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.
Frankly, I don't know why so many "conservatives" cannot grasp this simple truth.
You're so flexible. And I admire you for it. ;-)
...this author curiously leaves out those of religious persuasion..............
He does?
Thus the state was seen as sharing responsibility for morality with the established national church. The subsequent development of conservatism in England was very influenced by this fact.
The American tradition developed differently, but that is because of Jefferson, Madison and others who fought for church disestablishment (ca. 1777-1833). Our experiment has worked admirably so far, but from the point of view of history -- perhaps even Orthodox Presbyterian history -- it is very much an innovation.
I'd rather have access to information and products from around the world, flip a switch for electricity, and count on an assertive foreign policy to assure reasonable security and free trade.
I think the Phillipines and some other Islands might have something to say about that. We clearly held an empire for a period of time though it never really set with our temperment as a nation. We participated with other Europeon nations in carving an "influence zone" in China as well.
There are many forms of Empire- from the Athenian commerial empire to the classical empire of Great Britain. We are much more like the Athenians in that we rule through proxy elites backed up by our implied military threat- or even presence (150 foreign military bases.)
I don't have an "ideology"- only outlooks. I do accept the "war on terrorism". I don't think attacking Iraq was good for the war on terror in the long run.
WWI had nothing to do about "democracy" or liberty or even the security of the United States. We were bamboozeled into that war by a pro Anglo East Coast elite and President.
And I am not a libertarian by any stretch of the imigination.
If one doesn't have questions about this war by now I think it is they who are following blind loyalties and partisan ideologies.
Prior to 1898? You must be forgetting with whom you are conversing. Just what "shining Beacon" [sic] was America prior to 1898? In fact, answer that same question prior to 1964.
It never ceases to amaze me how folks cherry-pick elements from history without including the totality of it. Sheesh!
I dont see why we can't turn back the clock on our foreign policy?
Nice sleight of hand! In the former sentence, you spoke of a "shining Beacon [sic] to millions around the world." In the latter sentence, you talk about "turn[ing] back the clock on our foreign policy." It's not 1798 or 1898. The world has changed a hell of a lot since then.
Turn back the clock you say? Only if you are prepared to shed a lot of blood domestically. There is no reason for me to trust that. And believe me, I don't.
Yes, you are. Do you not think that other nations were examining the treatment of American blacks? Of course they were! And for nefarious reasons.
The U.S.S.R. used our domestic problems with American blacks to gain an entrance into our system of government by using America's own "principles" against her.
So, yes, this "sad history" does indeed relate to foreign policy. This is just the inverse.
Nothing is free. There is a cost to everything. In this case, our nation overlooked and/or neglected to count the costs of its treatment of my forebears to her own detriment. This is NOT to say that I am happy that it turned out like this. But history screams at us to take heed to all of its lessons. Taking one while ignoring the other is insufficient.
But really- why can't we turn back the clock and just have America serving as a Beacon of Freedom and Liberty without trouncing all over the Globe?
You sure about that? W.E.B. DuBois' own communism didn't lay the groundwork? One more thing if you are certain that what you say is true: what was a communist like Baynard Rustin doing being MLK's main adviser and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference?
Again, you say, "The Civil Rights movement that King lead was warry of Communists and being infiltrated by them." Are you sure?
And when was this? Sure, America may have been just that to your forebears. But it wasn't for mine.
Being a little bit free is like being a little bit pregnant. So when was this freedom era that you write so glowingly about? As I peruse through myriad history books, I can't seem to find it.
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.