A journal of political, social, and other important, possibly even somewhat related affairs, including but not limited to: Central European Society, The European Union, HC Kometa Brno, American Politics, Film, and Beer.

28 September 2010

"Is there a Conservative Tradition in America?"

A little while ago today, this little item was forwarded to your semi-humble correspondent from an old friend, asking if any "true" conservative tradition existed in America. It's by Patrick Deneen (not this Patrick Deneen, unfortunately. That woulda been sah-weet!) but a professor at G-Town. Deneen argues that no real conservative tradition in the US exists, precisely because our founding was so radical and liberal (in the classical sense of the word), but we are sorta stuck with "classical" and "progressive" liberalism. This in turn means that while we in America toss around the label all the time, none of us really can claim it fairly. Thomas Sowell a few days ago also wrote about the dangers of labels, for what it's worth.

At first glance, it his hard not to concede that Deneen is right -- it does seem a bit contradictory to call "conservatives" exactly that. After all, we are a revolutionary nation, and conservatism is a decidedly non-revolutionary feeling. There really aren't too many loyalists anymore, hoping to get that awful George Washington off our money and get the Queen back on there, where she belongs. As I'm sure readers of this blog know, a guy named Hayek (you may have heard of him) wrote a really cool essay entitled "Why I am not a Conservative" and eventually described himself as an "old Whig." (Though I personally think that anyone who gives himself that moniker 150 years after the death of the Whig party obviously has some respect for tradition!) Another guy, James Buchanan (it's slightly less likely you've heard of him, but you should look him up too) ripped off Hayek and wrote "Why I, too, am not a Conservative," and came out at about the same place, describing himself as a classical liberal in the Hamiltonian sense. (And again, you find a guy who's quoting the ideas of a dude who's been dead for 200 years.)

What I personally find "conservative" in our current era is that we are asking for people to go back, and understand that there fundamentally is a Rousseau-type "civic religion" about our founding (though Rousseau himself would be mortified about America's, I believe). We had a code of laws that seemed to make us successful for many, many years, and preserving these laws *should* continue to benefit us in the future. The fact that yes, indeed, the revolutionaries were liberal at the time should not dissuade us from using the word "conservative" to describe them today.

Furthermore, I think that Deneen misreads Burke here. He points out that Burke found a few rather non-conservative things in the American Revolution, which is true enough as far as it goes. But it also must be borne in mind that Burke *supported* the actions of the guys we now call Founding Fathers. Some traditions, such as representation in the British Parliament, unequal taxation, and the abilities of local officials to handle local affairs (all of which were present in England at the time) were indeed being denied to the colonies. In other words, you could make an argument that precisely because those traditions *weren't* being upheld by the most enlightened nation at the time, the American Revolution was almost forced to happen. The American Revolution was as much about the extension of traditions as the severing of a cord.

Deneen's Straussian argument is a little better. When we talk about the "first wave of modernity" and the rise of thinkers like Hobbes, Locke and Machiavelli, we definitely see a shift from the conservatism of "the divine right of kings" to that of natural law. Nevertheless, this idea of natural law is for these three still very much anchored in the idea of original sin, and man's propensity to fail. It's Rousseau who -- in my personal opinion -- really becomes the first "modern" thinker, because he's the one who really starts to detach society from this anchor of human nature. This had, of course, disastrous results in Europe, as various Utopians forced their visions of the perfect society on the continent from Napoleon to Lenin to Hitler. Here it should be pointed out that the "divine right of kings" was a bit less, ahem, accepted on the Isles, particularly after around 1215. So one can almost say that modernity and the idea of limited government started then. It's hardly surprising that the first contractian philosophers were British. Maybe that means that Britain has a poorer history of conservatism than Germany (that's actually a very interesting argument, actually, come to think of it), but it doesn't mean that we Americans are essentially conservative-free.

Fast forward to 2010, and the people we know as conservatives in America today. Deneen writes about five guiding principles of the conservative movement today:

1. Commitment to limited government as laid out by the Founders in the Constitution;
2. Support for free markets;
3. Strong national defense;
4. Individual responsibility and a suspicion toward collectivism; and
5. Defense of traditional values, particularly support for family.

He argues that only one of these (#5) is a particularly conservative attribute. Of course, when he says that we in America basically only have two choices (Jonah Goldberg once described them as Vanilla Liberalism and French Vanilla Liberalism) it makes it very hard to say that anything is conservative. But I submit that a defense of traditional values, particularly that of the family, is precisely why we have the other four. I think that #1 and #4 are essentially the same -- I don't see how you can hope to cultivate individual responsibility with unlimited government. The reason we foster individual responsibility, however, is because we believe that the individual can do a better job taking care of his or her family than the state can. Supporting the family and supporting the individual as mutually reinforcing. The best way to promote this, in turn, is supporting the free market. We set up institutional arrangements so that while a family who goes poor receives compassionate assistance from the state, we realize that communities and individuals are often far more efficient and generous (and virtuous, if that has any conservative relevance at all!) than the welfare office is. And the best way to generate the wealth that enable charity to even happen is through the free market. This is why the Republican Party is at its best when it dons the mantle of fusionism -- demonstrating that we are moral because we see in our children the passing on of traditions, and at the same time enabling them to have the wherewithal to do that, which we need the free market for. Moreover, only the free market can allow us to keep and grow the bounty Providence has allowed us to attain. We would be foolish (and immoral) to take this splendid institution, the free market, and discard it for a collectivism that will consign our children to a future with fewer options for them. As for #3, well, I'm really not sure why national preservation of our values should even be considered a modern hyperindividualist distraction from "true" conservatism.

So I suppose that I disagree with Dr. Deneen. I don't think that he's completely off-base, just that time has allowed us to take up the name. It funny, because here in Czech Republic, and in Europe, frequently the Klausian-Thatcherite-Lockean tradition is sometimes written "liberal-conservative" as an adjective -- "ODS is a liberal-conservative party." For what it's worth, the party grouping that the ODS and the Tories belong to in the European Parliament is known as the "European Conservatives and Reformists." Is that contradictory or complementary? Or is it just complimentary?
 

25 September 2010

A Great Article from The New Republic

A recent article in The New Republic (tragically for subscribers only) discusses the re-Russification of Czech Republic, particularly Russia's focus on monopolizing the Czech natural gas market and the energy market generally.

The piece opens by discussing the prickly reputation of President Klaus, and moves on to point out some of the more "pro-Russian" moves he has made over the course of his presidency. It is a piece which carries the tone of "maybe alarm bells aren't ringing yet, but the yellow indicator lamps are starting to warm up." It chronicles particularly the Czech President's reticence to condemn the attack on Georgia and his decision to attend a summit in Moscow at a time that he was legally obligated to sign the Lisbon Treaty. The piece moves on to discuss Russian designs on energy markets in Czech Republic specifically and Central and Eastern Europe generally, and notes that the Russian state uses energy as a very, very, big hammer in its foreign policy toolkit, particularly with regard to Europe. Additionally, it notes the continued presence of Russian firms and managers in Prague, and the expensive villas in which they dwell. (Somehow the piece overlooks the resort city of Karlovy Vary, which is even more dominated by these things. Including the villas.)

Chief among these companies are Lukoil and Gazprom, and the piece then moves on to discuss the problems of endemic Czech corruption (not just by Russian firms, for better or for worse) and  the recent investment moves by Russian companies to develop and refurbish gas lines and the nuclear power plant in Temelín, in South Bohemia. It chronicles the semi-Czech-state-owned power company of ČEZ and its lavish use of political contributions to the major political parties, and sums up the situation with quotes from the charismatic Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, the former head of the quickly-dying Green Party Martin Bursík, and of course, the Old Man himself, Václav Havel. Overall, it is a picture that reveals President Klaus as a considerably more accommodating president than Havel, an American administration that seems rather indifferent, and a Czech population that remains skeptical of Russia and politicians alike.

The piece is written very much as a warning for the US and its interests, and rightly so. However, it is perhaps hard to blame President Klaus entirely for his calculated orientation to Russian engagement. While it is true that Klaus is hardly a one-man engine of European integration, his reasons for this have little to do with his "warm" relationship with Russia and much more to do with his perceptions of the EU as a social-democratic monolith. Additionally, initial attempts by Czechs and other Central European nations to diversify their gas supply have been frequently stymied by other European nations, notably Germany, which values Russia as a long-term strategic partner. Finally, the corruption and influence of Russian state-run companies is something that cannot be cleaned up by Klaus alone, and while ending this problem could have the greatest effect on the independence (energy-wise, politics-wise, and business-wise) of the Czech Republic, it is the most difficult to tackle as well. And purging Prague of the STB would require a Batman-like effort. Unfortunately, every party would likely be rocked by scandal, and that may perhaps dissuade politicians from investigating.

On the EU level, the case for Russian engagement is strong. Member states on the Union's eastern flank are not the only ones reliant on cheap Russian gas, and while Norway pumps a lot of gas to Europe, it cannot solely supply the continent, and it can hardly be said that business interests in Düsseldorf and Essen have the security issues of Sofia and Kiev at heart, to say nothing of Parisian defense firms. Moreover, the EU needs Russian cooperation on other geopolitical topics, such as sanctions on Iran and working in the Quartet. Finally, western European nations frequently underestimate the influence Russia -- both as a modern state and as an ancient idea -- has on the security of their more eastern EU brethren. Particularly because EU actors are loath to see the world through the lens of power politics, they misjudge the intentions of their largest neighbor. President Prime Minister Putin is happy to oblige them.


14 September 2010

Something Sad Happened on the Polish Roads

http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/51,80273,8318288.html?i=0

(This falls under the journal entry of things about beer. And Poland.)

13 September 2010

A Great Political Ad

Running against Nancy Pelosi in her San Francisco district, Republican John Dennis probably isn't getting a lot of phone calls from Beltway reporters asking the pressures of a neck-and-neck race. But it's still worth it to campaign, highlight the issues, and mount at least some opposition to Pelosi in her own stomping grounds. So Dennis put together this ad. It's hilarious, but the best part is probably the fact that he draws attention to his "obligatory McCain-Feingold-incumbent-protection-mandated message" at the end.

12 September 2010

To follow up on the previous post....

The mayor of one of the parts of Brno (something akin to the wards of DC, or the arondissements of Paris -- here we call 'em městské částy) announced that the first families of "problematic" families have been denied welfare payments for their children's lact of school attendance. So here we go....

07 September 2010

"Europe's Gypsy Problem"

This past week, the Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg met with one of President Sarkozy's foreign policy advisors; he will meet with his French counterpart, Bernard Kouchner, later this week. One of the big topics is nuclear power, but the more controversial issue concerns France's recent expulsion-repatriation of Roma, or gypsies, primarily from Bulgaria and Romania. The move was widely supported in France, though it is scandalous in the bien pensant human rights world. As John Derbyshire explains, (in an article for which this post is named) the "official" reason is that many Roma overstayed their French visas, though it is also clear that many became a burden on the unemployment and welfare systems. As Derb notes, these migrations to West Europe have increased in recent years, largely because of the much lower hurdles required for citizens of EU nations to travel freely within the EU. (Of course, Roma are not just moving to Western Europe; witness the struggles between Czech Republic and Canada over visas last year.)

The interesting thing about this development is the way in which the Central and Eastern European Roma have changed from a post-communist human rights problem, with western governments and advocacy organizations flagellating new EU member states for their treatment of gypsies (which, to be perfectly fair, was rather justified) to a European problem. A while back, the mayor of a Czech town proposed building a fence around a Roma ghetto. Needless to say, this was poorly received outside of the surrounding areas. But then the mayor called on the Minister of Human Rights at the time, Michal Kocáb, to "come and live here for while then." Eventually, the project was (rightly) canceled, but it expressed the frustration of local authorities in managing what another mayor referred to as "the un-integrate-ables." All the while, western governments were shocked at these developments.

Now, the free movement of people in Europe has inevitably led to the free movement of, well, everybody. This honestly and truly is a great thing for Europeans. However, it also means that some problems that were once confined to national borders have themselves been Europeanized. In some ways, this may not be a bad thing. If problems of Roma integration are diffused, best practices and educational schemes will perhaps develop more rapidly, and western European nations would have a slightly better handle on the problems new member states have with integrating all their citizens, guaranteeing them equality before the law and an environment of non-discrimination. It would also allow governments of European nations to be slightly more realistic about their abilities and limitations.

On the other hand, other incentives, such as those recently unveiled by the Czech Minister of Labor and the Minister of Education, would link welfare payments to school attendance, still would require state-based, rather than European-based solutions. Nevertheless, while many Roma move extensively, the majority do tend to stay where they're at, and so state-sponsored efforts would still be necessary. Moreover, the EU tends to issue these sorts of things in the form of relatively flexible "directives" that the member states tend to implement however they feel.

Derb ends his piece on a somewhat sour note, arguing that the gypsy population of Europe cannot integrate, simply because they have little "desire or aptitude" to do so. And indeed, it is a challenge. No matter what the human-rights activists say, it is more complex than just saying "stop being racist," and magically Roma and whiter Europeans will simply sit down around a campfire and sing Kumbaya. It is certainly true that some at least would like to have a better shot, however, and those are worth looking at.





Things aren't really looking up....

in Sudan. This article is another one of those pesky reminders that an engaged America needs to keep its eye on the ball in a lot more places than just Afghanistan. It will be interesting to see how President Obama reacts to the inevitable ugliness in Sudan, and how he will negotiate with, as the article points out, other parties in the region with skin in this game (read: China).

If we are lucky, perhaps a semi-peaceful, or at least non-genocidal, solution will emerge. But it will almost certainly not happen without some sort of international, ahem, persuasion.

05 September 2010

Hogs

http://www.christienmeindertsma.com/index.php?/books/pig-05049/
This lady, an artist from Holland, made a catalog of everything that any single pig might be used for. She found 185 things, ranging from schnitzel (unsurprising), to stents used in human hearts (somewhat more surprising). Much of this is due to the amazingly versatile characteristics of gelatin; this dynamite Spiegel article points out that beer, red wine, and even bread contain important swine-derived additives.

On first glance, this is a somewhat unnerving discovery. No one likes to be told that there's pig in his beer. (According to the Wikipedia article, gelatin is sometimes used in beer to make it "clearer.") On the other hand, this isn't a particularly surprising thing. When the shampoo lady comes on TV and tells you about all those great proteins that make your hair stronger, it's logical that the proteins had to come from somewhere (in this case, from the boiled hair of the pig). The fact of the matter is that we like having protein in our shampoo, we like having our bread dough even, and we like it when our porcelain (the name is just an etymological coincidence) has a special shiny translucence derived from the calcium phosphate in Wilbur's bones. A modern society, with its neverending quest to innovate and make any given product just a little better for everyday use, harnesses resources from wherever it may find them. That we have so much of this renewable grunting natural resource should not be cause for alarm; it is a way to point out that we simply have developed a way to channel even the most useless things into something, well, useful. And as our Spiegel correspondent points out, in this we are not so very different from the Indians.

However, I usually drink unfiltered beer.

For those of you with additional interest in this subject, here's an interview with Meindertsma.

03 September 2010

This Reminds Me of College

Somehow, during a beer festival in Pilsen (where they brew Pilsner Urquell), a huge statue of Václav Havel got stolen.

One can always say, "who would do such a thing?" but, well, probably the answer has something to do with drunk kids.