Conservatism does not exist
Emphasis on individual initiative represents one of the important elements, valuable by any moving image is considered conservative guidance. But what is the meaning of insistentei with which it is asserted the importance of individual initiative? In other words, why not state? Someone who has gone through the experience of communism such a question will seem pointless, even critical. The reality, say that someone speaks for itself: nobody cares, as long as the owner is not clearly defined. Experience shows us, no way back, the only way possible is that of an economy based on private property. Experience or (another name for the experience) tradition represents the best measure for evaluating horses that we can follow; the lesson of life, stretched over several hundred years.
Of course, the question arises to what extent such judgment has validity and perpetuate widespread diffusion. What do we do if we are dealing with an evil tradition? A blindly follow? Few of those who consider themselves conservatives could subscribe to such a primitive understanding of the concept of tradition. Rather, the tradition is something dynamic, interweaving the good results of our previous experiences with the need for change and continuous improvement of practices in the society, be they political economic times. With or without such specifications, the emphasis on tradition, perhaps maintaining and perpetuating the status quo remains a fundamental trait of "conservative", to the dismay of agasarea sustinatorului and the need for change. Progress versus tradition seems to be the central issue of this dispute.
What it looks like but this famous "conservative"? A conservative american us stories about him in detail, adding that he exists, but probably not in Europe. Conservatism, in the meaning of the concept, it's actually synonymous with a particular "Anglo-Saxon" to look at things-normal thing, considering the fact that this kind of thinking has as a reference point and the "original text" the writings of Edmund Burke. Another implication but Anglo-Saxon size is this conservatism is blazed on a particular form of capitalist-type economy, laissez-faire shade. Therefore, almost any emphasis on the social dimension is equated with a Socialist orientation, according to the idea that all European countries are socialist orientation. Thus, our american friend will consider continental european Conservatory-a promising species (see neoconservatorilor American efforts in Poland), but currently non-existent. One of the reasons why Anglo-Saxon type to be perhaps non-existent on the Mainland side is like a local ethos (Anglo-American) cannot be "transplanted"-and it would be really a thing that a conservative is supposed to know, from the first moment (and which some admit of course and il).
But what is the distinguishing feature of this conservative american? In other words, how do we recognize it? In large, we could say that he is asociabil with the Republican party; but at the same time we have to remember that an american party comprising various groups and orientations, which, as outsiders consider them to be closer, with both scrambling hard to demonstrate how they are different. And, indeed, a traditional conservative line on Edmund Burke-Russell Kirk will follow distinct principles towards a so-said neoconservator (Guy William Kristol, Michael Novak, Charles Krauthammer). The latter are in fact former "leftists" who in the ' 70s and ' 80s have accepted the principles of a market economy, bearing in but something from earlier idealism.
And then, however, what is a conservative? Maybe a feature would be the fact that the Township such a person supported intervention in Iraq from the very beginning, and that is generally what you might call a "hawk"-i.e., supporting the use of concentrate force in foreign policy. But no it can not be considered a definitive distinguishing: many of the so called paleoconservatori opposed, from the beginning, the American intervention in Iraq. It remains so to use as a measure of support for the Republican Party-at least in general terms. but the Republican party is a particular and specific to a particular crops (United States of America) and, of course, a certain historical moment and is far from being a reality, with universal static attributes. Nay, more, as in any political system, the party girl is determined decisively by the policies pursued by the other party, and "empty spaces" that appear on the stage of politics.
What it is, so conservatism (american, since about the continental european nor have we got to talk)? Who is returning to the ones specified-previously-the criterion by which we can decide dynamically keeping or giving up certain traditions? There are limits in terms of individual economic initiative? Which of the many groups and grupuscule characteristic of a history and a particular ethos can set himself up in some universal truths political representatives and on what basis?
Liberalism does not exist
Human history is a continuous process of progress of human society, from all points of view. With each generation, mankind is perfected and advances the scientific, cultural, and moral. When all these dimensions will be cutting-edge fully, the world will be indeed as we want and nothing will ever stand in the way of universal happiness and peace.
Progress-what interesting concept! Necessarily represent the future progress, and of course, past "backwardness". Where where the progress? Where does the idea that history has a direction and a goal as we head towards something and that something is likely, and if we care, a "better"? How is it that the Greeks and the ancient world generally not held such a vision; as for a Plato or Aristotle one, for example, history has a direction and a purpose?
Progress seems to be the main idea of liberalism. but is it talking about the 19th century european liberalism, which, in the footsteps of the enlightenment and the French Revolution, fought for the idea of progress, through centralized policies the education of the masses and by applying the principles of the exact sciences, creating an ideal society? Or is it here about economic liberalism, after whose individual economic initiative principles and mechanisms of the market (supply and demand) should be left to run the economy? If the principle of the market represents the notion of liberalism, does that mean that the contemporary Republican party supporters are actually Liberals? In fact, some of the party's policies are indeed criticised as "neoliberal"? What words to use and how to tell them, how long, from a certain point of view, some are Liberals, and from one another are their opponents, and the Socialists are categorisiti but not all neoliberal, because some are targeting community … and so on?
Multiculturalism-maybe this is the essential aspect of liberalism progresivist (here's another expression). But this concept seems to be irreparably compromised: is he aggressive brand promotion strategies of diversity (as long as it isn't too wide), going up to the creation of the famed melting pot, in which the only common thing is the lack of identity? Or is that multiculturalism and open attitude towards cultural alteritatea and appreciation of values encountered in that difference? But why would the "difference" or "the other", something of value?
Maybe the emphasis on human rights-is not this specific trait of any progressive orientation? but us wondering-why would the man have special rights? Where they would be and who would bestow? Who decides what are the rights and privileges that are? Why human rights granted to concentrate-is this not a case of "speciism", as rightly accuse us Peter Singer? This does not mean by default a discrimination of all the other life forms? With pure reason not too we can demonstrate that a child would have the right to life of more than, say, a pig; After all, a benefit many suina and safer than a new baby is born, especially if the latter is vulnerable or sick and can not achieve major age. Indeed, why would a person have human rights or special value? What does it mean that, for the first time in history, into a human Parliament (the Netherlands) has entered a party whose sole mission is the promotion and protection of the rights of animals?
Man: so there
To take from the beginning. Any discussion of political directions the same thing: what are the policies that might benefit a particular society (human, it seems like you need to add). Any answer to this question inevitably starts from specific needs and possibilities about presuppositions. human being. Ability to take political decisions, to formulate policies that would give companies a particular development direction, making progress possible and analizabil, depends on the extent to which politician can find and understand the answers to these questions. A public person, capable only of immediate reactions at pressures of various kinds, there is, in this sense, a political figure, but just an actor-Manager on an irrelevance. policy scene
What is man? The human person is created by the double act of its existence as an individual, but as an individual born and constituted a system of relationships: family, city, society. in this sense, any individual can not be imagined without society and no society without individuals, and direct implication given is that the interests of the individual is inseparable from public interest. Thus, exaggerated emphasis put on individual size will lead to a society ripped the various interests, in that the strongest will survive (see Russia postsovietica), and an exclusive priority given the interest of the company as a distinct entity, will lead to modern and etatism (in which personal privileges will be much harder for Europe, for that matter).
But why do we grant an interest of any kind would have it, the human person? Beyond the fact that a society without men cannot be inchipuita, it seems that we are intuitively aware of the fact that the human individual has a special value. For a person who thinks ahead, the value of human existence is inseparable from the fact that existence itself is a good one, and that is good because it comes from (and is maintained) the only source of good and of existence: the deity. Here comes the intrinsic value of the human person and the fundamental direction of springs here that any activity, including the policy, you have to take it. Human rights are based on such intuition and have meaning only to the extent to which the human individual is understood properly, as a whole means, its limits.
but these principles are not too removed from the practice of politics? How can it be implemented in public policies such a clarification of the fundamentals of human existence and civil society?
For Konrad Adenauer, the father of modern Germany to be human means to be itself, the Christian be so aware that the existence of a God is your beneficial, which considered human being so important, that the sufferings and miseries took it on their own shoulders. But being human means and you be born in a certain community, village or town, region, a community of history and culture that formed you and you feel Bilberry. For Adenauer, this specific form was represented by the fact that it was a german born in the city of Cologne. but just as clearly, for german politician, was the fact that being german means, thereby simultaneously to be european and that being a european means to belong to a culture, extraordinarily rich, of the essence. As a politician, this parent of Germany's federal and European Union could not do anything but to put into practice what had been their own truth. Thus was born, among others, the german model of the social market economy-corporate (an impressive), based on a system of cooperation between all actors in the economy, from great investors up to the workers in factories. The specific element of this system was the fact that awareness of personal or group interest (human) is not served if other parts of German society coming out at a loss (social dimension). Extraordinarily astute politician, Konrad Adenauer ruled Germany for nearly 20 years, of which 14 years ago was Chancellor.
The ability to be successful in the political game is a necessary condition to remain part of that game. The direction in which it is used, but not springs from mere skill to be successful on the stage of politics. The difference between a true statesman and a mere bureaucrat is that the shares of the first born from a preliminary clarification, in governing body inside, while, for the latter, they are pale reflections of pressures and policies of others-in the domestic, european, transatlantic.
The real progress of a company is not possible as long as there is no direction and thus a measure of that progress. For a Christian, the structure that gives meaning to each act is the ability to judge between good and evil, which is developed in and through an existence in Christian revelation.
Various-ISMS which shake public voice on the market are in fact established, beyond a false claim of "practicalitate" by some systems of humans and society about presuppositions., which most often are not consistent with themselves. A careful look reveals that these ideologies fail to respond, usually only to certain necessary implications of reality of the Constitution the human being. Individual initiative and concern for those who are vulnerable, treasuring one's own identity and otherness consciousness, real social development orientation and value of previous experience, the consciousness of the fact that a perfect society cannot be achieved are equally necessary, conclusions of a real understanding of the human condition.
Not by chance, the guidelines that can close the loudest of such a comprehensive approach were (are?) the shade Christian-democratic, formed on Judeo-Christian values the European Humanities. Millions of people around the world continue to be concerned about, in the work, understanding the consequences of what spring necessarily from human condition-what is called the Christian social thinking. A serious policy, made consciously in the service of Romanian society, with clear ideas about which policies should be promoted cannot be possible without clarifying the human figure of the roman-born Muhammad or european, etc. There have been many discussions about the duty of Orthodox Church to promote such a review; my suggestion is that the debt that is constant and that it belongs to each of us that is capable of independent thinking.
A politics devoid of such fundamentals is a policy "in the service of the company" Marat like no human being would not exist.
January 2007, Washington, D.C.