The Intellectual Incoherence of Conservatism

[Bono]

Mises.org

The Intellectual Incoherence of Conservatism

by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Modern conservatism, in the United States and Europe, is confused and distorted. Under the influence of representative democracy and with the transformation of the U.S. and Europe into mass democracies from World War I, conservatism was transformed from an anti-egalitarian, aristocratic, anti-statist ideological force into a movement of culturally conservative statists: the right wing of the socialists and social democrats.

Most self-proclaimed contemporary conservatives are concerned, as they should be, about the decay of families, divorce, illegitimacy, loss of authority, multiculturalism, social disintegration, sexual libertinism, and crime. All of these phenomena they regard as anomalies and deviations from the natural order, or what we might call normalcy.

However, most contemporary conservatives (at least most of the spokesmen of the conservative establishment) either do not recognize that their goal of restoring normalcy requires the most drastic, even revolutionary, antistatist social changes, or (if they know about this) they are engaged in betraying conservatism's cultural agenda from inside in order to promote an entirely different agenda.

That this is largely true for the so-called neoconservatives does not require further explanation here. Indeed, as far as their leaders are concerned, one suspects that most of them are of the latter kind. They are not truly concerned about cultural matters but recognize that they must play the cultural-conservatism card so as not to lose power and promote their entirely different goal of global social democracy.1 The fundamentally statist character of American neoconservatism is best summarized by a statement of one of its leading intellectual champions Irving Kristol:

    "[T]he basic principle behind a conservative welfare state ought to be a simple one: wherever possible, people should be allowed to keep their own money—rather than having it transferred (via taxes to the state)—on the condition that they put it to certain defined uses." [Two Cheers for Capitalism, New York: Basic Books, 1978, p. 119].

This view is essentially identical to that held by modern, post-Marxist European Social-Democrats. Thus, Germany's Social Democratic Party (SPD), for instance, in its Godesberg Program of 1959, adopted as its core motto the slogan "as much market as possible, as much state as necessary."

Continues on Link

[AuH2O]

Of course this is true-- neocons aren't conservative at all, as is widely known in some circles at least. Some neocons consider that argument anti-semetic since, obviously, the basis of neoconservatism is Zionism, though such a line of "reasoning" requires the definition of anti-Zionism as anti-semetism, which is quite simply erroneous.

In fairness, multiparty systems allow for more proper conservative parties, but these are harrassed by the media and ruling "moderate" parties in most cases.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I am really disappointed with such hyperbloviation coming from the Mises institute.

I not only have read several of Ludwig von Mises tomes, but had an opportunity to meet the great man, ask him some questions, and get his autograph on my copy of Socialism.

Unfortunately, the author of the screed you cited has a very poor understanding of reality.

American conservatism is a fusion of both libertarian and traditionalist thought and ideals.

American conservatives remain skeptical of international entanglements (to cite recent examples see the opposition to the use of laws from other countries in re capital punishment).

American conservatives do NOT favor at large military per se, but rather one sufficent to protect the United States (they realize we live in a very dangerous world).

While I would like to see reductions in government expenditures and regulations, as well a budget that does not exceed revenues, coupled with tax reductions, the realities of the current political situation are such that only modest results can be expected in this area at this time.

With respect to social issues, thoughtful conservatives (the author of the screed cited is NOT one), recognize that a free society is largely dependent on the maintenance of non-governmental institutions (marriage, religion, etc.) and do NOT favor social anarchism.

In conclusion the article cited is a poorly made copy of some of the 'randroid' drivel of years past.

[The Duke]

Of course this is true-- neocons aren't conservative at all, as is widely known in some circles at least. Some neocons consider that argument anti-semetic since, obviously, the basis of neoconservatism is Zionism, though such a line of "reasoning" requires the definition of anti-Zionism as anti-semetism, which is quite simply erroneous.

In fairness, multiparty systems allow for more proper conservative parties, but these are harrassed by the media and ruling "moderate" parties in most cases.

Our roots are not in Zionism, but rather (as Bono has pointed out) Trotskyism.  We neoconservatives got our penchant for world revolution from the Trotskyists.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hint: Libertarians don't want to ban aboritions and gay sex while attacking random countries for no reason, and running massive deficits.

[Citizen James]

Of course this is true-- neocons aren't conservative at all, as is widely known in some circles at least. Some neocons consider that argument anti-semetic since, obviously, the basis of neoconservatism is Zionism, though such a line of "reasoning" requires the definition of anti-Zionism as anti-semetism, which is quite simply erroneous.

In fairness, multiparty systems allow for more proper conservative parties, but these are harrassed by the media and ruling "moderate" parties in most cases.

Yep,

Neo-conservatives are to conservatism what National Socialists are to socialism.