Big tent needed for conservatives of every stripe

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.

Got some time now:

We never invaded or conquered the Filipino people.

Incorrect. We did. We fought the "Phillipines War" from 1899 to 1902. Although you should be forgiven for not knowing about it. Neither did the American people much know about either at the time. It was however a bloody little war and quite horrific for our troops. We lost about 4200 dead and another 2500 wounded. How many died to disease is a question. We also fought another little war there from 1902 to 1913 but this was more like an ongoing anti pirate war- called the "Moro Campaigns." These are the same charming Muslems whom I believe we are helping the Phillipine army to chase around these days. We lost 130 men in that war. What is really interesting is that we lost more in these little wars than we did fighting Spain!

The Athenian Empire was known for its use of force over lesser nation states, through strict control and taxation.

The Athenians were not known for that at all. That would describe Rome far better. The Athenians almost never ruled directly and their rule was hardly ever "strict". They did engender enemies through their exclusive trade practices (taxation was not their major revenue generator) and their muscle flexing. But they did not have an imperial order as Rome did.

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.

America was instrumental and the central leading figure in organizing Western resistance to the Boxer rebellion of 1900. We were hardly a bit player in China.

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

I don't think so at all. I think the historical record quite clearly proves that.

But its a free country and you can believe whatever nonsense to choose to.

Yes it is- but it sure is interesting that in our "empire" (which is not an empire of course) we don't allow free speech- like the shutting down of papers in Iraq- the continued media censorship in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Serbia.

We never invaded or conquered the Filipino people.

>>>Incorrect. We did. We fought the "Phillipines War" from 1899 to 1902. Although you should be forgiven for not knowing about it.

This is what i know. Open any history book and there will no reference to any "Phillipines War" and for good reason. There was no "Phillipines War"!

It's true there was a revolt led by Filipino leader Emilio Aguinaldo, but it wasn't the "imperial war" you're making it out to be. The insurrection was put down with the capture of Aguinaldo by Gen. Frederick Funston in 1901. But I will be honest with you, I knew the insurrection/revolt cost the US more lives then we lost in the Spainish-American War. What I didn't know was the casualty figures were that high. I will look that up at my convenience and get back with you, if necessary.

I'm no expert in ancient history. The several references I used to gather some basic information on the subject, clearly stated the Athenian Empire wielded their power over lesser nations through strict control and taxation. I will let you have that one.

As for the US involvement in China during the Boxer Rebellion, I take exception to giving the US major status in China before the Boxer uprising. The US didn't have the power and influence of major players like, Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and Russia. The Open Door Policy promoted by US Sec of State John Hay, couldn't be supported or enforced by the Eurpoean powers and was "politely" rejected. Even with that, Hay publically announced the agreement was "final and definitive." The American's wanted a piece of the action and their own "sphere of influence" in China. The US did get equal billing following the Boxer Rebellion, but not before.

And finally, we didn't get involved in WWI for the reasons you mentioned. That's a warped viewpoint of real history.

O-Peezy! Where you been, dude?

I been illin', bro.

Unfortunately, I've been "illin'" quite literally, not figuratively. The right side of my face has been paralyzed for over a week-and-a-half. Some kinda facial palsy (on which our brother "the_doc" has freely offered his medical advice, no-questions asked and free of charge from 2000 miles away, thus giving the Lie to the idea of Calvinists being a cold-hearted and uncharitable sort)

Anyway, it's probably "Bell's Palsy" (not a Progressive Stroke or anything like that, God willing), which goes away within a month or so 80% of the time.

I haven't made a big "sympathy plea" on the Public Threads or anything, but since you asked.... yeah, I've taken it easy. I'm not particularly worried, anyway... some Men (who shall remain nameless) throw themselves outta perfectly good airplanes in defense of their country; I'm just sweltering through an annoying neurological inconvenience. It's an annoyance and I hope it improves soon, but it's hardly a "thorn in my side" compared to Christian Martyrs in Pakistan.

Where's your tall, thin Cuz, bro? Here in America, with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson running around, the "Black Community" needs all the "Alan Keyes" it can get. Not that I'm trying to make it a "racial" thing...

Oh, who am I kidding. In all honesty, I have no objection to making it a "racial" thing. But I've got some news for the "Christian Identity" Aryan Nations freaks out there in the highways and byways of North America... it's time the Worldwide Anglican Confession got in touch with the idea that "Black is Beautiful". Fully half of the Communicant Membership of the Worldwide Anglican Confession today is Black African... and they are bloody CONSERVATIVE. It's gotten to the point that Nigerian African Bishops are excommunicating British Canadian priests for giving their blessing to "homosexual unions".

Maybe the British "exploited" Africa in their day, but they left Christians in their wake... and today, those Black African Anglicans (today representing fully one-half of the communicant membership of the Worldwide Anglican Confession) are the only anchor still mooring the Anglican/Episcopal Church to the Rock of the Bible.

The same holds true in Presbyterianism, except it's "yellow", not "black". Presbyterianism is the dominant Protestant Confession in Taiwan, Korea, and who-knows how many other East Asian nations (NAGASAKI was the primary locus of Dutch-Reformed presbyterianist Christianity in Japan, until it was liquified by an Atomic Bomb. OOPS!!)

This is an interesting question, for me, given that I have come around (in recent years) to the Buchananite idea that it is morally acceptable for a nation to preserve its own language and culture in recognition of the fact that Unfettered Mass Immigration is not a Positive Good, labor economics be damned (which is why I flagged our Buchananite-Calvinist brother, GWB).

But at the same time (and it pains me to recognize, as a German who is proud of my ethnic heritage)... in terms of Christianity, THE WHITE RACE HAS FAILED.

The "European-White Monopoly Heirs" of Christianity for almost 2,000 years (excepting a few Black Coptics in Ancient Ethiopia, a few Brown Thomasines in Ancient India, and a few Yellow Nestorians in Ancient China)... and where do we stand today?

In a very few years, the White British will need the Black-African Anglicans in order to retain any connection to the Bible. The Student has become the Teacher. In fact, this is the case already.
In a very few years, the White Scottish will need the Yellow-Asian Presbyterians in order to retain any connection to the Bible. The Student has become the Teacher. In fact, this is the case already.
And meanwhile, the Baptists (individualists that they are) make their Converts irrespective of Ethnic boundaries -- converting Latino Browns, African Blacks, and Asians Yellows... in a desperate attempt to convert the Lost faster than the "Charismatic" heretics (some Baptists aiding the Charismatics, some Baptists preaching Christian Orthodoxy instead... as always, depends on the "Baptist" in question). Largely through the Calvinist Reconquista of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Baptists have managed to reserve one Major American Denomination to the Cause of Christian Orthodoxy... but at best, this is a "miracle". I know of no other term which would apply.
If "White Christianity" is to be saved, it will be necessary -- given a very few centuries at current demographic trends -- for the "heathen darkies" to start evangelizing US. Indeed, they are already.

It is a curious state of affairs for me, intellectually speaking. On the one hand, I have come around (in recent years) to the Buchananite idea that it is morally acceptable for a nation to preserve its own language and culture. The Mass Immigration of "Aztlan" Mexican Revolutionaries who deny the US as a country, deny the US Constitution, and deny US History and Nation-hood cannot possibly be a "good thing" for a People and Country.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if one defines "Orthodox Reformation Christianity" as the Foundation and Bulwark of "American Culture", I am tempted to advocate importing a few million Black-African Anglicans and Yellow-Asian Presbyterians who would respect Life, Liberty, Property, and the Rule of Law, and advocate exporting a few million White Liberals... who don't.

Pat Buchanan, Peter Brimelow (incidentally, Brimelow is a brilliant economic writer)... Lemme tell ya -- try and introduce Religion and Morality as a foundation of Civil Society, and the Immigration Debate becomes more complex than ever.

(and, as always, I am just a guppy in the pool, welcoming anyone's thoughts)

best, OP

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.