Did I say that? I'm the type who will say what I mean and mean exactly what I say. So, again, did I say that?
Doing bad things to bad people...
Posted on 05/09/2003 4:14:34 AM PDT by Continental Op
The Unmaking of Conservatism
Joe Sobran
April 24, 2003 Conservatism — or at least something calling itself conservatism — is now fashionable, and those who claim the label are triumphant today. Their government has just won a war, and they can afford to gloat not only over liberals, but over an older breed of conservatives who are suspicious of big government even when (or especially when) it’s winning.
When I began to consider myself a conservative, back in 1965, conservatism didn’t seem to have much of a future. Lyndon Johnson had just crushed Barry Goldwater in what looked like a final showdown between the philosophies of limitless and limited government. I was clearly enlisting in a losing cause.
But that, in a way, was what attracted me to conservatism. It was a philosophy of reflective losers, men whose principles and memories gave them resistance to the conquering fad and its propaganda. Such men hoped for victory, naturally, but they were fighting heavy odds, fierce passions, and powerful interests. They were ready for defeat, but they weren’t going to adjust their principles in order to win. They knew that if you win power by giving up your principles, you’ve already lost.
I was a college student, and my reading in English literature had already predisposed me to conservatism. The great writers I admired — Shakespeare, Jonathan Swift, Samuel Johnson, Edmund Burke, John Henry Newman, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, George Orwell, Michael Oakeshott — were all notable for opposing the fads and enthusiasms of their times. They took being in the minority for granted. They even treasured solitude and meditation. Their minds and hearts were closed to statist propaganda and the passions it sought to incite, and they were prepared to endure abuse and libel for refusing to join the herd — especially what has been wittily called “the herd of independent minds.”
It soon turned out that the Goldwater campaign marked only the beginning, not the end, of a powerful new conservative movement, which astonished itself by managing to get one of its own, Ronald Reagan, elected president in 1980. Few had imagined this possible in 1965.
But by winning power, the conservative movement began to loose its grip on conservative principles. It had hoped to reverse the gains of liberalism — not only Johnson’s Great Society, but Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, both of which had violated America’s constitutional tradition of strictly limited and federal government. Now it quietly dropped its original goals.
As a powerful movement, conservatism also attracted new members who were more interested in power than in principle. Some of these were called “neoconservatives” — admirers of Roosevelt and recent supporters of Lyndon Johnson who cared nothing for limited government and the U.S. Constitution. Few of them, if any, had voted for Goldwater.
The chief common ground between the conservatives and the neocons was an anti-Communist foreign policy. All talk of deeper principles — and of repealing the welfare state — was discreetly dropped for the sake of harmony within the movement and political victory.
The conservatives wanted to keep the neocons within the movement. In this they succeeded only too well. Today the neocons have not only stayed; they have taken over the movement and pushed the principled conservatives out — or cowed them into silence, which comes to the same thing.
The older conservatives were wary of foreign entanglements and opposed on principle to foreign aid. But these are the very things the neocons favor most ardently; in fact, they are the very things that define neoconservatism and separate it from genuine conservatism.
As the neocon Max Boot recently wrote, “Support for Israel [is] a key tenet of neoconservatism.” He failed to name any other “key” tenets, because there aren’t any. War against Arab and Muslim regimes — enemies of Israel — is what it’s all about. Reagan’s all-out support for Israel, when Jimmy Carter was toying with Palestinian rights, is what won him neocon support in 1980.
A Rip Van Winkle conservative who had dozed off in 1965 would wake up in 2003 to find a movement that has almost nothing to do with the creed he professed when he last closed his eyes. It also has nothing to do with the conservative temper we find in the great writers of the past. It has everything to do with a shallow jingoism and war propaganda. It has become the sort of hot fad wise conservatives used to avoid, back when wise conservatives still defined conservatism.
That conflicts with what you said above about the courts having to rule on it.
Nope. Not said by me .
Reread what Marshal said. The courts are "bound". -- You are simply playing a silly little word game, pretending to misunderstand Marshals point, in order to insist on your own.
---------------------------------
- Especially by those sworn to uphold the enforcement of our constitution, the executive branch. -- It is their duty to check & balance legislative excess.
Not entirely correct. The Executive Branch can veto legislation but vetos can be overridden. Like I said, it comes back to the courts to rule on it....or refuse to rule on it.
Not at all, if the courts refuse to rule, or even they affirm, -- the executive can also simply refuse to enforce the repugnant 'law'.
They can just ignore it. Such is their sworn duty, much ignored in itself.
And ultimately, the people will decide, as they did with prohibition. First it was widely ignored, then repealed.
You appeared to be under the impression that the Founders didn't consider that laws contrary to the Constitution should be regarded as void.
You mean like the labeling as "anti-Semitic" anyone who raises alarms about our aid to Israel?
Are you suggesting that Marshall said that we can ignore any law that we consider to be repugnant without a legal ruling? What one person considers "repugnant" may be entirely different from another's definition. Under that scenario, no one would obey the law and vigilantism and anarchy would prevail.
Read some history on booze prohibition.. It was roundly ignored, juries routinely nullfied blatant violatons, - It became a national joke long before it was repealed.. ALL in all, banning prohibition was Americas 'finest hour', imo...
Did I say that? I'm the type who will say what I mean and mean exactly what I say. So, again, did I say that?
Doing bad things to bad people...
You left out the killing and the graft and the growth of organized crime..... Is That what Marshall advocated?
What I have a problem with is the "neo con" effort to demonize conservatives who don't agree with current American foreign policy goals as "anti semites" or closet Nazis. Those are the tactics of the Left. They have no place among the GOP and conservatives.
I'm the type who will say what I mean and mean exactly what I say.
Yes, of course, with a little bit of "plausible deniability" thrown in. I'm familiar with the pattern.
Reading problem? From the article: As the neocon Max Boot recently wrote, “Support for Israel [is] a key tenet of neoconservatism.” He failed to name any other “key” tenets, because there aren’t any. War against Arab and Muslim regimes — enemies of Israel — is what it’s all about. Reagan’s all-out support for Israel, when Jimmy Carter was toying with Palestinian rights, is what won him neocon support in 1980.
No mention of Israel or Jews, right?
Yes, of course, with a little bit of "plausible deniability" thrown in. I'm familiar with the pattern.
Get bent. You're not familiar with squat other than your own preconceived notions.
Now, answer my question please. Did I say that? And don't switch the subject. Game recognizes game. Always has and always will.
Don't bother responding unless you answer my question.
Doing bad things to bad people...
And you are hiding behind semantics.
"Bound" is Marshalls word not mine. You can't address his point? Tough. -- I'm 'hiding' nothing.
----------------------------------
Not at all, if the courts refuse to rule, or even they affirm, -- the executive can also simply refuse to enforce the repugnant 'law'. They can just ignore it. Such is their sworn duty, much ignored in itself. And ultimately, the people will decide, as they did with prohibition. First it was widely ignored, then repealed.
That is the perfect formula to get people to lose respect for the law —
Exactly. Prohibitions never work. We can see that now in the WOD's.
the selective enforcement by the Executive Branch based on who is President at any given time. Are you serious? And what do you have against the Judicial Branch doing their job?
Yes, I'm serious. And none at all on their ~constitutional~ job. - You differ however. You want judicial activism:
No law is unconstitutional until it is declared to be so. All laws on the books have to be obeyed, and enforced at a cost, even if they are "unconstitutional", until repealed or declared unconstitutional.
Belied by your own earlier words here.. Tish tish...
Reading problem, indeed. I of course never said that there was no mention of Israel. I said there was no mention of Jews. But of course to you, anything contrary one might have to say about our support of Israel automatically involves something contrary about Jews. So yes, it appears you did "say that".
And you lecture me about preconceived notions?
You left out the killing and the graft and the growth of organized crime..... Is That what Marshall advocated?
Marshall was dead. -- But his wisdom lives on..
And still fools advocate prohibitive type 'laws', directly defying the highest principles of our free republics constitution.
Be ashamed, consort.
You're one piece of work.
So the author's mentioning of Israel meant black people, not Jews, right?
The humor continues!
Doing bad things to bad people...
More importantly, do all of you idiots speak in dull generalities and verbose language?
Is that your hero, President Bush, making deals with -gasp- Democrats to get his tax cut bill passed because -double gasp- Republicans won't vote for it?
Seems like you'd better check your facts, sonny. I think your Mom is calling you for dinner anyway.
And PS, GW Bush is implementing the Democrat agenda, so who is stoping [sic] them? Congressional Republicans? That's a bigger joke.
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.