Full Version: Empirical contributions of the conservative movent
I have had two aborted attempts at this post, so here it goes again.
Conservatives have been in power far less than the "liberal" movement in the 20th century, so I am seeking a debate on the actual empirical contributions to the nation throughout the 20th century. For instance, the largest build up of US infrastructure was during democrat/liberal ower, namely WW2 and until the early to mid sixties. I am seeking debate on the contribution of the conservative movement in a POSITIVE contribution- not a negative contribution- like we cut this or that, unless it led to a positve economy, or crime went down etc, where the net result was positive. Or you could say, the giving of a good thing NOT taking away of a bad thing.
The debate I had with my father, a long time Barry Goldwater conservative, was "What has been the positive contribution of the Conservative movement on US culture"- he, as informed as he is, could only say "unflagging support for military buildup and salaries". I think that is a legitimate statement.
I would also personally say that thier commitment to crime/personal responsibility/ punishment issues had been pretty consistant, and in my view, positive for public safey.
So I am hoping that this does not turn into a conservative bash, but a debate whether or not that the net contribution of the conservative movement has a positive affect or has been strictly an opposition movement untill '95 and the recent turnover of power.
So the actual question to debate "whether or not that the net contribution of the conservative movement has a positive affect or has been strictly an opposition movement untill '95 and the recent turnover of power.
Conservatives have been in power far less than the "liberal" movement in the 20th century, so I am seeking a debate on the actual empirical contributions to the nation throughout the 20th century. For instance, the largest build up of US infrastructure was during democrat/liberal ower, namely WW2 and until the early to mid sixties. I am seeking debate on the contribution of the conservative movement in a POSITIVE contribution- not a negative contribution- like we cut this or that, unless it led to a positve economy, or crime went down etc, where the net result was positive. Or you could say, the giving of a good thing NOT taking away of a bad thing.
The debate I had with my father, a long time Barry Goldwater conservative, was "What has been the positive contribution of the Conservative movement on US culture"- he, as informed as he is, could only say "unflagging support for military buildup and salaries". I think that is a legitimate statement.
I would also personally say that thier commitment to crime/personal responsibility/ punishment issues had been pretty consistant, and in my view, positive for public safey.
So I am hoping that this does not turn into a conservative bash, but a debate whether or not that the net contribution of the conservative movement has a positive affect or has been strictly an opposition movement untill '95 and the recent turnover of power.
So the actual question to debate "whether or not that the net contribution of the conservative movement has a positive affect or has been strictly an opposition movement untill '95 and the recent turnover of power.
by "conservative" are you really asking about the contributions of the Republican Party?
otherwise I'm no entirely sure that there really IS a conservative movement outside the Party
otherwise I'm no entirely sure that there really IS a conservative movement outside the Party
The Civil Rights movement was largely influenced by the Republican Party, although the "conservative" South stood in the way. Even today, I can honestly say that Conservatives espouse the "color blind" society envisioned by Martin Luther King, Jr., while liberals espouse a different philosophy.
Free trade was also advanced by the conservatives, beginning with Nixon's dialogues with China, NAFTA began under the first Bush administration (with the FTA agreement with Canada). Clinton himself was conservative on quite a few issues, including his expansion of FTA into NAFTA.
In more recent history, the military and military intelligence has been the main focus of "conservatives". Carter drastically handcuffed the intelligence community and was (and is) a notorious dove. Clinton pushed the military away from the human element and into a more automated mode (unmanned drones, reliance on missiles, etc.)
Of course, the military buildups pre- and post-WW2 were done under Democrats, although I would hardly portray Truman as a liberal. Check the Harry Truman quote in my Sig, not exactly what would come out of a liberal's mouth these days...
This is a difficult topic to discuss without a comparative discussion of "liberal" successes.
Free trade was also advanced by the conservatives, beginning with Nixon's dialogues with China, NAFTA began under the first Bush administration (with the FTA agreement with Canada). Clinton himself was conservative on quite a few issues, including his expansion of FTA into NAFTA.
In more recent history, the military and military intelligence has been the main focus of "conservatives". Carter drastically handcuffed the intelligence community and was (and is) a notorious dove. Clinton pushed the military away from the human element and into a more automated mode (unmanned drones, reliance on missiles, etc.)
Of course, the military buildups pre- and post-WW2 were done under Democrats, although I would hardly portray Truman as a liberal. Check the Harry Truman quote in my Sig, not exactly what would come out of a liberal's mouth these days...
This is a difficult topic to discuss without a comparative discussion of "liberal" successes.
QUOTE(SoCaliente_1 @ Nov 23 2003, 05:28 AM)
by "conservative" are you really asking about the contributions of the Republican Party?
otherwise I'm no entirely sure that there really IS a conservative movement outside the Party
otherwise I'm no entirely sure that there really IS a conservative movement outside the Party
Sure, if that is your definition of conservative, I will buy that, I was just trying to cast a wide net and not limit it to republicans.
Amlord- Truman to me was the pinacle of great liberals- you read the book "Give 'em hell Harry"? His quotes on housing, jobs, goverment roles in limiting run away big business, certainly made him solidly liberal, paleo-liberal if you will.
It is my stipulation though that the republican (if that is how you wish to describe totally conservative) or paleo conservative has only been an opposition party and have not contributed really anything in the last century, except opposition, which is not all that bad either.
I would submit that opposition to high taxes, big government and overregulation IS a positive contribution. and a very big one, without which we'd be -- in the best case scenario -- suffering the kind of malaise the UK did before Thatcher. The worst case scenario I don't want to even think about, it's much too depressing.
The way you've posed the topic seems to assume that goverment is the only or just prime engine of progress, which IMHO is the opposite of the truth, when in fact true progress and creativity are unleashed when government gets the heck out of the way and lets the free market work. I daresay I'll be also able to come up with some important government programs conservatives have championed when I get home from work.
P.S.: A note tengential to the main topic, but important if you're interested in conservatism -- if any have doubts about the depth and breadth of conservative intellectual contributions, a reading of Did You Ever See a Dream Walking, an excellent anthology edited by William F. Buckley, Jr., will be sufficient to dispell them.
(Note also that despite the conservative label under my sidepic I do not consider myself one -- I am a libertarian, which is a different breed, but unfortunately that's not an available option on AD except in the party section.)
The way you've posed the topic seems to assume that goverment is the only or just prime engine of progress, which IMHO is the opposite of the truth, when in fact true progress and creativity are unleashed when government gets the heck out of the way and lets the free market work. I daresay I'll be also able to come up with some important government programs conservatives have championed when I get home from work.
P.S.: A note tengential to the main topic, but important if you're interested in conservatism -- if any have doubts about the depth and breadth of conservative intellectual contributions, a reading of Did You Ever See a Dream Walking, an excellent anthology edited by William F. Buckley, Jr., will be sufficient to dispell them.
(Note also that despite the conservative label under my sidepic I do not consider myself one -- I am a libertarian, which is a different breed, but unfortunately that's not an available option on AD except in the party section.)
Yes, I tend towards many libertarian issues- and this is what confounds me with the conservative movement of the last 20 years vs the prior 80. As an opposition movement, I think it did a great deal of good of stopping really kooky liberal ideas, but really only existed as bomb throwers like Newt Gingrich, but since comeing to power have only been a really destructive force, (remember when conservatives worried about the deficit? or spending money on foriegn countries instead of our own? ) in almost every area. Conservatives USED to sound more like libertarians, where the goverment has no business in my private business (who I sleep with, what I consume etc).
But as far as contributing anything while IN power, I see nothing of substance.
But as far as contributing anything while IN power, I see nothing of substance.
Here's a slightly different definition of conservative that may add to the debate
(Taken from a Guardian article about a government study -
see at http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...017505,00.html)
"conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in 'fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity'."
Of course, reading to the end of the article this is added:
"The variables we talk about are general human dimensions," he said. "These are the same dimensions that contribute to loyalty and commitment to the group. Liberals might be less intolerant of ambiguity, but they may be less decisive, less committed, less loyal."
Which I think is a valid point. Conservativism defined in a broader sense than Republican - can enhance society in some ways. It tends to be a normalizing force. During great social change and massive upheaval, people might out of fear return to look at the idealized past and lament the loss. This can lead to many negative problems (as mentioned, prejudice, hatred and etc) but also to positive additions in a compromise between the liberal forces of massive change and the conservative desire to remain unchanged. The liberal may bring the new ideas, and fight for them to the death - but without the conservative voice to lend some sense of constancy, the lofty ideas can lead ultimately to their own destruction.
I think each of us (even me, an avowed liberal) have conservative tendencies. We desire to spend holidays with familiar faces, we want to wake up each morning and know that the world outside my window will look the same. (I want my car to still be where I parked it the night before) But inevitably, things will change - children grow up and move far away, buildings fall to nature and man (my car gets towed). And it is the liberal ability to accept these changes that keeps us from despairing over the loss of a familiar landmark... but ultimately it is the conservative that will accept the changes and make them part of the status quo once again. Then the ideas that the liberal fought for yesterday become part of the institution today - so the massive civil liberties drive in the sixties has today become the institution that future children will take as given fact. Indeed, the true conservative (in a strictly theoretical definition of the term) will fight to keep the civil liberties against any who want to erase them - because they are now part of the institution and known universe we have grown accustomed to.
For more specific examples of the positive contribution made by conservatism, I can think as far back to the beginning of our country. There were two rather publicized revolutions within a decade of each other, but only one was successful. In America, the forces of change (we'll just call them the liberals) fought to change the entire political system when the status quo of subjugation to a king became intolerable. There was a massive upheaval, but it was ultimately the conservative desire that would lead to the final formation of a lasting union - because while one part of their lives changed (rule by the people vs monarch), the people ultimately wanted to return to a *normal* life and no longer wished to fight. In France, the liberal forces fought against the same system of monarchy, but the people ultimately could not establish a lasting democracy at that time because the conservatives could not gain enough power to quell further rebellions/change in the government. So, the people were subjected to years of war and terror, until a strong (ultimately conservative) force came to power and reinstated a monarchy.
I'll end this long post with the additional consideration that had the conservatives not won in 1865, we would not have the same country to worry about. I'm afraid this prob deviates from the initial topic idea - but I also have a hard time considering the current leadership as any kind of good conservatism - I tend to associate their neo-conservatism with nothing but negatives and so try to differentiate between neo-conservatism and just conservatism.
(Taken from a Guardian article about a government study -
see at http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...017505,00.html)
"conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in 'fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity'."
Of course, reading to the end of the article this is added:
"The variables we talk about are general human dimensions," he said. "These are the same dimensions that contribute to loyalty and commitment to the group. Liberals might be less intolerant of ambiguity, but they may be less decisive, less committed, less loyal."
Which I think is a valid point. Conservativism defined in a broader sense than Republican - can enhance society in some ways. It tends to be a normalizing force. During great social change and massive upheaval, people might out of fear return to look at the idealized past and lament the loss. This can lead to many negative problems (as mentioned, prejudice, hatred and etc) but also to positive additions in a compromise between the liberal forces of massive change and the conservative desire to remain unchanged. The liberal may bring the new ideas, and fight for them to the death - but without the conservative voice to lend some sense of constancy, the lofty ideas can lead ultimately to their own destruction.
I think each of us (even me, an avowed liberal) have conservative tendencies. We desire to spend holidays with familiar faces, we want to wake up each morning and know that the world outside my window will look the same. (I want my car to still be where I parked it the night before) But inevitably, things will change - children grow up and move far away, buildings fall to nature and man (my car gets towed). And it is the liberal ability to accept these changes that keeps us from despairing over the loss of a familiar landmark... but ultimately it is the conservative that will accept the changes and make them part of the status quo once again. Then the ideas that the liberal fought for yesterday become part of the institution today - so the massive civil liberties drive in the sixties has today become the institution that future children will take as given fact. Indeed, the true conservative (in a strictly theoretical definition of the term) will fight to keep the civil liberties against any who want to erase them - because they are now part of the institution and known universe we have grown accustomed to.
For more specific examples of the positive contribution made by conservatism, I can think as far back to the beginning of our country. There were two rather publicized revolutions within a decade of each other, but only one was successful. In America, the forces of change (we'll just call them the liberals) fought to change the entire political system when the status quo of subjugation to a king became intolerable. There was a massive upheaval, but it was ultimately the conservative desire that would lead to the final formation of a lasting union - because while one part of their lives changed (rule by the people vs monarch), the people ultimately wanted to return to a *normal* life and no longer wished to fight. In France, the liberal forces fought against the same system of monarchy, but the people ultimately could not establish a lasting democracy at that time because the conservatives could not gain enough power to quell further rebellions/change in the government. So, the people were subjected to years of war and terror, until a strong (ultimately conservative) force came to power and reinstated a monarchy.
I'll end this long post with the additional consideration that had the conservatives not won in 1865, we would not have the same country to worry about. I'm afraid this prob deviates from the initial topic idea - but I also have a hard time considering the current leadership as any kind of good conservatism - I tend to associate their neo-conservatism with nothing but negatives and so try to differentiate between neo-conservatism and just conservatism.
You could define modern liberalism (as distinguished from classical liberalism, which I consider to be the real liberalism -- I have a hard time talking about what currently passes for liberalism without using quotation marks) psychologically as a set of neuroses too, and I think it would be at least equally valid, but saying your opponents believe what they do because they're crazy is not a constructive form of debate. (It is of course The Guardian I'm accusing of that, not you. rebelkate.)
Oh yes - I'm glad you clarified - I might have been horribly offended 
But then, I def think liberalism can be a neuroses too (I often feel I am afflicted).
But I think the basic idea of conservatism as a force in favor of the established status quo is a good definition that helps avoid party lines - in fact would almost force the established party in power (dem or republican) to be classed as conservative and helps broaden this discussion. (because I think some people can confuse classic conservatism with the neoconservatism supported by the current Republicans in charge of that party)
But then, I def think liberalism can be a neuroses too (I often feel I am afflicted).
But I think the basic idea of conservatism as a force in favor of the established status quo is a good definition that helps avoid party lines - in fact would almost force the established party in power (dem or republican) to be classed as conservative and helps broaden this discussion. (because I think some people can confuse classic conservatism with the neoconservatism supported by the current Republicans in charge of that party)
I see Conservatism as a stabilizing force in the face of "anything goes" modern liberalism. What goes on in your household that only involves adults and that has no negative results to others is fine by me, but if the liberal ideas end up causing grief or expense to others, that is not fine.
We often need change, but it needs to be looked at with cold hard logic before implementation. Even with prior inspection and discussion, there are typically unexpected consequences of the actions that have to be addressed later on.
I applaud the old style liberals who had the ideas and the strength, to change government such that it better represents the majority, but I also applaud the conservatives who gaurd the status quo when it is being attacked by the self serving interests of a few.
We often need change, but it needs to be looked at with cold hard logic before implementation. Even with prior inspection and discussion, there are typically unexpected consequences of the actions that have to be addressed later on.
I applaud the old style liberals who had the ideas and the strength, to change government such that it better represents the majority, but I also applaud the conservatives who gaurd the status quo when it is being attacked by the self serving interests of a few.
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Nov 24 2003, 01:43 PM)
I see Conservatism as a stabilizing force in the face of "anything goes" modern liberalism. What goes on in your household that only involves adults and that has no negative results to others is fine by me, but if the liberal ideas end up causing grief or expense to others, that is not fine.
We often need change, but it needs to be looked at with cold hard logic before implementation. Even with prior inspection and discussion, there are typically unexpected consequences of the actions that have to be addressed later on.
I applaud the old style liberals who had the ideas and the strength, to change government such that it better represents the majority, but I also applaud the conservatives who gaurd the status quo when it is being attacked by the self serving interests of a few.
We often need change, but it needs to be looked at with cold hard logic before implementation. Even with prior inspection and discussion, there are typically unexpected consequences of the actions that have to be addressed later on.
I applaud the old style liberals who had the ideas and the strength, to change government such that it better represents the majority, but I also applaud the conservatives who gaurd the status quo when it is being attacked by the self serving interests of a few.
See, I keep thinking that statements like that make my point that conservatism works best as an opposition party, but in power is very destructive, especially unchecked as it is now. I don't really see anything positive to ever come out of the conservative movement EXCEPT in opposition to the whackier liberal ideas.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Nov 24 2003, 09:00 PM)
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Nov 24 2003, 01:43 PM)
I see Conservatism as a stabilizing force in the face of "anything goes" modern liberalism. What goes on in your household that only involves adults and that has no negative results to others is fine by me, but if the liberal ideas end up causing grief or expense to others, that is not fine.
We often need change, but it needs to be looked at with cold hard logic before implementation. Even with prior inspection and discussion, there are typically unexpected consequences of the actions that have to be addressed later on.
I applaud the old style liberals who had the ideas and the strength, to change government such that it better represents the majority, but I also applaud the conservatives who gaurd the status quo when it is being attacked by the self serving interests of a few.
We often need change, but it needs to be looked at with cold hard logic before implementation. Even with prior inspection and discussion, there are typically unexpected consequences of the actions that have to be addressed later on.
I applaud the old style liberals who had the ideas and the strength, to change government such that it better represents the majority, but I also applaud the conservatives who gaurd the status quo when it is being attacked by the self serving interests of a few.
See, I keep thinking that statements like that make my point that conservatism works best as an opposition party, but in power is very destructive, especially unchecked as it is now. I don't really see anything positive to ever come out of the conservative movement EXCEPT in opposition to the whackier liberal ideas.
So you are stating that conservatism is in power now? Unchecked? What is conservative about tariffs, outrageous deficit spending, increased federal role in education and massive farm subsidies?
QUOTE(Hugo @ Nov 25 2003, 05:05 AM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Nov 24 2003, 09:00 PM)
QUOTE(Bill55AZ @ Nov 24 2003, 01:43 PM)
I see Conservatism as a stabilizing force in the face of "anything goes" modern liberalism. What goes on in your household that only involves adults and that has no negative results to others is fine by me, but if the liberal ideas end up causing grief or expense to others, that is not fine.
We often need change, but it needs to be looked at with cold hard logic before implementation. Even with prior inspection and discussion, there are typically unexpected consequences of the actions that have to be addressed later on.
I applaud the old style liberals who had the ideas and the strength, to change government such that it better represents the majority, but I also applaud the conservatives who gaurd the status quo when it is being attacked by the self serving interests of a few.
We often need change, but it needs to be looked at with cold hard logic before implementation. Even with prior inspection and discussion, there are typically unexpected consequences of the actions that have to be addressed later on.
I applaud the old style liberals who had the ideas and the strength, to change government such that it better represents the majority, but I also applaud the conservatives who gaurd the status quo when it is being attacked by the self serving interests of a few.
See, I keep thinking that statements like that make my point that conservatism works best as an opposition party, but in power is very destructive, especially unchecked as it is now. I don't really see anything positive to ever come out of the conservative movement EXCEPT in opposition to the whackier liberal ideas.
So you are stating that conservatism is in power now? Unchecked? What is conservative about tariffs, outrageous deficit spending, increased federal role in education and massive farm subsidies?
Yes, but these guys call themselves conservative correct? Do the poeple that define thier own movement get to define the word? This is what the conservative movement has handed us correct? This is the natural post 1980 conservative movement, or am I mistaken?
What those of us who've been card carrying members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for years consider the conservative movement, and what some politicians who call themselves conservative consider it are two very different things. Again, I'd refer you to Buckley's anthology of conservative thought, Did You Ever See a Drewm Walking? for a good overview of the conservative intellectual tradition.
OSHA and the EPA came into being under the Conservative Richard M. Nixon.
A VERY interesting article: Why Do Conservative Lose Elections?
The funny thing about this question is that true conservatism believes that the government should NOT be running around solving every little problem. A truly "conservative" government should have little to point to except the fact that it kept government out of your hair.
George W. Bush is certainly not a staunch "Conservative" of the Reagan mold. His social programs will point to that.
A VERY interesting article: Why Do Conservative Lose Elections?
QUOTE
Americans agree with Republicans on virtually every issue.
Eliminate Affirmative Action? 83% Bring back school prayer? 73% Reduce all government agencies? 71% Term limits? 74% School Vouchers? 70% In fact, if you add up the issues, 60-80% of America agrees with Republicans most of the time.
Eliminate Affirmative Action? 83% Bring back school prayer? 73% Reduce all government agencies? 71% Term limits? 74% School Vouchers? 70% In fact, if you add up the issues, 60-80% of America agrees with Republicans most of the time.
The funny thing about this question is that true conservatism believes that the government should NOT be running around solving every little problem. A truly "conservative" government should have little to point to except the fact that it kept government out of your hair.
George W. Bush is certainly not a staunch "Conservative" of the Reagan mold. His social programs will point to that.
The Clinton Administration major accomplishments: NAFTA and Welfare reform.
Bush Administration major accomplishments?: Steel tariffs, Farm subsidies, Prescription drug plan, increased federal role in education.
Who is the conservative here?
The fact is neither the liberals or conservatives have unchecked power. The Repulicans have slim majorities in both houses and have the Presidency despite losing the popular vote. The last three Presidents have attempted to steal the other parties agenda. Both Bill Clinton and GW both moved to the middle so fast that they passed it up and ended up advancing the other party's agenda.
The only thing that has stopped Bush from losing his base, just like his father did, is the war on terror.
Bush Administration major accomplishments?: Steel tariffs, Farm subsidies, Prescription drug plan, increased federal role in education.
Who is the conservative here?
The fact is neither the liberals or conservatives have unchecked power. The Repulicans have slim majorities in both houses and have the Presidency despite losing the popular vote. The last three Presidents have attempted to steal the other parties agenda. Both Bill Clinton and GW both moved to the middle so fast that they passed it up and ended up advancing the other party's agenda.
The only thing that has stopped Bush from losing his base, just like his father did, is the war on terror.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.