tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post115861291597243836..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: The Evolution Of A Conservative: Playing DefenseHunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1158911433217243572006-09-22T03:50:00.000-04:002006-09-22T03:50:00.000-04:00Tom,At the part where you joshed "it's all so conf...Tom,<BR/><BR/>At the part where you joshed "it's all so confusing," it does not have to be once you review the participants' tactics.<BR/><BR/>Consider the many who rise to defend the welfare state on the one hand, or to vigorously suppress or subdue all who try to reform it on the other. <BR/><BR/>The former are displaying attributes typical of antidisestablishmentarians (good cops) and the latter behave as reactionaries (bad cops). <BR/><BR/>I suspect it won't easily be accepted, but I believe its worthy of consideration because it provides clearer distinctions than the clichéd liberal vs. conservative ever could (witness your lament). <BR/><BR/>It's not hard to spot the former group because you'll find they retread many of the same arguments as their Antidisestablishmentarian forebears. <BR/><BR/>As for reactionaries versus radicals, that's hardly worth making a distinction. In this instance, those "radicals," in that they are zealously <I>defending</I> what their radical forebears' demands helped bring about, they <I>are</I> quintessentially reactionaries.<BR/><BR/>See <A HREF="http://www.eternityroad.info/index.php/weblog/single/antidisestablishmentarianism/" REL="nofollow"><B>this FWP essay</B></A> for more development.Pascalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00303025432356543062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1158616184570721672006-09-18T17:49:00.000-04:002006-09-18T17:49:00.000-04:00Yes, conservatives can be liberals, but not progre...Yes, conservatives can be liberals, but not progressives.<BR/><BR/>Of course, at one time, before they got "classical," liberals were quite radical, and the opposition to the liberals was of course, conservative.<BR/><BR/>Edmund Burke is called the first "modern" conservative, but he of course admitted the need for a society to grow (by cautious change) or die, which makes him a sort of liberal (but not progressive) conservative.<BR/><BR/>And the Liberal Party of Australia, John Howard's, is what we'd call conservative. In the US, there are two types of conservatives, one that is anti-statist and libertarian (the Edmunds), the others who believe a society must change its traditions sparingly for the sake of continuity and self-preservation (the Burkes).<BR/><BR/>But we are united against the Jacobins (the progressives), who believe that all tradition is simply arbitrary convention (usually preserved for the haves, against the have-nots), and we're just a few good ideas away from the best society.<BR/><BR/>Now of course, FDR was a progressive, but we might say that the preservation of his welfare state, which is still very much with us, could be seen as "conservative."<BR/><BR/>It's all so confusing. Upon further review, perhaps "radical" is a better counterpoint to "conservative." In view of the carnage of the 20th century, I confess to a certain fear of New Ideas, and will happily cop to "conservative."Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com