George Will, on ABC's "This Week," correctly refuted the Romney campaign claim that the Middle East riots would not have happened if Romney were president. But one wonders why Will still has a national voice. He used to be the kind of conservative I loved to read; he is smart, articulate, presents a well-crafted argument, and has a good sense of history. But he lost credibility years ago when he called the American war for independence a "conservative revolution." He presented this oxymoron (in his defense, he is not alone) to promote the idea that conservatism can lead to positive change in the course of history. But in contorting himself into this impossible position he sacrificed his credibility, which like virginity, once lost is lost forever.
To boil down the essential differences between liberals and conservatives, we can take the conclusion from John Locke (1632-1704) and Edmund Burke (1729-1797). Liberals believe in and support human rational potential, a compact between the people and their government, and the right of revolution if that pact is broken. Conservatives place a high value on existing institutions, customs and traditions, put faith in a supernatural force guiding human affairs, and accept human inequality and the consequences of social hierarchy. However laudable those latter ideas may or may not be, they do not lead to revolution.
Thinking conservatives face the dilemma that most of history's advances derive from liberalism. Conservatism resists change and promotes either the status quo or a return to earlier times. If conservatives had won the day, we would still have segregation, women could not vote, child labor would be the norm, mixed-race marriages would be illegal, evolution could not be taught in science class, abortions would be criminal, Christian prayer would be embedded in public schools, the air in Los Angeles would still be brown and deadly, our water would be contaminated with lead and arsenic... and we would all still be British subjects. We are American and not British thanks to enlightened liberals. In each of these cases, conservatives fought in their day to preserve what we view in retrospect as failed social and political constructs.
Take any one of those issues -- women's suffrage or child labor for example, and read the stories of the day. Conservatives predicted catastrophic consequences if women were allowed to vote. Industrialists fought tooth and nail to prevent the passage of laws to protect children from the vilest forms of exploitation. And conservatives fought hard to remain loyal to the British. What could be more anti-American -- literally -- than that? Conservatives have historically fought to preserve what we now consider some of the worst abuses in society. They are doing the same today, and we'll have that perspective 50 years hence. Citizens United will be our Dredd Scott. You cannot have a conservative revolution; a revolution is a fight for radical change to create a new and better future. A revolution is not a quest for some reversion to an old past; change is the antithesis of conservative thought. Revisionism and linguistic contortions will not save conservatives from the harsh reality that their movement is based on a fight for causes that decades hence will seem archaic and barbaric.
Historically, conservatives have served a single useful purpose: to rein in the excesses of liberalism. Liberal thought is the engine for change, but without the pull of conservative resistance that train can quickly accelerate beyond safe speed. In the absence of opposing views, liberalism fast becomes too much of a good thing. A sense of entitlement, too much reliance on government, excessive regulations that stifle innovation, exploitive taxation, legal constructs that interfere with desirable market forces, and social policies that threaten individual rights are all consequences of liberalism unconstrained.
Liberalism properly reined in by conservatism is like the water falling through a turbine to generate electricity. The force of the water when resisted by the internal gears of the turbine creates something useful to society. That same force, though, becomes destructive when flowing uncontrolled over the top of the dam. Liberalism creates change necessary to advance our society; conservative resistance prevents the rate of change from exceeding redline.
The real danger of right wing extremism today is not necessarily the medieval views advanced by party advocates. I believe the majority of Americans will reject the far rights' antiquated views on women's rights, science, unregulated capitalism of robber-baron days, and jingoistic nationalism. No, the real danger is that extremism is going to damage the legitimate conservative movement beyond repair for a generation or more. In the absence of a sound conservative movement, liberalism will be prone to excess. Then in response to that excess the pendulum will swing back too far to the right, and we will enter into ever-widening and unstable swings left and right. Our future is in the middle, and the further we swing away on either side the greater the danger.
My great hope is that a decisive Obama win in November will largely discredit the extreme right, giving voice and power again to moderates in the Republican Party. Liberals have no exclusive insights to what is best; nor do conservatives. We need both in dialogue to create a better future. We need the falling water, but we need to guide that water to useful purpose. We need both liberals and conservatives, absent the extremes we see today on the far right. And no, I did not include extremes on the far left. At least for the moment the left has no equivalent of the Tea Party, or the extreme voices of Rush Limbaugh with 20 million listeners or extreme candidates like Michele Bachmann or Todd Akin. Where we stand today the right must swing to the middle across a greater distance than the left.
Follow Jeff Schweitzer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffSchweitzer
Barbra Streisand: Obama vs. Romney: A Clear Choice
http://www.politicalcertainty.com/why-mccain-and-palin-are-not-going-to-succeed/
http://www.politicalcertainty.com/disdain-for-intelligence-is-costly-to-gop/
We need a responsible Republican Party.
http://thetimchannel.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/clean-sweep/
Enjoy.
I used to say, half in truth and half to be conciliatory, that this nation was built by conservatives and liberals, and there wouldn't be "American Exceptionalism" if it weren't for both of these forces. No longer. Conservatives want to drag us back to the dark ages...but keep all the technology and (some of) the science--medicinally, anyways, that liberals have created.
I fear that Mr. Schweitzer's analysis is right on. When the pendulum swings, it will swing too far because both parties believe they have a lock on the truth and without checks and balances will inevitably push policies that are too extreme.
http://larouchepac.com/node/23576
Timeline - How the Obama Administration Wrecked NASA
2007
Nov. 26--While campaigning for the presidency, Obama stated in New Hampshire that his policy for NASA will be to take $5 billion out of the space program, delaying the Constellation manned exploration program for five years, and put the money in to education (whatever that means). It does not matter if we go the Moon or Mars, sooner, or later, he said
March—campaign rally, Obama stated that ``NASA is no longer associated with inspiration.’
August 2—During a visit to Florida, Obama’s ``Plan for Lifetime Success Through Education’’ specified that his $10 billion plan would be paid for, in part, by ``delaying the NASA Constellation for five years.
Growing up in a conservative home we lived by the adages of waste not want not,use it up, wear it out, find a need or do without. The water wasn't left running, lights were turned off if not in the room. We put on a sweater rather than turn up the heat in winter. Yet these days these ideas are called 'green' and considered to be liberal ideas.
As a fiscal conservative I was against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I am against farm subsidies and other corporate welfare. I am a social moderate who believes in only giving government aid to those who by no fault of their own, cannot care for themselves. A Constitutional conservative believes in individual rights, which means the right to live as they choose, as well as the consequences of their choices. A constitutional conservative supports all the amendments. In some sad way I see some of the far right religious folks here in the states as akin to the far right folks in Muslims countries and that's scary.
As for Romney saying the middle east riots wouldn't have happened had he been President, that is a foolish statement, if anyone knows how radical Muslims think and act.
In other words, the author recognizes that liberalism is what leads to progress while conservatism impedes progress, but nevertheless he still warns about the supposed danger of "too much" liberalism.
It's hard to understand how someone who recognizes the existence of certain facts but refuses to accept the consequences of those facts could be a scientist, let alone a scientist of sufficient gravitas to be given the opportunity to provide advice to a President and a Vice-President on issues related to science.
In his last two paragraphs, the author voices concern about liberalism acting without the brake of a credible conservatism. However, he fails to provide any example where that occurred other than for the relatively short time period required to effect a major change (e.g., the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the revolt of the English Barons against King John, etc.). Absent such an example, it appears to me that his concerns are overstated.
And yes, there is such a thing as "too much liberalism."
The two party system allows one party to govern while the other party holds onto the reigns to prevent the horses from running into a wall or off a cliff.
The current conservative leaders have changed what the party is about. They use the words of the original conservative party planks in the speeches but they don't try to govern using them.
* reduce spending = the largest military in the world (bigger than several of the next largest country's militaries combined.)
* smaller government = sticking the government's hands into the private areas of citizen's personal lives.