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.
“The heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism,”
Sounds like something Castro would say.
Box of rocks / fence post / molasses in January
A circle to this jerk.
EXCUSE ME???
Sheeesh, that is a full-time--do or die--task, that is if we don't want to see our Great Republic Destroyed and re-made into simply another UN-Controlled, Turd-World, Craphole!
When is the megalomaniac, FASCIST, Authoritarian, Man-Child, and his Sycophant, Fellow Travelers in Congress even going to allow the Republicans to sit at the table or introduce any of their own agenda???
Ya can't play baseball if the other team is the only one that has bats, balls and gloves, get to make up the rules and control the umpires.
The ONLY thing I'll agree with is that we have a paucity of Leadership (either within or outside) the Gov't to lead us Conservatives--PROBABLY because there are so FEW "Real" Conservatives among them, and that is whey so many turn to Talk Radio and other venues for their "fix!"
REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?
REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, 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. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
Books by David Boaz:
Libertarianism: A Primer - 1997 - 328 pages
Market Liberalism: A Paradigm for the 21st Century - 1993 - 428 pages
The Libertarian Reader: Classic and ... - 1997 - 458 pages
Conservatism, not picking the pocket of others to support, or demanding they recognize/accommodate, the life you chose.
There is nothing natural about this social change...and if a younger generation thinks that being taken care of like a child from cradle to grave is good change then it is a problem of liberal programming in education ...not conservatism...
CATO institute = 501(c) tax exempt corporation...
Corporate welfare...
IOW, all that stuff you "social conservatives" are opposed to, like abortion, gay marriage, etc. Stick to the failed agenda of the "fiscal conservatives". Boaz is obviously channeling Schwarzenegger.
And, IMO, Sarah Palin is more like Jackson than any other former president.
"Conservatism, ... in its paternalistic,... with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities."
This guy has an axe to grind over gay marriage, but just won't say it under any circumstances, lest he is exposed for what he really is...
These pseudo-secularists will never admit that evolution is only possible through HETEROSEXUAL relationships.
Conservatives cannot conceptualize that this scientific fact is confirmed by Genesis and can be thrown right back into the faces of these fake liberaltarians whose 'holy grail' is state sanctioned faggot weddings with all the social welfare garbage they want to attach to it.
CATO is a 501(c) tax exempt corporation, and a beneficiary of the welfare state just like all the other leftist "non-profits."
"Conservatism, ... in its paternalistic,... with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities."
This guy has an axe to grind over gay marriage, but just won't say it under any circumstances, lest he is exposed for what he really is...
These pseudo-secularists will never admit that evolution is only possible through HETEROSEXUAL relationships.
Conservatives cannot conceptualize that this scientific fact is confirmed by Genesis and can be thrown right back into the faces of these fake liberaltarians whose 'holy grail' is state sanctioned faggot weddings with all the social welfare garbage they want to attach to it.
CATO is a 501(c) tax exempt corporation, and a beneficiary of the welfare state just like all the other leftist "non-profits."
You are exactly correct on that...
>>It all comes down to what it is you wish to conserve. <<
How about
Life - from conception to the natural end;
Liberty - Freedom from government overregulation and
The Pursuit of Happiness - Success breeds rewards.
How’s that for starters?
And let's not forget massive illegal immigration. The invasion force is already here.
Moonbat David Boaz retreats into drooling straitjacket territory when he attempts to describe Bush the populist as a “Conservative”.
The Cato Institute used to have editors.
Sad really.
Well, first of all, there is no conservative party, so I feel it only fair to pin big government Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, both Bush’s, and even Lincoln on Republicans/Conservatives. ( Or, thus Conservatives are just not able to learn from history, and haven’t noticed the GOP, or are whipped, doormats even within the GOP and thus have no business guiding anyone else, unless it is in being political doormats for the last century, or more.)
Another major, gross failure of conservatives is their political lack of involvement. Most of, if not all, court fights and victories, few as there have been, on property rights and gun rights have been by libertarians, with libertarian money, and libertarian lawyers.
Zero, no, none, by ‘conservatives’.
Further, you are pretty ignorant in that there is amongst social conservative a very strong strain of support for big government, big taxes, big bureaucracy, rules, regulations.
Much of conservatives is a inter warfare with the left over who and what a unConstitutional state ( Federal or otherwise ) should do.
In short, I see a lot of conservative opposition to the left, but only in the way the Mensheviks opposed the Bolsheviks, or the Spartacus League fought with the Nazis.
All supported a large, person and family warping by the state, for the state.
Ronald Reagan was much more of a libertarian than a conservative. Milton Friedman, Von Miese, Hayek, Rand were commonly quoted.
Another thing. The left is very idea driven, albeit poorly. That is where you defeat leftists. I don’t view present day conservatives as able or educated to enter leftists arenas and defeat them.
I’m thinking half or more so called conservatives are as addicted to suckling off the government teat as any Section 8 Baby Mommy.
Conservative talk the rugged ‘We’ll eat grass’ game, but shoulder up to the government trough like anyone else.
So, in short, conservatives have been steady losers the last hundred years, have little or no will or ability or interest in entering the arena of ideas, and all bald talk aside, haven’t been seen in many of the court fights to wrestle back encroached liberties, that they didn’t successfully at the time prevent from being usurped and in many cases were enthusiastic supporters of the usurpation.
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.