Kevin Drum has posted a list of non-liberal blogs that are on his reading list:
[…] I periodically get email asking me for a list of good conservative blogs. In fact, I got another one just yesterday. Around these parts, we consider “good” and “conservative” to be oxymorons for most of the year, but today I’m going to make an exception. For a variety of reasons — some are entertaining, some I learn things from, some are mainly anthropological excursions — there are several non-liberal blogs that I read daily or almost daily.
The ensuing list includes blogs across a fairly wide ideological spectrum but are mostly centrist and libertarian blogs. The conflation of “conservative” with “non-liberal” is interesting. Perhaps the distinction he’s looking for is partisan allies vs. those who aren’t partisan allies.
Ann Althouse is grateful for the attention but surprised to find herself characterized as a conservative:
I could roll out the usual protestations and say I’m not conservative, but I’ve become resigned to the label, which, more than anything else, means to me that the category “liberal hawk” doesn’t exist anymore. Maybe I seem to be one of the “good” ones because I’m not one.
I strongly recommend you read the comments made to both posts (they’re reasonably tolerable). Kevin is taken to task by several commenters for heterodoxy; Ann’s commenters attempt to puzzle out the ideological distinctions.
It’s becoming harder and harder for me to understand the positions of the two major political parties. Abortion on demand is pretty clearly an article of faith among many Democrats. And the Democratic Party is very clearly the party of Fordism (mass consumption, mass employment, government fine-tuning of the economy, state provision of essential services). If Fordism weren’t collapsing everywhere, I’d have more sympathy with it, myself. It’s been the prevailing political ideology in America for most of my life.
I honestly have no idea what Republicans believe these days. Not in small government; not in the market; certainly not laissez-faire. It’s a mystery.
Cleanliness is next to fordliness.
–|PW|–
If we look at purely economic policy positions, confusion between the two parties is understandable. But in realms of foreign policy, national security and culture? I have a clear idea where the respective parties stand. I befuddled at your confusion.
Also, I’ve never heard of the term, “Fordism.” Where does it come from and can you elaborate on how you’re using it. By associating it with the Democrats, are you implying that the GOP is against mass consumption or mass employment. Except for state ownership of essential services, I see a lot of Reagonomics in Fordism.
I use the term Fordism pretty frequently, Tom. Check here and here. Fordism is a Gramscian term and refers to the compromise that was arrived at among labor, management, and the government in the 1930’s. I find it a handy concept for explaining what we’re actually seeing.
And you’re right: I was mostly considering domestic policy issues. Although I think there’s more diversity on foreign policy issues in both parties than many think. The Democrat Party has its Hamiltonian realists and Jacksonians, too. Although the transnational progressivists and the isolationists seem to be screaming the loudest these days.
The conflation of “conservative†with “non-liberal†is interesting.
Meaning Left.
No surprises, Liberal and Conservative (vaguely Left versus Right) in the American blog universe appear to mean “people who I don’t like” (when applied to the other side) or “people I like” when applied to one’s own side.
Look at your dear Barny who delusionally insists I am Leftist, even “Looney Left” despite there not being a shred of Left politics in me body (but then he conflates my contempt for his President’s incompetence for an ideological issue).
Thanks for the explanation. It’s a term I haven’t seen elsewhere. I thought it had something to do with Gerald Ford, honestly. I did read your other posts, which I like, although I’m still not entirely settled on the definition of or the context Fordism should be used. I just find the term too imprecise.
I agree with you regarding the diversity of beliefs in both parties. For the Republicans, its clear that differences with the administrations is superseded by both party loyalty and putting up an united front in fighting a war. I wish the Democrats believed in that last principle. The behavior of the Democrats in the last few years had made me not so much wanting to vote Republican but too afraid to do otherwise.