The Heart of a Conservative

2/6/2006 | self

[TPartyType]

Men have been much more disposed to vex and oppress one another than to cooperate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts."—James Madison, Federalist Papers

---

Can we be honest, FRiends? Hannity has a point; many FReepers do pride themselves on chewing up and spitting out others. We do "eat our own." Couldn't we all profit from applying more often Stephen Covey's aphorism: "first understand, then seek to be understood"? We conservatives need to build a coalition, not fragment into factions. Free Republic can be really fractious. We cannot even agree on what a conservative is!

So, maybe if we agree on a general conception of Conservatism we'd recall more often what we have in common, which would, in turn, provide a basis for unity. I propose that Richard M. Weaver's various reflections on the conservative mindset may do the trick. (And I certainly invite others to post here their favorite reflections on the conservative temperament/mindset/character. I know Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk wrote some interesting things along this line, but I'm trying to keep this brief.)

In the collection of essays entitled Life Without Prejudice, one will read Weaver's riveting personal account of his coming "Up From Liberalism." Weaver was attracted by the qualities of the Southern Agrarians, and his contrast between them and the socialists with whom he had earlier aligned himself is instructive. Of the Agrarians, Weaver wrote,

I found that although I disagreed with these men on matters of social and political doctrine, I liked them all as persons. They seemed to me more humane, more generous, and considerably less dogmatic than those with whom I had been associated under the opposing banner. . . . the intellectual maturity and personal charm of the Agrarians were very unsettling to my then-professed allegiance." . . . I had felt a powerful pull in the direction of the Agrarian ideal of the individual in contact with the rhythms of nature, of the small-property holding, and of the society of pluralistic organization. . . . [and] I feel that my conversion to the poetic and ethical vision of life dates from this contact with its sterile opposite (133--all quotations are from Life Without Prejudice and will be cited by page number only).

Weaver views the conservative as one who holds a poetic and ethical vision of life, values tradition (not for its own sake, but because the image of man inherent to the traditional, ethical, poetic viewpoint promotes a social order based on freedom, dignity, and a balance between the individual and common good.) This vision presupposes a system of education and social institutions that bring to bear the best of Western tradition on the human condition. Conservatives are conservators of that tradition because we believe that, to lose it is to lose the wellsprings of much of the glory and achievement of the West these past thousand years. As Weaver says later, "The conservative wants to conserve the great structural reality that has been given us and which is on the whole beneficent" (159).

If I may be permitted one brief question as an aside, I think it will get to the heart of the matter and provide a timely example of why it is important to agree, in general terms, on what constitutes a conservative: Are militants conservatives? (BTW, I'm also slipping this in here because a DC FReeper kindly recommended that I address this question in a thread of my own, rather than on one of their protest threads . . . :o) I say, "no," because, as Weaver points out, there is a fundamental difference between the radical and the conservative, and that conservatives should be suspicious of "impassioned altruism," because

Something like this becomes thus an obsession, almost to the point—or maybe to the point—of irrationality. Not that I regard all desire to reform the world as a sign of being crazy. . . . [but] There is a difference between trying to reform your fellow beings by the normal processes of logical demonstration, appeal and moral sausion—there is a difference between that and passing over to the use of force or constraint. The former is something all of us engage in every day. The latter is what makes the modern radical dangerous and perhaps in a sense demented" (161).

Again, of militant liberals, Weaver writes,

Not only do they propose through their reforms to reconstruct and regiment us, they also propose to keep us from hearing the other side. . . . they have no intention of giving the conservative alternative a chance to compete with their doctrines for popular acceptance. If by some accident they are compelled physically to listen, it is with indifference or contempt because they really consider the matter a closed question-that is, no longer on the agenda of discussable things (164).

By the same token conservatives should not themselves act as though some questions are no longer open to discussion (at the very least, from those who identify themselves as FRiends). Weaver continues:

The conservative, on the other hand, is tolerant because he has something to tolerate from, because he has in a sense squared himself with the structure of reality. Since his position does not depend upon fiat and wish fulfillness, he does not have to be nervously defensive about it. A new idea or an opposing idea is not going to topple his. He is accordingly a much fairer man and I think a much more humane man than his opposite . . . He doesn't feel that terrible need to exterminate the enemy which seems to inflame so many radicals of both the past and the present" (164, 5).

Now, see I buy into Weaver's distinction and the ethic implied therein. I think it would serve us well to heed Weaver's insight. Weaver concludes with the following distinction between George Washington's temperament and that of the leaders of the French Revolution. (One must bear in mind that Washington was himself a revolutionary, which refutes "any notion that a conservative must be distinguished by timidity and apathy.") Washington's being the leader of a revolution aside,

The difference is that he does not have the inflamed zeal of his counterpart, the radical revolutionist, who thinks that he must cut off the heads of his opponents because he cannot be objective about his own frustrations. . . . I maintain that the conservative in his proper character and role is a defender of liberty. . . . He is prepared to tolerate diversity of life and opinion because he knows that not all things are of his making and that it is right within reason to let each follow the law of his own being" (165-66).

So, Weaver's distinction between the radical and conservative temperament exemplifies why it matters that one hold a correct view of what constitutes a conservative. But all the above, of course, begs another question: Are all DC Chapter members and Protest Warriors militants, therefore, not to be considered true conservatives?

Of course not. But I DO think it is good to ponder, on occasion, while out on the street corner, week after week, one's motivation and whether or not one is slipping into a militant mindset. If, upon reflection, one discovers that he is developing an addiction to street protests, I would recommend caution. Why? It is sometimes necessary, for those who would revive a tradition, to insulate oneself "from the surrounding forces of sentimentality [or passion] and vulgarity" (31). In all fairness to those who interpret my various postings to question one's motives for "street FReeping" and to beware not to get addicted to street militancy, I have to point out that Weaver further states that it is natural for a conservator of traditional values to sometimes defend tradition in ways intended to offend, because he sometimes shows "defiance and contempt toward those who would deny his level of seriousness" (31). Still, I think the key is to exercise restraint, check one's motives, and use such tactics sparingly; under certain circumstances.

I have to admit I kind of like Martin Luther King's sentiment that ". . . we must not let our creative protests degenerate into physical violence. We must never satisfy our thirst for freedom and justice by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred." Even if the opposition deserves to be hated, despised and humiliated! I think these values are in keeping with the conservative temperament. But I digress . . .

There is much room for variety of opinion within so broad a view (so please don't read me as proposing, in arrogance, some lock-step, litmus test for what I, personally, consider a conservative). And a broad view allows for consensus. That broad view naturally values religion, for example, but which religion should predominate is almost beside the point (if one's aim is to unify a movement.) That's why people who hold that our country is founded on a common tradition often call it the Judeo/Christian tradition. I do not personally hold to the tenets of "Judeo/Christianity" (whatever that might be!) But, in the cultural arena, I certainly subscribe to that heritage. Again, questions of degree will always arise (e.g., "How much moderation renders one a liberal? Hence, a RINO?") But still, a consensus underlies such questions . . . and discussions of them. Sure, we hold family disagreements, but at the end of the day that consensus ought to be guarded, maintained, protected.

FRegards,

TPartyType

[Robert A Cook PE]

Repubbies have GOT to recover the idealism and energy that Newt brought: They should have stuck with term limits: because these problems now would be avoided by new faces not corrupted by "power" up there.

[HopefulPatriot]

""We" who? When you say "our" to whom do you refer?

There is a small group of Freepers who agreed to help post and sheppard the articles or threads that describe the various parts of the plan, why each part is necessary and how it will be implemented. Until you see and understand each of the parts, it will not be possible to see the beauty or the power of the whole plan itself. The whole is substantially greater than the sum of the parts, but each part is an essential piece in its own right. A hard drive is one hell of a device. So is a motherboard, a processor, or all the peripherals that go with a computer. Even with all the pieces, it still takes an operating system and an operator or network of operators to turn it all into a wonder to behold. And when we have enough networked operators focusing their attention on a common task, we could end up with a FreeRepublic super computer capable of restoring the Constitution. Until now, no one has been able to assemble an entity (group, organization, call it a machine for lack of a better word) capable of tackling this task. We think we have the plan for such a device and now we are attempting to bring together and assemble the various pieces needed to make it happen.

[HopefulPatriot]

PS:

Our plan is going to need a train-load of indians to make it work. We already have somebody in mind to be Chief. Getting the Chief onboard is actually part of the plan and one of the tasks that the indians will have to complete if this plan is ever going to get on track.

Man doesn't invent anything that is perfect. By definition, the things created by man are flawed. We need indians to look for the things that will be needed that we have overlooked or omitted and we need indians to look at each piece of the plan from the perspective of what can each indian do to improve the design or function of that piece. Our electronic forum looks like the best drawing board around.

[TPartyType]

Good luck with it! Back in the days of the Clintoon scandals I tried to organize a coalition of researchers who would band together to get "behind the spin" on key events. When it got right down to it, not enough people were willing to work together. (Not to discount the wonderful work done by Alamo-Girl, JohnHuang2 and others.) Several people did volunteer to help out in various capacities, but it never went anywhere.

The majority of FReepers seem content with posting to threads, excepting those who do Street FReeps. Other than that, I don't see a lot of action coming out of FR. Not sure if that's a bad thing, frankly. We all have jobs and lives, etc. Having a place to come blow off steam, associate with a few other like-minded people, and have a little fun on the internet serves a purpose, I guess. But it would be nice to see more meaningful, well-coordinated conservative action come out of this forum.

So, again, good luck with your effort!

[HopefulPatriot]

"When it got right down to it, not enough people were willing to work together." Post #64

Sounds like a "Been there; done that" comment. I too, have participated in several unsuccessful efforts to organize a meaningful effort on FreeRepublic to take our country back. We are not alone; history has a habit of repeating. Here are some relevant quotes:

• "It is remarkable to see how relatively numerous in declining empires are the people capable of making the right diagnosis and preaching some sensible cure. It is no less remarkable, however, that wise utterances remain generally sterile, because, as Gonazles de Cellorigo forcefully put it while watching impotently the decline of Spain, "those who can, will not; and those who will, cannot." Carlo M. Cipolla: "The Decline of Empires"
• "We have come to a time for choosing; we will preserve for our children this the last best hope for man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.....history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening." Ronald Reagan 1964
• "When good men do nothing, evil triumphs." Edmund Burke

"I'll read them all over this coming weekend." Post #54

Stick to your decision to read the series over the weekend. It takes roughly an hour to read straight through, a little more if you like to think through the various ramifications of each feature of the plan.

There are very few people, whether conservative or not, that do not have some appreciation for the greatness of Ronald Reagan. The Founders and Ronald Reagan shared a belief in God and prayed for Divine Providence. Even the agnostics will admit that the United States has been "blessed" with an extraordinary history. When the chips are down or when the need is greatest, countless American heroes and patriots have risen to the occasion. I don't know what it will take to reawaken this sleeping giant, but people would do well to reread all of the quotes above again and then read or listen to a "Time for Choosing" with a lot of reflection on President Reagan's motivation to come forward with that speech. President Reagan single handedly won the Cold War and very likely ended the threat of nuclear extinction, but the message of a Time for Choosing relates to our domestic problems, not foreign threats.

When Gorbachev rose to power, President Reagan saw the chance to end the insane policy of MAD. He considered his options and made the deliberate choice to take advantage of the opening with the Soviet Union and plainly left the job of finishing his domestic agenda to successors. Republicans, and conservatives including Freepers, have not risen to the occasion in spite of the fact that we are running out of time.

The plan we are putting forward can finish President Reagan's unfinished agenda. As you will see, we do not have to convince millions of Americans overnight. We only have to convince the man that Ronald Reagan chose to lead such an effort after his successor dropped the ball. We don't have to convince even a majority of FreeRepublic to succeed. We only need to get enough Freepers to send enough emails or make enough phone calls to contact President Reagan's designated choice who hasn't gotten the message yet. If Divine Providence still guides the United States, he will get the message. If he doesn't, then God help us all.

The link below will make the series easier to follow. Rather than starting with the summary, I suggest starting with the Another Reagan? article and following the links at the bottom of each page. Save the summary until last. Anybody who starts with the summary first runs the risk of not understanding or not appreciating the incredible political power that this plan quickly generates.

Nobody has to take to the streets or carry banners. This is the Information Age and the Reagan Renaissance is only a few mouse clicks away.

[TPartyType]

I'm on it NOW . . .

[TPartyType]

Wow! It is an ambitious project, and I'm certainly with you on the Reagan Renaissance. Have you had any response from Rush regarding "Excellence in Golf?"

Thanks for all your hard work and thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I am with you, I think your analysis is on the mark, and I pray it bears fruit.

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks for the ping to an interesting exercise; albeit an exercise in futility I suspect. If there are any "core" values that will absolutely make one a conservative or a liberal, I'm not aware of 'em. A sliding scale thing maybe? The definitions themselves are elusive. But I can guarantee you this, that after talking to someone for a few minutes about things political, or life generally, I almost invariably KNOW which box they go in. Odd, ain't it?

FGS

[HopefulPatriot]

"Have you had any response from Rush regarding "Excellence in Golf?"

I wish the answer was a simple "no". Unfortunately, it is worse than that. I came very close to contacting Rush twice, once through his brother and once through his chief of staff. Both ended not only in failure, but also in alienating his chief of staff and his brother, the very people upon whom he depends the most. I realized that if another opportunity ever presented itself, it would take a compelling argument to overcome the barriers that I have already created. The Reagan Renaissance was the result of trying to find the answer to that need for a compelling argument.

Given a couple of hours eyeball to eyeball with Rush and my laptop, I can answer any questions he might have about the Reagan Renaissance and convince him of its merits. He doesn't need Excellence in Golf or me to make the Reagan Renaissance a reality. It will stand on its own merits and his inherent political instincts. EIG adds considerably to his capacity to fund the Reagan Renaissance. It should be one of those feathers he can add to his "having more fun that a human being should be allowed to have" cap. No guess work would be involved. The testing program will provide the proof; balls struck with EIG clubs will finish closer to the hole than any other golf clubs, or they won't. If it works, the risk/reward ratio of $150,000 to more than a billion and the odds at nine to one that it will work are simply beyond extraordinary.

I'm the goat or the fly in the ointment. Finding the means to get Rush to spend an hour on my website and then grant me the couple of hours needed to answer any unanswered questions or address his remaining concerns, have the potential to allow Rush to finish what Ronald Reagan started. Not figuratively speaking, but literally, the Reagan Renaissance puts the wherewithal needed to restore the Constitution squarely into Rush hands. Rush can resolve Franklin's concern in the affirmative. We the people can restore our republic and then We can keep it for another century. Rush is simply the catalyst who can provide the leadership that gets government off the backs of the people. Unchain the American people and over the next century it is the American people who will produce a renaissance that will prove to be the greatest period of peace and prosperity in the history of the world.

Ronald Reagan knew we were on the wrong course and he generally knew which direction we needed to steer, but he did not know the precise compass heading nor did he know the most direct means of how to find it. The Reagan Renaissance plan provides the answers. Our best years can still be ahead of us; Rush only needs to do is listen to Ronald Reagan.. "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."

I have had a lot of time to think about the question of whether Rush is the only Captain that can put our ship back on course. Far be it from me to be so presumptuous as to say that no one else can do it. But I am convinced that no one else can do it as easily, as quickly or with more certainty of success. Regardless of whether you believe its the Divine Hand of Providence or Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, or both, that guided the Founders and the first five or six generations of Americans that followed, the Reagan Renaissance and Excellence in Golf fit Rush Limbaugh like tailor made gloves.

[no dems]

Having been on the receiving end of some of my Conservative, FR brothers' utter contempt for anyone who even "appears" to slightly disagrees with them; I must say I agree with this article and the premise laid out by yourself.

Thanks for the post and for your comments.

no dems

[TPartyType]

thanks.

[Majie Purple]

My thanks to no dems too for your comment...Signed TPT's real Sis!

[TPartyType]

Thanks for the bump, Purp!

[TPartyType]

Amazing coincidence:

My sister, PurpleMountainsMaj, added a link to her profile page to an old "Newcomers Welcome Center and Information Desk" thread where I had linked to the "Coalition Op Center" thread, where, once upon a time, RJayneJ and I tried to organize a coalition of FReepers to expose election fraud here at FR (referenced in post #64, this thread). I intended to provide a link in post #64 but couldn't find it in the archives!

Here's a link to the original thread: [FReeper Coalition to Expose Election Rigging]

and here's one to the Op Center thread: [Coalition Op Center]

---

One final word: I miss those old Newcomers Welcome Center and Information Desk threads. I thought they served a great social purpose on the forum. I wonder if someone with more time to FReep than I could one day take that on as a labor of love like Alamo-Girl used to.

Hmmmmmm . . .:o)

[Majie Purple]

"Amazing coincidence:"
Amazing yes tis! coincidence...I wouldn't use those two words together...But I know what you mean! Wow!
Glad it was a timely help. Amazing indeed!
LY,TPT!
Thanks for the ping!

[TPartyType]

I forgot the Repository of links

[Alamo-Girl]

Way to go, Purple Mountains Maj! And thank you for the memories and encouragements, dear TPartyType.

[TPartyType]

I was having the best time looking back at the old "Newcomers Welcome Center" threads! That was such a nice and fun way to greet newbies . . ..

[HopefulPatriot]

I haven't had any time to spend at FR recently nor do I expect to be able to devote any time for it until maybe the middle of next week. But I have a couple of ideas kicking around in the back of mind. I will try to get them down on paper and posted to my website as quickly as I can. I will send you a link as soon as there has been enough fleshed out to discuss.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed it was!