tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3704399.post5058482877277863467..comments2023-10-26T04:53:21.986-05:00Comments on <a href="http://huckupchuck.blogspot.com">The Huck Upchuck</a>: Modern Conservatives and F.A. HayekHuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15878450464298055466noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3704399.post-4534156929213699422009-08-12T15:55:25.388-05:002009-08-12T15:55:25.388-05:00Interesting chart. I'd presume that the quint...Interesting chart. I'd presume that the quintessential moderate would be at point "0,0" on the quad chart. I consider myself to be a moderate liberal (in the sense that I'm a free market advocate who doesn't buy into a lot of the craziness on the left), but I'd fall out probably a few notches to the Southeast of Ghandi. So, if we both fit the bill of "moderate libertarians" that's a mighty big range!Huckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15878450464298055466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3704399.post-70592867387949557502009-08-12T15:34:56.742-05:002009-08-12T15:34:56.742-05:00Moderate is of course a subjective term, but to ma...Moderate is of course a subjective term, but to make it simpler I prefer the quad scale because it's less confusing. I fall a few notches southwest of "Friedman" on the quad chart: http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gifPistolettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03252937552656138163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3704399.post-37776315333804162582009-08-12T14:28:10.903-05:002009-08-12T14:28:10.903-05:00Also, you said:
"Fiscally "Conservative...Also, you said:<br /><br />"Fiscally "Conservative" Blue Dog Democrats have a much more secure place in the "liberal" big tent than socially "liberal" (but fiscally conservative) RINOs do in the "conservative" big tent."<br /><br />Today, right now, Blue Dogs are more secure in their positions than RINO's... but the GOP put up w/ the RINO's for a decade before they started trying to weed them out, and I think one can argue that if the RINO's had actually been fisclaly conservative, they'd still hold power. I don't think the Dems will put up with members of their own party obstructing the path that leads to a single-payer healthcare system for much longer. <br /><br />But aside from this, I also think it is worth noting that 'fiscally conservative' and 'classical liberal' are not necesarilly the same thing at all.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09314671073556804015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3704399.post-9301076502916125552009-08-12T14:07:24.090-05:002009-08-12T14:07:24.090-05:00"I think we'll just have to agree to disa..."I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point."<br /><br />Name an issue where this isn't the case! ;-)<br /><br />I think most social conservatives are a lot more willing to live and let live on social issues than you give them credit for, they just want to be able to have better control of their local communities. Federalism has long been a defining concept of the conservative movement. It is, for the most part, modern liberals who want to impose their social beliefs on everyone everywhere.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09314671073556804015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3704399.post-56160078009665142332009-08-12T13:23:19.305-05:002009-08-12T13:23:19.305-05:00I know ARE moderate libertarians, they just don...<i>I know ARE moderate libertarians, they just don't want to admit it. I think they're too frightened of the idea that a greenie hippie and a fundie gun-nut could live happily together with their mutual idea of "live and let live".</i><br /><br />That's a very helpful comment, Pistolette. And, I suspect you are probably right about most people being "moderate libertarians" (though I'm curious to know what you mean more specifically by "moderate") -- I'd call such people "liberaltarians." I do think that the concept of "fundie" -- if, by "fundie," you mean "fundamentalist" -- is contrary to libertarianism. I think the "fundie" part precludes the person who claims to be such from accepting the "live and let live" attitude that tolerates the greenie hippie. But I see the greenie hippie as being much more willing to live with the gun-nut who isn't so "fundie" that it comes across as intolerant.Huckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15878450464298055466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3704399.post-36020467514997942202009-08-12T13:15:53.707-05:002009-08-12T13:15:53.707-05:00And with that in mind, I think classical liberals ...<i>And with that in mind, I think classical liberals have a lot more room to maneuver among modern conservatives than among modern liberals.</i><br /><br />I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. Classical liberals tend to be economically laissez-faire with an acceptance of some basic need for a welfare state; but they are also very socially libertarian. Modern liberals may be more statist than classical liberals, but in America even modern liberals by and large are not totalitarian and are leery of full command economies. And the social libertarianism of modern liberals is strong. Fiscally "Conservative" Blue Dog Democrats have a much more secure place in the "liberal" big tent than socially "liberal" (but fiscally conservative) RINOs do in the "conservative" big tent.Huckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15878450464298055466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3704399.post-89886301084836386852009-08-12T13:14:07.388-05:002009-08-12T13:14:07.388-05:00When I worked in political science we often debate...When I worked in political science we often debated this, but here is how we basically broke it down. First off, leave political parties out of your thinking, as they will always compromise their philosophies to get elected. Traditionally in poli sci, regarding social *and* economic issues, anyone who wants less gov't control is right-wing, more gov't control is left-wing. I think the reason people get confused is because W was technically very liberal in his huge growth of government, something a real conservative would shun. <br /><br />Anyway, today, classical liberals are now what we call philosophical libertarians (less govt in both social-economic issues; rights of individual superior), while classical socialists have become modern liberals (more govt in both social-econ issues; good of group superior). Modern conservatives are a conundrum, but generally they want low govt interference in the economy and high government interference in social issues (usually to ban behaviors).<br /><br />I am not a member of a political party, but I do consider myself a moderate libertarian in that I think a small, but efficient govt is necessary. When a Democrat's in office the Repubs call the govt socialist/communist, but when a Repub is in office the Dems call it a fascist/authoritarian government. Either way they are both *technically* left-wing since they are both FOR big government. Which means Bush and Obama really are not that different if you're a political scientist. Most people (as seen in the anti-Obama town hall meetings, or the let's shred Gov. Palin to bits rallies) think with their passions and preconceived ideas instead of their heads. I think it's a shame people are so dedicated to the two dominant parties. Most people I know ARE moderate libertarians, they just don't want to admit it. I think they're too frightened of the idea that a greenie hippie and a fundie gun-nut could live happily together with their mutual idea of "live and let live".Pistolettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03252937552656138163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3704399.post-17922026707252817932009-08-12T11:28:34.105-05:002009-08-12T11:28:34.105-05:00I think a lot of classical liberals have reservati...I think a lot of classical liberals have reservations about teaming up with neocons and social conservatives (and vice versa, for sure), but I think the immediacy and scope of the consequences of the liberal agenda far outweight those concerns. <br /><br />I also think there are a lot of conservatives who subscribe to various aspects of philosophies that are, at face value, conflicting. Conservatives routinely rank The Bible and Atlas Shruggeed as their two favorite books, and you'd have a hard time finding two philosophies that are so opposed to eachother. But when you scratch beneath the surface of their views, you'll find that they have a nuanced view of both philosophies, tempered by their own reason and discernment. Very few Rand fans think she was right about everything. <br /><br />The result is that, yes, Hayek influences the conservative movement but also wouldn't necessarily agree with it.<br />Neither would Rand (who was downright contemptuous towards the conservatives of her day, and even pretty hostile towards the Libertarian Party). Neither, for that matter, would Jesus Christ. <br /><br />But in a political world, you form coalitions to get things done, and purists have the choice of holding to their idealism and watching the game from the sidelines, or else they can pick a team to play on and try to influence that team from within. And with that in mind, I think classical liberals have a lot more room to maneuver among modern conservatives than among modern liberals.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09314671073556804015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3704399.post-20177249165507831322009-08-11T22:51:31.581-05:002009-08-11T22:51:31.581-05:00Very interesting. Need to brush up on my Hayak.Very interesting. Need to brush up on my Hayak.Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06500678828386913176noreply@blogger.com