Factional Conservatives

 

My impression of the Conservative movement over the course of the last 80 years is that we have lost our grip on some things and doubled 0ur grip on others. I was once asked to write what I think conservativism is. That was so long ago. The asker is no longer here, but finally I think I can give an answer.

I wrote in a comment recently that I think the modern conservative movement has had inconsistent results because there is an internal argument on what conservatism should look like. I think a lot of that came to a head with the Ahmari vs. French debate, and while I think Ahmari is smarter than French and I agree with him more than I agree with French, both have good points… I think.

There seems to be a few dominant views of conservatism in the mainstream. This is not a labeling exercise. I may point out certain people promote more dominantly one idea, it is not to imply they don’t hold other ideas. It is all about emphasis and priority.

Preserving the capitalistic structure of our economy and protecting our Constitution (and economy) from the threats posed by Communism and Socialism abroad. 

I think this is the Buckley/Reagan version of Conservatism that has been the hegemony of Republican policy throughout the 20th century. It is the neocon branch that has become associated with foreign wars and unlimited immigration as it vacillates between destroying socialism and communism abroad and building up high business domestically and exporting those businesses to the world. If we want to split the baby between the grifters and the true believers, the true believers would be the ones with a genuine goal of exporting the US Constitution to other parts of the world to lift them up. The grifters would be the ones invested in the financial side of it, which undermines the True Believers’ intent by ultimately importing socialism and communism through open immigration and cheap labor.

One of the huge issues with the grifting side of this position is that highly successful businesses are capable of moving to any place in the world, and through policymaking on our Government’s side, compromises can be made with otherwise hostile world powers to give them a place to go. This removes them from a dependence on domestic labor, which ultimately means these companies are not invested in the success of America, but rather in the agreements reached by world powers to allow them to do business wherever they wish. This hollows out the educational institution domestically, as the companies don’t really care how well educated Americans are, they can always find cheaper labor on par with Americans elsewhere.

This is more broadly outwardly focused, but I think that as more American Conservatives believe Socialism and Communism are a top priority realize the problem is domestic, it will shift inward. I don’t think this inward shift is going to be smooth, because, well, let’s just look at the next priority.

Promoting fiscal conservatism through smaller federal government, balanced budgets, and decreased spending.

This, I think, is properly the domain of “Conservatarians.” They have not been successful federally, but have been ascendant when it comes to driving political discourse in the punditocracy with mixed results in congressional elections (thanks to the Tea Party). They have been very successful in driving conservative debate and thought, even if none of their policy goals have been realized at the Federal level. This is where David French resides. Jonah Goldberg, while being sympathetic to conservatarianism, is still predominantly the prior.

As their name would suggest, this is a hybrid of libertarianism and conservatism. I’m not entirely certain in what respect that is, because they lean far heavier to libertarianism while giving lip service to social conservatism – yet never allowing into the political debate. My biggest problem with them is that their focus on the federal government drives their political goals for local politics, as well. This wouldn’t really be a big deal if it wasn’t so passive. Meaning, while Conservatarians promote a small federal government and spend a great deal of thought and words on how that would look at the Federal level, it is just assumed that the same is true for local politics without much thought being put into what that looks like locally.

So the inconsistent result of this predominant thought is that the Federal government ends up being the ultimate focus of the politically engaged, making the Federal government important (where we want to de-emphasize it) and alienates people who are just looking for local policies. That’s fine for rural people to engage in, but there’s much more going on in urban settings, so Republicans are dismissed because they have so few solutions for how small government should look for local politics.

This thinking in conservative ideology will conflict with the first group as it turns its focus inward, because defeating communism and socialism within our own country is primarily a culture war that is trying its hardest (and failing) at avoiding a civil war. Because its focus is less on foreign policy and limited government, but on social policy, there will be internal conflict – both within the party AND within the individuals who make up the party.

Social conservatism doesn’t need much explaining because everyone knows what we mean. Traditionalists who seek to uphold cultural values through political policy.

Here’s where Ahmari really comes in. He is likely one of the first group who has turned inward and sees a cascading preference in domestic politics for communism and socialism that has been seen as an external threat for most of his primary school education. He has witnessed its growth in his peer group in schools, entertainment, and social media for decades. He’s bound and determined to make Social Conservatism Great Again, much to the consternation of the conservative powerhouses that dominate conservative think tanks, because he thinks it is the only real threat to domestic communism and socialism. (He’s my age!)

Social conservatism is the original Conservatism, upholding tradition as foundational to building a successful, stable, prosperous, and free civilization. Edmund Burke is the long-forgotten poster child. Unfortunately, it’s also the brand of conservatism that everyone else is embarrassed to acknowledge. Social Conservatism is the group no politico actually wants but can’t get elected without. So social conservatives have lived with empty promises and lies for a long time. Interestingly, I think Ben Shapiro falls pretty solid in with this group more than the others, but his conservatarianism keeps him on a tight leash. I am predominately a Social Conservative (“Surprise!” says absolutely no one). I do, however, have strong libertarian leanings. They are greatly diminishing, though, as I agree with Ahmari that the only way to curb growing communism and socialism in this country without a civil war is through sound, domestic, social policy.

If we think that social conservatism is the bastard child of Conservatism, this next one is the black sheep of the family:

Promoting State sovereignty, local politics, and de-emphasizing, shrinking, and weakening of Federal power.

Hello, Trump. No, really. He fits here. He is a classic democrat, but he is a classic democrat who de-emphasizes presidential power. He uses his power decisively where it is constitutionally derived, yet obeys the courts. He does not impress one policy goal on all of the states. He gives the states room to work out their issues. Some of us might argue he has done too good a job on that, as he still refuses to step into state politics on behalf of the people suffering under their tyrannical governors and mayors.

No one likes acknowledging that state rights are a part of the foundation of the constitution. It’s embarrassing because it was a tool used to protect slavery, so defending state rights feels like a conflict. But should it?

While it is the least of all the brands of conservative thought, I think this is the one where everything comes together. By promoting state sovereignty, Conservatarians can have a way of belittling federal government, curbing its spending, and shifting focus away from it so it is no longer the most important institution in the land. By shifting focus to local governments, perhaps we can forge new policy goals for urban centers that embrace small government goals and demonstrate how they can make life better for urban life. State sovereignty and emphasis on local politics also limits social conservatism, allowing people to forge locally the culture they wish to have while letting other people in other areas to pursue a completely different kind of culture and social policy. It also weakens the drive behind communism and socialism in this country, as pursuing state sovereignty gives them 50 targets instead of one singular target that can be utilized to force all 50 states into communism and socialism. Being smaller, they are more likely to fail faster and can be rebuilt faster.

While this is still a fringe view (in spite of its origins), I think it is gaining in conservative thought.

I am not of the opinion that there is unresolvable conflict between these thought clusters. The same person can hold every one of these views and remain internally consistent (except maybe exporting the US Constitution to foreign countries via war…). But I do think we need to extend each other some grace in these arguments and discussions, and let the debate continue and grow and reform so we can tackle the new challenges laid before us in our modern times. We do need a vision and a goal.

Perhaps part of this debate should focus on when does bottom-up governance turn into top-down? If the people are the government, through democratically elected representatives, then at what point have we crossed the line into forcing ourselves onto our fellow countrymen? When is the majority violating the rights of the minority and when is the minority asserting undeserved authority over the majority?

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 40 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Very thoughtful post, Stina. Do you think it would be appropriate to label your first category, “globalist,” or is the meaning too narrow?

    As for the SoCon position (SoCons unite!), Catholic Answers Live podcast took on the current crisis and its roots in the abortion regime:

    https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/a-catholic-response-to-a-culture-in-crisis-3

    Bottom line for SoCons — a free people must necessarily be a virtuous people, and that can’t be the case when we’re killing a million of the most vulnerable each year. Either you believe every person is created by God and has infinite worth, or you don’t, and people of all sorts become increasingly expendable. Especially if exterminating them “solves your problem.” 

    • #1
  2. Tex929rr Coolidge
    Tex929rr
    @Tex929rr

    Excellent analysis.  It’s too bad that people on the left appear to never have these sort of internal discussions.  And unfortunately we on the right spend way too much time condemning those who don’t quite fit into our own box on our own side.  I don’t think that there are very many self described conservatives who would also describe themselves as never Trumper, but there are way too many who seem to rejoice in behaving as if they are.

    If nothing else, our current POTUS has made clear that what is really important is not what we used to think.  There is a huge class of conservative pundits who don’t seem to be able to figure that out.  My podcast list is shrinking as I get tired of people getting the vapors over DJT.

    • #2
  3. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Excellent post, Stina. My frustration is how do we get from here to there. Our own waders in The Swamp like things just the way they are. As Tom Coburn, and now Ben Sasse points out, they are all too busy with fundraising and ensuring they are elected again. 

    • #3
  4. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Excellent post, Stina. My frustration is how do we get from here to there. Our own waders in The Swamp like things just the way they are. As Tom Coburn, and now Ben Sasse points out, they are all too busy with fundraising and ensuring they are elected again.

    Trump is showing the way. I call his the “Hold My Beer” presidency — meant in a mostly positive way. Anytime you challenge the status quo, there are going to be some failures. But, try telling Trump, “you can’t do that!!” and watch what happens. You can’t recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel! You can’t exit the Paris Climate Accord or the Iran Deal!! You can’t make trade deals favorable to the United States!!! You can’t defund Planned Parenthood — women’s health!! You can’t make peace in the Middle East without involving the Palestinians!!

    We’ve been told so much BS for so many years, and Trump’s great strength is in revealing it! The Republican Party can never go back. Nor should it.

    • #4
  5. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk and
    @Misthiocracy

    If you want three definitions of [enter ideology here] ask two [adherents of said ideology].

    • #5
  6. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Stina: I was once asked to write what I think conservativism is.

    All,

    That question contains a false implicit assumption: that conservatism has an inherent definition.

    This is an example of a common fallacy, and the fallacy makes the question meaningless.

    Until we Ricocheteers learn to recognize this fallacy, we will continue to have interminable, meaningless debates because of it.

    We must refrain from trying to answer meaningless questions based on it.  But that is easier said than done!  From earliest childhood the irrational belief in inherent definitions forms the foundation of our use and understanding of language.

    • #6
  7. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk and
    @Misthiocracy

    Mark Camp (View Comment):
    Until we Ricocheteers learn to recognize this fallacy, we will continue to have interminable, meaningless debates because of it.

    If I didn’t want to have interminable meaningless debates I wouldn’t be on the Internet.

    • #7
  8. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Mark Camp (View Comment):
    That question contains a false implicit assumption: that conservatism has an inherent definition.

    It was a question demanding my thoughts from my internal understanding of it.

    We don’t need to have an abstract discussion on the meaninglessness of words and their inadequacy in communicating to people who don’t accept definition.

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Very thoughtful post, Stina. Do you think it would be appropriate to label your first category, “globalist,” or is the meaning too narrow?

    I’d say the “grifters” are definitely The Globalists, however I think the true believing side of it makes them very susceptible to that space because exporting beliefs and culture is an imperialist attitude. I’m not trying to be condemnatory there, because largely the point of the post is not to condemn, but to find clarity. There’s two things going on in the policy choices of that group – that we make external empire through the export of American policies AND that we import the “American Minded” (typically defined purely by economic contribution) into the US, forging an empire within our country of different nations with different beliefs and cultures. Combine this with the lack of investment in American Education, you have a recipe for disaster – a loosely held conglomeration of disjointed nations coexisting under a nominal headship. It’s an inverted Hellenic Empire.

    Since this is the one that has dictated policy for so long, its easier to see their failings and be critical.

    • #8
  9. Guruforhire Inactive
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    There is this thing called “The paradox of market efficiency”

    The basic idea is that too the extent that markets are efficient, they are efficient because nobody acts like they are.  For instance the most rational thing an individual can do is invest in market index funds.  Because markets are efficient.  But if everybody does that, the information system Hayek talks about completely breaks which makes the market inefficient.

    So, you cannot understand how the world works without believing that markets are efficient, but if we ever actually act like it, then the whole thing breaks.

    I think this is the metaphor for the 20th century conservativism.  We took a lot of “useful [redacted]” too seriously.

    • #9
  10. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Stina: I was once asked to write what I think conservativism is.

    All,

    That question contains a false implicit assumption: that conservatism has an inherent definition.

    This is an example of a common fallacy, and the fallacy makes the question meaningless.

    Until we Ricocheteers learn to recognize this fallacy, we will continue to have interminable, meaningless debates because of it.

    We must refrain from trying to answer meaningless questions based on it. But that is easier said than done! From earliest childhood the irrational belief in inherent definitions forms the foundation of our use and understanding of language.

    Hooey. If we can’t make words mean things we might as well be leftists. It’s almost the argument against objective truth. Objectively?

    One thing I think “conservatism” is not is what is so often (maliciously?) characterized as protective of the status quo (maybe European conservatism, but not American). This is the definition Trump is blowing up. It’s not about keeping what we have so far. It’s about adhering to correct ideas about human nature and, therefore, the nature of government. Government of, by, and for the people must be comprised of separated powers and must recognize the sovereignty of the people over their lives, since no angels exist to rule over us all. As I said in my Land of Confusion interview, conservatism gets human anthropology right. 

    That’s what Klavan calls “friends of the Founding.” 

    • #10
  11. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge
    DonG (skeptic)
    @DonG

    I think of Conservatism as the idea of being reluctant to stray from proven principles and policies.  It is risky to move away from a known good solution to another solution that may or may not be better.  That’s it.   In different cultures that can be different things, but in America we have these things, which are encoded in our founding documents :

    Principles (empirically derived):
    * God exists and is the creator of all things
    * the nuclear family is best
    * people are loving, but self-interested and fallible
    * power corrupts, leaders must be accountable to the people
    * freedom is valuable
    * property rights and free markets increase productivity
    * symbols and lore are binding items in a diverse society

    Policies:
    * subsidiary and republicanism are best
    * balanced powers in government is best
    * rights are explicitly protected
    ….

    • #11
  12. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Stina:

    Promoting State sovereignty, local politics, and de-emphasizing, shrinking, and weakening of Federal power.

    Hello, Trump. No, really. He fits here. He is a classic democrat, but he is a classic democrat who de-emphasizes presidential power. He uses his power decisively where it is constitutionally derived, yet obeys the courts. He does not impress one policy goal on all of the states. He gives the states room to work out their issues. Some of us might argue he has done TOO good a job on that, as he still refuses to step in to state politics on behalf of the people suffering under their tyrannical governors and mayors.

    No one likes acknowledging that state rights is a part of the foundation of the constitution. It’s embarrassing because it was a tool used to protect slavery, so defending state rights feels like a conflict. But should it?

    While it is the least of all the brands of conservative thought, I think this is the one where everything comes together.

    This is why I have come to support Trump as POTUS. I reached adulthood during the big civil rights campaigns of the late fifties and early sixties. I was not much into politics, not an activist, but I always supported the concept of equal rights and opportunity under the law for all individuals. I grew up in Georgia so I have seen first hand both sides of the human rights issues. I didn’t really admire any POTUS until Ronald Reagan. And none after him until Donald Trump. My political positions didn’t really crystalize until the Clinton years when Hillary Clinton was very actively pushing federal healthcare legislative proposals. I had retired from full-time working, dividing my time between part-time work, playing senior softball, and helping my growing family however I could.

    Trump’s main interest in federal power is to defend American sovereignty and promote and maintain the general welfare and individual freedom of all American people. His apparent looseness in spending is tied directly to these purposes and not to more centralized federal power globally or domestically. I find  his spending posture more acceptable than that of our more recent imperialist leaders. He has a commitment to the original Constitution and nominates Judicial appointments with that criterion in mind. Faced with where progressives have brought us today this is a mode of conservatism I can support for now.

    • #12
  13. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    Trump’s main interest in federal power is to defend American sovereignty and promote and maintain the general welfare and individual freedom of all American people. His apparent looseness in spending is tied directly to these purposes and not to more centralized federal power globally or domestically. I find his spending posture more acceptable than that of our more recent imperialist leaders. He has a commitment to the original Constitution and nominates Judicial appointments with that criterion in mind. Faced with where progressives have brought us today this is a mode of conservatism I can support for now.

    I agree. Even Trump can’t fix historical overspending. The last opportunity to practice fiscal restraint was blown away when Bush II signed the blank check for Obama after the mortgage meltdown. 

    • #13
  14. Chuck Coolidge
    Chuck
    @Chuckles

    I recently advised the local Republican Party chairman I no longer consider myself a Republican, and would not be active in Party events. Why?

    First, because I’ve seen too many Republicans – may I say almost all? – get elected by saying what the voters want to hear, when it’s clear that’s all there is to it.

    Second,because I’ve seen too many Republicans get elected purely and simply because they were born and raised here, or are third or fifth generation in this area.

    Third, because I’ve seen too many Republicans that just do not demonstrate their purported principles.

    Fourth, because I strongly believe in the rule of law, and that means the consistent and faithful exercise and application of same. When money or political position or family or who you know exempts one from the rule of law we part ways, and over the years I’ve seen too much of this.

    Fifth, because the Supreme Court, even though controlled by Republican appointees, apparently believes in a different law.  The only Justice with whom I find myself consistently in agreement is Clarence Thomas.

    Sixth, because even when Republicans hold a super-majority their so-called principles don’t seem to guide them. Sorry, showing any consideration to a minority party whose goal is to destroy the country is not something I can endure.

    You say Democrats are worse in all these areas? Yes, but there is none of their stated philosophy with which I agree. And I can’t remember the last time any Democrat stood for something which I could support.

    What am I going to do?  I’ll tell you what: When a Libertarian is on the ballot I will look at what he says, I will look at his life, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.  When a Constitution Party member is on the ballot I will rejoice, but I will still look what he says, look at his life, give him the benefit of the doubt and seek reasons to vote for him. When an Independent is on the ballot, I will be suspicious that he’s a Democrat that is hesitant to name himself so (Democrats don’t stand a chance around here) but I will still try to find out something persuasive about him  When a Republican is on the ballot, my first thought will be “hypocrite” but I will hope I’m wrong and try to find proof. When a Democrat’s name shows up I will laugh and move on.

    Have to confess just voting a straight party ticket is a whole lot easier.

    What about Trump? The author believes he has a commitment to the original constitution.  I do not.  Will he get my vote for President? Until somebody better comes along and I can’t imagine who that would be.  

     

    • #14
  15. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Excellent post, Stina. My frustration is how do we get from here to there. Our own waders in The Swamp like things just the way they are. As Tom Coburn, and now Ben Sasse points out, they are all too busy with fundraising and ensuring they are elected again.

    I think the way we get there is for the Fed to stop funding exponential federal government growth.  When governments have to live within a fixed budget, and people stop getting as much free money as they have been, then people can start talking about sound budgeting policy at the state and local level.

    • #15
  16. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Chuck (View Comment):
    Sorry, showing any consideration to a minority party whose goal is to destroy the country is not something I can endure.

    Apparently you not only endure it, you endorse it! How is it consistent to say one party’s goal is to destroy the country, but I won’t vote for the only party that stands a chance of stopping it because. . . hypocrisy. I think what you advocate is virtual disenfranchisement. 

    • #16
  17. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Stina: I was once asked to write what I think conservativism is.

    All,

    That question contains a false implicit assumption: that conservatism has an inherent definition.

    This is an example of a common fallacy, and the fallacy makes the question meaningless.

    Until we Ricocheteers learn to recognize this fallacy, we will continue to have interminable, meaningless debates because of it.

    We must refrain from trying to answer meaningless questions based on it. But that is easier said than done! From earliest childhood the irrational belief in inherent definitions forms the foundation of our use and understanding of language.

    But Stina did not answer that question, but rather used it as a springboard for related considerations, such as describing various clusters of thought which can be labelled as conservative.

    • #17
  18. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    A few thoughts. 

    The Federal government has the upper hand so long as it taxes individuals on behalf of the states and then sells the tax dollars back to the states in return for political compliance.

    Reducing federal taxes would have been the way to let the states, and the the individuals within their respective states, keep more money to spend in their local economies and for local governments to spend on local government needs. But this has been obviated by the federal government printing money to meet its budget.

    The top down government is acceptable to many who see federal funds as a greater source of (redistributed) prosperity than is available locally. People would need to be more independent rather than less in order for government to be more local, such as at the state and city level. And this would require a fundamental shift in their thinking, personal economy, and lifestyle.

    • #18
  19. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Flicker (View Comment):
    Reducing federal taxes would have been the way to let the states, and the the individuals within their respective states, keep more money to spend in their local economies and for local governments to spend on local government needs.

    Remember when the role of the government was to “defend the borders and deliver the mail?” Yeah, those were the days. Now it taxes and spends and prints money like there’s no tomorrow and still does a lousy job of defending the borders and delivering the mail.

    Social “welfare” has done a helluva number on our society. We’ve gone from government securing our natural rights to government sponsored “security” at the expense of our liberty.

    • #19
  20. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Flicker (View Comment):

    A few thoughts.

    The Federal government has the upper hand so long as it taxes individuals on behalf of the states and then sells the tax dollars back to the states in return for political compliance.

    Reducing federal taxes would have been the way to let the states, and the the individuals within their respective states, keep more money to spend in their local economies and for local governments to spend on local government needs. But this has been obviated by the federal government printing money to meet its budget.

    The top down government is acceptable to many who see federal funds as a greater source of (redistributed) prosperity than is available locally. People would need to be more independent rather than less in order for government to be more local, such as at the state and city level. And this would require a fundamental shift in their thinking, personal economy, and lifestyle.

    This aspect of federal taxing and spending gets momentum when a state’s political players, executive and legislative, find their political fortunes enhanced by not having to tax their state’s voters, passing that unsavory task to the federal government. By joining those they represent in their state who like the federal redistribution of wealth and income the problem gets compounded. Undoing these misdeeds is many times more difficult than doing them in the first place.

    • #20
  21. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Flicker (View Comment):

    But Stina did not answer that question, but rather used it as a springboard for related considerations, such as describing various clusters of thought which can be labelled as conservative.

     

    That is true.  She substituted a good question and gave a good answer, and only claimed she was answering the absurd one asked.

    Whenever you are tempted to write an article purporting to answer “what is the meaning of X?” when you really mean to answer some completely different, legitimate question, simply discipline yourself not to do it.  Eliminate the false question, and state the actual question, and give your answer.

    It is one of the easiest critical thinking skills to learn, once we are aware of the fallacy.

    • #21
  22. GrannyDude Member
    GrannyDude
    @GrannyDude

    Okay. 

    Here’s a question. 

    If, as a conservative, I believe that nuclear families (with the extended families that tend to support them) are better for children and, indeed, for most people (and I do) this means that I will

    1.) create or maintain social policies that support and reward nuclear family formation and/or punish family dissolution 

    or

    2.) shrink the government and get it out of the way of family arrangements altogether, so that families can form in accordance with human nature as mediated by other, non-governmental institutions such as churches.

    ?

    • #22
  23. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Remember when the role of the government was to “defend the borders and deliver the mail?” Yeah, those were the days. Now it taxes and spends and prints money like there’s no tomorrow and still does a lousy job of defending the borders and delivering the mail.

    Social “welfare” has done a helluva number on our society. We’ve gone from government securing our natural rights to government sponsored “security” at the expense of our liberty.

    Well put and quite true.

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    This aspect of federal taxing and spending gets momentum when a state’s political players, executive and legislative, find their political fortunes enhanced by not having to tax their state’s voters, passing that unsavory task to the federal government. By joining those they represent in their state who like the federal redistribution of wealth and income the problem gets compounded. Undoing these misdeeds is many times more difficult than doing them in the first place.

    This makes me think that things have to get far worse before any beneficial change can be considered.

    • #23
  24. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    GrannyDude (View Comment):

    Okay.

    Here’s a question.

    If, as a conservative, I believe that nuclear families (with the extended families that tend to support them) are better for children and, indeed, for most people (and I do) this means that I will

    1.) create or maintain social policies that support and reward nuclear family formation and/or punish family dissolution

    or

    2.) shrink the government and get it out of the way of family arrangements altogether, so that families can form in accordance with human nature as mediated by other, non-governmental institutions such as churches.

    ?

    A healthy subject to debate where either answer falls within the spectrum of conservative thought? Just different priorities.

    I had more to add, but I decided its part of a healthy debate on the subject and not part of this post ;)

    • #24
  25. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Mark Camp (View Comment):
    “what is the meaning of X?”

    I found Stina’s “what is the meaning of X” to be a delightfully wistful and contemplative background, putting the following article in a fitting context.  But you’re right.

    • #25
  26. Chuck Coolidge
    Chuck
    @Chuckles

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Chuck (View Comment):
    Sorry, showing any consideration to a minority party whose goal is to destroy the country is not something I can endure.

    Apparently you not only endure it, you endorse it! How is it consistent to say one party’s goal is to destroy the country, but I won’t vote for the only party that stands a chance of stopping it because. . . hypocrisy. I think what you advocate is virtual disenfranchisement.

    Guess you missed the part where Trump gets my vote.  

    The hypocrite Rose got my vote because there was nobody better running for the US House in my district.  Will Hagerty get my vote? Well, holding my nose – almost certainly yes.  Again, because I haven’t identified anybody better.  Does that make me a hypocrite?  Did I say I won’t vote for a Republican?  If I did I misspoke.

     

    • #26
  27. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    GrannyDude (View Comment):

    Okay.

    Here’s a question.

    If, as a conservative, I believe that nuclear families (with the extended families that tend to support them) are better for children and, indeed, for most people (and I do) this means that I will

    1.) create or maintain social policies that support and reward nuclear family formation and/or punish family dissolution

    or

    2.) shrink the government and get it out of the way of family arrangements altogether, so that families can form in accordance with human nature as mediated by other, non-governmental institutions such as churches.

    ?

    You’ve asked the difficult question that lies at the heart of the matter for conservatives in a traditionally liberal society (i.e., one like America, where to be a conservative is by definition to be a liberal). Asking the right question is the step we modern conservatives tend to get wrong.  We don’t like to ask it.  We want to be Americans, like Thomas Paine, and we rebel against Edmund Burke.  He’s English, a classist, not a radical egalitarian.

    But Burke may have been just as close to the American ideal as Paine.

    • #27
  28. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    What a good, thoughtful post! I didn’t agree with every jot and tittle, but that’s okay. You absolutely nailed this though:

    Stina: “Conservatarians”. They have not been successful federally, but have been ascendant when it comes to driving political discourse in the punditocracy with mixed results in congressional elections (thanks to the TEA Party). They have been very successful in driving conservative debate and thought, even if none of their policy goals have been realized at the Federal level.

    Ain’t it the truth.

    • #28
  29. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    But Stina did not answer that question, but rather used it as a springboard for related considerations, such as describing various clusters of thought which can be labelled as conservative.

     

    That is true. She substituted a good question and gave a good answer, and only claimed she was answering the absurd one asked.

    Whenever you are tempted to write an article purporting to answer “what is the meaning of X?” when you really mean to answer some completely different, legitimate question, simply discipline yourself not to do it. Eliminate the false question, and state the actual question, and give your answer.

    It is one of the easiest critical thinking skills to learn, once we are aware of the fallacy.

    For heaven’s sake, sometimes it’s okay to just let a conversation play out.

    • #29
  30. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    GrannyDude (View Comment):

    Okay.

    Here’s a question.

    If, as a conservative, I believe that nuclear families (with the extended families that tend to support them) are better for children and, indeed, for most people (and I do) this means that I will

    1.) create or maintain social policies that support and reward nuclear family formation and/or punish family dissolution

    or

    2.) shrink the government and get it out of the way of family arrangements altogether, so that families can form in accordance with human nature as mediated by other, non-governmental institutions such as churches.

    ?

    I don’t think that it is entirely an either/or question. The AFDC program didn’t create single-parent families, but it arguably did incentivize them. By the time it ended in 1998, the pattern was multi-generational. 

    Don’t do that. It is better to do it from the state level.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.