Recently in Con/Liberal Category

William F. Buckley Jr. died Wednesday at the age of 82. Here are four things I'll miss about the great conservative thinker:

1. His ability to say things that would get other conservatives read out of the movement. My favorite example is his comparing people who do not oppose smoking to Zyklon B defendants:

Stick me in a confessional and ask the question: Sir, if you had the authority, would you forbid smoking in America? You'd get a solemn and contrite, Yes. Solemn because I would be violating my secular commitment to the free marketplace. Contrite, because my relative indifference to tobacco poison for so many years puts me in something of the position of the Zyklon B defendants after World War II. These folk manufactured the special gas used in the death camps to genocidal ends. They pleaded, of course, that as far as they were concerned, they were simply technicians, putting together chemicals needed in wartime for fumigation. Some got away with that defense; others, not.

Those who fail to protest the free passage of tobacco smoke in the air come close to the Zyklon defendants in pleading ignorance

2. His awesomely bad sentences.

3. His ability to see what was truly important. From the beginning, WFB understood something about conservatism that many people forgot (or never recognized). As he wrote in the forward of God and Man at Yale:

I myself believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level. I believe that if and when the menace of Communism is gone, other vital battles, at present subordinated, will emerge to the foreground.

4. His ability to groom talent. To assess WFB's accomplishments in this areas, it is useful to compare him to another giant of the conservative movement, Rush Limbaugh. What Rush is to talk radio, Buckley was to ideological journalism. Yet while Rush has not directly groomed any protégés he has spawned dozens of imitators (many who have surpassed their role model). Conversely, Buckley seems to have no direct imitators yet leaves behind a lengthy list of accomplished protégés. He discovered, among other notables, Garry Wills, George Will, Richard Brookhiser, and David Brooks. He also fathered two national treasures, Christopher Buckley and National Review. In my view, who you inspire is more important that what you accomplish. By this standard, WFB has left behind a worthy legacy. Requiescat in pace.

[Note: This is part four of a four posts series on revitalizing the conservative movement. The first entry can be found here.]

Treat for Shock

When a person is injured or under great stress, the cardiovascular system may not be able to circulate enough blood to maintain normal bodily functions. This condition is called shock. The fact that many conservatives are in shock is evident by their willingness to cede the election to Clinton or Obama. For them to be able to make such comments is evidence that an adequate supply of blood is not getting to their brains.

The treatment for this condition is to have them lie on the floor with their feet elevated until the blood flows back to their head. Once the circulation returns, have them sit by an open window so that the breeze can blow in allowing them to catch the pungent whiff of what is commonly called "reality."

The reason many conservative have become susceptible to shock is because they are infected by a strain of political purism. At best conservatism is a philosophy of governance that mixes pure practical wisdom with the dross of political folly. But some have come to expect a pure, unadulterated ideology--and reject anything that falls short of the ideal. They have succumbed to a pseudo-nostalgia for a brand of pure conservatism that never actually existed. A prime example is the hagiographic reflections of Reaganism as a conservative ideal. Instead of remembering a a savvy leader made necessary concessions and compromises, they long for the messianic return of the conservative king who will lead us back to Eden (or, at least, the 1980s).

Perhaps we have caught this peculiar disease from our political cousins, the Libertarians--a group for whom political purism has become a genetic malady. If so, then we conservatives may find the answer in applying the same curative approach used by the neo-libertarians.

In a brief but enlightening description, Jon Henke explains neolibertarianism and how it corrects for the excesses of libertarianism:

The libertarian ideal of a truly limited government is an utopian dream. In the real world, where powerful interests-individual and collective-compete for the reins of power, there will be violations of the ideals libertarians hold. After all-as a result of their disavowal of power-libertarians are uniquely unqualified to defend their ideals against political opposition.

In his book "The Autobiography of an Idea: Neo-Conservatism Selected Essays 1949-1995", Irving Kristol wrote…

"In our urbanized, industrialized, highly mobile society, people need governmental action of some kind if they are to cope with many of their problems: old age, illness, unemployment, etc. They need such assistance; they demand it; they will get it.

The only interesting political question is: How will they get it?"

Indeed, all the "standing athwart history, yelling 'stop!'" we can muster will not be enough to assuage the natural human desire to "vote themselves largess out of the public treasury", or otherwise seek their own interests.

So, doctrinaire Libertarians are fighting an uphill battle against human nature. And they do so, precisely because they refuse to accept human nature as a part of their political calculation. Economics is the study of how humans allocate scarce resources. Politics is merely a social corollary to economics-the study of the allocation of values….Pragmatic libertarians—Neolibertarians—cannot win, but we can ameliorate the loss.

This seems like a sober and sensible approach to take. While I'm less sanguine about conservatism chances than Jon is about neolibertarianism, I do think we have to brace ourselves for the inevitable setbacks. Even in the GOP were to win control of both the Congress and the Presidency, the conservative movement is likely to undergo more losses than victories over the next four years.

Nevertheless, we can ameliorate the loss. To paraphrase Henke, "Indeed, Leviathan is with us, for better or worse. [Conservatives] should try to make it better, rather than worse." This we can do whether the President is McCain, Clinton, or Obama.

So after the blood returns we must once again take to our feet, stand athwart history, and yell, "Whoa, dude, slow down!"

[Note: This is part three of a four posts series on revitalizing the conservative movement. The first entry can be found here.]

Protect the wound

Just as there are necessary precautions taken in first aid to protect the wound from further harm, there are steps we need to take to ensure that conservatism does not suffer future damage.

Converts are welcome, but only the tested can lead -- In December of 2005 Human Events, Ronald Reagan's favorite newspaper, listed Mitt Romney as one of the Top 10 RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). Two years later Romney was considered by some pundits to be only one who could unite the "Reagan coalition." Why was a new convert to conservatism crowned by the establishment as the best choice for President? Unfortunately, it says more about the state of our conservatism than it does about the candidate. Even if Romney's conversion into a "full spectrum" conservative is sincere, he was too green, too untested, and too ill-prepared to by the carry our banner. (Romney could be the heir to Ford but not to Reagan.)

To be a leader of the conservative movement requires more than simply paying homage to Reagan and checking off the right boxes on a voter guide. We need men and woman that are capable of making strong arguments for why our principles and policy positions are preferable to the alternatives. In order to do this they must have spent time ruminating on these issues and have developed a full understanding of why they believe what they believe. As Governor Huckabee said in a speech at the Values Voter Summit, "I think it’s important that people sing from their hearts and don’t merely lip-synch the lyrics to our songs."

In the future we must ensure that conservative leaders at all levels--from local school board members to Presidential candidates--are well-versed enough that they can sing in harmony from our songbook.

Groom the Next Generation Now -- A decade ago conservatives championed term limits for members of Congress. Now that the 29th House Republican this year has announced a self-imposed term limit, many conservatives are having second thoughts about the wisdom of that constraint. The reason for the concern is not simply because we are losing conservative legislators but rather that we have not been grooming young leaders to take their place.

For every open Congressional seat--vacated by either a Republican or a Democrat-- we should have a solid, articulate, capable conservative candidate identified and prepared to run an effective campaign for that office. By the time the election season comes around their names should not only be familiar within their district but known throughout the wider conservative movement.

Yet to my knowledge, only one group, the bloggers at RedState, are actively pursuing such a strategy. Over the past year they have made a concerted effort to draw attention to key races at both the state and federal level. However, even with RedState's valiant efforts we probably won't be able to change this situation by the next election cycle. But by taking action now we can raise up a new generation of conservatives so that we will never be in this situation again.

Subsidize Subsidarity -- Principles such as subsidiarity, federalism, and limited government are often considered cornerstones of conservative political thought. But when it comes to their actual implementation they are merely given lip-service. While aspiring young politicos sing the praises of states-rights, they prefer to do so on Capital Hill or in D.C. think tanks rather than in the choirs of their state legislatures or local governments.

The very idea that our most competent conservative statesmen should be working in their actual states or local communities rather than in Washington is considered ludicrous. After all, everyone knows that state and local governments are reserved for the also-rans and has-beens rather than for the able and ambitious.

But mayor's offices, city councils, and state legislatures shore up the "little platoons" that are at the heart of conservative governance. So why then are we not working to put our best and brightest into these offices? Why do push them to take jobs as Senatorial aides rather than as state senators? Why do we lead them to roles as assistants to assistant directors in the Department of Education rather than as leaders on county school boards? Why do we put our rhetoric behind the local and yet but our faith in the federal?

If we want to preserve our movement conservatives must start supporting the principles we claim we believe. One way that we could begin is by "subsidizing" subsidiarity--the tenet that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization--by using our resources to promote our intellectual and political leaders at the state and local levels of governance.

Next: Part IV -- Treat for Shock

[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

Irving Kristol once remarked that, "A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." Unfortunately, we don't have a similar term to describe conservatives who have been assaulted by the realities of our age. Perhaps we can simply call them "conservatives" since almost all of us who claim that term find ourselves similarly battered and bruised. Indeed, for the past two decades our movement has been bloodied and broken by both external smackdowns and internal (back)stabbings.

What then must we do to recover? I suggest we do what we would if we were to find our neighbor laying on the side of the road in the same condition. In Marine Corps recruit training we were taught the four lifesaving steps -- Stop the bleeding, Start the breathing, Protect the wound, and Treat for shock. These steps provide a useful framework for understanding what must be done if we want to save conservatism.

Stop the bleeding

1. Wake up to the Voter-Based Reality -- We may not like it--we absolutely won't like it--but there are three facts that we conservatives must acknowledge:

a. We are stuck with the Republican Party -- If we want to have a say in the political process we have to use one of the two dominant parties as our primary vehicle. Today, that is the GOP. Leave the talk of rallying around or starting a third party to the cranks and purists.

b. Conservatives do not dominant the GOP -- Despite our numbers we do not control the GOP. We did once and can again, but it will take a great deal of time and effort. We must be both proactive and patient if we are to return to our former status.

c. John McCain will be the GOP nominee -- Romney has suspended his campaign and Huckabee has no chance to win the delegates he needs. Talk of a brokered convention is an intriguing fantasy but it won't happen. Come November, McCain will be the Republican nominee.

2. We must unite in order to fight another day -- If you want to teach the GOP a lesson, then the most significant action you can take is to refuse to vote for McCain. Likewise, if you want to harm the conservative movement then refuse to vote for McCain. But if, like me, you believe that conservatism is more important than Republicanism, then we must unite--tentatively and with trepidation--behind the party's nominee. In order to resuscitate and restore the conservative movement we must stop the hemorrhaging; allowing Obama or Clinton to control the government would only open an artery and bleed away what influence we have left.

3. Unite sooner, rather than later -- Hugh Hewitt has been a vocal supporter of Mitt Romney and a vehement critic of John McCain. But he has taken the lead in reminding us that we must remain united. Earlier this week he wrote, "There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is: The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68." Hugh is absolutely right. Faced with this reality, we need to take steps now to rally our forces and ensure that the GOP controls the White House.

Next: Part II -- Start the breathing

The looming conservative crackup is a perennial theme that tends to bloom anew every election season. A prime example of the trend is NRO symposium examining the question: “Is the Reagan coalition dead?”

As could be expected, the respondents failed to provide adequate answers because they each misunderstand the question. Each of them labored under the assumption that the "Reagan coalition" is divided into three distinct groups. This is not surprising since almost all of the conservative intelligentsia has bought into the idea that the there are "three legs" of the conservative coalition.

A prime example is Governor Mitt Romney, who in a press availability in Michigan last October said:

I believe that to win the White House that our candidate has to be somebody who can represent and speak for all three legs of the conservative stool or conservative coalition that Ronald Reagan put together - social conservatives, economic conservatives and defense conservatives

Romney may be from Massachusetts but this is the typical D.C. -based thinking. In Washington, conservative groups and organizations are typically oriented around one of the three "legs." While they may brush shoulders while passing each other in the halls of the Heritage Institute, these groups rarely interact in any significant or meaningful way.

Conservatives in Washington (and New York, for that matter) have a tendency to forget that their way of thinking is anomalous and deviates significantly from most "heartland" conservatives. They work, and often live, in a liberal, urban environment in which a true "full-spectrum conservative" is outside the norm. But the fact is that most Republican voters are from rural suburban areas. As this map shows, the dividing line in America is not between Red States and Blue States but between Red and Blue counties:

Think you know the GOP Presidential candidates? Bloggers (and blog readers) tend to follow politics more closely than the average voter, so they should be able to ace this simple quiz. See how many of these questions you can correctly answer:

1. Which candidate has the worst record for raising taxes while in office?

2. Which candidate opposed the Bush Tax Cuts in 2001 and 2003?

3. Which three candidates support embryo-destructive research?

4. Which candidate was the first to suggest that we might need to send troops into Pakistan?

5. Which candidate has said he would meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

6. Which candidate has said that he is open to a federal increase in gas taxes?

7. Which two candidates said they would potentially use tactical nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon?

8. Which candidate criticized excessive CEO compensation by saying, "In some cases I think they pay compensation packages that are excessive and unnecessary. That's shame on the board and the owners."?

9. Which candidate once said he "will not support a specific proposal unless it taxes investment income" and ran newspaper ads denouncing the flat tax as a "tax cut for fat cats"?

10. Which candidate criticized the Bush Administration in Foreign Affairs by saying, "The recent years of mismanagement and failure in Iraq demonstrate that America should go to war only with sufficient troop levels and with a realistic and comprehensive plan for success. We did not do so in Iraq, and our country and the people of Iraq have paid a dear price….We cannot get those years back, and now the only responsible action for any presidential candidate is to look forward and outline the strategic posture in Iraq that is most likely to protect U.S. national interests."

11. Which candidate has said that he will make America energy and oil independent in five years?

12. Which two candidates support the ban on "assault weapons"?

Answers are below the fold.

I'm embarrassed to admit it but I'm guilty of being a "sheeple."

The portmanteau created by combining the words "sheep" and "people" is, according to Wikipedia, meant to imply that "as a collective, people believe whatever they are told, especially if told so by authority figures, without processing it to be sure that it is an accurate representation of the real world around them."

I have to confess that I'd always associated sheeplishness with the Left. Liberals, according to my stereotype, are more prone to collectivism and--despite what they might claim--invariably not a part of the "reality-based community." Conservatives, I foolishly believed, were different. We relied on facts and based our opinions on sound arguments. We did our own homework and didn’t rely on other people to do our thinking for us.

I know, I know, it's a silly delusion. Had I given it even a moment's thought I'd have recognized the fallacy of my own bias. But until recently, I didn’t give it much thought. It was only after the pundits started repeating erroneous claims about a topic I knew something about that I realized that they really were, as their liberal critics often claimed, regurgitating the same talking points.

Has National Review jumped the shark?

I don’t mean to be glib or facetious in raising the question for I love the magazine dearly. NR was a formative influence on my political philosophy and continues to shape my thinking. It introduced me to conservative ideas, policies, statesmen, and writers. Indeed, three of my favorite conservatives—Ramesh Ponnuru, Ross Douthat, and Byron York—still write for the august publication.

But over the past few years (at least that is the time that I began noticing) there has been a shift to what I call "Manhattan Conservatism." Because almost all of the NR staff lives and works in New York City, their concerns and values tend to reflect a NYC/DC-centric urban cosmopolitism. They've adopted a watered-down form of big-tent fusionism in which embracing any non-liberal ideas are enough to earn you the label of "conservative" (a Manhattan Conservative can have the same views on abortion and gay marriage as the liberal intelligentsia so long as they embrace supply-side economics or torturing terrorists). Mention people in Georgia and they are as likely to think of the country in Asia as they are the Peach State. (Indeed, on The Corner last week, several people mocked the Southern state.)

The Manhattan Conservatives' infatuation with Rudy Giuliani is a prime example of how far they are from the mainstream of conservative thought. But when it came time to endorse a Presidential candidate they realized (at least all but Richard Brookhiser) that endorsing a mayor who once "ran as a liberal" would be a bit much.

Instead they chose to endorse the second most moderate candidate in the race: Mitt Romney.

Now to be fair, Romney is not an unacceptable candidate if the criteria is simply to endorse a Republican. But to pass over true conservatives for a moderate is a slap in the face to the magazine's dedicated readers.

Obviously because I work for Mike Huckabee I have my own bias. But supporters of Thompson, McCain, Tancredo, and Hunter all have reasons to be disappointed. Each of these men have conservative bona fides that are superior to Romney.

Here is the case against the endorsement:

[Note: I’m still trying to acclimatize to the pace of working on a Presidential campaign (I love saying that), so for the next few days I’ll be recycling material.]

"In every culture war the existing customs and traditions of a society are called to the bar of reason and ruthlessly interrogated and cross-examined by an intellectual elite asking whether they can be rationally justified or are simply the products of superstition and thus unworthy of being taken seriously by enlightened men and women," says Lee Harris in his recent article in Policy Review. "But is it possible to defend tradition with the help of reason? Can a particular tradition be justified by reason? And what if our traditional belief conflicts with reason can we rationally justify keeping it?"

"The Future of Tradition" is further evidence that Harris is one of the finest essayists in America. The article is densely packed with gems that can be mined from a close and careful reading. But as much as I would prefer to heap praise on the essay, I must first dwell on its significant flaw. In a brilliant piece of analysis, Richard Nokes sheds light on the weakness of Harris's primary assumption:

The article is interesting, but it is founded on a false premise: that tradition and reason are potentially competing modes of thought, and that reason itself may potentially be a superior mode of thinking than submission to tradition.

Harris misses this point (or perhaps pretends to): Reason itself as he is using it refers to the Western rational tradition. In other words, reason is itself a tradition, a particular disciplined mode of thinking that may or may not be superior to other modes of thinking. Why, in his examples, do cultural fights between reason and tradition end in disaster? Because if reason wins, it undermines its very traditional foundation, and if tradition wins, it destroys the very reason it birthed.

Allow me to explain it this way: What if I attack Western rationalism as a system of thought? How can you defend it? If you defend it through reasoned argumentation, you are creating a very small circle of logic, no larger than when someone asserts "The Bible is true because it says so." Instead, one must do what Harris feels compelled to do every time he brings up the Sophists -- justify reason according to intellectual tradition. In fact, Harris's article has the great virtue of acting as performance art in that it justifies tradition by appealing to reason on the surface, but beneath the surface is really justifying reason by appealing to tradition.

There is indeed a rich irony in a culture war that pits Reason against Tradition. As Nokes rightly points out, the two are quite inseparable, perhaps even dialectically intertwined. After all, few people adhere to customs and traditions that they consider to be undeniably irrational. Likewise, reason depends on custom and tradition in order for knowledge to be developed, accumulated, and transmitted.

What we have then is different tribes warring over their particular traditions, with each side appealing to the superiority of its own history in order to argue its case in the public square. The debate is complicated, though, by a tendency to ignore or selectively use their tradition's own histories. As David Koyzis contends, an appeal to tradition per se tends to ignore what might be called the "temporal multiplicity of traditions" -- the propensity of traditional notions to develop and mutate in such a way that the later form looks markedly different than the earlier manifestation.

In 1991, Canadian writer Douglas Coupland wrote a popular novel titled Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture. Although Coupland later denied that there was any such thing as a “Generation X” the term soon became synonymous with the generation that followed the Baby Boomers.

Generations are too broad and diverse to be constricted by such labels as the Greatest Generation, Baby Boomers, or Generation X. Still, the terms do convey the obvious truth that a group of people born in a specific era will have much in common. If we combine the demographic with another set such as politics, we get a group of people who share a perspective that is shaped by similar forces. For example, demographically I belong to Generation X while politically I am grouped in the category of conservative. I am, you could say, an X-Con.

What then does an X-Con look like? What would it look like if we were to sketch the basic outline of the X-Con mind?

Although this is intended only as a preliminary sketch, I want to try to provide a brief answer to those questions. My hope is that this will be a recognizable portrait and not a mere caricature. Being a composite, it should vaguely resemble all the members of this subset even though it will not look like any particular individual. I have no doubt that I will need to erase some lines, draw in others, and color in the details. But I hope that you'll find this initial effort useful enough that you will aid me in fleshing out this profile.

After surveying the entire field of Presidential candidates, I made the decision several months ago to give my tentative support to the campaign of Fred Thompson. I believed Thompson to be the most electable candidate whose views aligned most closely with my own.

Now I'm not so certain. His views of the federal marriage amendment, the Schiavo case, and his general position on federalism are troubling. For me, conservatism trumps federalism, while the position Thompson endorses seem to reverse that order.

Sadly, many conservatives--including it appears, Sen. Thompson--assume that federalism is an inherently conservative philosophy. It is not. In fact, federalism can be antithetical to conservatism when applied in the way that Thompson seems to champion. For instance, in an issue of the Fred Thompson Report, he wrote:

Our government, under our Constitution, was established upon the principles of Federalism -- that the federal government would have limited enumerated powers and the rest would be left to the states. It not only prevented tyranny, it just made good sense. States become laboratories for democracy and experiment with different kinds of laws.

Thompson's use of the clichéd "laboratories of democracy" line is troubling. As federalism scholar Michael Greve notes, Justice Louis D. Brandeis' "famous dictum had almost nothing to do with federalism and everything to do with his commitment to scientific socialism." Indeed, the problem with Thompson's view of federalism is that it is more applicable for instituting socialism than for advancing conservative principles.

While some forms of federalism are defensible (Ramesh Ponnuru is one conservative that gets it right), I believe that it is ultimately inferior to other principles of governmental demarcation, such as subsidiarity or sphere sovereignty.

The principle of subsidiarity is an idea found in Catholic social thought that appeals to traditionalist conservatives. As the Acton Institute's David A. Bosnich defines the term,

Conservatism treats humans as they are, as moral creatures possessing rational minds and capable of discerning right from wrong. There comes a time when we must speak out in the defense of the conservative movement, and make a stand for political civility. This is one of those times.

Ann Coulter used to serve the movement well. She was telegenic, intelligent, and witty. She was also fearless: saying provocative things to inspire deeper thought and cutting through the haze of competing information has its uses. But Coulter’s fearlessness has become an addiction to shock value. She draws attention to herself, rather than placing the spotlight on conservative ideas.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2006, Coulter referred to Iranians as “ragheads.” She is one of the most prominent women in the conservative movement; for her to employ such reckless language reinforces the stereotype that conservatives are racists.

At CPAC 2007 Coulter decided to turn up the volume by referring to John Edwards, a former U.S. Senator and current Presidential candidate, as a “faggot.” Such offensive language–and the cavalier attitude that lies behind it–is intolerable to us. It may be tolerated on liberal websites but not at the nation’s premier conservative gathering.

The legendary conservative thinker Richard Weaver wrote a book entitled Ideas Have Consequences. Rush Limbaugh has said again and again that “words mean things.” Both phrases apply to Coulter’s awful remarks.

Coulter’s vicious word choice tells the world she care little about the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and despised. Her word choice forces conservatives to waste time defending themselves against charges of homophobia rather than advancing conservative ideas.

Within a day of Coulter’s remark John Edwards sent out a fundraising email that used Coulter’s words to raise money for his faltering campaign. She is helping those she claims to oppose. How does that advance any of the causes we hold dear?

Denouncing Coulter is not enough. After her “raghead” remark in 2006 she took some heat. Yet she did not grow and learn. We should have been more forceful. This year she used a gay slur. What is next? If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?

One of the points of CPAC is the opportunity it gives college students to meet other young conservatives and learn from our leaders. Unlike on their campuses—where they often feel alone—at CPAC they know they are part of a vibrant political movement. What example is set when one highlight of the conference is finding out what shocking phrase will emerge from Ann Coulter’s mouth? How can we teach young conservatives to fight for their principles with civility and respect when Ann Coulter is allowed to address the conference? Coulter’s invective is a sign of weak thinking and unprincipled politicking.

CPAC sponsors, the Age of Ann has passed. We, the undersigned, request that CPAC speaking invitations no longer be extended to Ann Coulter. Her words and attitude simply do too much damage.

Credentialed CPAC 2007 Bloggers

Sean Hackbarth, The American Mind
James Joyner, Outside the Beltway
BoiFromTroy, Boi From Troy
Joy McCann, Little Miss Attila
Kevin McCullough, Musclehead Revolution
Fausta Werz, Fausta’s blog
Patrick Hynes, Ankle Biting Pundits
Ed Morrissey, Captain’s Quarters
Jane Stewart, See Jane Mom

Other Right-of-Center Bloggers

Owen Robinson, Boots and Sabres
N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Michael Demmons, Gay Orbit
Mark Coffey, Decision ‘08
Russell Newquist, The Philosopher’s Stone
Marshall Manson, On Tap

"Conservatism is dead and Ann Coulter is its corpse."

I first wrote those words last year after hearing Coulter's semi-racist jibe, "I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'" At this year's CPAC convention she went even farther: "I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word 'faggot', you have to go to rehab."

When I wrote that last year it seemed a bit hyperbolic; today it seems prophetic. The Coulterization of conservatism is a prime example of how the moral decay of our movement.

Coulter has been serving up such excrement for years, yet far too many conservatives lap up such feculent bons mots as if they were bon bons. College kids, who are more familiar with Jon Stewart than Jonathan Swift, seem to think that she is a (snort) "satirist." Hardly. Coulter is nothing more than Bill Maher in drag -- take away her ability to say something stupid or shocking and she loses her satirical abilities.

Consider, for example, these few choice selections (courtesy of Dignan):

• "liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots..."
• "I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning."
• "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President."
• "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too."
• "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
• "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."
• "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee."

There was once a time when such remarks would have had Mr. Buckley scrambling for the smelling salts to revive Mrs. Schafly. But now hearing such comments made in a conservative forum elicits little more than an embarrassed shrug and a whatareryagonnado shake of the head that says, "That's just Ann." Then they line up around the block for autographed copies of her book.

Our political culture has truly become debased when even conservatives now accept what James Q. Wilson has described as the elevation of self-expression over self-control. (Perhaps it is to be expected, though, of a movement that has replaced the wisdom of Russell Kirk with the soundbites of Rush Limbaugh.) We have heartily embraced the leftist ideal that we have an inherent right to be as stupid and as banal as we want. As the legal scholar Stephen Carter says, "When offensiveness becomes a constitutional right, it is a right without any tradition behind it, and consequently we have no norms to govern its use."

Remember when comedian Bill Maher was smart, thoughtful, and funny? Yeah, me neither. Still, I keep holding out hope that he will say something witty or intelligent. Instead, he continues to disappoint by sinking to greater depths of boorishness and mendacity.

Like his buddy Ann Coulter, Maher confuses flatulence for satire. But whereas Ann takes careful aim before making a cheap shot, Maher shoots first and then attempts to draw a bulls-eye around his target. Take, for example, his latest half-cocked rant in Salon.com, “Christians crusade against cancer vaccine”:

Now for the bad news: Not everyone is pleased with this [HPV] vaccine. That prevents cancer. Christian parent groups and churches nationwide are fighting it. Bridget Maher -- no relation, and none planned -- of the Family Research Council says giving girls the vaccine is bad, because the girls "may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex."

Maher forgets to mention that the quote from "Bridget Maher...of the Family Research Council" is found in a New Scientist article from April 2005. Even third-rate bloggers wouldn’t dredge up a quote from two years ago without seeing if its still relevant. He could have called Ms. Maher directly. But then he would have discovered that she no longer even works for FRC. Maher could have checked Wikipedia’s entry on FRC, where he would have found that the quote did not reflect FRC's position on the HPV vaccine.

Or if he had bothered to look at FRC’s website he would have noticed on the front page a link to an article titled, “Clarification of 2005 Family Research Council Media Remarks on HPV Vaccine”

In response to initial media inquiries regarding the HPV vaccine in early 2005, an FRC spokesman raised the question of whether a vaccine for a sexually-transmitted disease like HPV could give its recipients a false sense of security and thus make them less cautious about their sexual behavior. The theory that reducing one of the risks of a behavior might make that behavior more common is hardly illogical. There is even a scientific term for this, which is "sexual disinhibition." In our meetings with Merck regarding the vaccine later that year, they indicated that they were quite aware of the potential for sexual disinhibition, and that they had examined that issue in the course of their clinical trials for the HPV vaccine. They assured us that they had found no evidence for any increase in sexual disinhibition in connection with the vaccine. We had no basis for doubting that claim, but encouraged them to continue to study that issue after approval of the vaccine for general use.

After extensive study of the vaccine and discussion with medical experts, we concluded that the public health benefits of developing and distributing such a vaccine far outweighed any potential, hypothetical concerns about its impact on sexual behavior. Therefore, we announced in October of 2005 that we would enthusiastically support the development of the vaccine and federal approval of its use, including its addition to the list of vaccines recommended to physicians and of those made available to lower-income families through the Vaccines for Children program. Virtually all pro-family public policy organizations have announced similar support for the vaccine itself. [emphasis added]

In other words, the position of FRC is the exact opposite of what Maher claims.

(Also, does he believe that Merck wants to "make sure sex is as dangerous as possible"? After all, they examined the issue of sexual disinhibition in their clinical trials-- the very question that he criticizes Ms. Maher for raising. Obviously, the researchers at Merck hate sex.)

Unfortunately, this is not the only fact that Maher gets wrong. He also claims that "the vaccine is so good, it could wipe out HPV." Perhaps he missed the recent Washington Post article which notes, "Just 3.4 percent of the women studied had infections with one of the four HPV strains that the new vaccine protects against." Although that 3.4% will account for 70% of cervical cancer cases--and have a significant impact on women's health--the vaccine will not help the millions of other women infected with other, less deadly strains of HPV. The vaccine will not, as Maher claims, “wipe out HPV.”

Maher would obviously have no problem telling a child that since she had the vaccination she had no chance of getting HPV. She would be in for quite a shock then if she were to later develop a nasty case of HPV-related genital warts. Maher’s own ignorance about the STD shows why it was not unreasonable to wonder if girls could get a “false sense of security” from having the vaccination.

Maher’s incomprehension about STDs is rather disconcerting. He claims that, “Activists don't want girls inoculated against HPV because they want sex to remain as scary as possible.” But if the average American male has as rudimentary a sexual education as Maher, it’s hard to image how sex could get any scarier.

In modern American there are almost as many brands of conservatism as there are conservatives. There are neo-cons and paleocons, theocons and crunchy cons. There are social conservative and fiscal conservatives. Conservatives who aim for National Greatness and others who strive to be Compassionate. There are the oxymoronic “Big Government conservatives” and “South Park Conservatives.” And some claims to conservatism that are simply moronic (i.e., Andrew Sullivan, Rudy Giuliani).

Unless you’re already familiar with the political taxonomy, such labels aren’t particularly useful. To truly understand what a conservative believes, it is often more instructive to simply ask what it is they want to conserve.

My own answer to that question would be the same as that of Russell Kirk: The institution most essential to conserve is the family.

I believe that while ultimate sovereignty belongs to God alone, He delegates authority throughout society to various institutional structures (i.e., churches, businesses, the state, etc.). Naturally, these institutions are not immune to the effects of sin or human depravity but they still retain the legitimate authority given to them by our Creator. Although each of these institutions is important, the most essential is the family. My political philosophy could be called “family-first conservatism” for I believe that the institution of the family should be given pride of place in decisions about public policy.

While family-first conservatism is rather limited in scope, I believe it is a robust enough to generate a core set of principles and policy prescriptions. The principles, which I have gleaned from the writings of better thinkers than myself, are outlined in the following manifesto:

1. We believe the family is the basic unit of society.

2. We believe that from birth we are initiated into the community structure of the family. We are not thrust into a state of radical individualism but rather into the most basic form of community. We are created to be both individuated persons and members of a community; neither can be reduced into the other.

3. We believe the heart of the family is the pre-political institution of marriage, a “one-flesh union” of sexually complementary spouses who cleave to each other in permanent commitment, loyalty, and fidelity and that this one-flesh communion is naturally ordered to the good of spousal unity, to procreation, and to the nurturing of children.

4. We believe it is a self-evident truth that all human beings are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of human flourishing.

5. We believe in protecting the intrinsic dignity of all members of the human family, at any and every stage of life, in any and every state of consciousness or self-awareness, of any and every race, color, ethnicity, level of intelligence, religion, language, gender, character, behavior, physical ability/disability, potential, class, social status, etc., and believe that they must be treated in a manner commensurate with this moral status.

6. We believe the interaction between people in community has lead naturally to societal pluriformity and the formation of various social structures. Families interact with other families to create distinct communities such as the tribe, the city, and the state and that the various tasks and requirements for living has lead to the formation of churches, schools, businesses, civic unions, etc.

7. We believe that each of these structures or spheres of influence has its own autonomy and responsibility and is sovereign within its own sphere. Each also has its locus of sovereignty which is derived not from another structure from God alone. This forms a non-hierarchical structure where all authority is ultimately derived from our Creator.

8. We believe that parents have the primary sphere of authority and influence over the upbringing of their children and that this role may not be usurped by other institutions unless necessary to prevent the child from suffering harm.

9. We believe that while parental authority is primary, other institutions have an interest and a duty in protecting the welfare of children and should do what they can to create and preserve a moral ecology that is conducive to creating virtuous citizens.

10. We believe that while social structures are non-hierarchical, the family should be considered “first among equals” and given special consideration in making decisions about public policy.

How conservatives are making themselves irrelevant in Presidential politics:

Greg: “Who do you want to win the Republican nomination?”

Peter: “I’m for Candidate X, he’s a solid conservative.”

Greg: “Oh, he can’t get the nomination”

Peter: “Why not?

Greg: “He’s unelectable.”

Peter: “Unelectable? But he’s solid on all our issues.”

Greg: “No one knows who he is.”

Peter: “But we still have a year before the primaries. If more people talked about him he’d have higher name recognition.”

Greg: “Yeah, but no one’s talking about him.”

Peter: “But he’s more conservative then the other candidates, why aren’t more people talking about him?”

Greg: “Because he’s unelectable.

Peter: [sigh]

Greg: “That’s why I’m supporting Rudy.”

"When the value-bearing institutions of religion and culture are excluded, the value-laden concerns of human life flows back into the square under the politics of politics," wrote Richard John Neuhaus, "It is much like trying to sweep a puddle of water on an even basement floor; the water immediately flows back into the space you had cleaned." Although written twenty years ago, Neuhaus could be describing the 2000election and the prominence that the issue of 'moral values' played in the outcome. Believing that they were being excluded from the political process, American evangelicals flooded the polls, possibly tipping the election to President Bush.

The endorphin rush of once again being taking seriously has energized many evangelicals (though after this mid-term election, it may be short-lived). Having returned to the 'naked public square' we are encouraged by our new power and hopeful that that we can use our influence to make a difference. While we certainly have some reason to be optimistic, I believe we must temper our excitement with the realization that the problems we face are as much as a result of the system as with who we put in office. Whether Democrat or Republican, of the Left or of the Right, we are all under the spell of liberalism.

As David Koyzis notes in his supurb study of idealogies, Political Visions and Illusions, the first and most basic principle of liberalism is that everyone possesses property in their own person and must be free to govern themselves in accordance with their own choices, provided that these choices do not infringe on the equal right of others to do the same. Whether a 'liberal', 'libertarian', or 'conservative', almost every politically involved American subscribes to this foundational belief in the sovereignty of the individual. The differences in political persuasions derive not from a denunciation of this principle but from disagreements over the role the state in relation to the individual.

In his chapter on liberalism, Koyzis states that the ideology progresses through five distinct stages. While it is difficult to adequately summarize his explanation, the stages could roughly be outlined as follows:

In 2004, Jesse Jackson wrote a newspaper column titled “There's no shame in being liberal”, in which he argued that some of the many of the leading lights throughout history—Moses, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson--were liberals too. One name, however, stood out from among the rest:

Think about it: A conservative Christian is a contradiction in terms. Christ wasn't a conservative. He fed the hungry simply because they were hungry. He didn't require that they go to work first. He healed the sick, simply because they were sick. He didn't push them into an insurance company, or let the drug companies gouge them on prices. Jesus was a liberal; Herod was the conservative.

Jesus fed crowds of people exactly two times. It's not like he was running a food kitchen for free-loaders who refused to work. And while he healed the sick, he also admonished them to change their lives and stop committing sins. Is that what Jesse thinks modern liberals should do? To me it sounds like Jesus was running the sort of the Religious Right's “faith-based charity” programs.

Beneath Jackson's typical sloppy reasoning lies an interesting question. How would we evaluate whether Jesus was a liberal by the standards of American liberalism?

The problem is that the term “liberal” is too vague and undefined. Fortunately, Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, provides a least a partial answer. In a recent article, “What it means to be a liberal”, Stone attempts to “articulate 10 propositions that seem to me to define "liberal" today.”

After reading through list of propositions I began to wonder how they would apply to Jesus. Would Jesus fit the mold of a modern liberal? Let's examine the evidence to find out what happens if we put Him to the Liberal Test:

[Note: Because I spent all evening trying to fix my broken comments section, I didn�t have time to write anything new. Here's a post recyled from April 2004.]

�Life is tough. It�s tougher when you�re stupid.� -- Sgt. Stryker (John Wayne) in The Sands of Iwo Jima (1949)

"It's just too sexually oriented, you know, the way they're shaking their behinds and going on, breaking it down," says Texas State Rep. Al Edwards referring to risqu� high school cheerleading squads. Edwards, a Democrat from Houston, has authored a bill that would prohibit booty shaking and other sexually suggestive moves by any performance group at athletic and extracurricular activities, as well as competitions sponsored and approved by school districts or schools.

But as in any case where legislators legislate, the bill has drawn its critics. Tommy Crawford from Boar�s Head Tavern, for instance, sees this as another example of politicians �doing whatever it takes to get re-elected�:

Conservatism is dead and Ann Coulter is its corpse.

That was my initial reaction to hearing Coulter�s latest semi-racists jibe: "I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'"

Admittedly, I�m being a bit hyperbolic. While suffering from decrepitude, conservatism isn�t exactly dead. And though she possesses the same pallor and stench, Coulter isn�t exactly a corpse. But the two appear to have formed a symbiotic relationship of decay.

Coulter has been serving up such excrement for years, yet far too many conservatives lap up such feculent bons mots as if they were bon bons. Here are a few choice selections (courtesy of Dignan):

• "liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots..."
• "I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning."
• "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President."
• "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too."
• "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
• "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."
• "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee."

There was once a time when such remarks would have had Mr. Buckley scrambling for the smelling salts to revive Mrs. Schafly. But now hearing such comments made in a conservative forum elicits little more than an embarrassed shrug and a whatareryagonnado shake of the head that says, �That�s just Ann.�

Our political culture has truly become debased when even conservatives now accept what James Q. Wilson has described as the elevation of self-expression over self-control. (Perhaps it is to be expected, though, of a movement that has replaced the wisdom of Russell Kirk with the soundbites of Rush Limbaugh.) We have heartily embraced the leftist ideal that we have an inherent right to be as stupid and as banal as we want. As the legal scholar Stephen Carter says, �When offensiveness becomes a constitutional right, it is a right without any tradition behind it, and consequently we have no norms to govern its use.�

[Note: This is post #4 in the Blogiversary II series.]

�Life is tough. It�s tougher when you�re stupid.� -- Sgt. Stryker (John Wayne) in The Sands of Iwo Jima (1949)

"It's just too sexually oriented, you know, the way they're shaking their behinds and going on, breaking it down," says Texas State Rep. Al Edwards referring to risqu� high school cheerleading squads. Edwards, a Democrat from Houston, has authored a bill that would prohibit booty shaking and other sexually suggestive moves by any performance group at athletic and extracurricular activities, as well as competitions sponsored and approved by school districts or schools.

But as in any case where legislators legislate, the bill has drawn its critics. Tommy Crawford from Boar�s Head Tavern, for instance, sees this as another example of politicians �doing whatever it takes to get re-elected�:

The Democrats down here [in Texas] are really pretty conservative in the grand scope of things, but they can't win anymore because all the mega-churches (suburban) vote Republican.

Republicans have convinced the evangelical churches that they can't accomplish social change without the government taking care of it through legislation. Not just legislating "moral" issues, because murdering, stealing, etc have always been regulated. Now we regulate "taste" - non-essential issues that should not be debated in the state or federal governments. These matters of taste culminate in legislation like what my local political heros are getting close to passing - regulating the type of dancing that high school cheerleaders can do. If it�s too provocative, some government guy will be able to shut down the cheerleading program. And the "conservatives" are cheering them on.

I�m not quite sure why Mr. Crawford believes the state of Texas doesn�t have an interest in booty shaking cheerleaders. After all, the individual school districts are already heavily regulated by the state and any district who believes there is a constitutional right to Break It Down can simply refuse to accept money from the moralistic state legislature.

But aside from the parochial nature of this particular issue, I believe this example provides an opportunity to clarify a misunderstanding about conservatives and our attitude toward legislating issues of morality and �taste.� While resolving disputes over the locus of autonomy, responsibility, and sphere sovereignty of institutions is essential, conservatism isn�t, as is commonly misperceived, about �small government.�

When it comes to government, conservatives are admittedly somewhat clueless. Unlike libertarians, liberals, socialists, Marxists, and other advocates of utopian political philosophies, conservatism has no idea how to build a healthy social and political structure. We do know, however, how to recognize a sick one. Just as physicians define bodily health as the absence of sickness, conservatives view the absence of sickness as the primary gauge of the health of the body politic. Our political objective, therefore, is similar to that of medical doctors -- eliminating sickness.

The colossal failures in leadership in the wake of Hurricane Katrina have proven once again that, as historian Richard Weaver argued, �ideas have consequences.� In the aftermath of a natural disaster, abstract theories of public policy and governance are tested in the laboratory of reality. Bad ideas, naturally, can have catastrophic consequences. But as we are seeing, even good ideas, when poorly implemented, can be calamitous.

A primary example is the principle of subsidiarity, an idea found in Catholic social thought which is often embraced by conservatives. As David A. Bosnich explains,

This tenet holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom.

While limited government, personal freedom, and other such goods are worthy reasons to support such an ideal, there is an even more primary justification: it saves lives. The evacuation of New Orleans provides a useful example of how this works out in a real-world context.

Imagine that your daughter, your sister, or your wife is kidnapped and shipped off to a foreign country. Now imagine that she is forced to work against her will on one of the following tasks:

(a) Babysitting a wealthy woman�s children.
(b) Working in a field picking broccoli.
(c) Being raped and sodomized by strange men.
(d) Any of the above.

If you chose (d) since all three �jobs� are equally demeaning and degrading, then you are the type of reader that would appreciate a recent article in the far-left journal, The Nation.

Debbie Nathan, a New York City-based writer, pens one of the most shockingly amoral apologies for sexual slavery that I�ve ever seen. In fact, she�s written the only apology for sex trafficking that I�ve ever read. I truly can�t remember ever reading anything quite like it before.

Nathan complains that too much is made about �sex slaves� and that �the limited evidence that exists suggests sex work is not the most common type of forced labor, and even though most immigrants who work as prostitutes do so voluntarily.� How does she know this is true? Because she was told by a Thai immigrant who has worked for years doing AIDS prevention with San Francisco-area prostitutes, "I've never met a Thai woman smuggled in for sex work who didn't know that's what she'd be coming here to do." Forcing them into prostitution appears to be acceptable as long as they are aware of why they are being �smuggled� into the country. (I suppose the real problem with the early-American slave trade was that the Africans weren�t informed of the type of work they would be doing.)

Nathan appears to have developed her notions of prostitution from repeated viewings of Pretty Woman. Apparently, in Nathan�s world there are no abusive pimps, sadistic johns, or venereal diseases. Prostitution is �just one of many onerous and often sexist jobs available to poor women who migrate to support their families.� Apparently, all that prevents them from having fulfilling careers is that they are unable to �unionize.�

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), which �slaps penalties onto those who move people across borders and force them to work against their will� and �offers assistance, including permission to settle in the United States, to immigrant victims� is treated as if it was the primary reason that sex slaves are not allowed to join the AFL-CIO. And who helped create this legislation? An unholy alliance of evangelicals and feminists:

�In every culture war the existing customs and traditions of a society are called to the bar of reason and ruthlessly interrogated and cross-examined by an intellectual elite asking whether they can be rationally justified or are simply the products of superstition and thus unworthy of being taken seriously by enlightened men and women,� says Lee Harris in his recent article in Policy Review. �But is it possible to defend tradition with the help of reason? Can a particular tradition be justified by reason? And what if our traditional belief conflicts with reason � can we rationally justify keeping it?�

�The Future of Tradition� is further evidence that Harris is one of the finest essayists in America. The article is densely packed with gems that can be mined from a close and careful reading. But as much as I would prefer to heap praise on the essay, I must first dwell on its significant flaw. In a brilliant piece of analysis, Richard Nokes sheds light on the weakness of Harris� primary assumption:

The article is interesting, but it is founded on a false premise: that tradition and reason are potentially competing modes of thought, and that reason itself may potentially be a superior mode of thinking than submission to tradition.

Harris misses this point (or perhaps pretends to): Reason itself as he is using it refers to the Western rational tradition. In other words, reason is itself a tradition, a particular disciplined mode of thinking that may or may not be superior to other modes of thinking. Why, in his examples, do cultural fights between reason and tradition end in disaster? Because if reason wins, it undermines its very traditional foundation, and if tradition wins, it destroys the very reason it birthed.

Allow me to explain it this way: What if I attack Western rationalism as a system of thought? How can you defend it? If you defend it through reasoned argumentation, you are creating a very small circle of logic, no larger than when someone asserts "The Bible is true because it says so." Instead, one must do what Harris feels compelled to do every time he brings up the Sophists -- justify reason according to intellectual tradition. In fact, Harris's article has the great virtue of acting as performance art in that it justifies tradition by appealing to reason on the surface, but beneath the surface is really justifying reason by appealing to tradition.

There is indeed a rich irony in a �culture war� that pits Reason against Tradition. As Nokes rightly points out, the two are quite inseparable, perhaps even dialectically intertwined. After all, few people adhere to customs and traditions that they consider to be undeniably irrational. Likewise, reason depends on custom and tradition in order for knowledge to be developed, accumulated, and transmitted.

What we have then is different tribes warring over their particular traditions, with each side appealing to the superiority of its own history in order to argue its case in the public square. The debate is complicated, though, by a tendency to ignore or selectively use their tradition's own histories. As David Koyzis contends, an appeal to tradition per se tends to ignore what might be called the �temporal multiplicity of traditions� � the propensity of traditional notions to develop and mutate in such a way that the later form looks markedly different than the earlier manifestation.

�Life is tough. It�s tougher when you�re stupid.� -- Sgt. Stryker (John Wayne) in The Sands of Iwo Jima (1949)

"It's just too sexually oriented, you know, the way they're shaking their behinds and going on, breaking it down," says Texas State Rep. Al Edwards referring to risqu� high school cheerleading squads. Edwards, a Democrat from Houston, has authored a bill that would prohibit booty shaking and other sexually suggestive moves by any performance group at athletic and extracurricular activities, as well as competitions sponsored and approved by school districts or schools.

But as in any case where legislators legislate, the bill has drawn its critics. Tommy Crawford from Boar�s Head Tavern, for instance, sees this as another example of politicians �doing whatever it takes to get re-elected�:

The Democrats down here [in Texas] are really pretty conservative in the grand scope of things, but they can't win anymore because all the mega-churches (suburban) vote Republican.

Republicans have convinced the evangelical churches that they can't accomplish social change without the government taking care of it through legislation. Not just legislating "moral" issues, because murdering, stealing, etc have always been regulated. Now we regulate "taste" - non-essential issues that should not be debated in the state or federal governments. These matters of taste culminate in legislation like what my local political heros are getting close to passing - regulating the type of dancing that high school cheerleaders can do. If it�s too provocative, some government guy will be able to shut down the cheerleading program. And the "conservatives" are cheering them on.

I�m not quite sure why Mr. Crawford believes the state of Texas doesn�t have an interest in booty shaking cheerleaders. After all, the individual school districts are already heavily regulated by the state and any district who believes there is a constitutional right to Break It Down can simply refuse to accept money from the moralistic state legislature.

But aside from the parochial nature of this particular issue, I believe this example provides an opportunity to clarify a misunderstanding about conservatives and our attitude toward legislating issues of morality and �taste.� While resolving disputes over the locus of autonomy, responsibility, and sphere sovereignty of institutions is essential, conservatism isn�t, as is commonly misperceived, about �small government.�

When it comes to government, conservatives are admittedly somewhat clueless. Unlike libertarians, liberals, socialists, Marxists, and other advocates of utopian political philosophies, conservatism has no idea how to build a healthy social and political structure. We do know, however, how to recognize a sick one. Just as physicians define bodily health as the absence of sickness, conservatives view the absence of sickness as the primary gauge of the health of the body politic. Our political objective, therefore, is similar to that of medical doctors -- eliminating sickness.

It has taken me years to recognize his genius but I finally have to admit that Andrew Sullivan is one of the most astute political thinkers of our day. Before last week I would have scoffed at the notion. But I had failed to recognize that like many profound theorists, Sullivan doesn�t always use words in their generally accepted usage, choosing instead to imbue them with his own nuance. Take, for example, his use of the term �conservatism.� In a recent post, Sullivan quotes Glenn Reynolds, �coming to terms with what the religious right is doing to conservative principles.� Sullivan adds,

The important point is that religious zealotry cannot be incorporated into conservatism. It is the nemesis of conservatism. And it has to be purged in order for conservatism to be revived.

While it might not be an ideal, there is, of course, nothing incompatible about �religious zealotry� and conservatism. In fact, as Russell Kirk noted, one of the first principles of conservatism is a belief �that there exists a transcendent moral order, to which we ought to conform the ways of society. A divine tactic, however dimly descried, is at work in human society.� Taken at face value, such a comment by someone with a doctorate in Political Science from Harvard would be worthy of nothing more than ridicule.

But Sullivan is not using the term in a way that would resemble the philosophy of Kirk or Edmund Burke. When Sullivan talks about conservatism, particularly when he uses the label in reference to his own beliefs, he is redefining the term to apply to his own novel political views, a philosophy that could best be described as Sullivanism.