets human nature right, and understands that we are primarily a collection of unconscious processes, deep emotions, and clashing desires." Great food for thought. Thanks for the post.I appreciate your having actually read the piece!
Brooks, like George Will, Charlie Sykes, Bill Kristol, and other commentators of "the intellectual right", represent, I think, the conservative establishment. They seek to tie their views to the traditions of conservative thinkers, and what they espoused. What you have highlighted (which I truncated for brevity) is the contrast and decay that they, and frankly I, have complained about in conservative "thought". He did it far more elegantly and authoritatively than I ever could.
Because of the ferocity of commentary here on DP, I think I come across as far more liberal than most would see me as in the real world. And I admit that my views have migrated decidedly to the generic "left", inspired initially by the rise of Ronald Reagan and his attack on traditional values of governing, but I come from the same milieu as Brooks. What has happened, in my view, is that what passes for "conservative" nowadays is unrecognizable as such in the conservative intelligentsia.
For me, at least, conservatism was a pragmatic view of politics and progress. It sought to govern prudently, behave modestly, and argue rationally. That's why occasionally very expansive policies sprang from solidly conservative administrations.
This money-only, me only attitude that pervades the modern conservative psyche is actually of relatively recent vintage. Barry Goldwater didn't espouse it, nor did Nixon, and certainly not Eisenhower. It came to the fore with Ronald Reagan, but that was long enough ago, now, that current "conservatives" don't remember or honor those prior times and values.
Trump is a Mammonite and an opportunist.Do you think there is any validity to possibly categorizing Trump as not being Conservative or Liberal?
I am unable to see anarchist.To me, he was essentially an anarchist who ran as a Republican, and had some conservative views.
idk.If you buy into my assessment, it really paints the congress and the GOP party leadership as much worse than the already dubious coloring of red. Because the "conservatives" in the GOP who routinely run up trillions in debt are all too happy to line up behind Trump because he has some popularity--meaning they are even less principled than one would suspect.
indeedAlso, this isn't to say that liberalism and the Democratic party are always right. Far from it.
Just for the record, this thread is about conservatism - the philosophy - not party. I just wanted to make that point.
Having said that, I have voted - and even campaigned for - members of both parties, and have been registered at various times for both as well - so I could participate in primaries. That's how "centrist" my views are. Also, I think it also fair to point out that what passes for pragmatism in the present political environment is often derided as partisanship by... well, the most partisan of participants on either side. But, I do not want to deviate too far from the actual topic, so I will leave that there.
It is probably appropriate from a personal standpoint to also note that I often bash "conservatism" as generally intellectually faulty, in the same way that I criticize capitalism as inherently flawed as an economic system. But, the fact that I include "marketeer" in my profile also indicates that I don't reject it (for which I get a great deal of flack both online and at home), and I still understand, fundamentally, the goal of conservatism as an outlook. As Brooks points out in his essay, sometimes that includes some pretty ugly views within its rubric (e.g., racism, xenophobia). In both cases - conservatism and capitalism - it is sometimes difficult to separate the ugly elements from the common views, especially when they are aligned.
I appreciate the distinction, although I am not a free-market capitalist, quite the contrary. Large markets are only functional within a very well-regulated legal structure, as the demise of FTX is currently demonstrating.For what it's worth capitalism and free-market are not identical concepts.One can easily exist without the other.And they can even be at cross purposes. Capitalism is fine with monopolies. Monopolies negate free markets.
I am definitely for free markets and free-market economies.
I very much agree with this analysis. It's the difference between calling oneself conservative and acting as a conservative. The Supreme Court is a stark example of that contrast.At some point, "conservative" devolved from a way of thinking to being merely an identifier of a particular market segment.
The market segment was sold to.
At some point, the segment began purchasing the marketing itself instead of the product.
Amen.It's true that we must bear in mind the limits of our knowledge, understanding, and schemes.
If you realize that you might be wrong, it's more difficult to get on board with radical ideas and big change simply because it makes sense to you (ie you like the marketing).
Again, I agree.The marketing has been a lot about rights.
It must be harder to sell things reminding people about their responsibilities.
But our obligations to our families and communities is a HUGE part of what being human is about, has been about forever.
As long as there have been people, we lived in communities. The reason being the obvious advantages of a team over a collection of individuals. [ I think they're obvious anyway. ]
So now, the 'conservative' market segment buys patently radical ideas in bulk.
A number of folks on DP and out in the world have plans for radical "conservative" changes to our country and our world based on their own hubris, relying on their own understanding.
Obviously, these sorts of things are anathemas and diametrically opposed to actual conservatism.
imho, anyway
Like many of the Republicans of his era my father was honest, hard working, fair, and sensible. He didn't loathe the Democrats. He supported many of their ideas but thought Republicans were more organized and had better leadership. Fortunately, he didn't live to see what has happened to his party.I appreciate your having actually read the piece!
Brooks, like George Will, Charlie Sykes, Bill Kristol, and other commentators of "the intellectual right", represent, I think, the conservative establishment. They seek to tie their views to the traditions of conservative thinkers, and what they espoused. What you have highlighted (which I truncated for brevity) is the contrast and decay that they, and frankly I, have complained about in conservative "thought". He did it far more elegantly and authoritatively than I ever could.
Because of the ferocity of commentary here on DP, I think I come across as far more liberal than most would see me as in the real world. And I admit that my views have migrated decidedly to the generic "left", inspired initially by the rise of Ronald Reagan and his attack on traditional values of governing, but I come from the same milieu as Brooks. What has happened, in my view, is that what passes for "conservative" nowadays is unrecognizable as such in the conservative intelligentsia.
For me, at least, conservatism was a pragmatic view of politics and progress. It sought to govern prudently, behave modestly, and argue rationally. That's why occasionally very expansive policies sprang from solidly conservative administrations.
I wanted to expand upon some of my earlier comments. During the Reagan era, there was a concerted effort to obfuscate the differences between capitalism and free markets and to conflate capitalism and democratic systems. In this way, the administration supported authoritarian dictators by asserting that - since they were in favor of capitalist markets - they were somehow democratic. It was then, and is now, absolute BS.For what it's worth capitalism and free-market are not identical concepts.One can easily exist without the other.And they can even be at cross purposes. Capitalism is fine with monopolies. Monopolies negate free markets.
I am definitely for free markets and free-market economies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?