What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

[JohnL.Burke]

And of course those of the radical right are just as insulated from the worst consequences of their intolerance, hatred, racism, political correctness, reactionaryism, and fascist/Nazi social theories.

When no longer insulated from those worst consequences, how many would be instant converts to modern day American liberalism?

Actually, fascist/Nazi social theories were pretty liberal so your rebuttal doesn't make much sense.

Fascist/Nazi social theories were the antithesis of liberalism. As a matter of fact, liberal bashing in Europe in the 1920's was the precursor to fascism.

The Hard Road to Fascism

Today’s antiliberal revolt looks a lot like 1920s Europe.

Traditional conservatives have persistently criticized modern liberalism for its alleged “softness.” After the First World War right-wing German and Italian critics abused the governments of Weimar Germany and pre-Mussolini Italy for their commitment to social welfare, which their critics linked to an unwillingness to use force in international relations. To use Robert Kagan’s expression, the Weimar Republic could only do the dishes, not prepare the feast.

German and Italian critics of liberalism—writers such as Ernst Jünger and Giovanni Gentile—longed for the military spirit that allegedly typified the “front-fighter” generation that had lived through the horrors of trench warfare during World War I. The experience of war, they said, could redeem the anti-national Weimar Republic and the spineless decadence of Italian liberalism by reintroducing them to the necessity of using force—which would mean a much more ready resort to military power and a reorientation of government to promote its use. Both men and nations could thereby reestablish their virility.

Extreme right-wing theoreticians—for example, German jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt—believed that the European states in general had to choose between defending the interests of their national communities—at the end of the day by force—and sustaining a debilitating commitment to popular welfare, which more and more absorbed the energies of a weak-kneed liberalism that precariously clung to power in many European states. Schmitt believed that the state existed exclusively to oppose the enemies of the national community and ensure domestic order. Politics, he famously said, is founded on the friend-enemy polarity. Liberals had embarked on a fruitless crusade to escape inevitable political conflict within their societies by expanding the welfare function of the modern state to appease the demands of the masses, and thereby weakening its “executive function.”

The proximate causes of this revulsion against liberalism in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere are not far to seek. And the underlying anti-liberal logic was more cultural than political-economic. After defeat in World War I neither Germany nor Italy was able to advance its interests effectively in Europe. The Italians were widely regarded as pathetic soldiers. “The Italians,” Bismarck said, “have such large appetites and such poor teeth.” Giovanni Gentile, subsequently a Fascist minister for Mussolini, lamented the dolce far niente (“sweet do nothing&#8221 that he found characterized the Italians as a nation. As for the Germans, they had of course lost the war, but they were encouraged to believe that their armies and fighting men had not been defeated on the battlefield but had been betrayed by an unpatriotic cabal of Jews, Francophiles, liberals, and socialists.

So for these men and like-minded others, there was a necessary connection between reviving militarism and imperialism and curtailing the state’s commitment to popular welfare. Only a new political elite—battle-hardened, ruthless, and devoted to authoritarian government—could achieve the reforms needed to restore these states to the ranks of the European powerful. The new governments would not be parliamentary: talk shops never get anything done. In Italy the Fascist elite developed an imperial ideology focusing on Rome; in Germany, too, there was an imperial element—the “Thousand Year Empire”—although we correctly understand the racism of the National Socialists to have been their most memorable contribution to the horrors of the 20th century.

more

The word "nazi" of course is an abbreviation for "national socialist" referring to the NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS PARTY (nazi). Mussolini, of course, was a self professed socialist. He started the Fascist Party. Mussolini's economic policy was socialist just as Hitler's was. It's hard to think of a modern dictatorship that wasn't socialist. Even Mugabe in Africa has a socialist economic agenda. After all, if you run the economy then what doesn't the government own? Socialism and conservatism are diametrically opposed to each other. Conservatives don't hate big government because they don't want to help the poor. Conservatives want less government because the poor become poorer when the government gets larger. The middle class also gets poorer. It gets harder to strive towards a better existence when the government needs more of your money so it may incur more power (more bureaucrats, more IRS agents, more laws... i.e. police state). Conservatism is about teaching a man to fish as opposed to the government giving him a fish by apprehending the neighbors fish. Keep in mind though, 90 percent of this metaphorical neighbors fish goes to the government. Conservatives don't think apprehending more money can always cure a problem. Our failed school system is one example. Our ghettos and trailer parks are another example. It may seem that I wandered a bit but since I was here I thought I might as well respond to your posts 179 and 180 at the same time. They kind of dovetail into each other anyway.

 

[editec]

John I really have no complaints about any of the above.

Now let me ask you this...are today's conservatives (those in power, not the rank and file) really CONSERVATIVES as you define the word?

 

[beagle9]

You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.

I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.

Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.

So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but what you profess is not conservatism, it's narcissism.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Corporations and bad banksters are the reason we have broken the balance, and your man Clinton with his signing of Nafta has plunged this nation into the hole that it is in right now, so it's not just conservatism that is a problem here and there, but the whole of government and it's mismanaging of our nation over the years that has been a huge problem and let down.

NAFTA?

U.S. employment increased over the period of 1993-2007 from 110.8 million people to 137.6 million people. Specifically within NAFTA's first five years of existence, 709,988 jobs (140,000 annually), were created domestically. The mid to late nineties was a period of strong economic growth in the United States. Classical macroeconomic theory suggests that when a country is experiencing economic growth (i.e. GDP is increasing), then there will also be an increase in the participation of the labor force. Thus, because trade liberalization can sometimes contribute to increases in GDP, it can help to bring the rate of unemployment down in a country. The U.S. experienced a 48% increase in real GDP from 1993-2005. The unemployment rate over this period was an average of only 5.1%, compared to 7.1% from 1982-1993, before NAFTA was implemented. wiki

NAFTA was only the beginning of the long term problem coming, and it came, and it went, and it is still a major problem, because we are dealing in countries that compromised our values badly, and we even have had to go to war over much of this stuff indirectly speaking in many ways. The details are many, and much is hidden while some are right out in the open for us to see with our naked eye, and so it was like riding a wave, then the wave crashed us into the sea wall. I know collateral damage was expected right, so as soon as we get the generation whom don't have these values and morals left within them, well then it will all be A-OK right ?

 

[PMZ]

What is conservatism? In my opinion, it is respect for the past and the wisdom of our ancestors. Their lives were built on their ancestors and so it goes, from one generation to the next. You ultimately respect their lives and toil not by paying lip service to it or using empty rhetoric like 'family values'. You do it by embracing those values. You do it by making their hard earned lessons your easy learned lessons. You do it by respecting and fighting for the policies and programs they crafted that increased the benefits and lessened the losses to our communities and our society.

How did our ancestors craft these policies and programs, were they based on some ideology? I believe they were based on common decency, respect for your neighbors, common sense, experience, trial and error and a strong sense of community.

I was raised in the 1950's. My dad was the sole provider, and my mom was a housewife and mother. We didn't call it 'family values', we called it family. When I came home from school, no matter what kind of day I had, it became brighter as soon as I walked in the door to a 'hi honey' from my mom. It not only brightened my day, it built self worth and a positive self image. All my friends and school mates had a similar story...a father that worked and a mother that stayed home to raise and nurture their children. None of us kids ever knew or even cared what anyone else's father did for a living. None of us had to go without; food, clothing, pets, bikes, baseball gloves, doctor care (our doctor used to come to the house), a quality public education with all the extras; sports, arts, school run ice rink, summer swimming and sports programs etc. But none of us were pampered or spoiled either.

THAT is exactly what I want for my kids and for my grand-kids.

So...In a very real way I AM truly a conservative.

So, what is conservatism? I don't hear people that call themselves conservatives talk that way or think that way. I don't hear talk of building, I hear talk of tearing down. I don't hear talk of a helping hand, I hear talk of letting them fail. I don't hear talk of the public good, I hear talk about me and mine. I don't hear compassion for fellow citizens, I hear disdain. I never hear them talk about human capital, just mammon. These so called conservatives are ideologues that want to dismantle any shred of community and replace it with SELF interest.

That is not 'conservatism', that is called narcissism.

"You shall rise in the presence of grey hairs, give honor to the aged, and fear God, I am the Lord"
Leviticus 19:32

IMO, the problems of today stem from the discovery, by Rush I suppose, of the amount of money to be made by keeping conservatives angry. Of course the model that he followed was pretty ancient and had been the basis for Hitler and Mousillini's quest for power. Rush didn't want power but money.

Rupert followed suit, plus a pretty significant bunch of wannabes, plus the NRA, plus TV evangelists, and an industry was born.

Their product came at a time when the GOP was struggling, and they took full advantage of it.

That product, of course, isn't conservatism but extremism. Anger. One size fits all. Simple black and white solutions to complex problems. The evil government, and Democrats, and liberals, and unions, and environmentalists and other races and religions, and intellectuals, and foreigners, and taxes and regulations. Government too big. That's what to hate and hate and hate. Exactly the same shtic as the Taliban.

Everything delivered to maintain the brand is an inseparable mix of news and opinion. Delivered by Hollywood class actresses and angry men.

Fortunately, like all entertainment, it's a fad with a predictable life span. The fad is on the way out, but the GOP has no alternatives. No platform or candidates or solutions.

Will they recover? Stay tuned.

 

[PMZ]

I should probably clarify though that I don't necessarily see the individual liberal as being self righteous, superior, or 'better people', but I think that is how they see liberalism in general.

Conservatives I think are more pragmatic and put it into more pragmatic terms. We embrace conservatism because of our heartfelt convictions that it works. On average, for the long term, conservative concepts are more efficient, effective, compassionate, productive, and successful because they are based on individual initiative and freedom. Liberal concepts are well intended but too often result in unintended negative consequences.

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.

In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

more

And you didn't believe me when I said liberals couldn't articulate a concept without bashing specific conservatives or conservatives in general.

The problem is not conservatism, which sometimes offers a useful perspective and productive solutions. It's extremism, which is anger directed at everyone different, the belief that every problem stems from the absence of it, and the pretense that every solution comes from it.

Today's world, which extremists are trained to deny vehemently, is not between good and evil, which are undefinable, but is the battle between centrism and extremism, and it's worldwide.

 

[Foxfyre]

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.

In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

more

And you didn't believe me when I said liberals couldn't articulate a concept without bashing specific conservatives or conservatives in general.

The problem is not conservatism, which sometimes offers a useful perspective and productive solutions. It's extremism, which is anger directed at everyone different, the belief that every problem stems from the absence of it, and the pretense that every solution comes from it.

Today's world, which extremists are trained to deny vehemently, is not between good and evil, which are undefinable, but is the battle between centrism and extremism, and it's worldwide.

So define 'extremism' if you can WITHOUT mentioning specific events, conservatives, political parties, ideology, or Rush Limbaugh or any other personality.

 

[PMZ]

Corporations and bad banksters are the reason we have broken the balance, and your man Clinton with his signing of Nafta has plunged this nation into the hole that it is in right now, so it's not just conservatism that is a problem here and there, but the whole of government and it's mismanaging of our nation over the years that has been a huge problem and let down.

NAFTA?

U.S. employment increased over the period of 1993-2007 from 110.8 million people to 137.6 million people. Specifically within NAFTA's first five years of existence, 709,988 jobs (140,000 annually), were created domestically. The mid to late nineties was a period of strong economic growth in the United States. Classical macroeconomic theory suggests that when a country is experiencing economic growth (i.e. GDP is increasing), then there will also be an increase in the participation of the labor force. Thus, because trade liberalization can sometimes contribute to increases in GDP, it can help to bring the rate of unemployment down in a country. The U.S. experienced a 48% increase in real GDP from 1993-2005. The unemployment rate over this period was an average of only 5.1%, compared to 7.1% from 1982-1993, before NAFTA was implemented. wiki

NAFTA was only the beginning of the long term problem coming, and it came, and it went, and it is still a major problem, because we are dealing in countries that compromised our values badly, and we even have had to go to war over much of this stuff indirectly speaking in many ways. The details are many, and much is hidden while some are right out in the open for us to see with our naked eye, and so it was like riding a wave, then the wave crashed us into the sea wall. I know collateral damage was expected right, so as soon as we get the generation whom don't have these values and morals left within them, well then it will all be A-OK right ?

Free trade and morality are, somehow, connected?

 

[PMZ]

And you didn't believe me when I said liberals couldn't articulate a concept without bashing specific conservatives or conservatives in general.

The problem is not conservatism, which sometimes offers a useful perspective and productive solutions. It's extremism, which is anger directed at everyone different, the belief that every problem stems from the absence of it, and the pretense that every solution comes from it.

Today's world, which extremists are trained to deny vehemently, is not between good and evil, which are undefinable, but is the battle between centrism and extremism, and it's worldwide.

So define 'extremism' if you can WITHOUT mentioning specific events, conservatives, political parties, ideology, or Rush Limbaugh or any other personality.

Extremism is the belief in the preponderance of a specific philosophy or world view. That it is the source of most/all solutions and the absence of it the source of most/all problems.

For instance the Taliban believe that of their brand of Islam.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is not conservatism, which sometimes offers a useful perspective and productive solutions. It's extremism, which is anger directed at everyone different, the belief that every problem stems from the absence of it, and the pretense that every solution comes from it.

Today's world, which extremists are trained to deny vehemently, is not between good and evil, which are undefinable, but is the battle between centrism and extremism, and it's worldwide.

So define 'extremism' if you can WITHOUT mentioning specific events, conservatives, political parties, ideology, or Rush Limbaugh or any other personality.

Extremism is the belief in the preponderance of a specific philosophy or world view. That it is the source of most/all solutions and the absence of it the source of most/all problems.

For instance the Taliban believe that of their brand of Islam.

Expand please. Is there no belief that you consider to be a universal truth? There is no philosophy worth embracing or holding? All who believe in universal truths or who embrace a specific philosophy are extremists? Is that what you are saying?

 

[PMZ]

Actually, fascist/Nazi social theories were pretty liberal so your rebuttal doesn't make much sense.

Fascist/Nazi social theories were the antithesis of liberalism. As a matter of fact, liberal bashing in Europe in the 1920's was the precursor to fascism.

The Hard Road to Fascism

Today’s antiliberal revolt looks a lot like 1920s Europe.

Traditional conservatives have persistently criticized modern liberalism for its alleged “softness.” After the First World War right-wing German and Italian critics abused the governments of Weimar Germany and pre-Mussolini Italy for their commitment to social welfare, which their critics linked to an unwillingness to use force in international relations. To use Robert Kagan’s expression, the Weimar Republic could only do the dishes, not prepare the feast.

German and Italian critics of liberalism—writers such as Ernst Jünger and Giovanni Gentile—longed for the military spirit that allegedly typified the “front-fighter” generation that had lived through the horrors of trench warfare during World War I. The experience of war, they said, could redeem the anti-national Weimar Republic and the spineless decadence of Italian liberalism by reintroducing them to the necessity of using force—which would mean a much more ready resort to military power and a reorientation of government to promote its use. Both men and nations could thereby reestablish their virility.

Extreme right-wing theoreticians—for example, German jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt—believed that the European states in general had to choose between defending the interests of their national communities—at the end of the day by force—and sustaining a debilitating commitment to popular welfare, which more and more absorbed the energies of a weak-kneed liberalism that precariously clung to power in many European states. Schmitt believed that the state existed exclusively to oppose the enemies of the national community and ensure domestic order. Politics, he famously said, is founded on the friend-enemy polarity. Liberals had embarked on a fruitless crusade to escape inevitable political conflict within their societies by expanding the welfare function of the modern state to appease the demands of the masses, and thereby weakening its “executive function.”

The proximate causes of this revulsion against liberalism in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere are not far to seek. And the underlying anti-liberal logic was more cultural than political-economic. After defeat in World War I neither Germany nor Italy was able to advance its interests effectively in Europe. The Italians were widely regarded as pathetic soldiers. “The Italians,” Bismarck said, “have such large appetites and such poor teeth.” Giovanni Gentile, subsequently a Fascist minister for Mussolini, lamented the dolce far niente (“sweet do nothing”) that he found characterized the Italians as a nation. As for the Germans, they had of course lost the war, but they were encouraged to believe that their armies and fighting men had not been defeated on the battlefield but had been betrayed by an unpatriotic cabal of Jews, Francophiles, liberals, and socialists.

So for these men and like-minded others, there was a necessary connection between reviving militarism and imperialism and curtailing the state’s commitment to popular welfare. Only a new political elite—battle-hardened, ruthless, and devoted to authoritarian government—could achieve the reforms needed to restore these states to the ranks of the European powerful. The new governments would not be parliamentary: talk shops never get anything done. In Italy the Fascist elite developed an imperial ideology focusing on Rome; in Germany, too, there was an imperial element—the “Thousand Year Empire”—although we correctly understand the racism of the National Socialists to have been their most memorable contribution to the horrors of the 20th century.

more

The word "nazi" of course is an abbreviation for "national socialist" referring to the NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS PARTY (nazi). Mussolini, of course, was a self professed socialist. He started the Fascist Party. Mussolini's economic policy was socialist just as Hitler's was. It's hard to think of a modern dictatorship that wasn't socialist. Even Mugabe in Africa has a socialist economic agenda. After all, if you run the economy then what doesn't the government own? Socialism and conservatism are diametrically opposed to each other. Conservatives don't hate big government because they don't want to help the poor. Conservatives want less government because the poor become poorer when the government gets larger. The middle class also gets poorer. It gets harder to strive towards a better existence when the government needs more of your money so it may incur more power (more bureaucrats, more IRS agents, more laws... i.e. police state). Conservatism is about teaching a man to fish as opposed to the government giving him a fish by apprehending the neighbors fish. Keep in mind though, 90 percent of this metaphorical neighbors fish goes to the government. Conservatives don't think apprehending more money can always cure a problem. Our failed school system is one example. Our ghettos and trailer parks are another example. It may seem that I wandered a bit but since I was here I thought I might as well respond to your posts 179 and 180 at the same time. They kind of dovetail into each other anyway.

"Socialism and conservatism are diametrically opposed to each other."

What??

Socialism is an economic system defined by the ownership of the means of production of specific goods and services by all citizens. Our military is a good example. As compared to capitalism where the ownership of the means of production is by some citizens, or at the extreme, a citizen.

Virtually all countries in the world today employ both systems, depending on which goods and services.

Conservatism is not an economic system at all but a philosophy or worldview based on the presumption of scarcity, as compared to liberalism which is the presumption of plenty.

 

[PMZ]

So define 'extremism' if you can WITHOUT mentioning specific events, conservatives, political parties, ideology, or Rush Limbaugh or any other personality.

Extremism is the belief in the preponderance of a specific philosophy or world view. That it is the source of most/all solutions and the absence of it the source of most/all problems.

For instance the Taliban believe that of their brand of Islam.

Expand please. Is there no belief that you consider to be a universal truth? There is no philosophy worth embracing or holding? All who believe in universal truths or who embrace a specific philosophy are extremists? Is that what you are saying?

I don't believe that all problems nor all solutions stem from a single worldview.

I believe that all problems must be viewed within their context, and all solutions considered from all perspectives to uncover the most effective one.

In other words, extremism to me is a gross oversimplification of a complex world getting more so daily.

 

[Foxfyre]

Extremism is the belief in the preponderance of a specific philosophy or world view. That it is the source of most/all solutions and the absence of it the source of most/all problems.

For instance the Taliban believe that of their brand of Islam.

Expand please. Is there no belief that you consider to be a universal truth? There is no philosophy worth embracing or holding? All who believe in universal truths or who embrace a specific philosophy are extremists? Is that what you are saying?

I don't believe that all problems nor all solutions stem from a single worldview.

I believe that all problems must be viewed within their context, and all solutions considered from all perspectives to uncover the most effective one.

In other words, extremism to me is a gross oversimplification of a complex world getting more so daily.

Give me an example of what a gross oversimplication would be please. And please do so without referencing any group, person, entity, ideology, political party, etc.

 

[Bfgrn]

Actually, fascist/Nazi social theories were pretty liberal so your rebuttal doesn't make much sense.

Fascist/Nazi social theories were the antithesis of liberalism. As a matter of fact, liberal bashing in Europe in the 1920's was the precursor to fascism.

The Hard Road to Fascism

Today’s antiliberal revolt looks a lot like 1920s Europe.

Traditional conservatives have persistently criticized modern liberalism for its alleged “softness.” After the First World War right-wing German and Italian critics abused the governments of Weimar Germany and pre-Mussolini Italy for their commitment to social welfare, which their critics linked to an unwillingness to use force in international relations. To use Robert Kagan’s expression, the Weimar Republic could only do the dishes, not prepare the feast.

German and Italian critics of liberalism—writers such as Ernst Jünger and Giovanni Gentile—longed for the military spirit that allegedly typified the “front-fighter” generation that had lived through the horrors of trench warfare during World War I. The experience of war, they said, could redeem the anti-national Weimar Republic and the spineless decadence of Italian liberalism by reintroducing them to the necessity of using force—which would mean a much more ready resort to military power and a reorientation of government to promote its use. Both men and nations could thereby reestablish their virility.

Extreme right-wing theoreticians—for example, German jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt—believed that the European states in general had to choose between defending the interests of their national communities—at the end of the day by force—and sustaining a debilitating commitment to popular welfare, which more and more absorbed the energies of a weak-kneed liberalism that precariously clung to power in many European states. Schmitt believed that the state existed exclusively to oppose the enemies of the national community and ensure domestic order. Politics, he famously said, is founded on the friend-enemy polarity. Liberals had embarked on a fruitless crusade to escape inevitable political conflict within their societies by expanding the welfare function of the modern state to appease the demands of the masses, and thereby weakening its “executive function.”

The proximate causes of this revulsion against liberalism in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere are not far to seek. And the underlying anti-liberal logic was more cultural than political-economic. After defeat in World War I neither Germany nor Italy was able to advance its interests effectively in Europe. The Italians were widely regarded as pathetic soldiers. “The Italians,” Bismarck said, “have such large appetites and such poor teeth.” Giovanni Gentile, subsequently a Fascist minister for Mussolini, lamented the dolce far niente (“sweet do nothing”) that he found characterized the Italians as a nation. As for the Germans, they had of course lost the war, but they were encouraged to believe that their armies and fighting men had not been defeated on the battlefield but had been betrayed by an unpatriotic cabal of Jews, Francophiles, liberals, and socialists.

So for these men and like-minded others, there was a necessary connection between reviving militarism and imperialism and curtailing the state’s commitment to popular welfare. Only a new political elite—battle-hardened, ruthless, and devoted to authoritarian government—could achieve the reforms needed to restore these states to the ranks of the European powerful. The new governments would not be parliamentary: talk shops never get anything done. In Italy the Fascist elite developed an imperial ideology focusing on Rome; in Germany, too, there was an imperial element—the “Thousand Year Empire”—although we correctly understand the racism of the National Socialists to have been their most memorable contribution to the horrors of the 20th century.

more

The word "nazi" of course is an abbreviation for "national socialist" referring to the NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS PARTY (nazi). Mussolini, of course, was a self professed socialist. He started the Fascist Party. Mussolini's economic policy was socialist just as Hitler's was. It's hard to think of a modern dictatorship that wasn't socialist. Even Mugabe in Africa has a socialist economic agenda. After all, if you run the economy then what doesn't the government own? Socialism and conservatism are diametrically opposed to each other. Conservatives don't hate big government because they don't want to help the poor. Conservatives want less government because the poor become poorer when the government gets larger. The middle class also gets poorer. It gets harder to strive towards a better existence when the government needs more of your money so it may incur more power (more bureaucrats, more IRS agents, more laws... i.e. police state). Conservatism is about teaching a man to fish as opposed to the government giving him a fish by apprehending the neighbors fish. Keep in mind though, 90 percent of this metaphorical neighbors fish goes to the government. Conservatives don't think apprehending more money can always cure a problem. Our failed school system is one example. Our ghettos and trailer parks are another example. It may seem that I wandered a bit but since I was here I thought I might as well respond to your posts 179 and 180 at the same time. They kind of dovetail into each other anyway.

Holy COW. The WHOLE world revolves around YOUR parochial indoctrination and YOUR definition of conservatism...WOW! Tell me Burke, would a conservative in Russia want to 'conserve' capitalism? The US Constitution?? The beliefs of Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton???

And here is your other problem...conservatives have NEVER given us less government. When in power, they have GROWN government. MORE than liberals and Democrats.

 

[Bfgrn]

Don't misunderstand me. Most liberals really aren't hateful, insulting people. Nor are most conservatives. But either can be that way on a message board with the anonymity it allows. But that isn't what I'm talking about.

What I am talking about is I don't think most liberals could describe an America that was all liberal--devoid of conservatives--without continuing to bash conservatism and point to conservatives they hate. And so far none of them have. That is what I mean about most liberals not being able to articulate, define, express, and defend a liberal principle or concept. Liberals seem to be mostly people who operate on a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people' that is based on feelings rather than any concrete concepts. And that is why I think liberals would be shocked at how inefficient and unworkable those concept would be if they were given free rein to implement them.

I think most conservatives can easily articulate conservative values and principles and can describe a conservative America without referring to a single liberal or putting down anybody. And I think conservatives would enjoy running the country based on conservative values and principles and it would feel quite natural and normal to them to do so.

And nevertheless, both the liberal and the conservative can be exemplary members of their communities, moral, upstanding, likable, personable people.

My GOD, that is SO far outside the realm of reality, it is mindbogglingly. Conservatism IS liberal bashing and hating. It is the glue that holds conservatism together. Take a day and listen to Rush Limbaugh or any of the conservative radio hate mongers. Then take a day and listen to Thom Hartmann.

UN-believable. Conservatives are the epitome of a sense of superiority, righteousness, and just being 'better people'

See what I mean folks?

Those were YOUR words, not mine.

Unbelievable FF. Talk about being righteous and BLIND.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

John I really have no complaints about any of the above.

Now let me ask you this...are today's conservatives (those in power, not the rank and file) really CONSERVATIVES as you define the word?

Some are, some aren't. I believe conservatives have their idiots, morons and extremists. I'm sure some on this site would would consider me one of these nouns. I tend to roll my eyes though at people who target the conservative morons but blithely pretend Liberal morons don't exist. Every group has its idiots. It's as if I said all hippies are murderers because just look at Charles Manson. It's the broad brush strokes intended to define an entire people for political purposes I detest. To be fair though, I've done the same thing. LOL!

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Fascist/Nazi social theories were the antithesis of liberalism. As a matter of fact, liberal bashing in Europe in the 1920's was the precursor to fascism.

The Hard Road to Fascism

Today’s antiliberal revolt looks a lot like 1920s Europe.

Traditional conservatives have persistently criticized modern liberalism for its alleged “softness.” After the First World War right-wing German and Italian critics abused the governments of Weimar Germany and pre-Mussolini Italy for their commitment to social welfare, which their critics linked to an unwillingness to use force in international relations. To use Robert Kagan’s expression, the Weimar Republic could only do the dishes, not prepare the feast.

German and Italian critics of liberalism—writers such as Ernst Jünger and Giovanni Gentile—longed for the military spirit that allegedly typified the “front-fighter” generation that had lived through the horrors of trench warfare during World War I. The experience of war, they said, could redeem the anti-national Weimar Republic and the spineless decadence of Italian liberalism by reintroducing them to the necessity of using force—which would mean a much more ready resort to military power and a reorientation of government to promote its use. Both men and nations could thereby reestablish their virility.

Extreme right-wing theoreticians—for example, German jurist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt—believed that the European states in general had to choose between defending the interests of their national communities—at the end of the day by force—and sustaining a debilitating commitment to popular welfare, which more and more absorbed the energies of a weak-kneed liberalism that precariously clung to power in many European states. Schmitt believed that the state existed exclusively to oppose the enemies of the national community and ensure domestic order. Politics, he famously said, is founded on the friend-enemy polarity. Liberals had embarked on a fruitless crusade to escape inevitable political conflict within their societies by expanding the welfare function of the modern state to appease the demands of the masses, and thereby weakening its “executive function.”

The proximate causes of this revulsion against liberalism in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere are not far to seek. And the underlying anti-liberal logic was more cultural than political-economic. After defeat in World War I neither Germany nor Italy was able to advance its interests effectively in Europe. The Italians were widely regarded as pathetic soldiers. “The Italians,” Bismarck said, “have such large appetites and such poor teeth.” Giovanni Gentile, subsequently a Fascist minister for Mussolini, lamented the dolce far niente (“sweet do nothing&#8221 that he found characterized the Italians as a nation. As for the Germans, they had of course lost the war, but they were encouraged to believe that their armies and fighting men had not been defeated on the battlefield but had been betrayed by an unpatriotic cabal of Jews, Francophiles, liberals, and socialists.

So for these men and like-minded others, there was a necessary connection between reviving militarism and imperialism and curtailing the state’s commitment to popular welfare. Only a new political elite—battle-hardened, ruthless, and devoted to authoritarian government—could achieve the reforms needed to restore these states to the ranks of the European powerful. The new governments would not be parliamentary: talk shops never get anything done. In Italy the Fascist elite developed an imperial ideology focusing on Rome; in Germany, too, there was an imperial element—the “Thousand Year Empire”—although we correctly understand the racism of the National Socialists to have been their most memorable contribution to the horrors of the 20th century.

more

The word "nazi" of course is an abbreviation for "national socialist" referring to the NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS PARTY (nazi). Mussolini, of course, was a self professed socialist. He started the Fascist Party. Mussolini's economic policy was socialist just as Hitler's was. It's hard to think of a modern dictatorship that wasn't socialist. Even Mugabe in Africa has a socialist economic agenda. After all, if you run the economy then what doesn't the government own? Socialism and conservatism are diametrically opposed to each other. Conservatives don't hate big government because they don't want to help the poor. Conservatives want less government because the poor become poorer when the government gets larger. The middle class also gets poorer. It gets harder to strive towards a better existence when the government needs more of your money so it may incur more power (more bureaucrats, more IRS agents, more laws... i.e. police state). Conservatism is about teaching a man to fish as opposed to the government giving him a fish by apprehending the neighbors fish. Keep in mind though, 90 percent of this metaphorical neighbors fish goes to the government. Conservatives don't think apprehending more money can always cure a problem. Our failed school system is one example. Our ghettos and trailer parks are another example. It may seem that I wandered a bit but since I was here I thought I might as well respond to your posts 179 and 180 at the same time. They kind of dovetail into each other anyway.

"Socialism and conservatism are diametrically opposed to each other."

What??

Socialism is an economic system defined by the ownership of the means of production of specific goods and services by all citizens. Our military is a good example. As compared to capitalism where the ownership of the means of production is by some citizens, or at the extreme, a citizen.

Virtually all countries in the world today employ both systems, depending on which goods and services.

Conservatism is not an economic system at all but a philosophy or worldview based on the presumption of scarcity, as compared to liberalism which is the presumption of plenty.

I don't really agree with your definition of conservatives and liberals so we are already on different pages. I find it's the liberals who always caution of an apocalypse around the corner every time an oil platform goes up . We don't have enough oil and gas. Liberals always want to ration everything or we'll run out of it. The liberal left has played on people's fears for over a century. The ice age is coming, Global warming (I think it's called Climate Change now). Remember the whole Soylent Green scenario in the 70's when overpopulation was going to deplete all our resources? The liberal left even thought that SPACE was going to be scarce on this planet. Of course the cure for all these "apocalyptic tragedies" around the corner was (and is) always the same. Big government.

 

[Foxfyre]

John I really have no complaints about any of the above.

Now let me ask you this...are today's conservatives (those in power, not the rank and file) really CONSERVATIVES as you define the word?

Some are, some aren't. I believe conservatives have their idiots, morons and extremists. I'm sure some on this site would would consider me one of these nouns. I tend to roll my eyes though at people who target the conservative morons but blithely pretend Liberal morons don't exist. Every group has its idiots. It's as if I said all hippies are murderers because just look at Charles Manson. It's the broad brush strokes intended to define an entire people for political purposes I detest. To be fair though, I've done the same thing. LOL!

And there are those who call themselves 'conservative' or 'libertarian' or 'progressive' or whatever who have completely different definitions of that than I and many other conservatives do. And those definitions generally involve their perception, positive or negative, of a person, entity, political party or whatever along with the assigned message board terms assigned to those same people or groups.

This is why I am urging members to define their terms WITHOUT using people, entities, organizations, political parties, ideologies, etc. in lieu of a clear, well thought out, concept of what that definition means.

It is my opinion that some of our conservative friends and almost all of our progressive friends here cannot do that. That is because their world view is based on who or what they admire or who or what they despise rather than on any clear principle that forms their point of view.

 

[PMZ]

Expand please. Is there no belief that you consider to be a universal truth? There is no philosophy worth embracing or holding? All who believe in universal truths or who embrace a specific philosophy are extremists? Is that what you are saying?

I don't believe that all problems nor all solutions stem from a single worldview.

I believe that all problems must be viewed within their context, and all solutions considered from all perspectives to uncover the most effective one.

In other words, extremism to me is a gross oversimplification of a complex world getting more so daily.

Give me an example of what a gross oversimplication would be please. And please do so without referencing any group, person, entity, ideology, political party, etc.

That government is too big. To me, that's like the corporate idiosy that says that all departments must cut by 5%.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't believe that all problems nor all solutions stem from a single worldview.

I believe that all problems must be viewed within their context, and all solutions considered from all perspectives to uncover the most effective one.

In other words, extremism to me is a gross oversimplification of a complex world getting more so daily.

Give me an example of what a gross oversimplication would be please. And please do so without referencing any group, person, entity, ideology, political party, etc.

That government is too big. To me, that's like the corporate idiosy that says that all departments must cut by 5%.

So those of us who think the government is too big are extremists? Really? That is your definition of extremism?

For me to say the government is too big and/or costs too much saves a lot of time of not having to write half a page explaining that I see the federal government as bloated, out of control, engaged in functions never intended by the Constitution, excessively expensive, ineffective, inefficient, self serving, and excessively powerful to the extent that our unalienable rights are threatened or already compromised and the economy is drained of much of its vitality and ability to expand.

And from that, I can go point by point to explain the problems I see which would require a sizable manuscript to hold it all.

It saves a whole lot of time saying the government is too big.

But if saying 'the government is too big' is extremist to you, how would you word it to express a government that has overreached or has overflowed its intended boundaries?

 

[Bfgrn]

The word "nazi" of course is an abbreviation for "national socialist" referring to the NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS PARTY (nazi). Mussolini, of course, was a self professed socialist. He started the Fascist Party. Mussolini's economic policy was socialist just as Hitler's was. It's hard to think of a modern dictatorship that wasn't socialist. Even Mugabe in Africa has a socialist economic agenda. After all, if you run the economy then what doesn't the government own? Socialism and conservatism are diametrically opposed to each other. Conservatives don't hate big government because they don't want to help the poor. Conservatives want less government because the poor become poorer when the government gets larger. The middle class also gets poorer. It gets harder to strive towards a better existence when the government needs more of your money so it may incur more power (more bureaucrats, more IRS agents, more laws... i.e. police state). Conservatism is about teaching a man to fish as opposed to the government giving him a fish by apprehending the neighbors fish. Keep in mind though, 90 percent of this metaphorical neighbors fish goes to the government. Conservatives don't think apprehending more money can always cure a problem. Our failed school system is one example. Our ghettos and trailer parks are another example. It may seem that I wandered a bit but since I was here I thought I might as well respond to your posts 179 and 180 at the same time. They kind of dovetail into each other anyway.

"Socialism and conservatism are diametrically opposed to each other."

What??

Socialism is an economic system defined by the ownership of the means of production of specific goods and services by all citizens. Our military is a good example. As compared to capitalism where the ownership of the means of production is by some citizens, or at the extreme, a citizen.

Virtually all countries in the world today employ both systems, depending on which goods and services.

Conservatism is not an economic system at all but a philosophy or worldview based on the presumption of scarcity, as compared to liberalism which is the presumption of plenty.

I don't really agree with your definition of conservatives and liberals so we are already on different pages. I find it's the liberals who always caution of an apocalypse around the corner every time an oil platform goes up . We don't have enough oil and gas. Liberals always want to ration everything or we'll run out of it. The liberal left has played on people's fears for over a century. The ice age is coming, Global warming (I think it's called Climate Change now). Remember the whole Soylent Green scenario in the 70's when overpopulation was going to deplete all our resources? The liberal left even thought that SPACE was going to be scarce on this planet. Of course the cure for all these "apocalyptic tragedies" around the corner was (and is) always the same. Big government.

Well conserve-a-tives certainly don't believe in conservation. I have often joked: "If God created trees, shouldn't liberals be the ones calling CONSERVE-atives tree huggers?"

And I find conservatives not only dismiss climate change, they don't even believe pollution, poisons and carcinogens are harmful to human, fish and foul. Listen to the rants of socialism and the end of capitalism when the EPA forces coal burning power plants to comply to clean air standards 20 YEARS after the law was written. Conservatives have no curiosity or question that the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that deny climate change are the very same think tanks and 'scientists' that denied cigarettes cause cancer, AND they are funded by the biggest polluters on the planet.

And when a Democrat proposes cap and trade, conservative forget it was a conservative created market based solution to address environmental problems instead of prescriptive "command and control" regulation.

I mentioned Russia earlier. What many Americans don't know or understand is Russia is a very conservative country. More conservative that America. And when you look at the environmental policies of the communists, and the severe environmental damage left behind and their nuclear policies that has created a global cataclysmic ticking time bomb, the environmental views, policies and philosophies of the communists and conservatives in America are identical.