Dave wrote:
I apologize for not having read your introduction earlier - but I would like to clarify something. You talk about conservative vs. liberal - and use names. I believe there are some who claim they are conservatives - and are villified for being conservative - when in reality they aren't.
For example, you mention Nixon and take issue with him taking us off the gold standard. I agree that he might not have been correct to do that, but doing that was not a conservative move - any more than his imposing wage and price controls was conservative. If one clearly analizes Nixon's domestic policies they'd see clearly a liberal by any standards - his conservatism to the degree that it existed at all was in foreign relations.
W Bush also was more of a liberal in at least two of his major initiatives. No child left behind, legislation largely written by Ted Kennedy, furthered federal involvlement in education - hardly a conservative move. Bush also was behing Midicate Part D - another unfunded entitlement not subject even to needs evalauation - again not consrvative. Signing Sarbannes-Oaxley and expanding federal regulators by hiring an additional 90,000 was not conservative.
Both Nixon and W Bush fostered policies that sullied the name conservative while those policies were anything but conservative.
I apologize for not having read your introduction ... (
show quote)
Actually, I do tend to be vague with my references to "conservative" and "liberal".
With regard to policy, I think the terms are somewhat ambiguous. Certainly, as you have mentioned the Bush Administration has often leaned toward a liberal tact, while preaching conservative "values" and I think this indicates how superficial the division really is and for that reason my references to "liberal" and "conservative" is almost always in reference to people, rather than policy.
There is without a doubt a very strong commitment among people who call themselves conservatives to the idea of "being" a conservative and I think, to a lesser degree, a reciprocal sentiment exists among liberals. I think politicians take advantage of this because there is less need for explanation when you brand your politics this way. Bush didn't have to explain his liberal policies as long as he continued to rally his supporters behind the banner of conservatism and today the conservative brand is the most effective weapon the loyal opposition has to the current government. Likewise, Obama doesn't have to explain much to his devoutly self-branded liberal followers - or zombies as I think conservatives call them. (so, it shouldn't be a surprise to you that I think the term applies equally to brand-loyal conservatives)
This "branding" is fortified by the charges of outrage broadcasted by culture icons like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly who have established lucrative careers in exaggerating the rift between the "righteous right" and the "looney left". Same can be said for the comic interjections of Jon Stewart and Bill Mahr.
Most negative references I make to conservatives is aimed at the people who have fallen hook, line and sinker for this branding game, without asking for explanations and consequently missing the inconsistencies. And what about these inconsistencies, the liberalism of Bush, or for that matter the conservatism of Clinton?
Well, I think the real power struggle is between what I call "gravity wells of capital" and the battleground is nothing less than global. The real kings of the 21st century are obscure and our frustrations can find no targets but their effective servants... our politicians. Indeed, governments are strategic assets and ideologies are tools for swaying public opinion in countries where public opinion matters.
I think this real power struggle is what has been driving our foreign policy since we became a world power at the start of the 20th century and it explains why it's so hard to align our foreign policy with liberal or conservative ideologies. It also explains why our foreign policy has been so consistent across Democratic and Republican administrations alike.
The objectives have always been to satisfy the needs of large capital with one of two basic approaches to policy... liberal (soft) or imperial (hard)... conservatism doesn't seem to exist on the global theater but like nationalism, tends to be more isolated to more local concerns.
Liberalism is always the first tact - to open up foreign markets... "free" them from protectionism, nationalism, communism, whatever... Imperialism comes in when liberalism fails, and usually involves force. The Bush Administration did both to achieve the same objective - to take over the energy markets in the ME. When liberalism didn't go our way, we activated the troops and attacked so as to force it our way.
As Teddy Roosevelt, who authored several papers on the benefits of imperialism once said... "I've got a big stick". Hey, at least he was honest.
I realize imperialism is something most people associate with the forts and flags of the 19th century Europeans but imperialism has simply evolved, as has the European states themselves who are today much less influenced by the old title-based orders of aristocracy and far more influenced by the same gravity wells of capital (or I guess I can say plutocracy) that we are.
My understanding of conservatism in it's most universal sense, is a somewhat localized resistance to change, including modernization. There is a reverence for the past and frequent attachments to older orders such as religion.
This can be found in many different flavors all over the world from the Taliban in Afghanistan to the Christian Conservatives in Texas and although the methods may be very different the objectives are similar and so is the future, which doesn't bode well for conservatives anywhere.
The biggest threat to conservatism is probably globalization. Things like the Internet along with the advances in neoliberal infrastructures such as GATT/WTO have pushed us into an age where capital is 100% fluid across borders and as capital consolidates, which it always does - hence my use of the term "gravity-well" the threat of a world government will become more intense.
True conservatives like Newt Gingrich have been ringing the warning bell on this, but the new "so-called" conservatives like Bush have been driving the bus down this road as fast as they possibly can.
I don't know if you've read Thomas Friedman's "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" but it's a great primer on globalization and his analogy is priceless. The Lexus represents the lure of neoliberalism and the Olive Tree represents the resistance of tradition. He explains how the Lexus as an analogy for U.S. foreign policy conflicts with the Olive Tree, an analogy for the Islamic fundamentalists with the result being a violent resistance, but the analogy can be applied equally to the same conflict in America.
Now... Liberals like me. Where do we stand in all this?
Well, I can see the momentum of globalization and I can see how effective the globalists have been at pulling the wool over our eyes. I can also recognize the Pandora effect. Like nuclear weapons... once it's invented how can you really expect it to not be a threat anymore?
So, I think resisting globalization is a loosing strategy. I prefer the idea of embracing globalization with the intent to keep democracy relevant and this is the source of my frustration. How can we do this if half the people in America are doggedly favoring business over government to the point where we are actually giving private money advantages over the public vote?
What I find most frustrating of all is when I open up discussion around this 21st century problem and it's immediately sunk with canned arguments based on antiquated prejudices chanted endlessly by half-wit entertainers like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck? I can't even get people to understand what I am actually trying to say because as soon as it smells different, which of course my arguments will because I'm not talking about things that Glenn Beck are concerned with, I am pegged as a liberal and my argument is shut out. What I usually get back isn't so much a response to my argument as it is a rant about the "Dark Side" or whatever.
Ah... Sorry, Dave I didn't mean to go on and on like that. It's just a lot to get off my chest and I figured it's on my introduction thread.