NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/tx/politics/7559

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-20 | 3.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!swrinde!news.dell.com!natinst.com!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!texsun!digi!gpalo
From: [e-mail] (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: TEXAS SCHOOL FINANCE: GRAPPLING WITH FAIR SHARE PLAN
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:45:20 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: tx
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX
Lines: 43

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Kimball) writes:
>>The rightwing wants to entrench themselves into their present positions and
>>to do that they seek to stack the deck in their favor.  The more successful
>>they are at this the more talent gets wasted that could have benefited the
>>whole society.  If a society gets too conservative than it is really doomed.
>>History has plenty of examples of this:  the Soviet Union, Manchu China,
>>the Ottoman Empire, Austria Hungary, etc.
>
>You are comparing apples to oranges.  The American political environment
>is not the same as that in any of the countries which you've named.  For
>that reason, our version of "conservatism" isn't the same as any of those
>countries.  Recall that it our "conservative" movement that resulted in
>the rise of Russia's "liberal" movement - and that we (meaning us
>conservatives) want more support for Russia's liberals.
>--
>John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
>Ma Bell: [phone]           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: [e-mail]

What we call conservatism today is very much what in Europe was called
liberalism a century ago.  The original idea of liberalism was to do
away with paternalistic government and rank and privilege based on
one's pedigree and increase the freedom of movement and expression
of the individual.  The conservatives wanted to restore the old regime
and keep the masses "in their place", i.e. massified. Of course they
wanted to keep them there "for their own good" and believed that only
they, the knowing classes, had the wisdom to determine what was best
for them.  This is very similar to what modern American liberals
who support government regulation of everything also want.  The only
difference is that our government leaders are democratically elected,
but the tendency towards uniformity and absolutism persists and results
in the same thing, a "conservative" (in the old sense) ruling establishment
that tends to preserve itself as a ruling class.

As a modern "conservative" in the sense that Haugh describes, I would
gladly support a choice experiment that was confined entirely to the
poor and minorities.  For it is there that I feel it would do the most
good.  Once it succeeds, then let it filter up to the middle and
upper classes and shed its blessings on our whole education system. You
might call it the "trickle up" approach.


Gerry Palo ([e-mail])