Yes. But mostly I forget that ...
Fox - You're doing it again...
Foxfyre wrote:Note this does not have to automatically assume anybody did anything wrong. It only begs the question of how the base became alienated.
Foxfyre wrote:...this thread could be a place where we could discuss where conservatives got it right, where we went wrong, what we need to do to regain the confidence of the Conservative base, and other GOP/Conservative issues.
Red added for emphasis.
Nice try with the introduction of the phrase "alienation." The fact is you specifically asked "what went wrong."
You can back pedal all you like. I'm not letting you off the hook. You made your bed, now sleep in it.
T
K
O
Walter Hinteler wrote:Yes, I'm aware of my stupidity and recognise the small knowledge I got when studying politcal sciences ... in Europe.
There is no need to denigrate yourself, and nobody has called you stupid or ignorant.
You may have studied politics, and you may have learned at a fantastic school.
That doesnt change the fact that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have a different meaning here in the US then they do in Europe.
mysteryman wrote:
That doesnt change the fact that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have a different meaning here in the US then they do in Europe.
The difference is not only besides the USA and Europe but besides the USA and the rest of the world. (Nevertheless, the GOP is a member party of the worldwide conservative party organisation "
International Democrat Union".)
But that wasn't my point.
I responded re "classical liberalism" and "grandchild".
I've looked both terms up again: there is actually no dispute between US-American historians/political scientists and their colleagues on other continents.
Walter Hinteler wrote:mysteryman wrote:
That doesnt change the fact that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have a different meaning here in the US then they do in Europe.
The difference is not only besides the USA and Europe but besides the USA and the rest of the world. (Nevertheless, the GOP is a member party of the worldwide conservative party organisation "
International Democrat Union".)
But that wasn't my point.
I responded re "classical liberalism" and "grandchild".
I've looked both terms up again: there is actually no dispute between US-American historians/political scientists and their colleagues on other continents.
Then I misunderstood you.
I thought you were responding to the differences regarding what liberal and conservative mean in the US as compared to Europe.
I apologize.
Foxfyre wrote:Well, like I said, I took a risk that you might actually be opening up a real discussion here. For analysis of what you describe as 'spin' I'll refer you to Savage's book "Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder' and you'll see what that prhase is all about and why my 'spin' is quite accurate. But if all you want to do is take punches at me and you're really not interested in discussing concepts, I'll probably just go back to keeping my distance.
Thank you for playing.
You turn to Michael Savage (Michael Weiner is his real name) for your education on liberalism, foxfire?
Why on earth would any of us wish to talk to someone who is so determined to stay ignorant and hateful?
Diest TKO wrote:Fox - You're doing it again...
Foxfyre wrote:Note this does not have to automatically assume anybody did anything wrong. It only begs the question of how the base became alienated.
Foxfyre wrote:...this thread could be a place where we could discuss where conservatives got it right, where we went wrong, what we need to do to regain the confidence of the Conservative base, and other GOP/Conservative issues.
Red added for emphasis.
Nice try with the introduction of the phrase "alienation." The fact is you specifically asked "what went wrong."
You can back pedal all you like. I'm not letting you off the hook. You made your bed, now sleep in it.
T
K
O
I suggested that allowance for figure of speech applies here. "Where you/I/we/they went wrong" is NOT the same thing as doing something wrong.
blatham wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Well, like I said, I took a risk that you might actually be opening up a real discussion here. For analysis of what you describe as 'spin' I'll refer you to Savage's book "Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder' and you'll see what that prhase is all about and why my 'spin' is quite accurate. But if all you want to do is take punches at me and you're really not interested in discussing concepts, I'll probably just go back to keeping my distance.
Thank you for playing.
You turn to Michael Savage (Michael Weiner is his real name) for your education on liberalism, foxfire?
Why on earth would any of us wish to talk to someone who is so determined to stay ignorant and hateful?
I suggest that you don't talk to me if you think I'm ignorant and hateful. I would appreciate it it in fact. Life is far too short to waste on bigots.
I do think people to be ignorant (or dishonest) who rewrite words, nuances, phrases, references into something that they are not just so they have something more convenient to attack. That is a trait of liberalism as Savage describes it, by the way; however I disagree with Savage far too often, and find his journalistic scholarship too lacking, to look to him for education on much of anything. That should not be translated to mean that I think he never gets anything right.
The reference to Savage was for purposes of answering another member re the phrase 'Liberalism is a Mental Disorder' which Savage coined and which was convenient to the context in which I used it. The inference you dishonestly drew from the reference here is one example of what he meant by the phrase.
Wait, I better explain more clearly, or you'll miss it:
1) Referencing somebody to the definition of "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" is not
2) Looking to the author of the phrase for education on liberalism.
I bet even you might be able to understand that if you tried really hard and really wanted to do it. Try. I have utter faith in you Bernie.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, yes.
Obviously, even the term 'classical liberalism' is used differently. And/or 'grandchild'.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Yes, I'm aware of my stupidity and recognise the small knowledge I got when studying politcal sciences ... in Europe.
Okay, since you insist on making a mountain out of a molehill here--that is American jargon meaning you are making a much bigger deal out of it than most people would--let me explain:
In American jargon, 'grandchild' is sometimes used for slang to indicate a trait adopted or 'inherited' from an earlier source. Example: Modern communists are the 'grandchildren' of Marxist/Leninist concepts. That does not mean in a literal or biological sense nor does it suggest they are no different from Marx or Lenin, but they inherited the basis of their ideology from those developed by those earlier figures.
Asherman provided an excellent short history of the development of the US major political parties a few pages back. He didn't use the phrase, but what he was saying to me is that the modern Republicans are 'grandchildren' of the original Federalists while the Democrats are 'grandchildren' of the Jeffersonians. Again this does not infer that there are no differences between the modern parties and those earlier concepts and it does not infer a literal or biological relationship.
When I say that modern Conservatism is the 'grandchild' of classical liberalism, what I mean is that modern Conservatism inherited or evolved from or contains the basic components of classical liberalism. It does not mean that there are no differences between the two, nor does it suggest that there is a literal or biological relationship.
For me to say that the definitions are different for me than they may be for you is in no way suggesting you are inferior or stupid or uneducated or don't have a good grasp of what classical liberalism is all about. It is acknowledging that sometimes people from different places will define the same word differently. I don't see that as a major issue but rather simply something that is good to know and understand.
Capish?
I'm sure that 'grandchild' in this sense means the same as in German and in British language. (The first, I speak rather fluently, the latter I understand mostly. )
I don't dispute that "modern Republicans are 'grandchildren' of the original Federalists" at all.
"Modern Conservatism inherited or evolved from or contains the basic components of classical liberalism" - well, in this case of course the 'modern Liberals' are the legitim grandchildren, but the Social-Democrats, the modern Socialists, the Liberal Democrats, the .... name them, are grandchildren as well.
Capisce?
Walter Hinteler wrote:I'm sure that 'grandchild' in this sense means the same as in German and in British language. (The first, I speak rather fluently, the latter I understand mostly. )
I don't dispute that "modern Republicans are 'grandchildren' of the original Federalists" at all.
"Modern Conservatism inherited or evolved from or contains the basic components of classical liberalism" - well, in this case of course the 'modern Liberals' are the legitim grandchildren, but the Social-Democrats, the modern Socialists, the Liberal Democrats, the .... name them, are grandchildren as well.
Capisce?
Capisce! (Is that the proper spelling? I wasn't sure.)
What you say is no doubt right. Nimh once tried to explain to me the ideologies of the various sociopolitical groups of Europe and it made my head hurt trying to understand it and I confess continuing ignorance about that still.
My reference however was to the specific sociopolitical components of what I label "Modern Conservatism" in the United States, and that I think I understand pretty well. Modern Conservatism is an ideology, however, and not a political party or a group that you would join. I think modern liberalism here does not share nearly as many components of Classical Liberalism as does modern conservatism.
If I'm understanding you,Walter, we are all heirs of the Enlightenment. That is certainly true, and so significant that no one should forget it. The trend lines converged in the European world to provide "truly" revolutionary change during the 17th and 18th centuries. The birth of the Scientific Method in the 17th provided an alternative to regarding the world through authoritarian religious eyes to a Europe that was already heavily blooded by the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. That gave rise to Diderot and Votaire, the Fathers of the Enlightenment a hundred years later, circa 1745-50.
The Enlightenment challenged several notions that had previously been taken for granted. To Enlightenment thinkers the natural superiority of one class over another would no longer go without question. Justice should be impartial and conform to more objective standards than a King or Priest's whim. This undermined the absolute authority of the King and the churches. Individuals should be judged by their peers, and upon their actual behavior rather than their beliefs. Tolerance, objectivity and reason were to replace intolerance/chauvinism, prejudice and faith as the foundations of civil society.
In Britain the process had begun earlier, with Henry the Eighth, but the Enlightenment thinkers went further and were more "liberal". To Voltaire, Britain was almost the Promised Land, and British thinkers/writers were inspired by the center of the Enlightenment in France. "The Leviathan", "The Wealth of Nations", and other works began to circulate widely. Enlightenment concepts became a component of modern Freemasonry, and were widely discussed in Britain and, perhaps even more significantly, in the North American colonies.
The idea that a People can and should be able to shake off hereditary authority was still a revolutionary idea. The Enlightenment encouraged the thought that reason is common to all men, and that reason is a better guide to social justice than what seems to be arbitrary. Conditions and self-interest in the American Colonies led to serious questions that King and Parliament weren't ready to answer without the invocation of authority. The trans-Atlantic gap encouraged Colonists to independent thought, and Enlightenment ideas became the intellectual foundations for armed rebellion.
The British defeat left a governmental vacuum. At first, the Colonies tried to adapt their old Colonial Charters to new conditions. Each Colony retained soveriegnty over the lands granted by the King, and only participated in national government reluctantly through the Articles of Confederation that had already been shown inadequate during the War for Independence. Many Americans of the time believed that Democracy could only be achieved if everyone (free white men) had a vote and say on every law, policy and political question. There were those who demanded that the wealth and property be seized and redistributed so that everyone in the State would be absolutely equal. If it were right for individuals to overthrow the King's Authority for self-government, why should a group of farmers not refuse the authority of their State government? Establishing effective government was difficult and in some places chaos very nearly ruled the day.
For a time it looked as if the idea of self-government would fail, and that might have discouraged other revolutions to overturn despots. We were fortunate in having giants in those days who, guided by Enlightenment principles, designed a new form of government based upon the best model available at the time... Rome. With the Constitution ratified and Washington in office, conditions in the United States changed for the better. Structure and concert replaced chaos, and representative government authority replaced local notions of athenian Democracy. By 1800, the United States was beginning to crawl toward the ideal.
Meanwhile back in France, the King's support of the American Revolution had left his already tattered regime in debt. Conditions worsened for many Frenchmen as the King, Aristocracy and Church all turned the financial screws on the disenfranchised peasantry. Enlightenment ideas were in the air, and the success of the American Revolution was before them. American Expats in Paris, like Jefferson, were a living example that Kings, Dukes and Bishops weren't invulnerable to the Will of an aroused People. I already am regularly criticized for writing long essays, so let me end this now at the beginning of the French Revolution that in its turn would spread across the Continent and beyond.
Asherman wrote:If I'm understanding you,Walter, we are all heirs of the Enlightenment.
Certainly.
But I was thinking more about "Classical Liberalism" - a term, there's no (greater) dispute about, neither if discussed by historians nor by political scientists.
Foxfyre wrote:My reference however was to the specific sociopolitical components of what I label "Modern Conservatism" in the United States, and that I think I understand pretty well. Modern Conservatism is an ideology, however, and not a political party or a group that you would join.
Well, is it now "sociopolitical components, named by you "Modern Conservatism" or is it an ideology?
Walter Hinteler wrote:Foxfyre wrote:My reference however was to the specific sociopolitical components of what I label "Modern Conservatism" in the United States, and that I think I understand pretty well. Modern Conservatism is an ideology, however, and not a political party or a group that you would join.
Well, is it now "sociopolitical components, named by you "Modern Conservatism" or is it an ideology?
What is ideology if not the sociopolitical components of a belief or point of view? A political party is based on ideology but is a specifically identifiable group of people. An ideology is not necessarily identifiable with a specifically identifiable group of people.
In other words 'ideology' and 'political party' are separate things.
For clarification, I like Belmont University's definition of the core tenets of
'classical liberalism':
1) an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,
2) the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,
3) the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and
4) the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.
http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/liberalism_essay/index.html
I think these four things also pretty well sum up the core components of "Modern Conservatism" as it is defined in the United States.
Foxfyre wrote:What is ideology if not the sociopolitical components of a belief or point of view? A political party is based on ideology but is a specifically identifiable group of people. An ideology is not necessarily identifiable with a specifically identifiable group of people.
In other words 'ideology' and 'political party' are separate things.
Thanks for giving the background of your opinion.
Foxfyre wrote:
I think these four things also pretty well sum up the core components of "Modern Conservatism" as it is defined in the United States.
What the author, Amy H. Sturgis, says in the following of your quote:
Quote:These characteristics do exclude certain thinkers commonly linked with classical liberalism, ...
And certainly I do agree with:
Quote:Any single attempt to chronicle the history of classical liberalism cannot do justice to the immense richness and diversity of the individuals or movements within it. In this story three distinct flavors coexist and often blend: the realistic English tradition of law, the rationalistic French tradition of humanism, and the organic German tradition of individualism. Gray characterizes these three as competing yet complementary definitions of liberty, with Britain representing independence, France self-rule, and Germany self-realization (13). Beyond these national differences, two parallel concepts survive throughout the history of classical liberalism irrespective of geographical boundaries. One is predicated upon a negative view of human nature, accepting that people are equally fallen and incapable of perfection. It follows from this perspective that power must be limited because it would allow some corrupt individuals to do more harm than others. The other view maintains that all people are inherently good and perfectible, so power must be limited to allow humanity to evolve toward a more perfect order of self-government.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Foxfyre wrote:
I think these four things also pretty well sum up the core components of "Modern Conservatism" as it is defined in the United States.
What the author, Amy H. Sturgis, says in the following of your quote:
Quote:These characteristics do exclude certain thinkers commonly linked with classical liberalism, ...
And certainly I do agree with:
Quote:Any single attempt to chronicle the history of classical liberalism cannot do justice to the immense richness and diversity of the individuals or movements within it. In this story three distinct flavors coexist and often blend: the realistic English tradition of law, the rationalistic French tradition of humanism, and the organic German tradition of individualism. Gray characterizes these three as competing yet complementary definitions of liberty, with Britain representing independence, France self-rule, and Germany self-realization (13). Beyond these national differences, two parallel concepts survive throughout the history of classical liberalism irrespective of geographical boundaries. One is predicated upon a negative view of human nature, accepting that people are equally fallen and incapable of perfection. It follows from this perspective that power must be limited because it would allow some corrupt individuals to do more harm than others. The other view maintains that all people are inherently good and perfectible, so power must be limited to allow humanity to evolve toward a more perfect order of self-government.
I don't disagree with any of that either. I am only confining the definition of Classical Liberalism as I see that it applies to modern Conservatism in the United States which is the thesis of this thread.
Foxfyre wrote:
I think these four things also pretty well sum up the core components of "Modern Conservatism" as it is defined in the United States.
So you say that the US 'Modern Conserbatism' is following the liberal ideas which became popular in 18th/19th century Europe ?
Interesting the
Quote:Conclusion
Thus we leave classical liberalism in the early stages of its reemergence, as it begins again to enjoy attention and acceptance. Its history reveals the central continuity which has allowed it to endure so long; its most recent champion, Robert Nozick, can still directly draw upon its first father, John Locke. Classical liberalism's ability to grow to address new situations and adapt to different cultures also reveals its universal applicability. Observing the chronology of its rise, decline, and reemergence provides today's thinker with a rich heritage and a vital challenge; it also affirms Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset's 1929 conclusion that (classical) liberalism is "the noblest cry that has ever resounded in the planet" (Merquior 1).
Walter Hinteler wrote:Foxfyre wrote:
I think these four things also pretty well sum up the core components of "Modern Conservatism" as it is defined in the United States.
So you say that the US 'Modern Conserbatism' is following the liberal ideas which became popular in 18th/19th century Europe?
Not ALL liberal ideas which became popular in 18th/19th century Europe but the basic components of those ideas that have morphed or evolved into what I see as modern Conservatism in the United States today. In my previous post, I listed four of the key elements which, among others, I think are key to describe that ideology.
To further clarify my answer to your previous question, I see modern Conservatism in the United States as an ideology, not a political party. Various components within modern Conservatism might be shared by members of any of our political parties: Republican Democrat, Greens, Libertarians, et al.
And going back further to the original question in the thread starter, I think the GOP probably does have more modern Conservatives within its ranks than do the Democrats and those modern Conservatives make up a significant percentage of the GOP base. So my question was intended to be: Where did the GOP go wrong (if it did) with its conservative base--clarification to TKO: where did the GOP offend its conservative base (if it did)--and what, if anything, could the GOP do to regain the confidence of its conservative base?
