Conservative lament

Washington Times ^ | August 24, 2003 | Ralph Z. Hallow

[sarcasm]

The conservative movement has scored historic gains but has yet to achieve several of its basic goals.

That's the verdict of some of its founding fathers (and one important mother).

"We won the battle against communism, but I guess we've largely lost the battle against big government," says Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly, 79, who defied conventional wisdom by leading a women's crusade that defeated the Equal Rights Amendment in the mid-1970s.

[goldstategop]

My view is we have made made some gains. But liberalism has dominated the national landscape for decades. Conservatives have held power on the national level for only a decade. And we've controlled the Presidency for only a few years. Realistically, we're not going to roll back liberalism overnight. The conservative movement needs to take a long term view and remain committed to its objectives as much as the Left is committed to defending the bastions of statism in America. Victory in the struggle for the soul of America will not go to the glib or the fleet of foot.

[GB]

Here is the problem: For a generation now, there have been people in the middle of the electorate ... and they're the ones who hold the power, IMHO; I think "true conservatives" like those of us who post here are a minority in this country, just like "true" radical leftists are a minority ... who've voted for us (defined as the GOP/conservative side) because they've liked our candidates (especially Reagan), because they like tax cuts and because they like our stands on the social issues.

But at the same time, in a massive disconnect, these people still want big government programs and have no great desire to undo the New Deal and the Great Society.

Without a massive sales and education job from our side, that is likely to take another three generations, I really don't see that changing ... and I'm beginning to have my doubts as to whether it will ever change.

[u-89]

Transferring a comment from the locked up thread to this one.

Cincinatus: A little retrospective re-writing of history here. All conservatives supported "Big Government" when we needed it to fight communism during the Cold War (as well they should have), including the sainted conservative icons Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Conservatives made a Faustian deal -- we needed Big Government to fight the commies, so they accepted that idea in principle. That was the camel's nose under the tent. The difference between liberals and conservatives then became to what ends should we apply this Big Government? Liberals wanted to attack social problems with it. The conservatives were then stuck with Great Society boondoggles.

_________________________________________________

You are right to a point. Before William F. Buckley and National Review reshaped the conservative movement there was quite a fight between libertarians and some conservatives against other conservatives who wanted to join the establishment Republicans and liberal Democrats in their cold war. The libertarians and elements of the conservatives argued that after W.W.II we should return troops to our own territories, concentrate on fighting socialism at home and leave other countries to sort out their own destinies. The interventionists won the day and it had a high cost. To compliment the above Conservative Lament here is something from the New American web site:

"In 1952, a young "conservative" serving a one-year tour of duty with the CIA wrote an article for The Commonwealth, a Catholic weekly. This man wrote:

"… we have got to accept Big Government for the duration — for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged, given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores....

"And if they deem Soviet power a menace to our freedom (as I happen to), they will have to support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards, and the attendant centralization of power in Washington — even with Truman at the reins of it all.

"That was 1952, and the writer of this article was calling for "Big Government for the duration" and "the attendant centralization of power in Washington" in order to oppose Communism. He wanted to fight Communism by adopting Marxism....Who do you suppose wrote those words? It was none other than William F. Buckley Jr."

Well indeed Buckley got his way, we embraced domestic socialism to fight it internationally and that is what the above article weeps over though they do not make the connection that they helped create the problem. To be honest I was a strong cold warrior myself till after the fact. Not until the internet came along about '95 did I find the old conservative and libertarian arguments against the cold war and after much thought I believe they were correct.

[Happy2BMe]

Today's Republican would not recognize a conservative if one came up and spoke to him.

The Republican Conservative is dead.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Neocons claim to be against hate and exclusion. Yet they have strong voices that demand "paleocons" be purged. They feeeeeel that they are the wave of the future for the world. These "social issues" and internationalist conservatives are 1960s liberals who migrated after losing their homeland to the extremist New Left.

With their dominance of the "conservative" movement comes a political debate between liberals (neocons) who are pro-capitalism patriots and liberals (today's Democrat Party leaders) who are neither. Hugely important for our Republic, of course. But I wish the neocons would drive the traitors from the Democrat Party and restore traditional politics between two parties.

I'll never forget (or did I imagine it given the era) the photo of Nelson Rockefeller at the podium in the 1964 convention of Republicans, San Francisco. Tired of being "dis-ed" by Goldwater supporters he had a clenched-teeth grin and a single finger extended out of a tight fist. A sign of things to come for those "paleocons" when they were young.

Actually they got a taste of the future that year from the smears of the Rockefeller Republicans and the future neo-cons in the doomed Democrat Party.

[Pyro7480]

The New American as a reliable source of information? These guys see a conspiracy around every corner. Give me a break!

[Kevin Curry]

Democrats have controlled Congress and the federal judiciary for almost sixty years of the past seventy years. They built up enormous momentum toward implementing a socialist state during that period. Why do these conservatives believe that Republicans, who still barely control the legislative branch, could stop that momentum let alone reverse it in less than 20 years (dating to Reagan's administration which was hampered by a Democrat majority in Congress)?

[Cincinatus]

Not until the internet came along about '95 did I find the old conservative and libertarian arguments against the cold war and after much thought I believe they were correct.

Why on Earth would you believe this? We were in a 50-year fight for national survival; it was a battle that we were compelled to fight (not unlike the current War on Terror.

The Paleo-Buchananite "Fortress America" in which we hide behind our borders, awaiting the arrival of the Huns, is simplistic and silly. We did the right thing during the Cold War and we're doing the right thing now.

[u-89]

The New American as a reliable source of information?

I used a quote from about a book which claims Buckley is the Piped Piper for the Establishment because the quote is accurate and enlightening.

Regarding government conspiracies, they are not equal to believing in flying saucers. The evidence that liberalism was closely connected to world socialist movement, communism and the USSR is not questionable. The fact that our schools who educate our ruling elite are run by liberals, that liberalism influences both parties, that the government was rife with fellow travelers and soviet agents is all well documented. Perhaps one could differ with the analysis of the JBS but certain facts can't be dismissed like men from Mars. Just because one does not like a messenger one should not discount the message - reread the Buckley quote and ponder the implications.

[u-89]

Why on Earth would you believe this?

Because war is the health of the state. Looking at the historic evidence the cold war has changed the thinking of conservatives. Those who believe in a strong national defense are now believing that any conflict anywhere in the world is a threat to our national defense and accept whatever plans the government has as long as it's packaged right. Those who once feared world government and the UN now accept world government as long as the US is in charge. Conservatives accept corporate welfare, corporate/government partnerships, larger, more intrusive government and higher taxes when national defense is floated as an excuse.

Socialism is an unworkable economic system as it an unnatural state of affairs. It is doomed to failure. The communist countries were doomed to collapse but guess what? we have adapted socialism here in the US - the days of socialism are numbered here too. The old right and the libertarians were correct. We should have put our efforts into rolling back the New Deal when it was still possible back in the 40s and early 50s. The coopting of the conservative movement by the establishment has led us to socialism, empire and war. The defeat of limited government and sound economics was a major but unmarked mile stone. Future historians will find it interesting when they analysis our demise. Like all empires and like all socialists we can not escape the laws of nature.

[Cincinatus]

I don't agree. I often hear the the Cold War was unnecessary because "the Soviet Union was doomed anyway." Well, it not only survived for 70 years, it thrived for many of those years. It wasn't until we actually elected a President who was resolutely determined to roll back communism (as opposed to peacefully co-exist with it) that the USSR finally collapsed. And that did not happen because the USA suddenly adopted a neo-isolationist attitude and hid behind the walls of Fortress America. It happened because we engaged and fought the commies on the world stage and brought them down through a brilliant series of deft political and ideological maneuver, military build-up, and large-scale economic warfare.

The world is a better place because this war was fought and because we won it. To argue that it was all a mistake because it "saddled us with socialism" is ridiculous -- the fight against socialism continues. We haven't won it yet and we won't stop until we do win it.

If you choose to throw America on the scrap-heap of history, go ahead -- I don't care what you believe. I'll just point out that in doing so, you're in distinguished company. I seem to recall a fat Ukranian peasant, 50 years ago or so, saying something about a burial. He was right -- he just got the roles reversed.

[hchutch]

Very true. Some folks don't seem to understand that sometimes we've got no chocie but to put the bad guys into the ground.

[u-89]

Did you ever wonder why Reagan was so opposed by the establishment? It was because he actually wanted to win the Cold War. The foreign policy elites thought the world a better place balanced between two major spheres of influence. And, as I mentioned already, the cold war had special benefits for socialism at home and abroad. Reagan was an establishment outsider and a true believer in the fight, hence he was a threat to the order set up by liberals and maintained since W.W.II.

As far as the longevity of the USSR goes isn't it interesting how we were the first to recognize the Soviets as the legitimate rulers of Russia, loaned them money, aided them, forgave their debts, shipped them wheat, etc. Were we trying to win them with kindness or propping them up?

>If you choose to throw America on the scrap-heap of history, go ahead

Sorry but the old republic, fidelity to the constitution and traditional values are already consigned to the history books here in post -Christian America. It is only time before our version of socialism fails. Social safety net ponzi schemes, high taxations, over regulation, socialized medicine (coming with prescription drugs for seniors in the vanguard), massive deficit spending and imperial over reach will take it toll just as sure as ocean waves on a sand castle take theirs. But do not despair too much though, the idles of liberty and limited government that our founders cherished will rise again somewhere someday. Perhaps our blatant disregard for their wisdom and advice will serve as a warning to some future champions.