Posted on 12/11/2002 10:35:00 PM PST by pittsburgh gop guy
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:47:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
By WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.
When in 1955 I set out to publish a journal devoted to the interests of U.S. conservatism, I stressed in a preliminary circular pretty much what one would have expected on the subject. It was necessary then, and would be necessary for most of the balance of the millennium, to confront directly the challenge of Soviet-based communism; to explain, and to plead, that whatever the pains and dangers of resisting it, these were worth undergoing. In retrospect, it appears obvious that the effort was worthwhile, but it was less than obvious at crisis points, among them Hungary, Berlin, Cuba and Vietnam. History will document that the high cost of nuclear-stakes resistance dismayed more merely than U.S. Catholic bishops. Resistance a outrance engendered flesh and blood perspectives. It came down to: Is it really worth it? What do we end up having in hand, by developing and redeveloping and updating a nuclear inventory and the hardware to deliver nuclear strikes, whether pre-emptively or punitively?
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Conservatives (unlike anarchists, or Objectivists) know that sacrifices are necessary, even as diet is necessary for organic health. Exactly what it is necessary to forgo is always debatable.
If he is saying that sacrifice is [(1) The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person.], then there is absolutely no question he is right about neither anarchists or Objectivists believing THOSE are necessary. Although, I must confess I know of no conservatives that engage in such acts, either...
If he is saying that sacrifice is [(2)Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.] then I think he does a grave disservice to both groups, as (although I freely admit I am far more familiar with Objectivist thought than anarchist) both most certainly condone and promote the use of the rational process to select what is of greatest benefit to the individual. Since limited resources dictate some other, less prioritized choice will have to suffer, it is a fairly straightforward, rational sacrifice.
If he goes by the third definition, [(3)Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed value.], then he can certainly have that one too...I can't imagine an Objectivist or an anarchist, or for that matter any conservatives I can think of, advocating choosing something of lesser value to you over something of greater value to you.
Anyone care to clear this one up for me? I sensed that he meant this not only as praise for conservatives but as a disparagement of both Objectivists and anarchists, but I don't see his point.
I think you need to go back to the first paragraph to understand the point he is making about sacrifice and anarchist and objectivist being unwilling to make the necessary sacrifice.
It came down to: Is it really worth it? What do we end up having in hand, by developing and redeveloping and updating a nuclear inventory and the hardware to deliver nuclear strikes, whether pre-emptively or punitively?
American conservatism needed to say and to think through the philosophical vocabulary for saying: It is worth any cost to preserve what we have.
Through the entire article he points out that in the US we have freedoms that those living under communism do not have.
I think that the point he is making is that given our present war on terror and looming war with Iraq that the people of the US will again be asked to make sacrifices in the interest of a protracted war to ensure liberty.
Anarchist and objectivist may find that these sacrifices are neither necessary nor desirable.
Anarchist believe that there is no need of government and there for there is no need defend or support government.
Objectivist would argue that the values of the terrorist are equal in worth to our own and therefor we should not oppose them in their quest to usurp our values and replace them with our own.
This at least is my understanding of the article.
Let me know if you want on or off this list.
Here is a link to the first piece:
A Question of Temperament [What makes one a conservative?] First of a Series
No. But he thinks the "War on Drugs" is silly and is strongly in favor of the medicinal use of pot. Although he is labelled a conservative he has strong libertarian tendencies, as did Barry Goldwater.
I think he was advocating this definition but saying that the conservative would recognize that a personal sacrifice may need to be made for the greater good of freedom/liberty/justice.
The other two groups would not make that sacrifice unless it benefitted them directly in a personal manner.
Pssssst Bill, Conservatism's domestic opponent today is Liberalism. America's foreign opponent is just about the rest of the world.
Anarchist and objectivist may find that these sacrifices are neither necessary nor desirable. Anarchist believe that there is no need of government and there for there is no need defend or support government. Objectivist would argue that the values of the terrorist are equal in worth to our own and therefor we should not oppose them in their quest to usurp our values and replace them with our own.
Objectivism is not inherently anti-government or pacifist, and it certainly does not include moral relativism. The moment someone threatens your individual rights, you are completely within your rights to pay them back in a manner that will ensure that it does not happen again. If anything, the Objectivists I know are possibly even more hawkish than I.
While they certainly have many criticisms of the American government, there is no question for most of them that it is the best thing around, and that certainly defending it against the Arab-Muslim world (which would no doubt have taken the place of the Soviet Union as the focus of evil were Rand around now) is something that ought to be supported.
Pontiac
Just another Joe
Possible, but then why draw a distinction to anarchists, who have no inherent opposition to economic theory, or Objectivists, who are the embodiment of rational microeconomics? It seems to me that he would be far better off pointing to collectivists rather than trying to draw yet another division on the individual rights side of the debate.
I think you are onto something there. Normally, I would just ignore it, but someone as picky about language as WFB hardly ever shoots from the hip...and this statement, as a recovering Objectivist myself, really stuck out.
Freedom was only possible in Ordered Liberty, and those conservatives understood that principle. Burke's caution of the benefits of the "wild gas" of liberty is central to conservatives of that era.
Likewise his use of "anarchists" and "Objectivists" I understand coincide with my often made aversions of Ideologue-libertarians as opposed to Frank Meyer style conservative-libertarians. His two distictions are of the Ideological stripe and allows him to criticize that aspect without ever using the general term of libertarian in a manner that would offend those who didn't understand that he actually counted them outside the ranks of the ideologues he criticized.
That's just my reading of his points you commented on.
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.