His conclusion:
Most contemporary conservatives, then, especially among the media darlings, are not conservatives but socialists—either of the internationalist sort (the new and neoconservative welfare-warfare statists and global social democrats) or of the nationalist variety (the Buchananite populists). Genuine conservatives must be opposed to both. In order to restore social and cultural norms, true conservatives can only be radical libertarians, and they must demand the demolition—as a moral and economic distortion—of the entire structure of the interventionist state.
1 comment:
Comments made on previous template:
Amelia
Alastair- you're right, but of course that was under a democrat controlled Congress. I am not saying the repubs have been better. Thus far, they haven't, but I think there's hope.
8 March 2005, 19:16:21 GMT
– Like – Reply
Alastair Ross
David Stockman ,whose 'starve the beast' maxim has achieved such resonance, was unable to achieve much in that regard because every time his tax-cutting boss RWR sent a bill to Congress it was DOA.The US budget deficit ballooned, not solely because of RWR,but because the tax and spend Congress carried on bribing the electorate with their own money.
8 March 2005, 14:08:28 GMT
– Like – Reply
Amelia
I don't know about W not being small government minded. He once said that (after the Bible of course) the Dream and the Nightmare (I can't remember exact title) was his most influential book. That's Magnet I think. Disclaimer here, I have not read it, but according to a friend its the basis of W's "ownership" society stuff. To be fair, I think W has not gotten all that passed in part b/c 9-11 and subsequent military/homeland security spending boom and the Repubs have been wimping out some most recently on social security. I realize that the drug bill and his NEA funding goes against this thesis, but I think W is open to some cuts. Another friend, this one in DC, says certain things have been privatized/ reformed under the radar, for example, federal workers comp has been reformed. HSAs and MSAs though support the notion that Bush is interested in a more flexible society less dependant big government. If the average person owned the means of their retirement and their health care and did not have to rely on SS or medicare that would take care of two big categories where people rely on government. You could also argue that W's insistence on tax cuts will eventually help "starve the Beast."
5 March 2005, 19:04:32 GMT
– Like – Reply
Andrew Ian Dodge
This is a not terribly amusing thought, I got myself deep in the poo with the Young Republican mob when I suggested a similar notion. I was a state YR Chairman, so it rather made it worse. Quite a few of the Conservatives in the Republican party are much more Christian Socialists than they are Republican.
5 March 2005, 11:42:54 GMT
– Like – Reply
pjalbin
An interesting article but I don't believe that Buchanan's brand of conservatism is all that popular. However, lowering taxes and reducing dependance and state hand outs is important to mainstream conservatives. Unfortunately W doesn't seem to realize this. That is what the Contract with America which brought the Republicans back to power in the early '90s was all about.
4 March 2005, 15:38:19 GMT
– Like – Reply
dearieme
Surely that means that they would be not conservatives but reactionaries?
4 March 2005, 14:15:24 GMT
Post a Comment