Republicanism and Liberalism

[JAG]

Louis has got it bang on.

If the Republican party was anywhere in Europe it would be 3 parties, the same for the Democrats.

[Lemur]

There's an awfully good summary of the Repubs and their relationship to the "small government" (libertarian?) movement here.

For a long time, I was kind of amazed by the libertarian rhetoric of the GOP, the way that somebody could argue for torture and corporate welfare and unchecked police powers and massive deficits and a global empire, and then follow it up with “Because I believe in limited government and the free market.” The cognitive dissonance wasn’t what bugged me (I’m cynical enough to take it as a given that politicians know how to lie) but rather that they would even bother appealing to the small government crowd that they feel free to screw over. I mean, aren’t we, like, a minuscule faction?

And then it hit me–it was never about us. All those dog whistles that libertarians respond to whenever Republicans blow the whistle? Those were for other people. Second amendment? It’s a cultural thing, not principle. Free markets? Intellectual cover for corporate welfare. Limited government? This is their way of saying to the subsidized farmers of the Great Plains and the employees of the Military-Industrial Complex and all the other beneficiaries of GOP-style redistribution “Don’t worry, you aren’t a welfare recipient like all those city folks that I bash. You’re better than that. You’re a hearty, self-reliant person who supports limited government.”

I already knew that all of the stances that the libertarians like were just there for other elements of the GOP coalition. But I used to think that the “limited government” rhetoric was a way of fooling us. Nope, it was never about us. The fact that too many of us were fooled was a coincidence (one that Republicans probably still laugh about over drinks). It was for everyone else in the coalition. The fact that we fell for it was just a coincidence. The fact that some of us actually provided them with pet intellectuals was just icing on the cake.

[King Henry V]

American conservatives are nancy boys. Real conservatives know that strong government, firm government, a government that knows how to put a bit of stick about, is vital to make a country great.

[Rhyfelwyr]

American conservatives are nancy boys. Real conservatives know that strong government, firm government, a government that knows how to put a bit of stick about, is vital to make a country great.

Well said. What happened to the conservative idea of the welfare state?

Well I suppose the new right is what happened, but I don't understand why social conservatism cannot coincide with somewhat socialist economic principles.

[King Henry V]

Well said. What happened to the conservative idea of the welfare state?

Well I suppose the new right is what happened, but I don't understand why social conservatism cannot coincide with somewhat socialist economic principles.

Quite right. Conservatism itself means restraint: restraint of the excesses of personal irresponsibility as well as restraint of the excesses of the market. One Nation Conservatism used to be the main brand of conservatism, but sadly since the days of Mrs Thatcher, this is no longer the case (what can one expect from the daughter of a Whig?). The primary purpose of government should be to make a country strong, a country of which its citizens can be proud. There are certain things which a government must provide for the good of the social fabric of a country: a strong sense of law and order, wide-reaching infrastructure such as post offices and railways (Britain's rail network is now the joke of the Western world, and rightly so), a decent health service and education system, a well-funded military and state pensions which ensure a decent standard of living.
Mrs Thatcher's legacy of social division, of "Us and Them", of an obsession with "making things pay for themselves" as the be-all and end-all of their purpose has left Britain sadly weakened.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Quite right. Conservatism itself means restraint: restraint of the excesses of personal irresponsibility as well as restraint of the excesses of the market. One Nation Conservatism used to be the main brand of conservatism, but sadly since the days of Mrs Thatcher, this is no longer the case (what can one expect from the daughter of a Whig?). The primary purpose of government should be to make a country strong, a country of which its citizens can be proud. There are certain things which a government must provide for the good of the social fabric of a country: a strong sense of law and order, wide-reaching infrastructure such as post offices and railways (Britain's rail network is now the joke of the Western world, and rightly so), a decent health service and education system, a well-funded military and state pensions which ensure a decent standard of living.
Mrs Thatcher's legacy of social division, of "Us and Them", of an obsession with "making things pay for themselves" as the be-all and end-all of their purpose has left Britain sadly weakened.

I have never so wholeheartedly agreed with the sentiment of a post in the Backroom for a long, long time.

[Strike For The South]

American conservatives are nancy boys. Real conservatives know that strong government, firm government, a government that knows how to put a bit of stick about, is vital to make a country great.

Spoken like a true European

Government is best kept small inept and scared. That way the people may have a chance.

[King Henry V]

Spoken like a true European

Government is best kept small inept and scared. That way the people may have a chance.

The people? The people? My dear fellow, surely you can't trust people, ordinary people, to do what they really want? The people doesn't know what it wants. Of course, they think they know what they want. A new shiny car, crummy plops for breakfast, dolphin-friendly potatos. But these are just things that they've been told that they need by however wants to make some dosh. How can they know what they want? Ask the average man in the street who, say, Aristotle, was, and they'd probably answer that it was the name of the man who ran the local kebab shop. Placing your faith in such people is like trusting children to properly run a sweet factory. Therein lies madness, my friend.

[Meneldil]

Not that I'm an expert on these issues, but where did you get the idea that :

1 - Rousseau is a proto-communist
2 - Rousseau agreed with the domination of a minority over the majority.
3 - the US republican party is somehow linked to traditional "republicanism" (is that a word btw ?)

As for how I see things, the fact that Rousseau advocated the creation of a Republic doesn't link him in any way with the Republican party.
Kant was also partly promoting the idea of Republic, yet I hardly see any link between his work and the Republican party.

Both were politically liberals by their time standards (and Kant would probablty stil be classified as a liberal nowadays).

Now, the question is, are Rousseau's ideas the official basis of the Republican party doctrine ? I doubt so, and I sincerely hope I'm right.

[Kralizec]

1 - Rousseau is a proto-communist
2 - Rousseau agreed with the domination of a minority over the majority.
3 - the US republican party is somehow linked to traditional "republicanism" (is that a word btw ?)

IIRC Rousseau wanted an egalitarian society, but not comprehensive distribution of property.

Rousseau never said or wrote that it would be acceptable for a minority to dominate a majority. He did argue though that the Common Will is something different from the sum of petty desires of all people in a country, that the "will" of a citizen is something different from the will of a person as such. From there it's just a short step to conclude that people will need sheppards to determin what the people want and need, and assume limitless authority under the guise of the Common Will.
He also thought that real democracy was only possible in miniature states like Switzerland and that the ability to make political decisions could not be delegated to a body smaller than the people, but this is usually ommitted by his "fans" in order to make a case for their own political views.