David Frum on the GOP

[DGuller]

Real conservatives don't use Macs.

Nobody's perfect.

[Ideologue]

Now, you know I don't think the former.  I'm on record as saying that every pre-FDR American government was practically demonic by modern standards, and every other country's government on Earth was even worse.

As to the latter, I suppose that's true.  I'm just outlining why I don't think conservatism works, especially in bad times--i.e., these times.

Conservatism's about changing to preserve the status quo.  Otherwise you end up with revolution.

That's rather what I mean.  Grudging, only-as-much-as-necessary change that alleviates symptoms and rarely underlying problems.

[Barrister]

But while conservative governance is perhaps able to stop ruinous excesses, it seems powerless to stop everyday evil; for inevitably conservative government defends the status quo out of caution, and those who profit from the status quo out of misplaced interest, even if the status quo is untenable.  The result is that change comes at great cost in human suffering, if it ever comes at all.

Conservatism's about changing to preserve the status quo.  Otherwise you end up with revolution.

Totally disagree.

Preserving the status quo, for the sake of the status quo, is moronic.  It's, to quote a phrase, "reactionary".

But to look at the status quo, to say 'hey, this is the best situation in human history' is different.  To say that the status quo is pretty damn good because by all empirical evidence it is pretty good is an entirely different situation.

[Sheilbh]

Totally disagree.

Preserving the status quo, for the sake of the status quo, is moronic.  It's, to quote a phrase, "reactionary".

But to look at the status quo, to say 'hey, this is the best situation in human history' is different.  To say that the status quo is pretty damn good because by all empirical evidence it is pretty good is an entirely different situation.

You're right, simply preserving the status quo isn't a fair description of conservatism.

But I don't buy the empirical argument either.  Hopi Sen had a really lovely post on the conservatism he admires, which I broadly agreed with. 

I think your 'empiricism' is just the latest justification for conservatism.  To an extent things are the way they are for a reason - I think it used to be God-given and now it's your idea that it's empirically good, another classic conservative justification that this is how the world is made by millions of interactions across society and that it reflects our foibles.  All of those reasons reinforce a suspicion of change.  Conservatives acknowledge that the world isn't perfect and could be better, they're just unconvinced that change will necessarily make it better. 

I think the fundamentals of how conservatives think is pretty constant - I think you'd recognise an 18th century Tory squire.  There aren't many people who'd really recognise a Whig, or a Liberal (no matter how much Americans here think they would, they ignore the Liberals moral priggishness), or a 19th century Socialist.  That resistance to change I think actually allows conservatives to change, they're not tied to any particular vision of society, but to a way of thinking.

There are two other points made about conservatism that I think are right and valuable - I'd also note they're lacking in American conservatism right now.  Conservatism, at its best has a sense of human scale and a sense of humour.  It's aware that the small acts on an individual level help, but also that large schemes to change society have significant effects on the individual.  And because conservatism doesn't necessarily have a dogma of its own it's not as worthy, or grim, or morally righteous as its opponents tend to be (from Liberals to Social Democrats with everyone in between).

As I say I think American conservatism's lacking all of those things that I think are positive about conservatism.  They're an ideology not a way of thinking, they're addicted to grand schemes and they've no sense of humour.

[Ideologue]

I like Sheilbh's post.  I think a lot of that is true.

Although one thing I'll do is to back off on my earlier agreement about the West 2011 being the bestest time ever.  I mean, maybe, maybe, by an absolute, and more importantly, undifferentiated and aggregated, count of the value of things, it's better.  And comparing it to pre-1945 days is sort of a joke.  But we can agree that both of those are suspect metrics at best, right?  I'm not even sure comparing today with yesterday is really a very useful exercise at all.  Comparing today with tomorrow, or what today could have been, seems more fruitful.  But I guess that's why I'm not a conservative.

And, not to personalize this too much, but I recognize that my own situation does have a lot to do with the suspicion I have of conservatism as a viewpoint--I have very little to lose from radical change.  Sometimes I think that if I did, I might not feel the same way--that I'm fundamentally selfish--but I hope not.

[Capetan Mihali]

I have very little to lose from radical change. 

Except your chains.  And a world to win. 

[Ideologue]

Yeah, yeah, I know the pitch.

[Razgovory]

I like Barrister's version of conservatism much better then Skip's "If my vicious dogs kill my clients who drop stuff off at my home/office, it's their own damned fault" version conservatism.

[dps]

Totally disagree.

Preserving the status quo, for the sake of the status quo, is moronic.  It's, to quote a phrase, "reactionary".

But to look at the status quo, to say 'hey, this is the best situation in human history' is different.  To say that the status quo is pretty damn good because by all empirical evidence it is pretty good is an entirely different situation.

You're right, simply preserving the status quo isn't a fair description of conservatism.

But I don't buy the empirical argument either.  Hopi Sen had a really lovely post on the conservatism he admires, which I broadly agreed with. 

I think your 'empiricism' is just the latest justification for conservatism.  To an extent things are the way they are for a reason - I think it used to be God-given and now it's your idea that it's empirically good, another classic conservative justification that this is how the world is made by millions of interactions across society and that it reflects our foibles.  All of those reasons reinforce a suspicion of change.  Conservatives acknowledge that the world isn't perfect and could be better, they're just unconvinced that change will necessarily make it better. 

I think the fundamentals of how conservatives think is pretty constant - I think you'd recognise an 18th century Tory squire.  There aren't many people who'd really recognise a Whig, or a Liberal (no matter how much Americans here think they would, they ignore the Liberals moral priggishness), or a 19th century Socialist.  That resistance to change I think actually allows conservatives to change, they're not tied to any particular vision of society, but to a way of thinking.

There are two other points made about conservatism that I think are right and valuable - I'd also note they're lacking in American conservatism right now.  Conservatism, at its best has a sense of human scale and a sense of humour.  It's aware that the small acts on an individual level help, but also that large schemes to change society have significant effects on the individual.  And because conservatism doesn't necessarily have a dogma of its own it's not as worthy, or grim, or morally righteous as its opponents tend to be (from Liberals to Social Democrats with everyone in between).

As I say I think American conservatism's lacking all of those things that I think are positive about conservatism.  They're an ideology not a way of thinking, they're addicted to grand schemes and they've no sense of humour.

I think conservatism--at least my version of it--is essentially about saying, in effect, "Hey, things aren't perfect, but let's be sure that we're changing things for the better before we change them".  I'd say that's more a way of thinking than anything else.  And as for "grand schemes", well, the way of thinking I just mentioned will tend to cause one to view grand schemes with a certain degree of mistrust, to say the least.  And as for a sense of humor, I think that's more a trait that an individual person has or lacks to whatever degree, not something that you can ascribe to political/social views.

Insert Quote
I like Barrister's version of conservatism much better then Skip's "If my vicious dogs kill my clients who drop stuff off at my home/office, it's their own damned fault" version conservatism.

Yeah, but BB's view of conservatism comes down to, "Whatever THE LAW says about vicious dogs killing someone, that's what we should do". 

[Razgovory]

Yes, but we can change the law.  We can't change Scip.  He'll always be a hilly-billy.

[Scipio]

Yes, but we can change the law.  We can't change Scip.  He'll always be a hilly-billy.

And you'll always wear a Greek fisherman's hat and live in daddy's basement.

[Sheilbh]

And as for a sense of humor, I think that's more a trait that an individual person has or lacks to whatever degree, not something that you can ascribe to political/social views.

You've never spent any time with a Trot.

Sense of humour's the wrong phrase.  I looked up the original and the phrase he uses, which is better, is a lightness of touch.  I think lacking the grand project frees them from that, occassionally quite worthy but always tedious, seriousness.  At their best they've a sense of perspective.  The best example's someone like Harold MacMillan.  When he was asked about two Treasury ministers resigning in protest at his policies he said it was 'a little local difficulty'.  I think that sort of attitude's quite attractive in a political philosophy.  Everyone needs a hinterland, conservatism at its best is mostly hinterland.

[Razgovory]

Yes, but we can change the law.  We can't change Scip.  He'll always be a hilly-billy.

And you'll always wear a Greek fisherman's hat and live in daddy's basement.

Could be worse.  There's the off chance I might become a Judge.  Can't say the same for you.

[Neil]

Like, the equivalent of the birtherism/"Obama is a secret Muslim" stuff would be to accuse Mitt Romney of having four underage brides he keeps locked in his basement solely because he's a Mormon, or claiming that Rick Perry is a robot based solely on that one time his OS crashed.

Or maybe that Bush did 9/11?

[Barrister]

Although one thing I'll do is to back off on my earlier agreement about the West 2011 being the bestest time ever.  I mean, maybe, maybe, by an absolute, and more importantly, undifferentiated and aggregated, count of the value of things, it's better.  And comparing it to pre-1945 days is sort of a joke.  But we can agree that both of those are suspect metrics at best, right?  I'm not even sure comparing today with yesterday is really a very useful exercise at all.  Comparing today with tomorrow, or what today could have been, seems more fruitful.  But I guess that's why I'm not a conservative.

Comparing today with tomorrow is also entirely impossible.

That's ultimately why the left is fundamentally stupid.  To consider what might be is fine and dandy.  To look at change to society is a noble endeavour.  But invariably the left ignores the risks of change, doesn't look at empirical evidence, doesn't consider the downside.

I was hard on Scipio for saying that compassion has no place in public policy.  I don't know if he 100% meant it, but I certainly understand the sentiment behind it.  Far too often compassion becomes the only consideration.  When compassion overwhelms reason we invariably get some pretty moronic public policy.