D.C. is so overwhelmingly left of center that I've often wondered if you could fit all of the city's conservatives into a telephone booth. That may be an exaggeration, but last night I found myself in an apartment in Kalorama with a number of other right wingers to talk politics and philosophy. The discussion was led by Matthew Spaulding of the Heritage Foundation, who began by making a few interesting points.
The first was that conservatives are motived by ideas while liberals are animated by tactics. Books authored by liberals tend to discuss things like how to take back Congress or the White House, while conservatives talk about reforming social security or fixing education. He drew particular attention to Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer's recent tome, Active Liberty, which he described as devoid of any serious intellectual thought. I haven't read it so I can't comment.
The gist, however, is something that I have long believed in. Liberals don't have any great ideas nor are they animated by them. Conservatives are the ones that -- for better or worse -- envision great and radical change.
More interesting was Spaulding's contention that liberals also lack a canon of literature to fall back on. There are plenty of conservative books and tracts that form its intellectual basis -- writings by John Locke, Adam Smith (whose seminal The Wealth of Nations was published the same year as the Declaration of Independence), The Road to Serfdom, etc. What is the equivalent for liberals? I am not aware of any -- something I had never before considered.
What seemed to be generally agreed upon is that conservatives are the defenders of the Constitution, a document that attempted to enshrine the principle of limited government. Conservatives and many Republicans (which are not the same thing) would like to take the country back towards that original vision. One participant -- correctly in my opinion -- noted, however, that it is difficult for Republicans to call themselves the defenders of the Constitution when they show such disrespect for it by proposing amendments to address the issue of gay marriage.
After that point the discussion seemed to veer more towards politics -- how to achieve the conservative vision? Some people concluded that this can be done through the Supreme Court with the appointment of justices with an originalist bent. Others bemoaned the lack of "real leaders" in the GOP establishment -- notably including George W. Bush.
Indeed, Bush came in for a fair amount of criticism and the lone White House staffer present was silent for most of the time, only speaking to defend against accusations on spending, noting that mandatory, not discretionary spending, is the problem. After he left some more grumbling about Bush ensued, with some people critizing the White House for a lack of staff turnover and stating that it seems that most administration staffers are freakishly loyal and are blind to many of the problems that exist.
I have to agree, as has been said before, people are policy.
The first was that conservatives are motived by ideas while liberals are animated by tactics. Books authored by liberals tend to discuss things like how to take back Congress or the White House, while conservatives talk about reforming social security or fixing education. He drew particular attention to Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer's recent tome, Active Liberty, which he described as devoid of any serious intellectual thought. I haven't read it so I can't comment.
The gist, however, is something that I have long believed in. Liberals don't have any great ideas nor are they animated by them. Conservatives are the ones that -- for better or worse -- envision great and radical change.
More interesting was Spaulding's contention that liberals also lack a canon of literature to fall back on. There are plenty of conservative books and tracts that form its intellectual basis -- writings by John Locke, Adam Smith (whose seminal The Wealth of Nations was published the same year as the Declaration of Independence), The Road to Serfdom, etc. What is the equivalent for liberals? I am not aware of any -- something I had never before considered.
What seemed to be generally agreed upon is that conservatives are the defenders of the Constitution, a document that attempted to enshrine the principle of limited government. Conservatives and many Republicans (which are not the same thing) would like to take the country back towards that original vision. One participant -- correctly in my opinion -- noted, however, that it is difficult for Republicans to call themselves the defenders of the Constitution when they show such disrespect for it by proposing amendments to address the issue of gay marriage.
After that point the discussion seemed to veer more towards politics -- how to achieve the conservative vision? Some people concluded that this can be done through the Supreme Court with the appointment of justices with an originalist bent. Others bemoaned the lack of "real leaders" in the GOP establishment -- notably including George W. Bush.
Indeed, Bush came in for a fair amount of criticism and the lone White House staffer present was silent for most of the time, only speaking to defend against accusations on spending, noting that mandatory, not discretionary spending, is the problem. After he left some more grumbling about Bush ensued, with some people critizing the White House for a lack of staff turnover and stating that it seems that most administration staffers are freakishly loyal and are blind to many of the problems that exist.
I have to agree, as has been said before, people are policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment