-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Is it possible to go back to old school conservatism?
- Thread starter Slartibartfast
- Start date
Yossarian
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2009
- Messages
- 258
- Reaction score
- 121
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
The way I see things, the current situation vis a vis the tea party and the increasing gridlock of US politics is a manifestation of the federalist system itself.
The more a system is designed with a focus on limiting centralisation and encouraging power-sharing, the more influence interest and status groups will have in that system. Even just on a governmental level, a unitary system a la the UK has a clearer locus of power than a federalist system that shares this power between different echelons of government. So this sets the stage for particular groups in government to attempt to exert more influence by getting other interest groups, such as the private sector, on board.
Then a vicious circle begins to form. With the rise of neoliberalism and the New Right in the 70's and 80's, even less emphasis was placed on government as the centre of power and order in society. Increased emphasis and power were given to non-governmental interest groups, further decreasing the importance of government in social relations.
Nowadays, the Tea Party campaigns for smaller government. There is also a general sentiment that the government is too deeply interlinked with these interest groups that it awarded privilege to in the past. However, to campaign for both smaller government and greater governmental independence is somewhat contradictory. The smaller a government is, the more it will rely on non-governmental groups as authorities in society and the more it will need their support in order to perform whatever duties it may retain. It will have neither the societal recognition nor the fiscal resources to function any differently.
Unfortunately, 'old-school' and paternalistic conservatism (the sort that would be quasi-socialist from a Tea Party POV) hails from a very different era, where corporations and other special interest groups were not the towering entities that they are now. There was a clear idea that authority and order centred around the government. Now, with the rise of postmodernism and the resurgence of economic and political discourses that promote far greater independence from government, traditional conservatism has lost its relevance. Any politician running for office with respect for these old-school beliefs quickly loses it as they realise its incompatibility with the current state of the system.
Just my two cents.
The more a system is designed with a focus on limiting centralisation and encouraging power-sharing, the more influence interest and status groups will have in that system. Even just on a governmental level, a unitary system a la the UK has a clearer locus of power than a federalist system that shares this power between different echelons of government. So this sets the stage for particular groups in government to attempt to exert more influence by getting other interest groups, such as the private sector, on board.
Then a vicious circle begins to form. With the rise of neoliberalism and the New Right in the 70's and 80's, even less emphasis was placed on government as the centre of power and order in society. Increased emphasis and power were given to non-governmental interest groups, further decreasing the importance of government in social relations.
Nowadays, the Tea Party campaigns for smaller government. There is also a general sentiment that the government is too deeply interlinked with these interest groups that it awarded privilege to in the past. However, to campaign for both smaller government and greater governmental independence is somewhat contradictory. The smaller a government is, the more it will rely on non-governmental groups as authorities in society and the more it will need their support in order to perform whatever duties it may retain. It will have neither the societal recognition nor the fiscal resources to function any differently.
Unfortunately, 'old-school' and paternalistic conservatism (the sort that would be quasi-socialist from a Tea Party POV) hails from a very different era, where corporations and other special interest groups were not the towering entities that they are now. There was a clear idea that authority and order centred around the government. Now, with the rise of postmodernism and the resurgence of economic and political discourses that promote far greater independence from government, traditional conservatism has lost its relevance. Any politician running for office with respect for these old-school beliefs quickly loses it as they realise its incompatibility with the current state of the system.
Just my two cents.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Basically, some of you are saying that a set of politicians can go to Washington, cut vast numbers of services millions of Americans want and stay in power.
Really?
Tell me how this motto will go down: "Vote for me, I'll keep eliminating everything you love and need."
Old school conservatism won't work because voters love certain programs. Cutting them doesn't win you votes.
The Cartoonist Group - Image View and Uses
"No handouts! Stop Socialism! No Welfare! Burn our Medicare cards." Next scene, everyone but the guy who wants to burn the cards leaves.
When you actually get around to cutting the big items, you will quickly get tossed out of power.
Really?
Tell me how this motto will go down: "Vote for me, I'll keep eliminating everything you love and need."
Old school conservatism won't work because voters love certain programs. Cutting them doesn't win you votes.
The Cartoonist Group - Image View and Uses
"No handouts! Stop Socialism! No Welfare! Burn our Medicare cards." Next scene, everyone but the guy who wants to burn the cards leaves.
When you actually get around to cutting the big items, you will quickly get tossed out of power.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
That seems inherently contradictory. First you state it is not possible, but then you do with a caveat.
I agree that going to Victorian era social conservatism would require a form of theocratic police found in Iran or Saudi Arabia who would go around beating and arresting people. Not to mention a form of secret police to snoop around private lives.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 8,080
- Reaction score
- 3,918
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
To be clear, I suppose it would be more accurate to say that a return to social conservativism would be impractical. People are not going to give up the rights earned over the past 50+ years nor should they.
Once fiscal conservativism can be divorced from the neo-cons, government policy will become more stable IMO.