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.
Yep!!
IMO .. it's Hillary that will be the problem .. remember she didn't jump into the 2000 Senate election until Feb, 2000
What's the deadline for entering the 2004 elections?
No, I would be telling him, "Let's see how the situation in Iraq plays out. Joe, as your advisor, I don't want you to say anything about it right now"
Wouldn't you do the same?
Hillary needs to capture the swing voters; I think people are on to her. IMHO.
Run-time error!
I find few, if any, who truly consider themselves to be "neo-conservatives." However, there is more than a few who love to throw that term around like confetti. Oftentimes, these are the ones who have the weakest arguments.
All in all, good piece of writing.
I've seen increasing agreement between the far left and the far right....it's a little scary.
And so real conservatives are asked to compromise again and again with our votes so Republicans can get in and push their agenda. Tell me, say the Republicans con a few on the left, gain the votes they need on promises, that as 'conservatives', you think they wouldn't keep to the new constituency. Exactly how many times will they be able to con these moderates into voting for them if they never pass moderate agenda items? One or two times before these moderates got to the Democratic side?
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? Are we just supposed to keep voting Republican as the President signs CFR (which hasn't been overturned), the Patriot Act, calls for extension on AWB (and I don't care that it may never reach his desk, he called for it and a conservative wouldn't even call for it), give $15 billion for AIDS in Africa (more than Clinton suggested), and put another industry on the government dole for $2 billion to come up with a car that no one wants? Never mind this new foreign policy brought to us by the fine folks at PNAC
Oh, but it's all strategery. I forgot....
It is about 'strategery'............but there is a such thing as a Pyhrric victory.
I agree .. but don't under estimate that women ..
The independant voters will be the key to the 2004 elections
...this author curiously leaves out those of religious persuasion..............
Probably a combination, with emphasis on free market?
Look at the title of this article, and look at the 'types' of conservatives the author lists; surprisingly, those of a religious flavor are left out.
Which has me wondering .
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.