Posted on 02/23/2017 9:32:07 AM PST by Kaslin
I had never heard of Milo Yiannopoulos until recently, perhaps because I don't visit some of the websites where his musings are published.
Milo, as he calls himself because of the difficulty some have pronouncing his last name, was disinvited from this week's Conservative Political Action Convention (CPAC), the annual gathering of the right in Washington. Apparently the organizers were not bothered by Milo's association with the so-called "alt-right." CPAC withdrew the invitation only after a video surfaced showing him apparently endorsing man-boy relationships that qualify under the definition of pedophilia. Yiannopoulos has resigned as an editor at Breitbart.com and apologized for his remarks.
The editors of National Review, as well as other traditional conservative publications and individuals, criticized CPAC for inviting Yiannopoulos to speak. The conservatism of Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley Jr. and Ronald Reagan was about ideas, not emotion and exclusion. Reagan, whom the modern right likes to claim as one of its own, was an optimist. Even when he criticized the left's policies, he almost always presented a superior alternative. He wanted to attract as many people to his worldview as possible by winning the argument and converting opponents, whom he always regarded as fellow Americans and "friends," even when he disagreed with them.
Today, conservatism has become known in the eyes of many for what and who it is against, not what and who it is for. Yes, part of this is due to media stereotyping, but not all. Traditional conservatism has been a positive "we can do better," an inspiring and uplifting philosophy that motivates rather than denigrates.
In his 1993 book "The Politics of Prudence," Russell Kirk set down principles he believed should define conservatism. Among them were the following: an enduring moral order; an adherence to custom, convention and continuity guided by the principle of prudence; the principle of imperfectability, meaning we don't look to government to create perfect men and women, or a perfect society, thus rejecting utopianism; the belief that freedom and property are closely linked; conservatives uphold voluntary community and reject involuntary collectivism; the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions; permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
That last one bears elaboration, and Kirk offers it.
"The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that give us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate."
One sees this in the debate over the Constitution between liberals, who believe it to be a "living" document, subject to constant change and updating, and conservatives, who believe it a rock of stability that serves as a guide even in the face of rapid technological and cultural change. Just as a GPS must have a starting point in order to arrive at an intended destination, so too must America have a source from which it can plot its direction and not get lost on the journey.
In 1962, William F. Buckley Jr. denounced the John Birch Society as "far removed from common sense" and urged the Republican Party to purge the movement from its ranks. So too must today's conservatives separate themselves from the "alt-right" white supremacists and anti-Semites and reclaim traditional conservatism as the authentic brand.
Conservatives can win elections and govern without beyond-the-fringe types like Milo Yiannopoulos. If they can't, they don't deserve to win.
Do all these cucks start their articles the same way? Pretending not to know the person they are so envious of. Lying is no way to start an article.
He’s right. I don’t understand the rush to make Milo the poster boy for conservatism. Virtue signalling to the left (Look we can have gays make out onstage AND be a conservative! We aren’t homophobic!) accomplishes nothing.
“Beyond-the-fringe-types” like Milo and Donald Trump are the ones who make a difference.
“Reasonable” types like McCain, Romney, Bush, and etc. at best only slow down the socialists. It takes radicals to turn them back.
As the culture has moved left, some conservatives have acquiesced in the shift by following the path of least resistance.
That’s not conservatism. If you like liberal cultural values, you aren’t a conservative.
And the rejection of Milo shows the importance of reclaiming conservatism as an intellectual and moral force.
Tradition and core values matter - more than ever.
“Conservatives can win elections and govern without beyond-the-fringe types like Milo Yiannopoulos. If they can’t, they don’t deserve to win.”
When your enemy has abandoned all civil principles and gone full “ends justifies the means”, I don’t think you will win unless you are willing to fight back with some dirty tactics yourself. That’s why the Communist revolutionaries were only ever stopped by authoritarians and fascists, not by democratic types.
Optimism is great, but realism is better, because the optimist will eventually be caught off guard and unprepared when his expectations do not match reality, while the realist always has a fall back plan for when things get worse, as they usually do.
Nobody made Milo anything, besides Milo. This is just another Low T cuck trying to kick a guy while he’s down because the cuck is jealous of Milo’s charisma and fan base. Nothing more.
I agree with you.
When we ape the liberal culture, we’re showing a desperation to be accepted by the Left. That never ever happens.
“To thine own self be true; then thou can’t be false to any man.”
No true words were spoken by the Bard. For me, this is the essence of conservatism, the defense of timeless and eternal values in the face of a rapidly changing world.
I do not accept what it considers legitimate and I defend what it deems illegitimate.
I agree with you completely
“Conservatives can win elections and govern without beyond-the-fringe types like Milo Yiannopoulos. If they can’t, they don’t deserve to win.
“
Good lord...
These guys haven’t stopped the left one damn time in the past 25 years.
The only thing we got were rich talk radio hosts, a little clique of snobs at dusty print publications, and people that rather lose and not offend the church ladies than harness the growing anti SJW/feminist/globalist movement among young people to really undermine the global elites and push back against a growing authoritarian left that isnt afraid of the conservative establishment cream puff faux opposition.
These people are utterly clueless, and as that paragraph clearly states, if they cant win by their narrow demands, then they would rather lose.
Because liberty, nation, and western civilization isnt in their interest, but the purity of their righteousness.
They’re all acting like they never heard of him - while they pile it on. I hate these people. Just hate them. I wish Trump would put them in a camp.
What do you mean pretending not to know who the guy is. There are probably thousands who have never heard of that guy before, myself included. You seem to condone of what he is suggesting.
There envy is filthy. They reek of it.
They Preach to the Choir while the Pews are empty.
The problem with living in a Bubble is eventually you run out of Oxygen.
For what it's worth, they were spoken by a fool, Polonius, whose total misunderstanding of the situation at hand resulted not only in his own death but in the destruction of all he held dear. Not unlike what is happening to the GOP. I suspect Shakespeare is looking down with an ironic glance whenever those words are quoted as the essence of wisdom.
Cal Thomas is 74. My parents are in their 70s as well and they didn’t know who Milo was until I told them.
Well, if you don’t know who Milo is, you are not educated about what is happening. You have NO IDEA why Trump was elected. You simply have no clue what is going on around you.
How do you conflate Milo making out with guys in Trump shirts onstage with Trump getting elected?
“He’s right. I don’t understand the rush to make Milo the poster boy for conservatism.”
He’s the “poster boy” for actual pushback.
That is why campus conservatives invited him.
Like what else are we putting out there? Limbaugh never leaves his house, Levin doesn’t really connect with younger people, and sounds too much like a old crank.
People like Milo, Crowder, Trump as well as a whole host of people on popular YouTube channels that don’t fit the 1986 trope of a conservative, but actually manages to openly fight the left, from the right, at great personal cost to them, are the ones that the younger set are flocking to.
Even Ben Shaprio is managing to break out a bit.
Folks want people that fight, even if they are rough around the edges.
I no longer regard myself as a conservative, however he defines it. I regard myself as a nationalist, somebody who cares most about the welfare and future of my own family, kin, and the people I consider part of my culture.
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.