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.
Well said.
It amazes me how some people think that the GOP can win anything and at the same time kick out anybody and everybody who dares disagree on one issue.
Single issue fanatics who threaten to bolt the party if somebody in power disagrees with them are just as bad.
Okay, so which one of these am I, Amelia?
It is a great article. Thanks for the ping. ;-)
You know I keep seeing this issue of relatively 'minor' issues. The problem is when you lump them all together and, at least in rhetoric, back them as many Republicans are doing, they're no longer 'minor' issues. What they are is a party that cares less about conservatism and more about votes
Great post. ;-)
What's generated the discussion is the perceived change from Bush's talk about a "more modest" America that would avoid "nation-building" experiments around the world, to a much more activist and interventionist vision. 911 had something to do with the change, but it's not the only cause. It does look likely now that "unilateralism" is something very different from non-interventionism. It may even involve getting into more conflicts around the world than legalistic or bureaucratic "internationalism." There may be perfectly reasonable explanations for the change -- it may not even be a change at all -- but the difference between what was implied by national "modesty" during the campaign and what looks like intense national self-assertion now, does call for explanation.
There has been a lot of positive talk about empire in the media. Not all of it's from recognized neo-conservatives, Republicans or conservatives. Indeed, so far as I know, much of it seems to come from the unorganized fringe of political discussion, people like Robert Kaplan, Niall Ferguson, Mark Steyn, Max Boot. But there are similarities to the thinking of others in side and outside the administration who favor a more active policy around the world, Charles Krauthammer, Robert Kagan, Dinesh D'Souza, for example, to explain why some have made the connection, between neo-conservatives and neo-imperialism.
This idea that neocons are massing at the gates is another absurdity. True neocons are hard to find.
To be sure. You won't find many who represent classical neo-conservatism (circa 1975 or 1979). History has moved on, and old groups have scattered, while new ones have formed. A lot can change in twenty years.
The word "neo-conservative" does tend to get thrown around a lot. But I think its use is not wholly arbitrary to characterize the changes that have come over foreign policy thinking on the right. Much of the talk one heard over the last year or so about American power and its place in the world differs not just from what the paleoconservative fringe says, but also from what one had long heard from the conservative grassroots. It may be that the conservative and Republican mainstream has been entirely swept up in the new current, but for some observers the change has been striking and impossible to ignore. Some vocabulary is needed to characterize the difference, though one may certainly criticize the actual terms chosen.
I just got a look at Ramesh Ponnuru's article in the latest National Review on this topic. It's worth a look, though I think quite mistaken. To me, it seemed to be a lot of clever hair-splitting aimed at concealing currents and trends that may be hard to pin down and characterize, but are nevertheless real.
I think the fissures on the left are deeper, and more prevalent. How many are jockeying for leadership of the Democrat Party as we speak?............you'll need two hands to count them.
Don't believe any BS about conservatives being on the defensive...............quite the contrary; Achilles had a heel to show, the Democrats are presenting you with the whole leg.
I was fairly non-interventionist before 9/11, and still have some qualms, but I also think that the United States has to defend itself.
This man is not stupid............he is poised to seize the platform of the Democrat Party; he can portray himself as being 'patriotic', yet still satisfy certain leftist requirements.
I'd vote for a "free marketeer".
or the 3 musketeers? or maybe a mouseketeer?
Well, I can live with that.
And which are you?
Well, if they don't get the votes, they aren't going to enact anything, conservative or otherwise. And if the Democrats get the votes, we know nothing conservative is going to happen.
"Hi, my name is Joe Lieberman. I voted for the war in Iraq. "(maybe tempers his support with a little spin here to pacify certain elements in his party)
"I'm all for a strong military. The United States has an obligation to project its power to defend the rights of the powerless" (again, I'm making a naked point to Free Republic, the spinmeisters will try to be a little more deft.....will appeal to more 'patriotic' types in liberal circles. If there is such a thing.)
"However, I still believe in the populist message of the Democratic Party.......we are all Americans (fill in your favorite Democrat talking point here)...........and all have a right to (blah, blah, blah).........
You get the idea.
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.