On Nov 19, 2009, at 8:49 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
> [WS:] I agree with Doug. The root of the problem is the fiscal
> crisis,
> which itself is rooted in the idiotic ballot system that California
> has. In
> other words, the problem is democracy i.e. mob rule which makes any
> progressive policy impossible. Blaming the usual bogey men (racism,
> capitalism etc.) obscures the basic fact that it is the way political
> decisions are made - by pandering to the lowest common denominator -
> that
> is the root cause of most what is wrong with this country.
>
> Fixing this problem requires not more "popular appeal" - which why the
> problem is there in the first place - but moving away from it, i.e.
> by some
> progressive authority i.e. a "vanguard party" legislating it from
> above.
from wikipedia -
"In Western politics, the term conservatism often refers to the school of thought based on British politician Edmund Burke's criticism of the French Revolution. Though his legacy as a conservative is disputed, he wrote against the excesses of mob rule.[5][6][7] R. J. White wrote: "To put conservatism in a bottle with a label is like trying to liquify the atmosphere ... The difficulty arises from the nature of the thing. For conservatism is less a political doctrine than a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living."[8] Russell Kirk considered conservatism "the negation of ideology."[9]"
Can conservatism (by definition, rather than practice) and socialism coexist in practice. And I ask because it seems as though socialism requires conservatism. Or are socialism and conservatism congruent?
martin