Posted on 06/07/2003 4:50:18 PM PDT by NeoCaveman
The current warfare being waged on the right among conservatives of different stripes reminds me of the days when the movement was in its infancy.
Those were tough days for young conservatives. The nation's political establishment was almost uniformly liberal and few colleges or universities were willing to even acknowledge the possibility of an American conservative movement. Perhaps things were somewhat exaggerated at the University of Wisconsin, but when we sought to found a conservative club there in the mid-'60s our most difficult job was finding a faculty member on the 40,000 student campus willing to serve as our required "faculty sponsor."
And we were a rambunctious lot. There were libertarians, anarchists, objectivists, social conservatives (we called them "traditionalists" in those days), Burkeans and all sorts of anti-communists. We argued about everything from the wisdom of selling the highways to the need to "take out" the Soviets. We were students, after all, and all things were possible or at least open to discussion.
Eventually, however, as our little movement matured, we jettisoned the kooks or at least relegated them to minor positions from which they could scold, but not dominate a growing movement that Americans were beginning to find attractive.
The overly serious supporters of the John Birch Society were among the first to be jettisoned. Its founder was a quirky Massachusetts businessman who unaccountably persisted in the view that President Dwight Eisenhower, of all people, was a "conscious" agent of international communism. Bill Buckley spoke for most conservatives of his day in the famous rejoinder that Eisenhower was not a communist, but a golfer.
Others followed. Racists because their views were obnoxious were shown the door, as were the more extreme worshippers of Ayn Rand and the Habsburgs. 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.
The conservative movement that emerged to do political battle with the left was and still is a coalition of folks who share many beliefs, but have always broken down into three major groupings. These groups might be described as "free marketeers," "social conservatives," and "national defense" or, to borrow a label from one of National Review's current writers, "patriotic conservatives."
At various times in recent decades, non-conservative analysts have suggested that these groupings are unnatural allies held together during the Cold War only by the "glue" of anti-communism. It is true that hostility to the communist world was a major contributing factor to the cohesiveness of the movement prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall, but it was not the only factor.
Over the years, members of this coalition found that there are, in fact, very few pure adherents of any of the three tendencies. Most patriotic conservatives, for example, are also free marketeers and many are among the most vocal members of the social right.
That's why the current fight between folks who like to characterize themselves as "neo-conservatives" and the rest of the conservative community makes so little sense. Except for a few extremists in the ranks the leaders of the various constituent parts of today's conservative movement share far more in common than one might conclude from a cursory reading of the rantings of either the most extreme neo-cons or their most vociferous critics.
The differences on the way we fight terrorists or how we deal with immigration policy in the 21st century are important questions that need to be discussed rationally by men and women who have fought beside each other for decades and achieved much; they are not the sorts of issues that should turn friends into enemies.
I suspect that, like most conservatives, I find myself wondering just what this fight is all about. I 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, nor have I felt that an obsession with, say, missile defense means one cannot also be a devotee of social security reform or the flat tax.
What does concern me is that there are some in the conservative ranks who seem to believe that if one doesn't share their view of the relative importance of various issues, one ought to be sent packing. A political movement that cannot tolerate differences among people who agree on main principles is a movement in trouble.
You can, if that is what you wish. However, the overall Right agenda will be severely weakened, and your own in particular will be forgotten completely.
It may be satisfying to say "Screw you guys, I'm going home!" to your own allies on the Right, but it would hardly be productive.
Alone, no one faction of ours comes CLOSE to forming a majority on its own. Thus isolated, movements tend to die out rather quickly, as they lose ALL influence on events.
While some of you may interpret that as meaning somebody who wants a camera in every bedroom, or some other farfetched idea of totalitarianism, I'm somebody who would have none of these types of things.
I am beginning to deeply resent the tones in the Republican Party as of late; those that think my vote is for granted; I voted for the President, and I'll have my say.
Go ahead and court a bunch of leftists. Make room in your tent............because judging from the things I have been hearing lately, I'll make it a little easier to do so.
Wage the campaign to capture a bunch of liberals. Dilute the platform. Incorporate 'abortion rights' while you are at it.
Don't expect to get my vote when you do so. Over and out.
The first thing that comes to mind is a chp permanently affixed to the shoulders.
Would you vote for the perfect President with a VP you fundamentally disagreed with?
Which is what the left is counting on
That's just the point, Horseman. Just because someone is not of the same belief system as you, does NOT make them either Leftist or worthless to the conservative movement.
Look, the Right, in all its forms, holds sway over half of the voting public at this time. That's fifty million people, all different individuals. By taking too doctrinaire and dogmatic a stance, we will drive away many of would-be allies. You may feel that we do not need them, but you can enjoy that superiority of righteousness from a permanent minority position for only so long before you decide to actually WIN.
What utter horse crap.
If I only had a bottle of Wild Turkey Barrel Proof for all the times I've heard that, I'd be the happiest Parrothead in Jacksonville.
........here's my objection..........the GOP is starting to see Christians as some sort of 'dividing' force.
Let me put it in perspective.........I've read Mein Kampf, and I've read the Bible; those who are Christians will never be an enemy of mine. Or be seen as an 'opposing' force.
That's all.
Much of the rest of the world is bombarded with leftwing rhetoric and propaganda, filled with lies and distortions. Much of the rest of the world doesn't have a clue about what is true and what is false.
>>>Perception is everything in politics.
While its true politics is all about human relations, in order for politics to work correctly, one has to attain an awareness and understanding of whats taking place in their environment. That works pretty well in a free and open society like we have in America. Most people in the world are uneducated and live in closed societies and backward cultures.
At the risk of revealing a personal opinion at odds with the policy of my government and therefore my National Command Authority (which I only do with EXTREME disclaimers, as I must. I do not enjoy the Freedom of Speech that most of you do), I wholly agree with you about the WOD, if I read you correctly. It is a wasteful, dangerous, and ultimately unwinnable boondoggle for our nation, and I say that as one who has served in the past on its front lines, LITERALLY!
You see, you and I , a socially-libertarian conservative and a Christian conservative, have found common ground. I'm sure that, given time, we could find far more to agree about than to DIS-agree about. Should only one or two issues forever divide us from common cause against the Left? Are they not worth defeating anymore, or is that no longer even the goal?
Is 100% purity now the goal for us all, at the cost of our dominance?
Indeed. "Islamic Fundamentalism and Arab Radicalism" is extremely dangerous to the future of this "Republic" ( US "Homeland"?). So given this obvious truth, do you have any explanation as to why Bush thinks that it is STILL OK to allow immigration from Muslim Nations that harbor Terrorists to the tune of 50,000 a MONTH? Why is he allowing this? I just want to know what the latest Spin is. I mean, what part of the "brilliant" plan is THIS?
BTW, that "turning back the clock" bit was and is one of the Democrats' favorite slogans for fooling the public that MORE Socialism is "progress". It’s kind of hard for me to imagine a conservative uttering this phrase.
And yet, this is exactly the disconnect between ancient British Burkean Conservatism and modern American "Social Conservatism", which owes far more to the Progressive-Prohibitionist alliance of the early 20th Century -- a "secularized post-millenial" attempt to build God's Kingdom on earth through the Agency of the State, culminating in the frankly-hilarious folly of the 18th Amendment and "Prohibition", with its attendant redefinition of Christianity as the hand-maiden of Caesar.
Burkean Conservatism regards a Moral Society as the logical antecedent to Limited Government in the context of a Free Society, not as the logical consequent. In fact, a Moral Society CANNOT be the logical consequent of State Action, for (in and of itself) the State enforcement of "Outward Morality" upon an apostate populace can never generate inward righteousness, it can only generate outward hypocrisy -- which is, itself, a Sin against God.
Thus the modern American "Social Conservative" -- the bastard-child of early 20th-Century Progressivism and Prohibitionism -- looks to State Action to enforce "outward morality", and only manages to compound Sin upon Sin: adding the Sin of Outward Hypocrisy to the Sin of Inward Apostasy.
If we were to be Burkean Conservatives, we would profoundly reject the modern "American Social Conservative" habit of looking to State Action for the artificial enforcement of Outward Morality, and instead recognize that Moral Society is the logical antecedent of Limited Government in the context of a Free Society...
...And recognizing that the Church of Jesus Christ, as the primary institutional conduit of the Holy Spirit's action upon Men and Nations in history, we would instead look to the Church, the Church alone, and nothing but the Church as the principal Means of Grace for the institution of a Moral Society amongst Men.
Not the State. The State can, if the Church provides a Moral Society, institute Limited Government in the context of a Free Society. But the State cannot create a Moral Society without the Church -- Without the Church, the State can only enforce outward hypocrisy upon Apostates, compounding Sin upon Sin.
The Church, and the Church, and the Church. Without the Church, the State cannot "create" Morality. She can only enforce Hypocrisy -- i.e., she can only create More Sin.
Conservatism must begin at The Church.
Btw, I don't support illegal immigration of any kind and called for a moratorium on all immigration following 9-11.
Very, very well said.
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.