Keith Thompson, the youngest delegate for George McGovern at the 1972 Democratic National Convention, has filed for divorce from the movement he served for more than thirty years. "I'm separating not from a person but a cause: the political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos," Thompson writes in a widely quoted piece from SFGate.com.

Citing the scorn heaped upon the Iraqi elections by self-styled progressives as the last straw, Thompson's parting from the Left was anything but sudden. He tells an amusing story from a leftist dinner party that coincided with Reagan's frank assessment of the Soviet Union as the source of "evil" in modern times. "When I casually offered that the surviving relatives of the more than 20 million people murdered on orders of Joseph Stalin might not find 'evil' too strong a word," he explains, "the room took on a collective bemused smile of the sort you might expect if someone had casually mentioned taking up child molestation for sport." More than twenty years later, Thompson would finally have it with the Left.

"And welcome, Keith!" reacts Michelle Malkin. "Glad to have you on our side." And what side would that be? Thompson offers a devastating critique of the Left, but reveals nothing that would make one think he is even remotely conservative. Sorry, Keith, but I don't welcome you. You still call yourself a liberal. Good for you for recognizing the excesses of the contemporary Left. But you still have a ways to go.

Parties take all comers. Movements do so at their own peril. Men of the Left, such as James Burnham and Whittaker Chambers, who have rejected their old faith and embraced conservative principles warrant a gracious receipt on the Right. Leftists no longer comfortable around longtime comrades don't become conservatives by virtue of their newfound political homelessness. The admission in some circles of Christopher Hitchenses and Andrew Sullivans as "conservative" spokesmen hasn't moved Christopher Hitchenses and Andrew Sullivans further Right. It's moved the Right toward them. In doing so, the traditional Right has been marginalized. Might it be healthier if liberal expatriates redouble efforts to keep liberals sane rather than attempt to drag the conservatives Left?

I'm reminded of Clyde Wilson's thought on earlier migrations from liberalism to conservatism: "First of all, we have simply been crowded out by overwhelming numbers. The offensives of radicalism have driven vast herds of liberals across the border into our territories. These refugees now speak in our name, but the language they speak is the same one they always spoke."

Out of sincere curiosity, what does "conservative" and "liberal" mean to you?

That latter quote is priceless. Really insightful. Thanks, Mr. Flynn.

I can't answer for Mr. Flynn, Ben, but since I think it's a good questions, I'll start.

For liberal, here's my very rough stab:
1. Their political reasoning is based on individual rights/entitlements to be guaranteed *equally* and through government programs.
2. They believe in historical progress, although sometimes it's being thwarted by evil people. Thus, old things have presumption against them and that moral standards of the past are always inferior, oppressive, dogmatic, as opposed to the enlightened and relativistic standards they endorse. This is really a belief in the moral evolution of the human species and a conviction that human problems are solvable in history.
3. Their first inclination when faced with a major problem in culture, economics, society is to demand new government programs to solve these problems.

Let's use Kirk's lists of beliefs and assume that conservatives are a family (rather than a species) of people who share these things more or less (I'm cutting the famous list from Wikipedia):
1. "Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience."
2. "Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems."
3. "Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a 'classless society'."
4. "Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked: separate property from private possession, and the Leviathan becomes master of all."
5. "Faith in prescription and distrust of 'sophisters, calculators, and economists' who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs."
6. "Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress."
To Mr. Kirk's list I would add one more, a necessary condition for being a conservative in America:
7. The demand for limited government, and thus a rejection of big government in principle; this is partly based on distrust of arbitrary power, partly on a rejection that government programs can fix most problems in human life.

Sorry for the length. Now, where do Hitch and Sullivan end up? Where do most neoncons end up? Do you think Kirk's list is wrong, or out of date, or "paleo"? Do you think my liberal list is a distortion to trap neocons?

I am going to do my best to define a NeoCon. It might not be perfect, I might have to update it later, who knows but hear goes.

1.) A strong belief in Economic Free Markets and Capitalist Economics. A strong opposition to Economic Protectionism. Many NeoCons, including myself, would identify themselves as supply-side economists.

2.) A belief in the need for a powerful military with which to aggressively and pro-actively protect the national interest of the United States abroad.

3.) A opposition to unaccountable, supranational organizations such as the United Nations.

4.) Althought I find myself generally being socially Libertarian, many, probablly most, NeoCons, are Socially Conservative.

5.) A general sympathy for the plight of immigrants. Though it is certainly not a strict tenet of Neoconservatism, many NeoCons would like to see the United States be more welcoming to those who want to immigrate here. This is not to suggest that the US should not be weary of illegal immigration, but rather to be more receptive to those with a desire to legally immigrate.

P.S: Short no I do not think you definition of Liberal is a trap for NeoCons, because, though you feel it might, it does not even come close to defining Neoconservatism.

Another note, sorry for the third post: I find it kind of funny that you guys see us as Liberals, when we ourselves as NeoCons see huge similarities between the Old Right and the New Left.

I think your definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are very reasonable, short. Same to T-Money for the "neocon" definition.

"Now, where do Hitch and Sullivan end up?"

Hitchens is a Trotyskite, if I remember correctly. He loathes religion, too. Clearly, he's not a conservative. (Funny enough, the connection he has to Old-Right-wingers is in his demonization of Israel). I think he's an interesting writer, however, and I commend him for going against the Left in supporting Bush's War on Terror. Overall, he strikes me as an honest Leftist.

Sullivan, I think, is a moderate conservative. He's a Christian and an anti-socialist. It seems to me the only liberal idea he supports is gay marriage, but he does so from the standpoint of respect for marriage -- which is a conservative tendency (unlike the Marxist reactionary anti-marriage nonsense that is so common these days).

"Where do most neoncons end up?"

Judging by your list, I would have to say conservative, because there are only two points I honestly have a problem with in your 7-part definition.

1) What does Kirk mean by "faith in prescription"?

2) How can it be denied that human beings, as a whole, have made moral progress over the stretch of time? We have gone from a point when slavery was the norm to its being a kind of relic, an object of deserved scorn. (I am not denying that, though it's sad to say, there are still slaves, of course.)

We have gone from a time when the Ku Klux Klan had millions of members and were treated as heroes in cinema, to their being the laughing stock of shame in our nation.

Women's suffrage came about less than a century ago. The change is more than one of laws -- I'm sure if we examined opinion polls back in 1920 compared to 2000, the perecentage of men who felt women should not have the right to vote would be much, much less in the latter poll.

Thanks for the definitions,
ben

I think FLynn is right on this. If Sullivan is a "moderate conservative," then the definition of conservative has moved very, very far to the left. He's pro-choice, calls himself Catholic but is in no recognizable way hospitable to religious sensibility, advocates massive taxation on necessities like gasoline, advocates genuinely radical redefintion of the family, etc., etc.

He successfully sold himself as a "maverick," and once the mask slipped his popularity plummeted. There is not a single social or political institution that he would not like to reorder along liberal lines. He has no use for any tradition that I am aware of, and even his rah-rah patriotism is of the messianic, crusade to end pre-modernity everywhere sort. His "conservative for marriage" is a tactic--a subversive one aimed at dull-witted and self-conscious conservatives desperate to sit at the cool table with the gay kids and joke about South Park--not a principle.

Again, Flynn is right. Hearing such men described as conservatives--of whatever sort--convinces me that the supposed triumph of conservatism in America is a shell game.

Hi Ben.

1. For "prescription," I think Kirk's using www.m-w.com's #5a: "ancient or long continued custom b : a claim founded upon ancient custom or long continued use."

2. It seems obvious to me that Western society has made some moral improvements, but has also undergone some moral decay over the centuries. I think mass abortion, Hiroshima, and Hitler's "final solution" should be remembered when we congratuate ourselves on the abolition of slavery and women's sufferage. I think technological "progress" over the centuries has been undeniable; I don't think so for moral "progress." Besides, the issue really is, *how* does one believe in progress? Of course we should strive to be more good, to uphold the permanent moral standards better. But, is it the destiny of humanity to undergo moral "progress", to throw off old moral standards and replace them with more "enlightened" ones? Were the medievals moral cavemen? Does history come in stages where the later are morally superior to the earlier? I don't think so. I think liberals do, and when it comes to many issues, neocons speak this way, too. (E.g., Is democracy morally superior and part of the human destiny, if we dare accept it? This is the enlightened view. I think neocons share it. I think it's bunk.)

Now the questions for me are: Aren't neocons much more willing to use progressive rhetoric and images? And aren't neocons much more willing to use government programs to solve human problems, from the New Deal to education spending to foreign governments we don't like?

You don't think Democracy is morally superior?

Wow, you really are a Right Winger. As in, French Revolution era Right Winger.

Grr, hit the post button by accident, the rest of my post follows.

NeoCons are more willing to live in the real world, where The Government exists as a major factor in our lives and we are never really going to be succesfull in rolling it back to the point where it is as small as many Old Rightists would like. We are willing to work with and within government to achieve our Conservative goals, instead of always working against it and never seeing our goal realized.

The New Deal was a Socialist, not a NeoCon, movement. Neoconservatism did not exist until the 1960s.

NeoCons on the whole think that Public Education should exist, yes. This is hardly a radically left wing view.

And yes, NeoCons will always be willing to use our military to protect our interests abroad, whether some think that is "liberal" or not is irrelevant. To do anything else would be to fail in our duty to protect the foreign interests and the national security of the United States as vested in us by the American people. Make no mistake, the United States is at war. It has been at war since 9/11. NeoCons would rather fight that war in the Middle East than in New York City.

Ben T: I don't think democracy is morally superior. I actually like republicanism but reject democracy, and think that aristocracy or monarchy, or mixed forms of these, can be good -- depending on the rule of law, limitation on government power, and types of laws enforced. In this I am much closer than you to Aristotle, the founders, Hayek, and the innumerable, very diverse other thinkers that conservatives sometimes to appeal to.

I didn't say the New Deal was a neocon thing -- I think neocons can partly be distinguished from conservative conservatives by the degree of acceptance/rejection of the New Deal.

As far as foreign policy goes, I think that my conservative #7 should apply to foreign afffairs as much as to domestic affiars. So, e.g., LBJ's Vietnam and Great Society are linked ideologically in a belief in the power of government to solve human problems. Don't neocons agree with Johnson here, but think that -- whether domestic or foreign -- government policy in order to work has got to be more forceful or violent or cynical or something? This is where the "mugged by reality" thing comes in, right?

Sorry this is long.. I actually think these classification-discussions are very helpful to me.

Firstly I agree that this is a very helpful discussion and we probablly should have had it earlier. Moving on.

There is no doctrinal Neoconservative view on the Vietnam war. I think it was a mistake. Why did getting involved in South Vietnam further American interests? It didn't. Therefore we should not have been there. The US government should do whatever is necessary to support US interests. It should not, however, become involved in engagements that do not support either the national security or foreign interest of the United States.

There also is no one doctrinal view of the New Deal among NeoCons. I personally see the New Deal as Socialist and would like to see it dismantled. I also recognize that that is probablly not going to be realistically happening any time soon. I support President Bush's plan on Social Security, because it is both a step in the right direction, and one that we can actually see happening sometime in the immediate future.

As far as the Great Society goes, it depends. NeoCons, like most Americans I would hope, are glad Racial Segregation is gone. However I think I would stand with most NeoCons in saying that LBJ was one of the worst Presidents in our history.

I don't see any case for saying that Aristocracy or Monarchy can be a good thing. I also don't see how Aristocracy and/or Monarchy could possibly coexist with a limited Federal Government and the Rule of Law. What is law when one man decides it? How can the government have limited powers when those powers are decided on the whim of a single man?

And finally I would say that yes, most NeoCons are quite cynical.

NOTE: Republicanism is a form of Democracy.

HI Ben T: "Republicanism is a form of Democracy." Hmm, only according to modern social science. Also, one-man rule and rule-by-the-many are both consistent with limited government and the rule of law; both are also consistent with tyranny and arbitrary power.

You misunderstand my LBJ point. The question about LBJ and FDR is: are they on the right track in their view of governmental programs here and abroad, but just needed to be a bit more cynical, realist?

NeoCons find common ground with the foreign policy views of FDR and not much else about him. I find no link between NeoCons and LBJ.

In short I would say that they might be on the right track, but they don't have to be a bit more cynical and realit, they have to be a LOT more cynical and realist. NeoCons agree with the basic principle that the US should be willing to pre emptively use her military to protect her national security and her foreign interests. The US should NOT however, be willing to use her military for egalitarian charity work.

I felt something similar while reading Thompson's essay. But it can be a good thing to have a gradient of people pointing back at the left and saying "That's some screwed up crap over there."

After all, if people left the left and jumped to the right, there would be more talk about "pod people" then there is. David Horowitz didn't become a right-wing extremist overnight. He was first disenchanted, then totally withdrawn (writing criticially acclaimed biographies). Since he stuck his nose in the political stream, he's really grown in hatred of almost everything the left stands for.

I think that's what the welcome is about. And I think we should be there, right at the edge of the hemp cloud, welcoming all those who emerge. Remember that New Deal Dem Ron Reagan said that his his party left him. Politics is not religion and does not require us to repent and be reborn conservative. So we wander.

If Sullivan is a "moderate conservative," then the definition of conservative has moved very, very far to the left. He's pro-choice

He's not, actually. He's pro-life in two respects: abortion and the death penalty.

1. For "prescription," I think Kirk's using www.m-w.com's #5a: "ancient or long continued custom b : a claim founded upon ancient custom or long continued use."

Ah okay. Well, I for one don't have any kind of automatic faith in prescription. I have to question specific ideas individually. I am not an extremist on other side -- I don't think all tradition should be tossed out the window as Marxists do, and I don't think all tradition should be held sacred, either, as Conservatives do.

2. It seems obvious to me that Western society has made some moral improvements, but has also undergone some moral decay over the centuries.

I would agree with the general thrust of that statement, but I would definitely change the time period. I think if you take the long view of history, there is no doubt whatsoever that people and societies overall are more decent and civilized. However, where I agree is that I think that there have been more recent points, like the 1960s in the US, where certain ideas (like non-judgementalism and moral relativism) have seriously harmed individuals.

I think mass abortion, Hiroshima, and Hitler's "final solution" should be remembered when we congratuate ourselves on the abolition of slavery and women's sufferage.

I'm with you on abortion and Nazism, but Hiroshima is a different circumstance. It was a terrible, awful, unfortunate act, without question. But it is not comparable with the Final Solution because the US was trying to end a world war, which would have taken countless more lives both American and Japanese, while the Nazis were committing genocide. Also, we gave advanced warnings and notice (as we often do) to the Japanese civilians.

Still, war is obviously horrible. The fact of the matter is that war has existed throughout human history -- by that I mean it isn't a new development in recent centuries. Slavery was an evil which existed throughout history that has only recently been abolished in most places around the world.

Were the medievals moral cavemen?
In many respects, yes.

One way I try to gain some perspective is by thinking if I'd rather been born in a different time period. Even ignoring technological advances, I thank God that I am alive at this point in world and American history.

But, is it the destiny of humanity to undergo moral "progress", to throw off old moral standards and replace them with more "enlightened" ones?
I wouldn't describe it like that. As you said yourself, it has more to do with "(upholding) the permanent moral standards better." Slavery, again, is a perfect example of this. Some Christians were justifying this evil institution a couple centuries ago, even using the Bible to defend their claims. Other more enlightened and decent Christians basically said -- you're interpreting this all wrong.

Does history come in stages where the later are morally superior to the earlier?

Yes, to a degree. Look, it's not across the board. There will always be savagery; human nature is repulsive. But, on the whole, people tend to learn from the mistakes of the past, whatever they may be.

Aren't neocons much more willing to use progressive rhetoric and images?
Sure, there's some overlap. There is for you, too (see my "common good" remark). Thomas Sowell has written a lot about the difference between intentions and results. All decent people, liberal and conservative, have essentially the same overall intentions (this "common good" you speak of). The question is just how we get there.

And aren't neocons much more willing to use government programs to solve human problems, from the New Deal to education spending to foreign governments we don't like?

No, not really. The only accurate part of that statement is on foreign policy. Otherwise, I am for trimming down the government as much as possible. What FDR (and to a much larger extent LBJ) did domestically infuriates me.

I actually like republicanism but reject democracy, and think that aristocracy or monarchy, or mixed forms of these, can be good -- depending on the rule of law, limitation on government power, and types of laws enforced. In this I am much closer than you to Aristotle, the founders, Hayek, and the innumerable, very diverse other thinkers that conservatives sometimes to appeal to.

Can you cite where Hayek supports aristocracy or monarchy? Also, I don't know how you can say the founders supported monarchy (if that's what you meant), considering they created a new country and system in response to a King.

Also, how can you "reject democracy"? This strikes me as absurd. I mean -- it would be different if you said that you reject just a flat-out tyranny of the majority with no limits. (I don't know what rational person would support such a system). But you say simply that you "reject" it, and then go on to say you think aristocracy and monarchy could be good, with qualifiers. Why not say democracy is good, with qualifiers?

I actually think these classification-discussions are very helpful to me.

Me, too... helps to clear up some misunderstandings.

"The question about LBJ and FDR is: are they on the right track in their view of governmental programs here and abroad"

They are both wrong, domestically (except for the 1965 Immigration Act, which I completely support). In stopping the Nazis and (attempting to) contain Communism, they were right.

-ben

Ben L: Tooo much to say!

1. Discussions of the common good are not a fortiori socialist, or progressive, or whatever you're implying. I think you misunderstand the phrase, and the history of the phrase. In fact, I don't think politics is intelligible with some notion of common good. If there is no common good, then why don't we just get rid of all common organization? If this phrase bothers you, you are probably operating with an extreme individualist version of it in the form of maximized aggregate individual utility or something. To that see my feature 1 of liberalism, which is also shared by liberatarians.

2. I didn't say that Hayek or the founders "supported" monarchy or aristocracy. I said that my refusal to reject them as inherently unjust, and my refusal to say that democracy is inherently morally superior, was more in line with these figures. Hayek says it in The Constitution of Liberty, in the section where he discusses the procedural vs the substantial view of types of government -- He says that democracy is a means which may not produce good/bad laws, and its the latter he cares about. Most of the founders didn't seem to think that all monarchy was inherently evil, they just thought that GIII was abusing his power and they prefered something else. Some even considered monarchy as a possibility for America. Moreover they attacked democracy regularly.

3. I like a republican form of government. Unfortunately, as Ben T illustrated, our language has been partially corrupted by the progressives who wish to push all governments toward democracies. Thus a republic is now seen as a type of democracy; rather, I see a democracy as a corrupt, imbalanced, twin of a republic. I think it's important to insist of these differences of terminology. Libs get an automatic advantage in arguments about, e.g. the electoral college or about the direct election of senators, if we say that our country is supposed to be a democracy.

4. I actually just had an insight -- tell me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that you are really very close to libertarian except that you favor a rather aggressive foreign policy militarily. I don't think you're a neocon at all, especially given your harsh views of LBJ and particularly of FDR. Why do you consider youself a neo? It isn't just about foreign policy. Is it just because you were told at some point it was a slur against Jews? Your views are almost exactly line mine 10 years ago, before I left my young, radical libertarian phase -- except for foreign policy, which I didn't used to care about at all because it was the 90s.

1. Discussions of the common good are not a fortiori socialist, or progressive, or whatever you're implying.

I know, I think you misunderstood my comment. I just meant that that phrase is very reminiscent of the Left's rhetoric. What I said, probably not very clearly, is that all of us support the ends of a "common good." It's just that the definitions and the paths differ.

I said that my refusal to reject them as inherently unjust, and my refusal to say that democracy is inherently morally superior, was more in line with these figures.

Ah okay. I disagree with you here. Monarchy is inherently unjust, in my view. I think that famous Winston Churchill line sums up my opinion of democracy...

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

3. I like a republican form of government. Unfortunately, as Ben T illustrated, our language has been partially corrupted by the progressives who wish to push all governments toward democracies.

Actually, liberals have more of an affinity for the idea of a "benevolent dictator." Look at the legalization of abortion, the establishment of gay marriage -- they are circumventing democratic pathways.

I, too, like a republican form of government. It's just that I'd call it "republican democracy."

4. I actually just had an insight -- tell me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that you are really very close to libertarian except that you favor a rather aggressive foreign policy militarily.

Yes, exactly

Why do you consider youself a neo? It isn't just about foreign policy.

Here's where we differ on the definitions again. Neoconservatism is mostly "a foreign policy persuasion" as m'buddy Ben T likes to point out. I think neoconservatives don't really care too much about domestic issues. (That's where I differ from them -- as you said, I'm essentially a Libertarian, so I'm not content with a growing government).

Is it just because you were told at some point it was a slur against Jews?
No, I heard about that after I realized that my formerly liberal leanings were intellectually corrupt. It's not something that bothers me, I just think it's a funny concept. It was mentioned on an Uncommon Knowledge debate between a paleocon and a neocon, and I've heard Ann Coulter mention it, too.

Your views are almost exactly line mine 10 years ago, before I left my young, radical libertarian phase

Ah, interesting

1. Neoconservatism was never only about foreign policy. In fact, at first, it was primarily not about foreign policy. It's only in the last 5-10 years that this has changed.

2. The difference between "progress" rhetoric and "common good" rhetoric is that the progress rhetoric comes from liberal douchebags of the last several hundred years; common good rhetoric doesn't. So one is tainted historically, and the other isn't. Also, I find when people use the word 'progress' they generally stop thinking as clearly, and are put into a mindset that everything is always changing and always should. I think the precondition of a close-to-libertarian government is a stable and good culture, and this is undermined by constant forced changes resulting from ideas of "moral progress." I'd like to get rid of 'progress' from the English language -- it does more harm than good.

3. My objection toward democracy: the more democratic a government is, the less able it is to control its size, and it also tends towards a relativism, a lack of standards morally and culturally. Democracies (unlike aristocracies and monarchies, which have their own probs) actually are very prone toward voting everyone money for every stupid idea, and for subsidizing everyone's dirty little habits. So, structurally (if we want a close-to-libertarian domestic policy) we should strive for less democratic government; by this I mean, we must insist on the rule of law that limits the power of legislatures (representing the people) to spend money on anything. It's not that I care for monarchy or aristocracy or anything, it's just that I want a limited government that is capable of exercising some minimal moral judgment, distinguishing the good from the bad, the worth-spending-on from the not. Right now we don't have this, and it's because of the democratic structural features of the system. In fact, we have a pretty good "people" as far as "peoples" go, so democracy does less bad here than it would elsewhere.

Ultimately, what I suspect is that your democratic dedication will rub with your libertarian impulses; also, the aggressive foreign policy element is inconsistent with libertarianism, and also encourages a non-libertarian government at home-- war in Iraq, for me, is just one more huge government program. Also, if you look at the history of warfare in the US, wars are very often casues of expansion and consolidation of national and executive power. In other words, I'm not sure how well you're three peices (democracy, libertarianism, neocon foreign policy) will stick together.

Short you misunderstood me. What I was meaning to say is that a Republic is, in almost all cases and certainly in the case of the USA, a form of DEMOCRATIC government. As in, it is "A government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives."

We are of course, in the most technical sense, a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. We live in a Democratic society however.

To say that the War in Iraq is one huge government program is to suggest that all wars are just one huge government program that need to be done away with. The Bush Doctrine's plan of Strategic Mideast Democratization is just as necessary for winning the War on Terror as was D-Day to winning World War II.

1. Neoconservatism was never only about foreign policy. In fact, at first, it was primarily not about foreign policy. It's only in the last 5-10 years that this has changed.

Short, I don't care about the history of the movement. As I said, what defines Neoconservativism post-9/11 is the confrontational foreign policy. That is what I support.

2. The difference between "progress" rhetoric and "common good" rhetoric is that the progress rhetoric comes from liberal douchebags of the last several hundred years; common good rhetoric doesn't. So one is tainted historically, and the other isn't. Also, I find when people use the word 'progress' they generally stop thinking as clearly, and are put into a mindset that everything is always changing and always should. I think the precondition of a close-to-libertarian government is a stable and good culture, and this is undermined by constant forced changes resulting from ideas of "moral progress."

Why does "progress" have to be equivalent with government programs to you? Again, we have a misunderstanding of definitions. "Progress" to me has much more to do with the government limiting its power, rather than expanding and exercising it.

Like it or not, there has been an immense amount of moral progress in recent history. Look at the growing acceptance of interracial couples, for a quick example.

Also, change is good. Obviously not always, but g'damn, life would be unbelievably boring if everything was static. (AGAIN -- this has nothing to do with moral relativism and government programs, both of which I abhor.)

"So, structurally (if we want a close-to-libertarian domestic policy) we should strive for less democratic government"

I disagree with you here. I think those of us who support "a close-to-libertarian domestic policy" need to do the work of convincing others that it is the best route to take.

There's a great exchange in a discussion between Peter Robinson and Milton Friedman where this topic is touched upon. Friedman mentions various departments of the federal government he think ought to be abolished. Then...

ROBINSON: OK Milton Friedman, if you are made dictator for one day, the next day..

FRIEDMAN: No, no I don't want to be made dictator. I don't believe in dictators. I believe we want to bring about change by the agreement for the citizens, I don't believe in...If we can't persuade the public that it's desirable to do these things, we have no right to impose them even if we have the power to do it.

I love that man.

Ben T:

No, I didn't understand you. You just take the modern defitions of words (and definitions found in dictionaries) too slavishly. I am taking the old-fashioned definitions of democracy and republic.

"To say that the War in Iraq is one huge government program is to suggest that all wars are just one huge government program that need to be done away with." No, it's not.

Ben L:

1. I think that you are accepting the superficial liberal usage of "neocon" if you grant that it means "neoimperialist hawk intent." But OK, if you want it that way, for you it has no domestic policy connotations.

2. My point about "progess" is historical. Look at how the word has been used in political/cultural/religious movements for the last 30 or last 300 years; it has a lot to do with government programs. And once again: there has also been quite a lot of moral decay... look at abortion, look at racial slavery entering Europe and the expansion of centralized political power; look at the mass slaughtering of civilians in war; and your example was interracial dating? Really, there is no case for an "immense amount of moral progress in recent history" unless you grant an "immense amount of moral [regress] in recent history."

3. Friedman is cool. The democratic principle gives power to "the people" to do what they want with the government, and this is inconsistent with libertarian government. The latter implies extreme limitations on the former; the former makes the latter practically impossible. Now I want a all-but-libertarian government, and I want it to be chosen and sustained freely, but you need to recognize that democracy tends toward a type of government you don't like, one that spends a lot on stupid crap.

My point about "progess" is historical. Look at how the word has been used in political/cultural/religious movements for the last 30 or last 300 years; it has a lot to do with government programs.

Point taken. All I meant was that I, myself, was not using it for those reasons.

And once again: there has also been quite a lot of moral decay... look at abortion, look at racial slavery entering Europe and the expansion of centralized political power; look at the mass slaughtering of civilians in war; and your example was interracial dating? Really, there is no case for an "immense amount of moral progress in recent history" unless you grant an "immense amount of moral [regress] in recent history."

Short -- aside from abortion, which I can't comment on since I know nothing about its historical origins, everything you mentioned there has existed since the dawn of time -- slavery, war, and political control. I didn't say the world was anywhere near perfect; I said that we have made (close your eyes) progress in all of these areas. Slavery has been abolished in most of the world. Wars will become less and less commonplace with the spread of democracy and free trade, since people will realize that it is in all of our interests to remain peaceful. And the Soviet Union, the one massive force struggling to provide merit to Statism, is dead, having taken with it the horrific and obvious failures of the Marxist system.

Friedman is cool.

Yes indeed, glad you think so

you need to recognize that democracy tends toward a type of government you don't like, one that spends a lot on stupid crap.

That's only if "the people" are uneducated. The more we go out and prove to others that it is in their interests to ensure that there are strict limits on government, the greater the popular support for small-L libertarianism. Look at ol' Ronnie Reagan -- he convinced the people that "the government is the problem" and they rewarded him hugely in the elections.

Yes, but even Ronald Reagan couldn't stop the expansion of the federal government. Look at it historically: it was non-democratic structural features of our system that controled spending --e.g., checks and balances, federalism, barring of direct taxation, a strict rendering of the interstate commerce clause. These were controls on what "the people" could do; they were undemocratic. You could also look at it this way: right now, why can't we get substantial reform/change in federal government programs, why do they spend so much money and it seems unstoppable? Because to please various bases the politicians spend money on stupid crap. We can't stop it unless we pass rules that apply to all politicians. That is, the only way to stop this is to have rules that limit what "the people" can do; they would be undemocratic laws restricting the power of the elected representatives.

My point about moral decay hasn't been touched: on some issues we have improved in our application of moral standards, in some ways we have "regressed" -- abortion and the misconduct of wars are good examples. What would have existed minimally 1000 years ago is now common practice. Your faith that war will become rarer as people are educated is simply odd to me. Why? Were major wars more common in the 20th or the 13th century? Some thing get better, but we shouldn't believe that things are getting better and better every day in every way. That's my only point. Some things get worse.

why do they spend so much money and it seems unstoppable? Because to please various bases the politicians spend money on stupid crap. We can't stop it unless we pass rules that apply to all politicians. That is, the only way to stop this is to have rules that limit what "the people" can do; they would be undemocratic laws restricting the power of the elected representatives.

I absolutely agree that various groups act in their own self-interest, demanding subsidies and government protection. But my point is that whenever a single group gets these things, it comes at a cost to the majority. So, while a minority might want a government program, an educated majority will not support it.

Let's take the steel industry as an example. Thanks in part to whining and agitation from the likes of Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, every President seems to feel the need to support steel tariffs on imports. Now, the self-interest of the overwhelming majority of people is not to have these protectionist measures up -- very few people like the idea of having prices artificially raised on them. Of course, those who are losing their jobs in manufacturing are worried and want some protection for their positions (even though they would just end up finding other jobs; unemployment reached unbelievable lows at the same time Buchanan was babbling about the diminishing American manufacturing industry).

The reason these ideas continue to get support is that people who don't understand economics are easily bought with the rhetoric of politicians.

Another non-economic example is affirmative action. For years, affirmative action has had support among many well-intentioned whites because they were under the impression that it helped level the playing field for a historically oppressed group, blacks. The more people understand that it actually hurts blacks and other beneficiaries, the less they will support it.

My point about moral decay hasn't been touched

I think this will be (at least) my third touching of it...

in some ways we have "regressed" -- abortion and the misconduct of wars are good examples.
in some ways we have "regressed" -- abortion and the misconduct of wars are good examples.

I already granted abortion (even though people did unimaginably barbaric acts to babies in the past, too) (On second though, maybe I shouldn't grant that abortion is a recent phenomenon). But, again, you're wrong about wars, because they've always existed. Here's a fairly comprehensive list of wars throughout history. And about the misconduct of wars -- do you think there was more raping, pillaging, and cannibalism in the Crusades and the Mongol Invasion or in Iraq?

Some thing get better, but we shouldn't believe that things are getting better and better every day in every way. That's my only point. Some things get worse.

I've never disagreed with this point. In fact, earlier, I said:

"Look, it's not across the board. There will always be savagery; human nature is repulsive. But, on the whole, people tend to learn from the mistakes of the past, whatever they may be."

-ben

Sorry, forgot to answer this...

Your faith that war will become rarer as people are educated is simply odd to me. Why?

It wasn't about education. It was about people all over the world getting involved in the global market. In addition to having thier standards of living increase, they will have also gained an incentive to remain peaceful with their neighbors. (Thomas Friedman calls this "The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention").

Ben, really! ... Steel tarriffs and "affirmative action" aside, how do you account for the billions of other dollars spent on pork of various sorts? Farm ubsides and sugar tarriffs match your examples, and they only get stronger! This is a simple point from the founders: democracy fails when "the people" can vote themselves into other people's pocketbooks, and what is needed, therefore, is not mere rule by the majority, but limitation of power of the many. (This shouldn't be a surprise: good government always comes down to limitation of power, whether it is nobles, a king, or "the people" who rule.)

Finally: I never said abortion was a "recent phenomenon" or denied that "war has always existed." But how many abortions per capita were performed in the Middle Ages? How many non-combatants died in the average Western war in the Middle Ages? But why do I take the Middle Ages? Compared to us, ancient pagan Greece and Rome were better on both of these scales! What we really are unequivocally better at is 1) treatment of women and children, 2) toleration of religious diversity and free speech, and 3) technology and medicine. Good for us. But why do we have to be so jingoistic about our own age? Clearly we are worse in some ways too, and this you have simply refused to consider at all. I believe that is because you have absorbed the very deep seated progressive prejudice of our age. I don't mean that to insult you, I think everyone has because it's the way we are taught since grammar school.

how do you account for the billions of other dollars spent on pork of various sorts? Farm ubsides and sugar tarriffs match your examples, and they only get stronger!

I agree -- it's all nonsense! I want the Department of Agriculture do be closed. Perhaps I'm young and naive, but I honestly do believe that it is possible to get popular support on our side for issues like this, if we do the work of convincing others.

But how many abortions per capita were performed in the Middle Ages?

I really have no idea.

Compared to us, ancient pagan Greece and Rome were better on both of these scales!

Ehh -- I don't know about that. If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't uncommon for a disabled/deformed baby to be left outside to die. And the Greeks and Romans were vicious and barbaric in war; rape-and-pillage-extravaganza.

Clearly we are worse in some ways too, and this you have simply refused to consider at all.

I have considered it! To sum up all of my statements -- I believe we have gotten better in most ways, and worse in some. Is it that you feel we've gotten worse in most ways and better in only a few? I think that might be our disagreement.

"Ehh -- I don't know about that." If you don't know then it's because you haven't thought through modern warfare and "medical" technology. Greek/Roman exposure rate can't compare to our abortion rate. Raping and pilliaging can't compare to the WWII fire bombing.

And my point wqasn't that "we have gotten worse is most ways." My point was that if you want to call the Medievals moral cave men "in many ways" then we deserve the same. They did some terrible crap that we don't do, but the opposite is true, too, and our history books never mention that.

I think our disagreement just comes down to your willingness to MOSTLY buy into the progressive view of history, as described in my original point about liberalism: "2. They believe in historical progress, although sometimes it's being thwarted by evil people. Thus, old things have presumption against them and that moral standards of the past are always inferior, oppressive, dogmatic, as opposed to the enlightened and relativistic standards they endorse. This is really a belief in the moral evolution of the human species and a conviction that human problems are solvable in history."