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.

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, said that last spring his college paper had trouble finding any conservatives on campus who supported amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

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."

No one is being "regulated" by conservative policies on this matter.

Not on that matter. However, if conservative policies that I espouse are a form of "regulation" of others' behavior, I want to have the intellectual honesty to call it that.

Sodomy. I don't believe the Constitution guarantees a right to sodomy. I would be opposed to any per se anti-sodomy laws in my state. But I am not opposed to anti-incest laws. That is regulating someone's private behavior.

Gay marriage. That phrase is now universally used: "the FMA is a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage." What I really think is happening is that you had (proper) governmental support for an ancient institution, marriage, which has been uniformly a union of one man and one woman, and is a foundation of civilization. Noone was prosecuted for calling their homosexual unions "marriage". So you have the beginnings of an informal institution of gay unions. I have no problem with that. But it seems to me that the gay marriage advocates now want to use the awesome power of government to force everyone to treat this new thing as exactly the same as the old thing. An incredibly absurd idea.

What current "conservative" policies "regulate the behavior of others"?
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.
34 tpaine

______________________________________

-- 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.
38 Howling-Absurdities

______________________________________

Whatever.
Get back to me when you want to address the issue.

Your claim that there are no
'-- conservative policies that regulate the behavior of others --' is a howler.

The renewal of the AWB is just one such 'conservative policy' supported by the current administration. You have 'any ideas' about it?

That's the other leg of the lame argument to break. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which says we must tolerate sodomy. There is nothing which says a senator or congressman (or president) must explain why he does not favor marital unions of same-sex persons. We may be opposed to these either because of the obvious health hazards and hygiene perils or as informed by religious-based morality. It does not constitute an "establishment of religion" to exercise public disapproval of legalized sodomite unions registered by state licensing bureaus.

There are certain behaviors which are regulated or prohibited for various reasons. Prostitution and child pornography come to mind. I see no problem with legal prohibitions on such vices, dangerous and damaging activities. If a legislator decided, as informed by religious-based ethics, to vote to prohibit or regulate such things that is not an unconstitutional "establishment of religion" as some wacky liberal zanies like to suggest.

An "establishment of religion" is a very specific thing based on Anglo-American experience from the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. It is one particular denomination of Christianity being designated officially by law to be the state church, membership in which is either required for citizenship rights or to enjoy certain privileges like owning property, voting, and avoiding penal double taxes.

Merely to acknowledge the existence of God and of a moral law were not considered matters in dispute. We all still acknowledge that the murder of a human being is an unlawful and gravely immoral act. And this is a principle also of Christianity and Judaism. That does not make it permissable for non-Christians or non-Jews merely because they do not accept the Ten Commandments as divine. Liberals seem to talk as if ANYTHING which is prohibited by Christianity should be allowed. That's absurd.

Your claim that there are no '-- conservative policies that regulate the behavior of others --' is a howler.

Where did you get that? Are you on drugs now? As noted above (more than once), the issue I addressed was condoms and abstinence as commented on in the article. Conservative policies Do NOT control or regulate people from copulating or buying condoms.

IS THAT CLEAR? CAN YOU READ? CONDOMS SEX ABSTINENCE ZANY UN DEPOPULATION SCHEMES

Tucker Carlson's bow tie and girlie hair really annoys me, too. 36 posted on 07/17/2004 2:18:11 PM PDT by NYCVirago

The fratboy dandyism can be a little silly. Makes you wonder who his stylist is. It's the annoying smirk on his face that makes him hard to watch or take seriously. He seems to be getting the Tourette's a little more under control now though.

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.

One of the best summaries of Tom Paine and his philosophy I've ever seen.

Good work.

HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity:

No one is being "regulated" by conservative policies on this matter.

______________________________________

Not on that matter. However, if conservative policies that I espouse are a form of "regulation" of others' behavior, I want to have the intellectual honesty to call it that.
-nutcrackerboy-

_____________________________________

HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity replied:

There are certain behaviors which are regulated or prohibited for various reasons.

Prostitution and child pornography come to mind. I see no problem with legal prohibitions on such vices, dangerous and damaging activities.

If a legislator decided, as informed by religious-based ethics, to vote to prohibit or regulate such things that is not an unconstitutional "establishment of religion" --

______________________________________

Earlier, at #27 you asked:

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

Now, just above, you illustrated two:

"Prostitution and child pornography come to mind. I see no problem with legal prohibitions on such vices, dangerous and damaging activities."

Do you ever give any thought to the intellectual consistency of what you post from minute to minute?

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.

You are correct. Radical individualism and radical equalitarianism are destroying our country and civilization. An excellent book to read about this is Judge Bork's Slouching Towards Gomorrah.

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.

Liberals are every bit as moralistic and judgmental as any traditional conservative -- they are just moralistic and judgmental about different things. Seems to me that compulsion seems to be a liberal characteristic: steadily raising the levels of taxes and regulation, forcing people to associate with those that they don't wish to associate with, that sort of thing.

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

And when we studied logic in college a rhetorical question is not a universal negative proposition as was suggested. That is...following the principles of non-contradiction. If you want to argue that that particular rhetorical question can be converted into the universal negative proposition you suggested was my actual point I will appeal to the Aristotelian umpire of logical rulings for your fraternal correction. Don't try it again. [IRONY]

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.