A detailed response to RL’s remarks below concerning the failure of Conservatism in his home state.

The Fundamental Theorem of Conservatism is that the State cannot solve every problem by simply spending more money. Conservatives correctly point out the State as being incapable of collecting money equitably, or spending it efficiently. And there is probably some truth to their observation that undisciplined State spending may often cause unfortunate social problems, or provoke more economic distress than it solves. These problems would even exist in a government that was highly effective, honest, and intelligent in its fiscal and welfare policies, and I think we can all agree that is, at best, a laudable goal and not a reality. In addition to all that, there is simply a law of diminishing returns: government financial management is not as precise and self-regulating as a free market. It is, at best, a jury rig to solve short-term problems, not a true and meaningful long-term solution to them.

But having said that, when Conservatives actually attain political power, they are just as prone to corruption and ideological rigidity as are the Liberals (along with a healthy dose of plain old greed). If Liberals try to solve every problem by throwing money at it, then Conservatives seem to think that NOT spending anything will make the problem go away as the “free market” takes over and magically makes everything wonderful. Cut taxes and social spending and make enough workers so desperate for a paycheck they’ll work for peanuts and everything will turn out just fine. Of course, this policy benefits them greatly, and devastates those they really know or care little about and have utter contempt for, so they are unlikely to be able to see its shortcomings.

Carried to extremes, the competing philosophies can be summarized as follows: the poor want everything handed to them on a silver platter, the rich want free labor and no taxes, and plenty of cops, courts, troops and prisons to keep the plebes in line. The truth, of course, lies somewhere in between, a synthesis of both these theses. The policies of Left and Right are not competing alchemies and only one can be approved by God, they are simply different approaches to the problem of organizing economic activity. There is no right or wrong way, just an optimization of the two that must be constantly readjusted to meet changing historical conditions and economic circumstances. The “Western Democracies”, particularly the United States in the 20th century, have historically been most successful in achieving this balance using the mechanism of democratic politics.

For a variety of reasons, this historical equilibrium is being disturbed in the 21st century (although its roots can be traced back for several decades). This explains the sudden eruption of nationalism and neofascism that seems to be gripping the world. The rich (who sense falling profits) have managed to play on the fears of the middle classes (who sense the erosion of their lifestyle) in order to further their own agenda through demagoguery. And for their part, the forces of Liberalism and progress seem incapable of making the hard choices that will stabilize the situation through discipline and lasting reform. The Right is motivated by hate, fear, brutality and greed, the Left by laziness, indecision, complacency and cowardice.

No, I haven’t got any answers, all I can see in history is that we have weathered times like this before, in the 1930s and ’40s. It was Liberal policies which saved us then. I don’t think they are going to be able to do it again. And I don’t think the Conservatives will be able to either. Unlike the Liberals, they don’t see there is a problem at all, other than that taxes and salaries are too high and profits are too low.