Posted on 05/10/2005 5:34:13 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
America was different, but thirty years ago Nixon was trying to follow the Disraelian pattern over here as well. So it's not unheard of if today's conservatism accepts big government more readily than Goldwater or Reagan did. Politicians look for the middle ground. The surprising thing is that the middle ground now is so much more free market than it was in Eisenhower's or Nixon's day.
BTW, you can take the boy out of England, but can't take England out of the boy:
Roman Catholicism is more intellectually substantial, but no more necessarily conservative, in the Burkean sense, than Free Silver evangelism. Does the Roman Catholic church really have deep, ancient roots nourished by the concepts of liberty and individual autonomy? When and where, exactly, did those roots first become visible? During the Inquisition or the Armada? Under the Bourbons or the Hapsburgs? In Franco's let's-ignore-the-20th-century Spain or Eamonn de Valera's nasty, corrupt little people-exporting "confessional republic"? Yes, yes, the late John Paul II, bless his memory, made up for a great many of those things; but that only brings to mind how very much there was to make up for.
Do Buckley's and O'Sullivan's successors pay the hoary old Brit by the number of anti-papist lines he writes?
Here's what it says about socialism
But, in order to understand fully what Socialism is and what it implies, it is necessary first to glance at the history of the movement, then to examine its philosophical and religious tendencies, and finally to consider how far these may be, and actually have proved to be, incompatible with Christian thought and life.And here is what it says about "individualism"
Political Individualism.
Considered historically and in relation to the amount of attention that it receives, the most important form of individualism is that which is called political. It varies in degree from pure anarchism to the theory that the State's only proper functions are to maintain order and enforce contracts. In ancient Greece and Rome, political theory and practice were anti-individualistic; for they considered and made the State the supreme good, an end in itself, to which the individual was a mere means.
Directly opposed to this conception was the Christian teaching that the individual soul had an independent and indestructible value, and that the State was only a means, albeit a necessary means, to individual welfare. Throughout the Middle Ages, therefore, the ancient theory was everywhere rejected. Nevertheless the prevailing theory and practice were far removed from anything that could be called individualism. Owing largely to the religious individualism resulting from the Reformation, political individualism at length appeared: at first, partial in the writings of Hobbes and Locke; later, complete in the speculations of the French philosophers of the eighteenth century, notably Rousseau. The general conclusion from all these writings was that government was something artificial, and at best a necessary evil. According to the Social Contract theory of Rousseau, the State was merely the outcome of a compact freely made by its individual citizens. Consequently they were under no moral obligation to form a State, and the State itself was not a moral necessity. These views are no longer held, except by professional anarchists. In fact, a sharp reaction has occurred. The majority of non-Catholic ethical and political writers of today approach more or less closely to the position of ancient Greece and Rome, or to that of Hegel; society, or the State, is an organism from which the individual derives all his rights and all his importance. The Catholic doctrine remains as always midway between these extremes. It holds that the State is normal, natural, and necessary, even as the family is necessary, but that it is not necessary for its own sake; that it is only a means to individual life and progress.
Moderate political individualists would, as noted above, reduce the functions of the State to the minimum that is consistent with social order and peace. As they view the matter, there is always a presumption against any intervention by the State in the affairs of individuals, a presumption that can be set aside only by the most evident proof to the contrary. Hence they look upon such activities as education, sumptuary regulations, legislation in the interest of health, morals, and professional competency, to say nothing of philanthropic measures, or of industrial restrictions and industrial enterprises, as outside the State's proper province. This theory has a much smaller following now than it had a century or even half a century ago; for experience has abundantly shown that the assumptions upon which it rests are purely artificial and thoroughly false. There exists no general presumption either for or against state activities. If there is any presumption with regard to particular matters, it is as apt to be favourable as unfavourable. The one principle of guidance and test of propriety in this field is the welfare of society and of its component individuals, as determined by experience. Whenever these ends can be better attained by state intervention than by individual effort, state intervention is justified.
It is against intervention in the affairs of industry that present-day individualism make its strongest protest. According to the laissez-faire, or let alone, school of economists and politicians, the State should permit and encourage the fullest freedom of contract and of competition throughout the field of industry. This theory, which was derived partly from the political philosophy of the eighteenth century, already mentioned, partly from the Kantian doctrine that the individual has a right to the fullest measure of freedom that is compatible with the equal freedom of other individuals, and partly from the teachings of Adam Smith, received its most systematic expression in the tenets of the Manchester School. Its advocates opposed not only such public enterprises as state railways and telegraphs, but such restrictive measures as factory regulations, and laws governing the hours of labour for women and children. They also discouraged all associations of capitalists or of labourers. Very few individualists now adopt this extreme position. Experience has too frequently shown that the individual can be as deeply injured through an extortionate contract, as at the hands of the thief, the highwayman, or the contract breaker. The individual needs the protection of the State quite as much and quite as often in the former case as in any of the latter contingencies. As to state regulation or state ownership of certain industries and utilities, this too is entirely a question of expediency for the public welfare. There is no a priori principle -- political, ethical, economic, or religious -- by which it can be decided. Many individualists, and others likewise, who oppose state intervention in this field are victims of a fallacy. In their anxiety to safeguard individual liberty, they forget that reasonable labour legislation, for example, does not deprive the labourer of any liberty that is worth having, while it does ensure him real opportunity, which is the vital content of all true liberty; they forget that, while state control and direction of certain industries undoubtedly diminishes both the liberty and the opportunity of some individuals, it may increase the opportunities and the welfare of the vast majority. Both individualists and non-individualists aim, as a rule, at the greatest measure of real liberty for the individual; all their disagreement relates to the means by which this aim is to be realized.
As in the matter of the necessity and justification of the State, so with regard to its functions, the Catholic position is neither individualistic nor anti-individualistic. It accepts neither the "policeman" theory, which would reduce the activities of the State to the protection of life and property and the enforcement of contracts, nor the proposals of Socialism, which would make the State the owner and director of all the instruments of production. In both respects its attitude is determined not by any metaphysical theory of the appropriate functions of the State, but by its conception of the requisites of individual and social welfare.
This is a pretty good esay. I disagree with his portrayal of the Evangelical movement though. It's much stronger than he realizes. It isn't about Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. There are millions of Bible believing and biblically knowledgable Christians out here that have a very solid foundation to our conservatism. We have a secret weapon. Prayer.
"We are living in the twilight of conservatism."
I'm not going away. Anyone here going away?
Our government is a huge ever growing runaway train with nobody at the helm, headed for a crash anyone with any common sense knows has to come.
Next month Im becoming a liberal...but only for a little while
The whole us vs them mentality is destructive to our nation. It is important to move our (conservative) agenda forward and to stop the liberal agenda but this will always be accomplished on an incremental basis.
We win some and we lose some, the best we can hope for is a general rightward leaning arc. The important thing isn't which party or philosophy has the upper hand, but rather the quality of ideas and problem solving vitality that the combined efforts of both bring to some very difficult issues.
Because ultimately the sky isn't falling and the American people are freer, richer, smarter and far better off than Any people have Ever been in the Entire history of this planet.
save
Blair is going to need a lot of help from the Tories to get much of his agenda through. His most powerful opposition is the left wing of his own party at the moment.
Regards, Ivan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.