Many Types of Conservatives?

You and I are pretty much seeing eye-to-eye. The economic is the base, with defense and social following in order, but they do work hand in hand.

I figured you and a few others would see eye to eye with me on that. I tend to see social issues as more effectively handled by getting the government out completely, rather than having the state switch to our side. Yes, a few social issues are state issues (such as an official language, and a few social issues which are also criminal issues), but most can be very effectively handled by society at large if the state would just stay out of it.

The "conservative" tent could use more libertarians. They are usually more economically conservative.

The Paulites and their ilk belong in the yard, though.

It has been a while since I wrote about Ron Paul, but I agree his particular variety of libertarianism is a bit off.

I also think some of the libertarians get a bit distracted by their dogma and miss the big picture. For example, those who are just too vocal about drug legalization. Whether or not it is a good idea, it is a losing proposition to emphasize that position too much. And there are much more important issues.

But, yes, in general I think we need to incorporate small government and economic libertarianism as essential components of the definition of conservative. Otherwise we end up with big government, big spending, omnipotent government types claiming they are conservative because they would ban abortion and enforce Christian morality with the big government they would create.

I agree with your premise that conservative cannot stand as a catch-all phrase, as it is sometimes misused today. The Republican Party is the current political home for most conservatives of varying stripes, but it is becoming increasingly balkanized as time passes. Not to the same degree as the Democratic Party, of course. The Republican Party will lose membership, though, if it remains on it's current course. The party is currently run almost exclusively by the economic conservatives, with an overlap into the defense conservatives. The social conservatives and the Constitutional conservatives are being squeezed out of the party. When that happens in full force, the Republican Party will just be the Grand 'Ol...and the Party will be over.

As an admirer of Pat Buchanan's and Ron Paul's brand of conservatism, I'll take a stab at analyzing the current state of conservatism.

Not all, but too many, economic conservatives seem to view the United States as an economy, and not a nation. While I'm certainly in favor of lower taxes, flatter income tax rates and lower corporate tax rates, I also see a disturbing skew of policies and regulations to favor large corporations, banks, investors and other "money movers" to the point of making it very difficult on small and medium-sized businesses and farms to exist in this country. Large corporations can farm out manufacturing overseas for rock-bottom payroll costs, while small and medium companies in the U.S. cannot do the same. Trade policies need to mirror those of the trading partner. We get the short end of free trade and it has ballooned Wall Street and enriched many U.S.-based major corporations...but it has not strengthened our nation. What happens when most of our manufacturing is done overseas...when most of food is grown overseas...when most of our technology is produced overseas...when most of our fuel comes from overseas...when most of debt is held by not-so-friendly governments overseas? We will be largely at the mercy of the rest of the world. We are on our way now, and how good has it been for this nation? The economy is a shambles. Only those wealthy enough to be recession-proof aren't feeling it hard.

Ia am sure this will overlap with your other post, but please go ahead. I am interested in what you see as the direction the Republican party should take.

As you may gather form earlier posts, I am not an admirer of Ron Paul (though I once was, in the 1980's), nor do I agree with Buchanan's protectionist tendencies.

However, I am open to argument on this matter, so please go ahead.

I will wait for you to finish before posting any more responses.

And, as I don't recall your name appearing on my blog before, welcome to the blog. I look forward to seeing what you have to say.

Not all, but too many, economic conservatives seem to view the United States as an economy, and not a nation. While I'm certainly in favor of lower taxes, flatter income tax rates and lower corporate tax rates, I also see a disturbing skew of policies and regulations to favor large corporations, banks, investors and other "money movers" to the point of making it very difficult on small and medium-sized businesses and farms to exist in this country. Large corporations can farm out manufacturing overseas for rock-bottom payroll costs, while small and medium companies in the U.S. cannot do the same. Trade policies need to mirror those of the trading partner. We get the short end of free trade and it has ballooned Wall Street and enriched many U.S.-based major corporations...but it has not strengthened our nation. What happens when most of our manufacturing is done overseas...when most of food is grown overseas...when most of our technology is produced overseas...when most of our fuel comes from overseas...when most of debt is held by not-so-friendly governments overseas? We will be largely at the mercy of the rest of the world. We are on our way now, and how good has it been for this nation? The economy is a shambles. Only those wealthy enough to be recession-proof aren't feeling it hard.

I don't think the Buchanan crowd is pushing hard-core protectionism or isolationism. They are just looking to restore some balance to our business climate in this country, especially more equitable trade policy. The Ron Paul crowd is probably more inclined to go for a true free market economy, but only if the banking system is overhauled and the money is held and backed by the government...and not the largely private Federal Reserve System. I'm in the middle of those two camps, because I do see the need for some regulation. We are living with the results of what happens when you let the bankers and money-movers rule the roost. Greed always gets the best of them. By the way, both Buchanan and Paul are for significantly shrinking the size and scope of federal government.

As far as defense, neither Pat Buchanan nor Ron Paul advocates a weak defense. In fact, both favor a very strong military that is feared by the rogues of the world and is only to be used in full force...and not in it's current watered down global police force fashion for which it was never intended. The Founding Fathers warned of long-term alliances and entanglements. I don't think they would approve of our current Middle East policy and would most certainly want us to throttle back on our relationship with Israel. An Ally is a good thing. A "special relationship" leads to misunderstandings.

Social conservatives do play an important role, in my opinion. While I'm not a holy-roller, I do see this country is off-track morally and the trickle down has hurt the country. Too much crime, too much greed, too much self-promotion and too casual of an attitude towards the sanctity of human life. A lot of these social conservatives are still very jingoistic and supply the military with much of it's manpower. Once the nation is debauched to the point where the social conservatives deem it not worth defending anymore, there will be trouble.

Some of this sounds more doom and gloom than I'm actually feeling about conservatism and the health of the nation, but I do see disturbing trends that need to be reversed. The United States of America does not have to last forever. The Roman Empire fell. The British Empire fell. If we don't restore the "three-legged stool of conservatism" to where all three legs have an equal role to play...it will all come crashing down upon us. The Democrats will run the nation into ruin.

I apologize for such a long post, but your well-thought position deserved a complete answer.

There are some errors in your economics, so I will address those first.

First, it is a myth that we need a "level playing field" for foreign trade to be beneficial. Actually if a foreign government subsidizes their exports, it means American consumers get them cheaper, so it is as if that state sent us money. How does that harm us? I know the theory is they will undercut our industry, drive them out of business, then raise prices. But should they do that, they would simply set the stage for a renewed industry in our nation, so it doesn't really make sense.

As you posted this, after I wrote a bit about "exploiting" labor, I think I may have to post something longer about the whole area of foreign trade.

Second problem is that you claim big companies are outsourcing, and killing small companies. In reality, companies of all sizes outsource, so it is not a "big" vs "small" issue at all.

Third, I have preciously addressed the scare over foreign holding of debt and investing in stocks. It just does not pose a real threat. You can read what I wrote on stocks here:

http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2008/04/06/really_silly_fea rs.thtml

If you want, you can tell me how foreign holding of debt threatens us, but I just don't see it. What exactly is China going to do with t-bills that will harm the US?

Fourth, I think you are simply wrong to say that most food is grown overseas. Yes, we import some food, but we are a net exporter of food. To claim we have inadequate food production is just absurd when the government is paying farmers not to produce.

Continues...

Continuing...

Lastly, though much is produced overseas, it is not a threat. Were some country to try to prevent us from getting steel, it would raise prices and cause a domestic industry to arise. You seem to think industry is fixed and must always exist where it is. If China or Japan won't sell us steel, then investors will fund domestic steel production. I just can't see why protectionists think there is some inability to start industry here. Only unions and bad policies make it cheaper to do so overseas. If prices rise, then it will be profitable here.

Having dealt with economic problems, I will now address your opening comment, that economic conservatives deal only with economics. Your entire post is economics. But yours is about protecting domestic industries against more efficient competitors.

The arguments against autarchy are numerous and go back to Bastiat in the 19th century, but I am a bit pressed for time at the moment.

Let me just start with a simple point: You are viewing things solely as a producer. You are both a producer and consumer. Protectionism always makes that crucial error of looking at only one side of the equation yet calling their opponents "blind".

As I said, strapped for time, and even more so now. I am going to sit down and write on protectionism either tonight or tomorrow. And I promise it will be a bit more comprehensive than these necessarily terse notes.

If you have written more, I will also read that tonight and try to reply more properly. I am afraid I have little time right now. and I do want to give a proper answer, so I will reply when I have a bit more time to elaborate.

If I sound a bit confrontational, I apologize. It is simply the result of writing quickly, not any intention to be rude. Sorry if I came across as more disagreeable than usual.

As I said, I will be writing a better reply when I have time, and I will address the issues you raised. As you are espousing a position which I have heard (if not quite as elaborately presented) from others, I think I should devote some time to explaining where I differ with you.

I will try to get it done tonight. If not, I should have some sort of reply tomorrow.

Thanks. I'm pressed for time, as well. I'm open to all points of view and am open-minded enough to concede my views aren't always the best views and I'm always open to a better way.

By the way, most of my examples are worst case scenarios over time. They don't all have to occur, and some are not dire at the moment.

We likely see eye to eye on many issues. I'll check in tomorrow.