Posted on 01/01/2010 12:20:30 AM PST by rabscuttle385
"The heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism," Ronald Reagan said on many occasions, including a speech at Vanderbilt University when I was an undergraduate.
I'm not so sure. But at least the conservatism of Sen. Robert Taft, Sen. Barry Goldwater, and Reagan stood for a limited constitutional government in opposition to the federal aggrandizement of the New Deal and the Great Society. Back in the FDR-JFK-LBJ years, conservatives even stood for congressional government and against the imperial presidency.
But what does conservatism stand for today, other than opposition to President Obama? President Bush expanded entitlements, increased federal spending by more than a trillion dollars, federalized education, launched "nation-building" projects in two far-flung regions, and accumulated more power in the White House than any previous president.
Yet the masses assembled at the Conservative Political Action Conference chanted "Four More Years!" at him in the eighth year of his reign. Is that really a record that conservatives wanted more of?
Steven F. Hayward suggests in today's edition of The Washinton Post that one reason for conservatism's having gotten off track, one that I've heard from other, mostly older, conservatives: A movement once led by William F. Buckley Jr., Russell Kirk, and Milton Friedman now gets its intellectual direction from talk show hosts and bloggers. Where are the tomes of yesteryear?
Well, it's a fast-paced, market-driven world. If celebrities and rabble-rousing are what sell, then we'd better hope for some smart ideas on the airwaves. And it's not like conservatives are alone in this trend.
Buckley jousted with John Kenneth Galbraith and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter face off with Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore. Six years ago the Boston Globe noted that liberal books were, at least briefly, dominating the New York Times bestseller list.
Along with Hillary Clinton's autobiography, those books were "Lies (and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them)," "Big Lies," "Thieves in High Places," and "Stupid White Men." Not exactly a sign of the intellectual depth of American liberalism.
The good news about the Obama era is that the president has returned the issue of the size, scope, and power of the federal government to center stage. And that in turn has revived the long-dormant small-government spirit in American conservatism.
In that regard, I'm more positive than Hayward is about the "tea party" movement. True, it is somewhat "unfocused," without a clear "connection to a concrete ideology." But it reflects and galvanizes the natural American antipathy to big government.
Now the responsibility of the conservative media and political leaders is to give the tea partiers a positive cause to rally around, by shining light on scholars with good ideas. There are plenty of free-market intellectuals today, far more than in the era when Milton Friedman dined alone. Glenn Beck does indeed sometimes devote significant time to a single intellectual; other talk show hosts should do the same.
Conservatives often prefer the prudent and cautious spirit of Edmund Burke and F. A. Hayek to the more libertarian and "progressive" vision of Thomas Jefferson. But neither Burke nor Hayek believed simply in standing athwart history, crying "Stop!"
Burke, after all, was a Whig, not a Tory, and a supporter of the American Revolution. And Hayek insisted that he was not a conservative:
"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
He called himself a liberal, and he thought that Margaret Thatcher, with her vigorous program of free-market reform, was also a liberal. By whatever name, modern American conservatives would do well to take to heart Hayek's rallying cry:
"We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is … a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty …which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible."
The trick for 21st-century American conservatives, conservatives in a country founded in libertarian revolution, is to decide which traditions are worth holding on to. I would suggest as a good first rule that we allow the natural evolution of society and market, while limiting coercive intervention into those processes.
Conservatism should make its peace with natural social change, before it loses the entire younger generation, while reaffirming its commitment to freedom and limited government.
If George Washington was alive, anytime the last fifty years, and did what he did in his day, he’d be doing Federal time for corruption.
He was very self dealing, for the country, of course.
Don't let a few good apples save a whole rotten barrel.
Really? GWB was pro life, pro military, anti-tax, anti-stem cell research/cloning, against gay marriage, a practicing Christian, and a devoted family man.
He also believed in the inherent goodness of America and its people, and did everything in his power to protect us. He treated allies with respect, and turned his back on trash like Arafat. He hunted the murderers of 9/11 down with a vengeance. When he committed troops to Iraq, he never wavered in his support. The Israelis consider him the most friendly American President since Reagan.
He was and still is reviled by liberals because he was so conservative. Anyone that doesn't consider him conservative, is wrong. He might not have been "conservative" enough to satisfy paultards, anarchists, or borderbots, but he was very conservative in any honest comparison.
I agree Boaz is a moonbat...he supports gay marriage, legalization of drugs, and is anti military.
Whew! Lots of word games. I do like the idea of an open season on politicians, and I will do anything possible to put Sarah or “a Sarah” wherever she wants to go to set the charges and push the plunger on boat anchors like the National Department of Education. If we could create enough open space in the District of Corruption, we might be able to reestablish a constitutional republic.
Zero, no, none, by ‘conservatives’.
What an absolute baseless bucket of excrement.
Not surprising, Leisler, since you give no reference, no data. (And, although I once worked with groups such as Libertarians for Life and the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, I'm beginning to lose any surprise when so-called "Libertarians" will write trash backed with nothing but their own hot air and based on either a very short memory without regard to history or fact and/or a lack of research into the subject and what has transpired in real life before their own interest.)
Do a little research on the Conservative efforts of the FreeMarket in Texas (our version of the Family Resource Council), The Justice Foundation (used to be the Texas Justice Foundation), the Christian Medical Association, and any number of pro-life organizations which have been forced to protect the right not to be killed, the right not to have liberty infringed upon by re-defining who is worthy of being given public protection (who is human enough).
And then, step back a bit and look at the lawsuits, activism, and plain ol' fights that those of us here on FR have been engaging with the left for the last 14 years or so. Jim Robinson is not a "(L)ibertarian," although he is capable of forming a coalition, to function in order to support common ground and common goals shared by some Conservatives and some (L)ibertarians.
Our efforts are often mistaken for those of (L)ibertarians, when in fact they are (l)ibertarian conservative (small government with unconditional protection of the right to life, liberty and property) and illustrate or take advantage of the common beliefsof Conservatives and some Libertarians.
“Reagan stood for a limited constitutional government “
- - - in word, but not in deed.
>> Conservatism should make its peace with natural social change <<
OK. Fine.
But what — pray tell — is “natural” about homosexual marriage?
Or what is “natural” about mothers’ having their babies killed?
“”Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism;”
This is just not true. Conservatism, far from adoring power, maintains the less government the better, with more autonomy for the free market. And it in no way resembles Socialism!
“Conservatism should make its peace with natural social change”
Which is what? What is “natural social change”?
What nonsense.
By this definition, we're being told that anything goes so long as the checkbook balances. That's not conservative, moral, or rational.
Anyways, and in FEDERAL COURTS,....
Kelo vs New London and the Washington gun ownership, both Libertarian.
Well, that was easy.
As much as I like FR, it's no CATO Institute, nor a Hoover. There's not a magazine that can touch REASON for pop, hipster, bi costal impact( Oh, yeah, I forgot, another field left to the left by conservatives.) Where's the conservative equal to The Freedman, Liberty, even the opinion page of the WSJ or IBD? Who's the conservative Any Rand?
Hey, I'm glad some group somewhere in some local court is shaking the cage, but let's get real. Conservatives and conservative institutions, unlike the libertarians, are not taking it to the left, on the lefts turf, as it were.
Frankly, Conservatives can't even prevail in the GOP. We know about the Big Gov, Big Tax, Big intervention Nanny State GOP, but....what does that tell you about conservative power, influence and ability to persuade...if it has been a doormat within the GOP for decades? Never mind outside the party and the nation at large.
“The truly brain-dead conservatives are those who think liberty can exist in a morally bankrupt society. You gotta have both liberty and individual morality.”
MAN, ICOULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE !
Besides, getting drunk, drugged and screwing is as old as any decayed empire. Nothing of personal, familial or societal importance is new under the sun.
( thanks to publik edjamaktion, hardly anyone knows what the idea of ‘fashion’ is. )
Conservatives lose the young because we gave up the schools, teaching....in short...the young. The old Jesuit dictum of giving the boy, picked up by Lenin and now captured by the left, has it’s price.
The future belongs to those that show up. Old dead people, conservative will not be there. Young people run through twenty years of leftist schools will have the future, a few exception aside.
Sorry, that’s the way it works. ( See the Netherlands and company where half the births are Muslim )
The truly brain-dead conservatives are those who think liberty can exist in a morally bankrupt society. You gotta have both liberty and individual morality. Some of the so-called conservative/libertarian (RINO) intellectuals are as removed from reality as the ivory tower leftists.
Exactly correct. Libertarianism, and especially the CATO Institute, are about as misguided and sick as Cass Sunstein and Barbara Boxer (and that is being kind to them).
Whether this article is a mole to intentionally emasculate conservatism, or is simply obtuse, one cannot know. I always wondered the same about GWB, claiming conservatism, was he really that obtuse?
But conservatism is NOT Libertarianism, it is rather responsibility, and willingness to assume such, by the individual citizen; hardly libertarianism.
We need a third or more party(s) to declare this publicly (Republicans refuse to), but Libertarianism is, like you say, as sinister as the LEFT in general.
Johnny Suntrade
Good comments and I appreciate the mention of Burke. He’s a pleasure to read.
I'd suggest that he, you, and Boaz read Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny. Go to Amazon.com and read the the first few pages.
Many writers have repeated the remark about Hayek to wit that he was not a conservative. True, but Hayek added he wished modern conservatives would call themselves by some other name because they represented best his own views on politics and economics. He despised the “conservatives” of his youth who suppressed all economic activity and social progress for people who were not of the upper class. Hayek totally embraced American-style conservatism. Read his classic book “The Road To Serfdom” to better understand his views.
Any republican that is “acceptable” in the eyes of the media, (Specter - now a dem, McCain - mr maverick, Romney - the very mother of obamacare) is no Conservative at all.
John Adams:
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
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.