► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘conservatism’

« Older Entries

Barry Goldwater’s ‘Conscience of a Conservative’ Chapter 2

by coldwarrior ( 107 Comments › )
Filed under Barry Goldwater, Democratic Party, Open thread, Politics, Republican Party at August 26th, 2013 - 3:00 pm

Barry Goldwater’s ‘Conscience of a Conservative’ Chapter 1

So…onto chapter 2. ‘The Perils of Power’

Goldwater’s opening paragraph hits with both fists.

The New Deal, Dean Acheson wrote approvingly in a book called “A Democrat Looks at His Party’ , “conceived of the federal government as the whole people organized to do what had to be done .” A year later Mr Larson wrot A Republican Looks At His Party , and made much the same claim as in his book for Modern Republicans. The ‘underlying philosophy’ of the New Republicanism, said Mr Larson, is “that is a job has to be done to meet the needs of the people, and no one else can do it, then it is the proper function of the federal government.’

Let that sink in.

Both parties utterly and completely repudiate the founding principle of limited government. Things have not changed either. Many in the GOP and the Dems both are for larger and larger government. One is just for slower growth of government. The end result is the same, Leviathan without a defined limit, an endlessly expanding monster fed by both sides of the aisle! What of the founding principles?

He continues: ‘…and they propound the first principle of totalitarianism: that the State is competent to do all things and is limited in what it actually does only by the will of those who control the state.’  .
This view, both from the democrats and republicans is in direct conflict with and total disrespect for the Constitution that is intended to limit the functions and scope and size of government!
This same expanding government, be it run by democrats or many of the GOP, cannot outrun the historical legacy that government is the single most powerful and ‘chief instrument for thwarting man’s liberty’.

So, we are back to the Hobbes v Locke arguments again. Goldwater says that State power preforming the legitimate functions of government should not restrict freedom, but absolute power always does, this creates a sliding scale from true anarchy to police state.  A government that ‘can’ restrict freedoms ultimately will. Lets place Obamacare and the recent NSA spying in this box. Power is the drug, the sex, in DC.

The founders lived through the single authority, state as master, absolute political system. They understood that the natural tendency of government is to move toward absolutism. The founders created a system where power is separated and spread on several layers of government that should always be protective of its own power and by being that, check the other branches of government. Sadly. This has failed, especially in the relationship between the States and Fedgov.

So, how to measure Fedgov? First, size of financial operations as a percent of GDP over time. We don’t have to get into this here as it is known by all. Second, scope of activities in things like land ownership, medicine, insurer, mortgage broker, employer, debtor, taxer and spender, ponzi scheme manager in Social Security. Third, how much of the people’s earning, their blood and sweat, does Fedgov take in the form of taxes? Fourth, what is the extent of government interference in the day to day lives of the citizens? We are no longer a country of law, we are a country of regulation where each individual has to operate every day in a smaller and smaller box of compliance. Everyone on this blog has heard me rail about this.

SO how did we get here? Easy, both sides lied to us. the Dems lied to us on how far and how big government would be expanded and the GOP lied that it would cut the size of government down in real terms. We are suckers of the first order. Lets just spend a little on this, hey, you like this program…well, everyone likes their own pets. We have traded liberty for security since 9/11. We have failed Franklin’s tests. First: “A Republic, if you can keep it”, and second, ‘They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’

How do we step back and reverse the ever larger and ever intrusive government that will in the end become the Leviathan? Goldwater offers this, “The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of or affairs to men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power that they have been given.”

Are there any out there?  Who will take this to the stump:

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is to not pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I first determine if it is Constitutionally permissible. And if I should ever be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests’ I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

Personal liberty, State’s right’s, and smaller government. Is that so much to ask?

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Barry Goldwater, Democratic Party, Open thread, Politics, Republican Party | 107 Comments »

Barry Goldwater’s ‘Conscience of a Conservative’ Chapter 1

by coldwarrior ( 98 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Barry Goldwater, Economy, History, Politics at August 21st, 2013 - 3:00 pm

Good Day everyone. I am going to start to break down Barry Goldwater’s ‘Conscience of a Conservative’ , written in 1960, by chapter. There is no doubt that this book should be read by everyone who calls themselves a ‘Conservative’. Will Goldwater’s definition of conservative match up with today’s conservatives? Where would Goldwater fit in today’s political continuum?

This is the 3d or 4th time that I have read his book. First time was 30 years a go or so. His views and ideas struck me as something obvious.  They still do, they make perfect sense, yet somehow he (as well as William F Buckley) have fallen out of the ‘conservative’ pantheon for many on this side of the aisle. Please purchase the book and read it. You can find a digital copy at Amazon for cheap.

The book was ghostwritten by L. Brent Bozell Jr., brother-in-law of William F. Buckley.[1] Bozell and Buckley had been members of Yale’s debate team. They had co-authored the controversial book, McCarthy and His Enemies, in 1955. Bozell had been Goldwater’s speechwriter in the 1950s, and was familiar with many of his ideals. The first edition, 1960, is 123 pages in length and was published in the United States. The book covers such topics as education, labor unions and policies, civil rights, agricultural policy and farm subsidies, social welfare programs, and income taxation. The book is considered to be a significant statement of politically and economically American conservative ideas which were to gain influence during the following decades.[1]

Goldwater begins by arguing that conservatism is not a mechanistic economic only philosophy but one that is in fact comprehensive in scope and application and should never be apologized for nor modified with labels as ‘progressive conservative’ or ‘conservative with a heart’. ‘Compassionate Conservative’ certainly falls in the no-no with the rest of modifiers that are aimed to distance one from actual conservatism yet let that candidate somehow still claim to in fact be a conservative. And sadly, many on our side willing take the bait.

First, He goes on to explain that conservatism is not an economic theory but has economic  implications. Socialism/liberalism ‘subordinates all other considerations to man’s material well being. It is conservatism that puts material things in their proper place’ within a proper human society where the economics is in a subordinate role. He argues though that man is in fact an economic animal with spiritual needs and desires, needs and desires to be free.  Liberals fight against Nature by attempting to harness society’s economic and political forces in a collective effort ; to control them in the name of ‘progress’. This fails because, as he argues, the nature of man is not in a controlled collective but one who is free of the yoke of tyranny.

Second, that each man is unique argues the conservative. All men are the same argues the liberal. ‘Only a philosophy that takes into account the essential differences between men, and , accordingly , makes provisions for developing the different potentialities of each man can claim to be in accord with nature’. Man assigned and consigned to  an ‘undifferentiated mass’ is doomed to slavery. Personal Liberty, the government off of your back without the ever smaller box of compliance in which we live is the only way to prevent the slavery that comes with too large a government; slavery of the spirit comes when your personal liberties and freedoms are taken away or even eroded over time, economic slavery comes with debt and taxes from too large a government.

The conservative will know that the economic and the spiritual are permanently intertwined. If you are enslaved politically, you are not economically free. If you are dependent on the state, your freedom is an illusion.

Third, an outside force cannot direct man’s development in the spiritual and economic  realm. Every man is responsible for his own development. He must make the choices that define his life; a free man is free to live without interference from government or liberals for that matter. Goldwater was prescient here. Look at the size and scope of American government since the first printing of his book!

Conservatives never regard man as a pawn of another man nor part of a collective. The conservative throughout history has been at odds with both the autocrat and the mob rule so called ‘democratic’ Jacobins. ‘The conscience of a conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being’. This means big government/big spenders on the left and right as well as anyone who would attempt to control man either by collective action or by making him an economic slave through taxes and debt.

He finished the chapter by explaining that the goal of a conservative is to achieve the maximum amount of freedom for the individual that is consistent with the maintenance of the social order. This is the classic Hobbes v Locke discussion and is one that will never end and sways back and forth as the political pendulum moves.  The way to achieve the goal is to preserve and extend freedoms, always ask ‘are we maximizing freedoms?’

 

*up next, Chapter 2 ‘The Perils of Power’

 

Rand Paul on Goldwater

Goldwater at the 1964 Republican Convention

The transcript of the 1964 RNC speech

Tags: , ,
Posted in Academia, Barry Goldwater, Economy, History, Politics | 98 Comments »

America’s lost Generation

by Phantom Ace ( 109 Comments › )
Filed under Business, Conservatism, Economy, Elections 2012, Republican Party, unemployment at September 22nd, 2011 - 5:00 pm

The economic slump of the last 3 years and the 7 years of anemic economic growth before that have done damaged to my generation (30’s) and the one following me (20’s).  Unlike the generation Baby Boomers before us, it has been difficult for us to accumlate wealth. Our wages have been stagant, hence making it difficult to save money. Lack of saving money prevents many of us to invest and gain wealth. This is leading towards dissilsionment among many in my age group and younger about the future.

Barack Obama promised and many young people believed that he would deliver a better tommorow for them. Isntead he doubled the debt in 2 1/2 years, thus mortaging my generation and the one after mine’s future. This has only increased the pessimisim. We are on the verge of being the first generation in American history of being worse off then the previous. This should be unacceptable in America.

In record-setting numbers, young adults struggling to find work are shunning long-distance moves to live with Mom and Dad, delaying marriage and buying fewer homes, often raising kids out of wedlock. They suffer from the highest unemployment since World War II and risk living in poverty more than others – nearly 1 in 5.

New 2010 census data released Thursday show the wrenching impact of a recession that officially ended in mid-2009. It highlights the missed opportunities and dim prospects for a generation of mostly 20-somethings and 30-somethings coming of age in a prolonged slump with high unemployment.

“We have a monster jobs problem, and young people are the biggest losers,” said Andrew Sum, an economist and director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. He noted that for recent college grads now getting by with waitressing, bartending and odd jobs, they will have to compete with new graduates for entry-level career positions when the job market eventually does improve.

Read the rest: Recession taking toll on young adults

This should be unacceptable and it needs to be remedied. Conservatives have a historic opportunity to cement younger voters into their coalition. Seeing that Progressive policies have failed, the Right should begin to reach out to younger voters and explain how Conservative policies work. The problem is that elements of the modern Conservative movement is very anti-Youth. They dismiss what ever the popular fad is among the young. They lament how today’s youth is corrupt, mimicking the same arguments their elders said of them. This has turned of many younger people in their 20’s to Conservatism. The Right appears judgemental and cranky. This wasn’t always the case.

When the original  Conservative movement was founded in the late 50’s and early 60’s by William Buckley, it was perceived as new and innovative. Barry Goldwater won the 64 nomination on the back of young idealistic Republicans. Ronald Reagan won the Youth vote in 80 and 84, thus cementing a generation of Republican voters. Reagan’s Conservatism of the 1980’s was very attractive to young people. It extol the virtues of Capitalism and wealth creation. Reagan’s Conservatism was optimistic and forward looking. Reagan Conservatism was viewed as cool and many young people who were not of voting age like me, were inspired by his optimistic vision. Reagan appealed to the youth because he knew they were the future. Then something changed in Conservatism.

I will not get into the details of where it went negative, but too much of today’s Conservatism is backward looking and lecturing. It’s more Reactionary and not Conservative. This is a turn off to younger voters, even myself at times. The Conservative movement needs to get back to the way it was in the 1980’s. We need to bring back Reagan era optimism and results. One way Reagan won over younger voters was by creating the 80’s boom, where many in their 20’s accumalted wealth. He proved Conservatism can work and improve people’s lives.

Conservatives should be at the forefront of addressing the problems of America’s lost generations of 20 and 30 years olds. America’s future is at stake.

 

Tags: , ,
Posted in Business, Conservatism, Economy, Elections 2012, Republican Party, unemployment | 109 Comments »

One of my favorite books

by Phantom Ace ( 159 Comments › )
Filed under Open thread, Republican Party at May 25th, 2011 - 8:00 pm

I usually criticize the GOP to the chagrin of some here. I do so because I was raised as Republican by my Grandfather. Back in the 80’s the GOP was about economic opportunity. They were tough on crime and were standing up to Communism. Unfortunately this is not the GOP of today. Today America faces economic stagnation and an Islamic threat. With few exceptions, the modern GOP doesn’t address the economic problems and doesn’t view Islam as a threat as they viewed Communism. Granted the Democrats are outright evil and want to transform America into a 3rd world nation, but the Republican Party can and should do better. It needs to go back to Reagan era principles to combat economic stagnation and the Islamic threat.

On that note, here is one of my favorite books, Ronald Reagan: The Wisdom and Humor of the Great Communicator. This book came out in 1995. I was in Manhattan doing a DJ gig at the old Latin Quarters. I had read that Nancy Reagan was doing a book signing around 11am at a Barnes and Noble. I crashed at my cousin’s house in Queens because by this time I was living out on Long Island with my then fiance. I went to the book signing and was online for 2 hours. Finally it was my turn and I got her signature.

It was a very proud moment of my life. I grew up admiring Reagan and his style of Conservatism. That’s why I am saddened by the state of today’s GOP. Elected Republicans are supporting the Islamic agenda by backing the illegal Libyan War to help Al-Qaeda. They turn a blind eye to the killing of Christians in Egypt. A modern Reagan would be condemning these Islamic atrocities and speaking out on the evils of Political Islam. A modern Reagan would address the economic concerns of America with practical Conservative based solutions.

I sometimes wounder, will we ever have Reagan-like President again? Is America just going the way of other great powers? It’s possible we are going through what Rome went through in the 3rd Century crisis, until Aurelian appeared and brought back order.

I just want to be proud of my President. I want to know that their concern is the nation and not academic theories. I will back whoever the GOP run against Obama, but I’m tired of not liking our President. I didn’t like Papa Bush, Clinton, or Baby Bush and I hate Barack Hussein Obama. I want to like a President again and know they are looking out for this nation’s interest. Is this too much to ask for?

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Open thread, Republican Party | 159 Comments »

« Older Entries