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.
Discuss away.
BTTT
I think the author of this article is being a little wishful. Foreign policy is not a little issue and there are deep fisures on the right. A lot of nasty stuff has been said by both sides (but Frum was over the top). But having said all that I don't think the GOP or the conservative movement has much to worry about. Those of us on the right who oppose this war and the ones planned for the future are small in number.
Thanks for taking some of the words right out of my mouth. And in the name of conservative solidarity, I will hold my tongue and leave it at that.
Did David Keene beat her to the punch :-)
My thoughts exactly.
I don't know if I'd call the National Review and the Weekly Standard annoyed. But when you say "vibrant", do you mean as in, "sensitive"? If you do, I agree. Truth is, certain folks on the right are overly sensitive towards those who follow traditional conservatism. The problem is sensitivity and intellect are somewhat at odds. Sort of like the liberal establishment, in both regards, equal but opposite.
And the idea that the USA under the leadership of PresBush is pushing an empire agenda, is ridiculous and outrageous. Few Republicans and even fewer conservatives support anything related to "empire" building. This idea that neocons are massing at the gates is another absurdity. True neocons are hard to find.
But there is a fiesty little group of conservatives from all over the map who question the foreign policy of this country since the end of the Cold War. And for "National Review" to attack them time again means they annoy them. And "Empire" is the goal. Heck - it has been admitted and written about in the pages of such journals- mostly "The Weekly Standard."
This aricle is full of wisdom and common sense.
All one has to do is realize how delighted we (conservatives) are when the libs are terribly fractured by in-fighting. We delight in it because it makes them a much weaker force to reckon with.
We have our foot solidly in the door and we need to take advantage of every opportunity; big or small.
The unreasonable purists who demand the impossible or turn off the less conservatively inclined are an anchor around conservatism's neck.
It's about time a few unyielding minds realize that it is not a compromise of one's principles to gently pull others along and be patient. Sometimes that means you have to give a little to get a little.
All or nothing is a losing proposition in our diverse society.
Never an easy task but I'd say there are three pillars
1. limited government aka fiscal conservatives
2. traditional values aka social conservatives
3. strong national defense
I go for all three but also think that people who are "2 out of 3" aren't bad.
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.