[Sir Gawain]

-

[William McKinley]

I think this article is going to end up causing me to generate one of my own, out of some thoughts that have been brewing for a while now. I believe the author here truly does not understand the essence of conservatism, which is not meant as a major slam by me because I think it is a common error and one which 'conservatives' have done a horrible job at preventing and correcting.

I'll save the rest for that article.

[inquest]

Interesting how the article claims that true "liberalism" disdains laws regarding morality, but provides no example of classical liberals wanting to overturn laws against adultery, homosexuality, incest, etc. Makes me wonder if the author really has a point, or is just trying to make it sound like he has one.

[William McKinley]

By the way, it is right near the start where the author makes the mistake.

The conservative concentrates on man's moral well-being

This is not true. This is not the focus of conservative thought, and is not the essence of conservatism. It is the view many have of conservatives, however, which is a problem for conservatives and is one of the reasons that conservatives find their views so easily demagogued by political opponents.

[mvpel]

That quote from Basiat is perfect for the socialists I debate with on grex.cyberspace.org. Just classic.

[KDD]

bump...for later.

[KDD]

bump...for later.

[manna]

Bump.

[Consort]

Lately, there's been a lot of obfuscation going on about political labels and ideologies.

[x]

Socialism was formulated in the first half of the 19th century, barely after the beneficial results of the industrial revolution were being felt by the masses. As Archibald Roosevelt said, "...school textbooks create the impression that socialistic theories arose out of the conditions brought about by the industrial revolution. This is a gross misstatement from which the left-wing has reaped tremendous political capital. The truth is that the period during which the basic socialist tenets were fashioned was a period when society was throwing off the chains of medievalism."

If you're looking for the origins of socialism, you'll find they go further back that nineteenth century. For example there was the communism of the peasant revolts in the 16th century. And there's much more to take into account throughout history: Plato, Jesuits in Paraguay, radicals in the English Civil War and the French Revolution.

But it looks pretty certain that the conditions of industrialism greatly increased the appeal of socialism. I don't think anyone's seriously suggested that socialism was invented because of industrialism, just that the conflicts, strains and discontent of the industrial revolution increased the appeal of socialism. Moreover, industrial and craft workers didn't usually have the vote in most countries which had elections until later on in the 19th (or even the 20th century), so the effect of socialist ideas in political life increased as the nineteenth century went on. So it looks like the author is trying to twist the facts about the period to fit his thesis.

There's no doubt that late nineteenth century European conservatives wanted to use the state to improve the living and working conditions of the masses so as to prevent revolutions. And medieval models played a role in the thinking of 19th century European conservative theorists. In practice, though, what Disraeli or Bismarck left behind was probably more capitalist than socialist. Their argument, agree or disagree, was that ameliorative and social security measures prevented revolution. If they were right, it made it possible for a capitalist society to develop more fully than would otherwise have been the case.

But what this has to do with late 20th and early 21st century conservatism and its free market orientation or with the moral legislation that all governments adopt to one degree or another is unclear. There will always be moments when any political movement has to modify its ideology to cope with contemporary strains and crises, but American conservatives aren't followers of Bismarck, but rather of Washington -- Whigs rather than Tories, as has already been noted.

[Consort]

Sort of sounds like:

Beware the Ides of March or Beware the monsters from the id.