His take on liberalism has a coherence and problem-solving capacity that is lacking in left liberalism and the various forms of conservatism that have been put up as alternatives. But for some reaon that kind of liberalism went missing for most of the 20th century.

Don’t try to find your way into Mises by way of Human Action which is all over the place for the first 100 pages or more. Check out his book on liberalism which is only 200 pages and available on line.
http://www.mises.org/liberal.asp

The Goldwater Conservatives were essentially go-slow liberalist republicans. IIRC Goldwater said something to the effect that in the future his conservatism will be known as liberals. Dean’s recent book, which I have read, is very rational and builds fact upon fact. I got bored with it as I stay up to date with the news, so the authoritarian transgressions of the Bush Administration were nothing new to me. Goldberg’s claim is disingenuous IMO and he is playing the man rather than the ball.

Gary has been discussing Schmitt off and on for a while and comparing it to US and Au conservatism. Since the collapse of marxism, conservatism has become the competing political doctrine with liberalism. Unfortunately, conservatism has no internal logic, so Schmitt style friend-foe and state of exception governance have become its hallmark. To add to conservatism’s woes, this is the same method Chavez is governing in Venezuela.

Arendt argued that once exception governance becomes the norm, then camps appear. Australia has produced Nauru/PNG/Xmas-Island, America Guantanamo Bay, don’t know of a Venezuelan camp yet but Chavez is only new into his reign of executive force and non-force. Either way, the governing principles of Bush Conservatism are indistinguishable from Chavez Socialism outside of economic management and even in that area there is pretty of criticism for Bush.

If this style of governance becomes the norm world-wide we are going to have to shed the left-right descriptors as they are inaccurate in describing the tension between liberalism and conservatism.

Funny how the culture of the American Right sounds rather like that of the Australian Left.

Bollocks. Tony Abbott trying to draw comparisons between Kevin Rudds childhood and a “log cabin to the whitehouse”, in a national newspaper article, says that the Liberals are still importing every play from the US Republicans, although they are now doing it word for word rather than doing what good students should and regurgitating the information in their own words.

They really all need to go to the naughty corner, naughty boys!

Today’s Republican policies are antithetical to bedrock conservative fundamentals. There is nothing conservative about preemptive wars or disregarding international law by condoning torture. Abandoning fiscal responsibility is now standard operating procedure. Bible-thumping, finger-pointing, tongue-lashing attacks on homosexuals are not found in Russell Krik’s [sic] classic conservative canons, nor in James Burham’s guides to conservative governing. Conservatives in the tradition of former senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan believed in "conserving" this planet, not relaxing environmental laws to make life easier for big business. And neither man would have considered employing Christian evangelical criteria in federal programs, ranging from restricting stem cell research to fighting AIDs through abstinence.

But as Jonah Goldberg says, Dean is so incensed at Bush that he’s losing touch with reality. For example, I don’t remember Ronald Reagan being particularly green. And wasn’t he the president who said “trees cause more pollution than automobiles do”?

Have you got a link to Gary Sauer-Thompson’s argument about Carl Schmitt? Personally I’m getting worried about the way Australian leftists are using Strauss and Schmitt to attack liberalism. If liberalism really was the end of history I wouldn’t worry so much — but in reality it’s a fragile arrangement. It’s bad enough having neo-cons agitating against liberal democracy without having to deal with leftists as well.

Paul - The idea that most people are "too dumb to note actions and just followed appearances" ties in well to the current Australian debate over character. Rather than think about what a Labor or Coalition government might actually do if they won office, the debate focuses on the individual character of the leader. It’s as if the campaigners think that the key to victory is convincing the electorate that the opposing leader is a liar.

How much of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s or Ronald Reagan’s political decision making could you have predicted by examining their characters? The politics of character leads to bizarre campaigns based on myths about the leader’s personal history. Log cabins, PT boats, dairy farms etc.

I like that.

I don’t agree with that. I am with Gary Sauer-Thompson that Carl Schmitt’s style of conservatism best describes the Bush Administration’s politics. It has also been effective in a democratic environment, getting them elected twice and for a period dominating all three branches of government. Arguably, without Iraq, that would still be the case.

I think Buckley needs to be aware that Schmitt style conservatism does not lead to what liberals call good governance as it is predicated on exception and unitary authority. Which is scaring many American conservatives, John Dean being an example that comes to mind, such that they are calling Bush/Schmitt conservatism a form of ‘authoritarianism’.

I don’t think that style is sustainable, I also do not believe the Bush Administration has provided good governance, and Schmitt/Bush conservatism offends my Auian form of republicanism; but it has been successful politically and it is grounded in an conservative ideology.