"Democratic Messianism" - by B.H.Levy

[Mad_Michael]

Alternatively, liberty and democracy cannot be imposed. It can only be fostered or encouraged.

Agreed.

Then how can you defend neoconservativism if it is entirely discredited and based on false premises?

Seems rather absurd.

[marcinmoka]

Alternatively, liberty and democracy cannot be imposed. It can only be fostered or encouraged.

Because you can foster and encourage all you wish, but sometimes, there needs to be a catalyst.

Then how can you defend neoconservativism if it is entirely discredited and based on false premises?

Is it? When? Where? The Iraq policy is discredited, though one can argue that method (Rummsfeld) was just as much, or even more to blame than the idea itself.

Iraq, in sum, was a failure. But do you know what "neoconservatism" means?

It is nothing more than "conservatism" practiced by former socialists (quite literally, a collage of hippies and academics). It refers to the downsizing of the welfare state, tax cuts and steady growth, as well as importance being placed on matters of security. As one board members signature says. If it is "us or them, I choose us". They do to.

Neoconservatism, with it's focus moreso on the individual, also tends to be more progressive on social causes, since it retained many of the secular values brought in by the ex socialists. And that for me, is a plus, because I fear the marriage of traditional fiscal conservatism a la Joe Clark (good) with social conservatism a la Falwell (bad), and in equal measures, the libertarian propensity to drift towards chaos and anarchy. It is a nice balance I would argue.

So by saying "neoconservatism" failed, you are saying "conservatism" failed. Or are you just referring to the type that is practiced by people formerly of the left?

*BUT ALAS*, on a final note, all this is in spite of the fact that I am not a neo-con as a believe in a few taboo's a bit too strongly, such as subsidized medical care, subsidized university access. While these may appear as wastes on paper, in careful moderation, they add tremendously to social stability, and that is too great a value to price.

In other words, I like the Sarkozian, or Bloombergian version of conservatism, a fusion of elements, not just following a pre-set ideology blindly. I just cannot wait till we have our own Canadian version. Granted, we are in a much better state than most, if not all others.

[Mad_Michael]

Alternatively, liberty and democracy cannot be imposed. It can only be fostered or encouraged.

Because you can foster and encourage all you wish, but sometimes, there needs to be a catalyst.

Then how can you defend neoconservativism if it is entirely discredited and based on false premises?

Is it? When? Where?

You just agreed that democracy cannot be imposed externally.

Yet you have also stated that it is a core principle of neoconservativism that democracy can be imposed externally (and that is a good thing) - see the OP.

Ergo, you just agreed that the core principle of the neocons is a sham.

[Mad_Michael]

But do you know what "neoconservatism" means?

See OP.

Btw, you failed to mention Strauss. No discussion of neoconservativism is complete without reference to Struass. I am philosophically, anti-Straussian.

In other words, I like the Sarkozian, or Bloombergian version of conservatism, a fusion of elements, not just following a pre-set ideology blindly. I just cannot wait till we have our own Canadian version. Granted, we are in a much better state than most, if not all others.

Ah yes... ephemeral conservativism - it is always the most popular variety - that which doesn't actually exist!

How come conservatives always celebrate conservative theories but can rarely ever point to any actual functioning system of application of their wonderful theories?

[marcinmoka]

See OP.

So now a translated interview is the final word? Is this what you are implying? Was my definition not acceptable?

Yet you have also stated that it is a core principle of neoconservativism

I did? Could you kindly show me where?

Btw, you failed to mention Strauss

I know. But my knowledge of Strauss is shallow, at best. And unlike some characters, and I would rather avoid arguing for something I know little about. But with some time....

Ah yes... ephemeral conservativism - it is always the most popular variety - that which doesn't actually exist!

How come conservatives always celebrate conservative theories but can rarely ever point to any actual functioning system of application of their wonderful theories?

So what you are asking for is proof of a (conservative) political system which runs by the book, irrespective of the conditions and stimuli it faces?

I would argue that's a bad thing, be it of any political ideal. But since you seem to argue otherwise, could you enlighten us as to what I presume would be a "permanent" conservatism?

[marcinmoka]

I am philosophically, anti-Straussian.

Good for you!

But why?

*I hope you don't mind my questioning, but I am a curious soul*

[Mad_Michael]

See OP.

So now a translated interview is the final word? Is this what you are implying? Was my definition not acceptable?

I'm accepting the OP definition of the term for the purposes of this thread discussion.

I make no comment upon its validity or acceptability. It just is.

Yet you have also stated that it is a core principle of neoconservativism

I did? Could you kindly show me where?

Sorry - the OP states this view.

I critiqued that view - you attempted to debate my critique. That implies that you accept that this is indeed a core principle of neoconservativism (as per the OP).

Btw, you failed to mention Strauss

I know. But my knowledge of Strauss is shallow, at best. And unlike some characters, and I would rather avoid arguing for something I know little about. But with some time....

Fair enough. That is indeed refreshing. Most posters never let a little ignorance stop them from anything!

Ah yes... ephemeral conservativism - it is always the most popular variety - that which doesn't actually exist!

How come conservatives always celebrate conservative theories but can rarely ever point to any actual functioning system of application of their wonderful theories?

So what you are asking for is proof of a (conservative) political system which runs by the book, irrespective of the conditions and stimuli it faces?

Not at all. I was asking for no such thing.

I was only pointing out the common (and amusing) conservative habit of praising ephemeral conservatives (such as Sarkozy or Bloomberg who are potential conservatives that haven't acutally delivered any conservativism) and apparently ignoring actual conservative leaders who did apply conservativism (which is rarely popular, which is why I suppose they tend to not mention them).

I would argue that's a bad thing, be it of any political ideal. But since you seem to argue otherwise, could you enlighten us as to what I presume would be a "permanent" conservatism?

I have argued for no such absurdity. They are your words, not mine.

[marcinmoka]

I was only pointing out the common (and amusing) conservative habit of praising ephemeral conservatives (such as Sarkozy

In all due respect, this claim makes no sense. How is Sarkozy an ephemeral conservative? Granted, he has been only recently made president, but I think his time in the M.I and M.F show is capable of towing the line in such a hostile environment as France. But again, views such as his apparently do not exist?

ignoring actual conservative leaders who did apply conservativism

But when I asked you to do the same, your response was :

I have argued for no such absurdity.

Well yes, you did. You are implying there is some "fixed" genuine conservatism and that those who do not abide by this esoteric (and perhaps fantastic) form are ephemeral, or 'do not exist'. You seem to be lobbing very incoherent and contradictory points, but if you would care to put some effort and explain them, I would very much be willing to continue forward.

I am going to take a stab in the dark here, but when you are referring to the "actual" conservative leaders, are you referring to the Churchill's and the Thatcher's, both of whom happen to be bannerheads of conservatism?

Sorry - the OP states this view.

I critiqued that view - you attempted to debate my critique. That implies that you accept that this is indeed a core principle of neoconservativism (as per the OP).

No. It does not imply anything. Simply because I posted an excerpt of an interview, and defended the author from seemingly illogical arguments does not mean that this interview somehow trumps and/dictates ALL my views. Granted, life would be much, much simpler, but arguments would be much dumber.

I make no comment upon its validity or acceptability. It just is.

So we live in vacuum. Merde.

And once again, I would be curious to hear why:

I am philosophically, anti-Straussian.

And don't worry. We might even agree on some stuff, for I am far from a conservative, I just happen to agree with them on some issues, but many far left elements on this board just make my centrist position appear on the right. Heck, I was hoping Iggy would be next leader of Canada ( and I still do!!!!!)

*Cue conservatives making blaming all the worlds ills on the Liberals*

[Figleaf]

Alternatively, liberty and democracy cannot be imposed. It can only be fostered or encouraged.

Because you can foster and encourage all you wish, but sometimes, there needs to be a catalyst.

Then how can you defend neoconservativism if it is entirely discredited and based on false premises?

Is it? When? Where? The Iraq policy is discredited, though one can argue that method (Rummsfeld) was just as much, or even more to blame than the idea itself.

Iraq, in sum, was a failure. But do you know what "neoconservatism" means?

It is nothing more than "conservatism" practiced by former socialists...

That's not a description I would endorse for neo-conservatism. In fact, the name neo-conservative is a bit of a misnomer because they are not really a new variant of oldstyle conservatism. They are the bastard rightwing offspring of (no-longer classical) liberalism. True conservatives (e.g. Pat Buchanan, George Will, historically Edmund Burke) are a much different animal who would have little use for the icons of neo-conservatism like Strauss, Hayek and von Mises.

As one board members signature says. If it is "us or them, I choose us". They do to.

They choose THEM.

So by saying "neoconservatism" failed, you are saying "conservatism" failed.

Certainly not. 'Conservatism' either failed a long time ago, or has yet to truly fail, depending on how you look at it. Neo-conservatism has 'failed' in the sense that its every prescription proves to do more harm than good.

[Mad_Michael]

I was only pointing out the common (and amusing) conservative habit of praising ephemeral conservatives (such as Sarkozy

In all due respect, this claim makes no sense. How is Sarkozy an ephemeral conservative? Granted, he has been only recently made president, but I think his time in the M.I and M.F show is capable of towing the line in such a hostile environment as France. But again, views such as his apparently do not exist?

Sarkozy is in his first week as President of France. He is an 'emphemeral' conservative (based on ephemeral words alone) until he actually governs conservatively. Then he becomes a real conservative.

ignoring actual conservative leaders who did apply conservativism

But when I asked you to do the same, your response was :

I have argued for no such absurdity.

Well, well - your accusation is unfounded.

My "no such absurdity" line was in response to your assertion...

I would argue that's a bad thing, be it of any political ideal. But since you seem to argue otherwise, could you enlighten us as to what I presume would be a "permanent" conservatism?

To which I quite rightly stated that I have argued for no such absurdity.

I just pointed out the tendency of 'conservatives' to praise theoretical conservatives (who haven't actually been conservative rulers - like the two examples you gave) and tend to ignore actual conservative rulers.

I've made no argument about the nature of conservativism here.

Well yes, you did. You are implying there is some "fixed" genuine conservatism and that those who do not abide by this esoteric (and perhaps fantastic) form are ephemeral, or 'do not exist'.

I have implied nothing of the sort.

Sarkozy and Bloomberg are not substantial conservatives with track records. Thus, they are 'alleged' conservatives. You believe them to be conservatives based upon their flowery words.

If they had actual track records of acting like conservatives, then they are 'real' conservatives.

I am going to take a stab in the dark here, but when you are referring to the "actual" conservative leaders, are you referring to the Churchill's and the Thatcher's, both of whom happen to be bannerheads of conservatism?

Pick any you like. I don't care which ones you choose.

I merely pointed out that you avoided choosing any actual conservative who actually ruled (and has a track record that can be evaluated) and instead chose to praise the conservativism of two figures of whom their conservativism exists entirely of ephemeral words alone. That is an interesting (and common) phenonmena.

No. It does not imply anything. Simply because I posted an excerpt of an interview, and defended the author from seemingly illogical arguments does not mean that this interview somehow trumps and/dictates ALL my views. Granted, life would be much, much simpler, but arguments would be much dumber.

Okay, if that's whay you say.

I made no critique or argument. I just pointed out something that I found amusing (and a common pattern).

I make no comment upon its validity or acceptability. It just is.

So we live in vacuum. Merde.

If you believe it so, that is your opinion.

And once again, I would be curious to hear why:

I am philosophically, anti-Straussian.

Your curiosity isn't sufficient inducement to me. Indeed, your efforts in this thread to put words in my mouth suggest to me that I'd be wasting my time.

And don't worry. We might even agree on some stuff, for I am far from a conservative, I just happen to agree with them on some issues, but many far left elements on this board just make my centrist position appear on the right. Heck, I was hoping Iggy would be next leader of Canada ( and I still do!!!!!)

*Cue conservatives making blaming all the worlds ills on the Liberals*

I don't worry about much. And I don't care if we agree or not on "some stuff". It is immaterial to me.

[marcinmoka]

Sarkozy is in his first week as President of France. He is an 'emphemeral' conservative (based on ephemeral words alone) until he actually governs conservatively. Then he becomes a real conservative.

As I asked earlier, what about his time in the M.I and M.F? What if someone acts conservative 90% of the time. What if they only made one NON - CONSERVATIVE decision (however you choose to define this) in their lives. Is our current Primer Minister a conservative? Do "real" conservatives even exist?

I just pointed out the tendency of 'conservatives' to praise theoretical conservatives (who haven't actually been conservative rulers - like the two examples you gave) and tend to ignore actual conservative rulers.

So what is this yardstick you are referring to? Who dictates this is a conservative and this is not. Since when is politics nothing but a series of fixed rules?

've made no argument about the nature of conservativism here.

Than what is this "actual conservative ruler(s)" you speak of?

Your curiosity isn't sufficient inducement to me. Indeed, your efforts in this thread to put words in my mouth suggest to me that I'd be wasting my time.

Well pardon me dir sir, for having wasted your time. But please bless us with some of your wisdom?

Actually, if it is going to be as nonsensical as your past few posts, I think we will not be any worse off for not knowing.

[marcinmoka]

I don't worry about much

Amongst which is the notion of "making sense".

[Mad_Michael]

As I asked earlier, what about his time in the M.I and M.F? What if someone acts conservative 90% of the time. What if they only made one NON - CONSERVATIVE decision (however you choose to define this) in their lives. Is our current Primer Minister a conservative? Do "real" conservatives even exist?

Huge difference between members of an assembly and being the executive.

Szarkozy has no record as political executive. Bloomberg is a mayor of NYC, so that is something, but still, mayor's positions are very limited in scope for actual ideology.

Thus, neither Szarkozy or Bloomberg actually have any track record as high level political executives upon which to judge their *actual* conservativism rather than their *rhetorical* conservativsm of the campaign trail.

There is often a huge difference between campaign rhetoric and actual governing in practice. Political rhetoric (be it liberal or conservative) and a buck might buy you a cup of coffee.

So what is this yardstick you are referring to? Who dictates this is a conservative and this is not. Since when is politics nothing but a series of fixed rules?

I've referred to no yardstick at all. I'm not aware of one existing.

I only refered to 'actual' conservatives (i.e. those who have actually governed) as opposed to 'ephemeral' conservatives (ie. those that have not actually governed).

I just want to see some conservatives actually praise some actual conservatives for their governance. This just doesn't seem to happen much (for a variety of reasons). Conservatives tend to praise other conservatives that haven't actually governed (and thus are still capable of ideological purity and/or consistency or idealism).

I've made no argument about the nature of conservativism here.

Than what is this "actual conservative ruler(s)" you speak of?

Ones who have actually governed as opposed to those who haven't. The distinction seems like a simple one. It is always so easy to give ideological praise those who haven't actually done anything...

Your curiosity isn't sufficient inducement to me. Indeed, your efforts in this thread to put words in my mouth suggest to me that I'd be wasting my time.

Well pardon me dir sir, for having wasted your time. But please bless us with some of your wisdom?

Actually, if it is going to be as nonsensical as your past few posts, I think we will not be any worse off for not knowing.

Indeed. Condescention and insults.

And you expect me to invest an hour or two of my time, drawing from my many years of education, reading and study of political philosophy, to post something about one of the most complex and controversial philosophic figures of the 20th century? Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed by your request.

Your insults towards me resonate louder than your polite request.

Normally, I'm quite accommodating of such requests.

[marcinmoka]

Thus, neither Szarkozy or Bloomberg actually have any track record as high level political executives upon which to judge their *actual* conservativism rather than their *rhetorical* conservativsm of the campaign trail.

Okay. So do you happen to have a copy of these "rules"? At least a link. A 12 step guide to being "conservative"? A cookbook of sorts for governing "conservatively"?

So to be a "actual" conservative (or risk being a non existent ephemeral entity), one must be an executive of nation, with 22 years years experience, be in an environment open to ideological transitions, anything else? Be white anglo-saxon protesant? Enjoys golf?

I've referred to no yardstick at all. I'm not aware of one existing.

Well against what are you measuring Bloomy's and Sarko's "conservativeness"?

Ones who have actually governed as opposed to those who haven't

So only executives can be conservatives? But running a city bigger than many nations does not count? Nor being in the executive branch?

I just want to see some conservatives actually praise some actual conservatives for their governance.

Well, you don't leave many options open. Can you narrow down a list or will everyone not be "real" enough.

Out of curiosity, can any forum member thus be considered "conservative"?

It seems as if you have a (extremely precise and esoteric) definition of conservative, literally conforming to an exact cookie cutter shape, and all else is non existent.

I will say it again. Governing by a prescribed set of ultra strict ideas and irrespective of the actual political environment is not only dangerous, but wholly unattainable. Just because there is an "ideal" (albeit esoteric) does not mean it is followed in orthodox without any variants. Do you not believe politics to be a dynamic process?

Your insults towards me resonate louder than your polite request.

Normally, I'm quite accommodating of such requests.

So why refuse my initial polite request?