If I'm not mistaken, Bismarck was the original paleo-con.
American and European conservatives are rather dramtically different, and especially not-British ones of more then 50 years ago. The root of the issue is what they seek to conserve.
Bismarck invented the modern welfare state to gain the support of the lower classes to maintain the monarchy (a fact lost on most ignorant leftists). Basically the left of his time agreed to trade voting rights for limited socialism.
While Bismarck was trying to conserve the monarchy, the predecessors of the current American conservative movement, who were called *liberals* at the time, were creating, expanding, and maintaining the free society and representative government as described in the US Constitution.
So modern American conservatives conserve freedom. Rather different from the monarchists of 1800s continental Europe.
I never quite understood the appeal of monarchical conservatism. Especially in nations that would otherwise be liberal democracies, such as the United Kingdom.
I understand the necessity in backward, underdeveloped countries such as Afghanistan, Nepal, the smaller Gulf states, etc., but I don't see how having Queen Elizabeth II as your head of state is really doing the Canadians or Australians any favors.
I agree with your assessment of the Continental divide over the definition of conservative principles.
Give it a rest! These guys are only conservatives in comparison with the Jose Bove, anarchistic freaks who serve as their political counterparts on the "left."
Most of the European parliamentary parties who are labeled "conservative", e.g. the People's Party, the Freedom Party, Umberto Bossi's Northern League, are in fact, merely right-wing. There is a significant difference between the two terms.
The media should know that by now.
posted on 05/25/2004 1:24:19 AM PDT
by The Scourge of Yazid
("Why don't we just ask Gerard? Gerard knows everything.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson