Comments on: A Response to Ross

By: verreces

verreces — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:24:02 +0000

“It seems that conservative “movement” is more a coalition than a unified movement, and most coalitions eventually fail. You had the lower socio-economic strata of conservatives voting against their own economic and sociological well-being because of the jingoistic, fear-based rhetoric, combined with religion. Why should fiscal conservatives be forced to be lumped in with social conservatives? Why would those two groups ever be in the same political circles? As a very socially liberal with semi-conservative fiscal and defense leanings, I would never in my life vote for a party that celebrates the know-nothingness of Palin, or the pro-religious stance of the GOP. I have no choice as to where my vote goes. I’d really prefer a more parliamentary style where a green party could work with fiscal conservatives, a labor party might find common ground with defense types. I know it will never happen, but the ideological divisions being forced upon us, the two-party system, seems to be tearing the right apart, while the left (for the moment) has their act together with a strong president-elect and semi-solid platform/agenda.”
Where else can I read about it?

By: Backyard Politics » Blog Archive » Item - Sensationalist, Brand - Conservative

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:00:22 +0000

[...] Austin Bramwell’s ‘a response to Ross’ [...]

By: kayatrythenna

kayatrythenna — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 02:24:13 +0000

These impossible women! How do they get around us! The poet was right: can’t live with them, or without them! (Aristophanes)

By: piedra

piedra — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:45:14 +0000

Good analysis. It does seem like the only thing holding these groups together is the desire for power, and there’s going to be some jostling as there’s a limited supply of that.

It does make for strange bedfellows. I simply can’t imagine Joe the Plumber in the same room as Bill Kristol, which is why Kristol’s paeans to Palin (more akin to Joe) never made much sense. He’s sensing her power, maybe, but it’s hard to believe Kristol and Palin share any parts of a worldview.

And the more disparate the elements of the “conservative movement”, the less it is in tune with the majority of Americans. is there even one position held by the conservatives which is shared enthusiastically by the majority of voters?

By: JB Conner

JB Conner — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:41:19 +0000

Austin’s take on non-movement conservatism simply “does not compute” to movement conservatives.

I believe they see the world at two different levels.

It all comes down to what is the object of conservation: what is it that conservatives conserve?

My understanding of Austin’s view of conservatism (to which I am sympathetic and, to the extent I understand it, in agreement), is that the ‘object’ of conservation is akin to the ‘metis’ of a society (as the term is used by Scott in his book Seeing Like a State). The focus therein being on the informal underlying wisdom and praxis of the society in question. This ‘metis’ serving as the foundation for the more formal rules and institutions that develop. As seen in this manner, a non-movement conservatism makes sense. In fact non-movement conservatism may be all there is. Austin’s comments regarding ‘loose networks’ fit right in: informal ties that serve to explore and propogate this ‘metis’.

However, movement conservatives appear to view the ‘objective’ of conservation as the formal rules, institutions, and policies themselves. As seen in this manner, a movement to conserve may be all there is to advance conservative desires.

Regards,

JB Conner

By: central squared

central squared — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:37:09 +0000

This really does get to the heart of the matter. It seems that conservative “movement” is more a coalition than a unified movement, and most coalitions eventually fail. You had the lower socio-economic strata of conservatives voting against their own economic and sociological well-being because of the jingoistic, fear-based rhetoric, combined with religion. Why should fiscal conservatives be forced to be lumped in with social conservatives? Why would those two groups ever be in the same political circles? As a very socially liberal with semi-conservative fiscal and defense leanings, I would never in my life vote for a party that celebrates the know-nothingness of Palin, or the pro-religious stance of the GOP. I have no choice as to where my vote goes. I’d really prefer a more parliamentary style where a green party could work with fiscal conservatives, a labor party might find common ground with defense types. I know it will never happen, but the ideological divisions being forced upon us, the two-party system, seems to be tearing the right apart, while the left (for the moment) has their act together with a strong president-elect and semi-solid platform/agenda.

By: Conservative “think”tanks | deadissue.com

Conservative “think”tanks | deadissue.com — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:37:52 +0000

[...] “think”tanks I got this via Andrew Sullivan and I thnk inadvertentely cuts to the heart of the problem with conservatism. [...]