I reccomend an ideological change.

Become a small government partial redistributionist. Someone who wants an insipid 24hour day in day out rigging of things in slight favour of smaller business and the guy who starts from nothing but in the context of small government.

This might cure your ideological confusion. And where libertarian principle meets utilitarianism its not necessary to choose one or the other. Not necessary to throw out the free market principles. You just sort of bend things in favour of the poor worker and the smaller business. Not enough to do economic damage but enough to change things over time.

Works for me.

Great post, and amazingly close to my own views (though more elegantly put than I usually manage). Moreover, Solow’s point and your elucidation are also what I try to convey (unsuccessfully) by self-labelling as “centrist”. It’s not a claim to balance or wisdom, but to being simultaneously powerfully influenced by each of the 3 major strands of western political philosophy (mostly excluding Marxism though, except some of its historical analysis), and not being able to regard any one of them as the dominant influence. Stability, continuity and tradition; individual rights and freedoms, and openness to new and different ideas (not to mention a sceptical approach to both governments and large corporations given their potential to infringe individual freedom); and fairness/social justice: all are critically and equally important principles in forming and maintaining the Good Society.

My claim to “centrism” is an attempt to convey that need for dynamic tension and continual balancing between these imperatives, as well as a protest about the inadequacy of any one of the dominant political philoosphies as the sole recipe for that Good Society. The trouble is, and as Nicholas observes, it doesn’t in fact convey those meanings to most people.

So maybe I too should describe myself as a conservative liberal social democrat. But then that wouldn’t be as much fun, because it wouldn’t irritate Chris Sheil.

My only comment is that liberty (particularly positive liberty but also negative) has a place in the Social Democratic tradition - though often underemphasised. Traditions of liberty were particularly strong in 19th century Democratic socialism in Britan in particuler - E. J. Thompson is good on this.

My personal position is probably best described as social democracy with an emphasis on non-authoritarian and participative policy and government.

It might also be worth talking about democracy - not all liberals (eg Hayek) are really democrats and some conservatives are. The faultline runs across all three traditions.

The other question of course is the old bugbear that it’s hard to get passionate about centrism - I might have a go at writing on it in the near future.

http://larvatusprodeo.redrag.net/2005/04/24/passionate-centrism/

If you want passion, it’s in the propositions put, not the generalised headings.

Thanks for the comment. I’ve now dutifully read Krygier ‒ he tutored me when I did first year law. I liked him.

I recall he’s been on about this before ‒ though I didn’t remember it when I coined the expression conservative-liberal-social democrat in the above piece.

Can you expand on your suggestion that what he said was “confused and contradictory and he did not include some of the essential caveats that Nicholas inserted”?

When the roast beef has settled of course (Sounds like a conservative meal to me. I suppose it would be expecting too much for it to be Beef Wellington?)

Interestingly enough the Sunday Mail in Adelaide(p10 April 24) refers to a similar conclusion by Adelaide born journalist and broadcaster Susan Murray in her recent book ‘All Things Bright and beautiful: Murder in the City of Light. Much to the outrage of the Mayor(Marylin Baker) and the citizens of Elizabeth, she basically lays the blame for ‘bodies in the barrels’ murders on a ‘village of rejects’, which referred to the village of followers that John Bunting had created. Quote:
‘The aim of the book had been to dispel “myths” that Adelaide was a “weird city” and attempt to discover why bodies-in-the-barrels murders had happened here.’
‘”One of the problems is you’ve got all those people living in all those Housing trust houses too close together” she says.’
“Too many people on welfare in one place. I think that in itself can create a problem.”
She basically concludes that unless the problem of ghettoes of disadvantaged is addressed these murders will occur again.

I guess the question is; How best to deal with the growing symptoms of the Long March of liberal progressivism at the margins of The Good Society? If you don’t believe in the prescriptions that Steve Sailer points to, then you aint a centrist Neo-Conservative’s jock-strap me old liberal progressive wankers! You’re way out there with subsidised solo mums, gay marriage, IVF for all, adoption for all, quickie divorce, subsidised abortion on demand, stolen generations, etc, etc.

That is what the people that live in Elizabeth do, and it must work for them coz they keep doing it.

The account by Susan *Mitchell* of the Snowtown affair is an entertaining read, but don’t take it as an authoritative account of what went on at the trial. For a start, Suse didn’t spend much time in court, despite what the book implies. And her casting of Christopher Pearson as the resonant voice of Adelaide’s soul is laughable. But I think Scott’s identified the source of your distress - it’s still early days in the season and the Power will probably (unfortunately) improve. Conservative liberal social democrat Quiggin seems to be taking Brisbane’s plummet to last without resorting to hysteria …