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