Posted by Sigismund on April 8, 2010, at 1:15:59
In reply to Re: Health Care Bill Has Already Robbed » Sigismund, posted by bleauberry on April 6, 2010, at 17:46:10
Conservatism
Nineteenth century Burkian conservatism was an approach to politics and to social change. It valued tradition, culture and cultural continuity. It was suspicious of anything ideological. It was not anti-change, but it did not seek to remake the world in pursuit of some ideal or theory. It was occupied instead with the management of the diverse currents and counter-currents that inevitably flow within an organism as complex as human society. Burkian conservatism was inherently broad and pluralistic in a way that progressive, ideological politics is not.
Liberalism
Nineteenth century Millsian liberalism sought to protect the individual from the persecution of society. The role of the law and of government was therefore not to impose a majority will, but to ensure the liberty of the individual. Millsian liberalism was progressive in the sense that it sought to improve the human condition, but like Burkian conservatism it did not accept the right of a person or a policy to impose radical utopian designs on society.
Liberal Conservatism
The laws, governance structures and institutions of the West have long since evolved to embody the principles of liberalism. Once liberalism itself became institutionally customary and traditional, conservatives embraced it. Liberal conservatism is associated with a range of ideas anchored in the priority given to individual libertyincluding most famously, a firm belief in free enterprise, low taxation and small government. For liberal conservatism, the citizenry is a collection of individuals, not groups.
Neo-Liberalism
Neo-liberalism is neo for a reason: it is derivative from liberalism but importantly distinct. Neo-liberalism conceives of society entirely through the lens of the market. The market therefore becomes far more than an economic concept: it becomes an organising principle for politics and society. In a market society, things obtain value only once they are commodified, because they do not have an inherent cultural or ethical value, as tradition might have had it.
Within this framework, it makes no sense to ask what should be done about the markets negative consequences. By definition, there are none. Everything from heightened inequality to environmental degradation is to be tolerated in a neo-liberal world because neo-liberalism lacks any vigorous means of critiquing its own consequences.
Neo-liberalism is a thoroughly progressive political ideology. It is above all a prescription for freedom; it promises ongoing economic growth and unending social change to create a world of perfect individual liberty. Government interference in the economy is an evil because it is the road to serfdom, not merely because it hampers economic growth.
Neo-Conservatism
Modern conservative politics is bedevilled by a philosophical inconsistency. Having unleashed the radically transformative power of the free market, the defenders of tradition have become the apologists for radical change. But rather than vacate the social realm as neo-liberalism would have them do, conservatives have attempted the opposite. In a vain attempt to restore the balance, conservatives have resorted to a new and strident brand of cultural politics that is not truly conservative but nostalgic: a pining for past social stability and coherence that is no longer feasible. In Australia this cultural politics embraces culture wars, Anzac nationalism, history wars, values talk and border protection. This modern brand of cultural politics is belligerent and rhetorically clear, but it is not ideologically consistent, because it is impossible to reconcile neo-liberalism with traditional conservatism. It is neo-conservatism, and its seminal exponent was John Howard.
poster:Sigismund
thread:941363
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20090821/msgs/942718.html