I found an interesting blog post by an Andrew Russo.



Whither Conservatism in the Harvard Crimson. An interesting look at the nomination of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court.

Jonah Golberg counter-attack article.



Questions for debate:

1.)Is conservatism dead?, who is most responsible for it's demise or at a minimum, its illness?

2.)How can conservatism regain it's "small government" emphasis?

3.)How will conservatism look ten years from now? What issues might take center stage?

For individuals I don't think conservatism is dead, because I am a living, breathing example. As for politicians? Yes, conservatism is dead.

All we have in Washington anymore are pansy liberals or cowardly pseudo-conservatives.

Everyone is scared of offending people, worried about what everyone thinks. Worried about ones 'legacy' in politics. Has serving one's country become more like high school and less about civic duty?

1.)Is conservatism dead?, who is most responsible for it's demise or at a minimum, its illness?

Conservatism has reached the point where it is dishonest for real conservatives to identify as anything more than "slightly conservative", if the term is supposed to indicate the level of agreement with most modern "conservative" politicians. But, I don't think the ideals are dead. Real conservatism is never dead, only dormant. Whenever government or a particular class begins to oppress the People, We will demand a return to small government; or otherwise, we will get lazy, fat, inept, and ripe for foreign interests to infiltrate and overthrow.

There was a spark of hope with Reagan, but he also had a big-government streak, and probably also killed it by selecting Bush Sr. as his running mate and successor. The Republican liberals in conservative clothing who are only small-government during election season dealt the near-fatal injury. All the popular Republicans are big-government liberals, even the ones that are socially conservative.

2.)How can conservatism regain it's "small government" emphasis?

Have the guts to identify big-government liberals masquerading as small-government conservatives, party-affiliation-be-danged, and throw the devils out of office in a good, old-fashioned election, year after year.

A guy can dream.

The legacy of Republican deceitfulness over the past couple of decades is this: even when the People have thought they were electing the supposedly small-government party into complete control of Washington, government still just gets bigger and bigger. Sooner or later, enough Americans will wise up to the reality that no big party with a stranglehold on power is likely to voluntarily reduce the size of government.

Passing term limits and election reforms like automatic run-offs is key. Career politicians who are beholden to one of the two mammoth political infrastructures have a built-in incentive to keep government big and lock out small-government politicians from even running for national office. The only way they'd ever seriously consider such reforms would be as an anti-spoiler measure, so I proudly vote for potential spoilers, whenever practical. Can't be sure it will ever work, but in a few generations, maybe it will.

If there were a "Spoiler Party", I'd probably join it.

3.)How will conservatism look ten years from now? What issues might take center stage?

If things continue the way they're headed, I believe we will eventually call real conservatism right-libertarianism, and concede the conservatism label to socially conservative political liberals like the vast majority of partisan Republicans in Washington. Either that, or there could be a revival of real conservatism to revolt against the pseudo-conservative powerbrokers. Flip a coin.

I don't really have as much in common with modern "conservative" American politicians as some seem to think, so I don't list myself being more than slightly conservative. But, in the back of my mind, I do tend to think of myself as being more traditionally, Constitutionally, politically, truly conservative than any of the poster boys of the Republicrat party.

No, it's not dead yet.

The conservative label has been hijacked by very greedy interests. Through the efforts of psuedo-conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, conservatism is beginning to mean 'self-interest' in a twisted parody of what used to be 'self-sufficiency'. Younger people are joining psuedo-conservative groups that promote win-at-all-costs, take what you can get politics. Bald expediency has become the psuedo-conservative motto, and I blame anyone who embraces greed and fearmongering over real conservative values.



When real conservatives like John Dean and Ron Paul step up it helps. Unfortunately it's going to take a serious effort and a great deal of education to teach the younger generations that plitics is not a game for profit and power, it's about making one's country a better place through realistic assesments and sound fiscal policies.

Ultimately the only thing that I think can save true Conservatism will be the incarceration of those whose personal greed has eclipsed their personal ethics in mass numbers. After all the psuedo-conservatives have paid a visible price, then I think we can see the return of an actual form of real conservatism again... but probably under a different label as the 'Conservative' label is indelibly sullied.



I wouldn't be surprised if the Libertarians took up the cause and became a more prevalent party. The knock-down, drag-out fights over social programs would probably dwarf foreign policy, but we'd see some actual conservative reforms.

Meanwhile, barring some catastrophic event, Republicans can pretty well kiss their majorities goodbye forever as of 2009. This is a point of concern, of course. I am not comfortable with the notion that the only thing that can salvage this administration is another successful terrorist strike on American soil.

1.)Is conservatism dead?, who is most responsible for it's demise or at a minimum, its illness?

I think it never got to live- I believe it was aborted by RR in 1980, as he sold out all the ideals to the religious right in order to get elected- that is the inherent flaw with US conservatism since the 1950s- that "common-sense small-goverment big-on-goverment-out-of-your-lives" wing has a strange bedfellow with the "social conservatives" "big-brother-peering-into-your-bedrooms-giving-taxdollars-to-your-preacher"- and I think the two are so mutually exclusive in reality, while looking cool to others on paper- that dooms the movement before REAL conservatism gets stamped to death by the chickenhawk and the church lady.


2.)How can conservatism regain it's "small government" emphasis?

By moving into the libertarian ranks- without a doubt- it has to divorce itself from the Neo-con and the Social religious right- or it can't move back into truly smaller goverment- Social religious right leads to big beauracracies like homeland security, DEA, and lots of of other big-goverment nanny state things.


3.)How will conservatism look ten years from now? What issues might take center stage?

Hard to say if the baby boomer voter in this country wll die off fast enough for a more informed voter to take hold j/k

Baby boomers gave us Clinton AND GW- it is them I blame.

I think it is too hard to call- conservatism, due to the last 6 years+ may be a dirty word, and have the old ideals under a new banner

I think that as close as we've seen, but my answer would be sound a little more like a question...
Is conservatism dead?, who is most responsible for it's demise or at a minimum, its illness?
Wait. It was alive?

I mean seriously, the small-government conservatism has never been the biggest branch of the ideology. The type of conservatism you seem to be referencing is an outgrowth of opposition to the New Deal. It's been around for a couple generation, but has never been very robust.

Conservatism's strength in America has always been social conservatives.

I suspect the fiscal conservatives are looking back to a golden age that never was.

That moots question two, one cannot regain what it never had.

Ten years from now, conservatism will still be in debt to the social conservatives because that is the popular branch of the ideology. It is only because social liberalism is so unpopular that liberals were forced to make economic liberalism a standard, and even that is mushy.

What we are actually seeing is the death of initiative on all sides.

I was just complaining about the lack of true liberals in government.

It is ideological courage that is dead, I'm not sure it will ever come back...

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Sympathy for big government never gained any dominant political traction in America from 1776 to 1926. The founders established excessively small national government with the Articles of Confederation, then the framers instituted a more practical form of limited government via the Constitution. The bill of rights added key elements of small-government liberalism/libertarianism to the Constitution. The Constitution was termed "liberal" only insofar as it liberated the People to have a significant voice in limited government, not because it promoted big, oppressive government like modern liberals do. If small-government conservatism is reactionary to anything, it's a reaction against the oppressive big-government tendencies of the British parliament under King George III, far more than the New Deal.

Conservatism reigned over America up until about 1926. Socialist and communist movements had been spilling over to the U.S. from European immigrants after the Civil War, but didn't gain much traction with voters until the mid-twenties. When the Great Depression hit, this new American left blamed America's traditional small-government conservatism (corrupted by "robber barons") as the problem and successfully promoted big-government liberalism/socialism as the solution during the 30s and 40s. Many former small-government conservatives went along with the New Deal as an anti-depression remedy, then discovered their colleagues and forbears were right--- power once ceded to government almost never returns to the People. But, no matter how you cut it, the New Deal was a reaction to small-government conservatism, far more than the other way around.

The idea that conservatives never had power in America or sprang up overnight as reactionaries against the New Deal ignores the lion's share of American history. Let's compare. I'd say America was dominantly conservative from 1776 to about 1926, then there was a period of transition from about 1926-1946, and from 1946 to the present has been predominantly liberal. Give or take. That's about 150 years under small-government conservatism and only about 61 years so far under big-government liberalism. In other words, America has been politically conservative more than twice as long as it's been liberal.

So, the premise that small-government conservatism never existed in America is nothing more than liberal propaganda. Whether they like to admit it or not, America's first century-and-a-half actually existed!

American conservatives have always been social conservatives, you say? Balderdash! Don't schools teach Jefferson any more? Jefferson was the champion of small-government conservatism and simultaneously the nemesis of social conservatism in American politics. That's probably why so many in both major parties today have a love-hate relationship with Jefferson-- on one issue or another, he might prove both sides right; but on most issues, he proves them both wrong. Although Lincoln's administration was relatively big-government as a practical matter, if he had not presided over the Ciivil War, he probably would have been in the same mold as Jefferson, if we can go by his earlier writings and speeches, and the actions of his political successors to 1926ish.

If your point was we have to reach back before the New Deal to find real conservatives in power in American government, then I would probably agree.

Seamus- you are getting into semantics about what "conservatism" means- which is a debate in and of itself- - I would say that the first 100+ years was raging hard core liberalism- conservatism, to me, is the rut of staying in old, tired ideas that no longer work- or as mark twain (paraphrased)- todays conservative is yesterdays liberal ideas all used up and wasted"

Liberal to me means willingness to change- conservatism is to stay in the old ideals

the very idea of a true representive republic with powers resting in commoners was the most liberal thought in the world at the time-NOT conservative thought

So- what is conservatism as it is being debated here Seamus?

I think the definitions you are using and others here are using are different.

Perhaps, but it seems clear from the question to this topic that it is addressing political conservatism (limited government), as opposed to social conservatism (traditionalism, resistance to cultural change).

Think shampoo bottles: "Apply liberally. Rinse. Repeat." Then, there's antibacterial ointment: "Apply conservatively to bandage." These are the fundamental definitions of conservative and liberal with respect to the size of government: Government applied conservatively, versus government applied liberally. Liberal means relatively big or generous, conservative means relatively small or thrifty; always has. Over time, other definitions have emerged based on similarities or prejudices; people's feelings about these original definitions.

"Resistance to change" (such as the conservative law of momentum), is a somewhat innacurate definition for generic conservatism; "resistance to increase" would be more accurate. On the flip side, generic liberalism isn't so much the willingness to change as the willingness to increase something. With respect to government power, these refer to its size, scope, intrusiveness, oppressiveness, etc.

From the topic question, it's clear we're discussing the small-government/limited-government connotation of conservatism (political conservatism), and in that context, the Constitution was by far among the most conservative forms of government at the time (although the Articles were more conservative). Liberating, yes. Libertarian, yes. Liberal, definitely not, from the "amount of government" perspective as framed in this topic.

We associate traditionalism with social or cultural conservatism promoting the preservation of culture, as opposed to political conservatism dealing with limited government power. They use the same descriptor, but refer to different concepts. It is only recently that politicos have assumed political conservatism and social conservatism had to go hand in hand. Jefferson disagreed quite a bit. The American revolution was politically conservative (meaning limited government) and socially liberal (meaning non-traditional or even anti-traditional). The American revolution was not intended to increase the size and scope of government in the direction of more Tyranny.

False, for most of civilization government oppressed its own citizens. The conservative favored maintaining this status quo. The original liberals were for smaller government. In the last half of our our century you can see men who are now labeled libertarian or conservative libertarian (e.g. F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman) proudly call themselves liberals. It is basically in the last 75 years that the socialists have stolen the liberal label and why we have to place the adjective classical before true liberals to seperate the true liberals from the socialists who stole the liberal mantra.

From "Why I Am Not a Conservative" F.A. Hayek

That's a common misconception.

Our current definition of liberal and conservative had no place in early American politics.

Both sides often try to root themselves in the Founding Fathers but I'm afraid neither modern liberals nor conservatives can stake a claim.

Technically our Founding Fathers were liberal, both in terms of the revolutionary nature of their actions as referenced by CR but perhaps more specifically in terms of their desire to limit the rights (as opposed to scale) of government. Those limitations were not simply to shrink the size of the federal government, but were focused on limiting the ability of the government to trample civil liberties.

It is the civil libertarians on both sides that can truly stake a claim to the revolution, thought they may better be know as "classical liberals."

The early governmental struggle was from those who favored concentration of power in states vs. the federal government. Neither were "conservative" by our definitions.


Easy with the brush.

I'm making no blanket judgment here, just pointing out that "small-government" conservatism of the type you referenced is rather new, just like my own "big-government" liberalism.

I'd say that the common-school movement was beginning of liberalism, which saw an explosion during the Great Depression and birthed modern conservatism in opposition.

The New Deal was not a response to conservatism, it was a response to a depression. It placed no blame, it was meant simply to ameliorate the effects.

Link

I've referenced a few times around that Thomas Jefferson was one of our earliest advocates of tax-funded education.

I don't understand from your post why you disagree. First of all, when I said "always has", it was clearly in reference to the generic, unqualified definitions of liberalism and conservatism in any context, not just politics (I used shampoo and ointment as examples). This is a truism you can only argue against with etymology or philology.

Everything else your post says is completely in line with what I've said, so long as the correct adjectives are inserted. Allow me to insert the adjectives:

For most of civilization government oppressed its own citizens. The cultural conservative favored maintaining this status quo. The original cultural liberals were for smaller government. In the last half of our our century you can see men who are now labeled libertarian or conservative libertarian (e.g. F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman) proudly call themselves liberals. It is basically in the last 75 years that the socialists have stolen the liberal label and why we have to place the adjective classical before true social liberals to seperate the true social liberals from the socialists who stole the social liberal mantra.

You're confusing the social liberal-conservative spectrum (progressive vs. traditional) with the political liberal-conservative (big vs. small government) spectrum. That's the whole point of this topic-- historical small-government political conservatism has been so confused with 20th-century big-government social conservatism that most of us don't study history closely enough to tell the difference between the two.

In reference to the topic post-- we're discussing how the modern big-government social conservative movement has hijacked "conservatism" from historical small-government conservatism (now generally termed right-libertarian, as I've mentioned). You're essentially arguing, if you disagree, that there has never been such a thing as limited government-- that all politicians have always promoted big, expansive government programs that increasingly encroach on the rights of the people, and essentially, that the American Revolution was a farce in which one group of oppressors wrested control of a geographical region from another group of oppressors. I doubt that's the case. Chances are, we're just disagreeing over terminology, and that's the point.

I heard Mike's rule on America's Debate Radio, and I haven't found it easily, so I'll paraphrase from memory pending correction: If you believe the federal government should be limited to what's actually in the Constitution, you're conservative. If not, you're liberal. He's essentially right, using political spectrum instead of the social spectrum.

The only difference I have with your Hayek quote is that we differ in our opinions of which conservatism is the "true" conservatism. He calls historical social conservatism "true" conservatism, while I call the revolutionary era political conservatism the "true" conservatism. He calls political conservatism "liberal" because it was practiced by men like Jefferson who were socially or culturally liberal.

He's essentially trying to find some system of labelling by which he can effectively drop the modifiers. He admits there's a lot of confusion, and he doesn't help anything by deciding to side with the modern attempt to marry social conservatism with political liberalism, calling the result "classical conservatism", then trying to marry social liberalism with political conservatism, and calling the result "classical liberalism". It's an unnecessary, misleading oversimplification, but it's become common enough that I've admitted earlier I usually just concede the terminology to the common modern usage. Using historical constructs, I'm politically conservative and socially liberal-- using modern constructs, that makes me "right-libertarian" or perhaps "slightly conservative".

The terminology might be different, but that shouldn't get in the way of this discussion, because the topic post clearly defines what it means: big government is anathema to old-style conservatism; so when the topic talks about the demise of old-style political conservatism, it is clearly talking about the demise of the small-government movement, isn't it? If not, my apologies for bringing up archaic technicalities.

The trouble there is that the two sides tend to disagree on what the Constitution actually says.

I don't know of many of the social programs that liberals support that have been ruled unconstitutional, and yet conservatives still oppose them...

...because most of SCOTUS has been liberal (both politically and socially) and thus make no significant effort to stick to the Constitution, perhaps?

I'll add a second line to avoid a one-liner. Essentially, turnea, I think we're going to disagree on the terminological side issue of whether the topic post is even correct to associate conservatism with opposition to big-government. However, it does, so it might also be interesting to discuss whether "the era of big government is over", as Clinton the First claimed, or if it is actually the era of small government that will never return.

edited to add...

I have been using the terms "small government" and "limited government" interchangeably. Teminology aside (we still disagree on the technicalities), I don't disagree in the essence, and tried to make the point, but not quite as well as you did here. Conservatism, as it seems to be formulated in this topic (perhaps in an unorthodox way according to some), would seem to encompass what you more specifically call civil libertarianism, which I (perhaps non-obviously) bundled in with "libertarianism".

I should have seen that coming...

care to substantiate the two claims here?
1.) The Supreme Court has been consistently liberal.
2.) That the liberal Supreme court has ignored the Constitution.

That wasn't my quibble. Rather that opposition to big-government did not take the form of opposition to social services until the New Deal era. It was not "big government" the Founding Fathers opposed, but tyrannous, over-centralized government.


See even the "liberals" wanted to join the Old Right.

Oh for a real liberal! We're wondering what has become of our values too.

I suspect that the modern right has lost the battle to create a strict libertarian America. From the adoption of the Prussian education system forward Americans have been liberal at heart tempered only by a persistent social conservatism.

We may well see a movement towards "social democracy" though that doesn't mean conservatism is dead. Rather that it was never really alive in a popular sense.

Edited to Add:

So does hard-core liberalism, hence the ACLU.

Tyrannous, over-centralized government is nothing more than the extreme version of big, unlimited government. Again, terminological nuances.

I would if it were on-topic. Easy to do though. The court has consistenly sided with big, unlimited government with tyrannical tendencies, ergo, it's politically liberal. The Supreme Court has consistently made decisions like Roe v. Wade which completely ignore how the Constitution was originally interpreted (to leave abortion to the states to adjudicate), and also ignore the only direct constitutional issue-- whether or not the unborn qualify for right-to-life protection. I could go into more detail, but it's off-topic.

In response to my assertion that limited-government conservatism includes civil libertarianism,No objection from me. It's the Jeffersonian paradox I mentioned earlier, as well as the confusion deng referenced with Hayek. Civil libertarians in the Republican party, formed from conservative movements like the Liberty Party and the Free Soil Party, can proudly lay claim to a larger percentage of support for abolition of slavery in the 1860s through civil rights legislation in the 1960s. Since the 1960s, there has been a stronger civil libertarian movement within the Democratic Party that has continued to grow in influence. Bravo to them both. Yet, strangely, national politicians in neither party can lay claim to enough support for limited government since the New Deal-- just unending power grabs, increased spending, and occasionally extra taxation to pay for it (laughably called "fiscal conservatism" by some on the left).

In reference to my Clinton quote, No, even some Democrats wanted to twist the talking point to their advantage and campaign on it, because it is popular with the People. Clinton increased spending, increased taxes, and seized more power, then tried to co-opt the limited government talking points by firing people. Some considered it masterful politics, but it was blatant deceit, wasn't it?

No it isn't, there is a big distinction.

A government which provides a wide variety of social services need be neither tyrannical nor insulated from local control.


Fair enough. I may start one eventually because i think the idea that the SCOTUS has been consistently liberal is highly arguable.

I think it's my turn to weigh in on this issue. First, what needs to be established is the difference between conservative v liberal philosophy and conservative v liberal philosophy in US politics. Philosophical conservatism (most closely related to the works of Edmund Burke and Michael Oakeshott), is a philosophy that rejects the rationalism that plagues modern politics. To explain, rationalism is a system of thought that holds reason in the highest regard. Its the idea that all problems and all issues can be worked out through human reason. Conservatism rejects this notion as hubristic and highlights the limits of human reason. It argues that rationalists assume that all problems have a solution and that it is reason that can solve those problems. Conservatism is pragmatic and resistant to unnecesary change. It believes that all change should be viewed with skepticism until it is proven beforehand that the change will benefit society. If you want an example of a conservatism critique of current politics, look at the presidential campaigns. Everyone needs a "plan" or a "solution". If the candidate doesnt have one, they are criticized. Conservatives would say that maybe some issues dont have a solution and no plan would work. Liberal philosophy is split into two camps: Classical liberals (Hayek, Mises) and progressive liberals (aka social democrats)(John Dewey). The former is a philosophy of minimum government intervention and of support for markets. The latter is a philosophy that has no qualms with increased government intervention as long as it is controlled by a democratic process. The former is the original form of liberlaism while progressive liberals spawned later on in reaction to market failures as well as sympathy toward certain socialistic goals. The conservative and the classical liberal are very similar in many respects except in the conservative resistance to change, Classical liberals embrace change as a natural result of market mechanisms that should not be hindered by government.

In the American understanding, conservatism and liberalism mean very different things. The idea of minimum central government was the mainstream thought up till the Great Depression where government solutions were demanded. That's the time in US history when conservatives and liberals split greatly. Conservatives were still resistant to more government while liberals were increasingly more passive on larger government. The small government conservative was still a major part of the GOP until things changed around the LBJ administration and the Vietnam War. The Great Society programs were the beginning of the rise of the welfare state in the US and ideologies began to realign. There were people who were pro-Vietnam war and pro-increased government and the three other variations, etc... The parties shifted ideologies as big government liberals who were also hawkish proponents of anti-communism began to join the GOP. This culminated into the Reagan Adminstration. Although he ran on the platform of limited government (and he did succeed in many areas, including federalism), it was still a big government ideology that ran the administration. George W. Bush and his compassionate conservatism is basically an ideology that believes conservative ends can be achieved by government. Case in point is the NCLBA. Its a big government solution to a conservative issue. Currently, the Republican party is overrun with big government proponents who have no problem with new programs and bureaucracy as long as it follows their own beliefs. Conservatives and liberals are not that different any more. Both are parties of increased government size, just in different areas. Conservatives want increased social control with less economic and the liberals are vice-versa. Its going to take a massive resurgence of grass roots support for decreased government support that occurred in the years leading up to Reagan to change the way politics is conducted in this country.

1.)Is conservatism dead?, who is most responsible for it's demise or at a minimum, its illness?

Conservatism, in the sense of limited government and more freedom, is dead and its conservatives who killed it. They have foresaken their pledges and have given in to special interests who prefer government intervention.

2.)How can conservatism regain it's "small government" emphasis?

It can only happen with a grass roots movement towards less government intervention in our lives. It will also take a charismatic political figure to be the face of the movement. But most of all, it's going to take courage. People are villified for having the audacity to say that people are better able to spend their own money than the government. Just look at some of the posters on these boards and you can see the utter contempt people have for decisions made outside the sphere of government. But I warn these posters. When you give government the power to do good, you give them the power to do evil. Big government is all nice and good when the policies are in your favor, but they wont be so great when policies opposite to your ideology become the focus of the government.

3.)How will conservatism look ten years from now? What issues might take center stage?

Unfortunately, I do not see conservatism fairing too well. Its just too lucrative for politicians to increase their own power and influence. They have also fooled the majority of this country into thinking that the government can solve all of their problems. The issues that will take center stage will be social security and medicare. Why? Because these are government programs that are complete failures. And what will be the government solution to government failures?...more government. Its just amazing.

It is not quite dead if we are talking about Barry Goldwater conservatism. The Republicans got Ron Paul (sadly in the last polls he is below 1%) and of course the Libertarian Party gets about three votes out of every thousand. I would say the heart has stopped beating and the brain waves are minimal.

1.)Is conservatism dead?, who is most responsible for it's demise or at a minimum, its illness?

No its not dead, granted it has seen a tough 8 years I think what people really want is a stand up gouvernment whether it be liberal, and democratic, or conservative and republican. For example the new Democratic congress has an approval rating lower than that of the presidential cabinet, as low as 18% according to some recent polls. People are looking for a change from incompetence and corruption to a strong gouvernment they can feel confident backing. Not a change from conservatism to liberalism.

2.)How can conservatism regain it's "small government" emphasis?

Win this war so we can come home, I believe it to be that simple. I'm convinced with as much money as we have spent in this war thus far that some of it is getting lost in the loop and through our flawed system much of its benefit never reaches the battlefield. Our money should be going where it counts the most, and the sooner we can win this war without giving into defeat the sooner we can come home. In the meantime, a time of war has always been a time of sacrifice and increased spending, however to tell you the truth I think overspending has less to do with this president and more to do with the system itself and how it works. I did research on this and it turns out that there hasn't been a president in U.S. history since some of the presidents of the 1920's like Woodrow Wilson and Warren G. Harding to actually reverse this process of increasing national debt in the United States, and this includes both parties throughout the last 80 years. Some have done more to slow spending than others, and if you look at it as relative to the gross domestic product, there have been ups and downs, but nobody at least in recent history has actually reduced the national debt. Take a look at this national debt readout from Wiki from the following link.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Year to
30 September U.S. Govt Debt
US$ billions

1910 2.6
1920 25.9
1930 16.2 The 1920's was the only decade in the last century to reduce the national debt as this shows.
1940 43.0
1950 257.4
1960 290.2
1970 389.2
1980 930.2
1990 3,233.3
2000 5,674.2
2005 7,932.7
2006 9,000.0

What this shows is apparently the Bush administration didn't invent overspending, even if he is spending more than presidents like Bill Clinton. I don't usually do much to defend George Bush but to his credit we do have to consider that in the last 8 years we have seen one of the largest hurricanes in U.S history hit what is probably our most vital port city in the south, on top of this we are at war, so personally I didn't expect George Bush to be the first president since the 1920's to reduce the national debt.

Dead. D-E-A-D. Dead. I'd like to say it's a recent phenomna, America's love for big government, but it's about 70 years old. The death of small government conservatism/classical liberalism can be narrowed to one date: March 4, 1933, the day America's first dictator and first socialist President was elected to office, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Yep, "American Classical liberalism/Small gov't conservatism: 1776-1933". The aftershocks of FDR's reign have both physical [Social Security, etc.] and philosophical [what can the government do for me?] effects today. Americans, since them, have viewed the government as a general store that can do things for them, more often than not, at the expense of others. This is in stark contrast with the initial view of government as a leviathan that needed to be chained down....It is this shift in philosophy that has resulted in the death of conservatism and the rise of neo-conservatism [a more sophisiticated, palatable form of fascism; the kicker is, people vote for it]. Who is most responsible? Well, as I said, FDR introduced the American people to the government teat, LBJ kept the milk flowing, Regan expanded it to rid society of moral ills [War on Drugs], and this President has all but finished the job by inundating the government with neoconservative idealists. With that said, I do believe that I am partly to blame .
Eventually, with any hope, the government is going to do something so absurd, so offensive to the sensibilities of so many people, that the resulting backlash will libertarianize the country once again. [I won't hold my breath]
That depends on who is elected President next year. If it is a centrist like Giuliani then the party may libertarianize on social issues. If it's a neoconservative like Thompson, then expect more of the same.

CP

I will point out again that the New Deal marked the birth of paleoconservatism, not its death. There was no organized ideological resistance to social programs in early American history simply a dearth of ideas as the concept was new.

What public programs we knew about, like public education, we adopted.

I disagree. Paleoconservatism was most obvious during and after the New Deal only because paleoconservatives were the overwhelming majority before the New Deal. There was never a reason for paleoconservative outrage before because we'd never had a dictator nor a socialist as President before. It's understandable that they became vocal when we a hybrid of both came into power. Paleoconservative was vocal right after the New Deal; this activity was iessentially its death throes.

CP

I can back up my assertion, I've posted this before.

Old Right

It was a position cobbled together across the old political spectrum.

Herbert Hoover, as you know, was President before FDR. Paleoconservatives existed well before FDR, they did not exist well after him. "Paleoconservatives" were the norm up until FDR took over, it was when he began his Presidency that they rose to oppose his illegal social programs, failed to block them and then died off. "Laissez-faire classical liberals" and "business-oriented conservatives", as I said, and as Wikipedia confirms, did not come to exist as a result of FDR.

CP

I am indeed aware of Hoover's existance


Link

Hoover became a small-government conservative only after he left office, in response to...

the New Deal.

Before this the great American split was between federal government and the state not big government and small.

Well, clearly I was wrong about Hoover. The point, still, however, remains that classical liberals and business-oriented Republicans were, in fact, in existant [and quite common] prior to FDR. While he apparently resulted in the political re-identification in Herbert Hoover, I still fail to see how FDR resulted in the creation of the small gov't conservatives [which, after all, is what we're supposed to be talking about]. Again, in order for FDR's New Deal to spawn the Old Right [classical liberals and business-oriented conservatives], they must not have existed prior to him. That is not true. Small government conservatism started to die after the New Deal was undefeated.

Oh by the way LINK


CP

I don't doubt their were a few people here and there ideologically opposed to "big-government" but modern conservatism was born as a movement under the New Deal. Before that what we would call liberals and conservatives didn't really exist.

I think it's a mistake to try and translate our current political split to early America. You wondered aloud in another thread how the anti-federalist jefferson could support tax-funded education

The reason is he saw no contradiction, he was not a conservative by our definition, quote Burke as he would...

But my premise is that modern "conservatism" does not exist. A "few people here and there ideologically opposed to 'big government'"? Turnea, at the turn of the century, that was the attitude of our electorate. America was still a land of limited government. Up until the "Progressive Era", the Federal government was extremely inactive. A limited federal government [what conservatives supposedly stand for] is guiding principal under which our country was built. To say that that same ideology existed "here and there" before Roosevelt simply does not make sense.

CP

Limited federal government was a mainstay of early American politics. That was because of the tradition of local colony (and then state) control.

Entirely limited government was another matter. Opposition to social services on principle was rare. When Massachusetts adopted the public school system most states just said "Hey, good idea!"

And if we're talking [as it appeared to me] about the extinction of conservatives at the Federal level, than what seems to be the problem? Local/state government has ALWAYS been more active, naturally. The closer you are to the people, the more quickly, more effectively and more specifically you can address issues. I am looking at the questions from a Federal standpoint, not a state/local one...Maybe we are on the wrong page in that regard.

CP

Perhaps, the questions do not specify federal conservatism. I argue that "small-government" conservatives exist on both federal and state levels and that they are distinct from the the old anti-federalist concerns.

I think conservatives have gotten into the habit of co-opting the Founding Fathers, naughty naughty.

I think it's a historical error.

Maybe we need some clarification from the original poster...Hey Nebraska, make yourself useful . Are you referring to small gov't conservatives in Congress or just in general?
I think occasionally they try to give off the impression that they care about the country's founders' principles, but they certainly do not govern in such a way.

CP

CP- "the small goverment human" is a bit of a myth all by itself- lot's of folks say they are for smaller goverment- until it effects them.

How small a goverment can you run with 300+ million poeple population and not either end up in civil war or anarchy. What amount of infrastructure developement should be done by the goverment? Should it be left up to private enterprise? This was a great debate clear back when the car was invented.


I believe that liberal and conservative are really either a) a label you give others, or a label you give to yourself- it has no real clear definition, except when talking in the here and now about the current goverment and it's current policies.

All these terms morph to much, are overused too much and are used to demonize, with no real debate on the issue.

Right now, I think "conservative" means GW Bush, "liberal" means Nancy Pelosi.

I will much rather have a Pelosi than a GW.

Ever heard of federalism CruisingRam? I know the Founders were quite well versed in that term. They established a system of government that was intended to be federalist in nature. Federalism is defined as a system of governance where the two pillars of government (state and central) were equal to eachother and neither was subordinate to the other. Federalism is the answer to your question of how a government can funciton over a large population. But we have forsaken federalist principles.

Conservatism (as in an ideology that encompasses classical liberalism, libertarianism, and philosophical conservatism) is dead or dying. This is because it is the nature of government to want to expand. Liberals want that to happen because they believe (naively) that democracy can control the Leviathan. Conservatism is supposed to be a movement to counter that growth of the central government. Some have found the resistance to be too difficult and have given in to the temptation of increasing their own influence.

The most egregious way in which modern liberals and conservatives have killed small government conservatism is in political discourse. They have influenced the discourse in such a way that discussion of a non-government solution has become viewed with contempt. Politicians make a million promises about what they can influence when in power and they make the common man believe that they can actually do what they promise. This perception of power has manifested. They think that the federal government has such overarching power that they disregard the power of their own states and assume that the federal government can solve all problems. If we are going to go back to the small government mindset- its going to start with common sense discourse about the inefficiency of big government.

My premise is that valuable government as a whole is dieing, and needs a rebirth. I don't isolate this to conservatives because in reality the problem is much bigger. I cant think of a president since Ronald Regan that was the light of the political party in which they represented. The days of bold leaders on either the left or right is what has died here. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have lost the confidence of the American people. Today we have a Republican presidential cabinet that has probably deserved the terrible approval rating it has and a democratic congress that has started out with one of the worst approval ratings in history.

Its like one of my favorite conservative News show host, Glenn Beck, often says is that one party is taking us to hell in a jet while the other is taking us there in a Bus. Conservatism isn't dead any more than liberalism, even if our most recent conservative president has been our bus driver, conservatism lives today within countless Americans who want to see a stand up gouvernment cut the nonsense and work for the people. There are qualities in both parties that made many of the presidents in my parents generation great leaders, but I believe what has kept conservative republicans in the presidency more than any other political party has been the people, so conservatives are here to stay. Right now its tough, this presidential cabinet could have done so much better at so many things, but I see several conservative presidential candidates today that show promise. Did Jimmy Carter destroy liberalism by proving to be one of the worst Democratic presidents in history? Of course not. Same goes for Bush. History has proven to be a roller coaster of ups and downs in the world of politics, today both parties seem to be in an unprecedented rut, but I'm hopeful that this will change soon.

Personally I think the words Liberal, Democrat, Conservative, and Republican, are just words. I will back whoever shares my values most, and this has lead me to lean to the right for the most part. My honest opinion is that today I see that conservatives and republicans in particular are in trouble for the way things have been handled in the last 7 years and perhaps they should be, yet at the same time I see how Liberals and Democrats have taken a stance to take advantige of this for political gain while at the same time being short on answers to the same questions they use to criticize conservatives. So what is worse?
One party points fingers while both lack the strength it had 30 years ago, I say cut the bologna, work together, and quit jerking us around. I'm tired of the infighting, when money and power trumps common sense then there is obviously a problem, but it is a problem that both the right and the left share today, not just the right. Almost unanimously the American people are fed up and want change, I just hope that change turns out to be a change made without political bias, but if that is at all possible I don't know. I fear some will say, ""hmm ok bush made a bad president, bush is a conservative, I better vote liberal.""

As over simplistic as that may sound it does hold truth for many, but political bias is not a one sided phenomenon, There is bias on both sides, I even have my share of it, but I hope that next year people are looking at the individual candidates Conservative and Liberal alike, more than the political party they represent, because thats what it is all about. I plan to watch all the political presidential debates because if both liberalism and conservatism are not what they were 30 years ago, I'm looking for the candidate to stand up and change that. I'm tired of the finger pointing, and I'm tired of the lack of leadership in general.

yeah, yeah, yeah, hold your horses there. I had federal in mind, though if a "conservative" governor blows up state spending, is there really that much of a difference? How would that not be a contradiction of "supposed" conservative values?

Turnea's post on the first page of this thread raised an interesting issue. Does "small government" conservatism or "Paleoconservatism" precede "socail conservatism"? I am inclined to say yes as people like Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater were clearly in a different league than say Gary Bauer. As a matter of fact, you wouldn't find a "social conservative" Bauer like candidate before 1988. You can't really say the Paleocons were spend thrifts either. I wouldn't compare them with say, John Lindsay of New York or other blue-blooded republican liberals. Yes, some republicans supported the New Deal, but not conservatives like Taft.

lederuvdepac

So well-intentioned small-government senators and represntatives hit Washington and then...they...just...can't...help...it...the money......... ...it's....so...tempting!. I'm not certain that is necessarily how it goes. While we all don't like it, don't politicians see their first and ultimate duty as to what they can do for the folks back home? I doubt constituents complain all that much if taxpayer money is used to build a helicopter factory or an air base. Don't people want government spending to some degree? Is it excessive to have a federal highway system constructed? Is it excessive "big government" to have food inspected so that some company's product doesn't kill your children? And what politician would seriously campaign with the main idea of: "I brought home no money to the district!!"

CruisingRam

And that's just the thing. People like paved roads, police, their public schools. let's also consider the fact that grandpa Jones built the road, that Uncle Mark is on the force, that Aunt Lucy is an elementary teacher-those things are not some giant, impersonal force of government. It's their neighbors and families. We can trace public education back to Jefferson. The man did help create the University of Virginia folks, if he didn't believe in public education, I doubt he would've done such a thing. He would've backed some religious college and encourage people to go that route. It is telling that he didn't!.

So other than some base with high ideals, it is apparent that once a person takes office, they come to terms with the fact that people want social services, they want public education, that what they really want is liberalism.

You're building a strawman as is usually the case when people attempt to discredit small government proponents. I am not saying that all government is bad. Building interstate highways, sanitation, defense, etc... are legitimate actions of the state. However, there are a number of activities that the state undertakes that I am not in favor of. If you would like to know them, look at the Constitution and compare that document to what is actually done by the federal government. I have the firm belief that the private sector and free markets can provide a majority of goods and services at a higher quality and a lower price than which can be provided by the government. A perfect example of such a business is the mail. At one point, it would have been lunacy to say that we should privatize mail carriage. Now we realize the benefits of fast and quality service. The reasoning behind a government approach v private approach is pretty complex and many fail to understand it. People believe that when actions are undertaken by the government that it is for the benefit of all of society. They also believe that private enterprise is a selfish endeavor in which the individual is in it only for themself. They fail to see how self-interest can benefit the whole of society. Well, if I own a car manufacturer, then my goal is obviously to make as much profit as I can. The disconnect occurs in that people do not see that in order for me to make a profit, I have to satisfy the consumer so they buy my product. If my product is bad, I will not make a profit. So satisfying the consumer by producing better quality goods at cheaper prices is in my self-interest because it allows me to achieve my goal.

The fall of the small government politician occurred because they got into power. And once they got into power they found that they could achieve conservative goals (case in point NCLBA) by using the government to their advantage. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats are they constituencies that they reward while in power.

A myth? 15-20% of the population of the United States calls itself libertarian. There is no basis for that view, CR. There are legitimate small government conservatives among the electorate and many libertarians as well, I reject the notion that the "small government human" is a "myth".
We've already cleared it up...The Constitution cleared it up, our "society" just doesn't value the Constitution any more. So how small a government can you run with 300+ million? On a national level, just as small as the Constitution dictates. On a state level, just as small as state Constitutions dictate. In my mind, a government smaller than what the Constitution dictates would be preferable, but the law of the land is a great place to start in downsizing government.


Net2007,
I do agree with much of what you said, but here are a few caveats. First, I disagree that Reagan was a small government conservative, close, but not really. He started the War on Drugs, never balanced a budget [granted, he did not have a very favorable Congress]. Second, you make a good point about liberalism, which I also believe to be in serious regression. In my view, both parties have simply become more authoritarian and less free market over the past 10 years; which is absolutely amazing given the promises of the Republican Revolution/Contract With America to do just the opposite. Republicans, over the last 12 years, have squandered everything the electorate has given to them and have highlighted the death of small government conservatism in Washington DC.

CP

1.)Is conservatism dead?, who is most responsible for it's demise or at a minimum, its illness?

No, it will never "die". It will just have to adapt to the changing times.

2.)How can conservatism regain it's "small government" emphasis?

It needs to become libertarian in a since. Mainstream Conservatism should become more leniant on social issues.

3.)How will conservatism look ten years from now? What issues might take center stage?

It will be more liberal. I believe things that are taboo today might become widely accepted in the future, but the social conservatives will still be against them.

I'm not certain the post office is your best example. It is well within the powers of the constitution to establish post offices. I doubt Benjamin Franklin was for "big government", but once again, it is telling that the founders had a definitive liberal view on public libraries, schools, and postal service. The libertarian position of privatizing everything is not something the founder's intended, nor was it even a thought of theirs.



To me, it is too simplistic to knock "public" or "private" entities solely based on their respective titles. I utilize the mail service quite often as I mail off cigars and books to people I know on various boards. Guess which mail service is consistently the cheapest and just as good at delivery?, yes-the USPS. UPS is more expensive and yes, even private mail carriers lose mail. The American public has options for sending and receiving mail. If the USPS was so bad as the anti-public everything crowd assumes, there would be a credible movement to abolish it. The fact that no such movement exists other than some fringe libertarian sites, is quite telling. Generally speaking, the people do not have serious concerns regarding the USPS.

Conservatism is dead. It had to die. The very concept of conservatism is that things must not change. Things changed. But they changed away from conservatism. So Liberalism became Conservatism. If you want the world to be like it was in the sixties and seventies, you are a Conservative. But then the eighties came, and they just tried to reverse the changes that had already happened. And in the nineties, they thought they had a conservative revolution, but that was really just back to the fifties some more, like the eighties.

So now it's the 00's and they are trying to bring back the cold war. But they can't do it, because they don't have the right players, and people are sick of being scared, and sick of being sick.

So Conservatism is dead. Liberalism is on it's way out, too.

We need to PROGRESS.

Progressivism is the new Liberalism AND the new Conservatism.

All the Conservatives are Libertarians, and they are too small a group to affect change. They live on the fringes of dead parties.

It's an exciting new time for us all.

I recommend we drop the old labels, and find a new and better way.

Please dismiss this as late night ramblings.

Thanks!

Your comments raise some interesting avenues of discussion.

Is "progressiveism," as opposed to "New Democrat" triangulation and moderate tendencies the wave of the future for the democrats? The rise of the Clintons and the DLC would not point to that direction, though moveon.org and the rise of Howard Dean does.

Is social conservatism dead while libertarian beliefs are the new conservative values? I'm sure our GOP friends will have an interesting time hacking away at that one, as libertarians view themselves to be the most consistent ideology.

Conservatism as a political philosophy is hesitant towards change, but in the label that it is used to describe the political beliefs of Americans, it has very little similarity. Your recollection of US political history is suspect to me as well. But anyway, libertarianism and classical liberalism as both philosophies and ideologies are not hesitant to change or progress. They embrace it as long as it occurs in an environment of freedom and no government coercion. Furthermore, progressivism is quite the misleading term if you are going to connect it with "progress." It is a label embraced by liberals and social democrats because it is perceived to have a positive connotation. What progressivism really means is a support for the welfare state and increased government intervention in both the economic and social spheres..ideas that are the opposite of progress.

I've got to take issue with those comments as well, fbwc. You seem to be implying that the conservatism that is resistant to change is dead; that cannot be farther from the truth. Those "conservatives" are social conservatives and the Religious Right, they are enjoying influence that they have never had in the GOP's history. Social conservatism, unfortunately, is alive and well. It is impossible for the kind of conservative you are referring to to die. Whenever there is change there is a group of people resisting it, that is simply human nature. As for conservatives and libertarians living on the fringe of a dead party...I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. Libertarians, as I've stated, make up anywhere from 15-20% of the population.

Now, "Progressivism", as leder as stated, is a prettier way of saying "more government involvement". In addition I find the idea of calling an ideology "progressive" to be insulting; if "progressivism" is progressive, would that not make libertarianism [and all other ideologies] "regressive"? As I said, the whole concept to me is insulting. But in any case, progressivism is neither the new conservatism nor is it the new liberalism; there are simply not enough "progressives" in Congress to constitute a new national movement. The fact is, much of the Democratic Party is socially conservative as well.

CP

1.)Is conservatism dead?, who is most responsible for it's demise or at a minimum, its illness?

I don't think it's dead. I think that as the times change and as the world gets more complex, more complexity is necessarily added to the government.

But, regardless of this, conservatism will still be alive.

As far as I'm concerned, righty tighty - lefty loosey is the way it will always be.

Well, I doubt I was anywhere near clear enough, but when I speak of "Progressivism," I am not speaking of "Liberalism," and I am certainly not speaking of "more government involvement."

I am speaking, quite literally of progressing beyond the archaic and ridiculous two (and a half?) party system we have now.

As I've said, Social Conservatism has a problem, in that it isn't really advocating staying the same AS WE ARE NOW. (Not shouting; just emphasizing!) Therefore, Social Conservatives are advocating change, which is not conservative at all. They are truly advocating REGRESSIVE politics, as in "let's return to the past." This is, of course, not possible, and not going to happen.

What I'm proposing is quite radical, and will take time, but it will happen. We need to move forward AS A SOCIETY. This means old-style Liberals and Conservatives working together for change. We need to iron out the ridiculous cliches of our past dealings, and forge an agreement of what MUST be done, as opposed to what we WISH to be done.

A good Liberal, who is true to the central tenets of Liberalism that benefit Mankind, and a good Conservative, for whom the same applies, are partners in making a balanced system that works for the greater good.

What we need goes beyond Liberal/Conservative/Libertarianism, and falls into the category of a true REFORM party, a party that does not force anyone to change their most heartfelt beliefs.

This whole "liberals are for big government, and conservatives are for limiting government" argument is outdated, and simply not true, at least in regard to Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats are for MORE government involvement in leveling the playing field, and regulating capitalism.

Republicans are for MORE government involvement in favoring the powerful, and regulating morality.

The simple fact is, there needs to be a certain level of government involvement, because that is what stops the greedy from ruling. There is a kind of government that is good.

That is the kind of government that is by the people, of the people, and for the people.

That which makes us the greatest nation on Earth.

I disagree. Take gay marriage for example. Social conservatives want to maintain the status quo, nationwide. Nationwide, gay couples cannot marry [with the exception of Massachusetts], social conservative want that status quo preserved by law. In some instances, I agree, social conservatives want to wind back the clocks, but for the most part, they believe in the status quo.
I agree completely, there is no