Big tent needed for conservatives of every stripe

American Conservative Union | 06/03/03 | David Keene

[NeoCaveman]

Was suprised to see that this article wasn't posted yet.

Discuss away.

[NeoCaveman]

have never considered it impossible to square the need for a strong national defense establishment and a vigorous foreign policy with limited government and individual liberty

BTTT

[Burkeman1]

There has been a lot of ugliness among the right nowadays. We see it here on FR. Those against the war in Iraq are attacked visciously. Try posting an anti-war article from a the right wing source and see the vitriol and ad hominem attacks that result- but rarely is the argument itself addressed.

I think the author of this article is being a little wishful. Foreign policy is not a little issue and there are deep fisures on the right. A lot of nasty stuff has been said by both sides (but Frum was over the top). But having said all that I don't think the GOP or the conservative movement has much to worry about. Those of us on the right who oppose this war and the ones planned for the future are small in number.

[Reagan Man]

>>>But having said all that I don't think the GOP or the conservative movement has much to worry about. Those of us on the right who oppose this war ... are small in number.

Thanks for taking some of the words right out of my mouth. And in the name of conservative solidarity, I will hold my tongue and leave it at that.

[Amelia]

Maybe you don't need to write that article after all. ;-)

[NeoCaveman]

Maybe you don't need to write that article after all. ;-)

Did David Keene beat her to the punch :-)

[Amelia]

Good article, and I agree with the author's conclusions. If we split up because of relatively minor issues, while ignoring the 'big picture', it's certain that liberals will win.

[Burkeman1]

There is almost no popular anti war (empire) constituentcy among the rank and file of the GOP. At best it is 10 percent and that is being very optimistic. I would say 5 percent is closer to the truth. But there is a vibrant "intellectual" segment on the right that is anti empire and that is what annoys "National Review" and "The Weekly Standard."

[Eternal_Bear]

Empires entail having big governments and big governments always end up tyrannizing the people. It's been that way for thousands of years. Big governments always find justifications for their perpetuation such as in finding new enemies and grave problems. Not sure if the rank and file understand such concepts.

[summer]

Re your post #4 - I will hold my tongue and leave it at that.

And, from article, re: The result was a movement that could and did both attract mainstream support and eventually come to dominate the politics of the '80s, '90s and today.

IMO, a cohesive whole will always be more appealing to the mainstream voter because there appears to be more order than chaos -- and, more can be accomplished in such an atmosphere. By contrast, the Dem Party's total melt-down is a turn-off in and of itself.

[templar]

A definition of "conservative" is needed.

[LTCJ]

A definition of "conservative" is needed.

My thoughts exactly.

[Reagan Man]

... there is a vibrant "intellectual" segment on the right that is anti empire and that is what annoys "National Review" and "The Weekly Standard."

I don't know if I'd call the National Review and the Weekly Standard annoyed. But when you say "vibrant", do you mean as in, "sensitive"? If you do, I agree. Truth is, certain folks on the right are overly sensitive towards those who follow traditional conservatism. The problem is sensitivity and intellect are somewhat at odds. Sort of like the liberal establishment, in both regards, equal but opposite.

And the idea that the USA under the leadership of PresBush is pushing an empire agenda, is ridiculous and outrageous. Few Republicans and even fewer conservatives support anything related to "empire" building. This idea that neocons are massing at the gates is another absurdity. True neocons are hard to find.

[Sonny M]

Can somone give me some info on the John Birch Society. It seems they are the one conservative group everyone hates, I don't really understand why. Even Pat Buchanan doesn't seem to fond of them.

[Reagan Man]

I agree with what you said, but I don't see the connection with my remark you posted. Sorry. Please elaborate.

[Burkeman1]

Well as the author of this article suggests - a "neo con" is a very mixed bag and can't really be defined. Just as "paleo cons" don't really exist. They are labels used by each side to throw at each over this last war.

But there is a fiesty little group of conservatives from all over the map who question the foreign policy of this country since the end of the Cold War. And for "National Review" to attack them time again means they annoy them. And "Empire" is the goal. Heck - it has been admitted and written about in the pages of such journals- mostly "The Weekly Standard."

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Thanks for the ping, Amelia.

This aricle is full of wisdom and common sense.

All one has to do is realize how delighted we (conservatives) are when the libs are terribly fractured by in-fighting. We delight in it because it makes them a much weaker force to reckon with.

We have our foot solidly in the door and we need to take advantage of every opportunity; big or small.

The unreasonable purists who demand the impossible or turn off the less conservatively inclined are an anchor around conservatism's neck.

It's about time a few unyielding minds realize that it is not a compromise of one's principles to gently pull others along and be patient. Sometimes that means you have to give a little to get a little.

All or nothing is a losing proposition in our diverse society.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

aricle=article

[Burkeman1]

An interesting post. When Buckley wrote "God and Man at Yale" back in the 50's he would have agreed with you 100% as that was Conservatism. And if you read him closely these days you can see the same doubts about our current course. What happened to "National Review"?

[NeoCaveman]

A definition of "conservative" is needed.

Never an easy task but I'd say there are three pillars
1. limited government aka fiscal conservatives
2. traditional values aka social conservatives
3. strong national defense

I go for all three but also think that people who are "2 out of 3" aren't bad.