Market Radicals: The GOP's Betrayal of Conservatism

[TruthOut10]

The budget just released by House Republicans--and the ascendancy of Paul Ryan, its architect--marks the culmination of an important, long-term shift in the Republican Party. Over the last several decades, the party has abandoned political conservatism and embraced its opposite: an agenda of radical, experimental reform.

I often tell my students that there are only two genuine forms of conservatism alive in America today. The first is "values" conservatism, with its desire to preserve a traditional way of life premised on hard work and self-restraint, sexual modesty and heterosexual monogamy. The second is the strain of environmentalism that urges us to protect the natural world, live closer to the land, reduce our consumption and economic growth, and resist the allure of ambitious technological experiments.

Too often, we use the term "conservatism" loosely, to describe almost anything the Republican Party happens to endorse. But using it in this way mangles a deep and influential political tradition. Modern conservatism was born in the aftermath of the French Revolution, as a reaction to the Promethean hubris of revolutionary planners. In trying to reengineer European society using rational principles dictated from above, revolutionaries had unleashed tremendous destruction, instability, and violence. At its very core, conservatism is about protecting human lives and institutions from such radical, self-inflicted upheaval. The British conservative Michael Oakeshott, whose essay "On Being Conservative" remains one of the finest reflections on the subject, describes conservatism this way:

Alex Zakaras: Market Radicals: The GOP's Betrayal of Conservatism

 

[DiamondDave]

huffo puffo fluffo piece

Yet ones like you will complain when someone sources breitbart or whatever.. priceless

 

[TruthOut10]

huffo puffo fluffo piece

Yet ones like you will complain when someone sources breitbart or whatever.. priceless

Too much original thought being used by you,
Actually trying to read the blog and just maybe you might be a little enlighten if your head doesn't explode first.

Because I just finished reading it and for you to post so fast only proves you didn't, but formed some false premise about it. Who says "Ignorance isn't Bliss, after all?"

Now crawl back under your rock with the rest of my pet trolls.

 

[Katzndogz]

huffo puffo fluffo piece

Yet ones like you will complain when someone sources breitbart or whatever.. priceless

You gotta be amused when democrats tell republicans how republicans think.

 

[DiamondDave]

huffo puffo fluffo piece

Yet ones like you will complain when someone sources breitbart or whatever.. priceless

Too much original thought being used by you,
Actually trying to read the blog and just maybe you might be a little enlighten if your head doesn't explode first.

Because I just finished reading it and for you to post so fast only proves you didn't, but formed some false premise about it. Who says "Ignorance isn't Bliss, after all?"

Now crawl back under your rock with the rest of my pet trolls.

No.. sorry.. don't read winger blogs from either side... and since you do, and rely on them for your 'proof', it shows why you are so ignorant

 

[bripat9643]

Another lib who thinks he gets to define conservatism.

Conservatives have always believed in free enterprise and rejected socialism. According to your author, that's "radical."

For about the last decade, libs are trying to paint the belief in free enterprise as something radical and extreme. The only ones buying it a liberal morons like you.

The budget just released by House Republicans--and the ascendancy of Paul Ryan, its architect--marks the culmination of an important, long-term shift in the Republican Party. Over the last several decades, the party has abandoned political conservatism and embraced its opposite: an agenda of radical, experimental reform.

I often tell my students that there are only two genuine forms of conservatism alive in America today. The first is "values" conservatism, with its desire to preserve a traditional way of life premised on hard work and self-restraint, sexual modesty and heterosexual monogamy. The second is the strain of environmentalism that urges us to protect the natural world, live closer to the land, reduce our consumption and economic growth, and resist the allure of ambitious technological experiments.

Too often, we use the term "conservatism" loosely, to describe almost anything the Republican Party happens to endorse. But using it in this way mangles a deep and influential political tradition. Modern conservatism was born in the aftermath of the French Revolution, as a reaction to the Promethean hubris of revolutionary planners. In trying to reengineer European society using rational principles dictated from above, revolutionaries had unleashed tremendous destruction, instability, and violence. At its very core, conservatism is about protecting human lives and institutions from such radical, self-inflicted upheaval. The British conservative Michael Oakeshott, whose essay "On Being Conservative" remains one of the finest reflections on the subject, describes conservatism this way:

Alex Zakaras: Market Radicals: The GOP's Betrayal of Conservatism

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There are a lot of problems with this piece. American conservatives, for as long as that term has been applicable as a descriptor of anybody's political ideology in the U.S., has at the very least meant token rhetoric in favor of capitalism over state regulation. Whether or not they actually followed through being another story all together.

Another problem is the assumption that libertarianism has taken over the GOP. Where? We have two legislators, Justin Amash and Thomas Massie, who could be called libertarians, and one who leans libertarian occasionally, Rand Paul. Not exactly as impressive a takeover as is implied in this article. I see Republicans trying to sound more like libertarians, but that happens every time they're out of power. Nothing new there, and it is not an indication that libertarians have taken over.

Then the author takes Joseph Schumpeter out of context.

Let us begin with the obvious: though they deliver vast economic benefits, markets are tremendously disruptive forces in human life. Even capitalism's ardent defenders acknowledge as much. The Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, for example, famously described capitalism as a program of "creative destruction."

He leaves us to assume that Schumpeter believed there was a negative connotation to this "creative destruction," which is simply untrue. Schumpeter believed that capitalism simply destroyed that which was no longer of any use, and thus was a drain on the economy. He didn't think it was "disruptive," he thought it was excellent.

Then there's this gem.

During America's last three economic recoveries, for example, the benefits of economic growth flowed almost entirely to the wealthy; working-class families lost ground each time, even with help from government.

Maybe that happened because the government intervened and did so in a way obviously designed to benefit their favored constituencies. Is that so far from the realm of possibility?

A lot of faulty assumptions, and partisan grandstanding I think.

 

[DiamondDave]

A lot of faulty assumptions, and partisan grandstanding I think.

From huffo puffo?? Say it ain't so!

Hence why a winger troll like the OP likes it

 

[bripat9643]

Then there's this gem.

During America's last three economic recoveries, for example, the benefits of economic growth flowed almost entirely to the wealthy; working-class families lost ground each time, even with help from government.

Maybe that happened because the government intervened and did so in a way obviously designed to benefit their favored constituencies. Is that so far from the realm of possibility?

A lot of faulty assumptions, and partisan grandstanding I think.

It actually hasn't happened. Liberals claim it by quoting statistics about "family income" remaining constant over the last couple of decades. However, the average size of the family has steadily decreased over the same time period. So income per capita in real terms has increased. Families have decreased in size mostly because of the vast explosion of unmarried mothers. If there's anyone in washing to blame for the lack of income growth for families, it's liberal Democrats.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Then there's this gem.

During America's last three economic recoveries, for example, the benefits of economic growth flowed almost entirely to the wealthy; working-class families lost ground each time, even with help from government.

Maybe that happened because the government intervened and did so in a way obviously designed to benefit their favored constituencies. Is that so far from the realm of possibility?

A lot of faulty assumptions, and partisan grandstanding I think.

It actually hasn't happened. Liberals claim it by quoting statistics about "family income" remaining constant over the last couple of decades. However, the average size of the family has steadily decreased over the same time period. So income per capita in real terms has increased. Families have decreased in size mostly because of the vast explosion of unmarried mothers. If there's anyone in washing to blame for the lack of income growth for families, it's liberal Democrats.

Well I wasn't really commenting on working-class families allegedly losing ground.

 

[g5000]

The budget just released by House Republicans--and the ascendancy of Paul Ryan, its architect--marks the culmination of an important, long-term shift in the Republican Party. Over the last several decades, the party has abandoned political conservatism and embraced its opposite: an agenda of radical, experimental reform.

I often tell my students that there are only two genuine forms of conservatism alive in America today. The first is "values" conservatism, with its desire to preserve a traditional way of life premised on hard work and self-restraint, sexual modesty and heterosexual monogamy. The second is the strain of environmentalism that urges us to protect the natural world, live closer to the land, reduce our consumption and economic growth, and resist the allure of ambitious technological experiments.

Uh, no. That second one is conservationism. He left out a vowel.

Too often, we use the term "conservatism" loosely, to describe almost anything the Republican Party happens to endorse. But using it in this way mangles a deep and influential political tradition. Modern conservatism was born in the aftermath of the French Revolution, as a reaction to the Promethean hubris of revolutionary planners. In trying to reengineer European society using rational principles dictated from above, revolutionaries had unleashed tremendous destruction, instability, and violence. At its very core, conservatism is about protecting human lives and institutions from such radical, self-inflicted upheaval. The British conservative Michael Oakeshott, whose essay "On Being Conservative" remains one of the finest reflections on the subject, describes conservatism this way:

Alex Zakaras: Market Radicals: The GOP's Betrayal of Conservatism

So I am guessing you found that if you put the entire quote in quote tags, as you should have since none of this was your work, the forum software informed you that you had not typed enough characters. You have to type at least one character to make a post, and that is why you chose not to post another person's work inside quote tags as you should.

Cut and paste quotes without putting your own thoughts or opinions out there do not impress me.

 

[bendog]

Far enough, but he needs to nail it down with numbers. The gop (ahem, tea party) house says it wants a balanced budget in ten years, with no new taxes, and Obama's an obstuctionist. Do the math. You CANNOT GET THERE without fundamentally changing medicare and social security.

Make Your Own Deficit-Reduction Plan - WSJ.com

conservatism is now about privitizing medicare and soc sec and ending medicaid. It's also about ending clean air and water, but hell that's chump change.

 

[TruthOut10]

huffo puffo fluffo piece

Yet ones like you will complain when someone sources breitbart or whatever.. priceless

You gotta be amused when democrats tell republicans how republicans think.

Think? That's a rare commidity for Republicans these days, usually Faux Fake News tells your what to think and how to think.

But it wasn't a story at all trying to tell you what you think, he was giving the definition of what Conservative really means and what Conservatism USED to actually stand for.

As a matter of fact, he's more or less calling Liberals the "New Conservatives" to a degree.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The budget just released by House Republicans--and the ascendancy of Paul Ryan, its architect--marks the culmination of an important, long-term shift in the Republican Party. Over the last several decades, the party has abandoned political conservatism and embraced its opposite: an agenda of radical, experimental reform.

I often tell my students that there are only two genuine forms of conservatism alive in America today. The first is "values" conservatism, with its desire to preserve a traditional way of life premised on hard work and self-restraint, sexual modesty and heterosexual monogamy. The second is the strain of environmentalism that urges us to protect the natural world, live closer to the land, reduce our consumption and economic growth, and resist the allure of ambitious technological experiments.

Too often, we use the term "conservatism" loosely, to describe almost anything the Republican Party happens to endorse. But using it in this way mangles a deep and influential political tradition. Modern conservatism was born in the aftermath of the French Revolution, as a reaction to the Promethean hubris of revolutionary planners. In trying to reengineer European society using rational principles dictated from above, revolutionaries had unleashed tremendous destruction, instability, and violence. At its very core, conservatism is about protecting human lives and institutions from such radical, self-inflicted upheaval. The British conservative Michael Oakeshott, whose essay "On Being Conservative" remains one of the finest reflections on the subject, describes conservatism this way:

Alex Zakaras: Market Radicals: The GOP's Betrayal of Conservatism

A liberal attempting to define conservatism. That's funny.

 

[DiamondDave]

Think? That's a rare commidity for Republicans these days, usually Faux Fake News tells your what to think and how to think.

While he links and refers to huffo puffo.. LMFAO

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

huffo puffo fluffo piece

Yet ones like you will complain when someone sources breitbart or whatever.. priceless

You gotta be amused when democrats tell republicans how republicans think.

Think? That's a rare commidity for Republicans these days, usually Faux Fake News tells your what to think and how to think.

But it wasn't a story at all trying to tell you what you think, he was giving the definition of what Conservative really means and what Conservatism USED to actually stand for.

As a matter of fact, he's more or less calling Liberals the "New Conservatives" to a degree.

And gets it wrong in the process.