PS. Intereressede læsere, som kunne tænke sig at bidrage og har fattet konceptet, er velkomne til at sende mig en selv-promovering på denne e-mail adresse (kurrild@gmail.com).

Men hvad med at stille et spørgsmål til de vore kloge læsere: Hvem er egentlig de mest indflydelsesrige borgerlige/liberale/konservative i DK?  Må vi se nogle top-25 lister . . . .  Gerne seriøse og med begrundelser.

“Once more, search parties are being sent out to look for David Cameron’s big idea. They will return empty-handed. For the truth is that there is no big idea. However much social responsibility, the post-bureaucratic age or progressive conservatism might be talked up as the ‘big idea’, they are not it. Rather, they are a set of classic conservative insights updated for the 21st century. Cameron is not an ideologue but rather that very English, very Tory thing: a principled pragmatist. …

Baroness Thatcher was never as ideologically rigid a politician as legend has it. But she could still, as leader of the opposition, turn up to a meeting and slam a volume of Hayek down on the table and declare: ‘This is what we believe.’ Her convictions were strong enough for her to push through a radical budget in 1981 that outraged conventional opinion — so much so that 364 economists wrote to the Times to denounce it. She was at war with conventional wisdom. Cameron will have no equivalent intellectual driving force when he contemplates the emergency budget the Tories will have to deliver if they win power.

A Cameron premiership will be a test of the utility of traditional English conservatism. If its insights are not sufficient, Prime Minister Cameron, pragmatist that he is, will become more ideological. That is the paradox of his pragmatism. But if Cameron succeeds on his own terms, if he is the prime minister who guides Britain out of this new spiral of decline, there will not be a creed called ‘Cameronism’. To create an ‘ism’, you have to believe in ‘isms’.”

Og hvad skal man så synes om dét?

Det er godt nok længe siden, at jeg sidst har blogget. Jeg kan takke redaktørens utrolige tålmod eller glemsomhed for, at jeg fortsat har mit password. Men her er så en kærkommen lejlighed til at lave en posting – omsider.

Anledningen er den debat, som blev rejst af et par konservative indlæg, hvor man benyttede den verserende krise til at tage afstand fra liberalismen.

Egentlig er det ikke videre smart at hakke konservative og liberale indbyrdes. Vi burde hellere samle os mod socialisterne, der vejrer morgenluft, og vi har trods alt mere til fælles end til forskel. Men når nu vores konservative venner kaster handsken, endda to gange, kan vi vel godt tage den op, sådan i al gemytlighed.

Det er så gjort her.

Rart at være tilbage, omend kortvarigt og på genbrug.

”..Når kapitalismen ikke ved samme lejlighed afgik ved døden, skyldes det, at kapitalismen er et middel til at samle og anvende kapital til gavn for dynamikken i samfundet, produktionen og oprettelsen af arbejdspladsen. Den er et økonomisk lokomotiv, men er der ingen, som sætter fartgrænserne for kørslen, afhænger togstammens skæbne helt af lokoførerens temperament og ansvarsbevidsthed, og så risikerer lokomotivet og dermed hele togstammen med alle dens passagerer at ryge af sporet. Hvis man kunne være sikker på, at alle lokoførere kørte forsvarligt, var der ikke brug for nogen regulering, men det kan man ikke, især ikke hvis der gives bonus for at komme så hurtigt frem med toget som muligt.”

Hvorefter han, som Connie Hedegaard før ham, erklærer, at “Med finanskrisen 2008-09 afgik ikke kapitalismen, men den ortodokse liberalisme ved døden”.

Nu er Per Stig Møller ikke en hvilken som helst politiker, og slet ikke en hvilken som helst konservativ politiker. Han har brugt en stor del af sit voksne liv til at iscenesætte sig selv som en meget meget klog mand, – og det er han sikkert også på andre områder, men hans kronik afslører først og fremmest, at han ikke har begreb I livet om hverken økonomi eller økonomisk historie. Det hjælper ham heller ikke, at han citerer en af sine forgængere I det konservative parti, Axel Møller, der I anden halvdel af 30erne gjorde en stor indsats for at få luet den værste fascination af nazisme og fascisme ud af KU. Axel Møller skal være undskyld for at tro, at 30ernes økonomiske krise skyldtes grådighed og markedskræfternes sammenbrud. Men vidste man ikke bedre I midten af 30erne, men der er ingen undskyldning 75 år senere, måske skulle Per Stig have brugt lidt tid på at læse noget af den omfattende litteratur om perioden der er kommet i den mellemliggende periode. Jeg ville anbefale ham at starte med f.eks. Milton Friedmann og Anna Schwartz – et godt udgangspunkt kunne jo være den ikke helt ukendte A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960″.

Men det går da også galt allerede i Per Stig Møllers indledende forsøg på at forklare, hvorfor en (konservativ) kombination af socialisme og marked er at foretrække. For før vi kan komme ud i toget skal der jo lægges skinner, og hvordan er det lige det foregår her til lands? Er det markedet der bestemmer udbygningen af infrastrukturen her I landet? Nej vel. Hvis bare det havde været så vel.

Hvis udbygningen af vores infrastruktur var markedsbestemt ville man næppe snegle sig afsted på motorvejene i det storkøbenhavnske område, mens man i Nordjylland stort set døgnet rundt kan køre i den forkerte side af motorvejene uden risiko for sammenstød.

Derudover udstiller Per Stig Møller selvfølgelig også sin ringe viden ved at datere den finansielle krise til 2008, – den startede reelt I august 2007. Derudover, og det er nok det pinligste, må man stille spørgsmålstegn ved om han overhovedet ved hvad ortodoks liberalisme er – kronikken tyder på at han ikke har bgreb i livet om det.Han er nok også ligeglad, det her handler om noget helt andet, nemlig at fortsætte med at foregøjle os, at politikerne nok skal klare skærene for os. Man kan jo så spørge sig selv hvor meget tiltro man skal sætte til dem, for hvis banker og investorer ikke så crashet komme, så er de jo i godt selskab med de offentlige myndigheder og politikerne, de i hvert fald slet ikke klar over at der var en krise på vej, som Per Stig Møller afslører ved sin tidsfastsættelse.

Da jeg i sin tid først stødte på Buckleys navn, var jeg til at begynde med ikke imponeret–men det skyldtes nok, at jeg alene havde Murray Rothbards meget negative vurdering af manden, som var meget præget af deres modsætninger i 1960erne og uenighed om sikkerheds- og udenrigspolitik.  Som tiden gik, blev jeg mere og mere imponeret over Buckley, som trods hans lidt specielle taleform uden sammenligning var USA’s mest velartikulerede–og morsomme–konservative tænker i det 20. århundredes anden halvdel.  Han blev “verdensberømt” i USA som 22-årig med bogen God and Man at Yale, og han var som skribent, stilistisk og intellektuelt set, milevidt over niveauet fra mange af de mere højlydte, nyere konservative kommentatorer såsom Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham og Michelle Malkin, for nu blot at nævne nogle oplagte, eller tågehorn som Mike Huckabee.  Hos Buckley var der–selv når man var uenig med ham–altid en vis (høj) standard, selv når han var morsom og perfid.

Samtidigt var Buckley, både intellektuelt og organisatorisk (ikke mindst som grundlægger og redaktør af National Review og initiativtager til “Young Americans for Freedom”), en person af måske større betydning for formningen af amerikansk konservatisme end nogen anden amerikansk konservativ i det 20. århundrede, ihvertfald et par præsidenter inkluderet.  Som WSJ skriver:

“Buckley and his talented stable of editors and contributors gave coherence and shape to what he called “a fusion” of traditionalism, anti-Communist internationalism and free-market economics. Equally important, the magazine worked to discredit fringe elements like the John Birchers, the Jew-haters and the Lindbergh isolationists.”

Det er ikke helt ved siden af at sige, at uden Buckley, Goldwater og Reagan, ville der ikke have været nogen amerikansk konservativ “revolution” i 1980erne.  Han var en ener, og som NYT skriver én, der “marshaled polysyllabic exuberance, famously arched eyebrows and a refined, perspicacious mind to elevate conservatism to the center of American political discourse”.

Vi har tidligere skrevet om ham her.  National Review selv gør det her.

Updates:

• Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Page.
• Peggy Noonan (WSJ).
• Michael Barone (US News & World Report).
• David Brooks (NYT).
• Rush Limbaugh.
• John Podhoretz.
• Evan Thomas (Newsweek).
• William Kristol (The Weekly Standard).
• George F. Will (Washington Post).
• Thomas Sowell.
• John O’Sullivan (NRO).
• Rich Lowry.
• Washington Post.
• New York Times Q&A:
  • Q: In what sense, if any, would you describe Mr. Buckley as a libertarian?
  • A: He supported the legalization of drugs, was an utter devotee of Milton Friedman’s economic principles and said African Americans had every right to boycott industries that discriminated against them. Those are just a few examples, and I think it’s safe to say his traditionalism was in dialog with his libertarianism throughout his life.

PS. Her er National Review‘s “mission statement” (1955).  Buckleys sidste klumme og en af hans sidste artikler: “Goldwater, The John Birch Society & Me” (Commentary).

PPS. Kort interview og “appreciation” på Charlie Rose.  En times interview og portræt sammesteds.

Man kan være enig eller uenig med forfatteren i mangt og meget, men emnet er interessant, kronikken er velskrevet og niveauet er alen over, hvad man kan finde i danske debatter om samme emner–hvis de da overhovedet findes.  Her kommer nogle brudstykker:

“More than perhaps any other American political group, libertarians have suffered the blows of caricature. For many people, the term evokes an image of a scraggly misfit living in the woods with his gun collection, a few marijuana plants, some dogeared Ayn Rand titles, and a battered pickup truck plastered with bumper stickers reading “Taxes = Theft” and “FDR Was A Pinko.”

The stereotype is not entirely unfair. Even some of those who proudly call themselves libertarians recognize that their philosophy of personal freedom and minimal government can be a powerful magnet for the unhinged. Nor has recent political history done much to rehabilitate libertarianism’s image as an outlier.

The Libertarian Party’s paltry membership has never reached much beyond the 250,000 mark, and polling numbers for Ron Paul, the libertarian candidate the Republican presidential nomination, remain pitiable. Worse, despite Bill Clinton’s declaration that “the era of big government is over,” antistatist ideas like school vouchers and privatized Social Security accounts continue to be greeted with widespread skepticism, while massive new programs like the Medicare prescription-drug benefit continue to win the support of re-election-minded incumbents. A recent New York Times survey found increasing support for government-run health care, and both parties are showing signs of a populist resurgence, with demands for new economic and trade regulation.

And yet, judging by their output in recent years, libertarians are in a fine mood–and not because they are in denial. However distant the country may be from their laissez-faire ideal, free-market principles now drive the American economy to a degree unimaginable a generation ago. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who as a young economist sat at the knee of the libertarian guru Ayn Rand, presided in the 1990s over one of the most prosperous stretches in American history, with the support, no less, of a Democratic president. When the avowedly libertarian economist Milton Friedman died last November, he was lauded just about everywhere, and even given respectful treatment in places like the New York Review of Books.

Nor have libertarian victories been limited to the economic arena. Americans are increasingly laissez-faire in their attitudes toward sex, divorce, drugs and gay marriage. In the personal sphere as in the world of business and finance, freedom has become the guiding principle, especially for the young. As the motto of Reason magazine, the movement’s flagship publication, trumpets: “Free minds and free markets.”

… Doherty disabuses readers of the idea that libertarianism is exclusively concerned with economics. As he emphasizes, it has a political and moral dimension as well, “a vision of a radical and just future.” … Many of the figures described by Mr. Doherty believe that libertarianism is also good for the social fabric. Capitalism may not lead to the fraternité naively dreamed of by more conventional revolutionaries, but it does expand the circle of human trust beyond the traditional limits of family and tribe; social bonds thrive in an atmosphere of freedom. Indeed, several of Mr. Doherty’s subjects (particularly Hayek) argue that government meddling positively discourages the human instinct for association. If politicians and bureaucrats would get out of the way, people would more readily cooperate and support one another. As David Friedman (the anarchist son of Milton) concluded in studying the economics of tipping, people are capable of developing their own rules for distributive justice, and will pay for social goods of their own free will.

… Mr. Lindsey goes well beyond most libertarians in his claims for the moral benefits of the creed. In his view, it is not simply freedom that improves morals; it is the prosperity that follows in freedom’s wake. Wealth allows us to transcend “the cruel dilemma of lifeboat ethics,” in which scarcity prevails. Moreover, wealth expands human tolerance and imagination. Drawing upon the psychologist Abraham Maslow’s theory of the hierarchy of needs, Mr. Lindsey proposes that once people are confident of their survival and comfort, they feel free to pursue “postmaterialist values.” They have the time, energy and ease of mind to try to perfect themselves.

… Even on social and cultural questions, where libertarians have often tangled with tradition-minded conservatives, Mr. Lindsey is on to something in his talk of a “libertarian synthesis” combining self-expression and self-restraint. If the country was slouching toward Gomorrah for a while, it has at the very least straightened up a bit. Many of the indicators of social meltdown that received alarmed attention in the 1980s and early ’90s–high crime rates, “children having children,” teen drug use, rampant divorce–have improved lately.

But they have not improved nearly as much as one might wish–and it is difficult to separate the reasons for our abiding social disarray from the trends that Messrs. Doherty and Lindsey praise and for which libertarians bear a measure of responsibility. Despite Mr. Lindsey’s protestations to the contrary, libertarianism has supported, always implicitly and often with an enthusiastic hurrah, the “Aquarian” excesses that he now decries. Many of the movement’s devotees were deeply involved in the radicalism of the 1960s.

Nor should this come as a surprise. After all, the libertarian vision of personal morality–described by Mr. Doherty as “People ought to be free to do whatever the hell they want, mostly, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else”–is not far removed from “if it feels good, do it,” the cri de coeur of the Aquarians. 

… On the one hand, libertarians make a fetish of freedom; it is their totalizing goal. On the other hand, libertarians depend on the family–an institution that, in crucial respects, is unfree–to produce the sort of people best suited to life in a free-market system (not to mention future members of their own movement). The complex, dynamic economy that libertarians have done so much to expand needs highly advanced human capital–that is, individuals of great moral, cognitive and emotional sophistication. Reams of social-science research prove that these qualities are best produced in traditional families with married parents.

Family breakdown, by contrast, limits the accumulation of such human capital. Worse, divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing leave the door wide open for big government. Dysfunctional families create an increased demand for state-funded food, housing and medical subsidies, which libertarians reject on principle. And in courts all over the country, judges who preside over the manifold disputes occasioned by broken families are forced to be more intrusive than the worst mother-in-law: They decide who should have primary custody, who gets a child on Christmas or summer holidays, whether a child should take piano lessons, go to Hebrew school, move to California, or speak to her grandmother on the phone. It is a libertarian’s worst nightmare.”

Dette synspunkt er skrevet uden at jeg har glemt ændringerne (stramningen) i udlændingelovgivningen, som ikke just kan kaldes borgerligt-liberale, men som snarere er realistisk socialdemokratiske ( Hvis man har tegnedrengen liggende fremme på spisebordet, er det nok en god ide at lukke døren). Af de kommentarer der har været på klummen indtil nu kan jeg se at ikke alle (stor overraskelse) er enige. Men for denne uhelbredelige liberal(ist) – der trods alt fortrækker konservatisme frem for socialdemokratisme – så sørgelige tingenes tilstand, modsvares måske af hvordan det må være, at være ”liberal” (i den amerikanske forståelse af ordet) i USA, når mrs. Clintons 1. regeringsperiode skal beskrives i 2012 (hvis hun vinder altså).

For er konsensus her i landet socialdemokratisk (og min største anke mod regeringen, er at den intet har gjort for at ændre dette), kan konsensus i USA vel beskrives som konservativ.

Eller som det så glimrende pointeres i det seneste nummer af Economist, i lederen – under overskriften ”is Amerika turning left?”:

”America, even if it shifts to the left, will still be a conservative force on the international stage. Mrs Clinton might be portrayed as a communist on talk radio in Kansas, but set her alongside France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, Germany’s Angela Merkel, Britain’s David Cameron or any other supposed European conservative, and on virtually every significant issue Mrs Clinton is the more right-wing. She also mentions God more often than the average European bishop.”

"Sidder de slet og ret i deres ministerbiler og ved, at de kan være forvaltere af det socialdemokratiske velfærdssamfund og ikke en tøddel mere? …  Ideologi er ikke noget man skal skamme sig over eller erklære stendød," sagde han med henvisning til tidligere statsminister Poul Schlüters bemærkning om at ideologi er noget bras. "Schlüter erklærede ideologien for stendød – det lader til at de borgerlige har taget det til efterretning".

Hvem mon sagde det?  Søren Pind? Jacob Axel Nielsen? Martin Ågerup?  Christopher Arzrouni?  Læs svaret her hos 180grader.