Comments on: Out of its Minds — Berkowitz on American Conservatism http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/06/01/out-of-its-minds-berkowitz-on-american-conservatism/ Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:02:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: cam http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/06/01/out-of-its-minds-berkowitz-on-american-conservatism/#comment-121990 cam Sat, 02 Jun 2007 21:32:35 +0000 http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/06/01/out-of-its-minds-berkowitz-on-american-conservatism/#comment-121990 IMO conservativism's issue is that it cannot provide a coherent narrative for progress. Usually economic liberalism is cited for taking care of that, but conservatism cannot reconcile its requirement for cultural, social, sexual, (even) biblical traditionalism. The big problem is the language that divides the political spectrum into left/right. It is erronous. For instance if you are for cultural liberty and economic liberty then you arent left or right, but you are center either - as you have taken an extreme stand in both domains. If Berkowitz sheds the misleading division of left/right then he doesn't have a problem of describing political ideologies. I am convinced the only binary way to differentiate political ideologies is either 'individual first' or 'state first' and this becomes the guiding principle for governance. Divided this way it ceases to be the fabrication of a 50/50 divide and becomes more obviously an 80/20 one. From the individual first spectrum you have progressives, Au republicans, classic liberals, libertarians etc. The state firsters include conservatives (Au conservatives are often better described as liberals), marxists, socialists and statists (many Au blog commentators who call themselves statists are really progressives within the liberal tradition). Consequently the arguments around policy and governance become ones inside liberalism as the truly repugnant (or pre-enlightenment) have been shedded or marginalised in the political debate. I think it is an error to persist with the left-right descriptors. IMO conservativism's issue is that it cannot provide a coherent narrative for progress. Usually economic liberalism is cited for taking care of that, but conservatism cannot reconcile its requirement for cultural, social, sexual, (even) biblical traditionalism.

The big problem is the language that divides the political spectrum into left/right. It is erronous. For instance if you are for cultural liberty and economic liberty then you arent left or right, but you are center either – as you have taken an extreme stand in both domains.

If Berkowitz sheds the misleading division of left/right then he doesn't have a problem of describing political ideologies. I am convinced the only binary way to differentiate political ideologies is either 'individual first' or 'state first' and this becomes the guiding principle for governance. Divided this way it ceases to be the fabrication of a 50/50 divide and becomes more obviously an 80/20 one.

From the individual first spectrum you have progressives, Au republicans, classic liberals, libertarians etc. The state firsters include conservatives (Au conservatives are often better described as liberals), marxists, socialists and statists (many Au blog commentators who call themselves statists are really progressives within the liberal tradition).

Consequently the arguments around policy and governance become ones inside liberalism as the truly repugnant (or pre-enlightenment) have been shedded or marginalised in the political debate.

I think it is an error to persist with the left-right descriptors.

]]> By: Rafe http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/06/01/out-of-its-minds-berkowitz-on-american-conservatism/#comment-121804 Rafe Sat, 02 Jun 2007 07:00:45 +0000 http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/06/01/out-of-its-minds-berkowitz-on-american-conservatism/#comment-121804 This comment disappeared the first time I tried to post it.I agree with Berkowitz on the disunity of the right, to the point where it is not usefully called "the right" without qualification. He sees the disunity as healthy which is only true if the resulting dialogue produces better positions and I think that is not happening. Major differences relate to (a) economic policy, especially free trade and (b) the extent that politicians are entitled to impose moral agendas on us. The thrust of my contribution on this topic was to urge economically illiterate conservatives to lift their game on free trade and to encourage economic rationalists to be more active on the broad cultural agenda where the left have dominated by weight of numbers and activism.Berkowitz struck a disquieting note at the end of his article when he linked Kirk, Hayek and Strauss as partners in defence of limited constitutional government. That view of Strauss is contested by those who see him as a defender of the Platonic totalitarian republic. If that interpretation is even partly correct, the more appropriate partner for Hayek would be Popper, who identified Platonic ideas at the root of modern totalitarian thought. By an incredible stroke of good fortune his critique of Plato is summarised on line. <a href="http://www.the-rathouse.com/popshorterOSE.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.the-rathouse.com/popshorterOSE.html</a> This comment disappeared the first time I tried to post it.I agree with Berkowitz on the disunity of the right, to the point where it is not usefully called "the right" without qualification. He sees the disunity as healthy which is only true if the resulting dialogue produces better positions and I think that is not happening. Major differences relate to (a) economic policy, especially free trade and (b) the extent that politicians are entitled to impose moral agendas on us. The thrust of my contribution on this topic was to urge economically illiterate conservatives to lift their game on free trade and to encourage economic rationalists to be more active on the broad cultural agenda where the left have dominated by weight of numbers and activism.Berkowitz struck a disquieting note at the end of his article when he linked Kirk, Hayek and Strauss as partners in defence of limited constitutional government. That view of Strauss is contested by those who see him as a defender of the Platonic totalitarian republic. If that interpretation is even partly correct, the more appropriate partner for Hayek would be Popper, who identified Platonic ideas at the root of modern totalitarian thought. By an incredible stroke of good fortune his critique of Plato is summarised on line.
http://www.the-rathouse.com/popshorterOSE.html

]]>