Source on Old Rightists, New Rightists, Paleo-Cons, Neo-Cons, Agrarians, Fusionists, Libertarians...

Comte de Maistre

[ComtedeMaistre]

I just received an enquiry from a bright 20 year old sophomore, who is majoring in philosophy. She is interested in writing a paper on the historical development of ideological conservatism, and its various historical and present-day versions and offshoots, but she does not know much about the subject.

Obviously, I suggested the Conservative Mind, written by the late Dr. Russell Kirk. But it is a dated book, having been published in 1953, and does not have iformation about the developments in American conservatism since then?

Does anyone know of a book written in recent years, which traces the historical development of conservatism to recent times? A serious scholarly book written after 1980 would be ideal.

[ComtedeMaistre]

I have already lent her my vintage copies of classical liberalism texts by Nock, Mises, Roepke, and Hayek.

[William McKinley]

I doubt you would find much use for it, but there is some good in Lee Edwards' The Conservative Revolution.

It does not get much into the paleo/neo/etc debate, as that is extremely recent.

[nunoste]

Harry V. Jaffa, Charles Kessler, Leo Strauss, Alan Bloom, Francis Canavan, George Carey, Harvey Mansfield are all conservatives who are also academics. Don't forget though, that you cannot understand conservatism without a reading of the classics. Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, Cicero, Augustine, etc. and then those more contemporary thinkers who were guided by (the liberal thinkers) the classics; Machiavelli,Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Burke. Probably the most indespensible book on political philosophy is by Leo Straus and Joseph Cropsy, titled History of Political Philosophy.

[Maximilian]

I just read a review of a book that does exactly that, but since my mind seems to be going, I can't remember much about it. I assume I must have seen it on Lew Rockwell, but I'm not even certain. Sorry to be so little help, but at least it's useful to know that it exists. Now I'm recalling that it was a collection of essays, rather than a discursive text, which traced the conservative movement from WFB to at least the 1990's. The review said that it did a very good job covering all the relevant threads.

[snopercod]

Be sure to have her read Ayn Rand's Conservatism, an Obituary, a lecture given at Princeton University on December 7, 1960.

It is generally understood that those who support the "conservatives" expect them to uphold the system which has been camouflaged by the loose term of "the American way of life." The moral treason of the "conservative" leaders lies in the fact that they are hiding behind that camouflage: they do not have the courage to admit that the American way of life was Capitalism, that that was the politico-economic system born and established in the United States, the system which, in one brief century, achieved a level of freedom, of progress, of prosperity, of human happiness, unmatched in all the other systems and centuries combined--and that that is the system which they are now allowing to perish by silent default.

If the "conservatives" do not stand for capitalism, they stand for and are nothing; they have no goal, no direction, no political principles, no social ideals, no intellectual values, no leadership to offer anyone.

Yet capitalism is what the "conservatives" dare not advocate or defend. They are paralyzed by the profound conflict between capitalism and the moral code which dominates our culture: the morality of altruism...Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society.

[rmlew]

The best pre-1980 book is The Conservative Intellectual Tradition since 1945 by George Nash. It covers the Old Right, Agrarians, PaleoLibertarians, Fusion-Conservatism (modern conservatism), post 1965 Libertarianis, and the New/Religious Right.
The book does not deal with the Neoconservative movement, the paleoconservate movement, or post-Cold War fractures.
(Nash really needs to write another 4 chapters.

[Voss]

I found this article informative and quite readable: The Rise, Decline, and Reemergence of Classical Liberalism http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/essay.html

[Bonaparte]

Nash's book is good. I would add Keeping The Tablets (Buckley/Kesler, 1970/88), The Rise of the Right (Rusher, 1984), The Conservative Affirmation in America (Kendall, 1963).

[The American Man]

> Capitalism and altruism are incompatible <

I profoundly disagree. Be that as it may: we are now living under corporatism ( “friendly” fascism) not Capitalism. Big Government and big business are now “partners.” Welcome to the brave New World Order. Go here to read article by Robert Lock: Conservatism Under Corporatism.


> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3539 <

[rmlew]

You misunderstand Robert Locke. His argument is not that corporations are altruistic, but that they will work with the government in their own interest.

[TaxRelief]

You are a victim of the old "divide and conquer" tactic.

How many different types of liberals are there?

[NeoCaveman]

How many different types of liberals are there?

Enviromentalist whackos
Laborites
Trotskyites
Stalinists
Feminsits
Feminazis
Homosexual activists
Secular humanists
Moaists
Leninists
Third Wayers
Homeless Advocates
Socialists

And that is just a start

[Consort]

Let's see....we have neo paleo macro poly meta archeo metro fusion pluri necro pan genetic generic mono multi myria meso medio mani oligo hypo veteri plaid seni iso syn ultra ceno fuller-brush uni novi ideo intimi omni arch nema staunch paro idio mega ortho para peri pachy proto pseudo sym tauto coc-con hypno teleo single-issue duct-tape syl auto hyper holo RINO exo endo Pyrrich dys caco amphi allo acro scissorshead ambi ante urban apo phobic organic phony sover contra South-Park pater de Clinton intus super broken-glass rockhead circum narco extra conto ento infra intra trans post con retro sub ecto supra inter meth per socio national-greatness and compassionate conservatives.

We also have true real genuine actual authentic veritable absolute indubitable bona fide perfect up-front provable demonstrable unalloyed sterling palpable and unpretended Conservatives.

United we stand.

[IndependentSouthernDemocrat]

you forgot about the afronazis

[NeoCaveman]

you forgot about the afronazis

It was a partial list, but I guess you could add racial supremisists and segregationists of all races to the list.

Feel free to add more.

[IndependentSouthernDemocrat]

Is she a cutie? If so contact me and she will recieve some first class help from a paleo/libertarian/neo-Randolphian Southern conservative.LOL.

[Dumb_Ox]

Russell Kirk also edited The Portable Conservative Reader. Exclusively Anglo-American conservatism. It should be helpful.

[The American Man]

You Said: >”Capitalism and altruism (good will, kindness, charity, etc.) are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same MAN or in the same society.” <(emphases and bracketed words mine)

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I took exception to the phrase: ”they (Capitalism and altruism) cannot co-exist in the same MAN “ (emphases and bracketed words mine)

I believe I (a MAN) can be a capitalist, and also: be kind and charitable.

You write: “they (capitalism and altruism)are philosophical opposites.”(bracketed words mine)

I don’t think they (capitalism and altruism) can be opposites because “capitalism” does not -- necessarily -- take a stand one way or the other. I may use capital to tyrannize; or I may use it to do good works. Capitalism is a system, not a living being. I think you MAY have indulged in some reification, in regards to the term capitalism. In short: altruism is "positive," and capitalism is neither -- in and of itself -- positive or negative therefore; these sorts of comparisons(such as:“they are philosophical opposites”) -- like apples to oranges -- break down.


You said: “>You misunderstand Robert Locke. His argument is not that corporations are altruistic”<

Of course corporations are not (necessarily) altruistic; nor tyrannical. They are made up of real people. Corporations are no more, or less, than what people are. Capitalism is a SYSTEM employed (or agreed upon) by people. Capitalism is not a leaving thing. We have to be careful that we don’t indulge in reification here as that may lead to verbal misunderstandings.

PS: Are you a fan of Robert Locke?

[snopercod]

Before deciding if Rand was right or wrong, you might want to read the classical definition of Altruism.

As many words have these days, the meaning of this one has been co-opted and twisted so that most people believe it means "benevolence toward ones fellow men" or "charity".

It does not mean that at all. It means sacrificing oneself totally - giving up ones goals and living totally for others. And not "sacrificing" in the sense of giving up a meal out in order to save money for something else, sacrificing in the sense of giving up ones life for absolutely nothing.

[The American Man]

You write: >“ { Altruism.} means sacrificing oneself totally - giving up ones goals and living totally for others.” <

Of course, in theory, it's supposed to be the opposite of selfishness (a somewhat quixotic idea) The reality is that we are all selfish. Even the most “altruistic” person (Mother Teresa?)may be looking for a reward, such as: entering “heaven” after death and so forth. The only way
one could be truly altruistic would be to expand “self“ to include others: “Love they neighbor as thyself.” We get a taste for this idea when a man may lay down his life for a friend, or a mother may give up her life for a child. The fact is, as the philosophers say: ” No man is an island onto
himself...”

You write: > “sacrificing in the sense of giving up ones life for absolutely nothing.”

I don’t think anyone would WILLINGLY give up their life for “nothing.” However, it may seem that way to the onlooker.

In any case, you are correct in your assertion that the meaning of a word can change drastically. In fact, within a relatively short time -- say forty or fifty years -- a word may come to mean: the exact opposite of its original meaning!