[A.J.Armitage]

"Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists."

That's why I'm not a conservative, at least not in the sense he means.

[AUgrad]

"Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists

What if what already exists is rotten to the core?

[madrussian]

Jonah Goldberg reminds me of Kommies whose recurrent theme was that the life of the workers and peasants is constantly improving and that Kommunism has brought equality and prosperity.

[steve-b]

Jonah Goldberg, editor of National Review Online, had a helpful response. "It's worth pointing out that we've been told that we are on a slippery slope for more than two centuries. And yet, from the moment the Declaration of Independence was signed to the moment you eat your turkey dinner on Thanksgiving Day 2001, Americans have become more, not less free. Maybe not on a month-to-month basis but the trendline is undeniable. The emancipation of the slaves, the enfranchisement of women and blacks, the breakthroughs in technology which make Americans the most mobile — i.e. free — people in the history of the world: All of these things describe a society climbing up a slippery slope not swishing down it."

In fact, the trendline has been clearly downhill since FDR, albeit with some bumps upward (in civil liberties during the 1960s and economic liberties during the 1980s).

[Clemenza]

Until the early '70s, when "Scoop Jackson Democrats" like Perle, Podhoretz, Abrams and the like began to court Repulicans, most "conservatives" even those of the National Review bent, did not embrace the cause of "crusading for democracy." I for one support our strikes against the terrorists who did this to us, but don't want us to embark on "spreading our democratic values" around the world, as the turds at National Review/Weekly Standard/Commentary wish us to do.

We are the Friends of Civilization everywhere, but the keepers only of our own --- John Quincy Adams

[AUgrad]

I can't speak for anyone else, but this libertarian(small l)is not so much concerned about the "war" in Asia. I definitely am extremely concerned about the expansion of police powers and the potential for abuse(or the actual abuse which seems to be accelerating)of those powers here at home. I believe the leadership of our country is acting outside the bounds of the Constitution and is using this national tragedy to consolidate power and impose their wishes on an unwilling populace. I love my country but I fear my government.

[Sandy]

[Libertarians] are worried that the terrorism has concentrated powers of the president, may erode civil liberties, and could end up returning the big government of the past.

Lost me right there. Returning the big government? Returning? Big government of the past? What is this guy smoking?

[independentmind]

Globalization requires the US to ensure that goods flow. Terrorism, major wars, and intra-state conflict, are all threats to that flow of goods and make pretty much every backwater region in their interest.

Seriously if we left globalization up to France, for instance, not only would they have surrendered our freedoms to Germany in World War II. Had they managed to hold out globalization's freedoms would be limited to stinky cheeses and women's unshaved armpits. If the US is not a global leader, will the Rockwell crowd be willing to risk some other nation becoming one?

The author apparently isn't perceptive to realize that this is a fairly good argument against globalization. And the idea that if we don't do it, someone else will is really quite unimaginative.

[x]

Tough call here. Everyone is so young. Jackson is baby. Jonah is a child. Justin is a very young fifty. The grey hairs may not always be competent, but they do seem to understand sometimes.

We can't run the world. We don't want to. Or at least we don't want to be seen as running the world.

But we can't completely escape the world either. We might try to get away and succeed sometimes but some things will catch up with us.

With luck, though, we may survive the world and its troubles. Don't take on tasks we can't perform or commit ourselves to things we can't manage, but don't think that we can escape from everything going on around us.

Technology drives the world together towards something new and frightening. The neos want to ride that wave and master it and the world. The wave will probably end up destroying them and maybe us as well. But how to respond to it, is another and unsolved question.

In an article in the December Atlantic Monthly Robert Kaplan sees the conservatives somewhat differently. "In the United States, Federalists like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton expounded conservative principles to defend a liberal constitution." In this way conservatism and libertarianism are yin and yang-more complementary than combative.

Good quote, don't quite know how true it is, but it's something to think about.

[philman_36]

A slghtly camouflaged Libertarian bash article.
Too many "catch phrases".
"Jackson Murphy" needs to stop FReeping so much. It shows through in his writing.

...is a young independent commentator from Vancouver, Canada...
Stay in Canada, please, and try doing it at Free Dominion. Three words I have never before seen so perversely strung together so ignominiously. If you were an American I might cut you some slack.

[sheltonmac]

Murphy's article is riddled with inconsistencies, half-truths, and outright lies:

Defending the American Empire

Well, at least he calls it what it is.

...they are worried that the terrorism has concentrated powers of the president, may erode civil liberties, and could end up returning the big government of the past.

When did "big government" ever go away? Was it when Bill Clinton told us that the "era of big government is over"? Was it with the election of the compassionate conservative St. George? Bush's proposals call for increasing government spending, especially in the area of education. I suppose we can now add "defense" spending to the list. (Department of Homeland Security? Please!)

Americans have become more, not less free.

This can only be considered a truthful statement if "freedom" is viewed as a relative term. Americans are more free than the British. The British are more free than the French. The French are more free than the Saudis. The Saudis are more free than the Chinese...

The Libertarians are right to be concerned over the erosion of freedom...

Make up your mind, Murphy. If we are more free than ever before, why should anyone be concerned? Is this statement implying that Republicans are not concerned over the erosion of freedom?

How long did this golden age of non-interventionist foreign policy last? Not very, if it ever was true it lasted until about 1823 -- but really the US was already flirting with the European powers earlier than that. It would be President Monroe, and his Monroe Doctrine, that laid out a vision for an American Empire that would go from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Less than a century later America waged its first war of conquest-the Spanish-American War in 1898. And by the end of World War I America was showing its economic might which at that time represented 33 percent of the world's GNP.

So that justifies our current interventionist policies?

Globalization requires the US to ensure that goods flow. Terrorism, major wars, and intra-state conflict, are all threats to that flow of goods and make pretty much every backwater region in their interest.

The GOP cat is out of the bag. Their hand has been tipped. They believe in globalization. So, when Bush says that he will only get the military involved when our "vital security interests" are at stake, he means we will get the military involved whenever we damn well feel like it.

There are intangible goods, say freedom, that are not the sole possession of Americans. Just take a good look at the liberation of Kabul and how happy those people were to do the little things-kite flying, going to see a movie, shaving, removing the veil.

I knew it! We are the self-appointed champion of freedom throughout the world because it makes us feel good.

If you are even the remotest bit sympathetic to the state, say during wartime, you are a statist-against freedom and liberty.

"Defending the American Empire" is being the "remotest bit sympathetic to the state?" Okay...

[cicero's_son]

As someone who does consider himself a conservative, I find this article both embarrassing and frightening.

No one has yet explained to me why the so-called "global system" is even worth holding together. For that matter, no one has ever realy convinced me that there is such a thing as a global system. There are merely treaties and conventions and patterns of behavior and trade. These things are temporary and fluid by their nature, and it is dangerous and false to think of them as some sort of enduring structure upon which a permanent peace might be established.

And to say that we are fighting for America Online versus some resurgence of, say, Minitel is outrageous. It certainly lends credence to the likes of LaBelleDameSansMerci, who has suggested since the outset that we are fighting this war on behalf of a hybrid of Western corporatism and modernism.

Anyway, it's chilling stuff, and I'm glad this person doesn't speak for all conservatives.