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.

[sparkydragon]

If a law is contrary to the Constitution, even if it has not been declared so, the Pres still has the responsibility not to enforce it because he would, in fact, be enforcing an invalid law. Nothing can be done to a President who refuses to enforce certain laws so the only thing on the line it the public's opinion of him. Any President unwilling to do what it right for fear of alienating the public is not doing his job.

[Consort]

It's the person's fault, not the fact's, for arriving at the false conclusion.

Nah.

[Action-America]

How does a neo-conservative differ from a moderate Republican, seriously?

There is no difference.  Neither has any core values.  Their only interest is power.

Like Dubya, they talk about values and put on a good show.  But, an examination of their actions reveals that they have no respect for the Constitution or even right and wrong.

(Sorry to be so late on this.  I just got bumped.)

 

[LittleJoe]

I have known many Paleos in that time and as near as I can tell the real difference is that Neocons don't hate Jews or other minorities and won't hide under the bed quivering from the rest of the world like Paleos

I'm a Conservative. My father was a Conservative and so was his dad.
I was a charter member of the John Birch Society. I support Israel, believe all men are created equal and so does every "paleo" I've ever met.

Liberals supported segregation. "Paleos" supported integration. "Paleos" Believe in the Constitution as the Holy Book of Freedom. Neo Cons want to pick and choose the parts they like.

From my point of view, it's you Neo-Cons who are hiding under the bed. As a Conservative, I will not give up my principles to win an election.

Freedom is not negotiable!

[inquest]

Where are you getting this "while it was still Constitutional" business? If it was unconstitutional once, it was unconstutional always. It's not that hard to understand. There isn't a single court in the land who would agree with your "while it was still Constitutional" assessment.

[Consort]

If a law is contrary to the Constitution,...

---

Based on what? Your opinion? Mine? A Liberal's? A Conservative's? A Libertarian's?

---

...the Pres still has the responsibility not to enforce it...

---

He'll enforce it if he believes it's constitutional and valid. Yes?, No?

---

...be enforcing an invalid law.

---

Nope. A law has to be declared invaild through established procedures.

---

Nothing can be done to a President who refuses to enforce certain laws so the only thing on the line it the public's opinion of him.

---

A President can be impeached and removed even if he violates no laws or statutes. It can be based entirely on behavior, for example, that enough people in Congress don't like and have the votes to impeach in the House and remove in the Senate.

---

Any President unwilling to do what it right...

---

They will do what they and their party and their constituancy think is right even if the entire opposition party and their constituancy think it's wrong.

[Consort]

Where are you getting this "while it was still Constitutional" business?

---

It's self evident.

---

If it was unconstitutional once, it was unconstutional always.

---

Nope. Only after it's determined to be so and it can become constitutional again if the court so determines.

---

There isn't a single court in the land who would agree with your "while it was still Constitutional" assessment.

---

I think they all would.

[sparkydragon]

Based on what? Your opinion? Mine? A Liberal's? A Conservative's? A Libertarian's?

I don't mean for you to take this question personally, but it is something that you seriously have to consider in order to understand deep down to the bottom of your existence whether or not you believe in the America ideal of "every man is created equal." I repeat, this question is for you own consideration, and is in no way a personal insult. I ask myself this question any time I am think about taking someone else's word on what anything means.

Are you so stupid that you have to have someone else interpret for you everything you read?

[Poohbah]

Fine. Your neighbor just declared your breathing to be unconstitutional. Whatcha gonna do?

[Consort]

I don't mean for you to take this question personally,...

---

Ummmm....OK.

---

...but it is something that you seriously have to consider in order to understand deep down to the bottom of your existence whether or not you believe in the America ideal of "every man is created equal."

---

Do you think you have a monopoly on serious thinking? Most FReepers are serious thinkers.

---

I ask myself this question...

"Are you so stupid that you have to have someone else interpret for you everything you read?"

---

I suppose it's OK to ask yourself that question...if you have doubts about being an independent thinker. But, what exactly do you mean by that? Everything I posted is my own opinion that I formulated on my own (can't you tell by now?) and not from any textbook. You, on the other hand, have apparently bought into all those sources you mentioned to counter my argument.

[inquest]

While Sparky's contemplating an answer to your question I'll throw in my own answer.

The neighbor's wrong.

So how does that change his earlier point that the President has a responsibility not to enforce unconstitutional laws?

[sparkydragon]

You question whose opinion is valid to judge Constitutionality. I ask you why yours isn't. I don't question my ability to think independently, just whether I am at the moment. Because he is sworn to defend the Constitution the President is obligated to mske that judgement call himself until the Supreme Court rules one way or another. One could ague that a law is Constitutional until declared otherwise by the Sumpreme Court as you do, or one can argue that it is necessarily suspect until it has been challenged and passed through. If a President feels that a law is unConstitutional and enforces it anyway, all prosecutions under that law are malicious because the person responsible (at the highest level) for enforcing it does not believe that such prosecution is just yet prosecutes anyway.

[Consort]

You question whose opinion is valid to judge Constitutionality. I ask you why yours isn't.

---

I don't know if anything I said is valid. It's what I believe at this point in time and, so far, you haven't persuaded otherwise.

---

I don't question my ability to think independently, just whether I am at the moment.

---

I don't think I share that problem.

---

Because he is sworn to defend the Constitution the President is obligated to mske that judgement call himself until the Supreme Court rules one way or another.

---

I think that his oath of office requires that he enforce the law, not interpret it. Selective enforcement causes people to lose faith in the rule of law. Laws that you and I might consider to be unconstitutional are supported by many others who disagree with us.

---

One could ague that a law is Constitutional until declared otherwise by the Sumpreme Court as you do,...

---

That's how I believe it works.

---

...or one can argue that it is necessarily suspect until it has been challenged and passed through.

---

The Supreme Court trumps those suspicions.

---

If a President feels that a law is unConstitutional and enforces it anyway,...

---

Then he's doing his job, some of which can be distasteful, at times.

---

...all prosecutions under that law are malicious because the person responsible (at the highest level) for enforcing it does not believe that such prosecution is just yet prosecutes anyway.

---

Those enforcing the laws have no way of knowing in advance if the law is going to be repealed or invalidated a week from now or twenty years from now or ever — most likely never. They are just doing their jobs. If we all decided to do only the things we favor, chaos would prevail and more laws would be passed.

[inquest]

I think that his oath of office requires that he enforce the law, not interpret it.

Kinda tough to enforce any law if you don't know what it says.

[Consort]

Kinda tough to enforce any law if you don't know what it says.

That's what the Attorney General is for.

[inquest]

Sure he should get advice from his Attorney General, and probably from other cabinet members as well. But regardless of who's advising him, it's his job to make sure he knows what the law says if he's going to be trusted with enforcing it.

[Consort]

Sure he should get advice from his Attorney General, and probably from other cabinet members as well. But regardless of who's advising him, it's his job to make sure he knows what the law says if he's going to be trusted with enforcing it.

The Attorney General will explain it to him and will enforce it for him.

[inquest]

Didn't you say at #273 that it was the President's job to enforce the law?

[Consort]

Yes, and his tools for doing so include the AG and the Justice Department, among others.

[inquest]

I see, so you were just injecting needless details for the sake of obfuscation. So maybe you'd like to come back to the main point, which is that if he's to enforce the law, he must interpret it.