[Note: This is part two of a four posts series on revitalizing the conservative movement. The first entry can be found here.]
Start the breathing
1. Broaden the base of conservatism -- Disagreement on policy used to be the hallmark of health for the conservative movement. Now, it is considered gangrenous and requires the amputation of the body politic that dares to dissent. Think tax cuts should be tied to spending? You're labeled a supply side heretic. Believe waterboarding is torture? You're labeled a liberal appeaser of terrorism. Believe that free trade requires free flow of labor? You're an apologist for for "shamnesty."
The level of discourse within the conservative ranks has taken a turn toward the surreal. No wonder many people (including many who call themselves conservatives) think the only answers that conservatism offers are the three T's: Torture, Tax cuts, and Throwing out the brown people.
Needless to say, conservatives must never waver on our core principles. But our problem today is that too few seem to remember what those principles are and where the boundary stakes are located. Our collective failure to understand what constitutes a conservative philosophy or worldview is preventing us from increasing our tribe.
2. Our conservative elite must be conservative, not just Republican -- Conservatism and Republicanism are not synonymous, a fact that too many of our elite pundits appear to have forgotten. A prime example is the infatuation with Rudy Giuliani by the Manhatten-DC elites. As Ramesh Ponnuru wrote last November, Rudy "won the pundit primary."
Geography accounts for some of the lopsided support for Giuliani. There aren’t a lot of conservatives in New York City, but a disproportionate share of conservative writers live in New York — and almost all of them support Giuliani. They are grateful to him for saving the city.
While we all should be grateful for Giuliani's accomplishments in New York, he was an unworthy champion to carry the conservative banner. Rudy was only modestly conservative in some of his policies but did not embody conservative principles. Our conservative elite have a duty not only to help us think through how we apply our principles to policy but also to help identify and groom future leaders that will strengthen the movement. If they will not undertake that role, then they do not deserve either our esteem or their exalted status within our ranks.
3. Start a conservative reformation -- As Russell Kirk once wrote, "The conservative is a person who endeavors to conserve the best in our traditions and our institutions, reconciling that best with necessary reform from time to time." Our two most urgent tasks today are to identify the best in our traditions and our institutions and offer necessary reforms that are fitting for our place in history. Although we have been failing on both accounts for almost two decades, we have the ability to usher in a revitalized conservative movement.
We need to learn more about our rich intellectual history. Turn off Rush Limbaugh and read Russell Kirk. We need to renew our emphasis on shoring up our foundation. Spend less time blogging about GOP politics and more time writing about conservative principles. And we need to unify around a coherent set of broad-based conservative principles. Less focus on fusionism, more focus on the fusion of social, economic, and national security advocates into one coherent conservative body.
Next: Part 3 -- Protect the Wound
Let me repost this from "Mormons and Romney Supporters Love Huckabee!" from the Super Tuesday thread:
"I am a Conservative, a Mormon, and a Romney supporter. Much is being made, wrongly in my view, about perceived antithesis towards Huckabee from Mormons and Romney supporters. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If Mitt Romney were not in the race, I, and MOST other Romney supporters, would be supporting Mike Huckabee. WE LOVE HUCKABEE! "
Although I fully understand that Mitt Romney couldn't publically ask his supporters to support Mike Huckabee in his CPAC speech given his desire to unite the Grand Old Party, I would like all Romney supporters who have yet to vote in their state's GOP primary to realize one thing:
A vote for Romney is a vote for McCain!
This paragraph is the best so far.
Now this I can get behind.
What I see is a growing rift between classical conservatism and neo-conservatism. One group of people desires a small, fiscally responsible government and a return to Christian values. Another seeks an active interventionist foreign policy and large social programs. The GOP is clearly dominated by neo-conservatives, and the classical conservatives are jumping off the bus.
The Republican party cannot win unless they are united, and that will not happen until conservatives have this internal struggle and debate and decide what their principles and beliefs are. And while the power of the country may shift left during that internal struggle, the GOP would be stronger and better off in the long-run.
Joe,
In the last post you spoke of uniting. Then you go on to question a commenter's intelligence and tell him he might want to "sit this one out." Here you write of broadening the base and then suggest we "Turn off Rush Limbaugh and read Russell Kirk." Seems a little divisive to me.
While we all should be grateful for Giuliani's accomplishments in New York, he was an unworthy champion to carry the conservative banner...
I notice you don't even mention any of Giuliani's specific policies, as either prosecutor or mayor, nor do you mention any of the results, good or bad, of his policies. If you want us to embrace "conservative" "principles," you'll have to do a better job of showing us why they're good here in the real world.
What's really sad about your whole thesis is your total refusal to even discuss the specific policies enacted by the "conservatives" who have run this country for the last eight years, or the consequences of those policies. After all this time, have you "conservatives" no landmark accomplishments to brag about or rally around? Have you no examples of how conservative governance can benefit our country?
Our conservative elite have a duty not only to help us think through how we apply our principles to policy but also to help identify and groom future leaders that will strengthen the movement.
After so many posts in which you, and other "conservatives," do everything you can to make "elite" a four-letter word, every single time an educated person disagrees with you (you even bash "elite pundits" and "Manhatten-DC elites" in the preceding paragraph of this very post!), this admonition is just plain ridiculous.
Of course, your recommendations for saving conservatism are degraded by the fact that you're not really a conservative; you're a religious radical trying to save his own radicalism by stealing the label "conservative" as a disguise.
If this post is from a Christian perspective then you have lost your way.
God has a very specific role for government that has never changed since this world was created. As a Christian, these are the principles that we need to embrace, then measure any and all politicians by this standard. If you do not know where I am coming from then it is critical that you investigate for yourself.
The best source of information is The Truth Project sponsered by Focus on the Family. You seem to me to be infected by the lies of this modern culture. If I'm wrong please clarify for me.
God has a very specific role for government that has never changed since this world was created.
Really? I thought God spoke to, listened to, and judged, humans as individuals, based on each individual's spiritual condition.
What "specific role" did God have for the governments of Hitler and Stalin to fulfill?
What I see here are a couple things. One, you're trying to argue that social conservatives need to ally themselves with the liberals in the party.
At first, this is a shocking notion, but then one realizes it makes sense. There are a number of factions in the party, and making deals with the other factions, even the most objectively non-useful faction, the liberals, is a way to benefit your own faction.
I tend to go toward the Libertarian faction, and thus to Fusionism, but there are distinct problems with that approach. Until recently, the Tarians were basically the servants of the RINO's (not because they liked the RINO's, but because they hated the socons more). I'm thinking maybe Tarians have realized that the RINO's really do want to run everyone else out of the party,a nd are on the verge of doing so, and so it might be time for a little strategic friendship.
I think Fusionism is a natural alliance being as we agree on the vast majority of issues, but for a long time on the Tarian part, Hatred ruled Reason.
But, we can make friends with the Liberals like McCain, and the Tarians too, and let them bid for our friendship instead of searching for new and unique insults to the 'red-neck, Bible-thumping, theocratic....'
Now, that's strategy.
And strategy says insulting Rush, and trying to weaken Talk Radio is bad for the Conservative Movement.
Now, lets look at principle.
I agree with your three-legged stool. You helped hopefully a lot of people when you made that analogy.
I'm a 3-legger.
Just what are the conservative principles?
1. Original sin. Humans are tragic figures, doomed to mess up. Any plan that involves utopia, or does not include the likelihood of human 'jerkhood' in it is fatally flawed. From this flows Checks and Balances, Limited Government, and the desire for Accountability and Transparency.
2. Grace. Still, if the proper actions are taken, the glass can be more than half-full. This is especially true if your fathers and grandfathers made the right choices. Choices snowball through time. America is great because our ancestors made good choices that benefit us.
3. That government governs best, which governs least. If you have a choice, tend to less gov't.
4. Law and Order must be clearly seen to be done. This is the first duty of gov't....from this flows the Border Fence.
5. A human has certain inalienable rights as part of being a human. God gave them. Even if others steal them, it does not take the fact away....abortion is treating other humans as property and is thus wrong.
6.
5.
What a TEASE! As if you would even consider embracing conservative principles, much less Conservative association... I can't even imagine you admitting that a conservative argument might be good. Doing so might freeze the internet.
Joe,
I respect where you are coming from, and you may be right. But FWIW, I posted from another perspective. Even when you moderated your position that McCain would get routed in Nov, you opined that the Dems would win in a nail-biter.
How to Save Conservatism:
Part II -- Start the Breathing
Start a conservative reformation
Joe, here's an excellent 1-2 punch in starting that conservative reformation by working to get Mike Huckabee elected as President:
(1) Romney announced today that he's suspending his presidential campaign.
(2) Dr. James Dobson has announced that he will support Governor Mike Huckabee for President.
Terrific Thursday is following Super Tuesday for Mike Huckabee!
Huckabee for President!
P.S. A vote for Romney is vote for McCain!
This is a good word, Joe, especially point #1. I work at a non-denominational Christian school and one of our biggest problems with teachers and families is the distinction between primary and secondary doctrine. At an institution like ours we affirm primary Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, and that God created the world. We have problems, however, when folks confuse the Young Earth/Old Earth debate for a battle over true Christianity.
Conservatism suffers from this same problem. Let's get clear on the "primary doctrines" of conservatism and the "secondary" ones. Let's affirm the primary ones, and let in anyone who can do likewise. We can hash out the secondary ones along the way, just like a family who knows they're all going on an outing, but can argue about where to go.
Any chance you could make your next series "The Primary Doctrines of Conservatism"?
This is a good word, Joe, especially point #1. I work at a non-denominational Christian school and one of our biggest problems with teachers and families is the distinction between primary and secondary doctrine. At an institution like ours we affirm primary Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, and that God created the world. We have problems, however, when folks confuse the Young Earth/Old Earth debate for a battle over true Christianity.
Conservatism suffers from this same problem. Let's get clear on the "primary doctrines" of conservatism and the "secondary" ones. Let's affirm the primary ones, and let in anyone who can do likewise. We can hash out the secondary ones along the way, just like a family who knows they're all going on an outing, but can argue about where to go.
Any chance you could make your next series "The Primary Doctrines of Conservatism"?
Raging Bee,
The Bible is the source of this information. It is not logical or relevent to throw out evil empires like the Nazis that were clearly not interested in creating a government that had a Biblical World View.
So ask yourself this first, is it the government's role to fulfill our needs or God's?
You said, "Turn off Rush Limbaugh and read Russell Kirk." Amen and amen. This nation is being ruled by pundits, because pundits are more entertaining and therefore have more listeners and viewers than classic conservative voices. While we're at it, turn off Hannity and read Burke. Turn off any number of partisan hacks and read the founding fathers. People are so uneducated as to what it means to be a conservative because they, myself included, grew up in the culture wars of the 90s. While we're at it turn off Colmes, Franken, and Michael Moore. We've got to quit equating a given party with a political philosophy. Just because you're a Republican doesn't automatically qualify you as a conservative.
Why wait for a "reformation" when you can join the R3VOLution!
What did our founding fathers view the success or failure of this great experiment called America?
(Note Adams view of what is essential for the survival of this nation. It was not more laws and regulations)
TO THE OFFICERS OF THE FIRST BRIGADE OF THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE MILITIA OF MASSACHUSETTS.
11 October, 1798.
GENTLEMEN,
I have received from Major-General Hull and Brigadier. General Walker your unanimous address from Lexington, animated with a martial spirit, and expressed with a military dignity becoming your character and the memorable plains on which it was adopted. While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
An address from the officers commanding two thousand eight hundred men, consisting of such substantial citizens as are able and willing at their own expense completely to arm and clothe themselves in handsome uniforms, does honor to that division of the militia which has done so much honor to its country.
Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken and so solemnly repeated on that venerable spot, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.
JOHN ADAMS.
(SOURCE: The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States; With A Life of the Author Notes and Illustrations of his Grandson Charles Francis Adams. Vol. IX, Books For Libraries Press, Freeport, New York, (First Published 1850-1856, Reprinted 1969), 228-29.
Jaybo,
What's your opinion on Mr. Dobson's statement the other day about not being able to vote for McCain because he is "not conservative" and sometimes seems more like a democrat than a republican?
Mr. Dobson is certainly entitled to express his views a present them to the public, but he seems to suggest that there is something wrong, perhaps even unchristian about not being conservative.
What's the truth project's view on this idea?
Joe writes: Start a conservative reformation
This is where the Conservative Reformation starts. With a genteel civil war between true conservatives. If you're against RINO liberalism as exemplified by McCain, then the "Anybody But McCain's" need to rally around Huckabee. If not, then you're just a sell-out, and you have one foot planted firmly in the RINO camp, and you have no business calling yourself a true conservative.
Choose this day: Either McCain or Huckabee.
Either choose RINO liberalism or choose True Conservative Principles. McCain or Huckabee.
Put up or shut up. The crux of the Conservative Reformation starts here with this decision. Does the GOP shift leftward with McCain or does the GOP remain true to its conservative heritage in Huckabee? Choose this day all of you who call yourselves a true conservative.
For me, I choose Huckabee. Staunchly.
P.S. This post is not directed to long-time McCain supporters. This post is directed towards all those who've disliked McCain in the past for not being a true conservative.
This seems relevent to the discussion here:
news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080208/cm_huffpost/085636
The Bible is the source of this information.
Care to be a little more specific?
So ask yourself this first, is it the government's role to fulfill our needs or God's?
What "needs" does an all-powerful God have that a human government can fulfill? It is the role of governments to fulfill the needs of the people who create and support them, and people are responsible for understanding and responding to the teachings of our Gods.
Jaybo: you posted a speech by John Adams; so I'll respond by quoting a LAW written by Thomas Jefferson, co-sponsored by James Madison, and passed by the Virginia Legislature (similar laws have since been passed in other states):
VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
[Sec. 1] Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
[Sec. 3] And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.
Now THERE'S a real conservative!
I sincerely thank you for writing this, but not for the reasons you would hope. This post is a good example of evidence pointing to the death of conservatism.
The problem with conservatism was (pretty much from the start) that it was too much like Communism, in that both systems assumed that a core idea applicable in a few cases would be a summum bonum for all situations.
Oh, yeah, and both systems ultimately becamse corrupted in the extreme... for example, take a bit of what Raging Bee left out of emphasis on his comment:
While Raging Bee thinks he's got some great point in saying "Look! they said 'God'!!!" the real point of his quote is that "faith-based welfare" supported by taxpayer dollars ought to be verboten, and that only non-religious, secular welfare should be the law of the land..
I sincerely thank you for writing this, but not for the reasons you would hope. This post is a good example of evidence pointing to the death of conservatism.
The problem with conservatism was (pretty much from the start) that it was too much like Communism, in that both systems assumed that a core idea applicable in a few cases would be a summum bonum for all situations.
Oh, yeah, and both systems ultimately becamse corrupted in the extreme... for example, take a bit of what Raging Bee left out of emphasis on his comment:
While Raging Bee thinks he's got some great point in saying "Look! they said 'God'!!!" the real point of his quote is that "faith-based welfare" supported by taxpayer dollars ought to be verboten, and that only non-religious, secular welfare should be the law of the land..
BTW, here:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080225/alterman
is another reason why conservatism is dead, dead, dead:
You see, it's simply better to be a liberal, by the above definition, then to be an elected conservative and to deliver to your constituency an unbroken string of 9/11's, Katrinas, Housing bubbles, torture scandals, racism, and Blackwater thugs.
That's what conservatism is in its performance, and no ideological tap-dancing will ever distract the American people from the shame and horror and poverty we have felt under the Bush Regime. Conservatism is thus like communism, in that its promises have all rung hollow, and its advocates have reaped the whirlwind.
Great series, Joe. It's well thought out with strong support for each of your points. Looking forward to reading "Protect the Wound."
What "needs" does an all-powerful God have that a human government can fulfill?
Poor wording on Jaybo's part. Better wording would have been something like "So ask yourself this first, is it the government's role to fulfill our needs or God's purpose?" Because, you are right that God doesn't need government to provide his needs, but he does sometimes use human institutions, including both good and bad governments, towards his own agenda.
That's what conservatism is in its performance
Liberalism in its performance is 1970's New York City. Conservatism in its performance is 1990's New York City. That's why liberalism is truly dead. Ask yourself, who among the Democratic candidates for President calls themselves a "Liberal"? If "liberalism is so great, you would think that people would be proud to adopt the name. That they don't should tell you something.
ucfengr If "liberalism is so great, you would think that people would be proud to adopt the name. That they don't should tell you something.
Yes. In fact, they would rather be called progressives now. But, guess what, the OLD progressives successfully changed their moniker to liberal for the same reason: everyone learned what they really stood for: left-wing ideology based on a Soviet style centrally controlled government. Now they want to be known as progressives (except for Mumon and Raging Bee who haven't a clue) again, hoping that everyone has forgotten that's what they used to be.
That's one of the funniest things about this debate. The liberals who are running for office cannot admit who they are and what they believe in. Not even that daring speaker-of-truth-to-power Keith Olbermann is a liberal.
Ideologies don't die; they just become unpopular. (Incidentally, the same applies to musical genres.)
And I think Mumon's #24 is quite amusing, particularly because JFK purposefully redefined "liberal" to mean something other than what people generally mean by it (and redefined it with far more favorable connotations). You don't redefine a term with a public meaning to make it more favorable and then argue against an opposing view by saying, "See, look, this means something good now!" And that applies even if the redefinition came from the mouth of JFK.
I am liberal and Christian. Anybody got a problem with that?
I am liberal and Christian. Anybody got a problem with that?
John W, how do you define liberal? How do you define being a Christian and identifying yourself as one?
For example, just to cut to the chase: Many liberals strongly support abortion and strongly support gay marriage.
On the other hand, many Christians, as faithful disciples of Jesus, have searched the Scriptures and know that their Lord and Savior Jesus would not support the killing of unborn life and He would not support same-sex behavior.
Do you have a problem with that?
I am liberal and Christian. Anybody got a problem with that?
What if someone does? Pistols at dawn or perhaps something less permanent?
Once again, Joe starts from the presumption that conservatism is always right, always best, always the most Christian position. How did you decide that? Is it because the prophets and Jesus and Paul were such staunch political conservatives?
In 1860, who were the conservatives - the proslavery apologists (who did have the Bible on their side), or the abolitionists? Just from a purely political standpoint, who were the conservatives?
I've benefited from your perspective this election season, but your caricature "Throwing out the brown people" borders on slander. Demanding that our elected officials enforce the law to maintain national sovereignty has nothing to do with skin color but everything to do with Rule of Law. Without Rule of Law our Republic will fall into mobocracy or totalitarianism. Racism is a filthy, God-dishonoring sin, and an insinuation of it should not be made so flippantly.
Blessings,
a fellow pilgrim
Ex-preacher, conservatives usually take a strictly literal position on the bible and the bible does not condemn slavery in either the old or new testaments. Therefore opposing slavery is the non-conservative position. Many southerns used the bible to support their position on slavery back in the civil war times.
I think what many conservatives have is a selective literal interpretation of the bible. For instance, Christ explicitly condemns divorce, but says nothing against being homosexual. Today, divorse is no big deal, but homosexuality is used as a political wedge issue.
In 1860, who were the conservatives - the proslavery apologists (who did have the Bible on their side), or the abolitionists? Just from a purely political standpoint, who were the conservatives?
I think we could have an interesting conversation on how political labels have changed over the past century or so. The abolitionists were certainly liberal in that they favored the cause of human liberty and freedom, "do modern liberals"? Well (generally speaking), they favor limiting free speech through the imposition of a "Fairness Doctrine" and campus speech codes. They also oppose a citizen's right to self-defense, by striving to severely limit a the right to own arms. They also tend to favor a government takeover of the health care system, which would severely limit the freedom of hundred of thousands of doctor and nurses, not to mention patients. Really, if you look at it, "modern liberals" don't really liberty as they favor state control of the individual. That really makes them more akin to statists than traditional liberals.
Truth unites,
A christian is a follower of Jesus Christ and who trust in him for salvation. A liberal christian sees the bible as a sacred book presenting God's truth, but recognizes it was written by human beings who lived in a different time and culture. The liberal appreciates the bible, but recognizes that slavery is wrong despite the fact the bible does not condemn it.
Examples of liberal Christians are William Sloane Coffin and Martin Luther King Jr.
I especially appreciate King's April 1967 speech concerning the Vietnam war (see www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html). I think King followed the way Christ presented in the Sermon on the Mount. Many conservative christians called King a communist during the civil rights struggle.
Things have really become quite twisted in our country when Ann Coulter presents herself as being a conservative Christian. I saw her on CSPAN last night bashing McCain-she was quite meanspirited and evil looking. I want no part of her brand of christianity.
Uncefn,
Do you actually know any liberals or are you just going by what you see on the TV?
Let's stay focused on the question at hand, ucgengr - what does it mean to be a conservative? So I ask again, who were the conservatives in 1860, the defenders of the institution of slavery or the abolitionists?
Sorry for the typo, ucfengr.
"Less focus on fusionism, more focus on the fusion of social, economic, and national security advocates into one coherent conservative body."
Maybe, but you are not going to get anywhere telling the paleoconservatives that they are not "real" conservatives. We were here before you came, and we'll be here after you go. And pretending that we are not conservatives will not result in any victory for the social conservatives. It will only fragment the party and make all of us irrelevant.
William Oliver,
I went over to your blog and read what you had to say about this thread. You made some good points.
Thanks.
The point is that I am not antagonistic to Christian conservatives -- since I am a Christian and a conservative. I think, however, that there really *is* a way to fuse Christian conservatism with paleosconservatism if one focuses on the individual transformation inherent in Christianity. In that sense, both paleoconservatism and Christianity are focused on individualism. The problem comes when conservative Christians abandon the idea of transforming society through conversion and instead focus on transforming society through coercion. When they do that, they betray both conservatism and the teachings of the Christ.
Thus, those who define "conservative" in that way do so by betraying the fundamentals of both conservatism and Christianity -- and lose the party in the process.
"We need to learn more about our rich intellectual history. Turn off Rush Limbaugh and read Russell Kirk. "
Better yet, get Rush Limbaugh to read Russell Kirk. On the air.
The thoughtful heirs of Kirk at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute seem to be much more underrepresented on the airwaves than 800-word-article pundits or represetatives of think tanks like AEI.
While I realize that Rush's schtick is boiling down conservatism to soundbytes, a bit more depth could go a long way.
How to Save Conservatism: Part II -- Start the Breathing
Yo Joe! Our guy Huckabee is still breathing after Saturday's primaries! Sho' would be nice if Huck made up that 240+ vote deficit in Washington and won the state of Washington to go with his wins in Kansas and Louisiana.
That's a nice momentum boost!
For all you Romneyians who have yet to vote in your GOP primary, please remember this:
A vote for Romney is a vote for McCain!"
So vote for Huck to stop McCain!!!
How to Save Conservatism: Part II -- Start the Breathing
Yo Joe! Our guy Huckabee is still breathing after Saturday's primaries! Sho' would be nice if Huck made up that 240+ vote deficit in Washington and won the state of Washington to go with his wins in Kansas and Louisiana.
That's a nice momentum boost!
For all you Romneyians who have yet to vote in your GOP primary, please remember this:
A vote for Romney is a vote for McCain!"
So vote for Huck to stop McCain!!!
Let's stay focused on the question at hand, ucgengr - what does it mean to be a conservative? So I ask again, who were the conservatives in 1860, the defenders of the institution of slavery or the abolitionists?
I am focused, but I don't accept your premise of the question at hand. It is meaningless to argue about who were the liberals and who were the conservatives in the pre-Civil War slavery debate unless we have a clear understanding of what the terms mean. If liberal means supporting individual freedom and liberty, then (as I said in my earlier post) slavery opponents were the liberals, but how is that relevant to the present. Generally speaking, "Modern liberals" believe in expanding the power of the government at the expense the individual, while "modern conservatives" believe in limiting the power of the government over the individual, so, any attempt to compare "modern conservatives" to pre-Civil War "conservatives" is misguided, at best.
Sorry for the typo, ucfengr.
Apology accepted.
Do you actually know any liberals or are you just going by what you see on the TV?
And purpose of this query is, John?
ucfengr:
NYC in the 1970s wasn't ever really as bad as it was represented, and let's face it, the Baby Boom and the Rockefeller Drug Laws - neither of them liberal ideas - shaped the seamy side of NYC more than anything.
I was in NY back then.
...favor limiting free speech through the imposition of a "Fairness Doctrine" and campus speech code.
We favor the use of resources that are owned by the people - such as broadcast spectrum - in a way that benefit their owners.
There simply is no reason to allow private property owners who lease our spectrum to use it contrary to our interests.
Duh!
"Christian" cynic:
because JFK purposefully redefined "liberal" to mean something other than what people generally mean by it
Actually, it was the right wing that did this; prior to the emergence of an extremist right-wing in this country, "liberal" meant what it always did: it stood for you know, liberty and political power in the hands of individuals. The fact that political power is correlated with wealth is something that the rightists, from the Falangists in Spain to the supporters of Pinochet, to those of Roberto d'Aubisson, to those of Ronald Reagan could not abide. So they had to turn "liberal" into a bad thing.
NYC in the 1970s wasn't ever really as bad as it was represented,
It was pretty damn close; I was there too.
There simply is no reason to allow private property owners who lease our spectrum to use it contrary to our interests.
Contrary to who's interest? I think there should be more Bluegrass and Caribbean Jazz on the airwaves, neither of which have significant market demand, and less rap, which has significant market demand. Under what theory of "free speech" should I be able to force privately owned radio stations to change their programming to suit my tastes over everyone else's? And let's be honest, there is plenty of unused spectrum on both the FM and AM bands, even in the DC metro area, where I live.
"Actually, it was the right wing that did this; prior to the emergence of an extremist right-wing in this country, "liberal" meant what it always did: it stood for you know, liberty and political power in the hands of individuals. The fact that political power is correlated with wealth is something that the rightists, from the Falangists in Spain to the supporters of Pinochet, to those of Roberto d'Aubisson, to those of Ronald Reagan could not abide. So they had to turn "liberal" into a bad thing."
The fact that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have different meanings on either side of the pond is not news. However, when US libs play these word games to pretend that the party of Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Shumer is the party of small government, they make themselves just look silly.
Indeed, using the Continental definition of the term, the Republicans are the "liberal" party. That doesn't change what the Dems are, however.
ucfengr,
Re 47, I asked because your characterization of "liberals" seems like a bunch of cliches from Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly, or Sean Hannity.
Also, "'modern conservatives' believe in limiting the power of the government over the individual"? Are you now admitting the Bush administration is not conservative? I would have to agree with you there.
I asked because your characterization of "liberals" seems like a bunch of cliches from Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly, or Sean Hannity.
You mean liberals aren't generally in favor of nationalized, or at least significantly greater government control of health care, the "Fairness Doctrine" and other restrictions on free speech like McCain-Feingold, and much greater restrictions on gun ownership? Interesting. Please feel free to enlighten me as to where I have mischaracterized liberal positions.
Are you now admitting the Bush administration is not conservative?
I don't know that I've ever made the case that GWB was a conservative. He is conservative on some issues, and he was more conservative than his opponents in 2000 and 2004, but he was never a conservative.
ucfengr writes: "It is meaningless to argue about who were the liberals and who were the conservatives in the pre-Civil War slavery debate unless we have a clear understanding of what the terms mean."
I would agree. Let me go further and say that any debate over who is conservative and who is liberal is meaningless, period. Conservative essentially means against change and liberal is for change. What matters is: what are we changing? I'm sure I can find a hundred issues in which being conservative is wrong and another hundred where being conservative is right. On some issues, I'm conservative, on some I'm liberal. Is it conservative or liberal to favor a more lenient immigration policy? Before you answer, check Reagan's position. There are pro-choice conservatives, pro-gun liberals, etc, etc.
Instead of stupid arguments over terms that nobody can agree on, why don't we talk about what's right and wrong, what makes sense and what doesn't? The whole liberal vs. conservative argument is just a glorified game of schoolyard rivalry. Let's get beyond the two-dimensional, black-and-white, Manichean view of the world. There are lots of shapes and sizes and colors out there in the real world.
I'm willing to admit that nearly all conservatives are actually very nice people who have noble goals in mind. Are you willing to say that about liberals? Yes, we may have different views about the best means, but I think we all want to see a better world where sick people get treatment, hungry people get fed, the homeless get shelter, war is obsolete, people have freedom, and justice and liberty prevail.
How about instead of wasting time with useless debates over abstract terms, let's discuss specific solutions to our real problems?
Let me go further and say that any debate over who is conservative and who is liberal is meaningless, period.
Then why did you bring one up?
Conservative essentially means against change and liberal is for change.
But conservatives aren't a priori against change, nor are liberals for change. The real difference is the level of respect for history and tradition. That's why modern liberals were originally known as "Progressives", they wanted to progress beyond "outmoded" traditions like love of country and kin.
ucfengr,
Thanks for the clarifications.
Now I understand:
Liberals hate America and their Family.
Conservatives love America and their Family.
Thanks for clearing that up for everyone. Brilliant!
"That's why modern liberals were originally known as "Progressives", they wanted to progress beyond "outmoded" traditions like love of country and kin."
That's one asinine comment, ucfengr. Shows you could care less about anyone who disagrees with you. When Obama or Clinton propose universal health care, do you seriously think they do it because they hate their country? and their families? And want to see America destroyed?
You can disagree with their politics, but this crap about love of country and kin is petty and beneath the dignity of a Christian, if you are one.
Grow up.
ucfengr,
Perhaps you are right, instead of dividing people into liberal and conservative camps it would be more useful compare right wing authoritarian followers with people who can approach situations and challenges to their assumptions with an open and logical mind. Instead of looking for their leaders to tell them what to think.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism
Raging Bee (post # 21),
Do you know the context of the document that you posted above? It was in response to the movement within the colonies at that time to establish "official churches" like those that were established by England, France and Spain. This was in direct opposition to the ideals of many immigrants that came to this country because they were escaping these types of government sanctioned denominations at the expense of all other denominations practicing within the state.
When you read the article in the light of the events of that time the context of the law is clear. There has never been an interest to expunge religious thought from politics in this country.
That's one asinine comment, ucfengr. Shows you could care less about anyone who disagrees with you. When Obama or Clinton propose universal health care, do you seriously think they do it because they hate their country? and their families? And want to see America destroyed?
I re-read my post just to be sure, and as I suspected, I didn't say "progressives" hated their country or family; what I said was that they thought such institutions (you can add religion and private property as well) outmoded. In other words, "progressives" think that before we can get to a society (to quote ex-preacher) "where sick people get treatment, hungry people get fed, the homeless get shelter, war is obsolete, people have freedom, and justice and liberty prevail" we need to progress beyond the outmoded traditions that are holding back our advancement.
ucfengr,
Perhaps you are right
John, you should have stopped right here, because the rest of your post makes absolutely no sense.
Ucengr,
Let me clear things up for you-you seem to be a right-wing authoritarian follower.
Like all other human beings, the modern liberal reveals his true character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in what he articulates with passion. Of special interest, however, are the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate: his agenda does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach an ethic of self-reliance and self-determination; it does not praise courage, forbearance or resilience; it does not celebrate the ethics of consent or the blessings of voluntary cooperation. It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating. The liberal agenda does not comprehend an identity of competence, appreciate its importance, or analyze the developmental conditions and social institutions that promote its achievement. The liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or impose strict limits on coercion by the state. It does not celebrate the genuine altruism of private charity. It does not learn history’s lessons on the evils of collectivism.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean waits to speak at the National Press Club in Washington, in this Wednesday, Nov. 8, 2006 file photo. Some Liberals are having a snit over Dean giving the keynote address at their upcoming convention to elect a national leader, saying the unsuccessful U.S. presidential candidate has no place telling Canadians how to win elections. What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are “workers,” “minorities,” “the little guy,” “women,” and the “unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the “root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: “Big Business,” “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the selfish.”
The liberal cure for this endless malaise is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking. It is a government everywhere doing everything for everyone. The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust.” To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. With liberal intellectuals sharing the glory, the liberal politician is the hero in this melodrama. He takes credit for providing his constituents with whatever they want or need even though he has not produced by his own effort any of the goods, services or status transferred to them but has instead taken them from others by force.
It should be apparent by now that these social policies and the passions that drive them contradict all that is rational in human relating, and they are therefore irrational in themselves. But the faulty conceptions that lie behind these passions cannot be viewed as mere cognitive slippage. The degree of modern liberalism’s irrationality far exceeds any misunderstanding that can be attributed to faulty fact gathering or logical error. Indeed, under careful scrutiny, liberalism’s distortions of the normal ability to reason can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche. The modern liberal mind, its distorted perceptions and its destructive agenda are the product of disturbed personalities.
As is the case in all personality disturbance, defects of this type represent serious failures in development processes. The nature of these failures is detailed below. Among their consequences are the liberal mind’s relentless efforts to misrepresent human nature and to deny certain indispensable requirements for human relating. In his efforts to construct a grand collectivist utopia—to live what Jacques Barzun has called “the unconditioned life” in which “everybody should be safe and at ease in a hundred ways”—the radical liberal attempts to actualize in the real world an idealized fiction that will mitigate all hardship and heal all wounds. (Barzun 2000). He acts out this fiction, essentially a Marxist morality play, in various theaters of human relatedness, most often on the world’s economic, social and political stages. But the play repeatedly folds. Over the course of the Twentieth Century, the radical liberal’s attempts to create a brave new socialist world have invariably failed. At the dawn of the Twenty-first Century his attempts continue to fail in the stagnant economies, moral decay and social turmoil now widespread in Europe. An increasingly bankrupt welfare society is putting the U.S. on track for the same fate if liberalism is not cured there. Because the liberal agenda’s principles violate the rules of ordered liberty, his most determined efforts to realize its visionary fantasies must inevitably fall short. Yet, despite all the evidence against it, the modern liberal mind believes his agenda is good social science. It is, in fact, bad science fiction. He persists in this agenda despite its madness.
From: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LyleHRossiterJrMD/2006/12/04/the_liberal_mind_the_psychological_causes_of_political_madness
Let me clear things up for you-you seem to be a right-wing authoritarian follower.
Well, you seem like an ass, but it's kind of silly to base our opinions of each other on the basis of a few blog posts, isn't it?
Truth...
It's really not at all useful to imply an opponent's political beliefs, no matter how much you disagree with them, are akin to a mental illness. It doesn't serve to either enlighten or persuade, in fact it tends to do the opposite.
Ucfengr,
Actually, IMHO, it's not a mental illness, but a spiritual illness that plagues ALL of us. And I stand by the Word of God's diagnosis about humans and our fallen condition.
And if it offends, repels, and fails to enlighten or persuade, then I make no apologies for that. I stand on the Bible as Divine, Objective, Transcendent, Universal Truth.
And spiritual illness leads to mental illness. So I support and stand by the psychiatrist who wrote the article above.
Let us agree to disagree agreeably ucfengr.
Actually, IMHO, it's not a mental illness, but a spiritual illness that plagues ALL of us.
That's nice, but then why post an article implying that only liberals are mentally and, by extension, spiritually ill? If this illness "plagues ALL of us", why is it only liberals who apparently take the leap into "psychopathology"?
And I stand by the Word of God's diagnosis about humans and our fallen condition.
Which book of the Bible is the good Doctor Rossiter credited with?
Let us agree to disagree agreeably ucfengr.
I am not sure what the point of this statement is. Have I given any indication that I am incapable of disagreeing agreeably?
Truths unites...,
That stuff in your post-sounds like it came straight from Human Events magazine.
Lots of fancy words that mean nothing.
I couldn't stomach reading your post to the end, so I didn't see it came from wwww.townhall.com-Human Events / Townhall.com, about the same in my opinion...
Some silly rhetorical questions just beg for a response.
Dr. Lassiter did not write a book of the Bible. You really thought he did?
The "Right-wing authoritarianism" diagnosis is not as insightful as the following diagnosis by Dr. Lassiter: "The modern liberal mind, its distorted perceptions and its destructive agenda are the product of disturbed personalities."
Truth...,
Why is Dr. Lassiter diagnosis insightful? For instance why or in what way is the modern liberal's perceptions distorted and personality destructive?. And why is the "liberal agenda" destructive.
Also, what do you or Dr. Lassiter thinking about the Modern Jew, Modern Black man, the Modern Homosexual, and the Modern non-christian? Would society be better if these types of people would just keep quiet and stay in their place?
John W, I should like you to ask yourself the very same questions, but instead, please pose them towards Dr. Bob Altemeyer who advances the theory of "Right Wing Authoritarianism".
Would society be better if these types of people would just keep quiet and stay in their place?
Is that your suggestion, John W?
Bob Altemeyer, who describes himself as moderate politically, says right-wing authoritarian followers make their decisions on what their established authority figures say-there is a lack of independent analysis. Ideas and beliefs must conformed to the established ways.
For instance, a authoritarian follower would say all christians must be conservative. This is what they hear from Dr. James Dobson and similiar authority figures.
Ok, your turn Truths....
Some silly rhetorical questions just beg for a response.
Dr. Lassiter did not write a book of the Bible. You really thought he did?
Do you know what a rhetorical question is? It is a question designed, not to be answered, but to illustrate a point. In this case I was pointing out that you appear to equate Dr. Rossiter's (not Lassiter) medical diagnosis of several million people he has never examined with the Word of God.
The "Right-wing authoritarianism" diagnosis is not as insightful as the following diagnosis by Dr. Lassiter:
This was not my diagnosis, it was a diagnosis of me by JohnW, a (I assume) non-doctor who has never examined me. I should also note that Dr Rossiter (not Lassiter) has never examined me either.
Bob Altemeyer, who describes himself as moderate politically, says right-wing authoritarian followers make their decisions on what their established authority figures say-there is a lack of independent analysis.
Did you do any independent analysis of Dr. Bob's theories, John, or do you just submit to him as an "established authority figure"?
Mumon: first, some high points for putting scare quotes around "Christian". Questioning a self-attribution is always a great way to start off reasonable discussion.
Really now? sourceBut of course that is secondary: the fact is that 'liberal' meant (and still means) something different in American politics than what JFK said. You cannot simply disassociate a term from its public meaning and then use that to argue against your opponents. What JFK did is essentially this:
1. To be liberal is really to stand for all these good things.
2. Conservatives differ in ideology from liberals.
3. Therefore, conservatives want the negation of all these good things.
Of course, the liberalism in #1 is different from the liberalism in #2, so the argument is invalid on grounds of equivocation. You said that "conservatism is dead, dead, dead" on these grounds, and so you are just as culpable of the error.
[P.S. I'm not anti-liberal (my wife voted for Kerry in '04, and her family are quite liberal as well), and I would only consider myself moderately conservative on some issues. I just don't like this whole "JFK said liberals like these good things, so nyah on you conservatives" crap. I just like some integrity in how language is used, really.]
I've been thinking about this since you posted it, and I think it needs some refinement. I don't think that they want to progress beyond those traditions so much as they want 'the progress' (so to speak) to redefine those objects of tradition. They want to remake the family and conflate it with the state (Big Brother/Sister, Mom, and Pop), and they want to remake the country into 'family' with the rest of the world (we're all equal and brothers and sisters don't fight each other, they play nice, right?). In essence, they want to make progressive improvements to the older traditions. They want love of country to be blended with dependency... they want love of family to be inclusive of those external to biological family.
Has anyone else noticed how many people here like to invent, then demolish, liberal strawmen, instead of actually trying to define and defend conservatism?
Has anyone else noticed how many people here like to invent, then demolish, conservative strawmen, instead of actually trying to define and defend liberalism?
There you go again. What is the topic of this post?
Read the first comment and Vote For Huckabee!!
That will start the breathing to save Conservatism.
Let's take a look at real liberals:
http://www.zombietime.com/berkeley_marines_2-12-2008/
Then keep in mind the Dr. Lassiter article that I posted above.
Truth Unites...,
Checked out the photos on that link.
What do you think should be done to these protestor? Should these people be locked up as traitors for expressing their viewpoints in public?
John
Should these people be locked up as traitors for expressing their viewpoints in public?
I'd like to dump the question back on your lap regarding pro-life protesters at abortion clinics:
Should pro-life protesters be locked up and arrested for expressing their viewpoints in public?
Truth U.,
Ofcourse not. And you should respect the Berkeley protesters right to disent too. In fact a true patriot would defend the rights of both groups to speak out against the government.
If you think about it they are both concerned with life issues.
John
We agree John W.
Then why do so many liberal leftists want to curb the free-speech rights of pro-life protesters when they assemble at abortion clinics?
Hi,
DK bedste Sted at låne penge.
Så er der blevet lanceret en slags Ebay for folk der gerne vil låne.
Når der føres kontraktiv pengepolitik hæver nationalbanken sin diskonto.
Så starter min ønsker at låne t vælge forskellige
[URL=http://www.frip.dk/xlaan]Lån Penge[/URL]
Lån
vbt6yjhgn