The Great Purge

Lew Rockwell.com ^ | 4/4/2003 | Christopher Manion

[B. A. Conservative]

A specter is haunting National Review. The magazine that once sold T-shirts with Eric Voegelin’s picture admonishing us "Don’t let them immanentize the eschaton" has gone and immanentized it, married it, and stuck it on their masthead as their claim to the conservative movement. As an indispensable ingredient of their ideological enterprise, the purge of all wrong-thinking vermin is under way. That haunting specter is the disappearance into the mist of conservative principles they left behind on the bedrock shore of principle.

Now they proudly drift without anchor into the gnostic fog. True, they go not silent into that murky deep – indeed, curses abound, calumnies and diatribes, assuming the mantle of authority as judge, jury, and heir of the conservative "movement" they tried, and failed, to hijack.

Click here for the rest of the article.

[roughrider]

They're demographically irrelevant.

Not when only 38% of eligible voters are participating. Both parties need their 40% base of that 38% in order to have a chance. That is why you guys got mad when Slade Gorton went down in the face of a large Libertarian Party vote, and then Jumpin Jim left you. Oh, you need every vote you can get. Look how close it was in 2000.

If we are demographically irrelevant, don't blame us if he gets beaten, and don't think it can't happen.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

You're not the base, much as you'd like to pretend that you are.

[tpaine]

Our constitution is a very clearly written document, with easily understood basics.
-tpaine-

"Nothing in it about isolationism."
189 -roscoe- inanely shoots back


-- Who said there was?
You can gain more by aggressively tending to your own business than by policing others.

[BlackElk]

Well, that is a much more informative post. I disagree with much of it. Although I practiced law for twenty-five years, I was born into a family very involved in organized labor. New Zealand is probably not quite the objectivist paradise you may imagine. You are, of course, perfectly free to move there. One freedom that few of us on Free Republic would oppose is the freedom to leave, which is probably the most essential human freedom and the one that holds governments somewhat accountable.

On the other hand, if you leave and take your wealth with you, turning your back on the United States, in the desperate search to be a "sovereign" individual, the way may not always be clear for your return. We are a nation not a cathouse, whatever la Rand might have preferred.

I have read Atlas Shrugged, probably about five times, cover to cover. I keep a hardcover on the floor next to my desk. The floor doesn't mind to much. I used to be impressed with Rand but then I grew up.

Did you know that Rand "excommunicated" Murray Rothbard for marrying an Episcopalian? He was then still an atheist but, according to la Rand, his marriage to a "believer" placed him beyond the pale.

If other persons wish to murder their unborn children, I am afraid that government exists for such purposes as stopping such barbarism. It is not merely a matter of opinion. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that protects infanticide. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that protects the practice of homosexuality although I will conceded that, other than the spreading of disease, the government has better things to do than to worry about what Lance may be doing with Bruce in their spare time. No approval. No special rights. No persecutions.

I have no idea who Richard Maybury may be but, if he is part of the Randian set, why should I care to have an idea of who he may be? Serial adultery is not a moral guideline except in the circles of la Rand.

If you think that having wealth makes you an automatic intellectual superstar, ummm: Whitney Houston, Elvis Pres;ey (great music, intellectual sap), most Rockefellers, John Corzine, etc., etc., etc.

New Zealand exists at the sufferance of those who maintain armies, navies and air forces.

The rule of law can also be re-established to rid us of WTO and GATT and we shall see how portable the success may be. I have no problem with Bangladeshi workers getting jobs. I have a large problem with the idea of those jobs coming out of the hide of Americans by whim of those who will still want access to American markets. One paleo idea that may not be so bad is Buchanan's suggestion of returning to tariffs.

You have a point about the Chinese communists, though, because they have no problem with elitist BS and prefer to make the slaves available to their fellow elitists. Don't move to China, though, because life expectancy may be shorter when we move against them over such issues as Taiwan or human freedom (for everyone and not just the wealthy few).

If you wonder why you get a hard time in America, consider that you want a pantywaist foreign policy lest your profits be threatened. This has never been a very popular point of view here. Repeatedly, American military forces have been sent to protect the property interests of American businesses in foreign lands. We have no need to protect the interest of runaways. Be thankful for what you have. Pay your taxes, Obey the "rule of law" that you support when you agree with it and despise when you don't or leave. No matter!

And by the way, I don't regard you as some sort of intellectual superior just because (a) you may be rich, (b) you read Atlas Shrugged, (c) you are a paleofussandfeathers, or (d) because you have eccentric views on law, philosophy or constitution. I also noticed no mention of God in your posts. Samuel Francis doesn't mention him often either. The Golden Rule is a specifically Christian concept. It is not a general license for seeing moral equivalencies where they cannot and do not exist.

[B. A. Conservative]

Some get it and some don't. You didn't.

[tpaine]

"You're not the base, much as you'd like to pretend that you are."
-cp- The 'baseless' pretender:



"According to these great scholars of 'Murrican history and the Constimatushunal quotamations, once a founder said something they agree with, then that was it, the subject was closed for all time. (unless, of course, one of those founders said something the disagreed with - in which case it could be ignored). Abnd of course, they ignore those instances when a founder did something that they would claim was outside the true boundaries of the Constimatushun - because that would be inconvenient."

87 posted on 04/05/2003 1:24 PM PST by Chancellor Palpatine

[Roscoe]

Guess the Terrorists won the war after all.

Reynolds Wrap must be doing good.

[Roscoe]

1. Only those citizens born in the United States can become President. The Secretary of State was originally third in line for the Presidency, so the official involved in foreign relations was also to be born in the United States.
2. The requirement for the legislative branch to declare war.

GWB is native born, Congess authorized the action in Iraq.

[B. A. Conservative]

"..make it clear that those powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States and the People:.."

If the "Union" preceded statehood, precisely how did the states delegate authority to the "Union"?

I don't think the 911 attack had anything to do with middle-eastern jealousy of our freedoms. You may seen that written or heard it said, but I think it quite far from reality. The United States has been meddling in the affairs of the middle east at least since WWII. When the powerful and the rich meddle in the affairs of others too much for too long, eventually you reach a point where they retaliate. I think it can probably be argued that the US has had a surprisingly low risk of terrorism when compared to other countries who have experienced more frequent and larger numbers of attacks, although admittedly none have experienced as large a single blow as 911. And I think a convincing argument could be made that some European countries have experienced more attacks in spite of less meddling than we have engaged in. I might even argue that one of the reasons this could be true, is that a lot of would-be-terrorists who make it to this country find living conditions and quality of life so much better than they have at home, that they would rather stay and figure out how to export what we have back to their own countries.

[robertpaulsen]

"Conservatives" now hold power, but have accomplished almost nothing..."

Would you suggest a Contract With America II? The first one went over well, didn't it? And it only promised to bring issues up for a vote, not necessarily pass them.

[tpaine]

And by the way, I don't regard you as some sort of intellectual superior just because (a) you may be rich, (b) you read Atlas Shrugged, (c) you are a paleofussandfeathers, or (d) because you have eccentric views on law, philosophy or constitution. I also noticed no mention of God in your posts. Samuel Francis doesn't mention him often either. The Golden Rule is a specifically Christian concept. It is not a general license for seeing moral equivalencies where they cannot and do not exist.
-be-


"By the way", why would you even mention regarding someone as an intellectual superior just because you think they (a) may be rich, (b) regard reading Atlas Shrugged 5 times as a big deal, (c) you imagine them as being "paleofussandfeathers", or (d) because to you, having logical views on law, philosophy or constitution is "eccentric"??

Your mention of God in your post, connected to Sam Francis doesn't make much sense either.

And, the Golden Rule is a not 'specifically' a Christian concept at all. -- Most societies have a version of it. There was once a thread on FR that listed over a hundred such.
No one here has said it is a "general license for seeing moral equivalencies where they cannot and do not exist".

-- In fact, if the above 'reasoning' is a typical example of your powers of logic, your 25 year legal 'practice' is as suspect as that of our 'chancellors'.

Diploma mill 'lawyers' are a curse on this republic.

[tpaine]

Neofussandfeathers speaks.

[B. A. Conservative]

I am an agnostic. You may enjoy reading a book called "The Origins of Consciousness in the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618057072/qid=1049646449/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-4027770-3231842?v=glance&s=books

I have no burning desire to go anywhere. But, you as a desciple of the law, should recognized how many and which of our Constitutional rights are and are being abridged by governments at every level. And in most cases, the abridgements have been achieved through the courts (judical activism) rahter than through abuses by the legislatures. If no one ever stands up for rights, surely we all become vassals and slaves.

As for abortion, I am a retired pathologist. I will never forget the tragic death of a young black one that I autopsied before the days of Roe v. Wade. She died from Clostridial septicema as result of a then "criminal" abortion. This particular germ produced a toxin that caused all of her blood cells to break down with the break down products poisoning her kidneys. She made it to the hospital before she died. Her death was very painful. While there were no valid statistics from the time, there was anecdotal evidence to suggest that there were almost as many "criminal" abortions then as "legal" abortions now. What this story is about is that there is a side to abortion that most folks never consider or think about. It is easy to forget the desparate young woman who does not want to raise a child and who wants to avoid the pain, embarrassment and other risks associated with pregnancy. I would ask who among is smart enough to dictate to her that she must endure the risks of pregnancy, the risks of delivery (and both of these risks are not inconsequential-women die every day from pregnancy and child birth in the best medical centers in the hands of the very best physicians). I don't pretend to know where or how to draw the line, but I can tell this with certainty-there is a point where a delivered fetus has a reasonable chance to survive birth. And there is a point where no fetus has any chance to live outside the mother's uterus. A fetus is no different than any other parasite. It derives the sustenance of its life in toto from the host and is not capable of independent life regardless of how much resources or any other kind of care is made available to it. Somewhere in this gray world there may be a rational legal basis for balancing the rights of the mother against those of the fetus. The Constitution does not address this issue. Therefore it falls into the IX or X Amendments. I am fairly confidant that if the States do not answer this question to suit the desires of mothers, that mothers will continue to exercise their individual rights as they see fit. The question might still remain are we as a society going to deal with them as criminals or are we going to be more understanding of their particular problems. There can be no doubt that the states will take into consideration the interests of fetuses.

As for in particular, I own a potentially very valuable tract of land that has been markedly devalued by environmental law and regulations. I have owned this tract for more than ten years and have been blocked from building a home on it by these rules and regs. Needless to say, I am very angry. The costs and headaches of pursuing my Fifth Amendment rights through the courts is a very long expensive painful process. Part of my bitterness involved a five year $80,000 legal battle to perfect my title because of unrecorded deed. The appellate court tossed out my summary judgment resulting in a settlement because the court was unwilling to deprive a widow of her day in court regardless of the facts. Our county has one of the worst records for plaintiffs of any county in the country. As a "retired rich doctor" facing a "near destitute 87 year old widow" what would you do? All of this was fresh on the heels of a ten year battle involving millions of dollars over a breach of contract suit. Fifteen years in court is about all I want to stand. Maybe I should just turn my back and join "justshutupandtakeit".

[Captiva]

I wish I could be a such optimist

Optimisim is what Conservatisim is!!! :)

[Captiva]

...for my part the foundation on which everything else is built must be a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

I was fortunate to be in the audience when Justice Antonin Scalia spoke recently in Cleveland [at John Carroll University]. During the Q&A after his speech on the religous clauses in the Constitution, he answered the majority [if not all] of the questions by referring to what the document says. Such a simple, excellent argument. He did a great job of talking down the "living, breathing document" crowd.
You would have enjoyed it, too.

[x]

Good posts. As a major power we can't simply ignore the rest of the world, but it is chilling how much National Review has come around to support the old Kennedy/Johnson view of eternal police actions and welfare/reconstruction projects to remake the world after our own desires. It doesn't look like a traditionalist or conservative way of looking at the world. Most conservatives in the postwar period were rightly skeptical of such utopian schemes.

Also, we can't keep up the interest, energy or expense of policing, reordering, and reconstructing the world for very long, so perhaps things won't end up any better. They may even end up worse. Antiterrorist actions are certainly justifiable, but expanding the war may just be digging ourselves into a bigger hole.

[x]

The conservative hostility to immanentizing the eschaton was just a fancy way of saying the civil rights movement was a bad thing. It's good that the slogan had bit the dust.

How you have misjudged or misremembered the atmosphere of the middle of the last century and of the 1960s in particular. There was a strong faith in communism or socialism in much of the world and in some circles here at home. Many believed that if we could win World War II and put a man on the moon we could do anything: abolish poverty, banish illiteracy, establish perfect equality. The idea that man could build a heaven on earth and make the ultimate things immediate was a strong one, and deserved criticism from more clear-sighted, practical and prudent minds. That's as true now, when utopianism has a home among libertarians, anarcho-capitalists and neo-conservatives as it was in the 1960s when it was the property of welfare liberals, socialists, communists and youth movements. It's natural today to put civil rights and racial questions more at the center of 20th century history, but if you leave out socialism, communism and utopianism, you distort the history of the day and miss what much of the debate was about. Turning "Don't Let Them Immanentize the Eschaton" into a pop slogan and putting it on bumperstickers and buttons was juvenile and stupid, though.

[tpaine]

Also, we can't keep up the interest, energy or expense of policing, reordering, and reconstructing the world for very long, so perhaps things won't end up any better. They may even end up worse. Antiterrorist actions are certainly justifiable, but expanding the war may just be digging ourselves into a bigger hole.
216 -x-


Exactly. Real world cost/benefit rationalities will eventually end these neo-political war 'adventures' in favor of taking out terrorists on a personal basis.
- If 'big stick' retaliation demonstrations are necessary, as per 9/11, they should be targeted at destroying infrastructure, [like Mecca]. -- Hiroshima worked, and it would have worked even better, if we could have done it shortly after Pearl Harbor.




The last thing we should be doing is making limited war on a tyrant & his supporters, then rebuilding their whole damn country.

[reed_inthe_wind]

"commander in chief Hillary" - that title disgusts me as much as your crass language. In fact, based on your use of the term "wet dream" to express your political views, I would say that you are a prime candidate for her majesty's service. You can change your name to hottub again Hillary vet.

Its real simple - the conservative government needs to deliver on one of the following moral issues: abortion or school vouchers. On the economic front, the conservative government needs to stop the lawyers from running the entrepeneurial spirit out of corporate
America with laws like Sarbanes Oxley Act.

[homeagain balkansvet]

Oh, boo hoo. Here's a hanky. If 'wet dream' offends you, try being called a Muslim terrorist, a Bin Laden supporter, a killer of Serbs, etc. etc. Free Republic is not for the easily offended.

I'd love to see a change in the abortion regime, but couldn't care less about school choice. But don't hold your breath either way. There's a war on--haven't you heard?