Trump's recent attack tweet saying of George Conway "I don’t know what Kellyanne did to her deranged loser of a husband, Moonface, but it must have been really bad." had me once again having to come to terms with the astounding fact that this was coming from the President of the United States - position that use to garner some respect from many within and without the United States of America.

It got me thinking of the kind of conservative voices and thinkers of whom did garner respect even if people were diametrically opposed to their views.

One such figure in my opinion was William Buckley Jr. His debate against James Balwin at the Cambridge Union was one of the classics.
http://youtu.be/oFeoS41xe7w

The one with Naom Chomsky was another; http://youtu.be/9DvmLMUfGss

His debates with Gore Vidal at the 1968 Democratic Convention were recently made into a movie called Best of Enemies. Though admittedly this did get quite nasty in a genteel manner.
http://youtu.be/9vgT7Wr7Nkc

If there are any others who would lke to avail themselves of an articulate conservative voice given the recent debasement of that notion by the currrent leadership in the US they could od worse than give Bill Buckley a go.

Hi SR,

Brilliant insights here:

" ..... “It’s, ‘I don’t like what this implies; therefore I’m going to deny the evidence, and I’m going to question the models, and I’m going to question the motivations of the people who do it,”’ said Naomi Oreskes, a science historian at Harvard. " [From NYT, 10.5.20]

Many of us would have experienced arguments of this kind over the last few weeks. A four-step process:

1. I don't like what your evidence implies;

2. So I'm going to deny that it's valid;

3. And I'll question the data, the models, the surveys that you use;

4. And I'll question your motivation for putting forward that evidence.

One could add a couple of more crackpot steps:

5. There's a conspiracy to put forward this rubbish, and you're part of it; you hate us and are trying to pull us down any way you can;

6. There are better explanations, which involve what you may think are outlandish propositions, and alternative conspiracies, but which make sense to me.

Just saying :)

Cheers,

Joe

No Australian, including SR, has to “come to terms” with Donald Trump or anything to do with him. He is America’s problem or asset, depending on Americans’ opinions of him. We have our own problems in Australia, and they are not going to disappear because of anything Donald Trump says or does.

Leave foreign politics to specialist columnists, writers and others who actually know what they are talking about. Donald Trump doesn’t give a damn about what some anonymous Lefty in Australia thinks about him, or anything at all for that matter.

Dear Steele,

William F. Buckley Jr certainly was in a class by himself.
He had style and panache and captivated people right
up to his death in 2008.

When asked once whether he slouched in his chair as
host of the TV program "Firing Line,"because he couldn't
think on his feet. He drawled back:

"It is hard ... to stand up ... under the weight ...
of all that I know."

Classic Buckley!

There's no one quite like him today.

If I think of anyone - I'll let you know.

Dear Steele,

There seems to be a distrust today of all significant
institutions that has seeped over into a distrust of
professionals and intellectuals.

That has implications far beyond whether the conservative
movement can continue to offer relevant and timely
prescriptions for an increasingly complex world.

The US we know is changing. It's demographics are
shifting. Their beliefs are re-forming and evidence
suggests that younger generations have a less favourable
opinion of the conservative views of their parents.

You'd think that this is precisely the time for a new
crop of conservatives to emerge and re-calibrate how
conservatism will respond to an ever-fluctuating
society.

However, I can't see that happening. Either in the US
or here in Australia. People like Milton Friedman, Russel
Kirk, William F. Buckley Jr - are no longer around.
And it seems that there's no on to take their place.
At least not of their calibre.

The US has ended up with a US President - totally unfit for
office. Buckley would be horrified. Where are the conservative
voices today? They're certainly not in the White House.

Dear Foxy,

It is worth listening to this little piece from the Cambridge debate;

http://youtu.be/oFeoS41xe7w?t=2025

“I remember for example when the ex-attorney general Robert Kennedy said that it was conceivable that in 40 years in America that we might have a negro president and that sounded like a very emancipated statement I suppose to white people. They were not in Harlem when this statement was first heard, and did not hear and possibly will never hear, the laughter, the bitterness and the scorn with which this statement was greeted.”

It took 44 years. This was America's promise and in some way vindicated Buckley. It is hard to recognise that in the nation's future at the moment but Trump may well have been the inevitable reaction to Obama and after this things will get back on course.

and the wonderful deceitful lying liberal left who went along with Adam Schiff, Obama, Mueller along with Comey with the made up Russian collusion. I would of thought the deceitful lying left would of crawled in a hole by no but no just dig deeper. Shameless.

Steelrudex,
There are plenty of decent conservative voices getting around, your narrative just doesn't see them

Dear Steele,

I just finished watching the film - "A Few Good Men,"
very appropriate to this thread.

All it takes is a few good men to lead and hopefully
good people everywhere will follow.

We can only trust this will happen soon in the United
States.

Is Bug Ridden Boris Johnson, one of those "decent" conservative voices. With over 30,000 official deaths in Britain from coronavirus, the real number is much higher, and is being hidden from the public, the Tory conservatives are considering imposing quarantine restrictions on people entering the country. Only about two months too late, this shows typical conservative inaction which has causes thousands of avoidable deaths from the virus. The best thing that could come out of a conservative politicians mouth are the words "I RESIGN!"

Dear FireballXL5,

Thank you for your post informing me that "There are plenty of decent conservative voices getting around". If you could direct me to a couple I would appreciate it.

I believe ‎Nigel Farage has made all lefties, particularly the bunch controlling the EU, but also the pommy bunch, look just like the bunch of self serving hypocrites they really are. Just what would he have done with Shorten or the lefty dill Labor here have leading them in stupidity.

You are right about that distrust Foxy, but it is well earned. Every bit of distrust has come from some & in fact most academics, & intellectuals rent seeking that has become standard in the mad chase of research grants.

The continual bursting into print with almost meaningless papers, which can not be replicated has made it impossible to trust most academics as far as you could throw them.

The continual rush by medical officers to make TV appearances, when most of them have little more idea of how the coronavirus works than my dog, is not only disgusting, but further increasing the disgust most are held in by the awakening public. The behavior of universities like James Cook reinforce the disgust in which academia is now held.

The UK has had a bad experience with Coronavirus, because Boris & the UK parliament was silly enough to follow the advice of it's senior academics. He would have got better advice from his cook.

'The UK has had a bad experience with Coronavirus, because Boris & the UK parliament was silly enough to follow the advice of it's senior academics. He would have got better advice from his cook.'

Lets not forget the advice from the globalist and WHO who accused countries stopping flights from China as racist and the virus could not be transmitted from person to person. Yep the likes of Paul and Steelie operate in deceit and misinformation in order to fit his lying narrative. Does not matter what the subject its the same deceitful tactics. In the US he manages to blame Trump for all Cuomos incompetence and deaths in old people's homes.

runner,
> Lets not forget the advice from the globalist
Which globalist?

>and WHO who accused countries stopping flights from China as racist
Source?

>and the virus could not be transmitted from person to person.
WHO definitely didn't make that claim. Where are you getting your information?

My dear Hasbeen, please don't tell me you are putting forward a lying gutter politician like Farage as in any way decent conservative voice. Even you I would have thought had higher standards than that.

I think the NHS has given up on the 350 million pound windfall which was to come from Brexit.

No seriously, did you have somebody who people could agree was decent capable of holding and articulating conservative views?

One of these days SR will actually make a statement with some truth in it, & many of the few who still read his posts will pass out in shock.

We've had some interesting Australian politicians and
leaders in the past, and there are still some
with great potential. Here's just a few names who one way
or another I have/do admire:

Malcolm Fraser
Malcolm Turnbull
Julie Bishop
Arthur Sinodinos
John Alexander
David Sharma
Angus Campbell
Quentin Bryce
Scott Morrison

Kerryn Phelps
Tony Windsor
Rob Oakeshott
Kristina Kenneally

Gough Whitlam
Bob Hawke
Julia Gillard
Chris Bowen
Penny Wong.

That will do for now.

You'd probably need to define 'conservative'.

But since you probably just mean 'not of the left', here's a few names to go on with:

Victor Davies Hanson
Jordan Peterson
Mark Steyn
Dennis Prager
Peter Robinson
Mark Levin
Ben Shapiro
Candace Owen

And just to piss you off I'd throw in Trump as amongst the most influential voices of the past decade - the man who took the anti-globalist 'Tea Party' movement and gave it a voice and political cred.

Now I personally wouldn't describe many of them as being 'conservative', but then I wouldn't agree Buckley was conservative either. But they are most definitely not of the left and are persuasive, articulate and leaders of the march to the right.

Aiden

> Lets not forget the advice from the globalist
Which globalist?

>and WHO who accused countries stopping flights from China as racist
Source?

>and the virus could not be transmitted from person to person.
WHO definitely didn't make that claim. Where are you getting your information?

'The World Health Organization (WHO) is now haunted by a tweet it sent earlier this year when it cited Chinese health officials who claimed there had been no human transmissions of the novel coronavirus within the country yet.
The Jan. 14 tweet came less than two months before WHO declared COVID-19 to be a global pandemic.
"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China," the organization had said.'

https://www.foxnews.com/world/world-health-organization-january-tweet-china-human-transmission-coronavirus

I'd like to add a few American conservative names to my
list:

David Horowitz.
Mark Levin.
Ben Shapiro.

All three are interesting.

Re WHO....

additionally German intelligence sources are now reporting that China specifically asked WHO to delay the announcement of the human to human transmission.

http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3931126

"Don't trust China. China is asshole". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il-IcTAxGr4

Not to mention WHO.

well let's hope all of our leading conservatives now see the light about China and get off the gravy train.

they were pretty silent until a year or two ago, whereas anyone with half a brain could see the flaws of a stupid reliance on authoritarian China years ago.

But it was all about "show me the money"

mhaze, nice bit of propaganda, with no supporting evidence. Was that's something Trump put out to deflect from his gross incompetence in handling this pandemic?

...articulate conservative voices...

They haven't gone anywhere, they're simply just not being listened to !

what is an astute conservative anyway? what do they stand for?

Please don't refer to the conservative sooks that merely snipe at whatever the govt does.

Paul,

"mhaze, nice bit of propaganda, with no supporting evidence."

Well I supplied a link. And that link had, in turn, other links.

Paul, I know all good communist apologists will deny any evidence of communist misdeeds no matter what it is. Even after the soviet archives were opened to prove previous allegations were true, good Soviet apologists such as yourself continued to deny it.

So unless Xi himself owns up you'll treat truth as propaganda. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Chris,

I was hoping your "they were pretty silent until a year or two ago" post was satire. But alas not. In fact its really only been the right that has been calling out China over the years. The left has gone, and remain, all in on China.

mhaze,

when it comes to foreign policy, I have long sided with the Liberals.

I merely refer to post-1990s.

But there were a few liberal politicians that have got great benefit from siding with China, too much as far as I was concerned.

It has only been in last few years that China has been increasingly named as as a threat by government, probably inspired by greater US aggression and its reluctance to put up with it.

"Even after the soviet archives were opened to prove previous allegations were true, good Soviet apologists such as yourself continued to deny it."

Unless you can provide evidence, then mhaze, I'll call you a liar! Like all governments the Soviets hid many things. Does not America, indeed Australia do the same, hide things. The Chinese also hide many things. Although without being completely honest the Chinese government has been reasonably up front concerning the coranavirus. Unfortunately the same can't be said for Trump, or Britain's Johnson, very secretive.

Can you call Christopher Hitchens or Nick Cohen conservatives ? Too left ?

Joe

Yes, I think most nations have some guilt on their hands, including the mighty USA.

However, I do believe that the world will be worse off now if authoritarian countries erode the current world order.

Would the coronavirus spread have been addressed earlier if it happened in the USA? Interesting question.

I watched Four Corners last night discussing the US situation. I conclude that the Trump Administration would have probably have been just as slow as it was, as it was Washington State that took on Trump and federal agencies with regard to the seriousness of the situation.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Christopher Hitchens a conservative?

I'd call him a radical, humanist, intellectual
idealist - perhaps a conservative Marxist?

Nick Cohen?

A conservative.

I believe that every previous US President would have proven far more capable than Trump with regard to addressing the coronavirus situation.

Sure, some of them are arguably more articulate than others, but all would been smart and humble enough to listen to health experts immediately when the danger was first reported, including Nixon.

That is my opinion.

far more capable than Trump
Chris Lewis,
I didn't know the POTUS is required to be a medical expert ? A President or Prime Minister I'd have thought was merely relying on the mainly Leftist medical people for advise ?

Our PM has a Cabinet as well as a variety of medical
experts that can and do advise him. I'm sure the
same applies to the US President. Fortunately our
PM listens. The US President does not. He only listens
to his own voice and therein lies the problem for the
American people. For which they're now paying a hefty
price.

Individual,

the difference is Trump, unlike other presidents, would not listen to the medical advice he was offered.

that is the point I was trying to make.

is Trunp so smart that he need not listen? I doubt it.

the leftist medical experts, as you call them, are likely to have the best opinion.

that is what Morrison and the majority of Australians accept.

Foxy,

i wonder if, for some people, they have a level of knowledge/ignorance which they think is just about all there is to know, or needed to know, and everything else is irritating, prissy detail. So Trump is impatient with all that fiddly detail which any medical person would assume was absolutely vital knowledge.

As a fair-weather president, and a narcissist, and not too bright with it, he's probably the worst person for the very crucial task of driving the US out of this disaster. Watch the US Curve start to go up again in two or three weeks (cases) and in four or five weeks (deaths).

Joe

Dear mhaze,

A bit of a barren list I feel but let's go through them.

Victor Davies Hanson

Could have been a contender but has gotten more fruitloopier as time has passed.

Jordan Peterson.

Not sure he qualifies as conservative. He certainly expresses rightful frustration at some of the excesses of both left and right but he has somehow become the right's darling and I'm not sure he is comfortable with that at all.

Mark Steyn

Not a hope in hell. “The Serbs figured that out, as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you cannot outbreed the enemy, cull 'em.” puts him firmly in the sensationalist and hardly decent.

Dennis Prager

Nope. Bit of a Jewish Uncle Tom I'm afraid. "Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."

Peter Robinson

I will grant you Mr Robinson. He does perpetually seems to have his training wheels on and one seems to search for substance whenever I hear him speak, but he has enough to get a ticket, hardly in the league of a Buckley though.

Mark Levin

Nope. I remember some of his quite memorable attacks on Trump then he just went and shut up. Now it seems he is one of his biggest supporters. Calling Mueller “a complete fraud” shows how much he has drunk the coolaid.

Ben Shapiro

Absolutely not. The bloke is 4/5ths bluster and the rest surliness. Who can forget this exchange with a leading British conservative. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E

Candace Owen

Not a hope in hell. The Christchurch shooter said she influenced him most of all. Her anti-Muslim rhetoric and her hazy notions of truth and decency rule her completely out.

SR, i think the times make it very hard for the kind of conservative you are looking for.

these are tough times for a number of reasons. Rise of China, islamic extremism, and relative economic decline for western naitons.

In a world of competing nations for resources, along with the ongoing struggle for the primacy of certain ideas, it tends to be the conservatives that say the comments that are controversial.

The left, though important, has always had it easier by focusing on all the good things that unite us.

Having said that, i have neve been interested in who is intellectual or smart. My interest is in articles that report and discuss the issues in a balanced way.

For myself, I always choose to research a topic rather than a author.

I have never met or read anyone that is across all of the issues, as there is no perfect analaysis in an imperfect world, only pieces of work that strive to be more comprehensive with their respective analysis.

I think every author can and should improve throughout their lives, assuming they retain their faculties

Paul & Chris,

" Like all governments the Soviets hid many things."
" most nations have some guilt on their hands"

The same sort of moral equivalency arguments. All governments lie and all lies are equal.
Well might I posit that lying about selling guns to Mexico isn't in the same league as lying about killing 40000 Polish prisoners.

Hiding the Washington Papers isn't the same as hiding the murder of 10 million Ukrainians; or 100 million Chinese peasants; or 7 million Soviet citizens; or the government sponsored Rape of Berlin.

Paul,

"Unless you can provide evidence, then mhaze,"
I keep giving you evidence and you keep pretending to not see it.

______________________________________________________________-

"Christopher Hitchens a conservative?"
He's dead. I thought we were talking about current voices. If not then: Hayek, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, Mills, Cicero, Thukydides; Hammurabi.

SR,

Googling 'criticisms of [insert name]' isn't quite valid research.
So you reject VDH but can't muster any arguments. Read any of his books? Books on the Peloponnian War? WW2? Trump? Thought not.

Or books by Steyn? because what you said about him there is as complete misunderstanding of his thinking as is possible to make,

and so on....typical SR.

mhaze,

yes, I agree with you.

IMO, there is simply no comparison between what the West has done, and what totalitarian rewgimes have done and would continue to do.

I merely acknowledge that no society is perfect

Dear mhaze,

Oh come on mate, who isn't a fan of Peter Robinson's Uncommon Knowledge. Of of the many I have viewed over the years the conversation with Hitchens and Gingritch would have to be right up there among my favourites.

He has interviewed Victor Davies Hanson more than once but sitting through them is painful. VDH decries the impacts of globalisation yet it is his side of politics which drove it. Now that it is biting communities on the bum and he somehow lands on the 'global elites'. The reason being if he really acknowledged how much Corporate America make up that group then he would also have to acknowledge how much they fund the Republican party.

It just smacks of a kind of dishonesty that I don't see in a Chomsky or even a Hitchens and it taints some of the very good arguments he is capable of presenting.

And no I haven't read any of his books, have you? I'm not sure how his historical pieces make him a broad intellectual for the right but I have read pieces of his take on Trump and while there are worthy observations from him it often smacks of apologist moulding.

As to Robinson perhaps my exposure to him mainly as an interviewer means him coming off as lightweight and therefore I should take a deeper dive. But even then he isn't a Buckley by any measure.

Dear Chris Lewis,

Interesting. I'm afraid I want my intellectual assessments of issues to come from intellectuals and smart people. They don't always go together granted, but people who have taken the role of deeply examining an issue are far more interesting to me than pithy observations.

Someone like Hitchens managed to bring truths to many topics, mainly because his universal stash was rich and robust and he had the intelligence to articulate them.

There's quite a few comments along the lines that Trump "would not listen to the medical advice he was offered."

No examples mind you, just the assertion.

I've shown elsewhere today and in previous threads that, excluding the disaster that is occurring in New York City, the rest of the USA is doing remarkably well and better than many other parts of the world. I've asked before, if you want to blame Trump for the NYC debacle, why he can't be credited for the successes in the rest of the country. Even the crickets didn't respond.

Referring to that debacle in NYC, some of the things your preferred media probably hasn't told you. For example, NY instituted a rule that nursing homes were required to take in sick patients. We all know what happen at Newmarch House when one sick worker carried the virus. Imagine the mayhem that forcing those homes to take in viral patients caused.
Trump tried to help Cuomo by sending hospital ships to NY harbour. They remained unused. One nursing home begged to be allowed to send sick patients to the ships rather than take them in. They were forced to follow the rules instead. Its also clear that the subway was a major cause of infection. Even though less people were travelling, they reduced the services so that the trains remained crowded. And it was weeks into the crisis before they decided that giving the trains a clean every now and then might help!

Following the DNA strains of the virus, it now seems that 60% of all US cases originated in NY.

But NY is run by Democrats, so let's put the blame elsewhere.

Hi Steele,

Francis Fukuyama ?

http://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/thing-determines-how-well-countries-respond-coronavirus/609025/

I'm ploughing through his two-volumes on Political Evolution. Heavy for me, but wonderfully insightful. I'm only up to the Greeks.

I wonder if he's re-considering his End of History ?

Joe

Dear loudmouth2,

Quite possibly. Like Hitchens he is capable of loudly and proudly owning up when he gets something wrong. He certainly hasn't drunk the Trump coolaid which I think is a prerequisite. He was certainly able to vote for Obama which shows he is not a total ideologue anymore and is a big plus.

SR.

"And no I haven't read any of his books, have you? "

All of them. I also have a saved google search which alerts me to all his essays as they come out. I've also attended most of his online courses and lectures. So yes, I think I have a handle on his thinking.

"I'm not sure how his historical pieces make him a broad intellectual for the right..."

Many historians will argue that past experiences will give an understanding of present circumstances. For example, in his monumental work on the Peloponnesian War, VDH spends a good deal of his time comparing the great power politics of that time to the present. Equally he has given quite a few lectures comparing the Trump phenomena to various players in the late Roman Republic.

You really can't dismiss him as a right of centre thinker when you know so little of his work.

Ditto all the others you, as usual, flippantly dismissed.

Chomsky badly misunderstood the Kampuchean killing fields and dismissed the initial reports as CIA propaganda. He, as well as other communist apologists, delayed the world's response to the deaths for perhaps a year. But I would never think of dismissing the rest of his work based on that one, admittedly monumental, error. That's where we are different.

Dear mhaze,

I don't think I dismissed him like I did most of the others you have put up but certainly more wary of him after some of the Corona conspiracy guff he has been giving air to.

His tendency to use a hundred words when 10 succinctly put would suffice is also aggravating, but as you are so enamoured I will avail myself of more of his work. Who knows.

Considering the massive opposition the present POTUS has to deal with, is it any wonder things don't run as smooth as they should ?
I saw several Heads of Departments on TV today & they all commented how well they can work with Trump. According to them he listens but that's not reported !

Foxy and SR,

I am a keen follower of the Oxford Union debates. I think that you will find plenty of keen conservative minds still active.

For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njj_rG_9HKM

And there are many more younger versions too.

However, I think that this is a feeble attempt by SR to dump on Trump. That Trump is inarticulate and boorish is self evident, but he won the hearts and minds of enough US citizens to take the presidency, and I believe that it was primarily due to a collapse of authenticity by the democrats. It showed clearly that the highbrow elite of the left looked down on the blue collar workers who subsequently abandoned the democrats (workers party) in droves. The fumbling presumptive nominee Biden looks like giving Trump an easy ride into his second term.

Finally, I fail to see much talent on the "progressive" side of politics either.

Progressive regress is obviously not a way forward !

Dear Shadow Minister,

Yes full marks for raising the Oxford Union debates. Someone like Moggs would certainly fill the articulate credential.

As for de-platforming I did like this response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jfTaIW8mq

Shadow Minister,

There are quite a few names that come to mind -
although not sure if all of them would be
classified as strictly "conservative."

People like Reinhold Niebuhr, John Rawls,
Milton Friedman, deserve a mention.
So do - Richard Rorty, Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr.
I'd add J. K. Galbraith, T.S. Eliot, to the list
as well as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Albert Einstein.

Then there's Walter Lippman, Tom Hayden, Edward
Said, Louis Brandeis, Ben Shapiro.

Shadow Minister,

The Berkeley Forum may be of interest:

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Forum

Great modern day Australian conservatives;

Pauline Hanson, please explain, I can't!
Barnaby Joyce, a male version of Pauline Hanson with hay seeds!
George Christensen, the member for the electorate of the Southern Philippines, and Minister for Chinese Relations.

From the past;

Stanley Bruce, 8th Prime Minister of Australia, like a true conservative Stanley liked to wear spats and a straw hat, even though others had given up the fashion 20 year earlier. So confident of winning the 1929 general election, Stanley got on a boat and choofed off to London during the campaign. Unfortunately things didn't work out all that well for poor Stanley, not only did he loose the election, he lost his seat as well. It took almost 80 years before another great conservative PM came along to emulate the deeds of Viscount Bruce of Melbourne in the form of Little Johnny Howard. Little Johnny, not wearing spats and a straw hat, but rather green and gold tracky dacks and joggers, also lost an election, and his seat as well.

Dear Paul,

You've hit the nail on the head with your list
- they are a most
uninspiring, talentless and simple-minded bunch.
The best amongst them would probably be the now
defunct - Cory Bernardi.

Not a Menzies amongst them or a Winston Churchill.

Actually Jason Briant - a research fellow at the
Institute of Public Affairs (previously Executive
Director at the Menzies Research Centre)
- wrote a rather interesting article a few years ago,
but still relevant today on the future challenges for
conservatism in Australia:

http://www.ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/archive/57-3-thefuturechallengesforconservatism.pdf

Australians who have impressed me at various
times are - Julian Burnside, Paul Kelly,
Greg Sheridan, Donald Horne.

What kind of President is Trump?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBGbPYIcnQw

Professional parasites are not a ringing endorsement to malign people who want to drain that swamp !

Individual,

What does that even mean?

I would say most conservative voices that demand truth have been hounded out of schools, unis and the media. Simple as that.

“the time for a new crop of conservatives to emerge and re-calibrate to an ever-fluctuating
society... People like Milton Friedman, Russel Kirk, William F. Buckley Jr - are no longer around… no one to take their place… US President - totally unfit for office. Buckley would be horrified. Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 10 May 2020 3:56:58 PM

I think Foxy just doesn't like people who disagree with her- I probably support her in that at least- to a point- and that's why she is looking for "conservatives that are more like her"- but I don't think Foxy believes in conserving Australia's culture- so she isn't a conservative according to that definition- maybe she would prefer to talk to social democrats.

Buckley and Friedman weren't Conservative but Economic Libertarians and Russell Kirk was perhaps a moderate conservative. Though Buckley did have interesting discussions with Gore Vidal. Buckley- despite Foxy's enthusiastic support- was called a racist and perhaps he was- though I'm sure he didn't advocate killing six million Jews. If your aim isn't to conserve the culture you're not really a conservative. I'd argue that some of Kirk's policies (and perhaps even the Declaration of Independence) are inconsistent with conservative traditionalism. But I sort of agree with "Buckley's Law".

Ayn Rand for example are seen as the architypal Pure Economic Libertarian but perhaps she can be excused due to the time and culture in which she formed her ideas- from her writings I suspect that even she would be appalled at modern left and right globalism.

Reagan used Friedman pragmatically- Reagan's GE background perhaps swayed him towards economic libertarianism- back then GE was perhaps synonymous with American Corporate Colonialism- Conservative in a sense.

It's no surprise that communists, socialists, economic liberals agree on many issues they are all globalist ideologies. They will never agree that those at the top need a check to their power- raison d'etre.

It can be sort of like Harry Potter's Dolores Umbridge playing both sides against the middle (perhaps a Machiavellian. concept).

On one side she says that change is bad on the other that some traditions need to be retired- the contradiction is dizzying- and that's the point- the basic message being to "do what I say"- the question is why should "I" support her?- because of fear? It's not in my interest or my families interest or my communities interest. What did Hermione do? She fought against it! But in some ways Delores was right perhaps. And so it is with war- even the innocent suffer.

"The Ministry of Magic has always considered the education of young witches and wizards to be of vital importance... Meanwhile, some old habits will be retained, and rightly so, whereas others, outmoded and outworn, must be abandoned. Let us move forward, then, into a new era of openness, effectiveness and accountability, intent on preserving what ought to be preserved, perfecting what needs to be perfected, and pruning wherever we find practices that ought to be prohibited."

What about self determination?
What about my ancestors?
What about responsibility for our own cultures? And for others responsibility for theirs?
We can't be responsible for all the countries in the world and all their problems- sometimes we need to leave them to fail and let them sort out their own problems. If a country fails and the citizen's try to go to another country should the country be required to help? If the UN for example requires them to help- is it sustainable? If nations are unable to control the chaos outside their borders due to open border policies what does that mean for the nation and it's people? Should big business be able to lobby for open borders and demonize those that disagree through the media? There are times that a philosophical disagreement has a become a licence to torture. Sadly there are those that do so in the name of humanity. Jordan Peterson has criticised socialism as a low resolution ideology perhaps he has a point.

In the philosophy of science Popper believed in inductive science, Kuhn in democratic science, Feyerabend said it's all subjective.

Subjectivism can fall into Nihilism (and perhaps individualism and full circle to globalism and universalism).

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-philosopher-paul-feyerabend-really-science-s-worst-enemy/

Feyerabend’s subjective truth also apply to so called social science and governance- perhaps even more- but how do we all live without war when everyone disagrees. Perhaps the answer is partially contained in the ancient view of the hierarchy of society- as individual, family, extended family, parish, culture, state, nation, world- with balance between the various levels.

That said sometimes war is necessary- even the great communists Stalin and Mao would agree. Zorro says "when the law is unjust heroes become outlaws".

This hierarchy may lead to a future balance of concentric policy- rather than the current tendency to global dominance by austensively benign powers. You could make a good argument that dictatorships are everywhere- but personally I would prefer a dictatorship of the family than one of the world- what would you choose?

The acclaimed Marxist Revolution is a terrifying vision and irresponsible mode of policy- James Burnham's views (as well as his book "The Managerial Revolution 1941") on Socialism and so called Social Democracy perhaps are illuminating.

Often "Socialists are notably ageist" when defending progressive policy.

As to the UK and the US being among the worst impacted by Corona- outliers New York and New Jersey- France and Spain are higher per capita- still growing in Brazil, Mexico, India. State governance (as opposed to President Trump's national governance) is surely important for Corona management as 1918 Spanish case- I trust the data coming out of the US more than others. It will be interesting to see the final analysis of the crisis- most notably "the why".

There is a term that I discovered recently TDS- "Trump Derangement Syndrome". "Sealion" is another amusing one.

It seems that many of the falacies of modern governance have their roots in ancient wrongs in the times of parish and village culture- before the city state period. That being said- the Catholic church in following the Roman policy of self governing provinces did a lot to uphold the principle of "self determination".

Regarding Joe- Loudmouth's comment on the productivity and work ethic of immigrants. He also said that immigrants do the work that Australian's refuse to do.

His comments deserve some analysis.

You can always find people in the world that are so desperate that they will do anything to survive- the question is do we want Australian's to become desperate just to survive- and whose choice should it be. Did the government push through a high immigration policy or did they seek a mandate. Should people be allowed to come to Australia to work on projects such as the snowy mountain scheme- or should Australian people complete the project over a longer time period- should workers be allowed to stay after the project is completed.

Businesses are always looking to reduce costs and labour is often one of the largest costs. It would be overly simplistic to say perhaps that the reason that businesses want to reduce costs is because they aren't capable of innovation but I'm not sure that this is the full answer. There is also the issue of the continuous growth requirement of businesses that is probably unsustainable in a finite world- this has led some to favour a Communist solution- but Traditional Governance did have some aspects of Communism perhaps from certain points of view- though I'm sure the communists would disagree. Traditional communities don't need continuous growth because monetary profit is not the objective- be they still need to store for the winter. I like the Japanese penchant for representing income in terms of "bushels of rice" because rice sustains life (see Ayn Rand) in a fairly direct way and fulfills the requirement of currency as being (relatively) non-perishable.

On the comment that immigrants do the work Australian's won't-

Doesn't this ring false in view of the efficient market hypothesis the foundation of economics and the concept of price levelling. Also I would say that even if this is the case and I'm not saying that it is- the government still needs a mandate in a democracy- despite democracy's many failings due to issues of scale.

I believe that in fact many Australian students struggle due to high foreign student intakes and the low skilled nature of many new immigrants- basically open borders harm the vulnerable.

Strangely I sympathize with Joe- from memory has a farm or has been involved in farming and farms often find it difficult to maintain a sustainable operation with large supermarket chains controlling prices one one side and minimum wage rates keeping costs high on the other. Added to the mix is the problem of the work being seasonal where employees are hooked into costs that are longer term. The OHS record for farming sector is among the most problematic. Farms appear to be a prime target for factory automation and to an extent this has been done. While businesses often prefer to be industry managed rather than by government policy often industry isn't suited for the task given the vested interests.

There are potentially greater opportunities with larger markets with decreased costs so it seems that it is in established business interest to have a larger population- at least in theory- in reality immigrant populations while they initially work for lower costs often have different consumption patterns than Traditional Australians- and are often more likely to surplant their markets than enhance them.

Sadly it appears that some people with national interest at heart are required to solve this issue- but who wants to do this unrewarding work- especially when Traditional Australian's are becoming minorities in their own nation- and any effort to improve the situation will further disenfranchise their franchise.

Obviously some leadership is required here. Simple solutions sometimes work but often come back to bite you.

From memory last time I discussed immigration with Foxy (and her husband) became indignant at the idea that I was suggesting that her immigrant parents were somehow Stealing Australia given the sacrifice she felt that they had made for her and for Australia- the thing is I also feel that I have a debt to my ancestors and my descendants to protect Australia- as she believes that her view of Australia worth protecting

At least both of us seem to believe that it's important to respect our ancestors and descendants in the thread that we leave in time. Hopefully we can help each other to achieve our goals- I believe that the best way to achieve this is to reduce the population of the world and increase per capita land resources. Some globalists believe the holy grail for increasing per capita resources is to be found in technology and mass markets. We also risk the environment if there are too many people- at least this seems to be one of the drivers.

Equal opportunity policy is creating a toxic environment for disagreement with immigration policy for which there is an argument as to whether the people ever supported- then those that disagree with the policy are discredited. This has become somewhat of a trend- no one voted for speeding cameras but seem to come as a result of bureaucratic advise. It seems that being a conscientious objector is becoming a crime.

To be fair not all immigrants are equal as they come for different reasons and we have different common histories.

Some would have you believe that we should distribute the population equally over the earth discounting the fact that people need to take responsibility for their population

I'd like to reply to Canem Malum's posts with the
following link:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-28/these-are-our-core-australian-values/8476902

Enjoy.

Foxy,
That ABC Link describes 1950-1960's Australians who no longer exist !

Where have decent and articulate conservative voices gone?

Unfortunately, they took the advice of Dangerous Doctor Donald, and drank a bottle of 'Pine O' Clean'..... alas they are no more.

Galatians 6:7-9

Individual,

We can see from some of the postings on this forum
that the mentality of the 1950s and 1960s is still
very much alive for some - and apparently always will
be.

They pass it on to their children. Take a look
at who's still sitting in Parliament in Canberra.
Who's yearning for Tony Abbott to come back to
politics. And who were/are the supporters of
people like Alan Jones, et al.

We can see from some of the postings on this forum
that the mentality of the days of Sodom and Gomorrah is still
very much alive for some - and apparently always will
be

runner,

They really are trying God's patience.

Foxy- Ageist again.

Runner- Thanks for your comment.

the mentality of the 1950s and 1960s is still
very much alive for some - and apparently always will
be.
Foxy,
Yep, the traits of those days as noted in your ABC Link would be great to have around in greater numbers nowadays !

Individual,

So why did you say they no longer exist?

You should have said you wanted them in greater
numbers in the first place. Would have made more
sense. Thankfully for most people - they are a minority.

Where are politicians like - John Hewson, Arthur
Sinodinos, even Jeff Kennett or Peter Costello?

Who measures up to them these days?

What do people think of Gerard Henderson?

So why did you say they no longer exist?
Foxy,
Because they're in very, very extremely small numbers. That's why I stated that their mentality for responsibility & care towards others is no longer a trait here.
I was fortunate enough to still experience the tail end of such Australians before that Goaf ruined it all for all by letting the then young & the non-contributing off the hook of responsibility & care in Australia.
That's why you don't understand because you don't have what it takes to understand. Talk to any of the older people who actually earned their income by working productively rather than demonstrating & studying foreve

Individual,

The people I associate with have worked hard all of
their lives and have studied hard, raised families,
and paid their own way. I don't know any body that fits the
descriptions you seem to be so obsessed with.

We can only speak from our own experiences, of course.
And mine are very, very, different from yours.
I'm sorry that you've had such a bad experience with
certain people, that's it's coloured your views.

As to what I am capable of understanding?

That you Sir, are in no position to judge.

That you Sir, are in no position to judge.
Foxy,
I judge you by the way you portray yourself in what & how you write, that's sufficient evidence to form an acceptable opinion !

Individual,

We are all judged to a certain extent by our
postings. Yourself included. However, that
still does not fully reflect our capabilities
in what we are capable or not of understanding.
It may often depend on so many other things,
therefore our judgements are not always accurate.

For example, from your postings I would assume
you to have a very narrow view of certain
issues. And I could be wrong in tose assumptions
for I'm only seeing one side and not seeing the
full picture. Except in your case you are
repetitive with your obsession regarding professionals.

BTW: The link I cited earlier by Ben Pobjie was
tongue-in-cheek, you seemed to have missed that
fact.

your obsession regarding professionals.
Foxy,
I have no obsession with Professionals, I have issues with Academics who portray themselves as Professionals but are only Academics !
A competent Doctor is a Professional, an incompetent Doctor is a mere Academic !
A competent Manager is a Professional, an incompetent Manager is a mere bureaucrat !
I hope that goes some way towards explaining my "obsession" !

Individual,

An incompetent doctor is not an academic.
He/she is an incompetent doctor.
The same applies to teachers, nurses,
and other professionals. Their professions
don't make them academics necessarily.
Merely competent or incompetent in their
chosen fields. The same goes for managers.

The skills it takes to obtain their qualifications
are not the same skills that are required for how
they perform in any given job. Those skills are
usually acquired with on the job training - and
talent.

Numerous studies have shown that there is little
or no relationship between educational achievement
and job performance or productivity.

For example, good grades in a graduate school of
medicine or education are poor predictors of
whether someone will become a good doctor or
teacher.

The fact is that the skills required to get an A grade in a
university or college course on anatomy or educational
philosophy are not the same as the skills needed to deal
with a medical emergency or an unruly high school class.

Most people pick up the necessary skills on the job not
in the classroom and the characteristics that make for a
successful career such as initative, leadership,
drive,, negotiating ability, willingness to take risks,
and persuasiveness are not even taught in the institutions
of higher learning and schools.

Nearly half of the country's university graduates end up
actually working in fields they consider unrelated to
the subject they studied.

Canem Malum stated on page 12 -

Foxy - ageist again.

No. Foxy was not referring to age, but a mentality or
existing mindset. It has nothing to do with age.

But, "ageism" or whatever you want to call it is a very
British phenomenon. You don't get it too much in
other cultures.

Now back to the topic - does anyone have an opinion
on Gerard Henderson?

Apparently he's been let go from the "Insiders" program.
Not sure why.

http://www.smh.com.au/culture/tv-and-radio/abc-s-insiders-drops-conservative-commentator-gerard-henderson-20200224-p543wh.html

Interesting. Could be standard left bias at the ABC but I'll reserve judgement. Gerard Henderson will be no worse off I'm sure. But serves to remind us that we need to defund the ABC because it's gone to the commies. Remember the Guardian article that said that 50% of ABC Journos are Greens voters and 20% Labor 10% Liberal. This puts them as more extreme than the main stream media with 20:50:10 from memory.

Canem Malum stated on page 12 -
Foxy - ageist again.
No. Foxy was not referring to age, but a mentality or
existing mindset. It has nothing to do with age.
But, "ageism" or whatever you want to call it is a very
British phenomenon. You don't get it too much in
other cultures.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 18 May 2020 5:06:47 PM

You are probably correct about British being more concerned about protecting their territory- due to it being an island probably- similar to Australia- it took much longer to be tyrannized by other influences due to the geographical barriers.

That doesn't make it wrong. Perhaps Foxy has a different philosophy to myself and wants to force it on me

Gerald Henderson is obviously another notch in the ABC's Leftist agenda with the "“scrupulously fair" David Speers one of the most poisonous spearheads in the ABC's arsenal !

Foxy doesn't force anything on to anybody.

She's not British you know.

She's an Aussie.

And she salutes you in the most Australian way
she knows: with the joyous cry,

"Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!"

Thanks for the extra information Individual.

I think Gerard Henderson could be Conservative/ Economic Libertarian- I tried looking at some of his articles and got blocked by paywalls- he seems to have some conservative leanings from the article briefs- but he's involved with the Sydney Institute a business- Economic Libertarian group.

Didn't our so called right wing Liberal Leader PM Scott Morrison cut the funding to the ABC because of their left wing agenda. Is this the ABC's way of doubling down- raising the ante and hitting back at ScoMo by sacking a right wing commentator- getting some of the funding back and reducing right wing influence in one blow. Not bad in terms of smart tactics but from a seeming un-wise position of weakness.

Not sure what the cycle of ABC funding is- maybe they are hoping that ScoMo will be out before the next funding round. In the meantime they can work with other institutions to destroy them before the election.

Fascinating. See if it works out in favour of the ABC. And we thought all or nothing plays only happen in the movies.

I can only repeat- defund the ABC.

I hope that this will encourage many Australian's to turn their ears in Gerald Henderson's direction.

Then the ABC will lose twice for their lack of contrition

Does anyone have the salary structure for "Our ABC" ?
I don't think people wouldn't be too far off the mark by assuming the ABC salaries are too high for value in return !

It appears that the revamped "Insiders" program is
trying out new faces. And that the decision regarding
Gerard Henderson had nothing to do with his
conservative views.

Executive producer Sam Clark was unable to guarantee
Gerard Henderson any appearance in the future on the
program when asked to do so - therefore Henderson sent him
an "au revoir" response.

Sources suggest that Henderson did not sufficiently engage
\with the issues during the journalists' discussions.

Personally, I think that is a shame. I found the stouches
between David Marr and Gerard Henderson on the program
very entertaining. They were well-matched and good viewing.

It shall be interesting to see who the new conservative
voices are going to be.

More than 80% of Australians trust the ABC compared to
average trust of 57% for commercial media.

The ABC costs 19.2 cents per person per day and what
they deliver over a wide spectrum is amazing.

The following link is worth a read:

http://www.about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/FINAL_a11y_ABC_Efficiency_Paper_A4_Final-Ammended.pdf

Foxy,

Nobody pays a cent for any of the other radio or TV networks why on earth is the ABC different? Why can't they pay their own way?

Shadow Minister,

Perhaps because more than 80% of Australians trust the
ABC compared to average trust of 57% for commercial media.
And most Australians think the 19.2 cents per person per
day for the wide range they deliver is well worth the
cost. They prefer a national broadcaster that is
independent from vested interests.

Foxy,

I would be happy if the Australians who wanted to watch the ABC paid for it. I am watching my independent Sky news.