Young Right Tries to Define Post-Buckley Future

Kevin Moloney for The New York Times
Austin Bramwell, 26, of Denver,
one of five new trustees of
National Review, is a leader in a
group no longer characterized by
uniform views.

In 1954, when he was 28, William F. Buckley Jr. founded National Review to bear the standard of a fledgling conservative movement defined by three commitments: to fight Communism, to diminish the federal government and to uphold traditionalism in social affairs.

That formulation held the movement together for five decades, as Ronald Reagan brought conservatives to power, George H. W. Bush declared victory in the cold war and Bill Clinton pronounced the end of big government.

Now, many conservatives say, the current Bush administration is testing that definition of conservatism as it has never been tested before, from the expansion of federal health and education programs to the campaign to remake Iraq. And as Mr. Buckley prepares for retirement by handing over control of National Review, a new generation of young would-be Buckleys is debating just what conservatism means when their side has taken over Washington, and yet they still do not feel that they have won.

"Conservative is a word that is almost meaningless these days," said Caleb Stegall, 32, a lawyer in Topeka, Kan., and a founder of The New Pantagruel, newpantagruel.com, an irreverent Web site about religion and politics named for the jovial drunkard created by Rabelais. "It tells you almost nothing about where a person stands on a lot of questions," he said, like gay marriage, stem cell research, the environment and Iraq.

The debate among members of the young right is unfolding on Web sites like Mr. Stegall's and Oxblog, oxblog .blogspot.com, set up by three Rhodes Scholars. It is discussed at roundtables and cocktail parties organized by groups like America's Future Foundation in Washington. In journals for young conservatives, they tackle subjects as heterodox as the perils of Wal-Mart and urban sprawl, the dangers of unfettered capitalism to family life, and the feared takeover of their movement by hawkish neoconservatives.

In May the Philadelphia Society, a prestigious club for conservative intellectuals, tapped Sarah Bramwell, a 24-year-old Yale graduate and writer, to address the views of the young right at its 40th-anniversary conference. "Modern American conservatism began in an effort to do two things: defeat Communism and roll back creeping socialism," she began. "The first was obviated by our success, the latter by our failure. So what is left of conservatism?"

Rearing new conservatives has long been a subject of keen interest to their elders. To counter what they considered the liberal dominance of the major universities and news organizations, a handful of conservative foundations has helped build a network of organizations to train young members of the movement, most prominently the 51-year-old Intercollegiate Studies Institute. It publishes journals and books, sponsors fellowships and administers a network of 80 conservative college newspapers.

"I think one of the principal, even signal, features of the conservative movement is its overriding concern for nurturing young people," said Jeff Nelson, 39, the institute's vice president for publications.

Mr. Buckley recently chose Sarah Bramwell's husband, Austin Bramwell, 26, as one of five trustees of National Review. Mr. Bramwell, a clerk for the federal appeals court in Denver and an alumnus of the institute's programs, declined to comment because of his job at the court.

Mr. Nelson said young conservatives' greatest challenge might come from their predecessors' success. "Buckley started the conservative movement athwart history, yelling `stop,' " he said, "but there has been a subtle shift in the conservative movement's view of itself, from history's opponents to destiny's child."

"We have a lot of conservatives who reflect the values of the mainstream culture," he continued. "There are polls that show younger-generation conservatives trust the government much more deeply than their parents did."

The increase in federal domestic spending under President Bush would have been "unimaginable" to conservatives a few years ago, he said, and so would foreign policies like the invasion of Iraq.

Doubts about the justification for the war are a common theme among young conservatives. "Many conservatives, especially since Sept. 11, believe that a major, if not the major, calling of conservatives today is to articulate and defend a certain brand of international grand strategy," Ms. Bramwell argued in her address to the Philadelphia Society. "I believe this view to be not only mistaken, but quite possibly harmful to the conservative movement."

Still, Ms. Bramwell, who now works as deputy press secretary for Gov. Bill Owens of Colorado, said in an interview that she nonetheless supported the war in Iraq as a chance to advance United States interests in the Middle East.

Daniel McCarthy, 26, an assistant editor at The American Conservative, the magazine founded by Pat Buchanan, said that although many of his contemporaries questioned the war, few were willing to turn against the president, as he had.

"I say we have to go back to before the conservative movement became a movement," he said, "back to when it was just a few tormented intellectuals who didn't necessarily see themselves as a coherent group, and even to the so-called isolationist and noninterventionist right. America is a nation state. It is not meant to be a sort of world government in embryo, not meant to be a last provider of justice or security for the entire world."

But some young conservatives argue that the United States may need to become more active, not less. Eric Cohen, 26, is the director of the biotechnology and American democracy program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington; the editor of its journal, New Atlantis; a consultant to the President's Council on Bioethics; and a contributor to The Weekly Standard.

In an interview, he argued that conservatives needed to accept an active role for government in dealing with advancing technology, whether in the form of terrorists' weapons abroad or attempts to change the nature of life at home. "The conservative project is making the case for progress abroad while confronting the dilemmas of progress at home," he said.

Mr. Cohen defended the Bush administration's preventive intervention in the Middle East as well as its limitations on federal financing for stem cell research.

"Medical progress is going to keep people alive longer than they would have been," he said. "I think prudent conservatives are going to have to find some responsible way to have sensible government to deal with the needs of aging generations. We have seen a version of this in the prescription drug bill, and there are going to be other obligations."

Mr. Stegall, an evangelical Presbyterian and the son of a minister, said he shared Mr. Cohen's support for government social programs, but for religious reasons. He said he and other theological conservatives had founded The New Pantagruel as an alternative to the politics of the older generation of Christian conservatives.

"If I could sum up what we stand for in one word, it would be sustainability," he said. By that, he explained, he meant theologically conservative views on sustaining family life, as well as typically liberal views on sustaining the environment and local communities and helping the poor. "For us, those two halves are inextricably linked," he said.

He contended that even young conservatives who maintained a strict moral code for themselves were increasingly reluctant to regulate the behavior of others. "I am personally abstinent," he said, "and I plan to stay that way, but I have no problem with international aid programs that use or distribute condoms."

Ramesh Ponnuru, 29, a prolific writer for National Review, complained that the Republican party had been focusing on social issues because limited government did not have as big "a political payoff."

"There is a serious possibility that the libertarian wing of the conservative movement goes off in its own direction, either breaking off or allying with the Democrats," he said.

Mr. Buckley, however, said he was unperturbed. "The sweep of the Soviet challenge was what I call a harnessing bias, and now that harness has come apart," he said. "But I don't think the threads are by any means abandoned." He added: "There has never been a movement that doesn't go through this perplexion and development."

Btw, how did National Review degenerate to becoming a playground for a bunch of dorks?

Well, government and its role in the economy aren't going to go away anytime soon. It's foolish to think that they will or could disappear, but the socialist idea or ideal certainly doesn't have the appeal that it did 20 or 40 or 60 years ago. That can be regarded as a major success, rather than a failure.

Once the "movement" succeeds -- once you defeat major left-wing ideas and aspirations not finally and utterly, but substantially and in an impressive way -- what's next? To try to impose a right-wing vision on society or to celebrate the victory, strike the tents, and move on to a less ideologized, less polarized politics.

The united sense of a "movement," the idea of being "for us or against us," is easy to maintain when one is opposing or resisting something, but after a victory, when one can really change things, can the "movement" keep to a single set of objectives? Don't various factions start to pursue their own favorite objectives without a strong opponent? Without such a threatening enemy isn't it time to take the volume and the pitch of political discussion down a notch and recognize what we have in common, as well as what divides us?

Josh Chafetz at oxblog.com (mentioned in the article) takes issue with "movement" thinking. He's involved in academia and takes issue with liberal or leftist professors but doesn't like the wholesale disdain that many organized movement conservatives have for academia as a whole.

I don't take my bearings from oxblog and disagree with it about a lot of things. There's a lot more to be said for a more populist, less elitist approach than the oxbloggers take, but Chafetz does have a point.

When people begin to think that one is either in the movement or out of it, either for us or against us, real thinking stops and knee-jerk reactions take over. When one can just dismiss opposing ideas because of their political incorrectness or lack of doctrinal purity one has ceased to think and simply reacts.

People naturally form movements to pursue common goals, and there's nothing wrong with that. But there's a lot to be said for staying outside organized movements and relying more on one's own judgment.

So the latest thing in conservatives is the "personally opposed but" crowd? Maybe today's young people are so indoctrinated in individualism and relativism that they no longer even think about the quality of the larger society in which they will have to raise their children. But maybe this is just wishful thinking on the part of the NYTimes crowd. I certainly hope so. 2 posted on 07/17/2004 7:47:54 AM PDT by madprof98

The "libertarian" designation on social issues is utterly meaningless. No one is legally prevented from engaging in the private sexual recreation of their choice in modern America. There were plenty of condoms on display at the 7-11 last time I was there. I have no idea what these punks are thinking or talking about.

That you can't kill a baby remains a part of normal conservative values. Any would-be "conservative" who has a problem with that needs moral therapy. As a general principle, it might be a good idea for zine editors to limit awarding writing jobs to conservatives who have already matured beyond puberty.

Just as a footnote, there is NOTHING "libertarian" about forcing everyone in the country to accept the pro-sodomy ruling of a small clique of acitivst lesbian judges in Massachusetts. If they want "privacy" and freedom in the bedroom, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on sodomy is the better alternative to state-licensed perversion. No homosexual or lesbian is currently prevented from copulating by any "conservative" policy.

[David Weigel] contended that even young conservatives who maintained a strict moral code for themselves were increasingly reluctant to regulate the behavior of others. -DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, New York Times

I am personally abstinent, and I plan to stay that way, but I have no problem with international aid programs that use or distribute condoms. -David Weigel, a contributor to the libertarian magazine Reason

I hear Limbaugh and Boortz tell us it's the liberals' HATRED of individualism, that's part of the problem, and if Ted Kennedy says individualism is evil, then it must be the opposite. -The Libertarian Dude

IMO both liberals and conservatives venerate their own versions of both individualism and the common good. Regardless, I think there is a problem we could call radical individualism in which we no longer have a handle on certain limits. Nothing must get in the way of a woman's (for example) potential for individual fulfillment. There are serious threats to Western civilization, such as low birth rate, low marriage rate. But we've lost the ability to reason about these issues.

[David Weigel] contended that even young conservatives who maintained a strict moral code for themselves were increasingly reluctant to regulate the behavior of others. -DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, New York Times

What current "conservative" policies "regulate the behavior of others"?

Seems to me it is primarily wild-eyed liberal zanies who want to restrict tobacco use and curb Non-PC speech. They would probably ban heterosexual marriages with more than 2 children if they could. And prohibit any public discussion of religious moral values. I understand there are some who want to ban religious private schools.

If they want "privacy" and freedom in the bedroom, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on sodomy is the better alternative to state-licensed perversion. No homosexual or lesbian is currently prevented from copulating by any "conservative" policy.

As soon as something becomes fairly well accepted as a commonsensical virtue, some people in robes are going to turn around and coerce it. Example:

The virtue: it is a virtue to live and let live.
The coercion: we had SCOTUS torture the Constitution to ban any state, village, or town from having an anti-sodomy law.

The virtue: one should treat a gay couple with dignity - they have the same feelings of love and loss that hets do.
The coercion: Massachusetts SJC tortures its Constitution to ban any distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriage.

Good grief. Is this what has happened to the conservative movement? Whining about condoms for Pakistan and Zimbabwe? No wonder Kerry-Edwards has an edge on Bush-Cheney in some polls. What a waste of time. What ever happened to cutting taxes and reforming education? What on earth are these kids studying these days? Btw, how did National Review degenerate to becoming a playground for a bunch of dorks? 21 posted on 07/17/2004 1:21:35 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity

The actual text of the quote. There was no reason to edit out the essential points of irony in your reposting of it.

Perhaps you can explain how the U.S. Constitution mandates U.S. taxpayers must fund U.N. global depopulation schemes. Or how NOT doing that "regulates" the behavior of others.

No adult anywhere in America is currently being prevented from copulating or from purchasing a life supply of condoms. This tiresome argument replayed by liberals OVER AND OVER AND OVER again about the "privacy of the bedroom" is ridiculous. "Conservatives" who pander to this in hopes of looking and sounding "cool" are quite silly. The idea that unless the government is funding some area of sexual social engineering that someone's "rights" are being hindered is ridiculous and HOWLINGLY ABSURD.

You can walk on to the campus of almost any college or university and get FREE condoms. Condoms for people in Pakistan or Tasmania have NOTHING to do with the U.S. Constitution or the "sexual freedom" of Americans. It's an absurd issue and the "libertarian" social policy spin is ridiculous. There is NOTHING "libertarian" about putting the government in the business of fomenting, directing, and controlling experiment social engineering on sexuality. The idea of giving U.S. tax dollars to the UN to do this is just OFF THE RADAR. Nothing "libertarian" about the UN or its genocidal depopulation schemes.

But several conservatives, young and old, said the greatest division in the movement pitted young traditionalists against their more libertarian peers.

David Weigel, 22, the former editor of a conservative magazine at Northwestern University, a contributor to the libertarian magazine Reason and an intern at the editorial page of USA Today, ---

contended that even young conservatives who maintained a strict moral code for themselves were increasingly reluctant to regulate the behavior of others.

______________________________________

HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity wrote:
Good grief. Is this what has happened to the conservative movement? What a waste of time. What ever happened to cutting taxes and reforming education?
What on earth are these kids studying these days?

_______________________________________

Perhaps they are studying the principles of our Republic, -- wherein the Founders contended that while eveyone should maintain a strict moral code for themselves, --- 'We the People' should be very reluctant to allow any level of government to regulate the behavior of others.

26 tpaine
(No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)

______________________________________

What current "conservative" policies "regulate the behavior of others"?
27 HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity

Um..read #27 and get back to me.
No idea what on earth you could be
thinking of.
28 HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity

______________________________________
_

Absurd claim you make. You have "no idea" that ALL levels of our governments, -- fed/state/local, -- are making ever increasing numbers of 'laws' to regulate the behavior of others?

Virtually every other post on FR is made about some new outrageous 'law' imposed upon us by the RinoCratic regime that infests DC, and every Statehouse in the USA.

Pretending that the GOP is blameless in our slide into socialism is ludicrous.

... "libertarian" social policy spin is ridiculous. There is NOTHING "libertarian" about putting the government in the business of fomenting, directing, and controlling experiment social engineering on sexuality.

I happened to catch Terry Gross' (Fresh Air) excruciating NPR interview of Stephen Moore, president of Club For Growth. When she questioned his libertarianism, she succeeding in labelling anyone pro-life or anti-gay marriage as people who wanted to invade the privacy of the bedroom. It was painful. But she really showed her complete lack of understanding when she obviously didn't understand his reference to a liberal elite.

Very boring. As you should have been able to discern, the post and citation concerned global condom distribution and the question of abstinence in the young conservative's comment i.e., he was talking about sexual controversies. It does NOT "regulate" the behavior of others merely to NOT fund UN depopulation schemes. No one is prevented in the United States of America from purchasing condoms or fornicating freely and privately in the leisure of their own home. Hence, no one is being "regulated" by conservatives or conservative policies on this matter. The pseudo "libertarian" spin on this is rather lame.

Tom Paine was an extremist wacko, by the way. Totalitarian secular humanism is not part of the conservative tradition. Nor is it mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Paine's Jacobinism died a deserving death in the gallows of 18th-century France. No serious man romanticizes that or venerates its memory.

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.