[MadIvan]

I gave a lecture on conservatism at my alma mater, I said there were three distinct brands of Conservatism -

1. The "Old Right" - this includes the paleoconservatives. These people have an "organic" view of society and work towards the good of the "organism"; for example, they regard free trade as damaging the "organism" and thus want to protect it.
2. The "New Right" - this includes Thatcherites and Reaganites - these people generally favour a libertarian economic agenda, but a social agenda, to varying degrees of importance, which takes the "organic" view.
3. Libertarians - these people are entirely focused on an agenda of individual liberty - maximum freedom in both economic and social spheres.

These categories are not hard and fast, and people dip into and out of these three schools to varying degrees. The point is that conservatism is a dynamic philosophy, which has a constant churn of ideas. You'll notice that the main precepts of American liberalism / socialism have not changed for 50 years - their philosophy is intellectually bankrupt, and a failure as a result.

Regards, Ivan

[Peach]

Very good, Ivan. I see that you know more about this country's politics than many of our own countrymen.

[BigSkyFreeper]

These categories are not hard and fast, and people dip into and out of these three schools to varying degrees.

Oh I absolutely agree, and goes along with what I've always maintained, that conservatism itself is not monolithic, with a certain amount of give and take to allow for a certain degree of compromise.

You'll notice that the main precepts of American liberalism / socialism have not changed for 50 years - their philosophy is intellectually bankrupt, and a failure as a result.

The fact that it's "unbending" or unwilling to change (uncomprimising) with the times or the circumstances, is why it's a failure.

[BunnySlippers]

Bump