Posted on 05/09/2008 5:37:28 AM PDT by bahblahbah
For years, American and British politics were in sync. Reagan came in roughly the same time as Thatcher, and Clinton’s Third Way approach mirrored Blair’s. But the British conservatives never had a Gingrich revolution in the 1990s or the Bush victories thereafter. They got their losing in early, and, in the wilderness, they rethought modern conservatism while their American counterparts were clinging to power.
Today, British conservatives are on the way up, while American conservatives are on the way down. British conservatives have moved beyond Thatcherism, while American conservatives pine for another Reagan. The British Conservative Party enjoyed a series of stunning victories in local elections last week, while polls show American voters thoroughly rejecting the Republican brand.
The flow of ideas has changed direction. It used to be that American conservatives shaped British political thinking. Now the influence is going the other way.
The British conservative renovation begins with this insight: The central political debate of the 20th century was over the role of government. The right stood for individual freedom while the left stood for extending the role of the state. But the central debate of the 21st century is over quality of life. In this new debate, it is necessary but insufficient to talk about individual freedom. Political leaders have to also talk about, as one Tory politician put it, “the whole way we live our lives.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Give the US a dose of Obammyism and see what happens. One of the reasons the Gip won two landslides was Jimmah Cahtah.
Centrism isn't the cause for the Conservative's recent successes here in the UK. Labour got panned at the council elections because of their long history of grinding tax-hikes and colossal ineptitude. It would have been hard for us (the Conservatives) to lose.
IMO, Fred Thompson's campaign for Federalism was on target to address this. Too bad it did not resonate this time around.
“Conservatives need to focus a lot more on encouraging social entrepreneurship.”
“Social entrepreneurship” is an oxymoron. The decadence and massive government programs of the Democrats since the Great Society have created an entire class of Americans who believe that they don’t need to be responsible for their own lives or even support their own children. Literally trillions of of taxpayer dollars have been squandered with the net effect that millions of Americans believe that every time something goes wrong in their lives it is the responsibility of the government to fix it using other people’s money. Energy prices go up because of government policies restricting drilling for new supply. Ask the politicians to fix it. The assumption is that other peoples money will never run out. The problem is that it has and we are becoming a decadent, disfunctional society deep in debt with trillions of dollars in unfunded government liabilities. The smaller and smaller productive class in America does not have enough money to fund all these social promises.
I have no interest in Cameron/Bloomberg/Schwarztenegger center left conservatism.
I like my liberals to admit they are liberals.
Brooks is an elitist who shows he is out of touch with two continents.
“Social entrepreneurship” is an oxymoron.
You're just a moron.
A social entrepreneur is someone who recognizes a social problem and uses entrepreneurialship principles to organize, create, and manage a venture to make social change. Whereas a business entrepreneur typically measures performance in profit and return, a social entrepreneur assesses success in terms of the impact s/he has on society.
Will there be anything left to vote for after a couple of years of Hussein and a thoroughly stacked Court and 40 to ?? million new Democrats from down south?
“A social entrepreneur is someone who recognizes a social problem and uses entrepreneurialship principles to organize, create, and manage a venture to make social change”
You write this kind of stuff and then call me a moron. I have no desire to get involved in childish name calling with someone like you.
Whereas a business entrepreneur typically measures performance in profit and return, a social entrepreneur assesses success in terms of the impact s/he has on society.
And how do you propose to measure that? You’re entering into a contest with liberals about who’s social welfare program is more effective and when you do that, you lose.
Memory is very short, a journey to “Carterville” maybe just the ticket to remind them. They look back to when things were that bad before and what it took to get out of it and see it was conservatives who saved them.
Brooks is absolutely right here. A lot of what used to work(cut taxes, yadda yadda) won't work anymore because the central question isn't about the "freedom from government" but "how will we live". The conservatives must come up with decentralized solutions that put the people in charged of their lives. Conservatives need to focus a lot more on encouraging social entrepreneurship.Entrepreneurship isn't the problem. The world has never been more amenable to entrepreneurs. The problem is social structure. America is falling apart, no more jobs for life, industry has fallen apart for the working class. Right now the republican party doesn't offer a viable alternative to liberal welfare statism. The only place where republican support has remained constant is the military *because the military offers the structure, stability and self development that people need*.
Instead of offering quick fixes and tax cuts the republican party needs to offer structure. Ways that Americans can develop the character necessary for self reliance and success.
Do I know how to do that? No. But that's the only way conservative principles are going to beat out the welfare state.
I remember it, and I don't wanna go back. It was a miracle that USA survived it.
>>Some of this is ... gauzy <<<
Yes, that’s about the nicest word I can think of it to describe it.
Here’s my problem with the Brooks piece: is he calling for a change in conservatism because its the right thing to do or because it represents a necessary strategic retreat? Retreat for strategic purposes I understand. If he is saying that, given today’s political climate, Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger and the center-right coalitions in Germany and France are preferable to outright socialism, then I can understand the argument. Get the best deal you can and hope for a better day.
However, he appears to be going beyond the strategic point - he actually seems to saying that conservatism should abandon (or at the very least de-emphasize) individualism and limited government capitalism and instead embrace a large instrusive government, so long as it used for the “right” purposes. (I don’t know what “social entrepreneurship” is either - it sounds like something cooked up in a focus group). Oh and by the way, has Brooks forgotten Michael Gerson, Mr. Big Government Conservative himself who has been advising President Bush? And Marvin Olasky and all of these other purveyors of “compassionate” conservatism? How is that working out for us?
It seems to me that compassionate conservatism starts with an acceptance of the basic liberal premises and what’s left to fight over is the details. It may be that Mr. Cameron is a better expositor of these heresies than Mr. Bush (clarity of thought isn’t a Bush strong point) and this may explain Cameron’s success and Bush’s failure. But then Bush won two elections, so who can say where post-Thatcherism will end up?
Obammy’s got as much chance of making the WH as I do.
self-ping to consider later
Nor do I, but I fear the train has left the station, if not this election cycle, the next...
Interesting comparison. We shouldn’t forget the fact that Labour in Britain has totally lost the plot, and shouldn’t therefore overemphasise how in love with Conservatism Britain has suddenly become. The Local Government results were as much to do with the hapless Gordon Brown as to a positive endorsement of Conservative values - as welcome as that would be in Britain.
Brooks makes a good point about economics vs society though. Just as in the 90’s in Britain, banging on about Thatcherism, the free market and global trade came to be seen as somewhat fetishistic (with massive electoral calamities for the Conservatives), so will the likes of Norquist and the various free market think tanks (Cato, Heritage, Hoover, AEI etc) be seen in the same light in the US unless they move on. Make conservative principles mean something to average citizens, or these citizens will turn to socialism.
Thank you!
Anyone who even thinks that Bloomberg & Schwarzenegger are anywhere within a zip code of being “conservative” is dumber than dirt! The only difference in Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger and the Lefties, Kennedy, Clinton, Schumer et al is their party affiliation.
That is not good strategy. The Dems-leftists do not give up power lightly. It took ‘94 for them to lose Congress after a 47 yr. rule. Sorry, but one must remember how these Dems act, think, rule. They would be in power for a generation if they win all 3 Branches, including the right to pick SCOTUS choices. The trends are going against conservs and Pubs. We will have to go back to basics and rebuild the Party from the ground up and then find a Thatcher, another less sparky Newt and even a clone of Ronaldus Magnus would help. Libs never give up the fight. Only Pubs, only Pub purists do by sitting it out, voting some silly 3rd Party and LOSING.
I would agree with that statement if indeed we'd gotten out of it. But thirty years later I can't say we've undone all the damage yet!!! And an Obama court would shred the Constitution...see Roe v. Wade to see how hard it is to undo that type of damage. :(
I’ve read that the USA is projected to have a population of a billion by the end of the century- more than three times what we have now. I simply can’t get my mind around what that will do to us. It is hard for me to imagine much social cohesion in such a country.
The historical model for large multi-cultural countries has been some kind of authoritarian-totalitarian government, the only way they can be held together. Inany case, I won’t be around to see it.
If I’m correct, the present British Conservative Party is both for gay marriage and for believing in man-made global warming. In fact, many “conservative” politicians throughout Europe are for both gay marriage and believe in man-made global warming as well as for other issues which are truly to the political left of true conservatism! I continue to not see how this makes them true conservatives politically.
“Will there be anything left to vote for after a couple of years of Hussein “ NO
This election is about permanent change..we have a dem congress and if we have a dem (ultra left) President you can kiss the old USA goodbye.....look at Kenya and you see Obama’s cousin Odingo (who lost election), and who Obama went in 2006 and CAMPAIGNED FOR...get 50/50 power in cabinet and the Prime Minister position with 50/50 power with elected President by KILLING AND BLOODSHED. The UN (Kofe Annan) brokered the deal to stop the bloodshed...NOW Obama and HIS COUSIN ODINGO speak by phone, and Obama and AL GORE speak every feww days (Gore is still angry he lost in 2000) SO WHAT will happen if OBAMA doesn’t get the nomination, or if he is a terrible President...WRight will be in Lincoln bedroom, and Ferrakhan down the hall...the goons of Odingo will be roaming the streets. They have another cousin who will be the Ambassador from Kenya to US here as well...it will be “all radicals” hanging out at the White House. My mother always said “birds of a feather flock together” when warning me about the company I was keeping.
The dems faun and swoon now, just think if he asks them to pass legislation (NEW LAWS) that limit our freedoms, right to vote, Constitution...these muslims have several countries who will come and back them up...SO WRITE ME OFF as a conspiracy theorists..but just remember what the Bible says about the last days (some is in Mark Ch13, Rev chapters 16,& 19; and what I have said here. The apathetic conservatives who refuse to vote will be handing over our country through inaction. McCain looks pretty good compared to the alternative.
Adam Smith - The Invisible Hand Speaks.
Smith was right then and he still is today. You're either an entrepreneur or a socialist. You can't be both. But an entrepreneur can be a philanthropist, which is what we used to have in this country before government decided to do it for us.
Churchill - The Last Lion Roars.
Churchill was a real British conservative and would probably choke on the words "social entrepreneurship".
Democracy In America.
Lest you forget...
Random Thoughts on Taxation.
Ditto.
Reagan: The Great Communicator.
There's a good reason we wish for another Reagan.
Barry Goldwater, The Conscience Of A Conservative.
“Conservatism, we are told, is out-of-date. The charge is preposterous and we ought boldly to say so. The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline. The principles on which the Conservative political position is based have been established by a process that has nothing to do with the social, economic and political landscape that changes from decade to decade and from century to century. These principles are derived from the nature of man, and from the truths that God has revealed about His creation. Circumstances do change. So do the problems that are shaped by circumstances. But the principles that govern the solution of the problems do not. To suggest that the Conservative philosophy is out of date is akin to saying that the Golden Rule, or the Ten Commandments or Aristotle's Politics are out of date. The Conservative approach is nothing more or less than an attempt to apply the wisdom and experience and the revealed truths of the past to the problems of today.” – Barry Goldwater, The Conscience Of A Conservative, 1960.
Bromine from self important schoolboys too naive for the real world.
The central debate of the 21st century is whether the west will become a smoking irradiated ruin, a museum graveyard, a socialist tyranny, or the ruling power block of a civilized world, made civil by blood toil tears and sweat. And the British have decided that instead, it'd be capital to write snarky leading editorials and smirk a lot, as barbarians blast them to atoms on the tube.
During Reagan's time, there were many strains of conservatism at work.
A) Financial- low taxes, businessmen, economic growth, balance the budget.
B) Law and Order- punish violent criminals, bring back the death penalty, safe streets for everyone.
C) Foreign policy- fight the Cold War, contain communism, stand up for America, the military and patriotism.
D) Social and religious-prayer in schools, end abortion, defeat the ERA, traditional Judeo-Christian approach.
Reagan accomplished three of the four and had success with the remaining category. We got eighty percent of what we wanted. He restored integrity to the federal judiciary, won the Cold War, and cut taxes to produce a vibrant economy. The ERA was defeated. Liberals were treading water back then.
People today want good times. They don't want a movement that tells them to cut spending and reign in excesses. They don't want a movement that denies them the power to rule over their fellows based on bigotry through racial and sexual spoils. We are outflanked on all sides and will be until a significant enough crisis occurs. That's how Churchill came to power. No World War Two, no Churchill. He was regarded as a laughable buffoon until the war began. Greatness often only emerges during crisis, and so it was with the Gipper. He was elected in 1980 because the times were terrible and people were willing to ignore the liberal media's screaming to take a risk.
We conservatives need to stand up for conservatism as the great man, Ronald Reagan did, not in an attacking and ferocious manner, but decisively, with humor and good will whenever we can summon it. We need to end the factionalism here and learn to agree with each other again.
We must stop acting frightened of political correctness and fight it's excesses and fringes. It's an institutional monstrosity that hides human greed and avarice by dividing people into haves and have nots. We must take control of our dinner tables and lunchrooms and carpools and not be ashamed to speak the truth anymore, from a position of common sense.
I turn fifty in a few weeks and was privileged to support Ronald Reagan in 1976, 1980, and 1984. God rest this great man. God save our republic. I hope to live to see another Reagan lead our movement back to greatness again someday. It is not to be this year, but hopefully, soon.
Reagan retired 20 yrs ago. He was indeed a great leader, but appealing to some golden age does not an electoral strategy make.
Thatcher was a great leader too, but in the 90’s, Britain had moved on - conservatives had won the great economic battles - there were new battles to be won. This is what conservatives in Britain have finally got.
What are the new battles in America ? Do the Republicans even know the questions ordinary folk are asking ? Don’t betray core conservative principles, but for conservatives to succeed, we’ve got to sound less like we’re only talking to each other. We need to spend time applying conservative principles to the concerns of soccer moms etc. It’s lazy thinking to say “Reagan, Reagan,school prayer, Reagan, Supreme Courts, Reagan, fiscal restraint (gag), Reagan, mad muslims, Reagan, abortion, Reagan, Reagan................”. McCain, Obama and Clinton as nominees are proof that this line hasn’t worked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.