Conservatism is dying - because conservatives are too good-mannered and nuanced

[financeguy]

A columnist of the right gives both barrels to liberals, Islamofascists and, most of all, moderate conservatives:

Conservatism is dead in Britain — as it is in Europe, as it is in most of the world — and if you want to know what the problem is, a good place to start is the one where I’ve just been: the David Horowitz Restoration Weekend in Palm Beach, Florida.

Horowitz is a prominent US activist, author and intellectual whose Freedom Center, if you didn’t know better, you might assume was a conservative think tank. But it’s not. As Horowitz reminded us on the first night of our three-day palm-fringed extravaganza of cocktails, fine cuisine, and sound conservatism courtesy of Mark Steyn, Ann Coulter, Herman Cain, Allen West, Baroness Cox, Bernie Goldberg, Douglas Murray and, ahem, James Delingpole, ‘We’re not a think tank. We’re a battle tank.’

And Horowitz is right of course, as he has been since the early Eighties, which is the moment he converted from cradle socialism (his parents were communists — or ‘progressives’, as so many of their ilk generously styled themselves) to Reagan conservatism. What Horowitz understands, as far too many do not, is that western civilisation is facing its greatest crisis since the second world war; that this trouble has been brewing for decades; and that if we lose this war we lose everything: our freedom; our livelihoods; our culture; our future; our very existence.

If this sounds extreme to some readers — and it will, even in The Spectator, which says it all really — let’s consider briefly the state of the world right now. The USA, bastion of the free world, is on the brink of collapse. Its economy is $15 trillion in debt, brought low by out-of-control Keynesian deficit spending, itself the response to a crisis generated in part by a suicidal scheme to make mortgages available to people who could never afford to pay them back, exacerbated by the ever more burdensome encroachment of the state on the private sector.

In the Middle East, the only stable, productive democracy in the region is assailed on all sides by Islamofascist failed states hellbent on destroying it. And instead of standing up for their only friend in this strategically vital region, its former western allies nitpick over settlements and borders, because that way they won’t have to feel so bad when the Iranians nuke it off the map.

What applies to Glenn Beck in the US is true over here of Douglas Murray and ‘Mad’ Mel Phillips (‘Mad’ being the favourite dismissal for awkward truth-tellers, in much the same way that all those who predicted the EU and the euro were going to be a disaster were called ‘swivel-eyed’ and ‘barmy’) and Peter Hitchens and others I’m far too modest to name. We’re hated by our own because we’re a daily reminder of what cowardly, loathsome ideological sell-outs the rest of our kind are.

Still, I asked Horowitz, who understands the Gramsci culture war better than anyone on the planet, whether there was any room for emollience of the kind ‘pragmatic’ conservatives advocate? ‘Sure there is. Politics is an art,’ he says, sounding for a second worryingly moderate. ‘If you’re adopting a mellow tone to deceive your enemies that’s good, if it’s a Trojan horse that’s fine. But if you’re just doing it to make yourself liked, that’s Stockholm Syndrome.’

Columnists | The Spectator

 

[purpleoscar]

I'll wait until after the election is won. If Obama loses and Republicans actually implement austerity packages then I'll be optimistic. If neither of those things occur then the U.S. will head towards European style socialism. The debt is too big and taxes WILL be raised. Then when the taxes are raised not all of it will go to the debt and much of it will simply increase the size of government further. At that point you can see the future.

 

[the iron horse]

"In the Middle East, the only stable, productive democracy in the region is assailed on all sides by Islamofascist failed states hellbent on destroying it. And instead of standing up for their only friend in this strategically vital region, its former western allies nitpick over settlements and borders, because that way they won’t have to feel so bad when the Iranians nuke it off the map."




Press>>>Play


Well, the neighborhood bully, he’s just one man
His enemies say he’s on their land
They got him outnumbered about a million to one
He got no place to escape to, no place to run
He’s the neighborhood bully

The neighborhood bully just lives to survive
He’s criticized and condemned for being alive
He’s not supposed to fight back, he’s supposed to have thick skin
He’s supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in
He’s the neighborhood bully

The neighborhood bully been driven out of every land
He’s wandered the earth an exiled man
Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn
He’s always on trial for just being born
He’s the neighborhood bully

Well, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized
Old women condemned him, said he should apologize.
Then he destroyed a bomb factory, nobody was glad
The bombs were meant for him. He was supposed to feel bad
He’s the neighborhood bully

Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That he’ll live by the rules that the world makes for him
’Cause there’s a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac
He’s the neighborhood bully

He got no allies to really speak of
What he gets he must pay for, he don’t get it out of love
He buys obsolete weapons and he won’t be denied
But no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side
He’s the neighborhood bully

Well, he’s surrounded by pacifists who all want peace
They pray for it nightly that the bloodshed must cease
Now, they wouldn’t hurt a fly. To hurt one they would weep
They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep
He’s the neighborhood bully

Every empire that’s enslaved him is gone
Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon
He’s made a garden of paradise in the desert sand
In bed with nobody, under no one’s command
He’s the neighborhood bully

Now his holiest books have been trampled upon
No contract he signed was worth what it was written on
He took the crumbs of the world and he turned it into wealth
Took sickness and disease and he turned it into health
He’s the neighborhood bully

What’s anybody indebted to him for?
Nothin’, they say. He just likes to cause war
Pride and prejudice and superstition indeed
They wait for this bully like a dog waits to feed
He’s the neighborhood bully

What has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers? Does he pollute the moon and stars?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill
Running out the clock, time standing still
Neighborhood bully


~Bob Dylan

 

[BVS]

Conservatives and nuance, that's laughable. Obviously he's not talking about America.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Down with moderate conservatism!

Ukh-rah '12

press play

 

[Kieran McConville]

Guys, if we could just eliminate all the progressives and hippies and dropouts and deviants and freaks and jacobins and islamofascists, sikhs, communists, feminazis, moderate conservatives, lawyers, community organisers, moderate conservatives, socialist pinkos and moderate conservatives... then truly heaven on earth would have been realised.

 

[Canadiens1131]

I'll wait until after the election is won. If Obama loses and Republicans actually implement austerity packages then I'll be optimistic.

You might want to check into how England was doing with austerity with those mass summer riots.

They'll soon be coming to your hometown's high street (that's English for main street).

 

[Vlad n U 2]

I'll wait until after the election is won. If Obama loses and Republicans actually implement austerity packages then I'll be optimistic. If neither of those things occur then the U.S. will head towards European style socialism. The debt is too big and taxes WILL be raised. Then when the taxes are raised not all of it will go to the debt and much of it will simply increase the size of government further. At that point you can see the future.

I don't think you know what socialism is.

 

[BVS]

I don't think you know what socialism is.

It's not just a catchphrase used by those that can't think for themselves on the right?

 

[purpleoscar]

You might want to check into how England was doing with austerity with those mass summer riots.

They'll soon be coming to your hometown's high street (that's English for main street).

Yeah because if people complain about fiscal discipline the politicians should just cave, right? Haven't you been watching Greece, Italy, and Spain?

There's two choices: Fiscal austerity and bankruptcy. Most of those protestors are related to government jobs or benefits and OBVIOUSLY have a self-interest in loading the costs onto the non-government sector which will pay less tax if they don't have profits and if workers don't have jobs they will also pay less tax. So where is the money for social benefits?

When your credit cards are maxed out does it make sense to borrow more? As much as for the individual it will matter for ALL organizations including companies and governments to aim for balanced budgets and to pay some of the overall debt so when another recession occurs there actually is some room for deficits.

 

[purpleoscar]

I don't think you know what socialism is.

That's better.

 

[purpleoscar]

Guys, if we could just eliminate all the progressives and hippies and dropouts and deviants and freaks and jacobins and islamofascists, sikhs, communists, feminazis, moderate conservatives, lawyers, community organisers, moderate conservatives, socialist pinkos and moderate conservatives... then truly heaven on earth would have been realised.

Actually that's what left thinks about conservatives. What joke!

 

[Vlad n U 2]

That's better.

Care to define it?

 

[purpleoscar]

Care to define it?

What I'm talking about is how Europe has more social programs and trade barriers than the U.S. The GDP in the hands of all levels of government is larger. If the U.S. goes on the path of higher taxes, barriers and more regulation they will be imitating Europe and the consequences will be the same. Slower growth, shrinking middle class, weaker military. More and more middle class workers will be government workers, not private sector workers. Considering government is not as productive as the private sector that will not be good for the standard of living. Obviously many countries in Europe are more socialist than the U.S. and they also rely on the U.S.'s military spending so they can spend more on programs and wag their finger at the U.S.

Being pedantic about the term of socialism (when there are so many versions) is a distraction from the topic. If you want to define socialism in one category you'll be too general. If the U.S. imitates Europe they'll be like Europe. What's so hard to understand?

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Being pedantic about the term of socialism (when there are so many versions) is a distraction from the topic. If you want to define socialism in one category you'll be too general. If the U.S. imitates Europe they'll be like Europe. What's so hard to understand?

Not really, there is only one 'socialism', that being with the workers controlling the means of production. I think what you're trying to get at is the welfare state.

All clear?

 

[BVS]

Being pedantic about the term of socialism (when there are so many versions) is a distraction from the topic.

No, it doesn't it shows that one knows what they are talking about...

If the U.S. imitates Europe they'll be like Europe.

Really? Is it that simple? You do realize this isn't apple to apples, right?

 

[Irvine511]

What I'm talking about is how Europe has more social programs and trade barriers than the U.S. The GDP in the hands of all levels of government is larger. If the U.S. goes on the path of higher taxes, barriers and more regulation they will be imitating Europe and the consequences will be the same. Slower growth, shrinking middle class, weaker military. More and more middle class workers will be government workers, not private sector workers. Considering government is not as productive as the private sector that will not be good for the standard of living. Obviously many countries in Europe are more socialist than the U.S. and they also rely on the U.S.'s military spending so they can spend more on programs and wag their finger at the U.S.

Being pedantic about the term of socialism (when there are so many versions) is a distraction from the topic. If you want to define socialism in one category you'll be too general. If the U.S. imitates Europe they'll be like Europe. What's so hard to understand?

that it's not 1985 anymore? and that in the US austerity has to be combined with increased revenues which means returning to the tax rates of the 1990s (shock, horror). it was the Bush tax cuts that got us into this mess.

if the past 10 years have shown us anything it's that lower taxes don't create jobs, and in fact they destroy the middle class.

 

[financeguy]

Guys, if we could just eliminate all the progressives and hippies and dropouts and deviants and freaks and jacobins and islamofascists, sikhs, communists, feminazis, moderate conservatives, lawyers, community organisers, moderate conservatives, socialist pinkos and moderate conservatives... then truly heaven on earth would have been realised.

That's just what an Islamofascist would say!!!!

 

[purpleoscar]

Not really, there is only one 'socialism', that being with the workers controlling the means of production. I think what you're trying to get at is the welfare state.

All clear?

That's communism. Democratic socialists don't want to control the means of production (or feel they can't get away with it - healthcare, energy). They want to control capital via taxation and regulation. Control of capital is control of capital.

 

[purpleoscar]

that it's not 1985 anymore? and that in the US austerity has to be combined with increased revenues which means returning to the tax rates of the 1990s (shock, horror). it was the Bush tax cuts that got us into this mess.

if the past 10 years have shown us anything it's that lower taxes don't create jobs, and in fact they destroy the middle class.

No keeping the taxes low and CONTROLLING SPENDING is what will increase growth. The left just wants the spending to increase precisely because they want higher taxes and with higher taxes there is no guarantee that the money will mostly go towards debt repayment.

 

[purpleoscar]

No, it doesn't it shows that one knows what they are talking about...

I know exactly what I'm talking about. Socialists don't just support ownership of the means of production (hello 20th century!) they also support control of capital via regulation and social programs via taxation. We already have lots of social programs and the left wants what? More! If not then they would be neo-conservatives. They want at least 60% of the GDP in the hands of government. Conservatives want a lot less. European socialism is a particular type and that was what I'm referring to. Lots of Democrats would love European socialism. We can use the term liberalism if you like but to me that's just a hijacked term.

Really? Is it that simple? You do realize this isn't apple to apples, right?

If your country has similar institutions then it's similar.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

That's communism. Democratic socialists don't want to control the means of production (or feel they can't get away with it - healthcare, energy). They want to control capital via taxation and regulation. Control of capital is control of capital.

Communism is a stateless, classless and moneyless society, and the final goal in which socialism is the transitional phase. Also, I believe you're confusing democratic socialism with social democracy.

 

[Irvine511]

No keeping the taxes low and CONTROLLING SPENDING is what will increase growth. The left just wants the spending to increase precisely because they want higher taxes and with higher taxes there is no guarantee that the money will mostly go towards debt repayment.

the left wants higher taxes because they want people to have things like health care and schools and roads and functioning police, fire department, and hospitals, as well as education and early childhood programs.

the right wants to keep taxes low so that rich people will have more money.

also, the "high taxes = less growth" is precisely what i was talking about: a 1985 mentality. taxes were higher in the 1990s. anybody would trade today for back then.

 

[Kieran McConville]

In a more sober vein, I would observe that the quoted author in the opening post, and frankly, not a few regulars on this forum, are a sick, sad parody of a once-respectable ideological perspective.

Nothing but a creepy anti-tax cult. Frankly, an embarrassment. No debate is possible. No good faith is offered, and therefore none should be expected.

As expressed in the contemporary elected membership of the GOP, and to a lesser extent, my own country's 'centre-right' coalition opposition, this worldview is borderline treason. It actively seeks the collapse of existing politics, and economy, on some spurious notion of... I don't know what. That the blame will fall on the incumbents? That the system will be further discredited? Aren't revolutions fun! PRESS PLAY!

 

[BVS]

I know exactly what I'm talking about.

No, you're using a hijacked term, one created by the far right of American radio. If you tried to use that term to someone who actually grew up in a true socialistic country they'd slap you on the back of the head.

If your country has similar institutions then it's similar.

You don't find this simpleton at all? Looking through the context of world history you think it's ok to compare a CONTINENT of several old individual countries to a young and still fairly powerful COUNTRY? I don't know very many true thinking persons that would make such careless comparisons, do you?

 

[Canadiens1131]

Also, I believe you're confusing democratic socialism with social democracy.

Ding ding ding.

 

[purpleoscar]

Communism is a stateless, classless and moneyless society, and the final goal in which socialism is the transitional phase. Also, I believe you're confusing democratic socialism with social democracy.

You're just derailing the thread with being pedantic. If the left wants to control all of healthcare and run the energy sector (which is what they want to do) then trying to split differences between democratic socialism and social democracy is what the left does best. Hijack terms because to debate climate change and a single payer healthcare system is too much work. There are many socialists and communists who work together much like there are many neo-conservatives and libertarians who work together because they all have some common bonds

No, you're using a hijacked term, one created by the far right of American radio. If you tried to use that term to someone who actually grew up in a true socialistic country they'd slap you on the back of the head.

You mean the ones moving to the United States? I've talked to all kinds of socialists. In fact I met (again more teachers) on a hike last summer and they were super political in the car pool towards the trailhead. One was a older retired teacher German socialist who was MASSIVELY brainwashed who talked nothing but 'socialism' (her term). She used the term interchangably they way I do. The entire drive was hilarious. I'll detail later when I get back from work. It ended up being fun but unfortunately when I started the hike a green party politician who lost the election then started to debate me. That nice hike was ruined. What a lunatic!

the left wants higher taxes because they want people to have things like health care and schools and roads and functioning police, fire department, and hospitals, as well as education and early childhood programs.

the right wants to keep taxes low so that rich people will have more money.

also, the "high taxes = less growth" is precisely what i was talking about: a 1985 mentality. taxes were higher in the 1990s. anybody would trade today for back then.

You're forgetting easy money policies of the 1990s, free trade, higher savings rates (during the early 1990s and lower savings rates in the later 1990s) and a lower debt load. The 1990's Seinfeld era is OVER. If debt was paid down in the 1990s instead of only balancing the budget then the debt load now wouldn't be so bad. Currently individual, corporate and state debts are huge. If anything the 1990s and 2000s led to today's predicament. We're in a hangover from the "good times".

BTW the right wants to keep taxes low so there is an incentive to work. Work is painful and incentives are needed to do it.

The problem with the left is that when programs are instituted they are supposed to work but there is always a push to add more. Government is always "underfunded" precisely because most of the money goes to salaries and the challenge is to make sure that new money doesn't simply go to inflated salaries with little to no improvement. That challenge hasn't been satisfied.

 

[BVS]

You're just derailing the thread with being pedantic.

It's not being "pedantic"

If we allow for the bending and mutating of words then they lose meaning. Would I be correct in calling you a Nazi or Facist? Aren't you just being pedantic if you state 'no' to that question?

If you want to be taken seriously in debate than you have to start respecting the language, the science, and the means that we define things in life in order to do so. Otherwise you'll never be taken seriously, ever.

If the left wants to control all of healthcare and run the energy sector (which is what they want to do) then trying to split differences between democratic socialism and social democracy is what the left does best.

So you honestly believe that what's happening in the US is "controling" healthcare? If you honestly believe that then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you, it's a really good holiday deal. You better act now.

 

[kramwest1]

/sorry

 

[Irvine511]

You're forgetting easy money policies of the 1990s, free trade, higher savings rates (during the early 1990s and lower savings rates in the later 1990s) and a lower debt load. The 1990's Seinfeld era is OVER. If debt was paid down in the 1990s instead of only balancing the budget then the debt load now wouldn't be so bad. Currently individual, corporate and state debts are huge. If anything the 1990s and 2000s led to today's predicament. We're in a hangover from the "good times".

the debt wasn't paid down BECAUSE of Bush's 2001 tax cuts. that, along with the housing market, is what bankrupted us.

again, all the GOP cares about is tax cuts on rich people not on lowering the deficit or paying down debt.

BTW the right wants to keep taxes low so there is an incentive to work. Work is painful and incentives are needed to do it.

you're right. the unemployed need more incentive to take a bath and get a job. lower tax rates will help them do this.

The problem with the left is that when programs are instituted they are supposed to work but there is always a push to add more. Government is always "underfunded" precisely because most of the money goes to salaries and the challenge is to make sure that new money doesn't simply go to inflated salaries with little to no improvement. That challenge hasn't been satisfied.

i'm essentially married to a federal worker. you have no idea what you're talking about.