What does the American Conservative stand for anymore?

[FriendlyFire]

Of course, one of the first things that the Confederacy did was impose their own protectionist tariffs.

and the largest market for the Confederacy blockaid runners / smugglers was the NORTH
Also nobody know why the American civil war started, it was probably Obama's fault /s

 

[Zkribbler]

Or about national tariffs between states ?

AFAIK the US had at that time not yet a Single Market for the states.

That was one ot the motivations to jettison the Articles of Confederation and to replace it with the Constitution, esp. Art. IV, sec. 2 which begins: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, e.g. you can't slap tariffs on a Virginian but not on your own residents.

 

[Hrothbern]

That was one ot the motivations to jettison the Articles of Confederation and to replace it with the Constitution, esp. Art. IV, sec. 2 which begins: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, e.g. you can't slap tariffs on a Virginian but not on your own residents.

I guess that constitution Article was the big change, to get a big "equaliser"..

Here from 1987, from Cato (yes I know... the Koch brothers... but still) an article on how much state governments still used all kinds of hurdles to the disadvantage of a US single market and to the advantage of (especially) small minority interests within their state. Economical minority interests that can difficult change business pressing hardest (farmers, minerals, etc).
Perhaps also important to be aware that interstate trade is very big in the US compared to the total GDP of the US (which is obvious to happen with any country that you would split up in 50 units with "borders", and measure trade across those "borders")
I guess Governors of states will do anything not forbidden by federal law to give benefits to lobby groups from their own states that are important to their re-election, whether positive or negative for the average citizen of their state or the US.
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1987/1/cj6n3-6.pdf



I think tariffs, even if only applied to international trade (Trump), will have a very uneven impact between states.
The last attack of Trump on India is retalliated by India by higher tariffs on US almonds (India buys 50% of the US almonds production). From the top of my head that is mainly impacting California. Apples (Washington) another uneven impact.

Common sense would dictate that you do not want to be too volatile in changing tariffs all the time (allowing companies and farmers to have reliable forecasting of marketable volumes, allowing investments and jobs not at risk of destruction).

Trump is anything but reliable and steady... he is unpredictable volatile.
But still... I do think that building those trade walls is a kind of inevitable strategy to protect the domestic economy of the US.

I think you can only promote on a global scale radical free market trade if you are the country that outperforms any other country in efficiency.
The US was not in that position when the UK was (and erected high international trade walls in the 19th century).
The US has been in that "on-top" position from WW1 until 2000.
Now it is China, and in its tail Vietnam etc, that are the most effective low cost producers for the full range of tech levels, and erecting walls is the obvious defense
(until China is as expensive from increasing wages as the US, but considering their Belt & Road initiative, China has for decades access to low labor cost in an integrated production and trade system).

 

[Patine]

Of course, one of the first things that the Confederacy did was impose their own protectionist tariffs.

And then they got embargoed, suffered the worst case of hyperinflation in the history of the Western Hemisphere, and then, the final nail in the coffin, the Khedive of Egypt took opportunistic advantage and lowered the price of Egyptian cotton exports (which didn't have the stain of slave labour), and the Confederacy was economically doomed, which would have probably meant that, Turtledove and other alternate history authors (who never mention or acknowledge these issues), it would probably still have not been a viable nation for long at all even if it had secured independence on the field, and would have collapsed into anarchy for economic reasons or had to go begging for re-annexation to the U.S. - or the British Empire.

 

[Lexicus]

Was that about international trading tariffs ?

Or about national tariffs between states ?

AFAIK the US had at that time not yet a Single Market for the states.

Federal tariffs favoring northern industry over southern ag production. Europe wanted southern crops and the south wanted European manufacturing and the north wanted to cut out Europe. SC threatened to secede back in the 1820s over tariffs, thats why Europe was more sympathetic to the South in spite of slavery.

The "single market" between the states was established by the Federal constitution. It was during the Articles of Confederation, the brief ill-fated experiment with confederation, that the states did not have a "single market."

The Southern economy, as you know, was built on exporting cash crops harvested by slave labor. Those crops and the forex value derived from them were the main driver of the US economy at that time. Free trade allowed the Southern aristocrats to achieve favorable terms for importing manufactured goods from Europe (mostly England). The north wanted to protect nascent northern industry from competition against the more advanced British industry.

The victory of the Republicans and the secession of the Southern states (which removed most of the pro-free-trade bloc from any position of influence in US politics) allowed the Republicans to pursue a revolutionary policy of industrial development which resulted in the United States becoming the most powerful Western country some fifty years after the Civil War.

While Berzerker implies a straight line from the nullification crisis of the 1830s (not the 1820s) over tariffs (South Carolina declared the federal tariff unconstitutional and null and void within the boundaries of the state after Andrew Jackson failed to end the tariffs as he had been expected to) to the Civil War, the nullification crisis happened thirty years before the Civil War and was not a particularly important event in the lead-up to war. Far more important were the issues of slavery expanding into the western territories and the enforcement of the law of slavery in the free northern states (see the Fugitive Slave Act, part of the Compromise of 1850, and the Dred Scott Supreme Court case, which effectively exploded that compromise). The Dred Scott case created the fear in the voters of the free states that Lincoln explained in his "House Divided" speech of 1858: "We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State."

This growing realization that the Slave Power had to be confronted, that it would not stop until the Northern states were slave states, is what led to the "political revolution" of the Republican Party's victory, which was - correctly - perceived as an existential threat by the Southern aristocrats.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

While the nullification crisis may not have a been a direct predecessor to succession, it seems to have created the quasi-legal framework they would use later on in their efforts to protect slaveowner rights and later secede. My fear for today is that even should the Democrats win in 2020, the tactics being employed now to take over the government will continue to be used and refined until the coup is complete or there is a more general crisis and breakdown of the government.

And it's not even that I'm banking on the Republicans destroying the republic with these tactics. Things are so unstable that I could see the Democrats stealing SCOTUS appointments, ignoring congress, declaring crisis to steal funds and otherwise using these tactics to reach their policy goals in ways that take apart the country the next time they have the opportunity. And at this point I'd practically be rooting for them to do so.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't think the infrastructure, physical or political, exists for disunion along state lines as happened in the Civil War. Far more likely is the sort of insurgency that will drastically decrease living standards across much of the country.

 

[Berzerker]

and the largest market for the Confederacy blockaid runners / smugglers was the NORTH. Also nobody know why the American civil war started, it was probably Obama's fault /s

Lincoln was the protectionist, not Obama

 

[Patine]

Lincoln was the protectionist, not Obama

The Civil War was not Lincoln's fault. The secessions of the Southern States used his election as an excuse, but the divisions between North and South were so entrenched and the bitterness so palpable that even had Lincoln died riding home from that debate in his failed Senate run against Stephen Douglas back in the 1850's, the Civil War would have still happened. In fact, given many of the other contenders for the Republican nomination in 1860 were even more radical, firebrand abolitionists, it might have been even nastier.

 

[Doug1943]

What is their platform? Do they have any ideas to fix any ills perceived or otherwise? We all know their immigration stance these days. Their moral stances are all over the place now though. Their trade and economic stance is troubled and murky now. Their cohesion on topics as basic as the rule of law are troubled.

What does the American Conservative believe in and is it splitting down libertarian/religious lines?

This article reminded that there really aren't any policies coming from the right on much of anything. They can't even agree on what ills actually exist in society which is why all they could pass last cycle was the most unpopular tax cut of all time.

Anyways it is an interesting read.

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/5/18637391/david-french-sohrab-ahmari-conservatism-libertarians-divide

During the Cold War, conservatism defined itself in its opposition to communism, and in the era of Trump, many conservatives appear to have defined themselves by their opposition to “the left” or liberalism more broadly, a phenomenon I’ve termed “reflexible anti-leftism.” But right now, many conservatives are talking and debating among themselves about what conservatism should be promoting, not just opposing, or, in the words of National Review founder William F. Buckley in 1955, “standing athwart, yelling stop.”

Should conservatism support a limited government, even if that puts nuclear families at risk? Should conservatism support free markets, even if that means people can readily buy pornography that saps their moral virtue? What would conservative victory, real, true victory, look like? Who would lose if Ahmarian conservatism or Carlsonian conservatism or any of the conservatisms won? What kind of moral compromises should conservatives make to win a cultural or political battle? Should conservatism aim to persuade liberals or inoculate conservatives against liberalism? Should conservatism care what private citizens do in their bedrooms or boardrooms or places of worship?

The debate over libertarianism and conservatism, and over Ahmari and French, isn’t just about what conservatives believe. It’s about what conservatism is.

A very interesting and thoughtful post.
I'm just thinking out loud here -- so if after reading replies, if any, and further thought, I change my mind ... well, that's what people do.

I suggest that what we call 'conservatism' in the US is actually 'civilizationism'.

It's a commonplace that conservatism, like liberalism (I mean 'liberalism' as the term is used in the US today), is a disposition, not an ideology. The disposition is a distaste for radical change, especially that based on a set of abstractions, or a Grand Plan to create Heaven-on-Earth.

It's not even a belief or set of beliefs -- in the sense of a set of propositions with truth-claims -- so much as it is a deep appreciation of what holds society together, and allows it to evolve to meet the inevitable changes that occur because of technological/economic progress. Along with this appreciation is a skepticism about human nature.

I would submit that conservatism is NOT primarily about a particular set of economic arrangements. Two 'conservatives', properly so called, can exist fairly far apart on the spectrum of attitudes towards government intervention in the economy and society. They can exist at opposite poles with respect to belief in a supernatural power, or even in a belief in a transcendent order. One can be a neo-con with respect to foreign policy, the other a non-interventionist.

Their disagreements on the rule of law, the importance of humane learning, the desirability of personal liberty being the default view, the importance of the family for the transmission of decent social values, the superiority of Mozart over rap music, will be slight.

I would appreciate any comments. I believe the current disputes among conservatives reflect a profound shift going on in the very foundations of American society, like the supposed alarm among birds just before a major earthquake.



There is much more to be said.

 

[Doug1943]

Conservatives are a coalition of folks that believe in these things:

• Cut taxes for the rich
• Raise military spending
• Cut social spending
• Evangelical Christian views should stand above all others
• Old, white men should lead the country to the exclusion of all others
• Enemies and wars are good things
• Change should be avoided or suppressed
• The role of non white people in government should be minimized
• Women cannot make decisions for themselves
• More guns will make this a better country
• Libruls are the enemy

And since 2016 they have added these:

• Lying by a president is an OK thing
• Ideology is more important than everything else including law and the constitution

I know quite a few conservatives, and i do not know a single one who believes most of these things. I could almost say any of these things. But i do know a few who might endorse raising military spending, although most I know are actually in the process of rethinking our mlitary role -- and military spending is a function of what our role should be. As for the rest ... pure fantasy.
In fact, it's a kind of ironic example of what some liberals accuse conservatives of: highly-oversimplified thinking, if that word can be applied here, and ... not to be personal ... dishonest characterization of one's political opponents. It actually parallels the sort of McCarthyite accusations made against liberals in the 1950s.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I know quite a few conservatives, and i do not know a single one who believes most of these things. I could almost say any of these things. But i do know a few who might endorse raising military spending, although most I know are actually in the process of rethinking our mlitary role -- and military spending is a function of what our role should be. As for the rest ... pure fantasy.
In fact, it's a kind of ironic example of what some liberals accuse conservatives of: highly-oversimplified thinking, if that word can be applied here, and ... not to be personal ... dishonest characterization of one's political opponents. It actually parallels the sort of McCarthyite accusations made against liberals in the 1950s.

So if that was "pure fantasy," what do YOU consider the tenets of the conservative platform?

 

[Socrates99]

I know quite a few conservatives, and i do not know a single one who believes most of these things. I could almost say any of these things. But i do know a few who might endorse raising military spending, although most I know are actually in the process of rethinking our mlitary role -- and military spending is a function of what our role should be. As for the rest ... pure fantasy.
In fact, it's a kind of ironic example of what some liberals accuse conservatives of: highly-oversimplified thinking, if that word can be applied here, and ... not to be personal ... dishonest characterization of one's political opponents. It actually parallels the sort of McCarthyite accusations made against liberals in the 1950s.

Pretty sure most of Birdjaguar's post was sarcasm. I would put forth the idea that a lot of it, even the most sarcastic parts, do apply to conservative politicians but not conservative voters. The joke is that that is what people vote for if they vote for Trump and the gop representatives that defend his corruption.

Democrat politicians and lefty voters also seem to want different things so it's not just conservatives. You'll see if a lot right here in this forum. Progressives do not like establishment dems like Biden, Pelosi, Schumer etc. Look up Hickenlooper or Delaney booed off stage if you want to see what I mean.

I think the difference is that liberals, at least here anyway, are way quicker to point out how awful team blue is than conservatives are to point out the flaws in team red. You'll frequently find conservatives bending over backwards to defend some pretty odious stuff while progressives are more than willing to dogpile on Democrats that suck.

 

[Estebonrober]

I know quite a few conservatives, and i do not know a single one who believes most of these things. I could almost say any of these things. But i do know a few who might endorse raising military spending, although most I know are actually in the process of rethinking our mlitary role -- and military spending is a function of what our role should be. As for the rest ... pure fantasy.
In fact, it's a kind of ironic example of what some liberals accuse conservatives of: highly-oversimplified thinking, if that word can be applied here, and ... not to be personal ... dishonest characterization of one's political opponents. It actually parallels the sort of McCarthyite accusations made against liberals in the 1950s.

My posit here is they don't stand for anything anymore, just so it is clear. One is as empty as the next when it comes to actual beliefs. Whatever gets their team to win.

 

[Estebonrober]

A very interesting and thoughtful post.
I'm just thinking out loud here -- so if after reading replies, if any, and further thought, I change my mind ... well, that's what people do.

I suggest that what we call 'conservatism' in the US is actually 'civilizationism'.

It's a commonplace that conservatism, like liberalism (I mean 'liberalism' as the term is used in the US today), is a disposition, not an ideology. The disposition is a distaste for radical change, especially that based on a set of abstractions, or a Grand Plan to create Heaven-on-Earth.

It's not even a belief or set of beliefs -- in the sense of a set of propositions with truth-claims -- so much as it is a deep appreciation of what holds society together, and allows it to evolve to meet the inevitable changes that occur because of technological/economic progress. Along with this appreciation is a skepticism about human nature.

I would submit that conservatism is NOT primarily about a particular set of economic arrangements. Two 'conservatives', properly so called, can exist fairly far apart on the spectrum of attitudes towards government intervention in the economy and society. They can exist at opposite poles with respect to belief in a supernatural power, or even in a belief in a transcendent order. One can be a neo-con with respect to foreign policy, the other a non-interventionist.

Their disagreements on the rule of law, the importance of humane learning, the desirability of personal liberty being the default view, the importance of the family for the transmission of decent social values, the superiority of Mozart over rap music, will be slight.

I would appreciate any comments. I believe the current disputes among conservatives reflect a profound shift going on in the very foundations of American society, like the supposed alarm among birds just before a major earthquake.



There is much more to be said.

Sounds like an @Mouthwash reactionary conservative sort of take.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Lincoln was the protectionist, not Obama

Make America 1861 Again /s
Lincoln totally forced the South to embargo the export of all Cotton to Great Britain. Linlcon personally set fire to 2.5 Mil bales of cotton /s
I also find it ironic that the Confederacy enacted tariffs on the North, because why not ?

The economy of the United States in Lincoln’s time was very different than it is today
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...of-abraham-lincoln-i-call-foul/?noredirect=on

 

[Lexicus]

'civilizationism'.

The White Man's Burden right?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Weird because where I'm standing conservatism and conservatives seem to be putting a lot of effort into making things worse for people.

 

[Patine]

A very interesting and thoughtful post.
I'm just thinking out loud here -- so if after reading replies, if any, and further thought, I change my mind ... well, that's what people do.

I suggest that what we call 'conservatism' in the US is actually 'civilizationism'.

It's a commonplace that conservatism, like liberalism (I mean 'liberalism' as the term is used in the US today), is a disposition, not an ideology. The disposition is a distaste for radical change, especially that based on a set of abstractions, or a Grand Plan to create Heaven-on-Earth.

It's not even a belief or set of beliefs -- in the sense of a set of propositions with truth-claims -- so much as it is a deep appreciation of what holds society together, and allows it to evolve to meet the inevitable changes that occur because of technological/economic progress. Along with this appreciation is a skepticism about human nature.

I would submit that conservatism is NOT primarily about a particular set of economic arrangements. Two 'conservatives', properly so called, can exist fairly far apart on the spectrum of attitudes towards government intervention in the economy and society. They can exist at opposite poles with respect to belief in a supernatural power, or even in a belief in a transcendent order. One can be a neo-con with respect to foreign policy, the other a non-interventionist.

Their disagreements on the rule of law, the importance of humane learning, the desirability of personal liberty being the default view, the importance of the family for the transmission of decent social values, the superiority of Mozart over rap music, will be slight.

I would appreciate any comments. I believe the current disputes among conservatives reflect a profound shift going on in the very foundations of American society, like the supposed alarm among birds just before a major earthquake.



There is much more to be said.

That sounds like an attempt at real "man on the mountain," type stuff. Unfortunately, I don't buy it. "Mystifying" mundane socio-political and economic stances, which are all, in large part, cobbles of choice elements of past similar movements still deemed "viable," mixed with pragmatic compromises and cuts, dressing of rougher-edged ideas, innovations - some workable, some jarring, some outright failures - and a fair share of two-faced hypocrisy to enable emulating tactics of opposition that is, in pure ideological sense, repugnant, but whose usage is deemed necessary, and topped off with a shedding of basic ethics to allow unscrupulous electability, is just complete balderdash. Especially as you make this "mystified" view of Conservative look timeless, when the many different takes on Conservativism, like the many different takes on all the bigger, more wide-spread ideologies, are highly defined by context of both place and time.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I'm a conservative. I want to conserve this planet, its wildlife, its trees, its coral reefs, and, ultimately, I even want to save the very people wgho are engineering the downfall of this planet due to their actions. anyone want to found a conservative party with me?