[Oe List ...] What do we mean by a right? To Jim, Dave, et.al. re: Conservativism

[ed feldmanis]

Susan,

I thought more about the implications of what you and all of us have on our
minds.  These are observations and reflections.  I am sure that as complex
as this can get none of us are completely right.

I wonder in the comparison between government and business, conservative and
liberal, rights versus privilege whether the philosophy of who we are and
what we are doing is really in play.  I am wondering out loud whether all of
things that are being said with assurance that this is the way it is is
really true.

Today, for example, it has been posited that having money and spending on
whatever political opportunity there is, is freedom of speech.  The old boy
from Kentucky, now the number 1 Republican, Mitch McConnell, is saying
freedom of speech is the money that buys campaign commercials.  So if you
have more money do you get more freedom of speech? The new crowd, some of
the ones that fit today's label of conservative, is saying that money is
freedom of speech.  Note that this is not inherent in American conservative
philosophy.

In the old days conservatives wanted necessary government and avoided bigger
government.  Even though business was the conservative friend, I suspect
that the conservatives of yesteryear would be aghast at businesses getting
government favors.  They would be against the tax structured help, loop
holes and even allowing of lobbyists into the inner offices of Congress.
After all, FDR took a hand in stabilizing and helping business and that was
too much for old conservatives.  I think the older conservatives would side
with Eisenhower who warned of the take over by the Military-Industrial
Complex.  Times change.  We now see a 180.

So today people are yelling about keeping government out of their
businesses.  They are not yelling about keeping businesses out of our
government. Even the active evangelists of Baptist religion, and the like,
in an earlier time, wanted government to stay out of most of the moral
regulations and to stay out of the church. Talk about a 180.

It is sad to see many businesses, including giant corporations, think of
themselves as little empires, governments and sanctioned ones who can do no
wrong; they are outlaws for they have a sense of being a kind of government
all on their own.  Think about Enron, Worldcom, HealthSouth, Tyco, Hospital
Corportation of America, Halliburton, big banks, big Insurance, and on and
on.

Notice economics being tied into the above narrative.  People are saying
what we can afford and what we can't and so on.  No one is yelling at town
hall meetings that the whole of the economy is totally different and that we
are actually in the process of reinventing it. When you get right down to
it, the way we all live is not sustainable. There is something everyone in
this country is doing or benefiting from that won't work in the future.
Period.  That is reality, economics, that is hard for me to swallow.

When in the European and Asian world people got as upset as we are as a
people often they turned to violence.  We have a wonderful country where no
one is out gunning, or seems to be gunning, for the rich.  It is true that
in riots people have burned their own neighborhoods.  In this country people
are very forgiving, understanding and kind, especially the poor.  One big
reason in the past that we have had social change sponsored by the
government, and why the FDR types were barely tolerated, was that they, even
conservatives, learned the lesson from Europe and Asia. We know that if
pushed hard enough victims, even in the USA, can collectively rage. Examples
of history: Bolshevism, Nazi-ism, Chinese Communism, and in more recent
history the slaughters that have taken place in again in Europe, Southeast
Asia and Africa. I don't want the violence.  That's not the kind of country
I want to live in.

Ed

2009/9/1 Susan Fertig <susan at gmdtech.com>

>  Wow.  Dave blew my naive expectation (not really, I mean not *really* an
> expectation) that people of the Spirit didn't practice stereotyping.  But Ed
> somewhat restored my faith (well a LITTLE bit, anyway).
>
> *Susan*
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] *On
> Behalf Of *ed feldmanis
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 01, 2009 10:59 PM
> *To:* oe at wedgeblade.net
> *Subject:* [Oe List ...] What do we mean by a right? To Jim, Dave,et.al.
> re: Conservativism
>
> Jim,
>
> The most eloquent modern day description that I have seen is in the book
> Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater.
>
> I have to agree with Dave as far as his description goes. Here is where I
> found the problem, at least for me: Conservatives may give lip service to
> these values, but they intolerantly restrict the freedoms and opportunities
> they would offer people different from themselves, often valuing the freedom
> of businesses more than the freedom of individuals.
>
> I find that statement in general to be devastatingly true and possibly
> un-American. However, I don't agree that every conservative is merely giving
> lip service. My own impression is that Barry Goldwater was very sincere and
> specific in his book. At the point of writing the book, in my opinion, there
> was some sense in that folks still wanted to make America work for everybody
> and they thought they had more common ground than there is today.
>
> For a while it, the Goldwater book, was the standard of what a conservative
> was. Conservativism was tied to merit, learning,  service, pay as you go
> spending, and the wide spread use of incentives before deciding to create an
> agency; and, by the way, there was some sense of what is called
> state-craft.  If pushed beyond Goldwater to Teddy Roosevelt it was also tied
> to conservation.  I think in my time this is as close to having a dynamic -
> conservativism- defined in some stability. (Notice some of the liberalism
> inherent in the above description.)
>
> Where I really disagree is where many people simply call the new crowd
> conservatives; for example, the crowd now in power and mostly Southerners
> and their business conspirators. The label, I think, in this case, is a cop
> out for the sake of convenience.  In my mind, I can not get the label of
> conservative to stick on extremists or people who have neo-fascist ideas.
> These are the same people who called Goldwater a liberal. And they are the
> so-called conservatives of our day.  I don't buy it, but the press and then
> everyone else seems to.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OE mailing list
> OE at wedgeblade.net
> http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20090902/09d88b05/attachment.html>