Is "Limited Government with Checks and Balances" a Conservative Concept?

The US rightwinger is still in the comments section, exemplifying once again the sheer insanity of US conservatism. But is conservatism elsewhere any better? I doubt it. Latin American conservatives seem pretty insane. So are the Indian and Filipino rightwingers. But the only place on Earth you hear this Nazis are Leftists stuff is in the US:

If you feel that the Nazis did not exemplify socialism as you understand it, they sure didn’t exemplify the right wing concept of a restricted government with limited powers and checks and balances either.

Listen. A restricted government with limited powers and checks and balances is not a rightwing concept. If anything, it’s progressive.
As far as limited government goes, the founding fathers were opposed to tyranny. Hence the limitations on the state and system of checks and balances. They had nothing to say about economics or socialism or any of that. They were more worried about monarchy, a sort of dictatorship of the king. The Constitution was set up so that monarchists and other dictator types could not reinstate themselves.
The Republican version of “limited government” means no socialism. No taxes, no government spending, no state intervention to better our lives, no state intervention in the economy.
The founding fathers had nothing to say about this type of libertarian anti-socialist philosophy. There was no socialism back in those days, and no government anywhere tried to help its people.
What the conservative scum do here in the US is twist the founding fathers’ fears about monarchist tyranny into their hatred of socialist economics, progressive taxation, redistribution of income, limitations on and regulation of business, etc. They’re basically putting words in the Founding Fathers’ mouths. According the Right, when the government raises your taxes or puts in a national health care system, this is a violation of the “limited government with checks and balances” that the Founders envisioned. Ridiculous! Do these punks actually believe this BS or are do they know they’re lying and they just figure it’s a good lie?
Once again, on a worldwide scale, conservatism is not about limited government or checks and balances. In the few cases where it is, it is because the Right is in the opposition, and they are trying to thwart a Left regime, as in Venezuela.
Truth is that on a worldwide scale, the Right hates democracy. There has rarely been a case when a ruling class will not resort to a military coup to overthrow a Left government that they don’t like.
Conservatism on a worldwide scale is an undemocratic system of elite rule kept in place by the military and by police and security forces’ repression if necessary. They often run death squads against the Left to keep their power. The opposition press is bombed and opposition journalists are jailed or murdered. The system is also typified by extreme rightwing control of the media – typically ~98% of the media is in the hands of the conservatives, which they use to blast the population with lies and propaganda day and night, brainwashing them.
“Limited government with checks and balances” is not a conservative concept. Maybe in some twisted version of US conservatism, but not in general.
At any rate, the only reason that US conservatives subscribe to extreme checks and balances is when a liberal regime is in place. Then they hope to so overuse the checks and balances system to gum up the works and make it so government can barely function. When a rightwing regime is in, as in George Bush’s regime, the government runs roughshod over the checks and balances system, and the Right never says one peep, because checks and balances are only for liberal governments. So US conservatives don’t even really believe in checks and balances really.
Worldwide, conservatism is typified by:

  1. Extreme lack of democracy
  2. Dictatorship
  3. Military control of the state
  4. Coups against Left regimes
  5. Near-total control of an extremely propagandistic and lying media
  6. Repression against the Left by security forces and the judicial branch
  7. Death squads
  8. No separation of powers – the three branches are linked.
  9. Frequent dissolving of the legislative branch by the executive branch.
  10. Massively corrupt judicial branch in the hands of the elite.
Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

0 thoughts on “Is "Limited Government with Checks and Balances" a Conservative Concept?”

  1. Doesn’t a conservative just mean someone who is fine with the way things are going, the status quo? There are places where the status quo is democracy and none of those above things. I don’t think it’s fair to attach “bad” to the very definition of conservative and “good” to progressive. That’s changing the definitions which people use to communicate and permanently attaching a moral judgment. It’s also unequivocal that conservatives are bad, because a part of this new definition is that they are bad.

  2. I don’t think you can contribute these characteristics to conservative governments but either fascist or socialist governments.

    1. Precisely, What you’ve done here is identified the negative aspects of states that claim to be “conservative” and made a sweeping generalisation about conservative states. I am not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, but the characteristics of “extreme lack of democracy” etc is wrong. Conservatives do want to extend the franchise as this would help strengthen the status quo that they want to keep.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *