RSS Feed MenuAre these not conservative thoughts?
Refusing to use these words – right and wrong – means a denial of personal responsibility and the concept of a moral choice.
We talk about people being “at risk of obesity” instead of talking about people who eat too much and take too little exercise. We talk about people being at risk of poverty, or social exclusion: it’s as if these things – obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction – are purely external events like a plague or bad weather.
Of course, circumstances – where you are born, your neighbourhood, your school, and the choices your parents make – have a huge impact. But social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make.
There is a danger of becoming quite literally a de-moralised society, where nobody will tell the truth anymore about what is good and bad, right and wrong. That is why children are growing up without boundaries, thinking they can do as they please, and why no adult will intervene to stop them – including, often, their parents. If we are going to get anywhere near solving some of these problems, that has to stop.
They certainly seem conservative to me.
British Opposition Leader David Cameron delivered these comments last July when campaigning in the Glasgow East constituency during a by-election. The Tory leader spoke specifically about the broken society that is evident in that part of Scotland and elsewhere in Britain – communities plagued by violence, welfare dependency and “social breakdown.” Mr. Cameron outlined an alternative vision. Yes, he spoke about educational reform (through choice), ending welfare for able-bodied men, and getting tough on crime (with mandatory sentences). But he also spoke about the need for personal responsibility and morality.
Mr. Cameron’s party lost the by-election – not surprising given how socialist Scotland has become. Now sitting comfortably in the polls, he seems destined to win the general election next year. (A good description of his rise to popularity can be found in the left-leaning American Prospect.)
Some right-of-center commentators are skeptical, if not hostile, to the party’s Cameron-led rebirth. Kimberley Strassel, one of my favorite Wall Street Journal columnists, argues vehemently in an op-ed that: “The Tories Are No Example for the GOP.”
Among Ms. Strassel’s criticisms: the Cameron Tories have hired an adman to better their image. (What’s next, speechwriters?)
Ms. Strassel continues that modern British conservatism only tells the public what it won’t do: “It won’t dismantle a failing national health-care system. It won’t disavow failing public schools. It won’t resist higher tax rates on the ‘rich.’”
Mr. Cameron has outlined policies in these areas, including dropping the micromanagement of the NHS in favor of paying for outcomes and allowing greater parent choice in schools. On the economy, the party favors tax cuts, but not in light of massive deficits.
No one would suggest that Mr. Cameron is perfect. And it’s also clear that he’s had an easy job as of late: he has the luxury of spending the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression warming the opposition benches, free to give speeches as opposed to dealing with collapsing banks.
It’s a good time to be out of government. With economic turmoil, shaky housing markets, and depressed stock values across the Western world, an opposition politician riding high in the polls today seems about as surprising as Detroit considering a new GM restructuring plan.
But Mr. Cameron’s party has held the lead for many months – yes, before AIG became an extension of the Treasury Department.
He has taken over a factious party, prone to constant infighting, and united it. He has refurbished the party’s image, put forward a slew of new policies, and taken his party to the cusp of power. This has been no small feat: the Tories have been out of power for a dozen years now, and had to contend not simply with exile but absolute hatred – when pollsters asked Brits about a hypothetical policy, it would poll well until they found out it was a Tory policy.
Sound familiar?
Undoubtedly, part of Mr. Cameron’s success reflects luck. He faces an exhausted Labour Party, prone to scandal and led by a weak leader.
But he’s also a natural political talent, perhaps the greatest of his generation – at Question Period last year, Prime Minister Brown cut short a member of his own party before he asked his question (and who was blaming British economic problems on foreign countries). “It’s a wonderful thing,” Mr. Cameron noted. “You don’t have to finish a planted question to get a planted answer.”
And part of his success reflects good planning and policies. He speaks about communities, the environment, and society’s forgotten.
For American conservatives, the rise of Mr. Cameron would seem interesting. Britain isn’t America, but are there lessons to learn?
There are. Mr. Cameron represents a new type of conservatism, one unafraid to touch issues typically ceded to the left while still courting center-right voters. Reagan Republicans learned from Prime Minister Thatcher. I suspect that soon his intellectual descendents will once again look across the Atlantic for ideas.
InTheMiddle12 // Apr 16, 2009 at 4:26 am
I’ve been writing this on this blog since the beginning. Until the right discovers how to be a loyal minority party with a leader akin to Cameron, it’s the wilderness for them. The Tories went into the wilderness 10 plus years ago and it took them sometime to find the right leader. I’m wondering if it’s going to take the right in this country as long.
gibberish // Apr 16, 2009 at 5:54 am
Quite so, the Tories were reduced to an extreme rump after their defeat in 1997. The 1st new leader tried to be centerist but was forced into extreme positions by his far right fringe. He lost. The next 2 leaders were pure blood conservatives and they did worse – alternative moderate leaders were rejected. Finally the right wing accepted that they could agree they had lost power for ever or shut up and let a sensible sounding man be in charge.Mind you it wasn’t all about compromise. The Tories used to be divided over the issue of Europe. They haven’t moderated over this issue they have silenced all internal dissent becoming essentially totally committed to what was once an extreme position – but since it is no longer mentioned in public the voters don’t mind anymore.
sinz54 // Apr 16, 2009 at 7:07 am
Kimberley Strassel’s hit piece on the Tories is wrong.I have looked at Cameron’s platform, and it appears to be a forward-looking one with specific proposals on a number of issues:http://www.conservatives.com/Policy.aspxWhat’s really bugging Strassel is that Cameron’s conservatism isn’t conservative enough for HER. I’m sure she’s particularly irked by Cameron’s call to move to alternative sources of energy. The Wall Street Journal loves the oil industry; they’ve written several editorials, including one titled “An Ode to Oil,” in support of that industry.But nobody expects an American Republican to run on the British Tory platform. The issue is whether the GOP, like the Tories, can clean up its image and clean up its act.The lesson from the Tories is that this is doable, but it will take years. It took from 1997 to 2009 for them.It may take at least 8 years for the GOP. We had better resign ourselves to a two-term Obama presidency–barring some unforeseen game-changing event. The dreams of the “Tea Party” protesters that they are going to sweep the Democrats out of Congress in 2010 are a pipe dream.
Chekote // Apr 16, 2009 at 7:20 am
“The Wall Street Journal loves the oil industry; they’ve written several editorials, including one titled “An Ode to Oil,” in support of that industry.”And what exactly is wrong with us using our natural resources? Sometimes, I just don’t get you. “The Tories went into the wilderness 10 plus years ago and it took them sometime to find the right leader. I’m wondering if it’s going to take the right in this country as long.”I am one of the few who thinks that the GOP needs to take a time out to reform itself. Review its policy positions, develop new strategies, message. But many feel that we need to be part of the conversation. How can we do that before figuring out a policy position?
Chekote // Apr 16, 2009 at 7:22 am
“The dreams of the “Tea Party” protesters that they are going to sweep the Democrats out of Congress in 2010 are a pipe dream.”Now you have a problem with tea parties? I was there last night and you could tell that all the people there had never taken to the streets. It was quite inspiring.
sinz54 // Apr 16, 2009 at 9:22 am
Chekote: The oil industry is composed of giant multinational companies, many of which have been nationalized by foreign governments. While ExxonMobil isn’t nationalized, it isn’t in the business of using “our” natural resources either. They operate drilling and refining operations in dozens of countries on six continents. Toward this end, they have been accused of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, by bribing officials of foreign countries to give them access to those countries’ oil.”Our” proven oil reserves constitute about 2% of the world’s proven oil reserves; Iraq alone has ten times that percentage. Yet we import some 24% of the world’s oil. We could never sustain our oil consumption solely on our oil reserves, even if we drilled every drop of it.
Chekote // Apr 16, 2009 at 9:28 am
SinzOil production. Actually, gas production is the bridge that we need to use while we develop alternative energy sources. Also, I am tired of people acting like wind, solar and biofuels are something news. We have been subsidizing them for decades. They are not effecient energy sources. The can supplement but they are not replacements. Anyway, you sound like some loony lefty rambling about Big Oil.
sinz54 // Apr 16, 2009 at 9:32 am
Chekote: I never have a problem with peaceful protests that inspire. That’s the American way.I just say that as things stand now, the “Tea Parties” are not winning. They are taking on a President still in his honeymoon phase, with popularity ratings of around 60%, who was just elected handily only 6 months ago. The electorate is just not looking for alternatives to Obama and his policies–yet. Most folks have voted, seen Obama inaugurated, and tuned politics out and went back to their normal lives until the next election year. It’s way too early for protests like these to have any effect.The “Tea Party” protesters may have better luck in a few years, if Obama’s policies lead to a declining America that most Americans reject. In the meantime, they come off looking like the liberal Dems in 2001, who refused to acknowledge Bush as their President until 9-11. Remember “Sore/Loserman”?
Chekote // Apr 16, 2009 at 9:51 am
SInzThe Tea Parties – despite the MSM reporting – are not about taking down the Obama approval numbers. I was at the Dallas Tea Party, and Obama was a non-issues. The Democrats got booed and so did the Republicans. It was a bunch of people like me who have never taken to the street before who see the level of borrowing, spending and are concerned that it is not substainable. Unless we implement confiscatory tax rates on the middle class, that is. At that point, we all are going to be working to support the state instead of ourselves. At that point, we stop being America and we start becoming Europe. Finally, you let poll numbers dictate your life. The Iraq War enjoyed strong support for a few years. Did that discourage the Left? No. They continue to make their case to the American people. Why can’t we do the same? Why should we stop making our case that the current course is not substanable just because Obama is enjoying a honeymoon?
barker13 // Apr 16, 2009 at 10:21 am
Re: David Gratzer –Yep. Those are conservative thoughts. (*WINK*)Re: Sinz54; 7:07 AM –Excellent! Thanks for providing the link to the actual platform.Sinz… I won’t say that I “love” the oil industry… but being that we’re largely a petroleum fueled society… I’m damned grateful to them!Hey… the HEMI powering my ‘08 Dodge (BUY AMERICAN!) Charger gets pretty good gas mileage to performance, but the key word there for purposes of this reminder is… er… GAS mileage.(BTW… I’m grateful to farmers too! Just as my car eats… er… gas… I eat… er… food. Sinz – ya ever heard the old saying, “don’t bite the hand that feeds you?”)As for whether the GOP can “clean up their image,” it all depends: Are most GOP politicians going to be “NewMajority” type Republicans or “TeaParty” type CITIZENS who happen to be Republicans?(*SHRUG*)Re: Chekote; wrote 32 minutes ago –Hey, Chekote… do you recall Sinz ever addressing the corn based ethanol issue? (*SMIRK*)Hey, Sinz… if you care to share your “history” as it pertains to your support or opposition to corn based ethanol use (and subsidies) that would be super; just out of curiosity, what was your initial reaction to MTBE – were you a booster back when it was all the rage? Again… just curious…Re: Sinz54; wrote 27 minutes ago –Frankly, Sinz, I don’t see how any American citizen can actively be opposed to the Tea Parties, let alone anyone who calls himself a Republican, let alone anyone who calls himself a conservative.I’m not saying “my way or the highway,” but if it walks like a duck, floats like a duck, and quacks like a duck…(*SHRUG*)BILL
barker13 // Apr 16, 2009 at 10:55 am
Re: Chekote; wrote 8 minutes ago –Yep. My wife and I attended the peaceful, patriotic sincere, and family friendly Fishkill Tea Party in Dutchess County, NY, last night.No doubt the vast majority of attendees were Republican or Republican leaning – meaning in a race between a Dem and a GOPer they’d vote for the most conservatives, traditionalist, libertarian-leaning candidate.Was “the Christian Right” there? Yeah… but not in force… more as a coalition partner to the more libertarian leaning majority.I don’t know how many people attended – probably around 1,000; perhaps more… (For video see: http://www.chriscassone.com/) The stadium was pretty full as those who check out the video can see and their website states capacity seating of 4,494… so, heck… maybe it was closer to 3,500 or even more folks who attended.I saw two nuts. I say “nuts” because they had signs with Obama’s face with a Hitler mustache and a swastika asking if “change” equals fascism.TWO. Two nuts out of a stadium filled with people. And let me tell you… I didn’t see one person who looked at these clowns and had anything other than disgust in their look. (*SHRUG*)On the other hand, there was one guy running around with a sign urging “90% tax on the Rich!” and aside from a few good-natured “boos” nobody busted the guys chops; certainly no one got in his face. (*SHRUG*)The Tea Party I attended was… er… America.Yes… it was an “anti-tax” rally… but more than that it was an “anti-spending,” particularly “anti-bailout” and “anti-stimulus” rally. It was clearly a middle class rally with – I’m guessing – the “upper class” consisting mainly of business owners as opposed to lawyers and financiers. Chekote – guessing that your Tea Party was similar to mine… can YOU fathom how anyone identifying himself or herself as a conservative, traditionalist, Republican, or even just plain NON-LEFT-WINGER could be anti-Tea Party…???BILL
ditka // Apr 16, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Basically he is a younger version of Tony Blair. That would be fine if he were in the Labour Party, but Cameron is a CONSERVATIVE. He is supposed to be in favor of getting rid of the NHS, he is supposed to be opposed to new taxes on energy, and he is supposed to be for cutting taxes not raising them. As for his rhetoric you missed his famous “Hug A Huddie” speech which he was lambasted over. In all honesty the public is not really buying it. Yes the Tories have a lead in the polls, but it is because of Brown and Labour’s unpopularity. This explains why when they come in to power next year Cameron will have a majority of maybe 40, which can be flipped in one election. Far from charting a new course, Cameron is reverting to Heath’s model of “Me Tooism” with Labour. It failed in the 60’s and 70’s and will fail now.
MH88 // Apr 16, 2009 at 12:42 pm
He is supposed to be in favor of getting rid of the NHS,That form of Toryism have never been in fashion. Not even Margaret Thatcher wanted to abolish the NHS. If she had she probably wouldnt have been elected.In all honesty the public is not really buying it. Yes the Tories have a lead in the polls, but it is because of Brown and Labour’s unpopularity.I dont agree with your analysis. Labour was quite unpopular in 2005 when the war in Iraq was a huge issue during the General Election. However, the Conservatives did not gain much from Labours lack of popularity. Those voters went to the Liberal Democrats instead. But that has changed. Voters who are angry at Labour are now supporting the Conservatives instead, because they see that the Conservatives have changed. This explains why when they come in to power next year Cameron will have a majority of maybe 40, which can be flipped in one election.The lates poll suggested that David Cameron will enjoy a 70 seat majority. However, a 40 seat majorty is a workable majority. Margaret Thatchers majority after the 1979 Election was 43 seats.
sinz54 // Apr 16, 2009 at 4:40 pm
ditka: As I said before, you can’t expect a British conservative to advocate the same things as an American conservative. We shouldn’t judge Cameron by what an American conservative platform would look like, and they shouldn’t judge our conservative candidates by what their Tory platform looks like.
InTheMiddle12 // Apr 16, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I have family in England, and they’re Tories. If you even hint at the idea of removing the NHS they’d not only talk you down, they’d be furious in their argument. The only debate about the NHS in the UK i s how to make it continually function better. With as direct as the British are, if you thought they wouldn’t balk if it was a problem, you don’t know them very well. The Brits highly value the NHS. My cousins, suffering from third stage esophygeal cancer has received superb care, including daily visits for wound care, support groups, chemo, surgery and an amazing team. England’s leading cancer hospital is part of the NHS system. This whole health finance argument misses the point completely. The Brits have a longer life than Americans, let’s start there.
Chekote // Apr 16, 2009 at 6:26 pm
“The Brits have a longer life than Americans, let’s start there.”This is such a phony statistic. The reason Americans live less is because we have a high rate of people dying in automobile accidents. This has nothing to do with healthcare quality. American’s diet and lifestyle also leads to higher death rates. Again, nothing to do with the quality of healthcare. Here is a bit of information regarding cancer survival rates:”The U.S. had the highest five-year survival rate for breast cancer, at 84 percent; Canada’s was 82 percent, the U.K.’s, 70 percent. The U.S. also led in prostate cancer, at 91 percent; Canada’s was 85 percent, the U.K.’s, 51 percent.”http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081014/OPINION/810140309/-1/OPINION0303The study was conducted by Dr. Michel Coleman, professor of epidemiology and vital statistics at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
sinz54 // Apr 17, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Chekote: One area that America is superior to Europe (which accounts for the better statistics on cancer), is that Americans do more aggressive preventative screening, thanks to activists who have raised America’s consciousness about these diseases. In America, for example, the Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) test for prostate cancer is routinely given to men at every yearly physical, along with the older Digital Rectal Exam (DRE) test.However, many managed care plans won’t reimburse you for expensive screening tests. I wasn’t reimbursed for my colonoscopy (over $1,000). I had it anyway, because I felt it was important. But I felt angry that I had to pay for it out of pocket.