[Political Interest]

Whenever I speak to conservatives from the UK and USA they always speak in favour of less government spending. They speak about "small government" and "freedom". However, in my view having a big government and lots of state investment does more towards conservatism than capitalism. In my view capitalism is inherently hostile to conservatism and at heart advances liberalism. Also speaking about rights and freedoms means that a person can do whatever they want with no consequences. Why do Anglo-Saxon conservatives never support anything which results in real conservatism?

[Rei Murasame]

Because the only thing they are interested in conserving is the liberal world order. It's really that simple.

[Political Interest]

Because the only thing they are interested in conserving is the liberal world order. It's really that simple.

Yes, I think so.

The discussions about "family values", "tradition" are simply feel good fluff, but nothing changes. At the end of the day they have not done much to actually preserve traditions or conserve anything. What differentiates them from those who they call liberals is just the social issues and perhaps some other things like socialised medicine. At the end of the day there is no difference between these so called conservatives and liberals. They are both liberals, simply the ones who call themselves conservatives have a superficial social conservatism, the liberals do not. The liberals might favour things like increased government spending and the introduction of free health care and education but they are not radically different from the conservatives either.

[Pants-of-dog]

Conservatives do not support a small gov't.

They like a big gov't that intrudes in people's bedrooms, records their phone calls, controls women's wombs, bombs brown people, subsidises oil and highway construction, builds prisons, fills prisons, and many other things.

Conservatives only want "small gov't" when liberals want to help the poor, as Jesus did.

[Political Interest]

Well then how is helping the poor not in line with what these "conservatives" want? Wouldn't a real conservative want to ensure that everyone in his country has a roof over their heads, food on the table and a job to go to? Why is providing free medical services also not embraced by conservatives? Don't they want their country to be healthy and have access to essential medical services?

[Cromwell]

Well then how is helping the poor not in line with what these "conservatives" want? Wouldn't a real conservative want to ensure that everyone in his country has a roof over their heads, food on the table and a job to go to? Why is providing free medical services also not embraced by conservatives? Don't they want their country to be healthy and have access to essential medical services?

No, modern conservatism is just a mask for selfishness...

I, too, appreciate the conservatives of old (duty to the state, moral values, law and order etcetera) but they are long gone...

[Rich]

American Conservative support Medicare, Social Security and farm subsides. Tea party darling Sarah Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere. Traditionally many conservatives have supported increased defence spending, although as I have said before, we are seeing the rise of a new breed of Republican who seems to care more about tax cuts for the rich than they do about defending Israel.

[keso]

Well then how is helping the poor not in line with what these "conservatives" want? Wouldn't a real conservative want to ensure that everyone in his country has a roof over their heads, food on the table and a job to go to? Why is providing free medical services also not embraced by conservatives? Don't they want their country to be healthy and have access to essential medical services?

I've had my signature for years. You might like it.

I need to know what is so "American" about defending Israel, also. Or, just what is, "Conservative," about it.

[2408]

I always saw conservatives as hypocrites. You would think a conservative would be supportive of preserving traditional values and customs yet they all seem to have economic views which would allow multinational corporations to alter those customs in a degenerative and negative way.
Look at the media. Instead of a regulated field where standards are set based on truthful reporting and balance, we have media that can effectively make stories up without scrutiny due to lax regulations, so called freedom of press. "pop" culture has replaced traditional culture the world over, encouraging primal emotions like sex and violence, establishing a mainstream culture where children are sexualised and violence is glorified. Throughout the country local shops and bakers are being replaced by nationwide supermarkets and multinational eateries like Mcdonalds.
Conservatives stand for economic liberalism which results in radical change of traditional society. I don't have much time for "Conservatives".

[Joe Liberty]

Conservatives do not support a small gov't.

This is true. They don't necessarily want a smaller government, they want to run the government, just like the liberals do.

Of course, on the other side of the coin, liberals like to preach about "personal choice", but then advocate against it everywhere except abortion.

The lesson here is that neither "side" lives up to its rhetoric. They both want to dictate the terms of your life, they just differ on what those terms are. They are two playground bullies bickering over whose turn it is to beat you up.

[emmitt]

I think there's some confusion here. The conservative movement isn't necessarily as homogeneous as everyone thinks it is. It consists of at least three groups who (often) have conflicting interests. It might be true that other alliances might be smarter but it's quite doubtful that there'll be any new coalitions any time soon. Profound changes of the political landscape can be difficult.

(BTW, they talked about something very similar here.)

[nucklepunche]

I think it all results from a US-centric bias in what defines conservative. Talk radio hosts like Limbaugh have basically defined conservatism as an absolute defense of free market principles. It wasn't always so, and not all true conservatives agree.

This conservative couldn't care less about the size of government in and of itself, I believe free markets provide superior outcomes in most, but not all cases. I also reject equality of outcome, so I do not favor mass wealth redistribution, however I support equality of opportunity and am open to using "big government" means to get there if the private sector is not sufficient. I believe government would be smaller under my ideal society than it is currently, but in the end I do not favor small government for small government sake, as the Tea Party does.

The problem is they have conflated doctrinaire economic libertarianism with conservatism.

[keso]

They haven't really confused anything. They are just doing the bidding of their masters.

[Deutschmania]

Those whom are commonly referred to as "conservatives", in the U.S. are more accurately considered to be classical liberals. It's just that after center-left social liberals colloquially appropiated the term "liberal", the old style liberals started calling themselves conservatives, as they were wanting to conserve the laissez faire free market system. There are some of the traditional conservatives still around though, but they lack prominent political strength, and sizable numbers. They are known as palaeoconservatives, and are part of what is known as the old right.

[nucklepunche]

I consider myself to be neither a classical liberal nor a paleo-conservatism, I view myself as belonging to a third branch of American conservatism that has long existed but hasn't had a formal name. Some could call it "the American school" but I would call it "Hamiltonian conservatism" and have lately settled on this term, after the founding father who was never president, but made it to the ten dollar bill.

It is a tradition that believes in civic republican nationalism as opposed to ethnic nationalism, and thus openly supports the "melting pot" concept of America and is deeply hostile to both racial animus and multiculturalism/hyphenated Americanism.

It is strongly supportive of capitalism in entrepreneurship, but believes government has a role to play in building infrastructure and has embraced limited social safety nets, but also opposes cradle to grave social democracy.

It is generally realist in its foreign policy intentions, believing in neither holy crusades for democracy nor sticking our heads into the sand and refusing to assert American power on the other. Instead it has viewed states as seeking their own interests first and foremost, and believe this ought to be the primary driving force of American foreign policy.

This tradition was carried on by Hamilton in his time, and later Henry Clay. It was the primary ideology of the Republican Party until the 1970s. The primary debate in conservatism is fundamentally between Hamiltonians and Jacksonians. Jacksonians are much more deeply suspicious of government. In the 1970s and 80s a lot of conservative southern Democrats crossed over and became Republicans, and they were rooted in the more anti-government Jacksonian conservatism. The Democratic Party since 1932 has essentially been social democratic light.

Essentially there are three political parties in the USA now, Hamiltonians, Jacksonians, and social democrats. If you live in the UK it is the same as the debate between One Nation Tories and Thatcherites. Hamiltonians are the American equivalent to One Nation Toryism, and Thatcherites are like small government Jacksonians. The problem is unlike One Nation Tories, the Hamiltonians never usually self-identified as a separate group within conservatism, but primarily called themselves moderates.

[JRS1]

Why do Anglo-Saxon conservatives never support anything which results in real conservatism?

Because they arent conservatives.

You could ask the same of socilaists.

The two party system in the UK and the US means that it is very easy to take anything off the agenda that the governing classes are not interested in.

That doesnt mean that there are no true conservative or socialists, nationalist etc in these countries, it simply isnt on the agenda.

[blackjack21]

Whenever I speak to conservatives from the UK and USA they always speak in favour of less government spending. They speak about "small government" and "freedom".

Free market capitalism is brutal, but it is exceedingly efficient. The profit motive and competition is what drives the efficient allocation of resources. Governments, monopolies, cartels, labor unions, etc. generally sacrifice efficient resource allocation for other ends. They typically suggest that eliminating the profit motive removes waste or corruption from the system. The more powerful the force opposing efficient re-allocation of resources, the more economic growth suffers.

In my view capitalism is inherently hostile to conservatism and at heart advances liberalism.

You have to distinguish liberalism and libertinism. Capitalism punishes the latter.

The discussions about "family values", "tradition" are simply feel good fluff, but nothing changes.

Children from traditional families do better than children from broken homes on almost any measure. It's not just "feel good" fluff.

At the end of the day they have not done much to actually preserve traditions or conserve anything.

That's a failure of conservatism. Pushing women into the work force wasn't about equality. It was about being able to tax women. A woman who stays home and rears children cannot be taxed for her domestic labor. Give her a job and get her to hire a baby sitter; then, the government can tax both her AND the baby sitter. Government is a monopoly. Just like industrial monopolies or labor unions, they seek to maximize. In the case of industrial combines, it's profit. In the case of labor unions, it's wages. In the case of government, tax revenue.

They are both liberals, simply the ones who call themselves conservatives have a superficial social conservatism, the liberals do not.

Conservatives tend to accept the brutal aspects of market economics.

Wouldn't a real conservative want to ensure that everyone in his country has a roof over their heads, food on the table and a job to go to?

Typically, the freer the market, the easier it is to achieve those ends. Government can never operate as efficiently as the market, because government operations are policy driven, not market driven.

Why is providing free medical services also not embraced by conservatives?

There is no country on Earth that provides long-term free medical services to everyone. Rather, in some countries, the beneficiary is not charged directly. The bill is assumed by the tax payer.

You would think a conservative would be supportive of preserving traditional values and customs yet they all seem to have economic views which would allow multinational corporations to alter those customs in a degenerative and negative way.

That is certainly a problem with elected politicians. As I said, they prefer to maximize tax revenue and to dole it out to their supporters. That's the nature of a politician.

[Stormsmith]

The libertarian model of small government is meant to decrease government spending on things they don't like, thus reducing their personal tax level. They never think things through.

The traditional Conservatives views to limit the size of the work force, and open opportunities to business to do the work government workers do. sometimes, and its rare, it works. Mostly it doesn't because contractors also pay wages and expect profit too.

Hiring foreign firms is the epitome of wasteful spending

[Quantum]

You have to distinguish liberalism and libertinism. Capitalism punishes the latter.

Where's the conservatism in capitalism? Why is it possible to buy gay porn in a capitalist economy? Capitalism is amoral and doesn't care about tradition, only caring about profits, no matter where they are sourced.

[blackjack21]

Where's the conservatism in capitalism? Why is it possible to buy gay porn in a capitalist economy? Capitalism is amoral and doesn't care about tradition, only caring about profits, no matter where they are sourced.

Obviously, traditional mores and capitalism are not the same philosophy. As I said, capitalism is about efficient resource allocation. It isn't a moral code. The moral libertinism of today's political left has pretty thoroughly undermined traditional morality as far as it intersecting with state policy. However, outside of policy, people who live under a more traditional morality tend to do better in society.