Conservative Commentary
"the blogger whose youthful effusions have won him bookmarks all over Whitehall ... horribly compelling" - The Guardian
|
|
Conservative Commentary "the blogger whose youthful effusions have won him bookmarks all over Whitehall ... horribly compelling" - The Guardian |
|
|
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Pride in Labour Britain
Thanks to MattT for highlighting a hilarious sardonic comment submitted to the Labour Party's new Proud of Britain web site, explaining why this ordinary member of the public is so patriotic. Here it is in full, with links added by me: P J Howard, Somerset I think this encapsulates just about every reason to vote them out. Don't expect it to stay up for long. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Thursday, November 25, 2004
Quote of the Day
"I'd say a clear and decisive Kerry win is now the likeliest outcome of this election." - Andrew Sullivan, 8 October 2004 Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Where genuine compassion lies
Last night's unmissable Moral Maze, on divorce and custody of children, can be listened to with Reaplayer or similar software here. There were a number of things striking about the programme: the feebleness of unsupportably denying again and again the evidence that every educated person should know about the benefits to children of marriage; the almost flat-earth style, ridiculous ideological assertions about diverse lifestyles that were offered in their place; the empty selfishness of the liberal attitude that can countenance no responsibility towards one's spouse or children that might provoke one to think again about destroying a relationship. But above all, I was struck by the power of the way Michael Gove and Melanie Phillips managed to express strong, conservative moral values and traditional sexual ethics in a way that got across their compassionate reality as protectors of the voiceless and vulnerable, who cannot look after themselves. The claret-slurping architects of the sexual revolution so often claimed to work in the interests of the underdog, the desperate and the needy. It is the greatest indictment of the changes they unleashed that their chief victims were the most weak and powerless of all. Until all the mess they have made has been cleared, they mustn't be allowed to forget it. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Wednesday, November 24, 2004
A problem
Not being an expert in HTML or web coding, I have only ever learned what I needed to learn to make this site presentable and a little unique. I now notice that the Mozilla Firefox browser makes it look utterly abominable - most obviously by making the full text of posts the same size and colour as the title - and I am not sure about how to solve it. Any advice is appreciated on what precisely is wrong with my coding that the site does this when you view it in Firefox. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Monday, November 22, 2004
Where do the Lib Dems get their ideas?
"I'm going to get you a copy of Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 911 for Christmas because you need to see that film." I think that one sentence rather sums up the seriousness, or lack of it, of Mr Opik's party. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Friday, November 19, 2004
No posts until Monday
Off to the YBF Training Weekend in Swindon. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Thursday, November 18, 2004
Idiocy International
Anyone who has watched the sad decline of Amnesty International over recent years would be hard-press to disagree with Peter Hitchens' analysis: it is now less concerned with freeing prisoners of conscience than with saving from the death penalty killers without conscience. I suspect the best explanation for this is John O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. Since November 2nd, Amnesty really has outdone itself. Powerline has a poignant post on the despicable new depths the organisation has reached. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Quote of the Day
"There was, and is, a certain breed of Conservative who thinks it's a scream how Lady T was supported by so many taxi drivers. Funnily enough, the time the Party moved on from appealing to taxi drivers was also the time it moved on from winning elections." - DumbJon Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Monday, November 15, 2004
Haven't I heard this somewhere before?
What are Democrats going to do about Republican criticism, asks Matthew Yglesias. One commenter offers an insuperable strategy for the party to adopt up to 2008. I have an idea: Refer to my home as 'Jesusland.' Refer to yourself as in a 'reality-based community', implying that I am not. Compare me to the Taliban. Compare the president I voted for to a Chimp, to Hitler, and so on. Say that my views are driving this country back into the stoneage. I can already divine the succinct response of every American liberal: "Way ahead of you!". Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Bye-bye Bercow?
Buckingham MP John Bercow has only been in the House of Commons for seven years, but already he appears to have settled into the role Michael Heseltine, Ken Clarke and others fit so well: a Tory grandee, normally of advanced years, who gets headlines only by attacking his own side - and who does so regularly.
There has even been some speculation in recent months on whether Bercow will at some point defect to Labour. A man who started out in politics as Chairman of the Monday Club's Race and Repatriation Committee, and who risked the chance of a seat in Parliament through vigorous campaigning against Maastricht, he became a classic 'moderniser' in 2001 and has since moved still further left - matching social liberalism to a social democratic stance on the state. Since he left Iain Duncan Smith's Shadow Cabinet in 2002, he has matched his preoccupation with gay issues to a dismissal of tax cuts, demanding instead higher government spending on the poor, home and abroad. His famed euroscepticism was perhaps the last reason for him to belong to the Conservative Party. In an interview with the Independent this month, he appears to have rushed another few feet still further down the path that seems to lead to his joining Labour. He expressed clear support for Blair and Milburn when it comes to public services - the very issue he was strongly urging fringe meetings at the Tory Party Conference just two years ago to use as a stick with which to beat Labour. In slamming the Daily Mail's "contrived hysteria", he echoed Polly Toynbee's attacks on the Tory press perfectly. Asked if Michael Howard was in danger of looking opportunistic, Bercow went even further than his interrogator in attacking his leader. On foreign affairs, however, he was willing to criticise the government: Blair isn't being Blairite enough! Even on Europe, he showed himself backtracking. He was damning in attacking Tory "europhobia" in the 2001 General Election campaign - a time when the Conservative Party was less eurosceptic than it is now. The end of the interview left little room for doubt: Some senior Conservatives fear Mr Bercow will defect to the Labour Party. Mr Bercow will make no public comment about that. Instead he insists: "I am working for a modern, progressive Conservative Party."The Telegraph reports: One Tory frontbencher said: "It is extraordinary to give an interview like this. There can only be one possible explanation: he's getting ready to defect."Bercow issued a brief denial when the conclusion to the interview received enough attention, but in the face of so much contrary evidence, I suspect few minds will be set at ease. So what if he does defect? It may be that he will deliberately make the jump at the worst possible moment for the Tories as an election approaches. But even then, the important point is not to overreact. There is nothing inherently dishonourable about changing one's mind, even as dramatically as this. The honour Bercow shows towards his constituents and party workers remains to be seen, but he does have a right to leave the Tory Party if he feels another political force will better suit him. My own view is that the leading 'modernisers' in general have a somewhat flawed understanding of real politics, which elevates peripheral issues to the centre stage in the belief that significant numbers of votes hinge on implementing all-women shortlists and the like. Bercow is not the only 'moderniser' to have emerged from a hard-right that paid scarcely any heed to the electoral needs of the real world. Coming from that perspective and later discovering the need to win over millions, it is easy to see why such people would start conceding principles, but then not know quite when it is prudent to stop. Those who had been pragmatists all along would not have to make such an adjustment because realism has always been a clear part of their more mainstream conservatism. One can see a similar pattern in the recent history of the Labour Party, as the pragmatists of the Old Labour Right were surpassed by colleagues even more to the right, but who started out in the Kinnockite soft Left, and having begun to give up their principles, have still not found a convenient moment to stop. Unlike Labour, the Conservative Party is not likely to change along with the views of its self-styled 'modernisers' - and nor does it need to. If John Bercow and a few others will not accept that, Conservatives can hope any defections will be graceful, and can ensure they are not seriously damaging by suppressing their own anger and mustering their own grace, ensuring the story generates as little coverage as possible. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Thursday, November 11, 2004
The Dutch disease
Razib over at Gene Expression has posted a brilliant analysis, emailed by a Dutch friend of his, of the deeper meaning of recent events in the Netherlands. I would like to point out that, in contrast with 9/11, the murder of Van Gogh is everything but an isolated incident whose reaction you can measure. Any comparison between the two is, as we say over here, like comparing apples with pears. The attack on the World Trade Center was made by a foreign enemy, suddenly and unannounced, as it happens orchestrated by some rich boy from Saudi Arabia who got pissed off about the Americans supporting Israel and having soldiers on 'holy ground' (a good thing, mind you). UPDATE: Dutch leftie Mark Spaan offers tacit agreement in the Guardian: Few are aware that in the near future as much as 15% of the Netherlands' population will be Muslim. The old Dutch society so craved by Pim Fortuyn no longer exists. We will have to live with the one we've got. Expect those who now react with pretend hilarity to the idea of other European countries being Islamified to end up giving just such resigned answers in a decade or two. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Common sense on Arafat
While the BBC is literally choking back the tears, John Hawkins talks some good sense on the future for the Middle East following the demise of the mastermind of modern terrorism: I only regret that terrorist vermin is going to die in a bed instead of violently like so many of his victims. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Monday, November 08, 2004
A deathstyle choice
If there is something obviously ghastly about committing suicide by driving one's car onto a railway track and waiting for the next train, there is also something wearily, darkly familiar - something distinctly modern - about the attitude towards others that it demonstrates. In past ages, of course, suicides occurred. (Though also new is the phenomenon of men taking their lives because modern divorce laws can so suddenly turn any husband and father from the head of a family into a weekend babysitter with no one.) But in the great majority, there was always the fear of the judgement still to come, the concern for the afterlife, to ensure that in peacetime a suicide attempt was lethal only to the one committing it. Now, when the most anyone has to fear from any higher authority is a prison sentence - hardly a worry for the dead - that incentive is gone. The temporal is all, and one can go out with a bang. But more important than any change in religious belief: the modern age promotes, upholds and celebrates the idea that one's entire existence is all about oneself; that life is a great ego trip, its passing pleasures the only purpose. In a YouGov survey I filled in this morning, I was proffered various new commandments which I might prefer over the ten originals. "Be true to yourself" was one, and its message the essential theme of most of the others. It means, of course, almost nothing - how can one be untrue to oneself? It's a stupid cliche, convenient shorthand for 'do whatever you want', self-denial and self-sacrifice being a sin against the self - the worst offence in this pagan age. But meaningful or not, by goodness, it's a good summary of the raison d'etre of the modern world. What else can one say of a society where people can say with a straight face that self-love is the greatest love? Where one never any more sees the word 'esteem' written without 'self-' as its prefix? But what becomes of those who come to live by such maxims? Of those who do see life in these shallowest of terms? The liberal of course explains that not harming others is central to his whole belief structure. But without any sense of duty to others, without any sense of obligation beyond not causing others harm, it is inevitable that other people become not moral ends in themselves but mere means to your pleasures. When one comes to see life in these terms, it is very difficult to take anybody else seriously, for what is their own life but a similar pathetic hedonistic quest? And in any case, no one can ever live up entirely to a moral code: the laxity of this one does not promote goodness by its realism, but further selfishness by setting the bar so low. In the end, when everything comes back to you, nothing can come back to anyone else. So if after all this selfishness you fail to achieve the requisite enjoyment, and you get only frustration in exchange for your efforts, then with life being about nothing more, ending it seems only rational. What do you care who you take with you? When did others ever figure in your thinking? Be true to yourself. Two girls of seven and fifteen are among the dead. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Friday, November 05, 2004
Poor priorities
The assault on Falluja is about to begin. It's worth putting aside all our divisions at this point in praying that our forces succeed with the minimum of civilian casualties. What, these civilians?
These civilians?
These civilians?
Among the worst consequences of the Iraq War and the subsequent absence of weapons of mass destruction has been the way the justification for war has now centred around the Iraqi people. To make this justification work, the Iraqis have been portrayed in places as virtual demi-gods, a whole nation of ancient Athenians, ready to democratise the Middle East by their example. I'm not so confident. This is not a people on the verge of Western liberal democracy, and it is not a people whose lives should be paramount over those of Western troops. A huge civilian death toll would undoubtedly be a bad thing. But if I were Andrew Sullivan I'd be saving my prayers for the American soldiers engaged in this thankless operation, not those pictured above. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Interview with Andrea Grimes
I hope to post in some depth on the US Elections soon. Until then, I gave an email interview to US liberal blogger Andrea Grimes this last fortnight. Here is the full text. To start off - what's your background like - school, where you grew up, etc? Were there any formative experiences that led to the beliefs you currently hold? I went to an ordinary, if probably above average, state school in Darlington, England, where I lived until I started at university a year ago. In terms of formative experiences, I think it's a difficult thing to judge. The first political experience I can remember was the most violent of the poll tax riots in Spring 1990, when I was six. My family happened to be in London at the time, and I saw a lot of violence and disorderly behaviour in a few hours by great masses of people. I think from then on I was at least politically interested, in the sense that I couldn't help but be curious about the forces and beliefs that could motivate such action. I think it's more difficult to identify how particular convictions and views emerged. How did you go from being, perhaps, mildly politically interested to a conservative blogger? How did you get started blogging? I love to write, and the deep political interest was already there when I first discovered what weblogs were, and that I could produce one myself for free. Those desires already being present, blogging was the perfect medium to combine them. I set up Conservative Commentary the same evening I discovered blogging. What political issues are you most passionate about? What ticks you off the most? I find most political issues interesting, in no small part because they do connect to one another - social issues determine the levels of taxation and government spending and vice versa. Foreign policy allows a country to express a self-confidence and self-belief, or lack of it, that says much about the internal soul of that nation. I suppose the issues that matter to me most of all are those which directly affect everyday life in a substantial way - crime, family breakdown, values. I think when you get them right, good in other areas usually follows. If a society's values are rotten, solving almost any other problems will be much more difficult. Your posts are far more thoughtful than most other bloggers' - why do you embrace it so fully? I think I am much more directly interested in underlying views of life and human nature than most other bloggers. That leads to quite fundamental disagreements that go beyond simple policy differences. I take the view that ultimately liberalism, socialism, socially liberal strands of libertarianism etc. all fall down in their perspectives on human nature. In different ways, all assume and depend on a human plasticity and rationality that is not there - that the desire to put one's own family or nation first can be eradicated, or that certain values and institutions are optional extras rather than essentials in a free society. Equally, they are inclined to assume that such goals are not just feasible but desirable and laudable. So on normative grounds, too, I like to challenge this. Getting these points across does require a certain amount of extra thought and philosophising. What do you do when you're not blogging and writing other articles? What kind of work do you do? I am studying for a degree in Philosophy, Politics & Economics, and I do voluntary work - writer, campaigner, advisor - for Nirj Deva, the Conservative Euro MP for the South East of England, as well as involving myself in lots of other campaigns. Away from that sort of work I read a great deal, and like most people I enjoy a drink with friends. Your posts are pretty spicy and provocative - who do you consider to be your biggest online rivals? Best allies? I'm not sure about either. There are bloggers and writers I agree with strongly on some and on most issues, and equally those I'm always disagreeing with, but I don't view the medium in terms of allies and rivals. I enjoy reading posts I find inciteful and accurate and also those I find deeply disagreeable. The blogs I do find tiresome are those which adopt a sort of 'those Lying Liars' Michael Moore/Al Franken style, where every point of genuine, principled disagreement is a 'lie', and people only support x policy because they are financial beneficaries or bigots etc. I find that sort of writing almost painful - and of course extremely dull. And, on the lighter side - what kind of music do you enjoy? I like a lot of music, modern and classical, but the only CDs I really buy now tend to be Mozart, Wagner et al. Classical music can be uplifting in a lasting way that I don't find with other sorts of music I enjoy. I rather like Eminem while he's on, but I can't imagine feeling more driven or cheerful once it was over. Favorite films? No particular genre springs to mind, but I tend to prefer historically based films to the wholly fictitious. Three that stick out are The Madness Of King George, Bridge Over The River Quai and Gladiator. Prefer cats or dogs? Er ... dogs? How does it feel to be called "horribly compelling" by one of the world's most respected liberal newspapers? I think the Guardian does a good job for its readers, but I oppose almost everything it stands for, so obviously I was delighted by the description, as indicated by how I display the quotation. I think the 'compelling' part also confirmed what other lefties sometimes tell me, which is that what I write is of interest to more than merely those who agree with me. Going back to the point about delving into human nature, I suspect I sometimes make some points and arguments they wouldn't otherwise have considered. What did you think of the Charlie Brooker Guardian remarks: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr.--where are you now that we need you?" - Americans are having a field day with it over here. We love having something to get angry about, especially if it involves another country. :)
I do understand why some are saying it's been over-hyped - Brooker has previously joked about his hope for a dirty bomb in London so house prices would fall and it wasn't taken seriously. But I think the reason this piece struck such a cord and angered so many is that everyone knows there are a lot of people who really would welcome the President's murder. The degree of hatred and hysteria directed at Bush is such that people who consider themselves open-minded and decent really can express such wishes and not be challenged on them.
Also, do you ever feel at all alienated as a "conservative" thinker, especially at your age? It's rare (at least in the US) to find a really active, outspoken conservative under the age of, say, 30.
I think the main alienation I ought to feel is in having a deep interest in politics at all at this age. In a way, that sets me apart more than my having conservative views. But I don't ever feel isolated. If young people are less likely to be conservative - and I know many who are - older people are more likely, and I have friends and acquaintances of all ages, so I don't feel isolated in the views I have.
Just a quick one. Am watching the US vote returns here. What do you think of the results (no matter what time you get this e-mail)?
At about noon British time, 7am Eastern Time, it does look like Bush
has won again. If true, I am delighted by this, and by the way the
Senate and House of Representatives looks. I don't think Kerry
deserved to win this one, and I do think Bush deserves, and the world
needs, a second term for the Republicans.
What's with this whole "Peter Cuthbertson is an ignorant, lying brat" thing that comes up on Google? (http://ex-parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20030807- peter_cuthbertson_is_an_ignorant_lying_brat.html) - did you even know about it? Do you find it amusing/troubling/inconsequential that someone's gone to such lengths to discredit you? Who does this Chris Lightfoot guy think he is, anyway? I have seen that page, yes. Basically what happened is about a year ago he started making some very vituperative posts in my comments, and then taking whole pages from my site and putting them up on his own, despite my repeatedly asking him not to. I then banned him from leaving comments and that page was his response. I think the 'lying' is because he took my statement that I don't delete messages because I disagree with them to mean I never delete posts or ban people for any other reason. The rest I'm not clear about. I don't find the page troubling. Anyone who knows me or has read me for any length of time will know I am not a conspiracy theorist and so on. Frankly, it's all so immature and silly, I think I can do without the goodwill of anyone who reads it and comes away with the view "Wow the person he's writing about is a real idiot!"
I suppose the more general point as it relates to blogging is that the cranks usually have far more time and inclination to cause trouble and be a nuisance than anyone else has to deal with it effectively. I know plenty of bloggers who've taken comments down again and again on their sites because it just isn't worth the hassle to them.
You've said you're able to enjoy reading posts you find deeply disagreeable - why? Are your own views strengthened by the challenge? Have you ever been swayed on a particular issue by an unusually thoughtful post or comment made by someone you've disagreed with? I find disagreeable posts and articles enjoyable because when I am partially persuaded, I welcome both the internal debate I have with myself, and then the external debate I have when writing a response and debating that on blogs. When I am not at all persuaded, I think there is a satisfaction in being able to meet an argument and explain why it is wrong, whether empirically, factually or morally.
I would like to think I am often swayed by such posts. I know my views have changed in the two years I have been blogging, and that is as much down to coming across posts I initially disagreed with as coming into contact with new ideas I immediately find agreeable. I think one example of a post which really changed my outlook would be http://oliverkamm.blogspot.com/2003_08_17_oliverkamm_archive.html#106150585567725059 After reading it and giving it a lot of thought, I came to see how correct its arguments about preferences and trade-offs was. I think overall I am a lot more pragmatic and somewhat less ideological than I was, and that is because I much more recognise these points than I did. I say a little more on this in my final two paragraphs here: http://concom.blogspot.com/2004_04_04_concom_archive.html#108153271001822229
I like your recent quote - "I don't think Kerry deserved to win this one" - can you elaborate on that? Why don't you think he deserved it? Is there something more he could have done to "deserve" it, or is it just a case of Bush being the qualified guy and Kerry, well, not being the qualified guy?
I don't think Kerry deserved to win, not only because Bush had a better platform and record, but because he failed to explain in any consistent and meaningful way how he would make things better. His insistence on the value of summits as the solution to foreign policy disagreement with Europe was absurd, and his economic policies would have done almost nothing to solve the economic problems he complained about. I think there was far too much running on his ego - assuming that four months in Vietnam was a real platform from which to enter office even after twenty years in the Senate in which he seems to have achieved so little, and believing that he did not need a vision and purpose from which to campaign. In some ways, I can see comparisons with Bob Dole - running for President because it was felt in his party that it was his turn to run, rather than because he had a superlative platform with which to win votes and take America in the right direction.
Did you catch the Kerry/Edwards concession speech? A lot of people here are saying it's the first time they've seen a "real" or "human-like" Kerry. Did you get that impression at all?
I think that's exactly the impression I got. It is now actually starker how lacking in warmth and feeling he has been throughout the campaign, after those moments in the speech. I thought it was a very dignified exit, and he did himself some credit, as well as probably showing up Al Gore by how much better he has taken it.
Also, out of curiosity - you've said you're very interested in studying human nature, etc. Do you favor any particular philosophers or thinkers? Anyone whose beliefs you tend to fall in line with, generally? If I were more knowledgeable about philosophy, I could give better and more confident answers, but for now I would say I consider the views of human nature expressed by Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli are the most realistic, forming the best philosophical basis for understanding people's inclinations and motivations. The other major philosopher with whom I have much sympathy would be Aristotle. If Hobbes and Machiavelli are the source of a true understanding of the world, Aristotle says so much worth hearing about living a worthwhile and moral life in that world. You can read Andrea Grimes' profile on the interview here. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Monday, November 01, 2004 Anyone who doubts that free markets and supermarkets are better friends of public health than governments should read this. ASDA (the British arm of Walmart) labelled its vegetables, explaining that people who eat certain types of vegetable have a lower chance of developing certain forms of cancer. With all the controversy over the banning of advertising fatty foods, you would think this sort of thing would be welcomed by everyone - if advertising really does so much harm when it recommends junk food, then the advertising of positive properties in fruit and vegetables can't half be a good thing. Apparently not. One can can't help but think that there is something simply aesthetically displeasing to the social democratic busybody about the organic emergence of a voluntary solution - it all whiffs too much of conservatism and capitalism, and too little of nannyism and interventionism. They'd rather see an ineffectual nannying solution to the problems that they identify imposed by force than see a good solution come about without their efforts. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Site content Copyright 2002-2005 Peter Cuthbertson
|
|
 |
|
||
|
 |
||||
|
|||||
I don't seek the job 
