Is conservatism really about reason?

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

Many people claim that conservatism and libertarianism is all about reason, but is it really? Is it really reasonable to want "economic growth" above all other goals regardless of other consequences? I have written an article, where I question whether the so-called libertarian utilitarians really are utilitarians:

http://www.utilitarianpolitics.com/readarticle.php?articlechoice=4

The point is that conservatism isn`t about reason, it`s about emotions. It`s about the religious belief that growth is more important than anything else.

But more importantly, it is based on emotion, because it is based on "natural rights" that really doesn`t exist.

[checks-n-balances]

1. I agree that conservatism is about reason & is not really objective

Seems to me it's all about insulating oneself from the real problems of the world, from one's supposed enemies, and from anyone "touching MY money." And is you want to get into very conservative religion, there's very little rationality to it.

[leftyandproud]

2. the only way to sustainably raise the standard of living for society...

is through growth..

otherwise you have stagnation and shared misery...

a lower overall standard of living with greater overall equality...

or an overall HIGHER standard of living with greater INequality..

those are the choices.

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

4. Yes, but

Off course, economic growth will raise the standard of living for chinese or indians. But will swedes really be better off if they scrap the welfare state to become as rich as americans? Swedes live longer than americans, and enjoy the same basic goods as cars, personal computers, the internett, television sets and DVD players.

It is not about sacrificing growth altogether, but be able to see that neither growth above all else or zero growth will make society a good society to live in.

Also, a more rich society also increases the expectations about personal wealth. Relative wealth can be just as important and even more important than absolute wealth.

[Warpy]

5. The New Deal worked for us until it was dismantled

A progressive tax system kept wealth from concentrating at the top. Social programs recirculated it to the bottom. Since wealth naturally flows from the bottom to the top, the economy was sustained, and there were only shallow reciessionary periods, instead of the boom and bust cycle so familiar to capitalism.

The rich got richer, even with a top rate of 90%. The poor had places to live and food to eat. The middle class was the largest class, giving the country a great deal of stability. There was actual socioeconomic mobility, something which is not the case now.

I don't think we'll get back to this system without a massive economic disaster, and I think one of those is coming. Only by rubbing peoples' noses in the disaster caused by the dogma of the selfish will they ever see the wisdom inherent in accepting their roles as their brothers' keepers.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Neither liberalism or conservatism is based on reason.

Both are based on values, beliefs and emotions that are for the most part untestable.

A conservative might assert, for example, "an ordered society is best," while a liberal might claim that the best society is one that gives everyone equal access to education, health care and economic opportunity? Who is right? Who can say?

As far as the "natural rights" business--are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness "natural rights?"

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

6. They claim so

They claim that those are natural rights, something that is bogus because there are no such thing as natural rights.

[James T. Kirk]

10. No natural rights? Bah! I believe all people are created equal...

...and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

Our rights do not come from the government. We have them becaue of who we are as humans.

[LondonAmerican]

8. Exactly nt

[LondonAmerican]

7. Yes it is but it doesn't share your axiomatic starting points

and the choice of first principles is, by definition, outside the bounds of reason as it is the precondition for any argument. Those axioms are simply emotional preferences and they cannot be reduced any further than that, but to say that there's something unreasonable about them while yours are immune from that criticism is simply naive. All decisions about first principles are by definition irrational and emotional. And that is OK.

And actually most conservative ideology is not about economics (although much neocon and freeper-talk is). Historically conservatism has always been about organic local tradition and opposed to the rationalising power structures typical of late modernism. It's a big mistake to assume that what passes for conservatism in america these days has much in common with the real article -- most american so-called conservatives today are apologists for the cult of growth and economic modernisation, most are appalled at environmentalism and most believe in using the state to promote various social agendas, down to defining who can get married and not. Nothing historically conservative in any of those positions.

I personally do not believe in the primacy of economics -- which is why I am not a free-market conservative, a marxist or an american-style liberal. I place a lot more value on politics than economics. But that decision of a starting point cannot be justified any more or any less than any of yours.

The point is that none of those starting points has anything to do with reason and it is dishonest to argue or to suppose that they can do.

[PeeWeeTheMadman]

9. I didn`t claim that

##and the choice of first principles is, by definition, outside the bounds of reason as it is the precondition for any argument. ##

I didn`t claim that either. The point is that conservatives claim that they are pure reason, something which is just impossible

## And actually most conservative ideology is not about economics (although much neocon and freeper-talk is). Historically conservatism has always been about organic local tradition and opposed to the rationalising power structures typical of late modernism.##

Actually, I was referring to american conservatism. American conservatism is really a variant of libertarianism. European conservatism in it`s many variants are quite different from the american version. Actually, it was european conservatives that started the building of the welfare state. European conservatism has with the exceptions of some misguided souls during the thirties, never been a brutal ideology like american conservatism. Actually, it is the european liberals that have been closest to the american conservatives during earlier times.

[LondonAmerican]

11. Sorry but

you clearly stated that the _preference_ of so-called conservatives for growth was irrational as though that somehow invalidated anything. That is simply naive since all axiomatic starting points are -- by definition -- not chosen according to rational process.

American conservatism has a lot of intellectual forebears, including agrarian radicalism, jeffersonianism (the _democratic_ party was for a long time the 'conservative' party, up until FDR, in opposition to a republican party that was correctly seen as promoting rapid industrialisation, tariffs, administrative centralisation and homogenisation), various localists etc., as well as libertarians (or 'classical liberals' in old right and european definition).

American conservative ideology up until the relatively recent takeover by neocons and the religious right was a lot broader than you appear to let on -- read some Russell Kirk to get some idea of what I am talking about. You will find very little talk about economics there.

I'm not a conservative by the way. I just think it's a good idea to be clear in our use of terms.

I think that what passes for conservatism in the us since at least the Nixon years is pretty thin stuff; it shares most presupposition with american-style liberalism and differs only in a few highly visible but inessential ways (eg, the same emphasis on the state, on social engineering, on modernisation, on economics and whatever can be counted; differing mainly in whom they choose as their offical hate-targets, for 'conservatives' it's gays, atheists, 'hollywood', 'libruls' etc, for 'liberals' it's 'rednecks,' the white working class, christians, 'freepers' etc.)

Both ruling class factions work very hard to maintain the system and neither has the slightest intention of allowing the people to make any real changes.

[Ready4Change]

12. Conservatism is based on reason.

In my opinion, Conservatism is based on reason. However, emotions are injected into it through the political process, often to the point that reason is driven out.

The same occurs with Liberalism, or nearly any other "ism." Our problems aren't due to the theories so much as our political implementations of them.

[LiberalPersona]

13. I see it this way:

Conservatism is reason without emotion.
Liberalism is emotion tempered with reason.
Libertarianism is emotion without reason.

[ComerPerro]

14. Add a "t" to the front, and you have what its all about

Conservativism is all about doing anything and everything to advance yourself, to hell with everyone else. Most conservatives would sell out their friends, their family, and their country for the right price.

And the sad part is, the "right price" isn't all that high.

[Amesh]

15. reason and conservatives

The conservatives have not even the semblance of respecting the faculty of reason. Their policies are driven solidly from their mystic religious philosophy. Their defense of capitalism will always crumble under tough scrutiny because they do not understand the concept of freedom. The President often says that he has "faith" in markets. Faith--the belief in something in the absence of evidence--is the antithesis of reason and translates into using emotions as the sole guide to action.


The case for capitalism relies on the use of reason and logic; faith based defenses do more harm than good.

[Hello_Kitty]

16. And the market rewards efficiency

Which is not always in the best interest of the people.

[Amesh]

17. market efficiency

I agree that markets reward efficiency. However, I maintain that it is not the market's function to make everyone happy. The purpose of the market is to facilitate the interaction between buyers and sellers (in the case of financial markets, buyers and sellers of capital)

Markets, when left free of government intervention, will tend to facilitate the flow of capital from less profitable to more profitable ventures. This is an unmitigated good. It serves to reward those who are the most scrupulous adherents to logical business decisions and minimize the loss of wealth and productivity that would result from investment in marginal or irrational business ventures.
The people's interest, though not paramount, is clearly better off with the efficient allocation of capital that an unfettered market provides.

[Zontor]

21. Market efficiency

First to address the thread topic, no I don't think today's conservatives are reasonable I believe they deal with emotions. Today's neo-republicans have turned their back on the progressive heritage of their party while embracing the dominate position of the federal governemt fought for during the civil war. Calling for states rights and individual rights as the terrorist are used to wave this generations bloody shirt.

I see frightening parallels in the demagoguery by our President and in all honesty by Kerry to political leaders of the first third of the 20th century. However Bush, when he bifurcates (as in "if you are not with us you are with the terrorist") scares me even more. I hear those words repeated by many conservatives I know as if that is a solid logical form of argument.

Amesh, I agree with the first part of your post. However I disagree that the peoples intereste are better off with an unfettered market.

When you say unfettered surely you do not mean without restraint. Many restraints were placed upon the securities and exchange market after the collapse of 1929 are you suggesting a return to the boom and bust cycles prior to the controls on the markets?

You say markets that are left free of intervention reward those who are scrupulous adherents to logical business decisions. What may appear logical to one man is not logical to another. From my perspective it is not logical to engage employees in work that is dangerous to their health or physical well being without providing protection against the risk. In the late 19th century businessmen reasoned not providing those protections was logical. The loss of profits was one factor, the working class viewed as lazy was another. Is this the type of restraint you suggest removing?

[Amesh]

22. Market Efficiency

I believe much is misunderstood regarding the controls placed on the market after the collapse in 1929. The collapse of the markets were not the result of lack of controls, in fact they were precisely the result of government interference in the markets.

Beginning in 1863 with the National Bank Act government injected itself into the financial market. This legislation regulated banks portfolio compositions, penalized private currency, and importantly changed reserve requirements. Reserve requirement changes caused illiquidity in the banking system and led to a series of panics and bank runs.

The response to this instability was the disastrous creation of central banking with the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Government manipulation of interest rates and further lowering of reserve requirements ensued creating a speculative bubble that was the result of government induced distortion but was blamed on the free market. To quote Senator Shaforth (D-CO) during the deliberations regarding the act: "The Democratic Party is opposed to a central bank, and well it should be, because of the fact that it would concentrate in one place such a combination of wealth as could be used to the disadvantage of the United States."

Regarding regulations over hazardous work conditions, I do not believe that it is the government's role to dictate safety in the workplace (i.e. I do not believe in OSHA). I think that a private employer and employee should be free to contract how they wish regarding workplace safety. The employer would be held accountable for any withheld information. I do not believe that this would lead to a plethora of workplace accidents, instead the opposite would happen. Corporations would attract better workers by being the safest employer. It is definitely in the employer's long term self-interest to provide a safe working place. Currently, I think that the OSHA stamp of approval is nothing but a bare minimum that gives workers a false sense of assurance.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

19. Try again

Maybe you should start believing in reading and thinking.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Character Assassin]

23. Libertarianism isn't about economic growth, and considers consequences

It's based on certain core prinicples, and economic growth (or lack thereof) is a product of application (on non-application) of those principles.

The point is that conservatism isn`t about reason, it`s about emotions. It`s about the religious belief that growth is more important than anything else.

It's funny. That is exactly what conservatives say about liberals. Not that I agree with it, but tune into any major AM talk nutjob, and you'll find it.

[Starlight]

24. John Kenneth Galbraith explained modern conservatism well...

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."