Is it easier to reconcile Republicans with Classical Liberals than today’s Neo Liberals?
When liberalism is understood more expansively, republicanism becomes indistinguishable from liberalism (Larmore 2001; Dagger, 1997).
Liberals used to be about social and economic freedom?
Boomer Wisdom:
Interesting you should quote Goldwater. He’s Republican in my way of thinking (and I’m not alone) in contrast to what we refer to as NeoCon. Here’s a warning (about NeoCons) from Goldwater in a 1994 interview with the Washington Post.
"When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
Were he around today, I’m certain he would be even more incensed over the direction the Neo Liberals have taken.
Classical Liberals accord liberty primacy as a political value, in the strain of John Locke. Locke believed, as did his comtemporaries Hobbes and Rousseau, that the state of nature is such that humans are free and equal.
In Locke’s own words "Liberals have typically maintained that humans are naturally in ‘a State of perfect Freedom’ to order their Actions, as they think fit, without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man"
There is certainly nothing about the Democratic Party of today that even remotely resembles that statement, but the core of the Republican Party embraces it. If we are going to restore America to its glory, the Republicans are going to have to galvanize around the core ideas that made this country great, the core ideas we have owned since Abraham Lincoln: Freedom and equality.
Libertarians are going to have to pick a side if they want to be relative:
Freedom and equality
or
Submission and control
Oops:
Libertarians are going to have to pick a side if they want to be ***relevant.
I am very late answering this question but feel I must!
First let me address Rocket34: I fear that 90% of thoseusing the term "Neocon" have no concept of the meaning. NeoCon has little to do with "Conservatism" and certainly is not the far right. They would better be called "Neolibs" since they are Liberals that moved to the right and still embrace the left; Here is a short passage from one of my sources below:
"Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States. Its key distinction is in international affairs, where it espouses an interventionist approach that seeks to defend what neo-conservatives deem as national interests. In addition, unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes."
Another:
"New" conservatives initially approached this view from the political left. The forerunners of neoconservatism were often liberals or socialists who strongly supported the Allied cause in World War II, and who were influenced by the Great Depression-era ideas of the New Deal, trade unionism, and Trotskyism, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman.[citation needed] A number of future neoconservatives, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick,[citation needed] were Shachtmanites in their youth; some were later involved with Social Democrats USA."
Now to your question: Yes I agree with your assesment! My Father, who would be 120 years old this month, was a staunch Democrat but his view of being a Democrat was so far removed from today’s Democrat that he would not recognize his party! He was Democrat because it stood for protecting the "hard working little guy" Those that were oppressed by management of large closely held companies. Those that oppressed thier workers. He was not about welfare and Government handouts, just some protection. He would be appalled at those lined up for handouts and welfare. Welfare is OK for those willing to help themselves but not for those unwilling to work for whatever reason other than severe health reasons. He would see today’s Democrats/Liberals as not helping people but rather using it as a platform to totaly erode morals and personal responsibility.
Yes, Today’s Republicans are much closer to the old liberalism than today’s Democrats. Obama could probably be more accurately described as a Neocon than Bush. I think Obamaism is more like "Trotskyism" who was a close associate of Lennin!
I am a Religious person but today’s Republicans need to move back to the "Goldwater" roots and stop being hijacked by religious fanatics (Huckabee) who in the end would want to move towards a "Theocracy"!
Candidates like McCain and Romney would lead us back to our roots of fiscal responsibility not only at a government level but a personal level. Welfare for the "Needy" not the "Lazy" Rethinking of personal and political morals but not in a "Theocratic" way but in a personal responsibility way!
In my Fathers day, Large Corporations were usually closley held by families that did in fact oppress workers! Taday’s Corporations are more like Coops owned by tens of thousands of shareholders usually even by th workers themselves. The Corporations have been hjacked by a few executives that use them as thier piggy bank. Government does not need in interceede but he Stockholders and Boards of Directors should. Existing laws can be used to force Boards to do thier duty to the Staockholders not the Executives. They are the ones who should have thier feet held to the fire. The Governmen, however, should stay far away from private enterprise. Let contract law run its course and do not reward bad behavior nor bad decisions at the corporate level or the personal level. If you bought home you could not afford because you were greedy and blinded by materialism to the point you failed to read the contract, well shame on you but don’t expect me or the Government to bail you out.
Along those same lines, The modern labor union has drifted far from the old days but is now just a money grab. The Labor bosses are far worse than the old corporations. They exploit there members by stron arm tactics and price American workers and good they produce out of the competition in a Global economy. The Labor bosses don’t care, they still have thier perks just like the corporate Executives.
Freedom does not exist unless there is also freedom to fail as well as excel! Freedom cannot be force fed but carefully nurtured day after day! When we take our eye off the ball we will lose it. If we take freedom for granted, we will lose it. The Obmaites wil gladly steal it from you. America Beware!
Proud Vet
Abe Lincoln’s Republican Party was founded on classical liberal ideas
Liberalism, at the time of our nation’s birth, was against the conservative ideas of monarchies and expanded government. Remember, freedom and liberty was a NEW idea at that time, so it was given the term liberal. Once people got used to freedom and eventually we started moving away from it, the terms flip flopped from what our country was founded on (conservatism) to where its going (liberalism). For hundreds of years in Europe and eventually America, the new idea of freedom, liberty, self-responsibility, and opportunity was considered liberal because it was a new idea.
If you research classical liberalism and modern liberalism, they are very different ideas and their relationship and evolution is under much debate (even though it is widely considered that liberalism didn’t come from classical liberalism, and is a very new idea and NOT the same as classical conservatism aka tyranny)
References :
When you think about it, it’s the democrats that are conservative. SChip, National Medicine, and social security are due to conservative rationale.
Republicans by contrast, are the "throw your fate to the wind" mindset of which is recklessly liberal.
References :
Old school liberals like Jack Kennedy were veterans who had balls, unlike One Term Barry the chickenhawk who never served in the military and had never spoken the word "victory" in the same paragraph as "Iraq and Afghanistan"
References :
Liberalsim has always been about putting what is best for the whole of America ahead of what is best for the individual ego and that is what has always been the difference between liberal and conservative ideologies. Republianism has changed: In the time of Lincoln it was liberal and today it is conservative
References :
You’re absolutely correct. Political parties are so often changing that the names they use are often misleading. For instance, liberals want stricter gun laws. I believe, to correctly view political parties, you cannot just view them as Republicans or Democrats, but as a separate movement. Each side (Democrat or Republican) represents a different side or view of the movement, and considering that not all Democrats agree on certain issues, and not all Republicans agree on others, we can constantly see the lines of "Democrat" and "Republican" shifting.
Because of this, and to answer your question, modern Republicans are very, very in touch with classic (1800s) liberalism. One constant has been the support of farmers making the highest amount of money ever. Republicans used to be known as a primarily farmer-run party, back when farming was a popular job. Since farming has become more of an exclusive job, Republicans are no longer seen as serving the middle class — in this aspect — but they still give full support to farmers.
References :
How about following President Washington’s advice, and doing away with parties altogether? No one would feel obligated to vote for someone just because they’re a member of the same party, there would be less tension on capitol hill, and most important, it would heal divides in America.
God Bless America!
References :
Unfortunately, no.
The non-pot smoking branch of the Libertarian Party is much closer to the version of Classical Liberalism of the founders.
The Neo-Cons and the Socialists are so closely allied with centralized government’s control of the means of production as to make them indistinguishable.
Unfortunately there is no official "Conservative" Party in operation, or it would be identical to the Founder’s concept of individual liberty.
"Now those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth, and let me remind you they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyranny."
–Barry Goldwater
References :
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/barry+goldwater
Considering NeoCons define "liberal" as everything to the left of Attila the Hun, that’s an impossible question to answer.
References :
I am very late answering this question but feel I must!
First let me address Rocket34: I fear that 90% of thoseusing the term "Neocon" have no concept of the meaning. NeoCon has little to do with "Conservatism" and certainly is not the far right. They would better be called "Neolibs" since they are Liberals that moved to the right and still embrace the left; Here is a short passage from one of my sources below:
"Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States. Its key distinction is in international affairs, where it espouses an interventionist approach that seeks to defend what neo-conservatives deem as national interests. In addition, unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes."
Another:
"New" conservatives initially approached this view from the political left. The forerunners of neoconservatism were often liberals or socialists who strongly supported the Allied cause in World War II, and who were influenced by the Great Depression-era ideas of the New Deal, trade unionism, and Trotskyism, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman.[citation needed] A number of future neoconservatives, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick,[citation needed] were Shachtmanites in their youth; some were later involved with Social Democrats USA."
Now to your question: Yes I agree with your assesment! My Father, who would be 120 years old this month, was a staunch Democrat but his view of being a Democrat was so far removed from today’s Democrat that he would not recognize his party! He was Democrat because it stood for protecting the "hard working little guy" Those that were oppressed by management of large closely held companies. Those that oppressed thier workers. He was not about welfare and Government handouts, just some protection. He would be appalled at those lined up for handouts and welfare. Welfare is OK for those willing to help themselves but not for those unwilling to work for whatever reason other than severe health reasons. He would see today’s Democrats/Liberals as not helping people but rather using it as a platform to totaly erode morals and personal responsibility.
Yes, Today’s Republicans are much closer to the old liberalism than today’s Democrats. Obama could probably be more accurately described as a Neocon than Bush. I think Obamaism is more like "Trotskyism" who was a close associate of Lennin!
I am a Religious person but today’s Republicans need to move back to the "Goldwater" roots and stop being hijacked by religious fanatics (Huckabee) who in the end would want to move towards a "Theocracy"!
Candidates like McCain and Romney would lead us back to our roots of fiscal responsibility not only at a government level but a personal level. Welfare for the "Needy" not the "Lazy" Rethinking of personal and political morals but not in a "Theocratic" way but in a personal responsibility way!
In my Fathers day, Large Corporations were usually closley held by families that did in fact oppress workers! Taday’s Corporations are more like Coops owned by tens of thousands of shareholders usually even by th workers themselves. The Corporations have been hjacked by a few executives that use them as thier piggy bank. Government does not need in interceede but he Stockholders and Boards of Directors should. Existing laws can be used to force Boards to do thier duty to the Staockholders not the Executives. They are the ones who should have thier feet held to the fire. The Governmen, however, should stay far away from private enterprise. Let contract law run its course and do not reward bad behavior nor bad decisions at the corporate level or the personal level. If you bought home you could not afford because you were greedy and blinded by materialism to the point you failed to read the contract, well shame on you but don’t expect me or the Government to bail you out.
Along those same lines, The modern labor union has drifted far from the old days but is now just a money grab. The Labor bosses are far worse than the old corporations. They exploit there members by stron arm tactics and price American workers and good they produce out of the competition in a Global economy. The Labor bosses don’t care, they still have thier perks just like the corporate Executives.
Freedom does not exist unless there is also freedom to fail as well as excel! Freedom cannot be force fed but carefully nurtured day after day! When we take our eye off the ball we will lose it. If we take freedom for granted, we will lose it. The Obmaites wil gladly steal it from you. America Beware!
Proud Vet
References :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Observations for 73 years and a great deal of study/research!