Old School Conservatives v. Bush Conservatives

BBB
When I was growing up, there were actually moderate and liberal Republicans. While I would never vote for them, I did respect their views.

Today's Bush conservatives are religious Christian fundamentalists tainted with Fascism. Fundamentalists of all religions are fascists at heart in that they demand surrender to their religious dogma.

BBB

I used to use TANSTAAFL as a tagline, and probably will again. Thats "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch." If you don't believe that, I don't see how you can be a conservative. Guns - yes. Butter - yes. Both at the same time - sure, if you are very, and I mean VERY productive.

The first notable act of the Bush administration was a punitive tariff on Canadian timber. The second was protective tariffs on steel imports. Neither is the mark of a conservative government, as I understand it.

Morally conservative. . . . By coincidence, so far as I can tell, somewhat more conservatives than liberals operate from a basis of religious morals. I do not believe that either is the cause of the other, nor do I accept the proposition that religious beliefs can be the sole cause of morals and moral behavior.

In other words, I suppose I agree with Will.

boomerang- I think that the above says it all. Old time conservatives were thrifty about government spending, and kept their noses out of peoples' personal lives. They believed in small, efficient government. As BBB noted, there is a taint of both facism, and more than a hint of collectivism in the Bush government.

This should be an interesting thread, I'm looking forward to learning a bit more about this. An excellent set of questions for the thread.

My idea of political conservatism is probably somewhat different to the contemporary American version but having read Edmund Burke at uni and reading him just recently I find myself not objecting to his philosophy all that much yet I find myself in froth-mouthed disagreement with the so-called "Conservatives" of the right wing of the Republican Party.

As I said, looking forward to learning.

Thank you all for your replies. I'm looking forward to learning too!

I've surprised myself not only by reading but actually agreeing with several of Will's essays recently. He seems to get down to the bones of things that provoke my curiosity lately.

I am not a religious person but I think I live my life in a pretty conservative vein. I am always distressed that people seem to think my lack of Christianity prevents me from being a "good" person or automatically qualifies me as politically "liberal"

And I don't like to see my tax dollars wasted. For me, I guess the difference is what I think is a good use -- like Headstart -- something that others might consider wasteful.

I'm a bootstraps kind of girl. Believing that charity begins at home, I've bought both literal and metaphorical bootstraps for others. I don't expect the government to buy all of us bootstraps.

Am I making sense?

I really am confused about the nature of conservatism. And I guess I'm confused about where I fall in the political spectrum. I've never voted party lines but I'm really becoming wary.

Roger, as an OSC are you also a BC?

It doesn't sound like you are.

Is there anyone on the OSC horizon that you really like? Anyone you think might make a run for president? I'll do my own research if you can give me names!

*shrugs* There have been economic conservatives and social conservatives all along. Social conservatives just never had any politician in so many positions in government as they do right now.

A lot of the economic conservatives have moved over to the Libertarian Party because of the rise of the religious right within the Republican Party.

Conservativism isn't any different than Liberalism is. There is a wide array of thoughts in both camps.

The media tends to describe our political spectrum in terms of either/or (i.e. left/right, conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat) but, IMO, it looks more like a scatter chart.

Hey there fishin'.

I know you're right. I'm so gray I can hardly see black or white anymore.

I understand the concept of economic conservatives but I'm puzzled about the social conservatives.

Is this where the religion thing comes in?

Can one be a contemporary social conservative without adhering to Christian ideology?

What are the hallmarks of a social conservative?

I think that last question may get to the heart of what is bugging me.

Ummm.. Ok, let me preface this by just saying that it is my OPINION.

Social Conservatives fall along the lines of the Jerry Falwell types but they aren't all Christians. There are people from pretty much every possible faith that are social conservatives. Religious organizations are generally socially conservative (i.e. highly influenced by tradition, etc..) so there is a bit of a natural fit there.

The Social Conservatives generally put "family values" and moral issues at the top of their lists for issues to work on. The concern over the financial status of the government takes a back seat to the social issues.

I suppose I should also mention that there are social conservatives that are economic liberals.

I can so understand the idea of social conservatives that are economic liberals. I'm pretty comfortable with that idea, believe it or not.

I'm working on some thoughts here.....

Thinking about that "highly influenced by tradition" in particular.....

I know my personal story informs my confusion but I'm trying to avoid all that.....

I can't deny that this whole "family values" stuff hits me in a very, very personal way....

I understand that social conservatives aren't all Christians -- there's the Taliban, for example, after all. In America though, the social conservatives that are evangelical Christians are most certainly the squeaky wheels though.

I know this sounds totally cliche, but is the evangelical Christian right really THAT much different than the Taliban in terms of their goals?

I really don't want this conversation to become a "us" and "them" thing. I am really trying to understand when "conservative" changed meaning.

How and why and when did we get to a point where faith trumps all?

(And fishin', I know it is just your opinion. I want you to know that your opinions have mentored me through some heavy thoughts and I thank you for that.)

Nice little thread you have going here, boomer.

I'm just going to watch for a bit. If you don't mind.

The Republican Party was dominated by economic conservatives for decades but there were always a large portion of social conservatives in the party. The social changes that took place post-WWII (perhaps even post-depression) largely went against everything the social conservatives believed in. As a result they organized. They became the "moral majority" of the 1980s and over time took control of the Republican party from the economic conservatives.

There are a lot of other little things that all tie into the post-depression era that allowed the social and economic conservatives to co-exist in a single party but, if anything, I guess that is the change. The social conservatives took control of the political apparatus and the organization and with that their agenda took priority over the agenda of the economic conservatives.

Regarding social issues. I hope I don't get all confused over this but here goes.

The conservative in the Burkean mould isn't concerned with people's personal morals (I will definitely stand corrected on that point) only with compliance with the law (which they believe shouldn't intrude into every nook and cranny of the life of the individual).

The liberal, following Mill, has a similar position, as I understand it. They also believe in minimal state interference in the lives of individuals, a sort of laissez-faire attitude towards personal morality.

Given this similarity it seems to me the the so-called "conservatives" of the right wing of the Republican Party, which are either pandering to or cynically using (or both) the Christian Evangelical fundamentalists are in fact reactionaries and not conservatives in the Burkean mould.

So perhaps we'e been using the wrong terminology.

The American libertarian is probably closer to the Burkean conservative. The so-called "conservatives" are actually radical reactionaries (if that's not a redundancy in terms) who have an intrusive and unwelcome social agenda which seeks to attack individual rights and freedoms and to promote a state which feels able and indeed, complelled, to interfere in the lives of individuals.

Okay, okay.

But what, if anything, differintiates the social conservatives of the 1940s from the social conservatives of today?

I understand the "moral majority" and how they made themselves heard. And please exucse my ignorance of history though -- did it take 40 years to get there?

Have we been building to this point for 65 years?

It seems to me that there was a cataclysmic change within the last 10 years and most especially with the election of GWB.

Actually this idea is a bit frightening as it really makes me wonder what might be happening 50 years from now.

I know I suffer from a real tail-end of the baby boom myopia and I do try to find a cure but.... crud... it is really hard.

Boomer,
I was going to suggest that you take a look at the American Conservative Union website. These folks formed in 1964 with the idea of consolidating the conservative movement and trying to find common ground between factions of the right. To give an example of how well they have succeded, '64 was the election where LBJ steamrolled Goldwater, who was seen as so far to the right that most Americans considered him some kind of freak.
Today he would be labelled a liberal or moderate Republican at best.

I'm pretty sure he is spinning in his grave.

Except that this sort of generalization doens't quite work when you try to apply it. For example, the status quo has been (and still is for the majority of the U.S.) that gay marriage isn't allowed. It's hard to be convinced that there are "radical reactionaries" trying to maintain the status quo. The concept doesn't quite fit since a radical is one who is rebels against the status quo.

To a social conservative the agenda of the social liberal is just as unwelcome and intrusive.

A fly-by post on my way to bed, but I think a piece of all of this is the south and the civil rights movement.

The south was a Democratic stronghold until then, and conservative Republicans saw an opportunity and went for it, successfully.

Thanks fishin' - that helped me clarify some confusion in my own mind.

Now I'm following your point about the status quo and gay marriage.

Yes, the Burkean conservative would say that marriage is defined as a legal union between man and woman.

The liberal would say that marriage could be defined as a legal union between two people (I'm over-simplifying here to try and work this out in my own mind).

So the liberal would be trying to shift the status quo while the conservative would resist that attempt. Nothing wrong with that, it's how sustainable social progress is achieved.

Now let's say the liberal view wins out and marriage is re-defined as a legal union between two people. That becomes the status quo.

Along comes a reactionary and wants to change the status quo. That's a radical reactionary at work.

Let me give another example. In my country we have a labour relations system (we use the term "industrial relations") which is underpinned by a legal framework which has been in place since 1907. The current framework is the status quo.

Right now we have a federal government which is intent on dismantling that legal framework and take us back to what it used to be like before 1907. Our federal government considers itself "conservative". It isn't conservative at all. It's a radical reactionary government, it's intent on dismantling the status quo.

That's my point about radical reactionaries. They attack the status quo in order to take us backwards.