Liberalism, conservatism and nationalism - Politics webob.info | PoFo
difference between the major and minor ideologies. Environmentalism suggests that we owe a debt to the earth. Nationalism suggests that we owe a debt to the. There is, however, one difference between conservatives and liberals that is neither Conservatism tends to accept the classical liberal commitment to economic .. fanatically nationalist, imperialist, racist, deeply involved in the promotion of. Many scholars argue that there is more than one type of nationalism. Nationalism may manifest Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism. . The essential difference between pan-nationalism and diaspora nationalism is that.
The Holy Roman Empire is gone. A more accurate statement would be that secular democracy is fundamentally antithetical to Christianity. We have a heresy to describe what you are asserting: A good friend of mine who is a priest at the Decani Monastery in Kosovo contends that there is a critical point in the conversion of a Serbian soul when they begin to identify themselves as Christian rather than Serbian.
At that point, he contends, the conversion is real.
At that point, we Christians become one in Christ. In particular, I want to comment on: If you want to pursue trade policies that are good for the nation, you will work to lower barriers to international trade, so the people of the nation can buy goods at a lower cost and have more money for other things. But no, advocates of protectionism are ultimately more concerned with promoting the interests of a very specific subset of Americans at the expense of others not to mention the Inconvenient Truth that much of the blue-collar job loss has been caused by technological advancements, not foreign competition.
That said, libertarians are among the few who are even thinking about solutions such as a Basic Minimum Income. Nationalism places a check on the imperialist impulse. Actually not very much. One could argue as liberals do that unimpeded thought and the benefits that flow from it are too important to be left to politicians to regulate the way they regulate commodities.
Or one could argue as conservatives do that culture and mores and the ideas that nurture and support them are too important to be left to the vagaries of a laissez faire market for ideas.
Just as there are externalities in the world of commerce, so there are externalities in the world of ideas. Just as public goods exist in the economy, so there are public-good type ideas in the culture. For every argument against a laissez faire economy, there is an equally persuasive argument against laissez faire cultures, laissez faire mores and a completely free market for ideas. Or if the case for government intervention is stronger in one realm than in the other it is not clear where the stronger case lies.
This helps us understand why consistent classical liberalism makes no distinction between freedom of thought and freedom of commerce. Both are subsumed under the general notion that people have a right to pursue their own happiness in any realm. Any attempt to argue for differential rights fails on close examination. Yet these very same pundits would recoil in horror at the idea of a law which prevents people from being authors, playwrights and artists unless they can produce a minimum annual income.
On what basis can one argue for economic freedom for musicians, painters and novelists while denying it to everyone else? There is no basis. There is an even more fundamental problem with applying Platonic distinctions to politics. Although in theory we can separate mind and body, spiritual and material, etc. Freedom of speech is a meaningless right without the economic right to acquire space, buy a megaphone and invite others to hear your message.
Freedom of press is a meaningless right if one does not have the economic right to buy paper, ink and printing presses. Freedom of association is a meaningless right if one cannot own property or rent property or otherwise acquire the right to use the premises where a group can assemble.
Russian law requires that each candidate be endorsed at a meeting of at least citizens. Unable to acquire the economic right to exercise his political right, Kasparov was forced to withdraw from the race. Conservatism, Liberalism and the Reform of Institutions Classical liberals were reformers. Throughout the 19th century, they reformed economic and civil institutions — abolishing slavery, extending the right to vote to blacks and eventually to women, expanding the protections of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments and creating a largely free market economy.
As the last century grew to a close it became obvious all over the world that economic collectivism did not work.
So in the economic realm the great need was to privatize, deregulate, and empower individual citizens. The natural people to lead this reformation were conservatives, who profess belief in the goals. Yet conservatives lacked in the needed skills, having spent the better part of a century on defense. This may explain why so often needed reforms have been implemented in other countries by parties of the left.
Even in the United States, the effort to deregulate our most oppressive regulatory agencies began under President Jimmy Carter and had the support of such liberal stalwarts as Sen. Other Varieties of Liberalism and Conservatism Not all liberals think alike. Nor do all conservatives. Two strands of these sociologies deserve special attention, particularly in light of the contrast with classical liberalism.
Political Correctness and the Emergence of Group Rights A variation of modern liberalism is popular among faculties at college campuses. Its adherents reject not only the idea of individual economic rights, but also the idea of individual rights as such. Instead, they believe that people enjoy rights and incur obligations as members of groups. On this view, a black American should enjoy rights that are denied to white Americans — not because of some injury or harm one has done to the other or because of some contract, but merely because one is black and one is white.
Similarly, Native American Indians should have rights that a black does not have. A woman should have rights that a man does not have. Adherents of this view believe there is no such thing as an individual right to freedom of speech or expression or association. What rights or privileges you have depend on what group you are a member of, and the state may properly enforce such distinctions.
For example, speech that is permissible if the speaker is black might be actionable if the speaker were white, Asian or Hispanic, depending on how the speech affects the sensibilities of other blacks. Or if blacks or Hispanics, say, form groups and exclude others, that is generally permissible; but the same actions by a group of whites or any of the European ethnic groups would probably be proscribed. Assigning rights and responsibilities to groups rather than individuals is at the heart of collectivism.
Political correctness is a sort of barnyard version of collectivism. In this sense, the type of liberalism that is popular on college campuses is far more consistent than mainstream liberalism. This version of liberalism rejects individualism as such.
Such consistency, however, exists only in the abstract. In practice, politically correct liberalism is anything but consistent. Yet among the black students at Harvard University all of whom presumably qualify for racial preferencesonly one-third are unambiguous descendants of slaves. More than half are immigrants! Harvard and many other prestigious universities are assigning privileges to students not based on past grievances but on skin color alone.
Protectionism and the Rise of Tribal Politics There is a strand of conservatism that rejects the thinking of mainstream economists for the last years. As represented most visibly by columnist and sometime presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, this group of thinkers wants government to impose tariffs and quotas and other restrictions to prevent foreigners from competing with domestic companies and their workers. Instead it changes the nature of work people do. Furthermore, trade is income enhancing.
It makes citizens better off, on the average, than they otherwise would have been — although some individual incomes may fall as others rise in the process. Conservatives who hold these beliefs view the world from the right in exactly the same way as some trade unionists view the world from the left. Whereas Buchanan focuses on trade, Roosevelt understood that jobs and incomes are threatened by exchange as such.
Whereas Buchanan wants to freeze in place the international economy, Roosevelt wanted to freeze in place the domestic economy. The motives are the same. The vision is the same. Buchanan is not only an economic protectionist, he is also a cultural protectionist who wants to stop the flow of immigration. There are legitimate classical liberal reasons to be concerned about illegal immigration — not the least of which is the practice of subsidizing it with free education, free medical care and other public services.
He wants government to protect the culture from immigrants. Also, Buchanan would go much further than most other conservatives in restricting freedom of expression. Although they are viewed as poles apart, Buchanan actually has a lot in common with the politically correct crowd on college campuses.
He believes, for example, that Christians, Muslims and Jews should not have to tolerate irreverent insults to their beliefs and has even hinted that it may be permissible to outlaw blasphemy. Historical Roots of Conservatism and Liberalism Where do conservatism and liberalism come from? Strangely, this is a question that is rarely asked. It is even more rarely answered.
Nationalism Vs. Conservatism | The American Conservative
Interestingly, much of contemporary conservatism also finds its roots in that era. Yet real progressivism was much more profound and far more sinister. Some readers may be inclined to dismiss these tyrannies as unfortunate excesses of wartime, much as Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and trampled on other constitutional liberties during the Civil War.
The difference is that Lincoln truly believed in Jeffersonian democracy and classical liberal principles. Wilson, by contrast, was our first Ph. He was at the epicenter of an intellectual trend that swept the Western world in the early part of the last century.
In Russia there was Bolshevism. In America, Britain and other parts of Europe, the new ideas were called progressivism. There were, of course, many differences — political, moral and otherwise — in the content of these isms and huge differences in resulting policies. But all had one thing in common: At the time of the Wilson presidency, progressives did not view the exercise of state power and the violation of individual rights as a war-time exception to be set aside in times of peace.
In fact, the primary domestic objective of progressives was to create in peacetime what Wilson had accomplished during war. They were able to do so a little more than a decade later. Franklin Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Wilson, and when he led Democrats back to the White House in he brought with him an army of intellectuals and bureaucrats who shared the progressive-era vision.
Perhaps because of World War II, the revelations of all the gory details of the Nazi Holocaust, and the subsequent Cold War, it quickly became inconvenient, if not acutely embarrassing, for historians and other commentators to remind people of the state of intellectual relations before hostilities broke out.
The admiration was often mutual. What was the political philosophy that all these very diverse people shared? Philosophically, organizationally, and politically the progressives were as close to authentic, homegrown fascists as any movement America has ever produced.
Militaristic, fanatically nationalist, imperialist, racist, deeply involved in the promotion of Darwinian eugenics, enamored of the Bismarckian welfare state, statist beyond modern reckoning, the progressives represented the American flowering of a transatlantic movement, a profound reorientation toward the Hegelian and Darwinian collectivism imported from Europe at the end of the nineteenth century.
Yet nothing could be further from the truth. As the leftist historian Gabriel Kolko has documented, the Interstate Commerce Commission ICC — our first federal regulatory agency — was dominated by, and served the interest of, the railroads. Similarly, the regulatory apparatus created by the Meat Inspection Act of served the interests of large meat packers. Safety standards were invariably already being met — or were easily accommodated — by large companies.
But the regulations forced many small enterprises out of business and made it difficult for new ones to enter the industry. This same pattern — of regulatory agencies serving the interests of the regulated — was repeated with the establishment of almost all subsequent regulatory agencies as well.
The Nationalism of Liberals vs. Conservatives
Trade associations were allowed to organize along industry lines — controlling output, setting prices and effectively functioning as an industry-by-industry system of cartels. There are even more eerie transatlantic parallels.
A quasi-official army of informants and even goon squads helped monitor compliance. Nuremberg-style Blue Eagle rallies were held, including a gathering of 10, strong at Madison Square Garden.
An immigrant dry cleaner spent three months in jail for charging 35 cents to press a suit when the code required a minimum charge of 40 cents.
Another case —one that went all the way to the Supreme Court — involved immigrant brothers who ran a small poultry business. Among the laws they were accused of violating was a requirement that buyers of chickens not select the chicken they were buying. Instead the buyer needed to reach into the coop and take the first chicken that came to hand. Roosevelt responded by trying to intimidate the justices and by asking Congress to expand the number of justices so that he could pack the court with judges more to his liking.
Although he lost the battle, Roosevelt eventually won the war. Today it is highly unlikely that an NRA would be declared unconstitutional.
- Identification of state and people
- Cultural nationalism
- Navigation menu
The interests of progressive era intellectuals was not limited to economics. They saw the state as properly involved in almost every aspect of social life. Herbert Croly envisioned a state that would even regulate who could marry and procreate.
In this respect, he reflected the almost universal belief of progressives in eugenics. In fact, virtually all intellectuals on the left in the early 20th century believed in state involvement in promoting a better gene pool. Another stain is the re-segregation of the White House under Wilson. One writer argues that these acts were consistent with the personal racial views of the presidents and that the Democratic Party has a long history of racial bias it would like to forget. Yet all of these activities have roots in the Progressive Era as well.
Joe McCarthy started his political life as a Democrat and later switched to be a Republican in Wisconsin — the most pro-progressive state in the union. Bush and under Democrats John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson are extensions of what went on earlier in the century.
However, modern surveillance does not begin to compare in magnitude to what went on during the Wilson and Roosevelt presidencies. But there is another sense in which the word is very misleading. In general, there is nothing truly progressive about modern progressives. That is, nothing in their thinking is forward looking. Invariably, the social model they have in mind is in the distant past.
And the problem is not only on the left. In general, the greatest intellectual danger we face is from reactionaries on the left and right. Reactionaries mainly on the left, but sometimes also on the right want to freeze the economy — preserving the current allocation of jobs and the incomes that derive from those jobs.