Replies

The writer has confused Conservatism as a concept, with some of the philosophic roots that many American Conservatives share. That is not the same thing--not at all. Those ideological roots did inspire the culture that emerged from the Revolution; and hence they remain sacred to rooted Americans; but they certainly do not define Conservatism for those who do not look to those roots to justify policy.

Put another way, they do not define Conservatism for all peoples; put yet another, they do not define Conservatism for all who consider themselves Conservative even in the American context--there being many who simply abhor the alternative in our politics, even though they do not necessarily even understand the philosophy of the Founding Fathers.

And while I certainly consider Coolidge largely a Conservative; the writer has cluttered his analysis with an effort to define the concept too subjectively.

Why is this important? The point is not merely academic. It leads to misunderstanding of what motivates people in other lands who would be our natural allies, if we understood that what is Conservative to them may not be the same thing as that which we desire to preserve for America. Failing to appreciate this--or deliberately ignoring this, if you are a militant internationalist--has led our State Department on many a fallacious path over the past two generations.