Kay's thesis is that the treatment of prisoners by President Bush's administration has been the antithesis of a conservative position which, according to Kay, is for small government promoting liberty. (I over simplify the argument but that's its drift).
Certainly President Bush's actions has not been high on the liberty scale. But the label, conservative, is as slippery as the label liberal.
If by conservative we mean a supporter of maximising liberty and minimising government intrusion on the lives of citizens well, I'm a conservative. If we mean by liberal a supporter of maximising liberty and making sure all citizens have a fair shot at a self sufficient life regardless of their circumstances well, I'm a liberal. But if we use the terms to reflect social values -- say gay marriage -- I'm a liberal. If we use the terms to reflect criminal policy, at least as relates to crime with clear victims, I'm a conservative.
My point is not to say that conservative or liberal are without meaning but rather that the terms have too many meanings; we must define what it is they mean before using them.
In Canada having the two main political Parties named Liberal and Conservative confuses matters even more. A Liberal can be a social conservative and a Conservative can be a social liberal.
Perhaps the best thing is to recognise there is a divide between those who believe in state control of individuals and those who prefer individual controlling the State. State control supporters can be seen as radically leftist (enforced political correctness) or on the far right (mandatory military service). Individual control supporters can be on the right (free market fans) or the left (legalise weed now!!!).
I prefer individual control of the State. Absent some good cause (basically direct harm to others) I don't want there to be laws telling me what to say, do or whom to be with. People in both the Conservative and Liberal Parties are individual control supporters. And there are State control supporters in both Parties too.
George Bush is clearly on the State control side. And so whether he is a conservative or not, I disagree with his actions.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
3 comments:
When folks point out that conservatives have trashed the economy, and basically brought death, despair and ruin to society, the inevitable response Frum conservatives will be that "those aren't real conservatives, and that real conservatives would never do such things.
This argument strikes me as being identical in structure to the one I heard from my pinko friends that the Soviets were not real communists, and that real communism would indeed work much better than the Soviet implementation. Both arguments are total bullshit. Communism and Conservatism are both failed ideologies that must be resigned to the dustbin of history.
Are the Repblicans more to the right than Conservatives? George Bush was a Republican.
Bush is not a conservative.
Education bill, new Medicare, highest level of welfare spending in the history of the United States, sweeping new powers for the feds, and proposing bailouts for failing companies.
A conservative with a Republican Congress would have a balanced budget, would have sane fiscal policy, would be worried about the continuing expansion of federal power. Instead he embraces these things. He was honest in 2000. He wanted to create a big government conservatism. Gay marriage bans and welfare, not small government. Few remember this now, but W ran as someone who was moving the Republican party to the center, as Clinton did for the Democrats. Bush promised the start of a bipartisan era of centrist politics. 9/11 hijacked his presidency, but the promise was sincere. He desired to break conservative opposition to the welfare state. He mostly succeeded. Right now the debate in the Senate is how much of a bailout there should be, not if one should occur at all. There is no free market voice in Washington at all. Conservatism is gone.
He is decidedly left of center on economic and fiscal policy. As for foreign policy, I guarantee you a Democrat would have invaded Iraq. Just look a Bill Clinton and Al Gore's statements about Iraq during the 90s. Look at the voting records for the resolution authorizing use of force. Anyone who thinks a Democratic President would have fought Al-Qaeda on the floor of the UN is wrapped up in their party and unable to analyze rationally.
Post a Comment