Charlie Rose

REMant  05/12/2010 01:20 PM Report

I'll stick with what I wrote Monday. When I heard Cameron on this show I concluded that he was closer to a classic Liberal than a Tory, somewhat like Churchill I believe I said, but I could have said like Thatcher, who was a follower of Austrian economics, or even Burke, who agreed with Tom Paine on this, and when I saw Clegg in the debates I concluded that he was a much more of a classic Liberal than a Progressive. Those, like the BBC, and I see the Wash Post, who range politicians from right to left, guns to butter, are, I think, missing the point that really there are three distinctly different parties - Tory, Court Whig and Real Whig, to use labels around 300 years old - tho like Democrats and Republicans in this country the constituent parts have shifted over time. Then, too, a classic Liberal has almost nothing in common with a "liberal" in this country today, who would be called in Europe a social democrat, tho in fairness this was not always clear even to Hayek. The "Tea Party" or Ron Paul's libertarians are examples of the Real Whigs nowadays. They have always been in short supply, even during revolutions. I should think it was a fairly easy decision for Cameron to make, because the times clearly call for economy and responsibility, and even the haw-haws should understand that.