The modern political “Conservative” politician usually believes in “Liberal” or “Neo-liberal Economics”. Although we usually think of Republicans as Conservative, some are called Liberal Republicans. Are they really Liberal, or just more liberal than the Conservative Republicans? What about the Moderates? Are Conservative Democrats really Conservative, or just more conservative than the Liberal Democrats?
Do these appellations refer in fact, to any ideological beliefs? Setting aside the other terms, “Conservative” and “Liberal” certainly do. They are a part of the American psyche.
Our law, politics, and economic outlook are rooted in our inheritance from England and these views continued to develop along similar patterns in this country throughout the nineteenth century, especially among the east coast manufacturers and trading companies.
The origin and economic positions of the terms follow.
During the early nineteenth century in England, the term “Conservatives” referred to the landed gentry or the Aristocracy, people that owned the land in the early nineteenth century. The same people had held the land from the time of the feudal system and they were the exclusive voting class. They rented the land out in a fashion similar to our tenant farming. At that time, England had “Corn Laws” that, by the use of heavy tariffs did not allow cheaper foreign agricultural products to be imported. The Conservatives were able to keep the rental price of land very high and made great profits. This, in turn kept the cost of food high. Government support for these Conservatives was not altogether different from the American subsidized farm systems today. The main difference is that we pay these corporate landowners directly from taxes and oftentimes to raise nothing at all to theoretically keep prices low.
Meanwhile a number of industrial manufacturing businesses had grown under government protection (tariffs) and had developed enough capacity to begin exporting their goods. The problem was that they needed much lower labor costs to overcome the shipping expenses incurred in foreign trade. Food was the largest expense in the cost of living. Obviously the way to get labor costs down would be to first lower the cost of food and then wages.
These well-heeled beneficiaries of industry were known as the Bourgeoisie. They fought hard for years to get representation in the government.
After receiving the right to vote in 1832, the Bourgeoisie politically became known as Liberals because they then wanted inclusion in the government. Now they wanted to change the trade laws. They began the fight in earnest and finally, in1846 got the “Corn Laws” repealed. Food prices fell, wages were soon lowered to subsistence levels and the trade restrictions removed. So much money was made on the low wages of the working class, that in the years that followed, most of the European nations tried to emulate the English with varying success.
Have no doubts that the Monarchy was in complete control of the “representative” government. Many of the members of parliament were indebted to the Monarchy as they also held lucrative offices in various departments of the government at the discretion of the Monarchy. The vote was in absolute control of the Monarchy.
The Liberals were able to convince the Monarchy that it could make more money by repealing the “Corn Laws”, and removing the tariffs on agricultural products. In exchange for these concessions, they offered a novel idea, an “income tax”. The Monarchy would share in the profits of business without investment or liability. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the Liberals had their way. The “Income Tax” would not be adopted in the United States until the twentieth century.
In the public view, the Conservatives were those of the “old money” who desired to maintain the status quo. They would attempt to keep the power within the government exclusively for those who already had that power.
The Liberals were seen as those of “new money” who desired inclusion in that government. The Liberals’ success came when they could enrich the real power, the Monarchy.
This shift in taxation methods to favor international trading became one of the central driving forces supporting this new “liberal economics”.
This new international trading system, in tandem with the industrial revolution, quickly catapulted the British to a position of dominance around the world.
The basic meaning of conservative has not changed very much. Whosoever can remain in control of money and political influence for a long period of time will eventually become known as the “conservative” group as they attempt to suppress others in order to retain their exclusive power.
Thus, as the Liberals of England became rich and filled the Monarch’s coffers, they became the dominant force in British politics. In turn, they acquired the instincts of self-preservation and became known as the “Conservatives” of this new era of international trade.
Soon people in the labor class wanted inclusion in the government and they eventually got the vote. At this point they had become known as the new “Liberals”.
After the interruption of the Civil War, the United States adopted most of the trading methods and attitudes of the British. To extend their control further, the American domestic kings of industry became entrenched in political manipulation and became known as the “Robber Barons”. In the attempt to acquire a position similar to that of the English Monarchy, the Conservatives bought the vote by placing large amounts of money under the guise of campaign contributions at the disposal of their favored congressmen. Soon these Conservatives were able to monopolize entire industries. By the end of the century, legislative bills restricting the scope of these gigantic enterprises were being legislated to allow for some degree of competition. Thus eventually, the anti-trust laws were enacted and the increasing power of the corporations was temporarily restrained.
It can be readily seen that observed through the prism of economics, the Conservative view has been the dominant, if not the only serious view of both parties in America. Since the liberal economic trading system captured the imagination of the business world in the middle of the nineteenth century, it has been the driving force throughout the western world in one form or another.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the Conservatives greatest fear was the working class, or the new Liberals. In sheer numbers the liberals could easily control the voting in government. In the latter half of the twentieth century, the Corporations realized that their money could easily determine who could successfully run for office in either of the parties and were no longer greatly concerned which of the parties would win. In most cases, they would have bought the loyalty of the winner regardless of party affiliation. They also found that investing more heavily in the incumbents would give them a greater return on their investments.
The twentieth century was a century of turmoil and war. With occasional minor shifts, the relative positions of these two classes remained the same in the United States until after WW II. In the last half of the century, the Liberal influence waned and corporate influence became a permanent component of the American democratic structure. In the last decade of the century, when the Cold War had ended, a new permutation of Liberal Economics known as the Neo-liberal economic view became very popular, especially with the very large international corporations. This is the corporate proffered view: if a fundamentally free international or global market is allowed to run at will, without restraints of any kind, it will eventually benefit the world (profits) in a better way than can civilized meddling or interference. Its followers believe that this theory is embedded in God’s natural order. In practice, it is based on the Darwinian axiom: survival of the fittest.
With the overt help of the United States government, these international trading companies are now extending and consolidating their markets by coercing weaker governments to wink as they form both national and international monopolies by mergers and acquisitions. They are extending corporate property rights to obtain controls over prices and markets while restricting competition, moving manufacturing bases to exploit the cheapest labor markets in the world, etc. If necessary, they will move offshore in order to operate outside of national laws or at least avoid regulation. It is basically a view to the opportunistic exploitation of any global situation presenting itself. Profits will follow.
Often referred to as Globalization or “Free Trade”, this economic system has successfully been associated as part and parcel with Democracy and Freedom, and sold as a singular package by the United States Government. Many people, mostly in the United States, readily accept it as such. An important precept in this grand design is to convince the public of the inevitability of the process to choke off any resistance. The public must be convinced that there is no alternative, and therefore no choice.
The United States is currently the primary source of these recently hatched conservative views. Many of the larger foreign international companies are beginning to conduct themselves in a similar manner as their interest is piqued, and for the sake of self-preservation.
The Liberal class has been overwhelmed and politically de-fanged. It is currently confused as to the kind of action it can or should take. Middle class has neither the will nor organization nor the financial clout required, to affect the political scene.
No longer the industrial giant, the economy of the United States now consists primarily of merchandising to consumer spending, financial services, construction, government spending, social programs, military spending and weapons sales, corporate subsidies, and deficit spending in exchange for corporate trade profits.
Meanwhile, the last vestige of industrial enterprise is looking to leave.
There are social and political aspects to these terms as well as these economic components. The social and political aspects are murky areas and are not nearly as easily delineated with reasonable clarity.
Do these appellations refer in fact, to any ideological beliefs? Setting aside the other terms, “Conservative” and “Liberal” certainly do. They are a part of the American psyche.
Our law, politics, and economic outlook are rooted in our inheritance from England and these views continued to develop along similar patterns in this country throughout the nineteenth century, especially among the east coast manufacturers and trading companies.
The origin and economic positions of the terms follow.
During the early nineteenth century in England, the term “Conservatives” referred to the landed gentry or the Aristocracy, people that owned the land in the early nineteenth century. The same people had held the land from the time of the feudal system and they were the exclusive voting class. They rented the land out in a fashion similar to our tenant farming. At that time, England had “Corn Laws” that, by the use of heavy tariffs did not allow cheaper foreign agricultural products to be imported. The Conservatives were able to keep the rental price of land very high and made great profits. This, in turn kept the cost of food high. Government support for these Conservatives was not altogether different from the American subsidized farm systems today. The main difference is that we pay these corporate landowners directly from taxes and oftentimes to raise nothing at all to theoretically keep prices low.
Meanwhile a number of industrial manufacturing businesses had grown under government protection (tariffs) and had developed enough capacity to begin exporting their goods. The problem was that they needed much lower labor costs to overcome the shipping expenses incurred in foreign trade. Food was the largest expense in the cost of living. Obviously the way to get labor costs down would be to first lower the cost of food and then wages.
These well-heeled beneficiaries of industry were known as the Bourgeoisie. They fought hard for years to get representation in the government.
After receiving the right to vote in 1832, the Bourgeoisie politically became known as Liberals because they then wanted inclusion in the government. Now they wanted to change the trade laws. They began the fight in earnest and finally, in1846 got the “Corn Laws” repealed. Food prices fell, wages were soon lowered to subsistence levels and the trade restrictions removed. So much money was made on the low wages of the working class, that in the years that followed, most of the European nations tried to emulate the English with varying success.
Have no doubts that the Monarchy was in complete control of the “representative” government. Many of the members of parliament were indebted to the Monarchy as they also held lucrative offices in various departments of the government at the discretion of the Monarchy. The vote was in absolute control of the Monarchy.
The Liberals were able to convince the Monarchy that it could make more money by repealing the “Corn Laws”, and removing the tariffs on agricultural products. In exchange for these concessions, they offered a novel idea, an “income tax”. The Monarchy would share in the profits of business without investment or liability. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the Liberals had their way. The “Income Tax” would not be adopted in the United States until the twentieth century.
In the public view, the Conservatives were those of the “old money” who desired to maintain the status quo. They would attempt to keep the power within the government exclusively for those who already had that power.
The Liberals were seen as those of “new money” who desired inclusion in that government. The Liberals’ success came when they could enrich the real power, the Monarchy.
This shift in taxation methods to favor international trading became one of the central driving forces supporting this new “liberal economics”.
This new international trading system, in tandem with the industrial revolution, quickly catapulted the British to a position of dominance around the world.
The basic meaning of conservative has not changed very much. Whosoever can remain in control of money and political influence for a long period of time will eventually become known as the “conservative” group as they attempt to suppress others in order to retain their exclusive power.
Thus, as the Liberals of England became rich and filled the Monarch’s coffers, they became the dominant force in British politics. In turn, they acquired the instincts of self-preservation and became known as the “Conservatives” of this new era of international trade.
Soon people in the labor class wanted inclusion in the government and they eventually got the vote. At this point they had become known as the new “Liberals”.
After the interruption of the Civil War, the United States adopted most of the trading methods and attitudes of the British. To extend their control further, the American domestic kings of industry became entrenched in political manipulation and became known as the “Robber Barons”. In the attempt to acquire a position similar to that of the English Monarchy, the Conservatives bought the vote by placing large amounts of money under the guise of campaign contributions at the disposal of their favored congressmen. Soon these Conservatives were able to monopolize entire industries. By the end of the century, legislative bills restricting the scope of these gigantic enterprises were being legislated to allow for some degree of competition. Thus eventually, the anti-trust laws were enacted and the increasing power of the corporations was temporarily restrained.
It can be readily seen that observed through the prism of economics, the Conservative view has been the dominant, if not the only serious view of both parties in America. Since the liberal economic trading system captured the imagination of the business world in the middle of the nineteenth century, it has been the driving force throughout the western world in one form or another.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the Conservatives greatest fear was the working class, or the new Liberals. In sheer numbers the liberals could easily control the voting in government. In the latter half of the twentieth century, the Corporations realized that their money could easily determine who could successfully run for office in either of the parties and were no longer greatly concerned which of the parties would win. In most cases, they would have bought the loyalty of the winner regardless of party affiliation. They also found that investing more heavily in the incumbents would give them a greater return on their investments.
The twentieth century was a century of turmoil and war. With occasional minor shifts, the relative positions of these two classes remained the same in the United States until after WW II. In the last half of the century, the Liberal influence waned and corporate influence became a permanent component of the American democratic structure. In the last decade of the century, when the Cold War had ended, a new permutation of Liberal Economics known as the Neo-liberal economic view became very popular, especially with the very large international corporations. This is the corporate proffered view: if a fundamentally free international or global market is allowed to run at will, without restraints of any kind, it will eventually benefit the world (profits) in a better way than can civilized meddling or interference. Its followers believe that this theory is embedded in God’s natural order. In practice, it is based on the Darwinian axiom: survival of the fittest.
With the overt help of the United States government, these international trading companies are now extending and consolidating their markets by coercing weaker governments to wink as they form both national and international monopolies by mergers and acquisitions. They are extending corporate property rights to obtain controls over prices and markets while restricting competition, moving manufacturing bases to exploit the cheapest labor markets in the world, etc. If necessary, they will move offshore in order to operate outside of national laws or at least avoid regulation. It is basically a view to the opportunistic exploitation of any global situation presenting itself. Profits will follow.
Often referred to as Globalization or “Free Trade”, this economic system has successfully been associated as part and parcel with Democracy and Freedom, and sold as a singular package by the United States Government. Many people, mostly in the United States, readily accept it as such. An important precept in this grand design is to convince the public of the inevitability of the process to choke off any resistance. The public must be convinced that there is no alternative, and therefore no choice.
The United States is currently the primary source of these recently hatched conservative views. Many of the larger foreign international companies are beginning to conduct themselves in a similar manner as their interest is piqued, and for the sake of self-preservation.
The Liberal class has been overwhelmed and politically de-fanged. It is currently confused as to the kind of action it can or should take. Middle class has neither the will nor organization nor the financial clout required, to affect the political scene.
No longer the industrial giant, the economy of the United States now consists primarily of merchandising to consumer spending, financial services, construction, government spending, social programs, military spending and weapons sales, corporate subsidies, and deficit spending in exchange for corporate trade profits.
Meanwhile, the last vestige of industrial enterprise is looking to leave.
There are social and political aspects to these terms as well as these economic components. The social and political aspects are murky areas and are not nearly as easily delineated with reasonable clarity.
