5 ms·

The modern "conservative" is someone who wants to turn back the clock thirty years. Since the schools and universities are solidly leftist, the country as a wh

The modern "conservative" is someone who wants to turn back the clock thirty years. Since the schools and universities are solidly leftist, the country as a whole moves left over time. The "conservative" of today is thus liberal by the standards of forty years ago. For instance, can anyone name one issue on which Bush was to the right of John Kennedy? You can basically define yourself along the right-left continuum by stating the year to which you wish to roll back the American political system. Progressives want to keep on marching forward. The folks at the National Review want to roll back our political system to the Reagan era. Ron Paul wants to roll back the system to 1900. Mencius Moldbug wants roll it back to 1687. What's interesting is that some phenomena that we now view as "arch-conservative" - such as evangelical Christianity - turn out not to be very conservative at all. In 1900, the evangelicals were firmly in the camp of the left ( think William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson, or Richard Ely).

pg 18y ago
I remember believing this in high school. It was an artifact of the definitions of liberal and conservative they taught us, which were that liberals wanted change, and conservatives wanted to preserve the "status quo." That bit of Latin was critical; it made it seem as if there was a real idea here; it was something that might be on a test. I remember thinking that it was obvious that the safe choice was to be liberal. If you chose to be liberal, you'd have the values of the future today. It would be like leading a target. You'd just get more and more right over time, and the conservatives would get more and more wrong. In fact, as I realized soon after, this explanation of the difference between liberal and conservative was bullshit. Conservative, as we use the term in the US, does not simply mean "wants to retain the status quo." If tax rates are high, for example, it tends to be conservatives who want change and liberals who want to retain the status quo. The real distinction between liberal and conservative is much more complicated, and also changes over time. Incidentally, there are several ways in which the US is more conservative now than under Kennedy. The most conspicuous is tax rates.
- bokonist 18y ago
  Trying to define a label as broad as conservative always results in gross generalizations. But I basically agree with you and was trying to make a similar point. The Left-Right divide is about ideology, not status quo versus "change". But since the Left has been winning for 400 years, the debate often gets phrased in terms of "restoring the past" versus "progress". In broad strokes, the Right believes in common law, property rights, localism, and acknowledging the reality of innate inequality. The Left believes in administrative law, centralization, universalism, and equality. The Right believes that the role of government is to provide order, security, and rule of law (negative law). The Left believes that government is an instrument for creating a perfect world. Again, these are generalizations. But if you look at the political battles since the English Civil War, I think you'll see the sides generally breaking into two camps that generally align with my definitions. Roundheads versus Cavaliers. Levelers versus Jacbobites. Patriots versus Loyalists. Whigs versus Tories. Jacobins versus the Ancien Régime. Unionists versus Confederates. Gladstone versus the Bourbons. Bolsheviks versus the Czar. Wilson versus the Kaiser. New Dealers versus the Old Right. Obama versus the Neocons. You'll also notice that the left wins most of the battles. Thus the Neocons of today are far to the left of Woodrow Wilson, and Wilson is far to the left of Gladstone. And of course, just because the Left wins does not mean they were correct and the Right was wrong. The history of politics seems to be something of a random walk. The political systems from Europe's age of reaction ( 1815-1848) were far superior to what followed. If more people had listened to Metternich's warnings about democracy leading to German nationalism, perhaps they could have avoided a couple world wars. Incidentally, there are several ways in which the US is more conservative now than under Kennedy. The most conspicuous is tax rates. That's not true when you factor in payroll taxes, local taxes, and state taxes: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/10/personal-taxes-as-percent-of-gdp.html http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/10/personal-taxes-as-per... And even the above graph leaves out seniorage, which has increased dramatically. It also leaves out quasi-taxes, such as legal mandates that require people to pay for expensive college diplomas in order to enter their chosen profession.
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    That's not true when you factor in payroll taxes, local taxes, and state taxes: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/10/personal-taxes-as-percent-of-gdp.html http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/10/personal-taxes-as-per... The boxed note in that graph says: Most of the total "personal current taxes" (85% of it) is federal income tax. The remainder is state and local.

pg 18y ago

I remember believing this in high school. It was an artifact of the definitions of liberal and conservative they taught us, which were that liberals wanted change, and conservatives wanted to preserve the "status quo." That bit of Latin was critical; it made it seem as if there was a real idea here; it was something that might be on a test. I remember thinking that it was obvious that the safe choice was to be liberal. If you chose to be liberal, you'd have the values of the future today. It would be like leading a target. You'd just get more and more right over time, and the conservatives would get more and more wrong. In fact, as I realized soon after, this explanation of the difference between liberal and conservative was bullshit. Conservative, as we use the term in the US, does not simply mean "wants to retain the status quo." If tax rates are high, for example, it tends to be conservatives who want change and liberals who want to retain the status quo. The real distinction between liberal and conservative is much more complicated, and also changes over time. Incidentally, there are several ways in which the US is more conservative now than under Kennedy. The most conspicuous is tax rates.

bokonist 18y ago
Trying to define a label as broad as conservative always results in gross generalizations. But I basically agree with you and was trying to make a similar point. The Left-Right divide is about ideology, not status quo versus "change". But since the Left has been winning for 400 years, the debate often gets phrased in terms of "restoring the past" versus "progress". In broad strokes, the Right believes in common law, property rights, localism, and acknowledging the reality of innate inequality. The Left believes in administrative law, centralization, universalism, and equality. The Right believes that the role of government is to provide order, security, and rule of law (negative law). The Left believes that government is an instrument for creating a perfect world. Again, these are generalizations. But if you look at the political battles since the English Civil War, I think you'll see the sides generally breaking into two camps that generally align with my definitions. Roundheads versus Cavaliers. Levelers versus Jacbobites. Patriots versus Loyalists. Whigs versus Tories. Jacobins versus the Ancien Régime. Unionists versus Confederates. Gladstone versus the Bourbons. Bolsheviks versus the Czar. Wilson versus the Kaiser. New Dealers versus the Old Right. Obama versus the Neocons. You'll also notice that the left wins most of the battles. Thus the Neocons of today are far to the left of Woodrow Wilson, and Wilson is far to the left of Gladstone. And of course, just because the Left wins does not mean they were correct and the Right was wrong. The history of politics seems to be something of a random walk. The political systems from Europe's age of reaction ( 1815-1848) were far superior to what followed. If more people had listened to Metternich's warnings about democracy leading to German nationalism, perhaps they could have avoided a couple world wars. Incidentally, there are several ways in which the US is more conservative now than under Kennedy. The most conspicuous is tax rates. That's not true when you factor in payroll taxes, local taxes, and state taxes: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/10/personal-taxes-as-percent-of-gdp.html http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/10/personal-taxes-as-per... And even the above graph leaves out seniorage, which has increased dramatically. It also leaves out quasi-taxes, such as legal mandates that require people to pay for expensive college diplomas in order to enter their chosen profession.
- gravitycop 18y ago
  That's not true when you factor in payroll taxes, local taxes, and state taxes: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/10/personal-taxes-as-percent-of-gdp.html http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/10/personal-taxes-as-per... The boxed note in that graph says: Most of the total "personal current taxes" (85% of it) is federal income tax. The remainder is state and local.