Conservatism is Dead; Long Live Conservatism

American Thinker ^ | February 14, 2008 | Selwyn Duke

[neverdem]

It seems like just yesterday that many were reading liberalism's epitaph.  After the Reagan years, Republican Revolution of 1994, retreat of the gun-control hordes after Al Gore's 2000 defeat and George W. Bush's two successful presidential runs, many thought conservatism was carrying the day.

Ah, if only.

We might ask: With conservatives like President Bush and many of the other Republicans, who needs liberals?

While the media has successfully portrayed the Republicans as the party of snake handlers and moonshine, the difference between image and reality is profound.  Bush has just spun the odometer, proposing the nation's first ever $3 trillion budget.  On matters pertaining to the very survival of our culture -- the primacy of English, multiculturalism, the denuding of our public square of historically present Christian symbols and sentiments -- Republicans are found wanting.  As for illegal immigration, both the president and presumptive Republican nominee support a form of amnesty.

Yet many would paint America as under the sway of rightist politics, and some of the reasons for this are obvious.  Some liberals know that the best way to ensure constant movement toward the left is by portraying the status quo as dangerously far right.  If you repeatedly warn that we teeter on the brink of rightist hegemony, people will assume that to achieve "balance" we must tack further left toward your mythical center.  Then we have conservatives influenced by the natural desire to view the world as the happy place they'd like to inhabit.  Ingenuous sorts, they confuse Republican with conservative, party with principles, and electoral wars with the cultural one.  But there's another factor: One can confuse conservative with correct.

When is the right not right, you ask?  When it has been defined by the left. 

The definition of "conservative" is fluid, changing from time to time and place to place.  Some "conservatives" embrace an ideology prescribing limited government -- one remaining within the boundaries established by the Constitution -- and low taxation.  They favor nationalism over internationalism; prefer markets mostly unfettered by regulation; eschew multiculturalism, feminism and radical environmentalism; and take pride in our history and traditions.   

But there have been other kinds of conservatives.  In the Soviet Union, a conservative was quite the opposite, a communist.  Then, when Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was assassinated in 2002, BBC News ran the headline, "Dutch far-right leader shot dead."  "Far-right" indeed.  Fortuyn was quite liberal by our standards; he was a pro-abortion, openly-homosexual ex-sociology professor branded a rightist mainly because he wished to stem Moslem immigration into Holland.  Moreover, his fear was that zealous Moslems posed a threat to the nation's liberal social structure. 

So here's the question: What definition of conservative would a communist or European statist conform to?  That which states, "One who favors maintenance of the status quo."  This brings us to a central point: 

As society is successfully transformed by those who detest the status quo, the status quo changes.  This means that the great defender ideology of the status quo, conservatism, will change with it.

"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision." -- G.K. Chesterton

Both liberals and conservatives have shape-shifting visions.  This is because the definitions of conservative and liberal are determined by the "position" of the given society ‘s political spectrum.  Shift that spectrum left or right by altering the collective ideology of a nation, and the definitions of those two words will change commensurate with the degree of that shift.  This is why a Pim Fortuyn is viewed as conservative in Western Europe. 

This isn't to say there is no difference between liberal and conservative visions.  Liberals construct their vision based on opposition to the conservative one; conservatives' vision is a product of the now accepted, decades-old vision of the left.  Thus, liberals promote today's liberal vision; conservatives defend yesterday's liberal vision.

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." -- G.K. Chesterton

Perhaps one reason we're losing the culture war is that it's easier to convince people to try new liberal mistakes than retain old liberal mistakes that have been tried and found wanting.  Regardless, we will continue losing unless we change our thinking radically. 

Wars are not won by being defensive.  Yet conservatives are seldom anything but, because they've been trained to mistake defense for offense.  When 13 states voted to ban faux marriage in 2004, some proclaimed it a great victory for conservatism.  But it only was so if the conservatism you subscribe to merely involves maintenance of a liberal status quo, for it was a successful defensive action, not an offensive one.  Who was proposing the societal change to which the vote was a response?  The left was.  What kind of change was it?  One that would move us in the liberal direction.

So it is always.  We play defense when, instead of striving to eliminate hate-crime laws, we merely fight proposals to make "transgendered" a protected category; when we accept the Federal Department of Education and simply use it to effect "conservative" education reform (read: No Child Left Behind Act); when we simply try to ensure that the separation of church and state ruling is applied in "conservative" ways; when we combat the tax-and-spend crowd by not taxing but then spending; and when we preach against illegal immigration while accepting a culture-rending legal immigration regime.    

In contrast, the left is as steadfastly offensive as it is dreadfully offensive.  If its minions' scheme to legally redefine marriage fails today, they'll try again tomorrow.  If a socialized medicine plan doesn't pass congressional muster, it will reappear five or ten years hence.  If a new tax is too rich for present tastes, they'll wait for a more gluttonous palate.  Or they'll sneak a different new tax into an innocuous sounding bill or accept a slight increase to an old tax, then another, and another, and another....   They simply have to wait for the political spectrum to shift a bit further left.

This brings me to another important point.  We often talk of compromise, but does compromising with those who always advance but never retreat constitute fairness?  The left proposes policy, "settles" for a half-measure, and we leave the table thinking it an equitable outcome.  The problem is that since virtually all the changes suggested are liberal in nature, constant compromise and granting of concessions guarantees constant movement toward the left.  So we see erstwhile secure territory that is now under attack and revel in victory when we repel a few of the enemy's charges.  But we don't realize that we are defining victory as a reduction in the rate of loss of our heartland, while the enemy defines it as the expansion of its empire.  We compromise our way to tyranny.

It's like a young boxer who never throws punches and, consequently, becomes quite adept at blocking vicious blows -- and inured to taking them.  He emerges from the ring with a twinkle in black and blue eyes, flashes a smile revealing two lost teeth, proudly shows off bruised forearms and says, "Look, Dad!  I blocked ninety-percent of the punches today!  This is my greatest victory ever!" 

Yes, perhaps it's a figurative victory insofar as exhibition of defensive skill goes.  As for real victory, thus engaging opponents time and again doesn't even bring the Pyrrhic variety.  It only guarantees slow, torturous losses, perpetual injury, and one day, perhaps, a knock-out.  

This places the current presidential race in perspective.  When some Republicans lament the absence of good "conservative" primary contenders, they often act as if our statist front-runners are visited upon us by an invisible hand, as if their ascendancy was despite the culture and not because of it.  In reality, these politicians are merely products of a society that has long been in the grip of Gramscian operatives in academia, the media and Hollywood, leftists who have been crafting their message, scheming, indoctrinating, and socially re-engineering the public for decades.

Besides, can we really say those candidates aren't conservative?  With the political spectrum having shifted so far left, perhaps people such as Bush, McCain and Huckabee really are today's conservatives. 

Perhaps, just maybe, we (me, and you if you're in my camp) are something else. 

After all, I criticized Mitt Romney for forcing Massachusetts residents to buy health insurance, but a recent poll indicates that a majority of Republicans support such coercion.  And if some of these people are "conservatives," I'm certainly am not one. I'm a revolutionary. A cultural revolutionary.

I don't want to preserve the cultural status quo, I want to overthrow it.  Then we can pull the statist weeds up by the roots and burn them in freedom's fire, just like our Founding Fathers did.  Do you think they were conservatives?  Conservatives don't start revolutions; they simply make sure their shackles are made no heavier.

Political victory rests on cultural victory, and changing the culture starts with changing our mentality.  We have only two choices: We can be revolutionary.

Or we can be wrong.  

Contact Selwyn Duke

Page Printed from: at February 14, 2008 - 05:54:43 AM EST

[LibLieSlayer]

Conservatism will be dead when you kill every last one of us... try it... if you think you can! I for one will not go quietly into that good night. I say bring it liberal!

LLS

[rockinqsranch]

Conservatism isn’t dead at all, only a “Gone Fishin’” sign in the window. Be back soon to a Party near you.

[Gondring]

This post, along with ovrtaxt's #3, hit the nail on the head.

Liberty is what is dead. Conservatism lives...conservatism in its classical definition.

With many FReepers--and presidential candidates--advocating authoritarianist positions and slapping aside individual rights--all the while claiming to revere Ronald Reagan--the effect is a smearing of what Reagan stood for. My prediction is that over time, we'll find the true Reagan Legacy distorted, and most people thinking he believed in things for which he would have felt antipathy.

[Gondring]

ping

[Gondring]

Ping (sorry...meant to include you on the To line)

[incindiary]

Conservatism, if really dead, is only dead because the people in the movement -- and not its leaders -- have embraced the idea of using government to achieve agendas and have instead rejected liberty.

Yes, that was a very good and insightful post. And I would add that from what I've noticed, there doesn't seem to be as much of that healthy distrust for government that used to be one of the attributes of conservatives. Vigilance, that the founders warned us was the price of liberty, seems to have been replaced with cheerleading... while our civil liberties are being incrementally destroyed, by people supposedly on our own side. It reminds me of this quote that needs to be posted again:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

[antisocial]

BTTT Great article!

[shadowgovernment]

“Gingrich sidling up to Democrats by soliciting their advice and having them give introduction and speeches at this event.”
>>>>>>>>>>>..
Newt came out in strong support of (the best example of a RINO in congress) Gilchrest R MD who lost the Primary to a true Conservative Andy Harris..Gilchrest voted more closely with Demorats than almost any Rep. Was for Homosexual rights - open borders - big spending..liberal judges on and on ..
Have those who have been appointed by MSM as Conservative leaders been true to conservative reps Where was Newt when we lost Tancredo, Hunter, JD HAYWORTH??
I think a BIG CON has been pulled on the Conservative voters by naming our conservative leaders for us> Much like the Black spokesman model for the Rev Jackson .

[Cacique]

I am 100% in agreement with thevabove.

[Jack Black]

like Pat Buchanan can rail against capitalism being harmful

That is a gross distortion of Pat's position. Pat is not a lassie fair capitalist, that is true. Neither were many of the founders. Neither were many great Republicans. Neither were many conservatives. The WSJ "free trade uber alles" crowd would like to demonize anyone that points out how poorly the current system of US Citizens forced subsidization of third world dictatorships via mechanisms like NAFTA is working.

It's a very tired refrain. I guess slavish adherence to a economic principle is what neo-cons believe is patriotism?

[rellimpank]

-—great article—you should repost it after everybody is awake—

[rob777]

"I guess slavish adherence to a economic principle is what neo-cons believe is patriotism?"


This is a Red Herring attack on the principles of free market economics. The dreaded "neo-cons" have never been solid supporters of the free market, which is merely applying the notion of human freedom to the realm of economics.

[rob777]

"Nope, conservatism is not dead, classical liberalism is. If you doubt this and think that Reagan wasn't a classical liberal, then I really suggest you go and read (or re-read or listen to) his speeches. Liberty is what is dead. Conservatism lives...conservatism in its classical definition."


BUMP!!! May I add that many have come to equate conservatism with populism. For such "conservatives", it is OK to use big government as long as it is to the benefit of "our" people.

[Chuckster]

Let me tell the story, I can tell it all
About the mountain boy who ran illegal alcohol
His daddy made the whiskey, son, he drove the load
When his engine roared, they called the highway Thunder Road.

Sometimes into Ashville, sometimes Memphis town
The revenoors chased him but they couldn’t run him down
Each time they thought they had him, his engine would explode
He’d go by like they were standin’ still on Thunder Road.

(CHORUS)
And there was thunder, thunder over Thunder Road
Thunder was his engine, and white lightning was his load
There was moonshine, moonshine to quench the Devil’s thirst
The law they swore they’d get him, but the Devil got him first.

On the first of April, nineteen fifty-four
A Federal man sent word he’d better make his run no more
He said two hundred agents were coverin’ the state
Whichever road he tried to take, they’d get him sure as fate.

Son, his Daddy told him, make this run your last
The tank is filled with hundred-proof, you’re all tuned up and gassed
Now, don’t take any chances, if you can’t get through
I’d rather have you back again than all that mountain dew.

(CHORUS)

Roarin’ out of Harlan, revvin’ up his mill
He shot the gap at Cumberland, and screamed by Maynordsville
With T-men on his taillights, roadblocks up ahead
The mountain boy took roads that even Angels feared to tred.

Blazing right through Knoxville, out on Kingston Pike,
Then right outside of Bearden, they made the fatal strike.
He left the road at 90; that’s all there is to say.
The devil got the moonshine and the mountain boy that day.

[neverdem]

"We can be revolutionary." Or we can be the usual reactionary.

Right Heart: A morally serious look at government aid.

Filing Supports Second Amendment Rights If you're reading the briefs for Heller, check comment# 1.

This should make us all stop and think

Have Conservatives Failed America?

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[Jack Black]

This is a Red Herring attack on the principles of free market economics.

Like the rest of the libertarian fringe, free market fundamentalists put the principle above every other consideration. Free markets are a tool to increase wealth, help ensure individual freedom, and provide for the wants and needs of people. They are not, in and of themselves, an absolute good that transcends all others. As a principle it is important, but not ultimate. As a practice, we don't have anything close to free markets, and there is no political constituency to create truer, freer markets. Real free markets perhaps existed in the late 19th century. They were free of troublesome legislation and government regulation. They included 12 hour work days as routine, child labor was widespread, and famously workers locked into sweatshops burnt to death when buildings caught fire. But HEY! It was a real free market! Strangely "the sheeple" seem to have almost zero interest in going back to these conditions. Perhaps they recall the stuggles their grandfathers and grandmothers went through to win the regulations and containment of the free market that we have today. I don't know. I've never seen a poll conducted on it. Buisness owners have now taken to simply exporting entire factories as the obvoius end around to this. The "Free Market" fetishists insist this is good for everyone, but really WalMart products are not THAT cheap. There are obvious soluitions, such as tarrifs and immigration limitations that, yes, might result in some "protected" goods costing more. So? The alternative seems to be Brazilification of our economy. How can Americans compete with Chinese when to hire someone in the USA the company has to comply with: OSHA, EPA, OOEC, Labor Department and Misc. State and Local regulations, while paying for LTD insurance, workman's comp insurane, Social Security, Medicare, state taxes, local taxes. The Free Market Fetishists answer is we should do away with all these!! Brilliant - to compete with China we will turn into China!! I don't see jobs being wholesale exported to Sweden or Germany. Perhaps we can have free trade with our equals, that is other nations that have functioning post-industrial societies. We can not, and should not, insist that American workers compete with Chinese (who would be shot if they tried to organize a real labor union). Free Trade: means to an end. Tarrifs: another means to an end. Both are useful tools if used wisely and blunt instruments capable of causing great damage if used unwisely.

[Jack Black]

This is a Red Herring attack on the principles of free market economics.

Like the rest of the libertarian fringe, free market fundamentalists put the principle above every other consideration. Free markets are a tool to increase wealth, help ensure individual freedom, and provide for the wants and needs of people. They are not, in and of themselves, an absolute good that transcends all others. As a principle it is important, but not ultimate.

As a practice, we don't have anything close to free markets, and there is no political constituency to create truer, freer markets. Real free markets perhaps existed in the late 19th century. They were free of troublesome legislation and government regulation. They included 12 hour work days as routine, child labor was widespread, and famously workers locked into sweatshops burnt to death when buildings caught fire. But HEY! It was a real free market!

Strangely "the sheeple" seem to have almost zero interest in going back to these conditions. Perhaps they recall the stuggles their grandfathers and grandmothers went through to win the regulations and containment of the free market that we have today. I don't know. I've never seen a poll conducted on it.

Buisness owners have now taken to simply exporting entire factories as the obvoius end around to this. The "Free Market" fetishists insist this is good for everyone, but really WalMart products are not THAT cheap.

There are obvious soluitions, such as tarrifs and immigration limitations that, yes, might result in some "protected" goods costing more. So? The alternative seems to be Brazilification of our economy.

How can Americans compete with Chinese when to hire someone in the USA the company has to comply with: OSHA, EPA, OOEC, Labor Department and Misc. State and Local regulations, while paying for LTD insurance, workman's comp insurane, Social Security, Medicare, state taxes, local taxes.

The Free Market Fetishists answer is we should do away with all these!! Brilliant - to compete with China we will turn into China!!

I don't see jobs being wholesale exported to Sweden or Germany. Perhaps we can have free trade with our equals, that is other nations that have functioning post-industrial societies. We can not, and should not, insist that American workers compete with Chinese (who would be shot if they tried to organize a real labor union).

Free Trade: means to an end. Tarrifs: another means to an end. Both are useful tools if used wisely and blunt instruments capable of causing great damage if used unwisely.

[Jack Black]

The neo-cons and the Clintonistas have been totally united in their belief in Free Markets. Both have argued for, negotiated, and signed an every increasing list of agreements and treaties that prevent the USA from protecting her jobs, while opening our markets to tarrif free imports from countries we have nothing in common with.

It is a tragedy and shows only that the elites of both parties are more concerned with esoteric principles, as you appear to be, than the real lives of Americans.

They are more than willing to sacrafice the standard of living in the USA to build up a middle class in India and China.

If you are a fat-cat mogel, whether you are the Lionsgate President jetting off to cut Uranium deals in Khazakastan with their dictator (accompanied by President Clinton), or Hillary Clinton sitting on the board of WalMart, or George W. and his many super-rich supporters it's of no account HOW markets grow, as long as they do.

If high wage, high added value jobs disapear from the USA, but you can sell iPODs in India, why do you care?

The elites of both parties have let us down. This is one reason I am so happy that, at least, Hillary is going down bigtime.

[JustaDumbBlonde]

"You could watch Obama or Clinton sworn in next January while you nestle in your bed of principles."

Where does 'winning an election' rank in your list of core principles? Why is it so difficult for you to understand that there is a line to be drawn sometimes and that 'principles' don't change to suit the political climate of the day? I pity folks that have nothing in the way of a solid base from which to conduct themselves. Then they have to nerve to denigrate others who do.

[Jack Black]

Apparently you don’t live up to your screen name, not being dumb after all. Congratulations!