The Conservative Mind

[Pindar]

From a Wall Street Journal opt ed.

BY PETER BERKOWITZ: Mr. Berkowitz is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.


"The American right is a cauldron of debate; the left isn't."

"The left prides itself on, and frequently boasts of, its superior appreciation of the complexity and depth of moral and political life. But political debate in America today tells a different story.

On a variety of issues that currently divide the nation, those to the left of center seem to be converging, their ranks increasingly untroubled by debate or dissent, except on daily tactics and long-term strategy. Meanwhile, those to the right of center are engaged in an intense intra-party struggle to balance competing principles and goods.

One source of the divisions evident today is the tension in modern conservatism between its commitment to individual liberty, and its lively appreciation of the need to preserve the beliefs, practices, associations and institutions that form citizens capable of preserving liberty. The conservative reflex to resist change must often be overcome, because prudent change is necessary to defend liberty. Yet the tension within often compels conservatives to wrestle with the consequences of change more fully than progressives--for whom change itself is often seen as good, and change that contributes to the equalization of social conditions as a very important good.

To be sure, some standard-order issues remain easy for both sides. Democrats instinctively want to repeal the Bush tax cuts, establish government supervised universal healthcare, and impose greater regulation on trade. Just as instinctively Republicans wish to extend the Bush tax cuts, find market mechanisms to broaden health care coverage and reduce limitations on trade.

But on non-standard issues--involving dramatic changes in national security and foreign affairs, the power of medicine and technology to intervene at the early stages of life, and the social meaning of marriage and family, the partisans show a clear difference: the left is more and more of one mind while divisions on the right deepen.





Consider Iraq. The split among conservatives has widened since Saddam was toppled in the spring of 2003. Traditional realists continue to put their trust in containment, and reject nation-building on the grounds that we lack both a moral obligation and the requisite knowledge of Arabic, Iraqi culture and politics, and Islam. Supporters of the war still argue that, in an age of mega-terror, planting the seeds of liberty and democracy in the Muslim Middle East is a reasonable response to the poverty, illiteracy, authoritarianism, violence and religious fanaticism that plagues the region.
In contrast, Democrats today are nearly united in the belief that the invasion has been a fiasco and that we must withdraw promptly. Indeed, rare is the Democrat (Sen. Joe Lieberman was compelled to run as an Independent) who does not sound like a traditional realist denying both America's moral obligation to remain in Iraq and its capacity to bring order to the country.

Consider also abortion rights and embryonic stem-cell research. Here too, the right is torn, with the social conservative wing opposed to both, and the small government, libertarian wing supporting both. No such major divisions are in evidence on the left. Rare is the progressive man or woman who opposes abortion rights, or who regards the destruction of embryos as the taking of human life, or even as a dangerous precedent corroding our respect for the most vulnerable among us.

And look at same-sex marriage. Again, the right is rent by serious difference of opinion. A crucial segment of those who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 think that the Constitution should be amended to protect the traditional understanding of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Another crucial segment of the Republican coalition rejects alteration of the Constitution to advance debatable social policy, preferring that states function as laboratories of innovation.

Meanwhile, on the left, despite ambivalence among the rank and file, all that remains to be decided at the elite level is how and in what ways to endorse same-sex marriage. Few doubt that presidential candidate John Kerry's opposition to same-sex marriage in 2004 was driven more by political calculation than moral conviction. And rare is the man or woman of the left who, in public debate, identifies competing principles and goods that ought to cause hesitation or doubt about same-sex marriage's justice or benefits to the nation.

This absence on the left of debate or dissent about moral and political ends has been aided and abetted by many of the party's foremost intellectuals, who have reveled in denouncing George W. Bush as a dictator, in declaring democracy in 21st-century America all but illegitimate, and in diagnosing conservatism in America as in the grips of fascist sentiments and opinions.

A few months ago, Hoover Institution research fellow Dinesh D'Souza published a highly polemical book, "The Enemy at Home," which held the cultural left responsible for causing 9/11 and contended that American conservatives should repudiate fellow citizens on the left and instead form alliances with traditional Muslims around the world. Conservatives of many stripes leapt into the fray to criticize it. But rare is the voice on the left that has criticized Boston College professor and New Republic contributing editor Alan Wolfe, former secretary of labor and Berkeley professor Robert Reich, New Republic editor-at-large and Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Peter Beinart, Berkeley professor George Lakoff, and New York University law professor Ronald Dworkin--all of whom have publicly argued in the last several years that conservatives form an enemy at home.

One explanation of the unity on the left is its belief that today's divisive political questions have easy answers--but because of their illiberal opinions and aims, conservatives are unable to see this and, in a mere six years, have brought democracy in America to the brink. This explanation, however, contradicts the vital lesson of John Stuart Mill's liberalism that political questions, as opposed to mathematical questions, tend by their very nature to be many-sided. Indeed, it contradicts the left's celebration of its own appreciation of the complexity and depth of politics.

Another explanation is that blinded by rage at the Bush administration and resentment over its own lack of power, the left has betrayed its commitment to grasp the many-sidedness of politics, and, in the process, has lost appreciation of modern conservatism's distinctive contribution to the defense of a good, liberty, which the left also prizes. Indeed, the widespread ignorance among the highly educated of the conservative tradition in America is appalling.

In contrast to much European conservatism, which harks back to premodern times and the political preeminence of religion and royalty, in America--which lacked a feudal past to preserve or recover--conservatism has always revolved around the preservation of individual liberty. Of course modern conservatism generally admires virtues embodied in religious faith and the aristocratic devotion to excellence. It also tends to emphasize the weaknesses of human nature, the ironies and tragedies of history, and the limitations of reason and politics. At the same time, it wishes to put these virtues and this knowledge in liberty's service.

Balancing the claims of liberty and tradition, or showing how liberty depends on tradition, is the very essence of modern conservatism, the founding text for which was provided by Whig orator and statesman Edmund Burke in his 1790 polemic, "Reflections on the Revolution in France." The divisions within contemporary American conservatism--social conservatives, libertarians, and neoconservatives--arise from differences over which goods most urgently need to be preserved, to what extent, and with what role for government.

The varieties of conservatism are poorly understood today not only because of the bitterness of current political battles but also because the books that have played a key role in forming the several schools go largely untaught at our universities and largely unread by our professors. Indeed, perhaps one cause of the polarization that afflicts our political and intellectual class is the failure of our universities to teach, and in many cases to note the existence of, the conservative dimensions of American political thought.

Rare is the political scientist, to say nothing of other faculty, who can sketch the argument, or articulate the point of view, of such influential works as Russell Kirk's "The Conservative Mind" (1953), F. A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" (1944) or Leo Strauss's "Natural Right and History" (1953). Yet these works, and the schools they helped launch, are essential to understanding not only where we come from but where we should head.

Kirk identified six elements that make the conservative mind: belief in a transcendent order that "rules society as well as conscience"; attachment to "the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence" as against the routinizing and leveling forces of modern society; the assumption that "civilized society requires orders and classes"; the conviction that "freedom and property are closely linked"; faith in custom and convention and consequently a "distrust of the 'sophisters, calculators, and economists' who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs"; and a wariness of innovation coupled with a recognition that "prudent innovation is the means of social preservation." The leading role in this mix that Kirk attaches to religion marks him as a social conservative; his insistence that religion provides the indispensable ground for individual liberty marks him as a modern conservative.

Famously, at least in libertarian circles, Hayek, an Austrian-born economist who became a British citizen and then immigrated to the U.S. in 1950, wrote a postscript to "The Constitution of Liberty" (1960), explaining why he was not a conservative. For him, "true conservatism"--which he confused with European reaction--was characterized by "opposition to drastic change" and a complacent embrace of established authority. Because his overriding goal was to preserve liberty, Hayek considered himself a liberal, but he recognized that in the face of the challenges presented mid-century by socialism, he would often find himself in alliance with conservatives. As a staunch member of the party of liberty, Hayek was keen to identify the political arrangements that would allow for "free growth" and "spontaneous change," which, he argued, brought economic prosperity and created the conditions for individual development. This meant preserving the tradition of classical liberalism, and defending limited, constitutional government against encroachments by the welfare state and paternalistic legislation.
For Strauss, what was most urgently in need in preservation was an idea, the idea of natural right. Like Kirk, Strauss believed that modern doctrines of natural right derived support from biblical faith. Like Hayek, Strauss taught that limited, constitutional government was indispensable to our freedom. But Strauss also saw that modern doctrines of natural right contained debilitating tendencies, which, increasingly, provided support for stupefying and intolerant dogmas. To arrest the decay, he turned to the classical natural right teachings of Plato and Aristotle, who were neither liberals nor democrats, but whose reflections on knowledge, politics and virtue, Strauss concluded, provided liberal democracy sturdier foundations.

There can not be a conservative soul today in the way one can speak of a liberal soul or spirit. Whereas the latter revolves around the paramount good of freedom, modern conservatives, while loving liberty, differ over its position in the hierarchy of goods most in need of preservation, and indeed differ over the paramount good. Yet the writings of Kirk, Hayek and Strauss do form a family. All developed their ideas with a view to the 20th century totalitarian temptations of fascism and communism. All agreed that liberal democracy constituted the last best hope of modern man. And all showed that defending liberty involves a delicate balancing act.

Conservatives, facing uncertainty about George W. Bush's legacy, and the reality of their own errors and excesses, have good reason just now to read and ponder Kirk, Hayek and Strauss. Progressives, too prone these days to perceive difficult moral and political questions as one-sided and too keen to characterize their allies at home in the defense of liberty as enemies, have good reason to do so themselves. "

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Good read. Thanks.

[Navaros]

That article is propaganda.

It is basically saying that anyone who does not support murdering children is not "progressive". And some who call themselves 'conservatives' are "progressive" because they actually support said murders and are advocating for them under a 'conservative' tent. Totally disgusting. :furious3:

[Marshal Murat]

It's also basically saying that because the conservative right is so split (abortion, immigration) that it is progressive because it questions the issues and is split by them, while the left (in large part) supports it.

[Lemur]

"Conservative" mind? I see very little that's conservative about the Republicans. I'll accept the left-right dichotomy, if only to make conversation easier, but I'm never going to accept radical right-wingers labeling themselves as "conservatives" again.

I've had it with the violation of the English language that has been done with the words "liberal" and "conservative." Neither applies as used without serious cognitive dissonance.

As for the article, well who knew? There's no groupthink, no herd mentality, and no casting-off of people with oddball ideas. Who would have guessed that the right is vibrant and full of differences, while the left goose-steps in unison?

[Watchman]

Such brilliant logic. Because the "Right" is being schizophrenic (for very good reasons), and the "Left" reasonably united in basically detesting the current adminstration and most of its policies, the former is obviously more open to debate and whatnot.
:dizzy2:
Whatta load of crock. The "Right" is a "cauldron of debate" because it has been hijacked by fringe loons the majority of its members don't really agree with all that much (and/or are becoming increasingly disillusioned with), while the "Left" isn't because they're basically the opposition party to the fringe loons of the "Right" in power and thus fairly united in naysaying.

Damn, but it's really been a while since I last saw example gratia as totally tendentiously interpreted as Mr. Berkowitz does...

[HoreTore]

The democrats are in no way to be considered the "left". They belong on the right.

The US left is dead, and so there is naturally little discussion there. And about 0 media coverage for those who are alive.

[AntiochusIII]

The article makes a rather unfounded assumption that the political elite represents all the attitudes of the general population -- curiously enough, "elite," with all its negative connotation, is used in the article to refer explicitly to the Left alone; bias? It spends more than half the article going on an extended comparison about how the Left is unified and generic, stale, even, while the Conservatives are diverse and vibrant, before finally presenting what the author considers to be the principles of a "Conservative Mind."

...the principles which contradict themselves.

It assumes the worst of one side and the best of another and spends far too much time proclaiming the superiority of the Right over the Left. Diversity in the Right is considered an open debate atmosphere and a united attitude in the Left shepherding by the supposed "elite."

Propaganda. :yes:

[Watchman]

The democrats are in no way to be considered the "left". They belong on the right.

The US left is dead, and so there is naturally little discussion there. And about 0 media coverage for those who are alive.The Dems are "the Left" in US politics relatively speaking, that is, they're "to the Left" of the Republicans... They'd be something like Centre or Centre-Right on most Euro scales I think.

There's proper Leftists in the 'States too by what I understand, but they don't exactly have much role in the Party politics. Plus I hear they've been migrating to the healthier air of Canada for a while now. ~;p

[HoreTore]

The Dems are "the Left" in US politics relatively speaking, that is, they're "to the Left" of the Republicans... They'd be something like Centre or Centre-Right on most Euro scales I think.

There's proper Leftists in the 'States too by what I understand, but they don't exactly have much role in the Party politics. Plus I hear they've been migrating to the healthier air of Canada for a while now. ~;p

They're not center, they're not center-right, they're simply the right. They have most in common with the european parties called conservatives. The republicans are the extreme right, just short of our nazi parties(or whatever name they disguise themselves as). I refuse to call them anything other than right, as that is an insult to those (few) true lefties, socialdemocrats, centrists, socialists, socialliberals, etc who exist in the US.

[AntiochusIII]

The republicans are the extreme right, just short of our nazi parties(or whatever name they disguise themselves as).Not really. There is a wing of Republicans who are just nutjob lunatics, control freaks and Bible thumpers (no offense to the more moderate believers), true; but to assume that a major US party is uniformly or even partially "fascist" is unfair.

Remember that a US major party represents much more than a European ideological party. Each of the two lays claim to two entire political spectrums; they are diverse entities with diverse interests and diverse mixture of ideologies. Which makes the claim of a uniform and uniformly static Left all the more ludicrous of course.

I suppose as Americans are never big on ideologies it is understandable. "Conservative" and "Liberal" are woefully inadequate terms to define one's political beliefs...but Americans are fine with that, mostly.

[HoreTore]

Not really. There is a wing of Republicans who are just nutjob lunatics, control freaks and Bible thumpers (no offense to the more moderate believers), true; but to assume that a major US party is uniformly or even partially "fascist" is unfair.

Not what I meant. I wasn't saying that the republicans are the same as our naziparties, I'm saying they are the step before that... The scale in Norway, for example, goes like this:

various small communist parties -> Socialist party -> socialdemocrats -> centerparty -> liberal party -> christiandemocrats -> conservative party(insert democrats here) -> progressive/populist party(insert moderate reps here) -> small biblethumping parties(insert extreme reps here) -> extreme nationalist parties, ie. nazi parties

[Tribesman]

I suppose as Americans are never big on ideologies it is understandable. "Conservative" and "Liberal" are woefully inadequate terms to define one's political beliefs...but Americans are fine with that, mostly.
so its not so much a case of "the conservative mind" more of a case of "the american mind" american leftists have thought about things and made up their minds but might be wrong and American rightists don't know what to think and cannot decide what is right or wrong at all .

[AntiochusIII]

so its not so much a case of "the conservative mind" more of a case of "the american mind" american leftists have thought about things and made up their minds but might be wrong and American rightists don't know what to think and cannot decide what is right or wrong at all .Many Rightists know what to think well enough, I believe. Though I think they will be able to speak for themselves better than I can.

It's just that one Republican is a libertarian, another a moderate Republican, and another a bloody abortion clinic-bombing Bible Thumper. None would see eye to eye, naturally enough.

According to the article, that's vibrant debate far preferable to the facade of unity in the Left...a facade that does not even exist when one sees how completely fragmented the Democratic Party is. Unity my arse. The only unity is in opposition to the Bush regime, its more extreme and socially controlling supporters, and the ideas they represents. Move away from that and you see all sorts of positions going everywhere like a hippie-painted rainbow flower.

Was it really that long ago when we were all proclaiming how the US Left has lost its identity blah blah blah and all that?

Or, to rephrase it in terms of [the game Victoria], America, politically, is an issue-based society, not an ideologically-driven one. Everyone just assumes the Constitution is Great and works from there.

[Watchman]

I don't think the functionally two-party system exactly helps you know. Sort of forces people who'd really be more comfortable in numerous smaller parties to share one big roof. Although the Brits seem to deal with their version a bit better.

[KafirChobee]

First, good article. That some grabbed at some of the examples Mr. Berkowitz used to define the differences between liberals and conservatives - as to why the debate for one side has ended on certain issues, while the others is raging - is of little surprise. Say "gay rights" or social-union, womens' rights (including prochoice), flag burning, and the likes in a room of conservatives and extreme debates (arguements, shouting contests) break out. Do so in a room a liberals and they shrug - they have already determined that the more freedom alotted groups, the more assurance for individual freedom.

Where as conservatives are willing to give up their rights - for the greater good. Liberals find that the concession of any right is an attack on freedom. Thing is, the conservatives (those classified as) are now debating the wisdom of that, since Bushy & gang started stomping on the Constitution.

Heck the right is even debating about when life begins. At ejaculation is my fave.:beam:

I agree, the oversimplification of catagorizing right-left-center (moderate-radical-pinko-commy-nazi-nitjob-etc.) maybe part of the problem. Political minds are rarely that simple.

That "conservative" has lost its meaning, is true. That conservatives and liberals alike no longer understand what its meaning is (or liberal for that matter) - is because our education system no longer teaches political philosophy (until college, and then it isn't mandatory); ergo people grab on to a term they don't truelly comprehend to define their political position.

It is partly the medias' fault for this. e.g. For the war = conservative. Against the war = liberal. When in fact the choice has nothing to do with either, it is a matter of conscience - not of political choice.

To say the article is propaganda? Er, do you truely understand what propaganda is? If not, listen to Rush Limpballs - or the Bushys.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Id start a thread on the Liberal mind but thats an oxymoron :laugh4: Or is it just a plain moron :hide: :oops:

[Lemur]

Id start a thread on the Liberal mind but thats an oxymoron :laugh4: Or is it just a plain moron :hide: :oops:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/211_morans.jpg

[Proletariat]

Pindar did the Liberal Mind thread a little while ago, it was pretty good.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Stupid long haired hippy freak

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/211_morans.jpg

[Papewaio]

Id start a thread on the Liberal mind but thats an oxymoron :laugh4: Or is it just a plain moron :hide: :oops:

Which to those outside the US is a very funny statement.

As Liberals are the conservative party.

The Australian Liberal Party is the conservative party and along with the Nationals are the ones in charge of the Federal government at the moment... the ones staunchly allied to the Republicans.

Now can we avoid blanket rude statements in the future?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Which to those outside the US is a very funny statement.

Believe me my first though was to label this thread as an oxymoron but I wasnt in a self debasing mood at the time.:laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Believe me my first though was to label this thread as an oxymoron but I wasnt in a self debasing mood at the time.:laugh4:

Quit the d-basing and clear your head a bit!:cheesy:


Sorry, just couldn't resist a bad joke.

[Don Corleone]

Isn't it a natural function of being the party-in power versus being the opposition party? I'm sure if a similar analysis were performed in 1999, you would have seen Democrats widely split over issues and Republicans showing greater homogeny.

As for Hore Tore's comment that the Republicans are one small-step left of the Norwegian Nazi party and the Democrats are two small steps left... ~:rolleyes: . If it makes you feel better to make disparaging statements like that, chief, be my guest, but I noticed you didn't link any sort of issues-analysis to your conclusion. Last I checked, free market != Nazi.....

While I appreciate some of the insights from the article, I have to take issue with the 'broad brush' he's painting with. Just look at leading Democrats seeking the nomination. They range widely on several important issues. Just take one: health care coverage. Obama wants to start a government run insurance brokerage market... all would be elligible to buy coverage in this market, and for insurance companies to participate, they'd have to meet certain government set criteria. Hillary wants a one-payer system. Edwards wants to go further and talks about a fully socialized health care system (no payment necessary, just show up and get treated, whenever your number comes up). The most right-leaning (free-market) view on this particular issue comes from Bill Richardson who talks about offering tax breaks for insurance companies that offer coverage to the 'at risk'.

I'll grant you the Democrats don't have the open spats going on that the Republicans do, but that's because they're focused on cementing their hold on Congress and gaining the White House. The time for infighting is after you have these spoils and it's time to distribute them.

[Proletariat]

It's a complete crock that the democrats are some solid, speaking as one politcal party, anyway. 5% of them want animal rights, 5% want health care, 5% gay rights, 5% enviroment, 5% civil rights, etc. The right has four or five major issues where most of their constituents agree with about three or so. Things like small government, strong defense, abortion, tough on crime, etc. It's no where near as fractitious as the left. They just look unified right now because they all agree that Bush is a douchebag.

Edit: Haven't had a chance to read the article yet, will do so after work

[Odin]

It's no where near as fractitious as the left. They just look unified right now because they all agree that Bush is a douchebag.



Well that and the right is holding this massive bag of crap called iraq. The dems have always been fractured thats thier achillies heel, but look what unification does to a party when they unite behind the wrong person and the wrong issue.

All they have left is the executive branch (well the supreme court as well, but that supposed to be above politics) and that might be down the crapper too in 08, and woe to the republican who carries the mantle of "bush backer" for the next 10-20 years.

[Ironside]

As for Hore Tore's comment that the Republicans are one small-step left of the Norwegian Nazi party and the Democrats are two small steps left... ~:rolleyes: . If it makes you feel better to make disparaging statements like that, chief, be my guest, but I noticed you didn't link any sort of issues-analysis to your conclusion. Last I checked, free market != Nazi.....


The downside of having the one-dimentional left-right wing scale. There isn't any party that are generally simular to the republicans in Scandinavia, and the closest one to the Democrats is generally the rightmost larger right-wing party. This gets even more complicated of that classical liberals (aka US libertarians) is considered to be in the middle (although the "pure" ones isn't exactly the strongest faction in the party, wouldn't work).

Makes for a nice mess on deciding how US parties fits in at the Scandinavian scale.

There's considered to be a very large jump between our conservatives and the small radical parties on the right though, but there isn't really a room for a republican party here, not without decades of conservative rule before that.

[Don Corleone]

The downside of having the one-dimentional left-right wing scale. There isn't any party that are generally simular to the republicans in Scandinavia, and the closest one to the Democrats is generally the rightmost larger right-wing party. This gets even more complicated of that classical liberals (aka US libertarians) is considered to be in the middle (although the "pure" ones isn't exactly the strongest faction in the party, wouldn't work).

Makes for a nice mess on deciding how US parties fits in at the Scandinavian scale.

There's considered to be a very large jump between our conservatives and the small radical parties on the right though, but there isn't really a room for a republican party here, not without decades of conservative rule before that.

I don't think the differences are anywhere near as extreme as you might happen to think.

Fiscally, the Democrats actually really do advocate for some form of socialism (I'm not saying that to be disparaging, they really do think the government should redistribute wealth). Heck, truth be told, Republicans do as well, they just don't admit to it on the record. On Social Issues, in many ways, Americans are more liberal than most Europeans. We have gay marriage or civil unions in quite a few places, we have abortion rules that are much more lax than most of Europe, etcetera. The only place we really stand out, in my opinion, is an interventionist foreign policy, and while you're right that both our parties indulge in it, once they get into power, I don't think that's ever been a left wing or right wing hallmark... people on both sides of the aisle have had interventionist foreign policies.

Edit: I'm making value-neutral observations. In no way am I saying the above is positive (or negative for that matter).

[Ironside]

I don't think the differences are anywhere near as extreme as you might happen to think.

Fiscally, the Democrats actually really do advocate for some form of socialism (I'm not saying that to be disparaging, they really do think the government should redistribute wealth). Heck, truth be told, Republicans do as well, they just don't admit to it on the record. On Social Issues, in many ways, Americans are more liberal than most Europeans. We have gay marriage or civil unions in quite a few places, we have abortion rules that are much more lax than most of Europe, etcetera. The only place we really stand out, in my opinion, is an interventionist foreign policy, and while you're right that both our parties indulge in it, once they get into power, I don't think that's ever been a left wing or right wing hallmark... people on both sides of the aisle have had interventionist foreign policies.

Edit: I'm making value-neutral observations. In no way am I saying the above is positive (or negative for that matter).

Please note that I'm mainly speaking from Scandinavia, that's quite into that socialism part and generally refering to Europe is probably as bad as saying America and then try to fit in Chavez into US national politics.

Could be, you can put in a few peices here and there and get something quite simular to an American platform, but there's still something different about American politics. Maybe it's that "all or nothing" feeling to you get. And what those parties do and what the members say is quite different and considering that your parties is big blobs of oppinions, it gets hard to determine thier place on those political voices. Of course, social issues is one example were the US is more socialistic than it claims.
That said, I get the feeling that even us Scandinavians would complain heavily on it's current inefficency, but I cannot determine exacly how the situation is. Large and efficient, not large and a big money sink.

And take health-care for example, advocating any private profit seeking company is very right wing (I don't think we have any party that's for that atm, mostly because Moderaterna has gone towards the middle), it can stretch itself to allowing certain sectors to be privatly run, but then with a non-profit policy (I'm not exactly sure on how that work). Variations on this is the very large middle, while full re-statification on those that exist today is the left.
Were does this issue end up in US politics? On the very right side to the very, very, very right side. There's induviduals inside the parties that have stated intrest of the US system, but as mentioned they're far from the official policy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The USA has very few political parties if we use the European definition, and none of those that do qualify are a significant political force.

The Major US parties are "coalitions" who share beliefs about a fair percentage of issues, but simply do not put issues front and center in elections. Both parties argue for days to craft a party "platform" during the conventions -- sometimes compromising among the various factions, sometimes stitching everybody's pet issue together, often both --only to have their presidential candidates ignore most of it and run on the issues they have in mind. Many (Most) of the candidates for the legislature take the same strategy. The platform is then shelved until the next convention. Aside from the pet issues chosen by a candidate or forced upon them by events, most of the election is contested on image-management and mud-slinging.

By contrast, many European political parties hold conventions to decide the party's platform (policy agenda) and then -- note the difference -- the party works as a bloc for that agenda. Party discipline in voting is noticeably higher. Many voters simply look for their party label of preference and pull the lever -- the specific individual involved being somewhat irrelevant. Obviously, this is not uniformly the case. There are faction fights in European political parties; there are individuals who are discovered to be so repulsive (pederasty, corruption beyond culturally accepted norms, etc.) that they can no longer get the votes. On the whole however, Euro politics is much more of a contest between party platforms/agendas than is an election here in the USA.

Some good exemplars above have already been proffered as to the difference between Euro labels of "liberal" and "conservative" as opposed to the connotations these terms have in the USA. Ultimately, I believe the key distinction -- regardless of label choice -- to be between those who prefer centralized decision-making (stronger central government) as opposed to localized decision-making (limited central government).

For those of you Euro-blokes and lasses who wish to get "past" nationalism, you might look to encouraging the development of truly international unions and the development of political parties that are international --one party/one agenda in all countries -- as well (Note, I'm not particularly well read on European politics; this may already be occurring). These institutions would then enforce -- through their own normal efforts -- a normalizing process that actively deconstructs the nationalist framework that remains (Again, this may already be in progress).

I will now return to my cave.

[Pindar]

Edit: Haven't had a chance to read the article yet, will do so after work

My Donna, :bow:

The reactions in the thread have been fascinating. Almost none have focused on what I thought was the interesting section of the article. Berkowitz notes three rather famous (though he claims now rarely read) texts that act as part of the pedigree for conservative thought: Kirk's The Conservative Mind" Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" and Strauss's "Natural Right and History" . In simple terms: Kirk looks to order, Hayek looks to liberty and Strauss focuses on rights. These three principles (in varying degree) are what Berkowitz sees as the triumvirate of the Conservative Mind.

[Pannonian]

My Donna, :bow:

The reactions in the thread have been fascinating. Almost none have focused on what I thought was the interesting section of the article. Berkowitz notes three rather famous (though he claims now rarely read) texts that act as part of the pedigree for conservative thought: Kirk's The Conservative Mind" Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" and Strauss's "Natural Right and History" . In simple terms: Kirk looks to order, Hayek looks to liberty and Strauss focuses on rights. These three principles (in varying degree) are what Berkowitz sees as the triumvirate of the Conservative Mind.
If Order, Liberty and Rights are supposed to be the triumvirate of the Conservative Mind, is that meant to imply that Chaos, Slavery and Serfdom are the triumvirate of their political opponents? I believe that kind of platitude is termed "apple pie argument" - by staking one's claim to such a universally supported cause as Mother's apple pie, one can claim that one's opponents oppose such popular principles. Absolutely worthless and empty in substance.

Now I await your claim that you made no such argument, that you were merely restating the points made by the above gentlemen.

[Don Corleone]

Well, to be fair, traditionally, American conservatives (small c) have stood for:

-law and order
-individual rights
-individual liberties.

Their opposite, rather than Chaos, Slavery and Serfdom have been:

-one's duty to society
-one's expectations from society
-the idea that society, not the individual are responsible for crime.

Any rational mind will have to allow shades of each philosophy color their thinking. The question is degree: are you an individualist, or do you stand in the embrace of society.

Rather than the European axes of political will, our political process tends to be dominated by this fundamental question.

[Pindar]

If Order, Liberty and Rights are supposed to be the triumvirate of the Conservative Mind, is that meant to imply that Chaos, Slavery and Serfdom are the triumvirate of their political opponents?

No. The animus for the Leftist Mind is not the focus.


Now I await your claim that you made no such argument, that you were merely restating the points made by the above gentlemen.

I have made no such argument. I merely restated the points made by the above gentlemen.

[HoreTore]

For those of you Euro-blokes and lasses who wish to get "past" nationalism, you might look to encouraging the development of truly international unions and the development of political parties that are international --one party/one agenda in all countries -- as well (Note, I'm not particularly well read on European politics; this may already be occurring).

This is indeed already happening. For some parties, it's been around for 80 years.

[Lemur]

I do believe that none other than the Red Devil herself (http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/05/maureen-dowd-how-were-animalistic-in.html) has addressed the Straussian underpinnings of the "conservative" mind:

The odd thing is that conservatives wear pinstriped suits, when they really should be walking around in togas. The main contribution of the Greeks to modern American politics may have been Michael Dukakis, who once climbed the Acropolis in wingtips.

But that doesn’t stop conservatives — especially the Straussians who pushed for going into Iraq — from being obsessed with ancient Greece, and from believing that they are the successors to Plato and Homer in terms of the lofty ideals and nobility and character in American politics — while Democrats merely muck about with policies for the needy.

Harvey Mansfield, a leading Straussian who teaches political science at Harvard and who wrote a book called “Manliness” (he’s for it), gave the Jefferson lecture recently at the National Endowment for the Humanities in Washington.

It was an ode, as his book is, to “thumos,” the Greek word that means spiritedness, with flavors of ambition, pride and brute willfulness. Thumos, as Philip Kennicott wrote in The Washington Post, “is a word reinvented by conservative academics who need to put a fancy name on a political philosophy that boils down to ‘boys will be boys.’ ”

Mr. Mansfield did not mention the war, which is a downer at conclaves of neocons and thumos worshippers. But he explained that thumos is “the bristling reaction of an animal in face of a threat or a possible threat.” In thumos, he added, “we see the animality of man, for men (and especially males) often behave like dogs barking, snakes hissing, birds flapping. But precisely here we also see the humanity of the human animal” because it is reacting for “a reason, even for a principle, a cause. Only human beings get angry.”

The professor used an example, naturally, from ancient Greece to explain why politics should be about revolution rather than equilibrium: “What did Achilles do when his ruler Agamemnon stole his slave-girl? He raised the stakes. He asserted that the trouble was not in this loss alone but in the fact that the wrong sort of man was ruling the Greeks. Heroes, or at least he-men like Achilles, should be in charge rather than lesser beings like Agamemnon who have mainly their lineage to recommend them and who therefore do not give he-men the honors they deserve. Achilles elevated a civil complaint concerning a private wrong to a demand for a change of regime, a revolution in politics.” Mr. Mansfield concluded: “To complain of an injustice is an implicit claim to rule.”

The most recent example of the Hellenization of the Bush administration is the president’s choice for war czar, Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, who says he loves the Greek military historian Thucydides.

Other Thucydides aficionados include Victor Davis Hanson, who was a war-guru to Dick Cheney when the vice president went into the bunker after 9/11 and got into his gloomy Hobbesian phase. (Hobbes’s biggest influence was also Thucydides.)

Donald Kagan, a respected Yale historian who has written authoritatively on the Peloponnesian War, is the father of Robert Kagan, a neocon who pushed for the Iraq invasion, and Frederick Kagan, a military historian who urged the surge.

I called Professor Kagan to ask him if Thucydides, the master at chronicling hubris and imperial overreaching, might provide the new war czar with any wisdom that can help America sort through the morass of Iraq.

Very much his sons’ father, the classicist said he was disgusted that the White House, after a fiasco of an occupation designed by Rummy, “is still doing one dumb thing after another” by appointing General Lute, a chief skeptic of the surge.

Professor Kagan said that one reason the Athenians ended up losing the war was because in the Battle of Mantinea in 418 B.C. against the Spartans, they sent “a very inferior force” and had a general in command who was associated with the faction that was against the aggressive policy against the Spartans.

“Kind of like President Bush appointing this guy to run the war whose strategy is opposed to the surge,” he said dryly.

With cold realism, Thucydides captured the Athenian philosophy in the 27-year war that led to their downfall as a golden democracy: “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

What message can we take away from Thucydides for modern times?

“To me,” Professor Kagan said, “the deepest message, the most tragic, is his picture of civilization as a very thin veneer. When you punch a hole in it, what you find underneath is hollow, the precivilized characteristics of the human race — animalistic in the worst possible way.”

Compared to Iraq, the Peloponnesian War was a cakewalk.

[JR-]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19426064.600-life-decisions-separate-hawk-from-dove.html

[Pindar]

I do believe that none other than the Red Devil herself (http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/05/maureen-dowd-how-were-animalistic-in.html) has addressed the Straussian underpinnings of the "conservative" mind:

The Straussian influence on Neo-conservatism is well known. This could be seen as far back as with Jean Kirkpatrick. This of course doesn't apply to Paleo-conservatives.

[ShadeHonestus]

This of course doesn't apply to Paleo-conservatives.

I'm supposed to be on a dig atm that is looking for paleo-conservatives, last report from the field is that markings on the bone support only paleo-moderate procurement techniques.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'm supposed to be on a dig atm that is looking for paleo-conservatives,

Does this mean I have to come in for testing?

[ShadeHonestus]

Nah, but if you somehow manage to retroactively bury yourself ca 7-8,000 years ago we might find you. Most likely though we'll just find evidence of your subsistence patterns and cultural behavior. So take a ton of those old styrofoam McDonald's sandwich boxes and really throw us for a loop.

-edit-
With apologies for the mini hijack of Pindar's posting about the reality of political thought here in the U.S.. Its a well known fact that as the left has gained a stranglehold on the U.S. education systems they are ever more willing to ostracize anyone who does not tow the line. You see this in the Backroom as you do on campuses around the country. The left is no longer the intellectual community they claimed to be as they have lost that pursuit. Largely they are now spoon fed ideas to build on by correlation or sound bytes in the fast food media. We all know what this is, anyone who has ever read a bad doctoral dissertation vs a good doctoral dissertation can tell you. It's sham reasoning. When the sound bytes run out and the person arguing the topic is unarmed, they attack or at the least cast aspersion on the person challenging their belief, beyond the credentials of the argument. The "bible thumpers" use to be accused of this and still are in some circles as when their stance runs out they label the person as ungodly or not of God or whatever. The left is doing the same in principle but worse, they have turned on themselves and no longer open to intellectually meeting the hypocrisies in their platform, they simply wash them down your throat with nanny state handouts and ask you to join hands and sing the Coke song. They can't survive as they wish to stand currently without this heavy handed purge and sugar approach (carrot and stick transformed to commies and pop tarts). I respect the right for their ability to make room for the debates at least, even if the minority positions lose out. Who on the far left of politics here would dare argue publicly and by name in the affirmative for any number of conservative ideas, none, for fear of the above (unless of course you have no standing outside a leftist peer group). Intellectual honesty demands this from everyone, left, center and right less you stand yourself up to be counted as those who fall for anything.

[AntiochusIII]

@ShadeHonestus: lol. Might I suggest separating that rant into paragraphs...? :dizzy2:

[ShadeHonestus]

@ShadeHonestus: lol. Might I suggest separating that rant into paragraphs...? :dizzy2:

:beam:

Well there was a 5 and 4 year old tugging at me with the aim of luring me into the sandbox. The blue eyed young lady is especially distracting when she petitions for time. I'm lucky I made it through without mispelling every other word by virtue of typos.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Who on the far left of politics here would dare argue publicly and by name in the affirmative for any number of conservative ideas,

Maybe Sen Harold Ford Jr. Oh thats right its former Sen Harold Ford Jr. Seems they didnt like his conservative stance on some matters.

[ShadeHonestus]

Although not the entire story in his case, but one has to mention Joe as well. Then there is that Georgia fellow who is their token for tolerance.

[Pindar]

I'm supposed to be on a dig atm that is looking for paleo-conservatives, last report from the field is that markings on the bone support only paleo-moderate procurement techniques.

I think there are clear signs Neos are waning and Paleos are waxing. One can site both George Will and Buckley as simple examples of Paleo attacks on the Administration. This shift is due to the Administration's failure to provide a sustained rhetoric for its foreign policy.

[Pindar]

-edit-
With apologies for the mini hijack of Pindar's posting about the reality of political thought here in the U.S.. Its a well known fact that as the left has gained a stranglehold on the U.S. education systems they are ever more willing to ostracize anyone who does not tow the line. You see this in the Backroom as you do on campuses around the country. The left is no longer the intellectual community they claimed to be as they have lost that pursuit. Largely they are now spoon fed ideas to build on by correlation or sound bytes in the fast food media. We all know what this is, anyone who has ever read a bad doctoral dissertation vs a good doctoral dissertation can tell you. It's sham reasoning. When the sound bytes run out and the person arguing the topic is unarmed, they attack or at the least cast aspersion on the person challenging their belief, beyond the credentials of the argument. The "bible thumpers" use to be accused of this and still are in some circles as when their stance runs out they label the person as ungodly or not of God or whatever. The left is doing the same in principle but worse, they have turned on themselves and no longer open to intellectually meeting the hypocrisies in their platform, they simply wash them down your throat with nanny state handouts and ask you to join hands and sing the Coke song. They can't survive as they wish to stand currently without this heavy handed purge and sugar approach (carrot and stick transformed to commies and pop tarts). I respect the right for their ability to make room for the debates at least, even if the minority positions lose out. Who on the far left of politics here would dare argue publicly and by name in the affirmative for any number of conservative ideas, none, for fear of the above (unless of course you have no standing outside a leftist peer group). Intellectual honesty demands this from everyone, left, center and right less you stand yourself up to counted as those who fall for anything.

Truth to power.

[ShadeHonestus]

One can site both George Will and Buckley as simple examples of Paleo attacks on the Administration.

Speaking of Buckley, has anyone here read any of his fiction? Spy novels were they? Been waiting on an endorsement before I take the leap.

[KafirChobee]

We have enough information now to define those in this small quorum (sp) of what those that think they are conservatives - is (are, and how they agree with the conspiracy), and their definition,

Fact is, better we do it than them. 'Cause the fact is, Conservatives are so confused about their identification that many think they may now vote for a Democrat in Nov.2008.

Evolution, pollution, edumacation, religiousization, equality, global warming, gas prices; these issues are splintering those that once thought they were GOPists.
Thank Zeus for Bushy.