[CLUE-Talk] The prism of our experience

[Sean LeBlanc]

On 07-14 12:33, Timothy C. Klein wrote:
> * Sean LeBlanc (seanleblanc at americanisp.net) wrote:
> > On 07-10 19:47, Matt Gushee wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 09:57:58PM +0000, Randy Arabie wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I didn't read the commentary by the Christian Science
> > > > Monitor.  But the quote you included in your email implied
> > > > that starting wars without congressional declarations of war
> > > > was a "conservative" and Republican issue.
> > > > 
> > > > It isn't, and to imply so is BS.
> > > 
> > > For once, I heartily agree with you (didn't expect that, didja?).
> > > 
> > > But the other side of the coin is that opposition to the Iraq war is not a
> > > "liberal" or Democratic party issue, as some commentators have implied (though
> > > you haven't, that I recall).
> > > 
> > > Some of the toughest critics of the Iraq enterprise are, in fact,
> > > conservatives--at least, to the extent that word has meaning, and to the
> > > extent that I understand it, they seem to me to be outstanding examples
> > > of conservatism. Do the names James Jeffords and Ron Paul ring a bell?
> > > And it probably won't surprise you to hear that I frequently visit
> > > anti-war/anti-Iraq-war websites. Some of the best of them come from a
> > > conservative viewpoint (e.g. antiwar.com, and particularly Justin
> > > Raimondo's column: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html).
> > 
> > I think, though I'm not 100%, that Pat Buchanan has long had a policy of
> > avoiding foreign entanglements. I'm not sure how he stood on the latest
> > Iraqi war, but I think a few of his comments on the McLaughlin Group tended
> > towards "opposed".
> > 
> > Interesting you bring up the meaning of the term conservatism - I recently
> > finished Noam Chomsky's _Understanding Power_, and he makes some sort of
> > comment that he was "more conservative than the Reaganites". He was talking
> > about much protectionism they brought on, etc..., but still it was odd that
> > he'd say that. I'd say if there was merely a right-left scale on issues,
> > that old Noamie would register on most issues pretty darned far to the left.
> > I'd wish he went more into explaining that one...
> > 
> > Incidentally, the book wasn't too bad, though he does tend to lay just about
> > every ill of the entire planet at the doorstep of Washington. I'd say I
> > agree with maybe 5% at most of what he is saying, but there's no doubt he's
> > doing a good job of keeping (at least some) folks vigilant.
> 
> I don't know much about Noam Chomsky's politics, but what he is saying
> could easily make sense. Conservative != Right/Republican. Conservative
> basically means to conserve or preserve the status quo. Take, for
> example, or current President. He is a Republican, he is considered
> Right, but he is *not* a conservative in most respects:
> 
> * He favors *changing* the school system to make our education system
> better, and allow private vouchers.
> 
> * He favors *changing* the tax code to eliminate taxes he sees as wrong.
> 
> * He favors *changing* the size of the government. (I used to assume
> he was the typical small government Repub., but the Dept. of Homeland
> Security disabused me of that notion).
> 
> * He favors *changing* affirmitive action policy to eliminate race
> consideration.
> 
> * He favors *changing* American war policy to one of preemption.
> 
> * He favors *changing* medicare to add a prescription drug benefit and
> some form of privatization.
> 
> * He favors *changing* social security so that it is privatized.
> 
> All of these things are anti-conservative. Change is rarely (if ever?)
> the conservative position. To be a true conservative, one has to
> assume that the existing order is worth saving. That is actually quite
> the opposite of most current Repub. / Right view-points today. The
> Right feels the governement is wrongly constructed (or even out of
> control), and wants is changed. Often changed drastically. This is not a
> conservative opinion. It is a radical or revolutionary one.
> 
> I don't think it is all that hard to make the case that today, the
> Republican party is, on most issues, the radical party, and that the
> Dem. party is, on most issues, the conservative party. Terms like
> Left and Right remain relatively static, but terms like radical and
> conservative do not remain static as the position of our government
> changes.

Well, I doubt anyone actually uses that definition of "conservative" when it
comes to politics...I cannot say that anyone would vote for a platform that
amounted to "I will do nothing at all during my term in office". By these
definitions, we'd have to call both major parties "liberal" since they both
are always calling for new programs, new laws, etc...

It's interesting to note some of the things you mentioned Bush is in favor
of changing, BTW. Some of those are only rolling back or tweaking things
that are relatively new. The preemption thing is the most entrenched, IMHO,
however, and the most "revolutionary", if you will.   


BTW, regarding "small government" Republicans, I think the Libertarian Party
had some stats on how Republicans still grow the government, only by a few
percentage points less than Democrats (typically), but I can't dig up those
stats. 95% of stats are made up on the spot, anyway...

-- 
Sean LeBlanc:seanleblanc at americanisp.net  
http://users.americanisp.net/~seanleblanc/
Get MLAC at: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mlac/
There is never a better measure of what a person is than what he does when 
he's absolutely free to choose. 
-William M. Bulger