The Unmaking of Conservatism

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030424.shtml ^

[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.

[viaveritasvita]

>>"We're supposed to continue to elect these RINOs under the promise that when they get all they need, that all our troubles will go away, that our taxes will be lower, and we'll somehow have the freedoms intended when this nation of states was established. Sorry, no can do. I don't vote for CINOs at any level, no matter their party affiliation."<<

Someone had the nerve to tell me, in essence, that it was all some sort of secret strategy. Apparently, this strategy will result in a huge and sudden turn back to smaller government, traditional conservatism, and traditional Republican ideology! I voted for the RINO senator here in NC, but I can assure you it was the last time. I don't want to be subjugated by anyone, 'Rat or Republican, thankyouverymuch.

[Cacophonous]

Nicely said...welcome to Big Government Conservatism, which brought us the Patriot Act.

[B. A. Conservative]

Drop dead. If FreeRepublic is not going to permit genuine topics for discussion and that are in real need of genuine discussion, then FreeRepublic no longer represents the principles embodied in the Constitution and is unworthy of its name. Free speech is at the very heart of freedom. And so is revolution. You may not feel comfortable discussing revolution and it may not fit within the permitted activities of a tyrannical government like the one we currently have, but it is part and parcel of freedom. Tyrannies do not often go quietly into the night.

Has FreeRepublic become a part of the tyranny in America now that the Republicans are in control of the reigns of power?

[Admin Moderator]

You have all the freedom of speech you want.

What you do not have is a right to whatever platform or audience your whims desire. Those who wish to destroy the United States, dissolve the union, are not welcome here.

Now feel free to practice your free speech rights in your home, or in your town, or on your own website.

[philosofy123]

Sorry

[inquest]

So the author's mentioning of Israel meant black people, not Jews, right?

It meant government, not a particular ethnic group. Just as mentioning England doesn't mean commenting on Anglo-Saxons.

Your creative confusion on this speaks volumes, and confirms the exact point I was making.

[Courier]

Spoke to Mom. She warned me not to respond to idiots who believe that any tax cut is a Democrat agenda.

Mom knows best.

[iconoclast]

Very good post.

My only quarrel of any consequence with you would concern Mr. Gingrich (a shallow, self-serving, windbag IMHO).

[iconoclast]

So the author's mentioning of Israel meant black people, not Jews, right?

We could make a giant leap forward to rational discussion if this false equivalence of Jews and Israel could be put behind us.

[iconoclast]

The discussions about "neocons" and "paleocons" or any other "con" is distracting BS and diverts the attention of people who need to focus on FREEDOM.

I agree with most all of that which I see you post. But, do not be wrong, perhaps tragically, on this issue. The neo-cons are in no way conservative. They are as false as the fur on Jacob's arm.

The libertarians are an entirely different question. The differences between conservatives and libertarians are, pragmatically speaking, insignificant, IMO.

If we were ever to get to the point where libertarian and conservative differences were important, we would be in conservative Elysium.

[sparkydragon]

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.

Not precisely true.

"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."(100 U.S. 371(1879) Ex parte Siebold)

If a law were Constitutional until the moment it was declared to not be so then the convictions and sentences would stand because the convictions and sentences were Constitutional at the time they were imposed. When a law is taken off the books by an act of Congress or other legislative body all persons convicted of the crime described are not automatically set free because what they did is no longer a crime. They must still receive a pardon in order to be released prematurely because their conviction and sentence were valid; however, in the case of an unConstitutional law, the law is unConstitutional from the moment it is enacted and thus all convictions and sentences resulting therefrom are invalid.

[Consort]

...in the case of an unConstitutional law, the law is unConstitutional from the moment it is enacted and thus all convictions and sentences resulting therefrom are invalid.

No new law or retroactive law or repeal of a law or any thing else can undo any prison time served or executions carried out or reputations tarnished or lives destroyed under a law that was duly passed by a valid legislature, even if it's later repealed or declared unConstitutional. If the law was unConstitutional from day one, then the repeal or removal would not have to be done retroactively.

[sparkydragon]

So you are saying that all innocent persons convicted of a crime are in fact guilty of the crime for which they've been convicted before someone else confesses. Just because a truth is not upheld doesn't make it any less true.

[Consort]

If you are innocent but are still suffering the full consequences of a guilty person, then what does truth do for you? Is a killer a murderer? Does it matter to the victim or the victim's family?

[sparkydragon]

I think I see where you are coming from. Tell me, are you willing to fight for what you believe in? Or are you only willing to fight with the certainty that you will gain no matter the outcome? Or are you unwilling to take any side in a fight for fear that you will lose something?

[Consort]

I'm interested in real people who live on the operational level day by day. You seem to be more concerned with legal, constitutional, and more esoteric matters that make life more difficult in many instances.

[sparkydragon]

I, also, am interested in real people. I do not feel that people are benefited by being told they deserve to be treated as guilty just because they have been. I do feel people are benefited by being told "it was wrong from the beginning," rather than your version of "I changed my mind." A changing of mind is not what happened. An appraisal of fact is.

Your comments indicate that you would consider someone guilty of a crime because they had been convicted even if you, personally, knew that they had not commited the crime of which they were accused. And that you would consider yourself guilty of a crime you never committed because you had been convicted. What does it matter that you know someone to be innocent when they have been punished?

[sparkydragon]

Also, how do one challenge a law on the grounds that it is un Consitutional if it is Constitutional until it has been overturned? According to your logic no law could be legitimately challenged because the fact that it had not been overturned would be proof positive that the law was Constitutional.

[Consort]

Of course innocent people don't deserve to be treated as if giulty and no, I don't consider them to be guilty. The law and the constitution, however, consider innocent people to be guilty if they were found guilty in a trial or tribunal or any other such body. The law trumps the truth. The law, etc also treat the innocent as guilty in those circumstances. While you and I may know a person is innocent, the person is still "guilty" in those not so uncommon scenarios.

[sparkydragon]

The law trumps the truth.

If the law did trump truth then those the law declared to be guilty would truly be guilty. If you truly believe that law trumps truth I would like to ask about your religious persuasion, but you are, of course, free to ignore that request.

The quote I pointed you to indicated that the Constitution does not consider people guilty of breaking an invalid law. The point of the appeals process is to force the lower courts to accept this already existing truth. If this truth were not alreday existing then a person would not be eligible from release when the law he violated was declared unConstitutional because it would have been valid when s/he was convicted, rather than erroneously considered valid as it actually is.

It seems to me that you consider effect more imortant than intent or circumstances. Would you convict someone who takes a life in self defense of murder because the end result is the same? Would you consider them as guilty as the person who maliciously intended to take a life?