“Conservatism” or Oligarchy
P. Schultz
July 10, 2013
Below there
is an editorial from the New York Times on what is happening in the state of
North Carolina, where I happen to live. It is interesting for the following
reason: Those who label themselves “conservatives” are enacting a distinct kind
of “conservatism,” which should be noted and relabeled “oligarchy.”
Note should
be taken what these Republicans are not doing: They are not dismantling or
limiting or reorganizing the powers of the government. Nor are they holding the
line on taxes or reducing taxes, which of course is one way to limit the powers
of government. Limiting access to abortion and other reproductive services,
which services are not provided by the government, does not limit the power of
the government. In fact, such action increases
the power of the government and limits the freedoms of the people. Moreover,
while reducing taxes on the wealthy, the legislature wants to increase taxes on
every one else by raising the sales tax, as well as some other taxes which will
fall on those who are not wealthy.
A little
history for purposes of illustration: Thomas Jefferson conducted a genuinely
conservative revolution as president and one result was that, after Jefferson
left office, the Congress became the focal point of the then new national
government. That is, Jefferson reorganized the government so that what the
Constitution had created, an energetic, unitary executive, no longer could
control the government. Andrew Jackson, as president, did pretty much the same
thing, although he used different means. Jackson did enhance the prominence of
the presidency, but his presidency would be prominent within the context of a
national government whose powers had been shrunk. Jackson waged what has been
called “an attack” on the national government, including of course his creation
of what has come to be called “the spoils system.” The latter legitimized
putting party loyalists in the bureaucracy as a reward for their loyalty, not
because they merited such appointments on other grounds. What many fail to see
is that this “system” was created not just to reward partisanship, but also to
decrease the power and authority of the bureaucracy. Party hacks, even those
with offices, don’t carry as much “clout” as, say, experts or persons appointed
because they have “character.”
And,
lastly, it was conservatives who opposed the creation of the Department of
Defense and, by implication, of our national security state because such a
state would limit our individual freedoms and foster the creation of an
American empire.
So, bottom
line: Not only is what is happening in North Carolina a rejection of “progressivism,”
as the Times points out. It is also a very strange kind of “conservatism.”
No comments:
Post a Comment