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.
Probably the same ones that will be the target of the Patriot Act if the Democrats ever got into power. Or if the Republican party moves much further left. It's quite plain to me conservative Christians like myself are becoming ignored by 'conservatives' almost daily.
Me! That's why.
But we can get back to the time when the world loved America for what we were and not whom we could conquer.
Back when America was a "free" nation? And just when was that? Please tell me. I really want to know when this period of time was.
We should be an example- not an enforcer.
Well, the "example" needed an "enforcer" to live up to her own ideals.
Turn back the clock? Not just 'no,' but 'hell no!'.
......this was the thought I had.............let's put it this way; whenever somebody posts an article, if an author writes a story, there is something they want to say.........and usually it can be said in a sentence. My take on this article?.............In a sentence?...What the author is trying to say?..........
Religious conservatives are messing up his 'big tent'. This article is a subliminal hit piece against that portion of the 'big tent'.
This fairly describes Burkean conservatism or so-called social conservatism. It is conservatism's living soul without which conservatism is a dead body, a money-grubbing atomistic exercise in moral relativism.
It is also the core life and power that animates our Great Constitution and makes freedom possible within its ambit of governance. As John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made for a moral and a religious people. It is wholly unsuited to any other."
Not 'trite' at all. How've you been living lately?
It's all good like two wings and a pepper over here.
The US doesn't have designs on taking over any nation. The US has nothing in common with the great historical empires of Great Britain, France and Spain. We have no design to conquer any nation.
Your political ideology and mindset can't accept the war on terrorism for what it is. As with WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Gulf War and even the VietNam War, American power is being used today to protect and defend US citizens, and those values of freedom and liberty that we cherish so dearly. Nothing more, nothing less. The world remains a dangerous place and only those that are prepared for anything will survive.
>>>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.
Stop living in a state of delusion. Most of the people in the world have been exposed to US society and culture due to the spread of worldwide communications and the ability to travel to the four corners of the globe. The people of the world are envious of the US and that envy breeds hatred. That hatred is a weakness, but isn't the fault of the American people or our freely elected government. We are a free and open society. Most of the nations of the world exist as closed societies or are straddled with serious restrictions.
And remember, people from all over the world, desperately want to live, work and play here in the USA.
Let me guess. You're a libertarian.
....Doing fine, rdb3, and ready to go............nice to hear from you.
Aren't religious conservatives included in social conservatives? I thought they were.
Absolutely!! And self-defense starts overseas. I would never advocate intervention just for the sake of it. I truly believe that our assault on Al-Qaida and the Taliban has saved American lives. We will never know who and how many, but I believe that there are people in America who will now live a full life because of the damage we inflicted on that organization.
It depends on who you ask, I suppose.
I agree.
Gosh, I didn't see the original but I am happy that you posted. This pretty much sums everything up.
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.
I'll bet their 'movement' matured..........I'm noticing that the author doesn't identify the things that in his mind identify the 'kooks', as he calls them..........
from which they could scold
............what would the 'kooks' be 'scolding' about?.................scolding is a peculiar choice of word.
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.
It doesn't matter whether this statement is true or not............it's the idea conveyed that matters most. 'Kooky' people belong to organizations such as the John Birch Society, which is known for its anti-communist stance. The author is trying to link anti-communism with a certain 'kookiness'.
as were the more extreme worshippers of Ayn Rand and the Habsburgs.
While not being someone who thinks highly of Randian philosophy, I would suspect leftists don't hold her in high regard either.
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.
This is a very revealing statement when seen in the context of the rest of the article.
Over the years, members of this coalition found that there are, in fact, very few pure adherents of any of the three tendencies.
I'll bet the author thinks that adherents of communism are 'pure' in their beliefs, however.
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.
What he means by 'extremists' are those outside of his 'big tent'.......and I know who the author means by these terms.............I'm well versed in 'Liberalese' (lies).
This author is full of it. He is no more a conservative than I am the guy who will be delivering toys to the kiddies comes next Christmas. I look lousy in red. I have a feeling that red suits this author quite well.
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.