Big tent needed for conservatives of every stripe

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

[summer]

RE your post #15 - I thought your remark was exemplary of the kind of mature attitude that is often needed to create a cohesive whole.

[B Knotts]

Conservatism must begin at The Church.

Frankly, I don't know why so many "conservatives" cannot grasp this simple truth.

[Scenic Sounds]

Probably a combination, with emphasis on free market?

You're so flexible. And I admire you for it. ;-)

[NeoCaveman]

"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."

...this author curiously leaves out those of religious persuasion..............

He does?

[Reagan Man]

Thank you, summer.

[x]

But Burke's England had a state church -- Anglicanism. The Presbyterian church was established in Scotland. Wales and Ireland had their own state-financed churches subject to royal appointment, though it was the wrong church (Anglican) from the point of view of most of the inhabitants.

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.

[rdb3]

O-Peezy! Where you been, dude?

[Burkeman1]

I think America was a shinning Beacon to millions around the world prior to our becoming a super power after the Spanish American war. I dont see why we can't turn back the clock on our foreign policy?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Because at the time of the Spanish American War, there was no instantaneous mass communication, no aircraft, sea travel took days to go any real distance, and even in advanced nations, once you left the railroad tracks, travel took a long distance. People intent to do you harm couldn't do it at an instant, and there was always time for a lot of deliberation. Also, at the time of the Spanish American war, populations were low enough for locally produced food to suffice, and for energy needs to be met using local fuels. Of course, it was a dingy, dusty, horse drawn and gas lamped world, too.

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.

[Burkeman1]

There never was an American Empire. Not in the past, not here in the present and not in the future.

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.

[Burkeman1]

The first trans atlantic cable was laid in the 1870's. It was possible for Washington to communicate directly with Madrid in a matter of minutes.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the ability of current enemies to coordinate attacks between widely dispersed commands, the ability of demagogues to whip up civilian populations en masse and the ability of your enemies to reach people within the borders instantaneously and without travel. If you don't see widespread wireless communication as changing the Spanish American War and WWI model of warfare, you really need to hone up on those old cognitive and analytical skills.

[summer]

RE your post #145 - :)

[rdb3]

I think America was a shinning Beacon to millions around the world prior to our becoming a super power after the Spanish American war.

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.

[Burkeman1]

Well obviously America had serious injustices on the Domestic front when it came to blacks. That doesn't mean that millions didn't see America in a positive light all throughout the world. I don't see how Jim Crow, the KKK, segrgation, and all the rest of that sad history relates to foreign policy in any way? Am I missing something?

[Burkeman1]

I would imagine that Al Queda has reverted to 19th century communication as of late and don't much use satellite phones or even a radio any more.

[rdb3]

I don't see how Jim Crow, the KKK, segrgation, and all the rest of that sad history relates to foreign policy in any way? Am I missing something?

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.

[Burkeman1]

The Civil Rights movement that King lead was warry of Communists and being infiltrated by them. The Soviets used the treatment of Blacks to no effect since they treated certain minorities even worse.

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?

[rdb3]

The Civil Rights movement that King lead was warry of Communists and being infiltrated by them. The Soviets used the treatment of Blacks to no effect since they treated certain minorities even worse.

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?

[rdb3]

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?

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.