Kudos Indyvidual.

Yes some such as Patrick Deneen in his book Regime Change are talking about the coming Post-Liberal era (probably more conservative). Deneen mentions that there are Post Liberal and reactionary elements of all the major political parties that are growing. I'm sure that some will try and cling to Liberalism on both the left and the right. Certain cultures seem to be suicidal such as many in the Aboriginal culture or the assault troops of foreign powers in the case of Chinese, African, and Indian immigration. Sadly many Aboriginal's seem to be intent on tearing down White Australia as a fifth column assuming that the power that succeeds The Great White Devil will be more amenable- it won't be. It's not racism to stop your culture becoming dominated by another culture- we should try to preserve cultures- not subsume them in a sea of mediocracy (Queen Victoria recognized this).

mhaze said- I was just pointing out that family is central to conservatism.

Answer- Yes Traditional Conservatives (like Confucius) see the family as the atom of society, the king or ruler is the father of the nation, the queen or rulers wife is the mother of the nation, etc.

The Chinese Maoist's seem to have stomped on Confucian wisdom killing 60 million, in modern times naming their foreign outreach organisation 'The Confucius Institute', an insult to great wisdom.

Usually in conservative thought the ruler is placed under a universal principle of the divine, perhaps to keep the ruler anchored to the responsibilities of their office. Liberals don't have a divine judgement and so they can be more cruel without remorse.

Patrick Deneen well known for his far right views, another one masquerading as a "conservative" but in reality an extremist by nature. This right wing forum has several of these extremists posters pretending to be "conservatives" CM, mhaze, ttbn and a few others.

Hi Paul,

Australia is hard to define. We're always muddled
along - but we usually get it right in the end.

I think that most of us value stability. We're
suspicious of demagoguery and we don't like disturbances,
we have a fondness of long-standing norms and
conventions but we're comfortable when these are challenged
with merit and through due process.

We've allowed a wide diversity of people in, but we also
prize the arms-length distance from the world that our
geography allows.

We're a mix. And we might well ask - "Where to for "real"
Liberals - a party of small government which is all but
dead under Peter Dutton?

Mhaze,

I would be happy to provide evidence for my claims here; although, it’s a shame you seemed willing to take Chesterton's at face value.

Most social reforms are backed by extensive research and data, and your case study involving the introduction of welfare policies in the 20th century - which was influenced by studies on poverty and child development - was no exception. For example, research by sociologists and economists, such as the work of Jane Addams and the Hull House Maps and Papers, provided empirical data on the living conditions of impoverished families which informed early welfare policies.

Further evidence can be found in historical accounts of policy development, such as "The Origins of the Welfare State in America" by David T. Beito.

Your claim that “they monumentally failed” is overly simplistic overlooks the nuanced outcomes of welfare policies. While challenges remain, many studies have demonstrated significant benefits. For example, research by the NBER found that the introduction of welfare programs in the 1960s and 1970s helped to significantly reduce poverty rates among single mothers and their children (Hoynes & Schanzenbach, 2018).

Single-parent families often face more challenges, but it’s not solely due to the family structure. Economic insecurity, lack of access to resources, and social stigma also play significant roles. Studies such as "Welfare Reform: Effects of a Decade of Change" by Rebecca M. Blank show that financial support can improve outcomes for children by reducing poverty and improving stability.

Your belief that maintaining old social norms would have been more beneficial is almost certainly wrong. Many of these norms were harmful and unjust. For instance, the stigma against single motherhood often led to severe social and economic penalties for women and their children, leaving those experiencing domestic violence with few options.

That said, immediate action was necessary because single mothers and their children could not afford to wait for societal norms to revert, assuming that a reversion would have been possible to begin with, given the changes modernisation brought to societies.

In the Anglosphere and parts of Europe, where one sees the influence of US fossil fuel Atlas Koch Network (inc. IPA, CIS & AIP), Tanton Network, Murdoch and monocultural above median age voters, esp regions, it's an amalgam of faux 'free market' capitalism and white nativist population control; social Darwinism or eugenics?