|
Edited on Mon Mar-12-07 12:44 AM by happyslug
American Conservatives like British Conservatives follow the Burke School of Conservatism, i.e. Change for Change sake is Bad, but Change will come and if good should be followed. Burke supported the US Revolution for he saw it as a revolt against a radical change in the Relationship between America and Britain, which in many ways it was, the British Parliament wanted to raise money from America, something Parliament had never done.
On the other hand Burke OPPOSED the French Revolution for its radical change in Government including the elimination of the local structure of Government (Burke seems to have been more concern about these radical changes then even the execution of the King). Other changes Burke opposed was the remaking of the Catholic Church in France as a Centralized French based Church as opposed to a Diocese and Rome base Church. Now both of these changes had to do with HOW the Kings of France ruled prior to the Revolution (The King would get his taxes from the local Governments NOT the Central Government, i.e. if America was ruled like pre-Revolutionary France. the President would raise his taxes by getting it from each state he abolished Congress).
Burke as a true Conservative did NOT oppose either change by themselves, but look upon as a radical Change Burke saw Nothing but evil coming from the change (i.e. Do to the pace of Radical Change the Radical Change FORCED France into the Terror and later on into Napoleon's arms (surprisingly Marx makes the same observation but blames the ending of the Revolution fever for the eventual raise of Napoleon).
Marx also observed you can NOT get Socialism through Revolution, Socialism would come later after the Revolution. The Sole Purpose of the Revolution was to overthrow the impediments of going forward to Socialism, not to get Socialism through the Revolution itself. Thus both Marx and Burke agreed that you can NOT get good change through Revolution, Marx said you needed Revolution to overthrow the Upper Middle class so the Workers could lead the World to Socialism,, Burke said you get social improvements over time and careful planning when you make a change and all you get from radical revolution is death when to comes to change.
American Conservatives say they are followers of Burke and his greatest 20th Century follower, Winston Churchill. We must separate these Conservatives from Bush and his Neo-Cons, for these are NOT follow of Burke, but break into two forms, both claim Burke as a light, but both reject Burke's position that change is good if done in small doses.
The intellectual center of the GOP are the Neo-cons. Many of these Neo-Cons came out of the Trotsky School of Communists not what we would call traditional GOP support (many like Kirkpatrick are ex-Democrats). These ex-Democrats still believe in Government Control of Society but having become disillusioned with Socialism, the Democratic Parry and even of Communism have embraced the use of Force by the Government as a means to make the US "Secure". These are the smallest part of the GOP at the present time but these are the people in the GOP with a clean idea of what they want to do (and are doing so in places like Iraq).
On the other hand the vast majority of Non-Social Issue (i.e. excluding the Religious Right) and most of the money are the same business elites who created the Great Depression (and the terrible social condition in the US between 1870 and 1940). These are mostly Social Darwinist, i.e. "I am rich for I am better than you" (Many of these groups use to be, and many are at least nominally still are, Puritan Protestants. When they were Puritan Protestants they had a habit of using the concept of the "Elect" to say they were Rich for God Favored them). They political philosophy is just a justification for their own greed (Thus the embrace of Puritanism with its concept of the Elect and the later acceptance of Social Darwinism for its view that if you are doing better it is because you are more "fit" and better to survive the fight to survive). This crew is the most Dangerous for in reality they have no political philosophy except to stay in power, by whatever means, for by staying in power they are showing their superior ty over those people NOT in power.
Finally the largest Conservatives are the Religious Conservatives. They reject any radical social Change (and thus more in line with Burke than the above to groups). On the other hand the most famous religious leaders on the Right are more from the Business elite (Thus the recent division within this group when Bush failed to pass much of the Social Agenda the Religious Conservative want and then called on them to support his agenda to help the business community). Falwell, Roberson and many others want to control this Movement to help their Business friends, but forgot to realize that the only reason the Religious Conservatives voted for Bush was THE SOCIAL ISSUES. In many ways Religious Conservatives do Read their Bibles and don't like the idea of cutting Social Services. The Bible says provide aid to the poor, how is pushing the homeless out of business areas helping the poor? How is cutting Social Security helping the poor?. Now these religious conservatives have accepted the idea Welfare makes people dependent and people should not be Dependent, but dislike the idea of cutting off Welfare to Children and want better Public Education for all.
The Business Conservatives were able to keep the Religious Conservatives in the GOP as long as the Business Conservatives could blame the inability to pass the Social Agenda of the Religious Conservatives do to either the Democrats controlled the Congress (at least one house pre-1994) OR that the President was a Democrat (CLinton 1992-2000). Since 2001 the GOP has controlled, Congress AND the Presidency and still have NOT pass the Social Agenda. In 2004 the GOP made a strong effort to keep these Voters saying re-elect Bush and the Social Agenda would be next. Bush was just waiting for his second term and then 911 slowed down the Social Agenda (And the GOP ran those Anti-Gay marriage State Constitutional Amendments to get the vote out).
The Religious Conservatives then waited again for the Social Agenda to be passed and Congress failed (The Business Conservative dislike the Social Agenda for it means restrictions on them as to what they want to do, hire anyone and fire anyone, but most importantly the Social Agenda got in the way of what the Business Conservatives wanted Congress to do so the Social Agenda was put on the back burner). Come 2006 the Religious Conservatives, while not voting Democratic, stayed home do to a disillusionment with the lies of the Business Conservatives, who are again blaming the Democrats for failure to pass the Social Agenda. The problem is the Religious Conservatives are NOT buying the lies this time and are looking at what they can support and get the Democratic Congress to pass (Thus the recent movement among religious Conservatives in support of reducing the effect of Global Warming since that his harming the earth and it is the job of people to protect God's Creation). Similar movements to support Mothers with young Children, Senior Citizens, ex-prisoners and even labor have appeared within the Religious Conservative movements. These are things Religious Conservatives believe they can have a positive affect on given the failure of the GOP to pass their Social Agenda.
Thus Conservatives are divided into four groups (With overlap between all four groups and even Democratic Groups). Based on your statement, you appear to be attacking the Business Conservatives. The Business Conservatives have the big money in the GOP, but is to Small by itself to win any election and no real intellectual thought. The Neo-cons are even smaller, but have an idea of what they want to do with Government (Iraq for example). The largest number of Conservative voters are the Religious Conservatives, but what this groups wanted was ignored for neither the Neo-Cons nor the Business Conservatives want to pass the Religious Conservatives agenda (The Neo-Cons and the Business Conservatives do NOT oppose the Social Agenda, they just have other priorities including making more money for the Business Community for the Business Conservatives, and a large Military for the Neo-cons).
Thus your statement is true as to the Neo-cons and the Business Conservatives, it is NOT true of the religious Conservatives. The later do what to help people, maybe not in ways you want to be helped, but they want to help. Not to help others is a violation of being Christian and the Religious Conservatives are NOT going to reject their own Christianity (Even though leaders like Falwell and Robertson think nothing of violating Christ's Teachings).
One last comment, the GOP is larger than the above three Conservative groups. Within the GOP you have the people living in the Rural North and West who have traditionally voted GOP since the Civil war. Another group are Suburbanites who vote their pocket books but are NOT truly Conservatives (They support equal rights for blacks and abortion rights, but lower taxes is #1 on their voting agenda). A third group are people who dislike losing their guns (Often the same as the people living in Rural areas, but include Suburban and even inner City dwellers). I can double this paper if I included such groups so I am not and restricting this paper to Conservatives. You have very few Burke type Conservatives in the GOP today (Through many say their are Conservatives in the footsteps of Burke). The above three groups are the dominate Conservative groups (You can even call the Business Conservatives Reactionaries).
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
