...problem is that libertines and monopolists need big government to support their behaviors. We need another George Washington.
Posted on 01/01/2010 12:20:30 AM PST by rabscuttle385
"The heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism," Ronald Reagan said on many occasions, including a speech at Vanderbilt University when I was an undergraduate.
I'm not so sure. But at least the conservatism of Sen. Robert Taft, Sen. Barry Goldwater, and Reagan stood for a limited constitutional government in opposition to the federal aggrandizement of the New Deal and the Great Society. Back in the FDR-JFK-LBJ years, conservatives even stood for congressional government and against the imperial presidency.
But what does conservatism stand for today, other than opposition to President Obama? President Bush expanded entitlements, increased federal spending by more than a trillion dollars, federalized education, launched "nation-building" projects in two far-flung regions, and accumulated more power in the White House than any previous president.
Yet the masses assembled at the Conservative Political Action Conference chanted "Four More Years!" at him in the eighth year of his reign. Is that really a record that conservatives wanted more of?
Steven F. Hayward suggests in today's edition of The Washinton Post that one reason for conservatism's having gotten off track, one that I've heard from other, mostly older, conservatives: A movement once led by William F. Buckley Jr., Russell Kirk, and Milton Friedman now gets its intellectual direction from talk show hosts and bloggers. Where are the tomes of yesteryear?
Well, it's a fast-paced, market-driven world. If celebrities and rabble-rousing are what sell, then we'd better hope for some smart ideas on the airwaves. And it's not like conservatives are alone in this trend.
Buckley jousted with John Kenneth Galbraith and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter face off with Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore. Six years ago the Boston Globe noted that liberal books were, at least briefly, dominating the New York Times bestseller list.
Along with Hillary Clinton's autobiography, those books were "Lies (and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them)," "Big Lies," "Thieves in High Places," and "Stupid White Men." Not exactly a sign of the intellectual depth of American liberalism.
The good news about the Obama era is that the president has returned the issue of the size, scope, and power of the federal government to center stage. And that in turn has revived the long-dormant small-government spirit in American conservatism.
In that regard, I'm more positive than Hayward is about the "tea party" movement. True, it is somewhat "unfocused," without a clear "connection to a concrete ideology." But it reflects and galvanizes the natural American antipathy to big government.
Now the responsibility of the conservative media and political leaders is to give the tea partiers a positive cause to rally around, by shining light on scholars with good ideas. There are plenty of free-market intellectuals today, far more than in the era when Milton Friedman dined alone. Glenn Beck does indeed sometimes devote significant time to a single intellectual; other talk show hosts should do the same.
Conservatives often prefer the prudent and cautious spirit of Edmund Burke and F. A. Hayek to the more libertarian and "progressive" vision of Thomas Jefferson. But neither Burke nor Hayek believed simply in standing athwart history, crying "Stop!"
Burke, after all, was a Whig, not a Tory, and a supporter of the American Revolution. And Hayek insisted that he was not a conservative:
"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
He called himself a liberal, and he thought that Margaret Thatcher, with her vigorous program of free-market reform, was also a liberal. By whatever name, modern American conservatives would do well to take to heart Hayek's rallying cry:
"We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is … a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty …which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible."
The trick for 21st-century American conservatives, conservatives in a country founded in libertarian revolution, is to decide which traditions are worth holding on to. I would suggest as a good first rule that we allow the natural evolution of society and market, while limiting coercive intervention into those processes.
Conservatism should make its peace with natural social change, before it loses the entire younger generation, while reaffirming its commitment to freedom and limited government.
BS. We will no longer allow the Left to tell us what conservatism is, or define us as some sort of squishy “intellectuals” so they can then run roughshod over everything decent. You can’t fight Leftist fire with gentle breaths. Natural social change? The Left has never advocated natural change. They are all about forcing the issue, “...whether you like it or not!” To hell with these people. Let ‘em keep pushing until the system breaks completely, or they force a street war.
Oh, please. "Natural evolution of society and market"? Translation: any LEGITIMATE conservative value must be stamped with the seal of liberal looney approval.
He also said, "I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy."
"Fortress America is just what Lenin wanted us to have–whether it is world policeman or not. You know, Lenin said the Communists will take Eastern Europe, they will organize the hordes of Asia, he said they will then move into Latin America, and he said the United States, the last bastion of capitalism, will fall into their outstretched hands like overripe fruit. And that’s all that Fortress America is. Now, you don’t have to come through someone’s beachhead–you just go over them with missiles; and one of these days, under the present policies of the Congress, the United States will stand alone as Lenin envisioned it and then face the ultimatum from the enemy."
"Once you are going to commit yourself to a combat role and you’re going to ask young men to fight and die for your country, then you have a moral obligation as a nation to throw the full resources of the nation behind them and to win that war as quickly as possible and get it over with..."
Seems he disagreed with much of what you Paulies embrace today.
As much as you try to highjack it, you are neither teh rightful owners of Reagan's legacy nor of the term conservative.
you only fool yourselves in thinking so.
That exact quote from a 1975 interview with libertarians is constantly repeated, although they ignore most of the rest of that 1975 interview. Where is that quote repeated?
Burke certainly thought so. Many of the things he wished to conserve were quite contrary to his spoken principles, and his defense of them in his Reflections was that these customs and usages served purposes other than that which they were instituted to address. It was, if you like, the first treatment of government on biological, rather than mechanical, modeling.
That's the real challenge to conservatism that progressives do not share - one must, while one is choosing and defending one's principles, recognize that the world is more complicated than the hoped-for result, and that "progress" may be backward as well as forward, and that principle must acknowledge its own inadequacy in the face of what really is. That does not mean that principle is to be dispensed with, it only means that it has limitations. Many libertarians find this uncomfortable. Many ex-libertarians who are still conservatives find this difficult to explain. Edmund Burke did as good a job at it as anyone has to my knowledge. For those curious as to why this fierce defender of the American revolution should speak in defense of the ancien regime, that's why. IMHO, of course.
The next two elections are too serious to get into these squabbles that are intended to do nothing but split the Republican Party. You can bet your last dollar that’s not what Reagan wanted.
When the do-do hits the fan, I for one am glad I am an outsider to the DC machine.
Conservative or flaming liberal, it will be open season on politicians.
This not-so-veiled article was another lame attempt to castigate and separate social conservatives from conservatism in general. Abortion, legalized drugs, gay marriage, etc? Just accept it in order to keep power, right?
The truly brain-dead conservatives are those who think liberty can exist in a morally bankrupt society. You gotta have both liberty and individual morality.
Some of the so-called conservative/libertarian (RINO) intellectuals are as removed from reality as the ivory tower leftists.
Keep your generation of whores and perverts, Boaz. I've seen what happens when moral men found a nation. Let's see what sort of fiscally responsible nation you can build with addicts, diseased fops, and dead babies.
I think if you take Walter Williams approach that any law passed by congress has to apply to the government, you will get pretty close. Semantic discussions about what is libertarianism and what is conservatism don’t really help much. What we need is limited government, a peeling away of the onion, layer by layer. We need the government to stop picking winners and losers. Eliminate totally most government agencies not specifically provided for by the constitution. And finally and perhaps most importantly, a return to sound money, the classical gold standard, That way there is no back door lending to the government by the fed which allows it to print money to pay for programs that the majority of citizens would not willingly pay taxes for. Once the dollar becomes a true warehouse receipt for an amount of gold or silver on deposit with the fed, that can be freely exchanged, that’s the end of big government.
The unfortunate part is that for this to occur there must be a complete collapse of the existing fractional reserve system. Then one county needs to bite the bullit and adopt a gold standard.
This was the problem with the Reagan Revolution, it never got to the underlying problem of expanding government, which is caused directly or indirectly by an expanding money supply. During Reagan’s term, and I am large fan of his, Milton Friedman lamented that not one single government department was eliminated. After the initial high interest rates started declining, the money supply started increasing again and large deficits were run.
It may seem unlikely that a gold standard will be reimplemented, however, the current fiat money systems in an advanced state of decline all over the world. And there is really no way to save it.
I agree completely, and I agree with your point about Reagan, too. There was an individual who believed quite sincerely in the reduction of government and when faced with a choice between winning the Cold War and adhering to the principle that the government shouldn't even be involved in it, chose the pragmatic course and won it. But the government expanded.
That's a perfect example of the occasional conflict between principle and action with an eye to a stated result. We will pay - are paying - for that expansion of government. Was the benefit of winning the Cold War worth it? Was it obtainable without it? One can only speculate. But I'd be reluctant to second-guess the guy who was there.
B. S. I’m too conservative to be a Libertarian!!!!!
It is a complete lie and tells you what children they are, Reagan was a republican.
The best year that libertarians ever had? The most united that libertarians ever were? The politician that the libertarians truly united to defeat? It was 1980 and the libertarians were running against Ronald Reagan.
Speaking of brain dead:
Ron Paul on the airline plot : “They’re terrorists because we’re occupiers!”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2417445/posts
>>>The next two elections are too serious to get into these squabbles that are intended to do nothing but split the Republican Party. You can bet your last dollar that’s not what Reagan wanted.
Reagan only succeeded after Bill Buckley and company purged the Birchers from the Republican party, ending their efforts to undermine any possible successful Republican. Paulism represents a similar malignancy.
bump for a later read....looks worthwhile.
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.