interesting...this despite the fact that the issue at hand does not really move me. on the other hand, it is kinda nice to see a conservatvie defense of the notion of conservatism
to echo what mr mephisto said, in cruder terms doubtless: the process of draining away meaning to political labels is recurrent: the communist party in most places, for example, reduced the word "fascism" to denote anyone they did not like.
the pattern of radical rightwing (nationalist) movement masquerading as conservative has a (truly unfortunate) history as well over the last century. perhaps it is this history that underpins the thread, to an extent?
other points:
Quote:
|
The first necessary ingredient for a conservative is a belief in smaller government. Particularly at the federal level. Statism is Leftism--an all-powerful, centralized government. Conservatives oppose this, embracing state's rights and a smaller, less centralized federal government. This is the foundational cornerstone of conservatism.
|
mr mephisto pointed this out, but i think it worth restating: this proposition is built around a univocal caricature of the left, which is a complex set of traditions, notall of which are associated with a huge centralized state. if you are going to equate all left thinking with stalinism on the one hand, and social democracy on the other, i do not see what position you could then take to compalin about what is happening to the notion of conservative.
Quote:
|
Yes, conservatives do believe in a strong national defense--but national defense as mandated by the Constitution and the Monroe Doctrine. An invasive military empire is not mandated. Therein lies a crucial difference.
|
this is maybe not the best example to use--the monroe doctrine has long been read as being a justification for precisely what you claim it is not--an american empire--which has long rationalized the use of very aggressive military force throughout latin america.
your point about "fortress america" taken generally:
1. at this point, historically, what you are talking about in terms of isolationism is a pipe dream, for example, since around 1970 stock has traded internationally. the main feature of globalizing capitalism is a transnationalization of capital flows and types of production, in such a context, isolationism is another word for irrelevance. i do not see the point of trying to draw parallels with the league of nations and founding of the un, given the changed and changing economic reality we live in.
this also leads to the problem of the obslescence of the nation-state at a variety of practical levels, and its corresponding fetishization by the neocons. i find the neocons a kind of neurotic denial of the realities that intertwine the nation-state and contemporary capitalist realities. they will not make the dissolution of the nation-state stop or even slow down---they have simply found a fast track to irrelevance intellectually, which they are using to track a rapid decline scenario for the american empire.
Quote:
|
The third necessary ingredient is a belief in the Rule of Law---beginning with the Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights is essentially sacrosanct. A conservative does not believe in a "living Constitution".
|
well if you combine these various features, you could just as easily be defining a socail democrat working in a civil law tradition. what i do not get in here--any more than i understand it with the neocons--is the basis for their basic opposition to the one thing that has made the american legal system vialble--the common law tradition, the importance of precedent, the particular role of interpretation of the constitution in the making of new law, teh relatively wide degree of latitude afforded judges, etc.
i suppose you also believe in natural law, whatever that is.
Quote:
|
Traditions cannot survive in the absence of principles.
|
nonsense. read edmund burke on the french revolution.