Stefanie wrote: David Brooks:
The central political debate of the 20th century was over the role of government. The right stood for individual freedom while the left stood for extending the role of the state. But the central debate of the 21st century is over quality of life. In this new debate, it is necessary but insufficient to talk about individual freedom. Political leaders have to also talk about, as one Tory politician put it, “the whole way we live our lives.” That means, first, moving beyond the Thatcherite tendency to put economics first.
In other words, their conservatives are becoming... liberals. Although, it's interesting to note that Brooks associates a concern for individual freedom with conservatives, not liberals. Of course, he's referring to economic freedom more than social freedom, but economic freedom is the key to a healthy democratic society. Thatcher was right, and both the U.K. and the U.S.A. could use more of it, not less. While I think Brooks is correct in assuming that American conservatives would not accept the new British conservatism, he seems to ignore the fact that the Republican Party has already moved closer to the left. That's why so many real conservatives are dissatisfied with the Republicans.
what is regarded as conservative, liberal or socialist has morphed over the decades and centuries
describing any political position as "real" conservatism seems to me simply to indicate a relative idealogical position rather than an objective set of facts the contempory British Conservative party has certainly moved it's rhetoric to the left and more to the perceived centerground of British politics mostly as a result of its perceived extremism -- failing dramatically electorally will do that -- and as a reflection of Tony Blair's success in moving the Labour Party to the perceived right equally as a result of electoral failure in British politics first for the left then right there has been a marked shift away from clearly defined idealogical positions and towards pragmatics -- a shift which has caused levels of horror in both major parties -- what has resulted is a softer more amorphous idealogical vision from the ruling elites it is a real danger for any political movement/philosophy/meme stack when arguments break out about "true" this or "real" that -- the great rallying cry of legitimacy -- the internal struggles within communist parties eg the Chinese; who particularly love these sort of labels with rightists, leftists and splittists; demonstrating a particular sequence almost like a dance sequence or to use a metaphor of something you're more familiar with than I am - chess. on a personal note i think the assertion that "economic freedom is the key to a healthy democratic society" is dubious when stated as fact a level of economic freedom goes hand in hand with democracy but the relative levels of economic freedom -- the economic merits of varying levels of unregulated markets and the social effects have been at the center of political discourse since before Adam Smith (1723-1790)(who formalised much of the thinking on the subject) and this discourse completely dominated the history of the 20th century but there is no such thing as a purely unregulated market - pure economic freedom -- no contract law etc no property -- not much economics would take place in such an enviroment regulation -- law and the stability it provides is a prerequisite but the optimum level of law and regulation is only provable by time: the success levels of different economic and political models as future and history unfolds
is the only judge we can argue for different levels but it is a matter of discourse rather than objectivity RE: The Conservative Revival - New York Times | 
