Comments on: Affirmative action needed

By: David Rubie

David Rubie — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:08:02 +0000

Adrien wrote:

David – You asked me to name three people of the right who’s views are valuable not who pass this test of which you speak.

True enough.

But, do you at least get the idea that Pavlov’s Cat is getting at?

And a nitpick – Peter’s personal political history here indicates he was a trot, former member of the International Socialists, was a member of British Labour in the late seventies and only joined the Conservatives in the late nineties. Perhaps he’s a plant, although I think he’s a pretty ordinary version of your average god-botherer who sees the market as an assault on a sepia toned 1950′s that never actually existed but he wishes to resurrect. I blame Ealing comedies.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:41:44 +0000

David – You asked me to name three people of the right who’s views are valuable not who pass this test of which you speak. I guess I could name three who pass that test sure: Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Alan Moore. Somehow of somewhat poorer quality however. .
.
Hitchens is a former Trot and therefore can’t be trusted by “liberal students”.
.
Um you’re thinking of .
Actually I think Peter’s never forgiven Chris for being born first. Again I relate.
.
Dean’s Conservatives Without Conscience is a damning insight into what’s wrong with conservatives. Their tendency to play the primate pecking order game without thought. Chris Hitchens plays this game with the Left. His advocacy of the Iraq War (which I still finally disagree with) was most convincing. Likewise, his fellow Iraq heretic Nick Coen’s What’s Left is also valuable.
.
Bacevich would definitely be out. His picture graces the dartboard of the Weekly Standard games room apparently.
.
Peter Hitchens’ views are those with which I have most disagreement. However his arguments against the Euro-jurisprudential moves and social engineering proclivities of the Blair govt are apt. In fact they make an excellent companion to George Monbiot’s Captive State.
.
That is if you decide not to play ~~Protestants v Catholics~~ Left v Right anymore.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:21:25 +0000

Tom Wolfe, Murray Rothbard, Francis Fukuyama, Tom Stoppard, Adam Smith, Hayek…
.
JS Mill, Thomas Paine, Voltaire – are they left or right?. Both? Neither?

By: David Rubie

David Rubie — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:20:47 +0000

Whoops – John Dean is a fail of the “liberal students” test as well – he wanted to impeach Dubya.

By: David Rubie

David Rubie — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:18:56 +0000

Adrien,

Let’s see if any of those pass the “liberal students” test.

For starters, Bacevich says conservatives should support Obama (instant fail).

John Dean is a convicted criminal, so perhaps he’s OK for “liberal students”.

Hitchens is a former Trot and therefore can’t be trusted by “liberal students”.

So that’s one.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:09:04 +0000

FDB – The ravings of extreme libertarians are nothing more than a fun scratching-post.
.
No. .
Classical liberals on the other hand can provide a lot of food for thought for socially liberal social democtrats (like me).
.
I don’t think it’s possible to be a classic liberal anymore. Such as JS Mill would probably have different views if they were around today and assimilated historical information that’s since come to light like the inevitable persistence of business cycles, the fragmentation of individualism and its subsequent polarization amongst the political spectrum, the emergence of American Imperialism, the Soviet Union experiment, the development of social theories that evidence Marx’s notions of historical produce etc. Moreover there’s the non-existence of laissez-faire economic realms (something that’s still a bit of a struggle I think). And the problems that result from attempting to impose them.
.
That said the ‘classic liberal’ libertarians are pretty good at cutting through current confusions as to the meanings of things like ‘rights’ and ‘liberty’. Anarcho-capitalists seem to me the right-wing version of anarchists I use to know: unable to answer even the most basic questions viz: how it will work in the real world.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 06:49:20 +0000

Adrien is too big a commenting institution to be allowed to fail.
.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
.
Outstanding! But wrong. You should allow me to fail. Some people even think that the government should ban me. I gotta say they have a point.
.
Name three.
.
Okay: Andrew J Bacevich, John Dean (yes he did time after Nixon but he’s better now), Peter Hitchens.

By: Paul Burns

Paul Burns — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:32:55 +0000

If I take DR’s question seriously instead of clowning around as I did in my last comment – its really difficult – you might have a writer, say, who’s against a republic, but is otherwise quite radical. And that’s just one example. Its really hard to pin people down, especially if, in their search for intellectual objectivity – never entirely attainable – they mute their political ideologies.

By: Pavlov's Cat

Pavlov's Cat — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 04:18:20 +0000

Liam — in turn, I second your nomination of both of those eminent Canadians and support their importation. Ignatieff gave the showpiece Writers’ Week Lecture here some years back — he was absolutely brilliant, a weird combination of visionary and hard-nosed.

By: FDB

FDB — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 04:17:51 +0000

I suspect that nothing much will ever impress me about social conservatism. Does this make it intellectually bankrupt? Sure!

The ravings of extreme libertarians are nothing more than a fun scratching-post.

Classical liberals on the other hand can provide a lot of food for thought for socially liberal social democtrats (like me). I suspect the relationship is mutual, as long as both sides of the discussion are willing to engage on fruitful ground.

Puts me in mind of something I read here the other day somewhere, to the effect that the term ‘debate’ – now ubiquitous in describing any political issue – betokens a contest that must have a winner. It sounds more genteel than an ‘argument’, but is much less likely to produce good intellectual fodder.

The thing about being a moderate isn’t so much that you don’t care enough to fully commit; more that you are capable of suspending your assumptions for the sake of argument or discussion. And having done so, realise you can’t hold them as strongly as you did before, or cleave to them in all the ways you did.