Posted on 09/02/2003 10:13:04 AM PDT by Willie Green
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:03:06 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
William Rusher isn't a household political name. But he will go down in history as one of the important architects of the post-World War II conservative political movement that ultimately put Ronald Reagan in the White House.
Q: What is your definition of conservatism, and has it changed much in your lifetime?
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
"I think basically we have won the argument over the desirability of the free market, and that is a triumph at least as important as the triumph over communism."
We Claremont types are always propounding freedom in markets. (Wink!)
Brad Cloven
Economics, cum Laude
Claremont McKenna College, 1984
A: The other is the complete discrediting of socialism, which it seems to me nobody seriously tries to defend anymore, except the communists themselves.
This will be a hollow success for as long as socialism continues to expand even under the rule of those who claim to be conservative.
How can we claim to have won the argument when our market gets less and less free every passing year? I don’t' think we won the argument; we only correctly predicted what would happen to the Soviet economy. Even with that correct prediction, both parties are not convinced and don't listen to us.
There is even now a subset of conservatives called "National Greatness Conservatives" who want to make government not necessarily bigger but leaner, tougher, more muscular and more determined.
It looks like a nice way of avoiding saying what one knows to be true because some might be offended.
If Rusher's right it looks like the political wars of past decades really are over, and debates today are about who can best administer things. He could well be right, though political tempers run so high now that the surface impression is quite different. If it's true that the really big battles have been decided for the time being, it's a healthy position for the country to be involved in.
A: The... the complete discrediting of socialism, which it seems to me nobody seriously tries to defend anymore...
Oh? Breaking socialism down into its various incremental parts, naming and renaming them, and then continuing their implementation at full speed ahead, is no different than implementing them under their original name. If no one seriously tries to defend socialism anymore, it is because challengers to it aren't heard anymore. By breaking it down into its parts, they made it politically incorrect to criticize it. Thus, no defense necessary.
Divide and conquer...but from within?
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.