"When philosophy paints its grey in grey then has a shape of life grown old. By philosophy's grey in grey it cannot be rejuvenated but only understood. The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of dusk." -- G.W.F. Hegel, 'Preface', Philosophy of Right.
|
|
'Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainity and agitation distinquish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones ... All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned.' Marx
|
|
|
conservative governance
« Previous |
|Next »
|
|
|
July 05, 2006
An article by Alan Wolfe entitled Why Conservatives Can't Govern in the Washington Monthly magazine courtesy of Cameron Riley at South Seas Republic. Wolfe says:
Contemporary conservatism is first and foremost about shrinking the size and reach of the federal government. This mission, let us be clear, is an ideological one. It does not emerge out of an attempt to solve real-world problems, such as managing increasing deficits or finding revenue to pay for entitlements built into the structure of federal legislation. It stems, rather, from the libertarian conviction, repeated endlessly by George W. Bush, that the money government collects in order to carry out its business properly belongs to the people themselves. One thought, and one thought only, guided Bush and his Republican allies since they assumed power in the wake of Bush vs. Gore: taxes must be cut, and the more they are cut--especially in ways benefiting the rich--the better.
This strikes me as confused --it equates conservatism with liberalism instead of recognizing that they are two different things. It is classical liberals who argue for small government so as to preserve individual freedom. Conservative are about the authority of the state and the governing class. They stand for a critique of American liberalism since upholding the authority of the state is more important than individual freedom. Hence conservatism is opposed to libertarianism (of a Nozick) that aims to reshape society in line with the requirements of free market forces as it puts the goals determined through the activity of politics itself.
This confusion between conservativsm and liberalism leads Wolfe to say:
But like all politicians, conservatives, once in office, find themselves under constant pressure from constituents to use government to improve their lives. This puts conservatives in the awkward position of managing government agencies whose missions--indeed, whose very existence--they believe to be illegitimate. Contemporary conservatism is a walking contradiction. Unable to shrink government but unwilling to improve it, conservatives attempt to split the difference, expanding government for political gain, but always in ways that validate their disregard for the very thing they are expanding. The end result is not just bigger government, but more incompetent government.
Conservatives are in favour of big government and the competitive capitalist market. They do not disdain the authority of the state and they wish to preserve a certain kind of orderd and stable society--one based on tradition, hierarchy, custom and a common culture.
When Wolfe writes that 'Because liberals have historically welcomed government while conservatives have resisted it' he is arguing between two forms of liberalism is he not? As he says if yesterday's conservative was a liberal mugged by reality, today's is a free-marketer fattened by pork. Yet Wolfe knows the differences between liberals and conservatives as political philosophies:
Historically and philosophically, liberals and conservatives have disagreed with each other, not only over the ends political systems should serve, but over the means chosen to serve those ends. Whether through the ideas of James Madison, Immanuel Kant, or John Stuart Mill, liberals have viewed violent conflict as regrettable and the use of political institutions as the best way to contain it. Conservatives, from the days of Machiavelli to such twentieth-century figures as Germany's Carl Schmitt, have, by contrast, viewed politics as an extension of war, complete with no-holds-barred treatment of the enemy, iron-clad discipline in the ranks, cries of treason against those who do not support the effort with full-throated vigor, and total control over any spoils won. From a conservative point of view, separation of powers is divisive, tolerance a luxury, fairness another word for weakness, and cooperation unnecessary. If conservatives will not use government to tame Hobbes' state of nature, they will use it to strengthen Hobbes' state of nature. Victory is the only thing that matters, and any tactic more likely to produce victory is justified.
You can see the liberal (political philosophy) animus against conservatism (political philsophy). Schmitt's conception of politics as a conflict between friends and enemies is viewed 'as an extension of war, complete with no-holds-barred treatment of the enemy.' But conservatives do not aim strengthen Hobbes' state of nature --they aim to strengthen Leviathen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think he is arguing from a tribal point of view, conservatives==republicans and liberals==democrats. As you pointed out it is the Schmitt view of partisanship.
I am sure there have been successful republican governors (tribally conservative) who have governed successfully.
Bush is excellent at getting elected, his record on governance is poor though. Same with the Delay/Hastert Congress. The line item veto that they are trying to give the President (which was previously judged unconstitutional) is congress saying, "we cant be trusted with money".
Not cool if the same party dominates the legislative and executive.