The difference being that America is devoid of nationalism.

Something I find bassackwards: The designation of red and blue America.

Posted by: AllenS at October 7, 2005 10:37 AM

"In the Anglosphere, the word �conservative� generally refers to a belief in economic growth."

And, right, liberals "believe in" economic shrinkage.

No guests, please, Orrin, hard to keep track of which one peddles which nonsense.

I disagree about your comparisons between and characterizations of America and Europe; I don't think the political processes of either are nearly as different as you make them out to be; on both sides of the Atlantic money still buys votes.
America devoid of nationalism and zenophobia? I disagree entirely. At least in Europe, they know who they hate, and people, in general, are much more inclined toward working in international cooperation. Ignorance of other cultures and blind pride in their own has permitted the waging of this mismanaged and needlessly bloody war on terror, all the while concealing its own true motivations.

Rick:

You don't think the Malthusian population control/Club of Rome/Limits to Growth/sustainable development/Kyoto/spaceship earth/climate change/ inspired thinking that regularly gets leftist knickers all in a knot is based upon an opposition to economic growth?

Jhana:

At least in Europe, they know who they hate...

I have to admit you have left me speechless with that one. I've never seen the case for superior European insight and sophistication put quite that way.

The American conservative today is a classical liberal in the path of Mill but without his contempt for religion.

Across the pond the term conservativism harks back to Burke who believed in monarchy, custom, and tradition. Monarchy may have fallen by the wayside in Europe, but tradition and custom remain. Privilege and totalitarianism qualify as customary and traditional.

Ed:

Strewth, isn't the whole thing complicated enough without you splitting up the definitions even within the 'Anglosphere'?

(though you're right).

Not only is the entire liberal theology anti-growth and anti-human, it is stunning how many of its adherents are not conscious of those rather obvious facts.

Ed:

Privilege and prejudice, yes, although they aren't necessary components. But certainly not totalitarianism.

And liberals "believe in" economic shrinkage.

In the sense that they're always predicting a return to it, yes. Think Paul Krugman since 2000, or William Greider (writes for your paper, doesn't he?) since about 1980. It's hard to get past the thought that so many dire predictions conceal a hope that doesn't dare speak its name.

I'd be very curious to hear Rick argue that the Left is not in favor of economic shrinkage. From the global--Kyoto & 'zero population growth'--to the local--restrictions on growth & development--that's pretty one of the Left most consistent tenets. There are obviously those on the Left who dissent from this leftist orthodoxy, but you can't seriously argue that it's not their orthodoxy.

Yet since WWII, Democratic presidencies preside over greater economic growth than Republican ones. A more charitable interpretations than joe's is that Democrats think about what might go wrong so that it's prevented.

I find it humorous and painful that so many Republicans complain about Democrats misportraying them as racist plutocrats building a theocracy even as they accuse Democrats of being the looniest moonbats on the left. SUch denunications are typical of partisans of any stripe, but do little to actually improve the political debate and have little to do with actual history of the parties in power.

A more charitable interpretation is that Democrats think about what might go wrong so that it's prevented.

Chris: but the thing that can go most wrong for Democrats is that they'll succeed too well with that sort of stasist, defensive policy. Witness Germany and France, which aren't growing or employing, and which politically have no way out of their quagmires. I'm certainly open to the argument that our economy prospers when our left and our right fight each other to a standstill; in fact I'd call the Clinton administration exhibit A for that line of thought. Recall what Clinton was not able to accomplish (nationalizing health care), though, and how far right he had to tack to get re-elected.

Let's note in passing Mr. Steyn's common sense understanding of the term "third way": Half a decade ago, they were all centre-left Third Wayers. It must be that "third way" is what OJ calls nationalism, and "nationalism" is what OJ calls socialism.

There's my way, your way, and oj's third way.

Posted by: AllenS at October 7, 2005 4:42 PM

FWIW, I don't equate Democrats as a whole with the Left. And, as far as Chris' comment, there have been no Leftist presidents since WWII. Johnson & Carter are the closest we've gotten (not particularly close in either case), and I've never heard anyone extolling the economic boom times of either.

A little history, please. Liberals invented the idea of economic growth as a policy goal. Conservatives resisted it.

Good primary sources: Paul Douglas's work in the '30s and '40s.

Secondary sources: Robert Collins, "More: the Politics of Economic Growth in Postwar America"; Alan Brinkley, "the End of Reform: New Deal Liberalism in Depression and War."

Or, if you prefer, keep making things up.

Nice subject change! Did you note the appeal to history when we're talking about the present day? Very impressive. I give it an 8.5.

Regarding history: do you belive the conservative Republican fixation on the Tariff until the early 20th century had to do with something other than economic growth?

Liberals invented the idea of economic growth as a policy goal.

Which would appear to make growth just one more idea that liberalism invented and then abandoned. History moves faster than it used to, Rick. I think you'd get some agreement here that as recently as Bill Clinton the Democrats were capable of pro-growth policy. Certainly NAFTA qualifies (though IIRC that only passed with a lot of help from across the aisle), and arguably the Senate resolution on Kyoto does also. But the point is that Clinton's policy direction, such as it was, looks to have been roundly rejected by his own party. Al Gore ran against him, as some sort of weird angry populist; as for John Kerry, you tell me what his ideas were; Howard Dean is party chairman; and as far as I can all of the energy see on your side of the aisle is coming from the Krugman-Moore paranoid left. I don't doubt you favor growth personally, sort of like I favor getting rid of my beer belly. But I'm not going to stop drinking beer anytime soon, and you're not going to get back control of your party anytime soon either.

Define "economic growth" as "policies I favor, preferably libertarian ones," and I suppose you can pull any old argument out of your ass.

No, by "economic growth" I mean "real GDP getting bigger." Again, going forward, not looking back sixty years, what do you think your party's prospects are for fostering that? For one example that most would agree on, how many Democratic votes do you think the next President Clinton can count on for whatever trade agreement follows CAFTA? Feel free to put forth a platform, after all growth is your idea.

You really think something like CAFtA has an appreciable effect on GDP growth?

In isolation? No. But I think freer trade in general does, and that belief was also a respectable one amongst Democrats, at least until recently. Al Gore argued it pretty well against Ross Perot, and NAFTA was a genuine achievement for the Clinton Administration. Fast forward twelve years and the party that produced it seems to have disappeared. I brought up CAFTA as an example of something that would have been easy for the New Democrats but seems beyond the ken of these democrats. I don't think history helps you much here.