Europe Where the Right and Left Converge

 

Historian Perry Anderson is one of the luminaries of the so-called Western Marxists, that is, Marxist theoreticians who were based in Western and Central Europe, rather than the Soviet Union. He’s now a professor of history and sociology at UCLA. He used to be the editor of the New Left Review. This pedigree, I should think, would be sufficient for most on Ricochet to consider calling in an exorcist.

But I’m going to ask you to read him anyway. Just one essay, actually. It’s a piece about the EU in Le Monde Diplomatique, titled “Why the System Will Still Win,” in which he predicts that the European center will hold and the EU will survive. This is an outcome that as a revolutionary he deplores, of course.

What struck me reading it was how similar his arguments against the EU, and against Europe’s center-right and center-left parties and coalitions, are to those I’ve heard here on Ricochet — another forum where many (not all) of our members seem devoutly to hope “the system” will lose, too.

In some places, he uses a different vocabulary than Americans on the right would use. But I’m not sure he’s meaningfully describing different concepts. For example, he relies heavily on the word “neoliberalism,” which he defines this as “deregulated financial flows, privatised services and escalating social inequality.” But I don’t think this definition succeeds in distinguishing “neoliberalism” from “capitalism.” The word, it seems to me, has simply taken the place of “capitalism” in the Left’s vocabulary because after the fall of the Soviet Union, it sounded antiquated — and clueless — to say that one was “against capitalism.”

When you read what he’s written, mentally replace the word “neoliberalism” in every case with “capitalism.” I’m curious to know where, and how, his analysis substantively differs from yours. I stress that I’m asking in good faith, and I hope you’ll read his article in the same spirit, with an open mind.

The whole article won’t take long to read, but I’ll point out some of the passages that struck me:

The term ‘anti-systemic movements’ was commonly used 25 years ago to characterise forces on the left in revolt against capitalism. Today, it has not lost relevance in the West, but its meaning has changed. The movements of revolt that have multiplied over the past decade no longer rebel against capitalism, but neoliberalism — deregulated financial flows, privatised services and escalating social inequality, that specific variant of the reign of capital set in place in Europe and America since the 1980s. The resultant economic and political order has been accepted all but indistinguishably by governments of the centre-right and centre-left, in accordance with the central tenet of la pensée unique, Margaret Thatcher’s dictum that ‘there is no alternative’. Two kinds of movement are now arrayed against this system; the established order stigmatises them, whether from the right or left, as the menace of populism.

These “movements of revolt” in Europe, I’ll add parenthetically, now receive financial and political support from both Russia and the United States. For example, the largest donors to Geert Wilders’ campaign, by far, were Americans.

Also parenthetically, while he’s right to say that financial deregulation and privatisation were policies championed by Margaret Thatcher, many people overestimate the extent of financial deregulation she championed, wrongly associating the kind of reforms she advocated with those that led to the 2007 financial crisis. As I argued in this piece for the Washington Post, that’s a myth.

Like many on Ricochet, Anderson holds the European Union to be an unaccountable, massive bureaucracy that robs national parliaments of their sovereignty and subordinates them to Germany’s will.

From monetary union (1990) to the Stability Pact (1997), then the Single Market Act (2011), the powers of national parliaments were voided in a supranational structure of bureaucratic authority shielded from popular will, just as the ultraliberal economist Friedrich Hayek had prophesied. With this machinery in place, draconian austerity could be imposed on helpless electorates, under the joint direction of the Commission and a reunified Germany, now the most powerful state in the union, where leading thinkers candidly announce its vocation as continental hegemon. Externally, over the same period, the EU and its members ceased to play any significant role in the world at variance with US directives, becoming the advance guard of neo-cold war policies towards Russia set by the US and paid for by Europe.

So it is no surprise that the ever more oligarchic cast of the EU, defying popular will in successive referendums and embedding budgetary diktats in constitutional law, should have generated so many movements of protest against it.

He reviews these forces in broad outline: In pre-enlargement Western Europe, protest movements of the far-right predominate. In post-enlargement Western Europe — Spain, Greece, and Ireland — protest movements of the far-left predominate. Italy has both.

He takes it as given that pooled sovereignty and the Continent’s domination by a peaceful, democratic Germany are undesirable. These are both points that I think need to be argued, not assumed; and I think they’re both wrong. But it’s his article, not mine, and I know many on Ricochet take his side of this argument.

All the significant movements of the far-right, he correctly notes, save Germany’s AfD, predate the economic crisis. Some have roots that date to the 1970s or earlier. But they grew in influence, he argues — and Syriza, M5S, Podemos and Momentum were born — as a direct result of the global financial crisis. This, in his view, is a reaction to “the structure of the neoliberal system,” which finds “its starkest, most concentrated expression in today’s EU,”

with its order founded on the reduction and privatisation of public services; the abrogation of democratic control and representation; and deregulation of the factors of production. All three are present at national level in Europe, as elsewhere, but they are of a higher degree of intensity at EU level, as the torture of Greece, trampling of referendums and scale of human trafficking attest. In the political arena, they are the overriding issues of popular concern, driving protests against the system over austerity, sovereignty and immigration. Anti-systemic movements are differentiated by the weight they attach to each — to which colour in the neoliberal palette they direct most hostility.

Movements of the far-right, he argues, now predominate because if their focus on immigration. But as he notes, and I agree, “this is typically linked (in France, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) not to denunciation but to defence of the welfare state; it is claimed the arrival of immigrants undermines this.”

In some countries, he argues, particularly France, the far-right has another advantage over the far-left:

The single currency and central bank, designed at Maastricht, have made the imposition of austerity and denial of popular sovereignty into a single system. Movements of the left may attack these as vehemently as any movement of the right, if not more so. But the solutions they propose are less radical. On the right, the FN and the Lega have clear remedies to the strains of the single currency and immigration: exit the euro and stop the influx. On the left, with isolated exceptions, no such unambiguous demands have ever been made. At best, the substitutes are technical adjustments to the single currency, too complicated to have much popular purchase, and vague, embarrassed allusions to quotas; neither is as readily intelligible to voters as the straightforward propositions of the right.

Now, what I think I detect in his tone is a reluctant admiration of the far-right: They’re the only ones, he seems to be saying, who are really willing to tear the whole system down and to use whatever levers need to be used to do it. We’ve seen a lot of this, historically: the far-left has always been vulnerable to co-option by the far-right; the segment of the population that for temperamental or socioeconomic reasons is drawn to revolution tends to be drawn by the group that promises it more convincingly, rather than the one that’s ideologically most pure. Modern nationalism was one of the earliest leftist ideologies; it emerged in the French Revolution. National Socialism was called National Socialism because that’s what it was. And so forth.

But to Anderson’s dismay — and to my relief — he concludes that anti-systemic parties have no hope of succeeding in Europe:

Polls now post record levels of voter disaffection with the EU. But, right or left, the electoral weight of anti-systemic movements remains limited. In the last European elections, the three most successful results for the right — UKIP, the FN and the Danish People’s Party — were around 25% of the vote. In national elections, the average figure across western Europe for all such right and left forces combined is about 15%. That percentage of the electorate poses little threat to the system; 25% can represent a headache, but the ‘populist danger’ of media alarm remains to date very modest.

I hope so, although I worry he may be wrong.

Now, he attributes the lack of enthusiasm for anti-systemic movements (or in more traditional vocabulary, the Revolution), to the widespread fear (justified, in my view) that it would make things much worse, economically:

The socio-economic status quo is widely detested. But it is regularly ratified at the polls with the re-election of parties responsible for it, because of fears that to upset the status, alarming markets, would bring worse misery.

He seems to dismiss this fear of “alarming markets” as a form of cowardice, whereas I see it as common sense. His seem to be standard far-left assumptions: the capitalist (or neoliberal) system should be destroyed; “the markets” and their judgments are bad things, rather than the only tool humanity’s ever successfully employed, ever, anywhere, to achieve First World standards of living; and the preference of most Europeans for “less misery” is somehow vaguely contemptible, given that it’s at odds with Revolution.

I’ll let you read his explanation for Brexit, which he believes will be the last success of the anti-systemic movement in Europe.

He then proceeds to write a paragraph that might have been written by a member of Ricochet:

Trump’s victory has thrown the European political class, centre-right and centre-left united, into outraged dismay. Breaking established conventions on immigration is bad enough. … [But] Trump’s lack of inhibition in these matters does not directly affect the union. What does, and is cause for far more serious concern, is his rejection of the ideology of free movement of the factors of production, and, even more so, his apparently cavalier disregard for NATO and his comments about a less belligerent attitude to Russia.

Whether Brexit or Trump succeed in tearing down the capitalist system that he so deplores, he writes, remains to be seen. But he concludes there’s little hope of revolution in the rest of Europe:

The established order is far from beaten … and, as Greece has shown, is capable of absorbing and neutralising revolts from whatever direction with impressive speed. Among the antibodies it has already generated are yuppie simulacra of populist breakthroughs (Albert Rivera in Spain, Emmanuel Macron in France), inveighing against the deadlocks and corruptions of the present, and promising a cleaner and more dynamic politics of the future, beyond the decaying parties.

There are some obvious differences between his view of Europe and those I’ve seen here. He views Europe as the hellish apotheosis of capitalism, whereas many on Ricochet seem persuaded it’s an exemplar of a socialism no less horrifying than the Soviet Union.

It’s a lot closer to the first than the second. I saw the Soviet Union with my own eyes, and I live in Europe: Europe is nothing like the Soviet Union. Europe is tremendously capitalist and prosperous by comparison with most of the rest of the world. I think this is a good thing. There’s a lot of room for reform, but a revolution, anywhere in Europe, would be insane.

This, I’d say, is the difference between the conservative view and the populist or far-right view. My view: Revolutions never deliver on their promises and result in something far worse than what preceded them. (And if I thought that before, I think it twice as much since the Arab Spring.) Don’t tear down a fence until you know why it was built in the first place. In other words: It’s insane to dismiss as irrelevant the reasons the EU was built, and particularly to dismiss as irrelevant Europe’s history as the most bloodthirsty, aggressive and violent continent in human history. Changes to any political system, especially in an ecosystem as prone to war as Europe’s, should be made gradually and incrementally. If the EU is to be dismantled, it should be done as slowly as it was assembled.

Anderson concludes that the Left must become more radical if it’s to have any hope of destroying the system in Europe:

For anti-systemic movements of the left in Europe, the lesson of recent years is clear. If they are not to go on being outpaced by movements of the right, they cannot afford to be less radical in attacking the system, and must be more coherent in their opposition to it. That means facing the probability the EU is now so path-dependent as a neoliberal construction that reform of it is no longer seriously conceivable. It would have to be undone before anything better could be built, either by breaking out of the current EU, or by reconstructing Europe on another foundation, committing Maastricht to the flames. Unless there is a further, deeper economic crisis, there is little likelihood of either.

I don’t believe committing Maastricht (or anything, for that matter) “to the flames” is apt to result in “something better” being built. Ever.

I’d like to know — and again, I’m asking this in good faith, I’m genuinely curious: If you believe the destruction of the EU and the far-right have something to offer Europe, why? Have you lost faith in the kind of conservatism I describe, and if so, why? If you’ve lost confidence in capitalism, why? (I think many have, in the wake of the financial crisis, and not without cause.) Are the steps in your argument very different from Anderson’s? If so, where?

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 219 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Finally, it seems that if you are anti free trade you cannot be a Conservative, but you can advocate for the EU and you can be as Conservative as they come as evidenced by the author of this article.

    I don’t see anyone other than the author, whose internationalist leanings have repeatedly been called out as heterodox, claiming that the EU is a conservative institution. To the contrary Claire’s established conservative bona fides makes her pro-EU stance bewildering to most of Ricochet.

    • #31
  2. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Only thing I don’t agree with in Old Bathos’s comment is trade, other than that it speaks for me on what constitutes a globalist.

    The problem is that “globalist” is quickly becoming the “racist” of the right. Anti-protectionists are getting slapped with the label even when they’re border hawks, anti-UN/EU, in some cases even federalists. “Globalist” means something, and it’s not, “Prefers free trade.”

    I agree with you but those same anti protectionists don’t really go out of their way to make their arguments to real people that are not predisposed to like free trade. Also, same thing happens the other way. How many times were people that were against TPP called ignorant and protectionists when they brought legitimate concerns about TPP, like potential loss of some sovereignty.

    My problem with discussing the TPP, especially around here, is that the vast vast majority of people commenting on it had never actually read any of it. As far as I am aware the only person who has read the entire thing is @jamesofengland. I myself have only read about 2/3 to 3/4 and I’ve read more than almost anyone else. Most of the objections to TPP were based on second hand innuendo from the conservative entertainment media.

    They must not have found his arguments persuasive.

    Without knowing what the facts are I submit that they are ill-equipped to judge those arguments.

    • #32
  3. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Finally, it seems that if you are anti free trade you cannot be a Conservative, but you can advocate for the EU and you can be as Conservative as they come as evidenced by the author of this article.

    I don’t see anyone other than the author, whose internationalist leanings have repeatedly been called out as heterodox, claiming that the EU is a conservative institution. To the contrary Claire’s established conservative bona fides makes her pro-EU stance bewildering to most of Ricochet.

    There are those with a deep understanding of the fractured and violent nature of European history that see the EU as an attempt to prevent future conflict. I don’t really agree with that assessment, I think it can be achieved through other means, but its not de facto crazy or un-conservative.

    • #33
  4. outlaws6688 Member
    outlaws6688
    @

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Finally, it seems that if you are anti free trade you cannot be a Conservative, but you can advocate for the EU and you can be as Conservative as they come as evidenced by the author of this article.

    I don’t see anyone other than the author, whose internationalist leanings have repeatedly been called out as heterodox, claiming that the EU is a conservative institution. To the contrary Claire’s established conservative bona fides makes her pro-EU stance bewildering to most of Ricochet.

    They may be bewildering, but she gets a pass at least from the people that run this site.  If a trump supporter agrees with70% of Conservative orthodoxy, but agrees with something that is not necessarily Conservative then that person was never, and could never be a Conservative.

    • #34
  5. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Finally, it seems that if you are anti free trade you cannot be a Conservative, but you can advocate for the EU and you can be as Conservative as they come as evidenced by the author of this article.

    I don’t see anyone other than the author, whose internationalist leanings have repeatedly been called out as heterodox, claiming that the EU is a conservative institution. To the contrary Claire’s established conservative bona fides makes her pro-EU stance bewildering to most of Ricochet.

    They may be bewildering, but she gets a pass at least from the people that run this site. If a trump supporter agrees with70% of Conservative orthodoxy, but agrees with something that is not necessarily Conservative then that person was never, and could never be a Conservative.

    As Kevin Williamson pointed out this weekend: a rejection of something like Free Trade is on its surface a forgivable transgression against conservatism. However, at it’s core it betrays a rejection of the central tenets of conservative thought: private property.

    • #35
  6. outlaws6688 Member
    outlaws6688
    @

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Finally, it seems that if you are anti free trade you cannot be a Conservative, but you can advocate for the EU and you can be as Conservative as they come as evidenced by the author of this article.

    I don’t see anyone other than the author, whose internationalist leanings have repeatedly been called out as heterodox, claiming that the EU is a conservative institution. To the contrary Claire’s established conservative bona fides makes her pro-EU stance bewildering to most of Ricochet.

    There are those with a deep understanding of the fractured and violent nature of European history that see the EU as an attempt to prevent future conflict. I don’t really agree with that assessment, I think it can be achieved through other means, but its not de facto crazy or un-conservative.

    Again, the EU was formed 20-30 years ago, while World War 2 was over long before that so peace was not a primary reason the EU was set up nor is it a primary reason for it to continue to exist.

    • #36
  7. outlaws6688 Member
    outlaws6688
    @

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Finally, it seems that if you are anti free trade you cannot be a Conservative, but you can advocate for the EU and you can be as Conservative as they come as evidenced by the author of this article.

    I don’t see anyone other than the author, whose internationalist leanings have repeatedly been called out as heterodox, claiming that the EU is a conservative institution. To the contrary Claire’s established conservative bona fides makes her pro-EU stance bewildering to most of Ricochet.

    They may be bewildering, but she gets a pass at least from the people that run this site. If a trump supporter agrees with70% of Conservative orthodoxy, but agrees with something that is not necessarily Conservative then that person was never, and could never be a Conservative.

    As Kevin Williamson pointed out this weekend: a rejection of something like Free Trade is on its surface a forgivable transgression against conservatism. However, at it’s core it betrays a rejection of the central tenant of conservative thought: private property.

    Ah the man that wants the white working class to die. I take anything he says with a huge grain of salt. Also, by supporting the EU Claire is rejecting a major tenant of Conservatism as well. Democracy.

    • #37
  8. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Finally, it seems that if you are anti free trade you cannot be a Conservative, but you can advocate for the EU and you can be as Conservative as they come as evidenced by the author of this article.

    I don’t see anyone other than the author, whose internationalist leanings have repeatedly been called out as heterodox, claiming that the EU is a conservative institution. To the contrary Claire’s established conservative bona fides makes her pro-EU stance bewildering to most of Ricochet.

    There are those with a deep understanding of the fractured and violent nature of European history that see the EU as an attempt to prevent future conflict. I don’t really agree with that assessment, I think it can be achieved through other means, but its not de facto crazy or un-conservative.

    Again, the EU was formed 20-30 years ago, while World War 2 was over long before that so peace was not a primary reason the EU was set up nor is it a primary reason for it to continue to exist.

    Disagree. The original intention was to prevent the kinds of tensions and violence that had marked most of Europe’s history for centuries. That doesn’t mean it was responding to a specific war, but the tendency for Europe to descend into violent conflict. Again I do not support the EU as currently constituted, but the idea of a common economic zone promoting cooperation and peace between fractious countries isn’t without support from conservatives.

    • #38
  9. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Finally, it seems that if you are anti free trade you cannot be a Conservative, but you can advocate for the EU and you can be as Conservative as they come as evidenced by the author of this article.

    I don’t see anyone other than the author, whose internationalist leanings have repeatedly been called out as heterodox, claiming that the EU is a conservative institution. To the contrary Claire’s established conservative bona fides makes her pro-EU stance bewildering to most of Ricochet.

    They may be bewildering, but she gets a pass at least from the people that run this site. If a trump supporter agrees with70% of Conservative orthodoxy, but agrees with something that is not necessarily Conservative then that person was never, and could never be a Conservative.

    As Kevin Williamson pointed out this weekend: a rejection of something like Free Trade is on its surface a forgivable transgression against conservatism. However, at it’s core it betrays a rejection of the central tenant of conservative thought: private property.

    Ah the man that wants the white working class to die. I take anything he says with a huge grain of salt.

    Oh sigh, the man is from the white working class. What a tired and ridiculous slander based on not reading his actual piece or what he was responding to.

    • #39
  10. outlaws6688 Member
    outlaws6688
    @

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    There are those with a deep understanding of the fractured and violent nature of European history that see the EU as an attempt to prevent future conflict. I don’t really agree with that assessment, I think it can be achieved through other means, but its not de facto crazy or un-conservative.

    Again, the EU was formed 20-30 years ago, while World War 2 was over long before that so peace was not a primary reason the EU was set up nor is it a primary reason for it to continue to exist.

    Disagree. The original intention was to prevent the kinds of tensions and violence that had marked most of Europe’s history for centuries. That doesn’t mean it was responding to a specific war, but the tendency for Europe to descend into violent conflict. Again I do not support the EU as currently constituted, but the idea of a common economic zone promoting cooperation and peace between fractious countries isn’t without support from conservatives.

    Again couldn’t disagree more. The treaty was formed for the elites to gain control over Europe. Any reasoning beyond that was just to make it palatable to gullible Conservatives.

    • #40
  11. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    There are those with a deep understanding of the fractured and violent nature of European history that see the EU as an attempt to prevent future conflict. I don’t really agree with that assessment, I think it can be achieved through other means, but its not de facto crazy or un-conservative.

    Again, the EU was formed 20-30 years ago, while World War 2 was over long before that so peace was not a primary reason the EU was set up nor is it a primary reason for it to continue to exist.

    Disagree. The original intention was to prevent the kinds of tensions and violence that had marked most of Europe’s history for centuries. That doesn’t mean it was responding to a specific war, but the tendency for Europe to descend into violent conflict. Again I do not support the EU as currently constituted, but the idea of a common economic zone promoting cooperation and peace between fractious countries isn’t without support from conservatives.

    Again couldn’t disagree more. The treaty was formed for the elites to gain control over Europe. Any reasoning beyond that was just to make it palatable to gullible Conservatives.

    Can you point me to sources from the time that lead you to that conclusion?

    • #41
  12. outlaws6688 Member
    outlaws6688
    @

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    They may be bewildering, but she gets a pass at least from the people that run this site. If a trump supporter agrees with70% of Conservative orthodoxy, but agrees with something that is not necessarily Conservative then that person was never, and could never be a Conservative.

    As Kevin Williamson pointed out this weekend: a rejection of something like Free Trade is on its surface a forgivable transgression against conservatism. However, at it’s core it betrays a rejection of the central tenant of conservative thought: private property.

    Ah the man that wants the white working class to die. I take anything he says with a huge grain of salt.

    Oh sigh, the man is from the white working class. What a tired and ridiculous slander based on not reading his actual piece or what he was responding to.

    I read his piece and found him to be a disgraceful bigot. I’m sure you will come back with a snipe about reading comprehension or ignorance, but I will always believe that Kevin Williamson is a bigot unworthy of consideration.

    • #42
  13. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Ah the man that wants the white working class to die. I take anything he says with a huge grain of salt. Also, by supporting the EU Claire is rejecting a major tenant of Conservatism as well. Democracy.

    Right. Thanks for the signal that I can stop taking you seriously.

    • #43
  14. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    They may be bewildering, but she gets a pass at least from the people that run this site. If a trump supporter agrees with70% of Conservative orthodoxy, but agrees with something that is not necessarily Conservative then that person was never, and could never be a Conservative.

    As Kevin Williamson pointed out this weekend: a rejection of something like Free Trade is on its surface a forgivable transgression against conservatism. However, at it’s core it betrays a rejection of the central tenant of conservative thought: private property.

    Ah the man that wants the white working class to die. I take anything he says with a huge grain of salt.

    Oh sigh, the man is from the white working class. What a tired and ridiculous slander based on not reading his actual piece or what he was responding to.

    I read his piece and found him to be a disgraceful bigot. I’m sure you will come back with a snipe about reading comprehension or ignorance, but I will always believe that Kevin Williamson is a bigot unworthy of consideration.

    Snipe? Not at all, I just don’t think most people read that piece, or the piece it was responding to, without their preconceived biases affecting the outcome. The idea that people should pick up and move to new places to improve their lot in life has been a conservative idea for centuries – I don’t understand why all of a sudden conservatives have a problem with it.

    • #44
  15. outlaws6688 Member
    outlaws6688
    @

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Disagree. The original intention was to prevent the kinds of tensions and violence that had marked most of Europe’s history for centuries. That doesn’t mean it was responding to a specific war, but the tendency for Europe to descend into violent conflict. Again I do not support the EU as currently constituted, but the idea of a common economic zone promoting cooperation and peace between fractious countries isn’t without support from conservatives.

    Again couldn’t disagree more. The treaty was formed for the elites to gain control over Europe. Any reasoning beyond that was just to make it palatable to gullible Conservatives.

    Can you point me to sources from the time that lead you to that conclusion?

    You mean other than the fact that they did not need the treaty at all because they had already formed a common market, but went ahead with it in order to gain control of the member’s rights.

    • #45
  16. outlaws6688 Member
    outlaws6688
    @

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    e.

    As Kevin Williamson pointed out this weekend: a rejection of something like Free Trade is on its surface a forgivable transgression against conservatism. However, at it’s core it betrays a rejection of the central tenant of conservative thought: private property.

    Ah the man that wants the white working class to die. I take anything he says with a huge grain of salt.

    Oh sigh, the man is from the white working class. What a tired and ridiculous slander based on not reading his actual piece or what he was responding to.

    I read his piece and found him to be a disgraceful bigot. I’m sure you will come back with a snipe about reading comprehension or ignorance, but I will always believe that Kevin Williamson is a bigot unworthy of consideration.

    Snipe? Not at all, I just don’t think most people read that piece, or the piece it was responding to, without their preconceived biases affecting the outcome. The idea that people should pick up and move to new places to improve their lot in life has been a conservative idea for centuries – I don’t understand why all of a sudden conservatives have a problem with it.

    Move from everything you know and if you don’t like it you deserve death. Very Conservative.

    • #46
  17. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Disagree. The original intention was to prevent the kinds of tensions and violence that had marked most of Europe’s history for centuries. That doesn’t mean it was responding to a specific war, but the tendency for Europe to descend into violent conflict. Again I do not support the EU as currently constituted, but the idea of a common economic zone promoting cooperation and peace between fractious countries isn’t without support from conservatives.

    Again couldn’t disagree more. The treaty was formed for the elites to gain control over Europe. Any reasoning beyond that was just to make it palatable to gullible Conservatives.

    Can you point me to sources from the time that lead you to that conclusion?

    You mean other than the fact that they did not need the treaty at all because they had already formed a common market, but went ahead with it in order to gain control of the member’s rights.

    Okay, but that doesn’t give us insight into their intentions does it? It just points to a divide between what we consider to be the optimal solution (a common free trade zone) and what they believed was necessary.

    • #47
  18. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    e.

    As Kevin Williamson pointed out this weekend: a rejection of something like Free Trade is on its surface a forgivable transgression against conservatism. However, at it’s core it betrays a rejection of the central tenant of conservative thought: private property.

    Ah the man that wants the white working class to die. I take anything he says with a huge grain of salt.

    Oh sigh, the man is from the white working class. What a tired and ridiculous slander based on not reading his actual piece or what he was responding to.

    I read his piece and found him to be a disgraceful bigot. I’m sure you will come back with a snipe about reading comprehension or ignorance, but I will always believe that Kevin Williamson is a bigot unworthy of consideration.

    Snipe? Not at all, I just don’t think most people read that piece, or the piece it was responding to, without their preconceived biases affecting the outcome. The idea that people should pick up and move to new places to improve their lot in life has been a conservative idea for centuries – I don’t understand why all of a sudden conservatives have a problem with it.

    Move from everything you know and if you don’t like you deserve death. Very Conservative.

    What the heck do you think the American Westward Migration was? Or the massive movement of people during the great depression? At what point are people responsible for their own lives and fortunes?

    • #48
  19. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    There are those with a deep understanding of the fractured and violent nature of European history that see the EU as an attempt to prevent future conflict. I don’t really agree with that assessment, I think it can be achieved through other means, but its not de facto crazy or un-conservative.

    The idea of a supra-national government exercising power over sovereign states most certainly is unconservative. Heck, we don’t even want our own national government exercising too much power over our states; why would anyone nominally of the right support an even higher level of authority?

    • #49
  20. outlaws6688 Member
    outlaws6688
    @

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Disagree. The original intention was to prevent the kinds of tensions and violence that had marked most of Europe’s history for centuries. That doesn’t mean it was responding to a specific war, but the tendency for Europe to descend into violent conflict. Again I do not support the EU as currently constituted, but the idea of a common economic zone promoting cooperation and peace between fractious countries isn’t without support from conservatives.

    Again couldn’t disagree more. The treaty was formed for the elites to gain control over Europe. Any reasoning beyond that was just to make it palatable to gullible Conservatives.

    Can you point me to sources from the time that lead you to that conclusion?

    You mean other than the fact that they did not need the treaty at all because they had already formed a common market, but went ahead with it in order to gain control of the member’s rights.

    Okay, but that doesn’t give us insight into their intentions does it? It just points to a divide between what we consider to be the optimal solution (a common free trade zone) and what they believed was necessary.

    Well you can believe the best of intentions for the globalists and I will believe the opposite. Thanks

    • #50
  21. outlaws6688 Member
    outlaws6688
    @

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

     

    Ah the man that wants the white working class to die. I take anything he says with a huge grain of salt.

    Oh sigh, the man is from the white working class. What a tired and ridiculous slander based on not reading his actual piece or what he was responding to..

    Snipe? Not at all, I just don’t think most people read that piece, or the piece it was responding to, without their preconceived biases affecting the outcome. The idea that people should pick up and move to new places to improve their lot in life has been a conservative idea for centuries – I don’t understand why all of a sudden conservatives have a problem with it.

    Move from everything you know and if you don’t like you deserve death. Very Conservative.

    What the heck do you think the American Westward Migration was? Or the massive movement of people during the great depression? At what point are people responsible for their own lives and fortunes?

    Apples to oranges. Two very different times. You must also think there are all these jobs out there to be moved to when there are not, especially for the lower class.

    • #51
  22. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    There are those with a deep understanding of the fractured and violent nature of European history that see the EU as an attempt to prevent future conflict. I don’t really agree with that assessment, I think it can be achieved through other means, but its not de facto crazy or un-conservative.

    The idea of a supra-national government exercising power over sovereign states most certainly is unconservative. Heck, we don’t even want our own national government exercising too much power over our states; why would anyone nominally of the right support an even higher level of authority?

    Right but the supra-national government version of the EU has been an extraordinarily slow evolution taking almost half a century. It’s a bad idea as currently constituted but there is version – most closely resembling the EEC as constituted in the Treaty of Rome that would achieve this in a more conservative, and freedom focused,  fashion.

    • #52
  23. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Ah the man that wants the white working class to die. I take anything he says with a huge grain of salt.

    Oh sigh, the man is from the white working class. What a tired and ridiculous slander based on not reading his actual piece or what he was responding to..

    Snipe? Not at all, I just don’t think most people read that piece, or the piece it was responding to, without their preconceived biases affecting the outcome. The idea that people should pick up and move to new places to improve their lot in life has been a conservative idea for centuries – I don’t understand why all of a sudden conservatives have a problem with it.

    Move from everything you know and if you don’t like you deserve death. Very Conservative.

    What the heck do you think the American Westward Migration was? Or the massive movement of people during the great depression? At what point are people responsible for their own lives and fortunes?

    Apples to oranges. Two very different times. You must also think there are all these jobs out there to be moved to when there are not, especially for the lower class.

    It’s really not, these are all the same arguments for protectionism and government handouts trotted out again and again. It’s just this time conservatives are making them.

    • #53
  24. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Disagree. The original intention was to prevent the kinds of tensions and violence that had marked most of Europe’s history for centuries. That doesn’t mean it was responding to a specific war, but the tendency for Europe to descend into violent conflict. Again I do not support the EU as currently constituted, but the idea of a common economic zone promoting cooperation and peace between fractious countries isn’t without support from conservatives.

    Again couldn’t disagree more. The treaty was formed for the elites to gain control over Europe. Any reasoning beyond that was just to make it palatable to gullible Conservatives.

    Can you point me to sources from the time that lead you to that conclusion?

    You mean other than the fact that they did not need the treaty at all because they had already formed a common market, but went ahead with it in order to gain control of the member’s rights.

    Okay, but that doesn’t give us insight into their intentions does it? It just points to a divide between what we consider to be the optimal solution (a common free trade zone) and what they believed was necessary.

    Well you can believe the best of intentions for the globalists and I will believe the opposite. Thanks

    I believe in looking at facts and results, not guessing at people’s intentions.

    • #54
  25. outlaws6688 Member
    outlaws6688
    @

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Umb

    Again couldn’t disagree more. The treaty was formed for the elites to gain control over Europe. Any reasoning beyond that was just to make it palatable to gullible Conservatives.

    Can you point me to sources from the time that lead you to that conclusion?

    You mean other than the fact that they did not need the treaty at all because they had already formed a common market, but went ahead with it in order to gain control of the member’s rights.

    Okay, but that doesn’t give us insight into their intentions does it? It just points to a divide between what we consider to be the optimal solution (a common free trade zone) and what they believed was necessary.

    Well you can believe the best of intentions for the globalists and I will believe the opposite. Thanks

    I believe in looking at facts and results, not guessing at people’s intentions.

    Except you have no facts or results. What makes you believe the EU was the only reason Europe has been peaceful for 30 years. It was peaceful for the 30-40 years before the existence of the EU as well. Also, why would you believe anything the people that came up with such a horrible institution like the EU have to say about anything?

    • #55
  26. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Umb

    Again couldn’t disagree more. The treaty was formed for the elites to gain control over Europe. Any reasoning beyond that was just to make it palatable to gullible Conservatives.

    Can you point me to sources from the time that lead you to that conclusion?

    You mean other than the fact that they did not need the treaty at all because they had already formed a common market, but went ahead with it in order to gain control of the member’s rights.

    Okay, but that doesn’t give us insight into their intentions does it? It just points to a divide between what we consider to be the optimal solution (a common free trade zone) and what they believed was necessary.

    Well you can believe the best of intentions for the globalists and I will believe the opposite. Thanks

    I believe in looking at facts and results, not guessing at people’s intentions.

    Except you have no facts or results. What makes you believe the EU was the only reason Europe has been peaceful for 30 years. It was peaceful for the 30-40 years before the existence of the EU as well. Also, why would you believe anything the people that came up with such a horrible institution like the EU have to say about anything?

    The EEC was created in 1957 – 12 years after the end of WW2. The EU is merely the evolution of the EEC (a poor evolution in my opinion).

    I try not to prejudice my opinions with my priors – I am not always successful.

    • #56
  27. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Finally, it seems that if you are anti free trade you cannot be a Conservative, but you can advocate for the EU and you can be as Conservative as they come as evidenced by the author of this article.

    I don’t see anyone other than the author, whose internationalist leanings have repeatedly been called out as heterodox, claiming that the EU is a conservative institution. To the contrary Claire’s established conservative bona fides makes her pro-EU stance bewildering to most of Ricochet.

    I love Claire, but her affinity for the EU mystifies me too.  Why not the UN, or the United Federation of Planets.  By all means, lets put our governors as far away from reality as possible.

    • #57
  28. outlaws6688 Member
    outlaws6688
    @

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    You mean other than the fact that they did not need the treaty at all because they had already formed a common market, but went ahead with it in order to gain control of the member’s rights.

    Okay, but that doesn’t give us insight into their intentions does it? It just points to a divide between what we consider to be the optimal solution (a common free trade zone) and what they believed was necessary.

    Well you can believe the best of intentions for the globalists and I will believe the opposite. Thanks

    I believe in looking at facts and results, not guessing at people’s intentions.

    Except you have no facts or results. What makes you believe the EU was the only reason Europe has been peaceful for 30 years. It was peaceful for the 30-40 years before the existence of the EU as well. Also, why would you believe anything the people that came up with such a horrible institution like the EU have to say about anything?

    The EEC was created in 1957 – 12 years after the end of WW2. The EU is merely the evolution of the EEC (a poor evolution in my opinion).

    Except there were protests against the EEC all the way back to 1957 about infringing on sovereignty. So basically the globalists and EU supporters have been sowing mistrust in Europe since 1957.

    • #58
  29. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    outlaws6688 (View Comment):

    Finally, it seems that if you are anti free trade you cannot be a Conservative, but you can advocate for the EU and you can be as Conservative as they come as evidenced by the author of this article.

    I don’t see anyone other than the author, whose internationalist leanings have repeatedly been called out as heterodox, claiming that the EU is a conservative institution. To the contrary Claire’s established conservative bona fides makes her pro-EU stance bewildering to most of Ricochet.

    I love Claire, but her affinity for the EU mystifies me too. Why not the UN, or the United Federation of Planets. By all means, lets put our governors as far away from reality as possible.

    I think its a factor of her living in the EU and enjoying many of the freedoms it guarantees. I’m mystified that given the violence it has brought to the city where she lives she isn’t more skeptical of certain parts.

    • #59
  30. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    The EEC was created in 1957 – 12 years after the end of WW2. The EU is merely the evolution of the EEC (a poor evolution in my opinion).

    I think “merely” is to sweep away the whole of the argument: the aims and reach of the European ‘project’ have grown to such an extent they have eclipsed and undermined the purpose and aim of the EEC.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.