Ouch. Ouch. Agre's stuff is wildly inaccurate in terms of conservative political philosophy. The one part that is true is that many national politicians who call themselves conservative don't know what it means, but neither does Agre. He might want to read Burke first.
The question is just what is conservatism. In the original sense of the term, it referred to those who believed in such things as rule by an aristocracy and the church. Divine right of kings and all that. I daresay that there are very few conservatives in America by that definition. However, it is certainly true that modern "conservatives" are trying to enact policies that will tend to perpetuate advantage presently held by those at the upper end of society at the expense of those lower down the economic food chain. In that sense, the "tax cut" policies, especially the estate tax cuts and the overall tendency to spread the advantage of any tax cuts in a manner especially advantageous to those with the highest incomes, means that the children of the wealthy will end up wealthy, without having to work for it, and those of more modest means will inherit little or nothing. This will tend, over time, to create a class of privilege and a decrease of the middle class. Since I believe that it is the middle class which holds the nation together, I view this with great alarm. Please note that under the policies of the current administration, the wealthy have greatly increased their ownership of assets and we have a greater percentage of people in poverty than before.
The events in New Orleans merely illustrates the social disadvantages of these policies, not to mention the extreme incompetence of the Bush administration in dealing with "reality based" problems. This is not to be unexpected after a generation or so of propaganda about how the government is the problem and how the private sector is the best means of solving the problems facing our society. I read in the paper today that corporations associated with the cronies of Bush are reaping the benefit of the post-Katrina contracts, thus placing and concentrating wealth in the hands of those cronies.
Interestingly, the "tax cuts" and the consequent underfunding of the expenses of the government has the same effect since the government has to borrow, with interest, the money to make up that deficit. Of course, the people who reap the benefits of these interest payments are those who have the money to loan to the government in the first place. A perfect "conservative" result, income transfer from the poor through taxes to the wealthy through interest payments.
This is a cartoon view of conservatism, just as caricatured as the cartoonish view of liberalism touted by many who call themselves conservative (or moderate).
In the original sense of the term, it referred to those who believed in such things as rule by an aristocracy and the church.
Er, um, no. Conservative political philosophy as described by Burke is far more a matter of distrusting dramatic social change for its own sake or for utopian claims made on behalf of social change. But that can often end up supporting actions that give people a stake in the society, in order to forestall more disruptive revolution. Thus, the new German state's support of social insurance in the late 19th century. And your definition of conservatism is at odds with historical conservatives. Burke, after all, proposed letting the colonies go.
It is the true conservative's skepticism of change that marks today's so-called conservatives as liars. The radical right's desires to remake America is definitely utopian, something that true conservatives chafe at.
I say this as someone who is definitely not a conservative in either the sense of political philosophy or modern political labels. But I like to be accurate in my understanding of political adversaries.
I think it would be fairer to characterize Burke as a liberal. He, after all, was opposed to the absolute power of the aristocracy. It is also a mistake to look at political labels only through Anglo/American eyes. Burke was a flaming, radical liberal compared to the French conservatives, those who lost many of their heads while he was still alive. That Burke would then criticize the French revolution, after seeing its excesses, is really not too surprising. Burke, after all, was living in a country that had the beginnings of democratic traditions, far more than almost any place in mainland Europe, and the "mob" mentality that was expressed in that revolution must have been frightening to most Britons.
If you will note, I didn't refer to Burke at all. The original article did, but not me. Also, I didn't really define "conservative." I referred to the original meaning. The difference between conservatives and liberal, in that sense, is really who should rule. Should it be an aristocracy based on inheritance, property, and religion, or should it be rule by the people. Thus, when I speak of conservatives, I mean those who are in favor of inheritance, property, breeding and wealth as the proper basis for being in the ruling elite, and liberals are those who are in favor of the people governing themselves, with limits being placed on the tyranny of the majority. The US is a liberal government with a liberal Constitution. Those who were opposed to the liberal US government were encouraged to move to British possessions, such as Canada and Jamaica, often forcibly. As I said in my post, I don't really believe that there are many "conservatives," as I mean the term, in this country. Rather, the term "conservative," which has many good connotations BTW, is really more of a comparative term indicating those who, as you say, are skeptical of change. If you view the political spectrum along a willingness to accept change, the conservatives want to go slower than the liberals, but both have similar objectives. At the radical end of the spectrum, Communism and Fascism, although radically different from each other in theory, the two ends seem to meet in terms of political tools and techniques. Neither have proven satisfactory as a means of assuring freedom or prosperity.
To claim that there is any "original" meaning of the term conservatism is to assert that Maistre—who certainly was an advocate of authoritarian monarchalism—is the paradigmatic conservative, and that there could be no other. Moreover, it implies that Maistre's version of conservatism is the direct antecedent of today's self-labeled conservative politicians, who exist in a representative republic. I find that a pretty big stretch, even moreso than the claim that the president is a true conservative.
While I may be wrong, incidentally, I suspect that the only realm in which Burke has something in common with "classical liberals" in the 19th-century sense is in the economic sphere, where he disdained government interference. But it wasn't for the same reasons as 19th century liberals. Burke was no fan of liberty as a general principle (and he would have scoffed at the notion of general political principles in general, except ones relying on tradition and religion).
(no subject)
(no subject)
The events in New Orleans merely illustrates the social disadvantages of these policies, not to mention the extreme incompetence of the Bush administration in dealing with "reality based" problems. This is not to be unexpected after a generation or so of propaganda about how the government is the problem and how the private sector is the best means of solving the problems facing our society. I read in the paper today that corporations associated with the cronies of Bush are reaping the benefit of the post-Katrina contracts, thus placing and concentrating wealth in the hands of those cronies.
Interestingly, the "tax cuts" and the consequent underfunding of the expenses of the government has the same effect since the government has to borrow, with interest, the money to make up that deficit. Of course, the people who reap the benefits of these interest payments are those who have the money to loan to the government in the first place. A perfect "conservative" result, income transfer from the poor through taxes to the wealthy through interest payments.
Enough writing, I'm getting a bit ramblingy.
(no subject)
In the original sense of the term, it referred to those who believed in such things as rule by an aristocracy and the church.
Er, um, no. Conservative political philosophy as described by Burke is far more a matter of distrusting dramatic social change for its own sake or for utopian claims made on behalf of social change. But that can often end up supporting actions that give people a stake in the society, in order to forestall more disruptive revolution. Thus, the new German state's support of social insurance in the late 19th century. And your definition of conservatism is at odds with historical conservatives. Burke, after all, proposed letting the colonies go.
It is the true conservative's skepticism of change that marks today's so-called conservatives as liars. The radical right's desires to remake America is definitely utopian, something that true conservatives chafe at.
I say this as someone who is definitely not a conservative in either the sense of political philosophy or modern political labels. But I like to be accurate in my understanding of political adversaries.
(no subject)
If you will note, I didn't refer to Burke at all. The original article did, but not me. Also, I didn't really define "conservative." I referred to the original meaning. The difference between conservatives and liberal, in that sense, is really who should rule. Should it be an aristocracy based on inheritance, property, and religion, or should it be rule by the people. Thus, when I speak of conservatives, I mean those who are in favor of inheritance, property, breeding and wealth as the proper basis for being in the ruling elite, and liberals are those who are in favor of the people governing themselves, with limits being placed on the tyranny of the majority. The US is a liberal government with a liberal Constitution. Those who were opposed to the liberal US government were encouraged to move to British possessions, such as Canada and Jamaica, often forcibly. As I said in my post, I don't really believe that there are many "conservatives," as I mean the term, in this country. Rather, the term "conservative," which has many good connotations BTW, is really more of a comparative term indicating those who, as you say, are skeptical of change. If you view the political spectrum along a willingness to accept change, the conservatives want to go slower than the liberals, but both have similar objectives. At the radical end of the spectrum, Communism and Fascism, although radically different from each other in theory, the two ends seem to meet in terms of political tools and techniques. Neither have proven satisfactory as a means of assuring freedom or prosperity.
(no subject)
While I may be wrong, incidentally, I suspect that the only realm in which Burke has something in common with "classical liberals" in the 19th-century sense is in the economic sphere, where he disdained government interference. But it wasn't for the same reasons as 19th century liberals. Burke was no fan of liberty as a general principle (and he would have scoffed at the notion of general political principles in general, except ones relying on tradition and religion).