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.
Don't know that she even wanted to do it, but I'd suggested something similar to her - for her consideration - earlier today.
I agree with you.
I don't believe they're from all over the map, as you say. But all conservatives have had good reason to question the foreign of the US. Eight of the last 12 years the US was lead by a lying, phony, scumbag and his lying/phony witch-bitch wife.
But again, there is no empire building under way by the Bush administartion. Some on the extremist rightwing, have a problem with the war on terrorism and for the life of me, I can't figure out why. After 9-11, any fair minded American should realize the dangers that Islamic fundamentalism and Arab radicalism present to the safety and the future of the US homeland and our interests abroad.
After all, we can't turn the clock back to 1776 and we aren't about to become an isolationist nation either. American's have always looked to the future with an optimistic outlook.
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.
That's all I really know about them.
Some may believe that limited government automatically assumes that, but it does not.
IMO, that's why many libertarians and Libertarians can never be part of the contemporary conservative movement in America.
I agree with you 100% ... I'm just hoping that these non-interventionist conservatives are reevaluating their position. This type of foreign policy can be deadly.
What it boils down to is that the "free marketeers" have subordinated the social conservative agenda to disdainfully dispense with the inconvenient confines of our Constitution and wage economic warfare against the American Middle Class.
I guess I did merge the too. You are right. Personally I do not believe that their can be freedom without economic freedom.
Any "Conservative" political movement in America must be animated by a continual reference to, and analysis of, the intersection between faith and politics.
"Conservatism" needs definition on a forum like this:
Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1835
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
Personally I believe that a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions in America is, by definition, based on Judeo-Christian tradition and social stability.
Therefore, I do not shy away from calling those self proclaimed conservatives here on FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum" back to the very roots of that "Conservatism, " namely Judeo-Christian principles and belief. Christianity is integral to the continuance of Conservatism in America and thus The Necessity for Christianity on Free Republic.
I would like to see an ongoing, charitable discussion and debate on the defintion of, and basis/roots of, the "Conservative" aspect of FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum."
Frankly, IMHO, Free Republic is NOT a "Conservative" News Forum, if it was at one time.
It has become a Apatheism News Forum, where the "Conservativism" of the median FReeper is not "Conservatism" at all but quite appropriately referred to as "Apatheism."
I don't think that term defines being an American. But we do have freedom of speech, petition and assemble. Those options exist and are your rights under the Constitution.
Well- just check them out. I read many of them and they come from all sides of conservatism and would agree on little else but being against American foreign policy.
Clinton was something else entirely. He had no foreign policy. American Empire grew as his domestic woes worsensed and he needed deflection. We are in Kosovo to this day because of the Juanita story and the release of the Cox report on China and his campaign contributions. Clinton extended the empire to deflect from domestic woes as did countless rulers of Empires thoughout history. Nothing wipes away domestic scandal and corruption than a foreign war and "victory!"
But again, there is no empire building under way by the Bush administartion
We are not occupying a country and attempting to remake them in our image? We will have military bases there for years. Any domestic politics will be aware of this fact. We will control the elites of Iraq like we do many other countries in the Middle East. We have an "Athenian" empire- rule through proxy elites but we control all major decisions and back it up with local military threat.
Why can't we "turn back the clock?" Everyone says that like it is gospel? But we can get back to the time when the world loved America for what we were and not whom we could conquer. We should be an example- not an enforcer.
Ahhh, but we can't question it under Bush, is that it? Because he's a Republican. Mind you I didn't say conservative. I question all politicians no matter their stripe and any patriot worth their salt should do so as well
But again, there is no empire building under way by the Bush administartion. Some on the extremist rightwing, have a problem with the war on terrorism and for the life of me, I can't figure out why
Oh, I don't know.....perhaps because the nations actually doing the support are called our allies (i.e. Saudi Arabia) and the crackpot dictator in Iraq gets it over WMDs that haven't been produced? Even the CIA is admitting they may have made a mistake!! Beside that point, never mind that wonderful wacky Patriot Act. I just know the left wing Democrats are going to be thanking Republican Party all their days for giving them the power to get rid of the 'extremist' Christians one day
After 9-11, any fair minded American should realize the dangers that Islamic fundamentalism and Arab radicalism present to the safety and the future of the US homeland and our interests abroad.
Yes, but that does not give any party a blank check for pre-emptive strikes. Islam is a false religion and will be dealt with in due time. However having a roving band of US soldiers marching from Middle Eastern country to Middle Eastern country, all the while evading Saudi Arabia like they've got the plague, isn't going to do that. Neither is this 'road map' for peace
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.