Big tent needed for conservatives of every stripe

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

[Burkeman1]

Well DuBois was a communist. But that didn't make his criticisms of American society in regards to blacks not true. It was true. His remedy was wrong.

And MLK did have contacts with Communists but he was not one himself and was warry of being associated with them.

[rdb3]

And MLK did have contacts with Communists but he was not one himself and was warry of being associated with them.

This is simply not true. If King was wary of the communists, he sure picked one hell of a homosexual commie to be one of his lead advisers.

[Burkeman1]

Hey look. When history books talk about the growing democracy in England during the 15th and 16th centuries I don't see a problem even though Ireland was one large slave plantantion by that time for the English. That fact still doesn't undercut the notion that England was the most "democratic" nations in the world at that point.

The Irish held onto their racial hatreds for a hundred years in America and it did them little good in the long run.

There is no era of true Freedom and won't ever be. Peoples abuse and use other peoples all the time in History and will in the future. But we can hope for and work for a reasonable government and a "just" society even though it will never be perfect.

[Burkeman1]

And King wasn't worried about that? He knew he was a gay homosexual with communist ties but he was also talented. It doesn't mean King himself was a commie.

[rdb3]

And King wasn't worried about that?

He didn't appear to be.

He knew he was a gay homosexual with communist ties but he was also talented.

"Communist ties?" No, try flaming (no pun intended) commie.

It doesn't mean King himself was a commie.

Maybe, maybe not. But, birds of a feather...

[Burkeman1]

Look. I am no King defender. I think the black political leaders coming up in Chicago and Boston and New York all hated King. Blacks were about to inherit the patronage channels of city halls all over the North when MLK stepped in. He ruined the game. Blacks would have controlled every Northern major city by 1980 if not for the "Great Society" that took patronage out of the hands of local black political leaders.

[hchutch]

Because the alternative is worse.

Like it or not, we're at war, and our nation was the victim of an unprovoked sneak attack.

The folks who seem most serious about winning are the "neo-conservatives" who are constantly being harrangued by that small minority, many of whom have raised statements that it is safe to say that most of the rank and file GOP would not want any part of if they were aware of them.

All the attacks on Kristol I saw only succeeded in adding me to "The Weekly Standard"'s subscriber list. America did not apologize to Japan after Pearl Harbor, we ought not apologize to the Arab world for our (imperfect) support of Israel after 9/11.

But for some, particularly those who Frum went after, they wanted us to apologize for that - and after 9/11, I'm not in the mood for issuing apologies. I'm in the mood for victory, and if that means empire, so be it.

[Burkeman1]

Thanks for your post. And I guess we have nothing further to discuss.

[Reagan Man]

Better check your history. The three examples you gave are poor representations of what you consider to be empire building by the US.

The Philippines was turned over to the US as a possession under the treaty of Paris in 1898, that finalized the end to the Spainish-American War. We never invaded or conquered the Filipino people. The Philippines became a Commonwealth in 1935 and following WWII, it became an independent Constitutional Republic. As with most third world nations, the Philippines has had continued unrest and corruption throughout its history. But overall, the Filipino people are ardent anti-communists and remain a good friend and ally to the US.

The Athenian Empire was known for its use of force over lesser nation states, through strict control and taxation. I don't believe that describes the US. I'd say those 150 US military outposts we have around the world, are in place through legal agreements with the existing governments and not because we desire to be extend any sort of empire over them.

While the European's had major investments in China, the US was a minor player and our so-called "zone of influence" doesn't translate into anything resembling US empire building.

>>>We were bamboozeled into that war by a pro Anglo East Coast elite and President.

That's a bogus representation of history and why the US entered WWI.

>>>If one doesn't have questions about this war by now I think it is they who are following blind loyalties and partisan ideologies.

That's pure BS! But its a free country and you can believe whatever nonsense to choose to.

[Burkeman1]

Not a full response to your post. But we fought a bloody war in the Phillipines after the formal peace with Spain.

[A.J.Armitage]

The American tradition developed differently, but that is because of Jefferson, Madison and others who fought for church disestablishment (ca. 1777-1833).

And the very fact that the American tradition developed differently means that Burkeanism in America must be different from Burkeanism in England. Within the American tradition, the Social Gospel and its offshoots left and right are innovations, innovations that don't harmonize with what went before (in addition to being wrong theologically).

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.

IIRC, the OPC is about a hundred years old.

[Amelia]

Exactly how many times will they be able to con these moderates into voting for them if they never pass moderate agenda items? One or two times before these moderates got to the Democratic side?

If they never pass moderate agenda items, they probably won't "con" the moderates into voting for them at all. And without the votes of the moderates, they won't win at all, and they won't pass anything.

And what happens to real conservatives that vote year after year for these compromisers all on the promise that one day we'll see a conservative agenda?

So far Bush has made sure we won't be a party to the Kyoto Treaty or the International Criminal Court, he's gotten us out of the U.S. - CCCP ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses, he's banned using foreign aid money for abortions, pushed through 2 military pay raises and 2 tax cuts for the rest of us, among other things.

Sure, there's a long way yet to go, but do you think that would have happened under a Democratic administration?

[Amelia]

Could you help me out, please? Could you identify some "real conservatives" on a national level for me? I'd particularly like to know which ones you think could be competitive in a Presidential race.

[billbears]

If they never pass moderate agenda items, they probably won't "con" the moderates into voting for them at all. And without the votes of the moderates, they won't win at all, and they won't pass anything.

Considering that these 'conservatives' have passed more moderate agenda items then conservative items, it's quite plain to see who they value more. And as they continue this trend, the conservatives will leave the party

So far Bush has made sure we won't be a party to the Kyoto Treaty or the International Criminal Court, he's gotten us out of the U.S. - CCCP ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses, he's banned using foreign aid money for abortions, pushed through 2 military pay raises and 2 tax cuts for the rest of us, among other things.

Okay, so he's fiscally conservative. Big whoop. What about CFR? Rhetoric in support of AWB? 15 billion for AIDS in Africa? 2 billion for some pipe dream car? These things affect my life more personally and more directly (considering they're coming out of my paycheck and limiting my rights) than some international treaties.

[Scenic Sounds]

If they never pass moderate agenda items, they probably won't "con" the moderates into voting for them at all. And without the votes of the moderates, they won't win at all, and they won't pass anything.

That's the reality. We do need the support of moderates. If we abandon the center, there is another party which will respond to the vacuum.

Good post!

[Amelia]

Considering that these 'conservatives' have passed more moderate agenda items then conservative items, it's quite plain to see who they value more. And as they continue this trend, the conservatives will leave the party

Perhaps there are more people who consider themselves moderate than people who consider themselves conservative? Like it or not, numbers win.

Conservatives may leave the party, but unless there are enough of them to form a competitive third party, they won't win, and they won't get anything accomplished.

I think someone said above that the split in the party is between those who see the glass as half-full and those who see it as half-empty. To mix metaphors, I'm one of those who believes half a loaf is better than none, and none is what we'd get if the liberals were in power.

Right now, we don't have the numbers to obtain the full loaf, and while that's not an ideal situation, it is the reality.

[He Rides A White Horse]

What is starting to really bother me is when some so-called conservatives start talking like a bunch of leftists.

I hear what they say; this idea that Christians are mucking up the works as far as building a new, 'inclusive' party.

You heard me right, I do think the WOD is what you say it is. I'm reading OrthodoxPresbyterian's post 138; I think trying to legislate morality is a waste a time.

There are some who would call me names because I feel this way. You know, if I don't want to have all the pot smokers taken out and shot or tossed into prison for 30 years (you know, like Jesus would do), I'm some kind of lousy conservative........

..........that being said, I think some of my so-called conservative friends are starting to sound just like the leftists.

I don't trust people who bash Christians in a general sense is what it boils down to. It's one thing to not like this guy or that guy, but when people start acting like Christians in general are some 'problem', then I'm going to be watching my back.

[He Rides A White Horse]

I voted for the President, and I have every right to complain about trends that I find troubling. I think the President is a good man; however, I think there are many in the party who would sell us out in pursuit of the 'big tent'.

I would be very careful about this if I were them.

[He Rides A White Horse]

You may feel that we do not need them, but you can enjoy that superiority of righteousness

........and let me clarify one thing; I don't enjoy any 'superiority of righteousness'.......this is the sort of thing I'm talking about. I'm not talking about myself. Please notice my screen name is He Rides A White Horse, not "I Ride A White Horse"..........big difference.

[MrLeRoy]

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...

OUTSTANDING post!