Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Conservatism: An Abstract Philosophy or a Mode of Governance?
There is no question that the rise of Donald Trump has created a schism on the right. I’ve certainly had my run-ins with folks here on Ricochet, most notably @garyrobbins and @georgetownsend. While I vehemently disagree with these gentlemen on a lot of things, arguing with them has had its benefits, namely that they have pushed me to constantly refine, redefine and clarify my beliefs.
In a recent lengthy back-and-forth they provided me with this question on the state of things in the post-Reagan era: Is Conservatism just an abstract utopian philosophy, the inverse of theoretical Communism, or is it an actual and practical mode of governing?
If it is an abstraction, this explains the Progressive Lite ways of the national GOP. They can give lip service to the ideal (especially when raising funds and campaigning) while still governing in opposition to those ideals simply because they are impractical.
Many here, including the aforementioned gentlemen, insist that Conservatism is indistinguishable, even 30 years after the fact, from Reaganism. Is it? Or has that been abandoned?
I have constantly issued the call to examine whether American conservatives are indeed committed to fulfilling Reagan’s dream. To this end, I spent time rereading President Reagan’s re-election platform. As in all political manifestos there are a lot of vague “we encourage this” and “we urge that” and a lot of “we embrace the idea of” platitudes that are not easily translated into specific political action. I have identified a list of 32 concrete actions that the Reagan Administration told Americans they wanted to accomplish in regards to domestic policy in a second term. (By all means, please read the document and see what I may have missed.)
The third item on this list, the line-item veto, was accomplished yet struck down by the Supreme Court. It was asserted by the Court that it would be permissible if pursued through the amendment process.
Are these still goals of Conservatives or are they obsolete? And if they are obsolete what does it mean to call oneself a Reaganite in the 21st Century?
I fear that Conservatism has become nothing more than catchphrases, things said religiously by rote instead of through critical thinking. What does it mean to say “Government shouldn’t pick winners and losers” without acknowledging that even policies advocated by Conservatives do just that? And how do you change things so that it no longer happens?
What does it mean to say, “Never blame your troubles on someone else?” Does that suppose that all government action, whether from the left or right, is benign? (I’d say that’s just demonstrably wrong.) And isn’t pointing to specific policy far different than the Left’s ethereal bogeymen of racism, sexism, ageism, and a plethora of “phobias?”
If Conservatism is no longer a mode of governance but merely a theory, something that can only be accomplished in an ideal world then we need to re-exam it and ourselves, especially if the governing class is playing a giant game of bait-and-switch with the electorate. If we are to go forward Conservatism can’t be a mile wide and an inch deep.
Published in Domestic Policy
The application should be practical, or at least mostly so. Otherwise it’s just navel gazing.
Mathematics is a philosophy with practical application. For the most part, I was better with theory than application.
Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Does an engineer need to be able to solve proofs for you to be convinced he knows mathematics or can the practical application stand its own?
Is there room in conservatism for practical applicators (like… Trump?) And philosophers? Can they co-exist without being all that good at the other’s job?
It’s becoming clear to me that educating people will be complicated. Much of the public probably holds conservative values (in theory), but they like free stuff and everything that goes with it. They’ll just silo both sets of ideas and voila! No conflict. It isn’t that they aren’t smart enough to understand the cognitive dissonance. They just don’t want to hear it. La-la-la-la!
This is puerile nonsense. Both of them have written extensively about why they hold their views. Just because you disagree with what they’ve written, doesn’t mean they haven’t refined or clarified their beliefs. You are guilty of what you accuse them of: “Criticizer of Orange Man Bad“.
Ironically, Trump’s presidency will pass with barely a ripple in law and bureaucracy, but leave this furor over what might have been.
Be sure to vote. Don’t ever miss a vote.
I see 21st Century Conservatism as an impractical proposition at best and a deceitful one at worst. If you’re articulating a philosophy of government but have no practical method for implementing it, even when you’re in the governing majority, then you’re pretty much the definition of a utopian idealist. However, if you’re articulating a philosophy of government and have no intention whatsoever of implementing it then you’re running a con game. I have come to believe that a significant portion of the electorate is convinced of the latter, which to turn a completely unoriginal phrase, “that’s how you got Trump.”
WHAT?
DON’T READ THIS
CRAZY AUSTRIANS ARE AGAINST PROGRESS!
Conservatism and libertarianism can’t get any traction under a discretionary central bank regime. It’s impossible.
Government Is How We Steal From Each Other™
Stealing from your fellow citizen with government is the only logical course of action.
People prefer conservatism in high trust societies. Basically, if you can trust people to make the ethical choice (and you both agree its ethical) the vast majority of the time, then you aren’t pushing government to do it for you.
But multi-culturalism breeds distrust. You don’t have the same cultural ethics (they are diverse!) And people become atomized.
Cities have always been diverse as they are typically trade centers. They are cosmopolitan. They have also leaned leftward with more social distrust.
When people describe where I live, it’s small town feel with all the accoutrements of city living. It feels like a trusting society where I am.
There are policies that can promote social trust – like limited immigration, securing our borders, and being excessively picky about who immigrates – meaning they share our collected values and ethics. But that ship sailed so long ago that we can’t even agree that “western civilization” refers to euro-centric civilization. We won’t get back there without significant pain.
#SoylentGreen
One million “likes”. What we need is a more libertarian economy and government and only then let in all kinds of people. That’s how you bill out social security and Medicare and fix the debt to GDP.
How can you argue with any of this? You can’t. Seriously, everyone is better off figuring out how to save themselves under this system.
#WeAreDoomed
Mona, Weekly Standard et. al. want a centralized, “conservative” style of government run by “experts” that has proven it’s self unworkable and regressive. That is the other option.
10 whole minutes.
On this week’s episode, we feature a past talk given by Hans-Hermann Hoppe highlighting some of the key points he makes in his book Democracy: The God That Failed. The subject seems particularly topical as American elites have become increasingly comfortable dropping the façade of democracy, with the Washington establishment becoming increasingly transparent in their intentions to undercut the success of populist campaigns, such as Donald Trump’s.
Hoppe’s lecture not only shows how democratic elections often lead to bad results, but illustrates how political democracy is often incompatible with human liberty. True democracy is instead found in the marketplace, with voluntary actors free of the threat of government force.
Like Paul Ryan, I think they believe repeals must be approached gradually, both because only that is politically feasible (they argue) and because voters like their entitlements. That’s a slow pursuit of limited government based on pessimistic expectations of wills and abilities. But it is a desire for Constitutional limits, nevertheless.
It’s also debatably a Burkean approach. Edmund Burke has long been regarded a father of conservatism. But he represents British conservatism more than American conservatism. Both believe in social contracts with past and future generations. But America was born as a frontier society with extreme preferences for local government and individual liberty. Burke was more interested in conservation of the status quo and slow, skeptical changes.
Traditional conservatism, like the Constitution, is a recipe for preservation of liberty — not retrieval of liberty. Repealing a century or more of governmental excess and corruption arguably requires different strategies.
You are right that the same group seems always interested in producing further laws and bureaucracies, leaving more excess to repeal. But the main divisions in recent years regard manners more than policies.
That’s not my experience. I generally hear little more than platitudes, scolding and circular reasoning.
And assertions by rote praising Reagan as if he’s been canonized by God himself. And I think this is another aspect of this debate. We’ve looked for the next Reagan. He doesn’t exist. People can’t even succeed in pretending to be him. Conservatives have been acting like a cargo-cult waiting for supplies from on high rather than planting and fishing while the villagers starve.
Sounds like what Derb constantly repeated : “Get a government job !”
Broward elections supervisor Brenda Snipes will walk away with almost $130,000 a year in pensions
Almost $11,000 a month. That’s what Brenda Snipes will be receiving in pension benefits when she resigns in January as the Broward County Supervisor of Elections.
The state pensions include $58,560 a year she’s already receiving from her earlier career as an educator, and she’ll be adding almost $71,000 a year for her time in elected office.
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. (WSVN) – Former Broward Supervisor of Elections Dr. Brenda Snipes is claiming victory in her lawsuit against former Governor Rick Scott after a judge ruled in her favor.
Snipes was able to officially resign after a judge in Tallahassee ruled in her favor.
Scott suspended Snipes in November over “incompetence” and “neglect of duty.”
They are minting socialists and populists, rather than trying to understand what is happening.
People lose their jobs and have their wages pressured in the name of trade that improves purchasing power while the Fed and the government drive up the cost of critical things like housing, education, and health insurance. Why do we have to have 2% inflation in the face of robots and globalized labor??? It’s insane.
I assume inflation will increase every year no matter who is in charge. According to this graph, there has been only one year since 1950 that inflation didn’t increase.
I don’t think it’s cynical, it’s experience and observation, and it’s not a lack of ability but a lack of will, determination, desire or even interest.
I don’t want to sound holier than thou, but please speak for yourself. I try to vote for people who will do what I think is best for the country, not those who will do what is best for me. And it can’t be all that uncommon; someone wrote “What’s Wrong with Kansas” about people who vote for principle over self-interest.
I’ve been through this countless times with NeverTrumpers, and it’s so tiresome. Trump supporters, Trump well-wishers, Trump apologists, and Trump explainers alike list actions, accomplishments of Trump that demonstrate how Trump has governed more conservatively than any president since at least Calvin Coolidge. NeverTrumpers respond with a dainty foot stomp and shriek “puerile nonsense,” or some other vague, unsupported conclusion.
I used to enjoy Mona and Jay’s podcast. But it’s been unbearable since at least inauguration day 2017.
Regardless of the philosophical debate, we live in a practical world. Trump has practiced conservatism better than nearly any president – not bad for a lifelong New York Democrat. I admit it’s surprising. I understand why self-described conservatives were so skeptical. But NeverTrumpers need to face facts, not simply repeat virtue signaling platitudes and moral preening scolds.
I don’t think that conservatism is a philosophy. Rather, I think it’s acknowledgement that neither collectivism nor radical individualism are adequate to maintaining g a balance between competing truths and values not to mention the differences of opinion regarding what counts as good, justice, and purpose. Therfore, conservatism is more procedural than philosophical. We seek the best solutions to optimize the varying ideas that citizens have. So subsidiarity, checks and balances, specific charters, faithful adherence to this processes.
Of course. Otherwise, those ‘great swathes’ of racist Republicans will have representation and control over their lives, and we can’t have that. /sarcasm