PJM Political 10/2/10: Radical Conservatives, Then and Now
Tune in each Saturday to Sirus-XM’s POTUS channel (#110 on Sirius, #130 on XM) at (all times eastern) 6:00 am, 12:00 pm, 6:00 pm, and Sunday at midnight (also eastern time zone) for the weekly edition of PJ Media’s PJM Political.
If you missed this week’s show, click below to listen:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
(Want to download instead of streaming? Click here to download this week’s show. Or click here to download the lo-fi edition.)
Join host Stephen Green of VodkaPundit.com for a look at DC and beyond:
- Glenn Reynolds interviews Claire Berlinski of Richochet.com about her new book, There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters.
- Steve has five questions for James Lileks.
- Ed Driscoll interviews Michael Walsh, founding editor of Big Journalism.com and author of the new book Rules for Radical Conservatives: Beating the Left at Its Own Game to Take Back America, written under his David Kahane pseudonym. (Watch for a standalone version of this interview online shortly.)
- From PJTV’s Poliwood, Roger L. Simon and Lionel Chetwynd debate “Is Television Fueling a New Class System in America?”
- PJTV’s Joe Hicks brings listeners up to speed on the New Black Panthers case.
- Produced by Ed Driscoll.
If you missed any recent edition of PJM Political, click here and scroll through for hours of audio archives. And tune in to PJ Media’s PJTV.com for video coverage throughout the week. If you like what you see there, please consider subscribing to PJTV. Unlike the effectively state-run legacy media, alternative media needs reader and viewer support to flourish.
A question: Does Thatcher’s moral argument for the free market come at all from from Ayn Rand or exclusively from classical English liberalism? From what historical tradition(s). I suspect there will be more than one source.
Thank you.
Noesis Noeseos:
The idea that freedom begets prosperity and is itself a result of virtue is a very old one. For a historical map of this concept I suggest to read C.S. Lewis’ “Abolition of Man”. Forget Ayn Rand, please.
How on earth can anyone seriously talk about “radical conservatives”.
You’re either conservative, or you’re radical. You can’t be both, at least not on the same issue.
Forgive me if this sounds like word-play, but these really are terms that are being misused and abused, and it’s mangling rational debate.
Meanwhile: liberal does not mean socialist. Conservative does not mean fascist. Fascism and socialism aren’t the same thing, and they never were. No, hitler wasn’t a socialist (unless you want to want to play the same word game and accept that north korea is a “democratic people’s republic”). No, the environmental movement does not have its roots in nazism, and charles darwin did not cause the holocaust. No, animals do not have more rights than people, and obama is not a kenyan muslim.
Matthew, assertions are not arguments.
Take it up with a dictionary.
Matthew,
Hitler considered himself a socialist. I cut the rest.
“Hitler considered himself a socialist.”
MMmm, yeah right.
So … what part of the the workers’ control of means of production did he implement? Which part of the equal rights principle did he put in place first? The whole “international socialist revolution” – where was he on that? Was he much of an enemy of private property? You know … socialist stuff.
Like I say – north korea considers itself democratic. Word games don’t cut it.
Hitler said all sorts of things when he was on the way up. He was playing to the crowd. Lets judge the guy on what he actually did.
Michael,
Fair enough, let’s do just that.
The anti-bourgeois language of the Nazis was consistent right to the end, incidentally. Robert Ley, the head of the Nazis’ Labor Front, wrote immediately after the Allies’ bombing of Dresden:
(From Frederick Taylor’s Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945.)
That doesn’t sound like crypto-conservative talk to me.
“Fair enough, let’s do just that.”
Care to explain where either of those references refutes anything I wrote?
“That doesn’t sound like crypto-conservative talk to me.”
I didn’t say the nazis were conservative. There was obviously nothing conservative about the nazis. They WERE radicals – they wanted to tear things down and replace them with something they liked better, and they were willing to kill people to do it. I agree – that’s not conservative. It’s also not liberal. Are they really the only two categories you’ve got to work with?
Fascism is quite clearly not just “extreme conservatism”. And communism is quite obviously not “extreme liberalism” (there was nothing “liberal” about stalinist russia or maoist china) . What’s really depressing is that the debate has been dumbed down so much that it’s even necessary to explain that.
I maintain that there is no such thing as “radical conservatism”.
Matthew,
“Care to explain where either of those references refutes anything I wrote?”
Sure–you wrote in the comments below:
“Hitler considered himself a socialist — MMmm, yeah right.”
The links I posted are the Nazi’s original 25 points, many of which qualify as socialism in my book — they’re certainly anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, and collectivist:
The Reason article I linked to was a 2007 review of Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State, by Götz Aly, on the mammoth welfare state the National Socialists built for Germany and the territories it captured. Then there its corporatism when it comes to controlling big business, and the Gleichschaltung.
As far “radical conservatives” — take that up with the author; his email address is at Big Journalism, or post a comment to one of his many blog posts there. Certainly though, conservatives are called radical endlessly by the MSM. If you’re going to be called that, might as well live up to it — and employ a few of “Uncle Saul’s” tactics, as Walsh’s David Kahane call him. If the left can have its own “Rules for Radicals”, why not the right?
And
11 Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
12 In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13 We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14 We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15 We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16 We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
17 We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
19 We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
20 The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
21 The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
25 For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.
Matthew makes an interesting point about “radical conservative.” If “radical” means that you advocate revolutionary change, that would seem to be incompatible with preserving traditional values. However, I looked up the word “radical” in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, and found that it has more than one meaning.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical
Definition 3 is the one that relates to politics, and it’s subdivided into four shades of meaning: a, b, c, and d. Definitions 3a through 3c more or less match the idea of advocating revolutionary change, but definition 3d is “advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs.” And as an example, it offers “the radical right.” That sounds an awful lot like “radical conservative” to me.
““advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs.””
As opposed to, what – measured, reasonable measures? What “extreme” measures are really called for in the US? Border security? Nope, that’s not extreme. Trade reforms? Nope, not extreme at all. Cutting taxes doesn’t seem extreme to me. Paying off some of that public debt even seems like a good idea.
“And as an example, it offers “the radical right.” That sounds an awful lot like “radical conservative” to me.”
Not to me, it doesn’t. Only in the US do people see “the right” and “conservative” as quantitatively related. People who shave their heads, wave roman salutes around and chant “jews out” before beating up the nearest asian aren’t just slightly more edgy versions of people who frequent protestant churches and want less government spending. The closest thing the US has ever had to a “right” was the klan. Or, perhaps if you squint a bit, the more insane of the nation of islam crowd. Nobody in the US is (seriously) calling for a genuinely “right wing” government. Europe has had proper right-wing regimes, so has south america. There was nothing conservative any any of them.
One of the things about anne coulter that astonishes me is the way she proudly claims to be “right wing”. To me, that just indicates an appalling ignorance of what “right wing” actually means. Nobody in their right mind (which probably excludes anne coulter) would claim a thing like that. There is nothing “right wing” in america’s founding documents. Personally, I think that’s something you should be proud of.
I blame television. Apparently being conservative just isn’t hyperbolic enough (as if it ever could be) so talking heads had to cook up a SUPER conservative – and their stunted minds couldn’t think of a sensible way to express it, and they’d apparently never heard of franco or mussolini, so they settled on “the right”.
Likewise, the SUPER liberals (hedonists?) became “left wing” and “socialist”. Meanwhile, anybody with the vaguest familiarity with late-19th and 20th century history just has to roll their eyes.
In the context of Margaret Thatcher, I have always understood the “radical” bit to refer to methods and speed, rather than to the vision itself.
Mrs Thatcher was a “radical” in how fast, and decisively, she moved Britain towards conservative principles, rather than just doing it carefully, gradually, afraid of upsetting things or people too much.
Nice summation. Comments 2 through 5 should take note.
It’s truly saddening that people like Reagan, Churchill, and Thatcher didn’t leave any disciples in power, or in the ivy league institutions of higher education.
Then, rather than calling her “conservative”, how about calling her a “free market reformer”? Why does everything have to come down to a simple dichotomy? Gorbachev was also a reformer – was he conservative? How about yeltsin?
Rather than seeing it as a question of not being afraid to “upset things or people too much”, how about “not destroying her own country’s manufacturing industry and small business sector”? It’s possible to implement labor reforms, privatize state industries and cut spending without bringing the house down. Other countries have done it (and were doing it at that time). Thatcher’s problem is that she WANTED the conflict. Look at the flamin’ poll tax for an example. It was a stupid idea. It was obviously unfair. Did she just admit it and change the plan? Nope – she sent the police in. Conflict had worked well for her politically in the past, but she miscalculated that one found herself in the exit lounge. Can you imagine reagan proposing a national tax on the number of people living in a house, regardless of income or value?
Thatcher was headed in the right direction, but she really botched the implementation. I don’t think she was conservative – she was an ideologue. But, then, I guess it was an age for those. I’d be less keen to adopt someone like that as my idol.
Just to top off her career – what did she do after leaving office? Of all the jobs she would have been offered, she chose working for the tobacco industry. Possibly the single most unethical (but legal) industry in history.
If the ‘Poll Tax’ irritates you, then Obama’s entire agenda should be driving you insane.
P.S. Politicians aren’t perfect, but, maybe you have an example of one that is?
“If the ‘Poll Tax’ irritates you, then Obama’s entire agenda should be driving you insane.”
That’s a really detailed statement, rich with information and argument. I just don’t know where to start.
“P.S. Politicians aren’t perfect, but, maybe you have an example of one that is?”
Is that it? Don’t set the bar too high, there. Can you think of any politician throughout history that can CAN’T apply that reasoning to? In any case – it’s got nothing to do with what I was posting, or the point of the thread.
Go for it!!!!!!
Great arguments fellas, definitely some top shelf thinking going on.
But on the simpler side, the Conservative/liberal – Facist/communist arguement is most often watered down to its lowest understandable formulas.
They seem to most people, to be opposites. Extreems at opposite ends of the political spectrum that eventually cause horror and subjugation. Each political camp that is “slightly off center” one way or the other accuses the opposite of dragging us all toward the slippery slope of doom that is the “natural end” of their philosophy.
Liberals are commies,(the argument goes) because they support unions and strikers, redistribution of wealth through high taxation, and nationalization of undustries. They are goodless heathens that smoke dope and have no morals, thus they support the idea of an all powerful nanny state controlling everything, because THEY will (they think) benefit from socialized medicine, housing, tuition, etc etc. while their pet versions of social norms become “toleration enforced” by the state that just happens to believe as they do. They are against capital punishment because consequences for actions are too harsh a concept for them. They are weak and silly, and would create a government that is a floundering failure at everything because their vision of man, and the world, is not “normal”.
The government would then, being a failure, lash out at the people to hide its failure, and we would have death camps for all that speak out for freedom.
Conservatives are Facists, (the argument goes) because they are selfish uptight racists who dont want to share anything. They are bible thumping hyper patriots that cant ever simply relax and have a good time. They insist everyone behave like them, because then all people of “worth” would be able to keep what is theirs. Prosperity would abound for those that “work for it” while the poor will have to just suck it up. They are poor because they dont behave like proper disciplined facists. They support a strong, militaristic government because it reflects their positive view of strength and disipline, with capital punishment as a deserved consequence for “undisciplined” behavior. They are angry, violent people that dislike those who dont look like them. If allowed to rule, basic things freedoms of expression, simple charity, and concern for the environment would morph into an all powerful system of cold, calulating insiders that cannot effectively rule because their vision of man, and the world,is not “normal”.
The government would then, being a failure, lash out at the people to hide its failure, and we would have death camps for all that speak out for freedom.
Both sides (the argument goes) see the other as unreasonable in their beliefs, and thus would be unable to prevent the slide into the abyss that awaits us all if we implement too many of their ideas.
Hippie liberal commie in a Che’ T-shirt vs Uptight closet nazi racist.
Right or wrong, the nice, simple, linear argument is how MOST people view it