Conservatism

[S. Hunter]

What happened to real conservatives? They Barry Goldwaters, The Ronald Reagans, whose who actually had some semblence of belief in small government intrusion and individual rights. Why is it that the only classical conservatives in either party are at local level or have moved to the Libertarian party? The movement seemed so promising with Reagan, but it seems NeoCons and Quasi Socialists have taken over both major parties.

In the aftermath of the Presidential election, it seems that there are no more true conservatives left in America, or I'm just missing them. Am I just fantasizing about a long ago movement, or does anyone else think that polarized politics have just flat out eliminated the last real conservatives?

(Interrestingly, I've heard Classic Conservatives called NeoLibs or NeoLiberals now. Lots of irony there)

[Inquartata]

Who makes up all these labels, anyway?

[telkanuru]

Labels are the creations of simple minds dealing with things they don't understand.

[Tomas N]

(Interrestingly, I've heard Classic Conservatives called NeoLibs or NeoLiberals now. Lots of irony there)

It's not ironic in the least little bit. Look up what the term means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Tomas

[Tomas N]

Labels are the creations of simple minds dealing with things they don't understand.

True, but only if you consider everyone on earth to have a simple mind and the inability to understand "things."

For instance, in economics, you might try to categorize a particular piece of work as being Keynesian, New Keynesian, Institutionalist, New Institutionalist, Neoinstitutionalist, Classical, Neoclassical, New Economic Historian, Cliometrician, Business Historian, Austrian, Virginian, Marxian, New Marxian, etc. etc. etc. Some of these categories developed over time, others were chosen by a particular person in a particular piece of work to distinguish him or herself from others. e.g. "I'm going to call this Neoinstitutionalism to distinguish my line of reasoning from the New Institutionalists in the following ways..." (rough paraphrase) Are categories developed because we're simple? Sure. I wish I could remember every subtlety of everything I've ever read. I can't. So I stick it into a particular group, which helps me remember what the piece was about and it's basic theoretical underpinnings.

Tomas

[keith]

also the labels people apply to themselves and their opponents are rarely true - both reagan and thatcher claimed to be reducing government and returning power to the people. Neither managed much of either.

Did either the size of the government or its expenditure as a % of GDP actually shrink under reagan?

[telkanuru]

True, but only if you consider everyone on earth to have a simple mind and the inability to understand "things."

Well, I do

And you forgot "Reverse Keynesian"

[Tomas N]

Well, I do

And you forgot "Reverse Keynesian"

Hey, that was under one of the etc's!

Tomas

[Tomas N]

also the labels people apply to themselves and their opponents are rarely true - both reagan and thatcher claimed to be reducing government and returning power to the people. Neither managed much of either.

Did either the size of the government or its expenditure as a % of GDP actually shrink under reagan?

First point couldn't agree more.

Second point, well, the deregulation of the economy that began under Carter (you remember, that evil big government democrat who deregulated airlines, banks, etc. and appointed Voelker to the Fed chair) certainly reduced the regulatory impact of government, regardless of the size of federal expenditures.

You can't argue that Thatcher was pro big government. She began the privatization of large parts of the British economy, generating massive social unrest (and conveniently got into a war with Argentina when her popularity tanked). Whatever else you can say about her, she talked the talk and walked the walk.

Tomas

[keith]

on the privatization front - true.

but government as a percentage of economic activity? that really is the test of whether a given leader was pro or anti government. Thatcher concentrated alot of previously local processes into central government - certainly not the kind of activity you would expect from a politician who claimed to be against central control. So amoung the walks Thatcher walked was the evisceration of local government - probably best to say she believed in the quango-ocracy.

In the US a I guess an example would be 'no child left behind' an act that increases central control and diminishes local control. Politicians talking about being for small government and devolving control to local government (or heaven forbid the individual) is generally just that, talk.

[Tomas N]

but government as a percentage of economic activity? that really is the test of whether a given leader was pro or anti government.

Keith,

I'm going to have to look up quango-ocracy!! Can you give me a definition?

I disagree with your statement that government as a percentage of economic activity is the right measure. It's an important one, but government can do things, like regulate, that cost very little, but have big effects. The CAB in the U.S. was a government-sponsored cartel that stifled competition and generated huge losses in welfare. It essentially doubled airfares, while giving us cute stewardesses and free drinks. Deregulating didn't change the size of government expenditures much but it had a big effect on how the economy ran.

Tomas

[keith]

well a quango is a government appointed body that takes over some regulatory, advisory or policy role. Their great advantage is that rather than being composed of elected officials you appoint the members, the wives/husbands of your political associates for example. They have been used in the UK to shift power from councils and even parliament - although I think they have started to go out of fashion. The word quango is the UK term (the SEC and FCC might be muttered as US equivalents).

I only mention government as % of GDP simply as an easy test of rhetoric. As you point out the control of regulation is far more important for getting government out of the way of business. Although, depending on your priorities, different views can be held, abolishing the EPA would certainly be good for business (have just had to sit through a retraining seminar ).

[jBirch]

There is also the fallacious belief that what's good for business is also good for the citizenry and the state as a whole.

[jeff]

Who makes up all these labels, anyway?

You buy this little gizmo from Dymo and off you go....

[mrbiggs]

Remember when the REPUBLICANS were for lowering spending, and balancing the budget? What happened to that? Now the Democrats are trying that, and it's not really working. So we have two candidates who want to lower taxes and raise spending. W|T|F

[Point_Left]

..So we have two candidates who want to lower taxes and raise spending...

Maybe they think voters like the idea? No, wait! They wouldn't say one thing with no intention of actually doing it to increase their chances of being elected, now would they?

[riptide]

What happened to real conservatives? They Barry Goldwaters, The Ronald Reagans, whose who actually had some semblence of belief in small government intrusion and individual rights. Why is it that the only classical conservatives in either party are at local level or have moved to the Libertarian party? The movement seemed so promising with Reagan, but it seems NeoCons and Quasi Socialists have taken over both major parties.

This is why it would've made more sense for such conservatives to vote for Kerry. Calling President Bush a Republican is like calling Ralph Nader a Democrat (IMHO). Such upstanding members of the G.O.P. should be horrified a the liberal spending and cultural boat-rocking of the current administration. It is geting so that the entire republican party is being identified with the rather extreme-right wing group that's in the White House. And that's just not so.

[Maeve_Mari]

Remember when the REPUBLICANS were for lowering spending, and balancing the budget? What happened to that? Now the Democrats are trying that, and it's not really working. So we have two candidates who want to lower taxes and raise spending. W|T|F

And Democrats were the public education people while Republicans were for vouchers?

[mrbiggs]

Maybe they think voters like the idea? No, wait! They wouldn't say one thing with no intention of actually doing it to increase their chances of being elected, now would they?

I know that the voters like the idea. That's what makes it frustrating....in 50 years, odds are pretty good that the U.S. will be in serious economic trouble at this rate. And I'LL still be alive (probably), while many voters won't. Being cheap at the cost of prosperity. Agh.

[pkt]

also the labels people apply to themselves and their opponents are rarely true - both reagan and thatcher claimed to be reducing government and returning power to the people. Neither managed much of either.

Did either the size of the government or its expenditure as a % of GDP actually shrink under reagan?

Just like people who consider themselves "fiscal conservatives' support W's because he calls Kerry a "tax-and-spend' liberal, implying that he is in fact a 'cut-taxes-and-spend' conservative.

Prof. Tomas, perhaps you can tell us which is worse?

PK