Posted on 03/01/2016 8:11:46 AM PST by Mariner
Below is a post I made to the National Review article which calls Jeff Sessions a sellout for supporting Trump. I figured it warrants it's own thread since we all see the Republican party fracturing into multiple pieces and this may be a good vehicle to discuss that.
All the Cruz supporters who would post and cite NRO as a weighty source should feel embarrassed.
However, one claim they made is absolutely true.
NRO IS the intellectual bedrock of the modern "Conservative Movement". NRO originally defined the founding principals of Conservatism and continues to extol the "virtues" of that philosophy unashamedly.
The problem is...the Conservative Movement is little more than a dirty whore. It has no basis in patriotism. Not a nationalist bone in it's body.
"Trade, immigration and intervention", to cite Pat Buchanan from an article last night, has completely destroyed the Conservative Movement. As, on these issues the movement is purely Globalist and will ridicule any and everyone who does not toe their line.
Conservatives and the Conservative Movement are not patriotic and never put America and her interests above all others.
And, YES, I'm also talking about my fellow FReepers. Many of whom still call themselves Conservatives even though they do not subscribe to the tenets of the core philosophy.
"Christian Nationalist" is a better moniker for most of us.
As for the "Conservatives", yes, we have some common goals...but we're taking the keys away and will be driving from now on.
(Excerpt) Read more at fetidmind.com ...
My contention is that Conservatism without Nationalism is like Faith without Works.
Not worth the powder and shot to blow it to hell.
I can’ get your link to work. Maybe the server is overwhelmed. If it is not very long, could you just copy and paste your vanity here.
How apropos, your link is broken
It is a BS link as the FR form for posting requires one.
I tried as well.
Disregard the link, it’s just a placeholder. The entire vanity is posted here.
“The problem is...the Conservative Movement is little more than a dirty whore. It has no basis in patriotism. Not a nationalist bone in it’s body.”
You nailed it.
See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3381137/posts?page=164#164
OK, got you. I liked what you wrote and was hoping for even more.
I would say Conservatism without Christian Nationalism is like Faith without Works.
But even from the very beginning it distanced itself from some elements of the conservative movement including the John Birchers and openly anti-semitic conservatives.
As they got stronger they were able to distance themselves from more and more parts of the conservative movement, especially the populist and paleocon elements.
There was a big deal in the Reagan administration when most of the key positions went to neocons even though the paleocons had worked just as hard, if not harder, to get Reagan elected. The National Review cast its fortunes with the Reagan administration, i.e. the neocons.
Near the end, Buckley seemed to have realized his mistake and retracted his support of the Iraq War, but it was too late.
My own take is there was never any official "conservative" view. Even from the very beginning key members of the National Review staff argued over basic principles. Differences were smoothed over at the beginning to allow a critical mass of conservatism to form. Once conservatives were in the ascendant, the differences became more pronounced and hard to reconcile. With the demise of the Soviet Union, a common enemy of all conservatives was vanquished and the conservatives turned in on themselves.
It happens with all ideological movements.
I think Russell Kirk had it about right, but his views only have a relatively small following. Many of those who still respect his views have gone overboard and are pushing some sort of white pride pseudo-theocracy (American Renaissance, etc.) Many others have gotten on the free market train, or big government conservative train a la British Tories.
I don't know that there is any solution. There is no common enemy or common problem that all conservatives want to solve. There is no rallying point.
I also think Roe v Wade had a really demoralizing effect on conservatives: if we can't even manage to protect the most innocent and defenseless, then what can we do?
I’m opposed to the idea that someone else presumes they are so intellectually and morally superior to me that they get to direct with whom I trade on penalty of higher taxes.
That’s not Freedom. It is a flavor of Big Brother Totalitarianism.
MY CONSERVATIVE MANIFESTO:
More Individual Liberty.
Less Government Control.
(Work out the details in the messy realm of politics.)
Changing Tagline.
Apparently nothing except to aid in the destruction of a once great nation.
I believe the Republican party embodies, perfectly, the philosophy of the modern Conservative Movement. And that's why they are baffled at their sudden descent.
Americans are usually patriots first, philosophers second.
The Founding Fathers were in no way Conservatives as now defined. They were not Free Traders or foreign adventurers. They subscribed to, and freely developed philosophies which put the health and welfare of America first. They did not seek out, and then import foreign cultures.
The author confuses neoconservative with conservative.
True conservatism espouses the three pillars of conservatism ie. social, economic and military (patriotism).
A philosophy I'm not hostile to.
Do you need a shoulder to cry on?
What are the tenets of your 3 pillars?
I am the author.
Such a comment is expected from an NRCC operative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.