∙ Ex: how much concrete do we need nationally?

∙ Thought government was going to keep getting bigger… ∙ Asked: Why better writing?

But what does personal observation count in the face of the great think tanks’ official authority?

18/23 “What is Left?” What is Right?” The American Conservative, 2006 http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/what-is-left-what-is right/ Liberal:  ∙ Big Government ∙ More economic regulation/intervention/redistribution ∙ CulWe also discuss several other topics like aeb uf
We also discuss several other topics like usc geography
We also discuss several other topics like the school of behaviorism attempted to explain behavior by studying
Don't forget about the age old question of unr health insurance
Don't forget about the age old question of which term refers to the biological distinction between females and males?
If you want to learn more check out uab sleep study
turally tolerant  ∙ Apathetic to traditions Classical Liberal: (John Locke, Edmond Burke, Montesquieu)  ∙ Limited government  Conservative: ∙ Free market/limited government ---- Cannot go ∙ Traditional values ---- back before  ∙ Constitutional originals  ∙ Strong military ---- 1950s  ∙ “Three-legged stool”  Anti War Community = America’s 1st Origins Ideological Inclinations  ∙ Demographic ∙ James Hunter: Right-Left based on fundamental views of reality  “Orthodox” or “Progressive”  ∙ “Orthodox” values  permanent, fixed meanings, sciences… not  going to be able to change them  ∙ “Progressive”  human, up to you Context Dependent  ∙ “Permanent Things” Left: ∙ Socialist ∙ Statist ∙ Equality (Noberto Babbio) Right: ∙ Capitalist ∙ Antistatists 2∙ Something over it instead 1. Freedom 2. Religious Traditions 3. Strong communities  4. Military Might 5. Racial supremacy  Andrew J. Bacevich In a foreign-policy context, “liberal” and “conservative”  don’t have any real meaning and never have. When it  comes to statecraft, the operative dichotomy does not  pit Left against Right, realists against idealists, or (as  President Bush has fraudulently argued) isolationists  against those committed to engagement and leadership. The real divide today occurs between those who buy  into the myths of the American Century and those who  see those myths for what they are: once useful  contrivances that have become a source of self-delusion  endangering the national interest. American exceptionalism is a delusion. The beginning of wisdom in foreign policy lies in seeing ourselves as we  really are and in acknowledging our responsibility for  the mess in which we find ourselves, in Iraq and  elsewhere. When it comes to extricating ourselves from  that mess, the first order of business is to clean up our  own act. Principled liberals and authentic conservatives  will disagree on how best to do so, but that surely is a  debate worth having. Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and  international relations at Boston University. Jeremy Beer The tragedy is that the conservative movement cannot  take credit for this groundswell of conservative feeling —not here nor, I suspect, anywhere else. These small,  local, civic groups, all of them trying to protect goods  3necessary to human flourishing, do not appeal to the  conservative tradition in making their cases, nor do they attract (for the most part) right-wingers to their causes.  The more self-conscious today’s conservative man is of  his conservatism, the more likely he is to be suspicious  of such organizations. He has been taught to think in  terms of ideological abstractions. Say the word  “conservation” or, heaven help you, “sustainability,” and he merely flips to the flash card in his head marked  “Environmentalism: Bad.” Appeal to tradition or  inherited rights, and he reminds you that, In This Time  of War, Sacrifices Must Be Made. And, besides being the price of capitalist progress, he has been assured that  studies actually show Wal-Mart is good for communities; meanwhile, his own town has lost, oh, half a dozen or  more locally owned businesses since the Smiley Face  moved in ten miles down the road, finishing the  community-killing work started by the federal purse and the federal bulldozer. But what does personal  observation count in the face of the great think tanks’  official authority? The conservers, preservers, savers, and protectors— conservatism once stood for such folks, and such folks  were at one time conservatives. But they make bad  apparatchiks. They aren’t ideologically motivated and  aren’t “thinking big.” They are simply concerned, if  often locally prominent, citizens. They may also be  sentimental saps, but that’s understandable. As  normally functioning human beings, they have formed  dear attachments to their social and physical worlds.  They like their communities, want to see them thrive  and prosper, want to see them made or kept beautiful,  want to preserve (or reinvigorate) their sense of their  places as unique, and prefer to interact daily with  people they know and love—or even hate. 4If there is ever to be truth in our political labeling, we  need conservatives who will go home, or at least make  homes somewhere, conservatives who will abjure  Washington and New York and pick up the struggle in  their own burgs to help (re-)build real communities,  work to conserve the land and its resources, and ally  with their naturally like-minded brethren in order to  revive—locally—the religious and historic traditions that might sustain us. In fact, those are the only  conservatives we need. Jeremy Beer is editor in chief of ISI Books and editor,  with Bruce Frohnen and Jeffrey O. Nelson, of American  Conservatism: An Encyclopedia. Austin Bramwell Is the conservative movement “conservative”? The  answer in each case is “yes and no,” or more accurately, “neither yes nor no.” The conservative movement does remain at least  recognizably right-wing. Its alliance with the Bush  administration, however, has made it less so.  “Compassionate conservatism”; “no child left behind”;  “America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are  now one”; “Freedom is on the march”; “When somebody hurts, government has got to move”: each slogan  reveals a man determined to do what is right and to  leave the rest to the Lord. Sadly, rather than reject this  attitude, some in the conservative movement have  adopted it as their own. In their minds, for example, the ideals that motivate Bush’s Iraq policy justify them  absolutely. More often, however, the conservative movement’s  support for the Bush administration has had subtler  effects. Embarrassed by the apparent failure of the Iraq  venture, moderate Bush supporters acknowledge the  5difficulties but argue that the situation in Iraq is neither rosy nor grim and that, with this or that change in  policy, it may even turn out for the better. Maybe so.  Surely, however, not all outcomes are equally likely.  Rather than set forth assumptions about what actually  drives events in Iraq, pro-Bush conservatives prefer to  surround their recommendations in a thicket of  “mights,” “perhaps,” “coulds” and “ifs.” When  describing the ultimate aim of the Iraq occupation, by  contrast, their words become suddenly clarion: “the  stakes are high, “the terrorists must be defeated,”  “victory is in sight.” The rhetorical shift is telling.  Rather than feeling responsible for the consequences of its actions, it may be that the conservative movement  today, in Weber’s words, “feels responsible only for  seeing to it that the flame of pure intentions is not  quelched.” One may think of this attitude what one will.  It is not, however, right-wing. Austin Bramwell is a lawyer in New York City. Patrick J. Buchanan Still “conservative” remains a respected term and the  right term for those who devote their lives to family,  faith, community, and country. We ought not give up our good name to cross-dressers. As for Left and Right, they retain much of the meaning they have had since the  French Revolution. And we are of the Vendée. The rising casualties and soaring costs of an  unnecessary war in Iraq, an overstretched military,  immense trade deficits that must bring down the dollar,  the loss of sovereignty and economic independence, a  bloated federal bureaucracy to which Bushites have  added as much as LBJ, an unresisted invasion over our  southern border, the selling of the party of Reagan to  the money power—all are the marks of an empire at the  end of its tether. 6What can save this Republic is the restoration of  authentic values and policies of conservatism, imposed  at some cost and hardship upon a people who may have  lost the capacity and belief in the need to sacrifice to  save what their fathers gave them. Conservatives have seen their movement hijacked by  ideological vagabonds and hustlers who are redefining  it to mean what it never meant. We need to find who  sold the pass. Before we can take back our country, we  must take back our movement. John Derbyshire The terms “liberal” and “conservative” are only useful  as a first approximation. If you tell me you are a liberal  or a conservative, I have information about you I did not have before. Much of it is probabilistic: a conservative is more likely to be a churchgoer than a liberal, though  there are liberal churchgoers and conservative atheists. A liberal is a person more inclined to get angry about  inequalities in society; a conservative, about restraints  on freely-willed actions that are not indisputably  harmful. Going a bit deeper, conservatives are those who are  pessimistic about the prospects for human nature and  society. This is most obviously the case with romantic  conservatives like Winston Churchill, who “preferred  the past to the present and the present to the future,”  and George Orwell, who “loved the past, hated the  present, and dreaded the future.” Even a distinctly  unromantic conservative like Dr. Johnson “laughed at  schemes of political improvement,” though. In the U.S.,  where an optimistic attitude is more or less compulsory, all this is masked with a lot of uplifting squid ink like  7our current—not, in my opinion, very conservative— president’s professed belief that “the desire for freedom is inscribed on every human heart,” a thing that is  obviously false. True conservatives everywhere,  however, even in America, know that we are doomed,  doomed. If that is right, I would guess that liberals have more  strength in their socialization module. They are more  focused on co-operative action, group values, leveling,  assigning importance to subgroups. Conservatives are  stronger in the status module, not minding that some  individuals stand above others and emphasizing  individual action to enhance status. As I recall, the terms “left” and “right” started off in the French National Assembly during the run-up to that  nation’s revolution. Those who favored equality for all  under the law sat on the speaker’s left; those who  thought that some people (nobles, churchmen) should  continue to have privileged status in law sat on the  right. Similarly with fascism, to the degree that it is a  coherent political philosophy and not just an excuse for  a gangster free-for-all. State power is an important  feature of fascist nations, and that ought to count  against fascism being a Right phenomenon, since strong centralized states were traditional enemies of both  church and nobility and all secondary power centers.  You can in fact make a case that fascism, which gives  equality of rights to all in the group, with much magnified awareness of and hostility towards other  groups, is the “socialization module” run amok and  therefore hyper-leftist. If you track things back to  source, though, giving more rights to this group and  fewer to that group is Right according to the original  8Assembly seating arrangement, so that the popular  conception of fascism as a Right pathology has a lot to  be said for it. This comes up in the context of globalization. In one  aspect, it is certainly Left, an evolution from that  original notion of equality under the law to the  proposition that it is wrong for Americans to favor their  fellow Americans over foreigners in any way. Probably  several million Americans believe that citizenship is a  racist concept. I think we would all place such people  definitely on the Left. On the other hand, there are many reasons for ordinary  people to resist globalization, and so many publicly funded plum jobs for the right people in the globalist  bureaucracy, that there inevitably arises the kind of  supercilious, privileged, and increasingly endogamous  elite characteristic of the folk sitting on the right in that original Assembly. Taki Theodoracopulos Labels are for fools 8/25  Precursors to conservatism 1  Robert M. Crunden, “Introduction,” in The Superfluous Men.  In the process, and largely unaware of what they were doing, many  conservatives abandoned their proper focus: the worlds of religion, of  education, of philosophy, of literature, and of whatever manners and  customers seemed to constitute the “good life.” This book represents  a small effort to recapture a portion of that more traditional focus.  The book starts from the premise that conservatism in America has  through special circumstances often been very different from its  counterparts in Europe and Asia. Conservatism traditionally has been  based on prescriptive rights, on the assumption of political power by  religious authorities, on a herediary aristocracy, on immutable  9philisphical princples, or most basically, on the right of “what has  been” to continue largely unchanged into “what ought to be” :  “whatever is, is right” has seemed as much as visceral preference of  human nature as a striking poetic apercu, as valid for political science  as for religion.  Red Scare: Which harassed and sometimes tortured ethnic minorities  and those with dissenting political views.  Mann Act: Ostensibly to regulate sexual behavior, which in practice  granted police the right to illegal searches and seizures in matters  having nothing to do with purchased sex. Even women to vote backfired.  Blacks and women were predominately liberal. Most of them thought  they needed government help to win their freedoms and equality.  “Difference between being conservative and being a conservative.” –  William F. Buckley. ∙ 1930s: Great Depression: Progressive New Deal (FDR) ∙ 1896: McKinley (Republican Dominance) Went against W.  Jennings Bryan.  ∙ Roosevelt (3rd party)/Taft/Wilson won (Democrat) ∙ Calvin Coolidge  ∙ Depression killed Republican dominance = Roosevelt (1932) and  New Deal Era ∙ Lassie Faire came to an end here… (hands off gov’t) ∙ New England held ironically republican through the Roosevelt  Era.  ∙ “Old Right” = Leaned libertarian rather than conservative than  what we see today. Anti-war, small-gov’t.  Reasons for conservatives to be anti-war: ∙ Expensive ∙ Bigger government ∙ More centralization ∙ Religious objections ∙ Isolation works ∙ Social revolutions Albert Jay Nock, “Isaiah’s Job,”  https://mises.org/library/isaiahs-job 10As the word masses is commonly used, it suggests  agglomerations of poor and underprivileged people,  laboring people, proletarians, and it means nothing like  that; it means simply the majority. The mass man is one  who has neither the force of intellect to apprehend the  principles issuing in what we know as the humane life,  nor the force of character to adhere to those principles  steadily and strictly as laws of conduct; and because  such people make up the great and overwhelming  majority of mankind, they are called collectively the  masses. The line of differentiation between the masses  and the Remnant is set invariably by quality, not by  circumstance. The Remnant is those who by force of  intellect are able to apprehend these principles, and by  force of character are able, at least measurably, to  cleave to them. The masses are those who are unable to do either. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ431PCMx8g ^^^ Great explanation!!!! ∙ Not to rally around this essay.  ∙ People did.  ∙ Tiny minority would hear the message, and change their ways in  their little group of people.  ∙ Not as a political movement, sensibility; a life preference.  ∙ Interesting guy.  ∙ 20th century right.  ∙ Belief in the machinery of the state.  ∙ As they can treat them as pieces on a chess game. ∙ Didn’t believe in mass organizing.  ∙ New Deal, Fascism, REJECTED IT ALL I had thought that the Neoconservatives might  become the champions of diversity in the world;  instead, they aspire to bring about a world of  uniformity and dull standardization, 11Americanized, industrialized, democratized,  logicalized, boring. They are cultural and economic  imperialists, many of them. Albert Jay Nock ∙ Brief minor league baseball player.  ∙ Priest ∙ Lost faith… then journalist ∙ Today: libertarian *** ∙ Critic of Roosevelt ∙ Lies of reasons why we joined WWI ∙ Thought government was going to keep getting bigger… ∙ Asked: Why better writing? ∙ Remnants: Audience ∙ Change their thinking… revolution??? ∙ Even the greatest mind cannot know everything  ∙ Elitism ∙  Isaiah  ∙ “Remnant” ∙ In his 1936 article "Isaiah's Job",[8] which appeared in the Atlantic Monthly and was reprinted in pamphlet form in July 1962 by The  Foundation for Economic Education, Nock expressed his  complete disillusionment with the idea of reforming the current  system. Believing that it would be impossible to persuade any  large portion of the general population of the correct course and  opposing any suggestion of a violent revolution, Nock instead  argued that libertarians should focus on nurturing what he called  "the Remnant". ∙ The Remnant, according to Nock, consisted of a small minority  who understood the nature of the state and society, and who  would become influential only after the current dangerous course had become thoroughly and obviously untenable, a situation  which might not occur until far into the future.[9] Nock's  philosophy of the Remnant was influenced by the deep  pessimism and elitism that social critic Ralph Adams Cram expressed in a 1932 essay, "Why We Do Not Behave Like Human  Beings".[10] In his Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, Nock makes no  secret that his educators: ∙ did not pretend to believe that everyone is educable, for they  knew, on the contrary, that very few are educable, very few  indeed. They saw this as a fact of nature, like the fact that few  are six feet tall. [...] They accepted the fact that there are  12practicable ranges of intellectual and spiritual experience which  nature has opened to some and closed to others. 8/30 Precursors to conservatism 2 (early libertarians) Nash, Chapter 1, “The Revolt of the Libertarians” Big businesses thought BAD.  Cultural conservatives (traditionalists) ARE NOT economic libertarians.  ∙ The Pre-War Right ∙ Libertarians before libertarianism ∙ Libertarians: Small-government: o No government intervention on social issues o No government intervention in the economy o Non-intervention (foreign affairs) ∙ Voluntary, not government interfering  ∙ Better off this way than dictating  ∙ Article I, Section 8 “Commerce Clause” o Regulate commerce w/foreign nations, among the several states, and w/Indian tribes.  ∙ John Marshall… Federalist o Gibbons v. Ogden, expansive view.  o U.S. vs. E.C. Knight, restrictive view.  o Hammer v. Dagenhart. (Court case)  Roosevelt could be annoyed by this  FDR tried to expand the # of justices “getting up there in age, need to lighten the load”… public saw exactly what was going on here. Supreme court decided on its own to start approving on FDR’s policies.  o Wickard v. Filborn (1942)  Back to an expansive view  Decrease supply, increase price (crops)  “Wheat”  Only allowed to grow so much wheat  Growing not even to sell.   Told to destroy excess.   For own consumption (kept on farm)  Consequences? If we allow you to do this… then others will have to be allowed.   No longer constitutional block.  F.A. Hayek 13∙ The Road to Serfom (1944) ∙ Planned economy leads ultimately to totalitarianism  ∙ You don’t get to say you want democracy and socialism… contradiction  ∙ Based on individual freedoms: democracy  ∙ Occupation: example ∙ Not possible under this ∙ Force, propaganda ∙ Welfare state (not actually opposed to it) Ludwig Von Mises  ∙ Central, planning cannot work ∙ Knowledge problem ∙ Ex: how much concrete do we need nationally? We don’t know… only can be worked w/by the market.  9/1 Precursors to conservatism 3 (early traditionalists) Nash, Chapter 2, “The Revolt Against the Masses” Twelve Southerners, “Introduction: A Statement of Principles,” from I’ll  Take My Stand.  http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma01/white/anthology/agrarian.ht ml ∙   Early Traditionalists  ∙   Elitism…Antigalatarian ∙   Southern Agrarians  ∙   New Deal = Social Security (Roosevelt) Slowed down by supreme court ∙   Skeptical of big business and big government (associated w/the  North) ∙   Mostly Southern Movement ∙   Distrust Masses and democracy  ∙   Totalitarianism? o Democracy when it reaches perfection… actually leads to  totalitarianism.  o Democracy  totalitarianism.   “Hyperdemocracy” (Democracy on steroids) o Democracy  birth of Total War (economy motivated to only war) 14Weaver ∙ Almost cannot have is chivalry  ∙ “ The South alone= science false messiah”  ∙ Discipline through poetry  1920s  Southern Agrarian Movement  ∙ Agrarian= “Farm based” believed agriculture was the best way to make a living.  ∙ Known as “Fugitive poets” ∙ Vanderbilt University 1920s ∙ Changes in the economy, (modernity)?? Lessening in the  progressive movement.  ∙ Railroads were spreading = abandoning the life of a farmer to go  to the cities.  ∙ Fear, old ways (south) were on this path to extinction.  ∙ Agrarians decided they wanted to change that  ∙ 1930 Manifesto: o 12 essays o Economics o Alan Tate, Ranson… etc. (Authors) o All knew each other o Attacked American materialism (obsession) *** o Attacked North’s Puritans views o Defense of the Old South *** o People are moving up and down in class, not knowing  where they stand.  o Not calling for a new civil war *** o People are focusing on the new things, new gadgets.  o Not just a way to make $$ but to build character =  agrarian.  U.S.U.S.S.R. U.S. & U.S.S.R.  (Agrarian Thoughts) Materialistic societies… in contrast Agrarians are non-materialistic ∙ Conservatives known not to like the agrarians… ∙ Wendell Berry (Agrarian)  o Suspicious about more power in executive branch 15o Warfare state, war on terror, critic.  o Small size is key to community *** o Can’t be a nation of transients… go from home to home.  o Communities should be able to isolate themselves o People wanted slavery because they didn’t want to do  agrarian work.  o Forces busing (integration) schools mistakes distract  attention… long distances… you’re breaking the tie b/t the  student/teacher.  9/6 The Cold War and the Right 1 Nash, Chapter 4, “A Nightmare in Red.” Stalin  USSR Allie in WWII but then Cold War.  Red Scare: Scare that communism will come to the U.S. from places  like Russia.  1945: Also end of WWII.  Marx: Religion was something in the way.  The Cold War: ∙ USSR v. USA – Bipolar World ∙ 1945 to 1991 ∙ Communism was central issue o States ownership of the economy  o No private property  o Atheist o Worldwide revolution ∙ Germany becoming divided… western Berlin (U.S.) Eastern Berlin (Nazi) ∙ Late 1940s far east china fell, most populist country in the world  up to the USA to become the “leader” in the free world.  ∙ Russia losing 20 million people but became very powerful.  ∙ USA almost only one unscratched.  ∙ Fear = Red scare ∙ Liberals eager in overseas affairs (Roosevelt) ∙ Pearl Harbor = oil, navy… USA neutral before all of this.  ∙ Democrat’s foreign affairs….  ∙ 1945 following… started to change.  ∙ Growing suspicion… American left was sympathetic to  communism (liberalism) ∙ A lot of people wanted a communist revolution.  ∙ Joseph McCarthy – Senator from Wisconsin  16o McCarthyism  o Potential faded away o Thousands were accused of being communist o Hou Act 1938 o German Americans becoming potential Nazi’s  o Ann Coulter defend McCarthy o Not a lot of people now defending him.  o There were communist spies in the U.S. government.  o Before McCarthyism  leading figure to communism  Whitaker Chambers  o BAMBI TO ENGLISH!!!!! o Communist Spy 1930s o Literary figure, well known guy.  o Threat to communist networks.  o Spent couple years out of political world.  o Expose Soviet Network that he knew that existed in the  U.S. government.  o Whitaker Chambers vs. Alger Hiss. o Hiss = State Department. United Nations.  o Accusations against him. Statute of limitations very  expired.  o Perjury trial. Not a fellow travelor… spy.  o Benefiting Soviet Union.  o Richard Nixon = believed chambers (not prez at time) o Meeting of Allied Powers = Alta = Earth was going to be  divided. o Eastern not happy.  o USA not getting the best deal.  o Who was telling the truth in this case is still up in the air.  o Alger Hiss was probably guilty looks quite clear now tho… o Not as guilty as chamber suggested.  o Rossenburgs… hydrogen bombs (spies) o Chambers = was a former communist… ***  Oddly enough former communists turned  conservative.  o Whitaker Chambers, Max Eastman o Chambers = Broke communism, went atheist  Christian  o Eastman = Broke w/ communism, but stayed atheist  o Frank Meyer = Conservative, former communist, serving in  Army, “Serving Road to Serfdom” converted him 1944.  o James Burnham: Not Conservative work persay… “Suicide  of West.” Liberalism is ideology of western suicide. Most  imp.: 1941: “Managerial Revolution”.  George Nash ∙ 2 Categories: abroad w/in 17∙ How to west should approach communism? o Containment ∙ Soviets  Nuclear bombs ∙ Both now have nuclear weapons ∙ MAD- Containment, not going to be able to make communism  stop, but can stop it spreading ∙ Roll back, USA needed to be more aggressive, try to stop further  Soviet expansion, going to be forever pursuing, west pushed  back.  ∙ Truman= ∙ John Birch Society  o Robert Welch, made fortune by being a candy  manufacturer o Anti-communist conservative movement o Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon (Thought Communism) o Rockefeller  Conservatives didn’t like him  Welch liked him 9/8  The Cold War and the Right 2 James Burnham, “Communism: The Struggle for the World.” William F. Buckley Jr., “The Party and the Deep Blue Sea.” Cold War & The Right ∙ Buckley  ∙ Burnham o Burnham’s books, “The Managerial Revolution.” “The Suicide of the West” ∙ Buckley= Yale, didn’t like the fact he was a liberal… ran for  mayor of New York, Host of TV show.  ∙ Essay: Most important issue is survival.  ∙ Have to accept big government.  ∙ Because of cold war, we need “big government,” and  “totalitarian bureaucracy.”  James Burnham  ∙ Deeper thinker ∙ Not as influential  ∙ World politics more important than domestic politics  ∙ World politics > domestic politics ∙ World politics now = whole world 18∙ Nothing trivial  ∙ Peaceful coexistence was only possible as long as USSR thought  it was advantageous.  ∙ Internal divisions w/ in communist world does not mean lack of  shared goals.  ∙ Domino effect.  “The Managerial Revolution”  Burnham  ∙ Germany was going to win the 2nd world war… ∙ WRONG ∙ Capitalism depends on owners.  ∙ Capitalists are going to be replaced by managers.  ∙ Status: real ownership/control.  “The Suicide of the West” ∙ “Liberalism is the ideology of Western Suicide”  ∙ Blank slate  desire to recreate the world.  ∙ Failure  guilt ∙ Stroke 1938 9/13 The new case for free markets 1 Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson.  Milton Friedman, “Capitlism and Freedom: A Concluding Note.”  John Maynard Keynes  ∙ “General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.” Book ∙ Government can stabilize the economy  o 1. Consumption (depression you’re going to be dropping) o 2. Investment o 3. Government spending (one option left is this if  depression) o 4. Net exports (what your buying overseas) 2 things gov’t should do to get gov’t up & running again: 1. Infrastructure  Hoover Dam, roads… etc.  2. Cut interest rates  more likely to make these bigger  investments, suddenly more affordable.  ^ Main reason why countries should have the central bank  system.  Hazlit  “Economics in One Lesson.” Breaks down the Conservative  view on economics in plain English.  19Austrian School ∙    Think of economics today as a quantative subject  ∙    Not Austrian school, rejected the view on economics  ∙    Rejects statics as the primary means ∙    Applied logic = economics/ praxeology  o Start w/ simple promise, make predictions ∙    Rejection = Motivation in human relations (Ron Paul) ∙    Theory of Trade cycle  o Fractional reserve Banking   Banking can loan out more money than they really  have.  ∙    Economic down turns become more worse bcuz  banking/government  ∙    Hate the Federal Reserve  ∙    (1840-1921) Carl Manger = Development of subjective theory of  value  o Goods don’t have a lot of value (everyone can have it) ∙    Mises ∙    Hayek = High water mark, “Road to Serfdom,” only one to win  the Nobel Prize. ∙    Murray Rothbard.  Henry Hazlit  ∙ Best known for economy In one lesson  ∙ Unseen consequences, “Broken window fallacy.” Glass had to be  made, glass as broken, needed a suit… but had to fix window so  no suit… not richer because you have a suit.  ∙ “So great that a hurricane whipped out this town because of all  the economic failures that would have followed.” ∙ Opposed tariffs ∙ Saving= Milton Friedman ∙ Beloved by conservatives  ∙ Long term goal = more libertarian society  ∙ Worked for fed. Bureaucracy  ∙ Both sides despise = tax w/holding cycle… taxes coming out of  your paycheck.  ∙ You aren’t able to realize to see how much you’re really making.  ∙ All the government is doing is having a free loan from us ∙ Killed limited-government movement ∙ Very young man during that policy  20∙ Helped develop the system… ∙ Before he even go his phd… (Columbia) ∙ Un. Chicago… Stanford (working) ∙ “Capitalism and freedom” 1962 book unique book, short book,  fewer than 200  ∙ Getting rid of the draft (Nixon Commission) **** Satisfying  movements of his carrier ∙ School choice **** ∙ Competition tends to lead to incentive quality  ∙ Voucher idea = everyone gets chance to educated, but market  system also… only schools that do good will succeed.  ∙ Pinochet = dictator **** o Not one of the worst, still a dictator o Brief meeting o How to stop inflaction o Free markets > planned markets o Really friedman’s idea’s to make Pinochets country thrive? o Nobel Prize 1976  PBS Free to Chose  Not part of Austrian Perspective (Chicago School) 9/15 Consolidating a movement 1 Nash, Chapter 5, “Consolidation.” Russell Kirk ∙ He is the person who named the conservative movement  ∙ The Conservative Mind (1953) o What conservative movements all about  ∙ Conservatism was born intellectually serious and had a real  intellectual pedigree.  ∙ Argued that modern conservatism was born when Edmund Burke wrote, “Reflections on the Revolution in France.” (Literary  response to what was going on in France as the Revolution was  going crazy) ∙ “Politics of prescription”  ∙ Willingness to change (never a total overhaul of things at one  time) gradually changing  ∙ Conservatism is not an ideology ∙ Conservatism not ideology  ∙ Said Weaver is the last person you need to look for a stand on  conservatism.  ∙ Didn’t really care for economics 21∙ Not hawkish on foreign policy ∙ Opposed to a lot of WWII things the U.S. did.  9/20 Consolidating a movement 2 Nash, Chapter 6: “Fission and Fusion.” Frank Meyer, The Theme is Freedom. ∙ Frank Meyer, “Fusionism” ∙ Conservative Cannon & its uses  Frank Meyer ∙ Former leftist  ∙ Member of the communist party ∙ Dedicated activist  ∙ Abandoned communism because he read “The Road to Serfdom” ∙ Became catholic ∙ Ideology: Pushed Fusionism ∙ Liberal dominance of politics, academia, culture ∙ Growing intellectual revolt underneath  Conservatism  Traditionalism – Social Issues, Religious arguments  Libertarians – Economics  Hawks – Cold War  Libertarians must reject relativism. There is a right and wrong.  Virtue without freedom is impossible.  If communism wins, all other sides lose.  Intellectual continuity ∙ Who is a “true conservative”? ∙ Grew form “conservative cannon” ∙ 1944-1962 ∙ The Road to Serfdom ∙ Ideas have consequences ∙ God & Man of Yale ∙ Capitalism & Freedom ∙ Witness ∙ The Theme is Freedom 22∙ The Conscience of a Conservative  ∙ Atlas Shrugged (Libertarian) ∙ Helps maintain ideological purity over time  9/22 The conservative movement and the Republican Party 1 Barry Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative.   - Young Americans for Freedom  - Barry Goldwater (One of the 1st true conservatives at the top of  the ticket) - 1964 Election YAF (Grassroots movement)  http://www.yaf.org ∙    Founded by William Buckley  ∙ Not THAT young, late 60s, early 40s????  ∙ Founded at his home in Sharon, Connecticut  ∙ 1960- Sharon Statement (List of what the new conservative  movement believed in): ∙ 1. God-given free-will, hence there should be no arbitrary force  ∙ 2. Liberty is indivisible  ∙ 3. Purpose of government is to protect those freedoms ∙ 4. Too much government will diminish order & liberty  ∙ 5. Constitution allows government to fulfill obligations while  restraining it (keeping it from getting bigger from doing those  things; liberty is going to decline if that happens) ∙ 6. Genius of constitution is division of powers.  ∙ 7. Pro-market economy  ∙ 8. Government interference weakens country.  ∙ 9. Freedom requires security. (National security)  ∙ 10. Communism is the single greatest threat.  ∙ 11. Victory over communism.  ∙ 12. Foreign policy should serve U.S. interests.  ∙ Tradition? Barry Goldwater ∙ Never really talked about religion much ∙ Enjoyed flying planes for the rest of his life ∙ WWII ∙ True Conservative believers  ∙ “Conscience of a Conservative” didn’t write it ∙ It was successful  23∙ Ran in 1964 ∙ Took on party establishment  “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the  pursuit of justice is no virtue.” ∙ Conservative states voted for him.  ∙ Won primary, lost general election in a landslide. (He wouldn’t  push towards the middle) ∙ He was a radical extremist ∙ U.S. wanted stability (Kennedy being killed)??? And it is all too clear that in spite of a conservative revival among the  people the radical ideas that were promoted by the New and Fair Deals under the guise of Liberalism still dominate the councils of our national government.  In a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that  the people’s welfare depends on individual self reliance rather than on  state paternalism, Congress annually deliberates over whether the  increase in government welfarism should be small or large.  In a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that  individual liberty depends on decentralized government.  In a country where it is now generally understood and proclaimed that  communism is an enemy bound to destroy us.  9/27 The conservative movement and the Republican Party 2 Richard A. Viguerie, The New Right.  Topics:  ∙ Funding the movement  ∙ Rise of the Religious Right  Traditionalists Economic Libertarians  Conservatism  Activists  GOP  $$$ & Votes Cold Warriors  Richard Viguerie: Father of the conservative movement. Raised $3  billion dollars. Direct mail was his key strategy.  Opensecrets.org.  Koch Brothers Think thank - A think tank or policy institute, research institute,  etc. is an organization that performs research and advocacy 24concerning topics such as social policy, political strategy, economics,  military, technology, and culture. Most policy institutes are non-profit organizations, which some countries such as the United States and  Canada provide with tax exempt status. Other think tanks are funded  by governments, advocacy groups, or businesses, or derive revenue  from consulting or research work related to their projects ∙ Mercatus Center “think tank” - The Mercatus Center at George  Mason University (GMU), Virginia, is an American non-profit[2] free-market-oriented research, education, and outreach think  tank directed by Tyler Cowen. It works with policy experts,  lobbyists, and government officials to connect academic learning and real-world practice. Taking its name from the Latin word for  "markets", the Center advocates free-market approaches to  public policy. During the George W. Bush administration's  campaign to reduce government regulation, the Wall Street  Journal reported, "14 of the 23 rules the White House chose for  its "hit list" to eliminate or modify were Mercatus entries."[3] ∙ Cato - The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank  headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and  Charles Koch. Following the 2011 death of William Niskanen, the  chairman of the Cato Institute, Charles and David Koch  reportedly made an effort to procure the shares of that institute  held by Niskanen’s widow, "arguing that they were not hers to  hold".[81] Their efforts were criticized by some at the institute,  including the institute's president Ed Crane, who in an email to  staff stated that the Kochs were "in the process of trying to take  over the Cato Institute. The brothers issued a statement denying  any wrongdoing and stated they “never asserted that Cato  should be directly by, or at the whim of, any other organization,  or that they should aspire to advocate the way AFP does.[82][83] In  June 2012, Cato and the brothers reached an agreement. Crane  stepped down and was replaced by John A. Allison IV; the Kochs  withdrew two lawsuits ∙ “Astroturf?” Evangelical Christians  ∙ 1942, National Association of Evangelicals  ∙ Billy Graham, 1949 ∙ Roe vs. Wade 1973 ∙ Moral Majority, 1979, Jerry Falwell, a political action group formed in the 1970s to further a conservative and religious agenda,  including the allowance of prayer in schools and strict laws  against abortion. (now you have the voters to get Reagan  elected)  ∙ 1990s 2nd Wave, Christian Coalition 1985 259/29 Conservatism and race in the 1960s Milton Friedman. “Capitalism and Discrimination.” National Review, “Why the South Must Prevail.” Richard Weaver, “Integration is Communization.” ∙ Conservatism & Race in the 1950s & 1960s ∙ Libertarian response ∙ Traditionalist response ∙ National review response Before we get into it…  ∙ 1. People behind it 2. Conservatives 3. Take on establishment 4. Get $$$ 5. 1970’s religious right was born Conservatism & Race in the 1950s & 1960s  ∙ Post reconstruction: - South Democratic stronghold  - Dixiecrats  - 1948 Presidential Candidate  ∙ Conservatives on race:  ∙ Said little directly  ∙ Russell Kirk: “Conservative Mind.” ∙ Few southerners  ∙ Not clear that South would become Republican  ∙ Against Civil Rights Act Libertarian Response  Milton Friedman ∙ Friedman undermines discrimination  ∙ Racial discrimination  economic inefficiency  Traditionalist Response  Richard Weaver ∙ Hierarchy is important  ∙ Civil Rights was a communist conspiracy  ∙ Defended segregation on property rights argument ∙ Doesn’t deny racial equality  26National Review Response  ∙ Pretty sure it was William F. Buckley ∙ Unsigned (1957) ∙ Doesn’t really address the issue at hand ∙ Keep segregation for now, and we’ll revisit this topic another  time ∙ Whites are presently more advanced race, they are entitled to  extra privileges  ∙ Civilized standards > majority vote 10/4 The Neoconservatives 1 ∙ Irving Kristol, “ An Autobiographical Memoir.” ∙ Neo-conservatism  ∙ Who they are/origins  ∙ How they became influential  ∙ Beliefs/how they are different  Neo-conservatism  ∙ More internationalist/hawkish  ∙ Less hostile to big government/less libertarian  ∙ Less interested in traditionalism/ social issues  ∙ Most were former liberals/ Marxists  ∙ “Neo-conservatism is liberal who has been mugged by reality”  ∙ Neo-conservatives more intellectual?  ∙ Influenced by Leo Strauss  ∙ “Esoteric” vs. “Exoteric” ∙ More comfortable with the language of equality  ∙ Jaffa, “equality is a conservative value.” ∙ Promoters of democracy  ∙ Hostile to opponents on the right  ∙ More liberal on immigration ∙ More hostile to Trump  10/6 The Neoconservatives 2 ∙ The Neo Conservatives: An Endangered Species - Russell Kirk http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-neoconservatives an-endangered-species 27was an American political theorist, moralist, historian, social critic,  literary critic, and fiction author known for his influence on 20th  century American conservatism. His 1953 book, The Conservative Mind, gave shape to the amorphous post­World War II conservative movement. It traced the development of conservative thought in the Anglo­American tradition, giving special importance  to the ideas of Edmund Burke. Kirk was also considered the chief  proponent of traditionalist conservatism.