Whither Conservatism?
May 16th, 2008 at 09:15am Mark Noonan
Andy McCarthy over at NRO’s The Corner speaks for many:
The likelihood is not a post-Bush Republicanism but a post-Republican conservatism. Most of us care about the party only insofar as it serves the movement, not the other way around. If the party is no longer doing that — or, worse, if it is setting us backwards — then it’s time to abandon the party, not the movement.
Conservatism is all about first principles - so let us re-state for the record just what conservatism came about to do. There wasn’t in the days of yore a “conservative” society upon which liberalism started to work - there was the society, and liberalism came along in the mid-18th century and proposed a series of radical changes in how this society worked. Please note that - it came along in the mid-18th century…there was 18 centuries of this society; 18 centuries in which there was massive changes in society, but the fundamentals of that society remained in place and were generally accepted without question. Liberalism didn’t want to tinker around the edges, but wanted wholesale and fundamental change - a complete re-working in the relations between men, between men and government, and between men and God, if there was even to be a place in this new society for God. Conservatism arose after liberalism - it was a response, and it started towards the very end of the 18th century, as Burke observed the excesses of the French Revolution and started to carefully state what was right about the old ways, and what was wrong about the underlying beliefs of those who wanted to change it completely.
Conservatism, at bottom, is the defense of the old, Judeo-Christian civilization against all of those - for whatever reason - who seek to overthrow Judeo-Christianity and replace it with a new paradigm. In this conservatism is equally opposed to liberalism, socialism, fascism, Nazism, libertarianism, communism - but, also, to those elements in society which are not of the political “isms”, but are in direct opposition to Judeo-Christianity. These would be things like consumerism, welfarism, pornography - and in a certain but very real sense, against laissez-faire capitalism, that bastard outgrowth of 18th century liberalism which became, in time, merely an excuse for the rich to grind the faces of the poor. Having no problems with the free market and no objection to a man gaining great wealth through his diligence and hard work, it is still a Judeo-Christian principle that the mere piling up of money is immoral, and as the enterprising build their wealth, there must be care taken to ensure that they aren’t doing so without any thought to the needs of society as a whole.
The source of conservative trouble has been the so-called division of conservatism into “social conservative” and “fiscal conservative” lines - truth be told, the only real conservatism is “social conservatism”. Fiscal conservatism is the latching on to the political power of social conservatives by those who will take the conservative desire for low taxes and non-intrusive government and use it as a means of advancing the cause of mere money-making. Conservatives don’t want low taxes because it helps the economy so much as they want them because in Judeo-Christian principle, God makes the person contained within his family the steward of wealth - to pass the wealth of the family to government is to abdicate one’s responsibility. Fiscal conservatives want low taxes because this makes it possible for them to make money faster and in larger amounts - something no conservative really gives a darn about. The artificial division - which is really a marriage of convenience for political purposes - in the consevative movement is what leads to our current crisis of confidence - as fiscal conservatives bemoan things like McCain’s global warming plan due to its possible deletrious effects on economic growth, while conservatives remain fixed on what is really important to conservatism…the appointment of conservative judges, the winning of the war for this nation established by God to be the bastion of liberty and religion in the world, the prospect that the powers of government will be used to defend the family rather than attack it.
This is not to say that conservatives can’t or won’t take exception to various aspects of McCain’s global warming plan, or other efforts of his (notably things like CFR) - but the crucial battles for conservatism are not whether we’ll have “cap and trade” and absurd restrictions on campaign spending, but whether marriage will remain between one man and one woman; that parents will remain the ultimate authority in a child’s life; that religion will be permitted in the public square; that - God willing - we’ll one day end the scourge of abortion upon our nation. Next to such fundamental issues, how money is moved around in capital markets is trivial. McCain is a conservative in the most vital sense of the word - he’s for family, for God, for country and he’ll enact policies which will defend all of these. Obama is an ultra-liberal - in spite of his high sounding rhetoric about family, God and country, the fact of his policies is an unrelenting war on all three and, indeed, on all of the fundamental principles of Judeo-Christian civilization. Given this stark choice in November, conservatives won’t have to “hold their nose” and vote McCain, but will enthusiastically do so - and then be more than prepared to battle McCain over some of the things he wants to do (such as the aforementioned global warming proposals). But these battles will be carried on between ladies and gentlemen who are all of the same fundamental beliefs - and so real solutions can be found and compromise effected…unlike the impossibility of real compromise between liberalism and conservatism.
Between those who are conservative and those who are fiscal conservatives, there is a community of interests - most notably in the desire that government be restricted in its scope. When someone wants to help you out of a ditch, you don’t worry if he wants to help you out because of altruism, or because he’s hoping you’ll give him a reward - you just want out of the ditch - and so he’s your friend. Conservatism and fiscal conservatism can travel a long way together with no problem - and can politely agree to disagree on some things and battle for their own views in the public square. But conservatism cannot become an adjunct of fiscal conservatism - that would mean conservatism was abandoning itself. If someone out there wishes to work with me to lower taxes, then he is my ally on that issue - if after that he wishes to fight to keep abortion legal, then he and I will part ways on that issue…but I won’t compromise my basic principles - and I won’t ask someone else to do so, either - just to feel better about my prospects at election time. Fiscal conservatives will have to decide for themselves what they want in November - while McCain is not with them 100%, he’s certainly more of an ally than Obama will ever be, so a fiscal conservative failure to vote for McCain is the acme of silliness…but others will do what they think is best. Meanwhile, as a conservative, I will fight hard for McCain because he’s one of mine - in spite of disagreements on this or that policy, he is a kindred spirit and a man who defends the same things I defend.
It is my view that the American people are broadly conservative in their views - as all people have been at all times. People do prefer the tried and true to the innovative. Innovation there must be from time to time, but there’s never any rush and any change should be done with great care. We conservatives can, by sticking to principle, win the support of the majority of the American people - and fiscal conservatives can be helpful in this endevour. But as we speak of a general conservatism, we must never lose sight of the fact that this doesn’t mean a wholesale subscription to the ideas of the Chicago School of economics. The most conservative Americans in the world are ticked off at high gas prices - they don’t go for the stupidity of leftwing thinking on it (ie, an evil cabal of Big Oil making prices go higher), but the high prices are annoying, and if supposed conservative leaders want to offer a series of excuses for the high prices - even if the most carefully reasoned in terms of basic economics - then they are going to get blindsided by the guys who are proposing solutions, even if foolish solutions (such as those offered by the Democrats). One can disdain plans for lowering the price gas, but unless there is a plan for the party going into November, it will be a severe drag on votes…and such a drag is not just a risk to conservatism, but very much to fiscal conservatism, as well. Better to work out a plan - even if parts of it are in technical violation of laissez-faire capitalism - than to have no plan while the other guy does.
So think about it, fellow conservatives (social and fiscal) - for all our differences, we have far more in common with each other than either of us do with the other side. We can split into hostile camps and ensure the eventual socialist destruction of America, or we can unite and save what we hold dear - and then engage in friendly argument over those things we disagree about. If conservatism - both parts - hangs together and puts out a comprehensive plan encompasing economics and morality, then conservatism can carry the day in November and beyond. Each side will have to give a little (without given up on essentials) in the service of the common fight - and we’ll find out over the next few months whether there is this wisdom within our ranks, or whether we’ll be united only in our mutual defeat.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Republicans
33 Comments
1. Magnum Serpentine | May 16th, 2008 at 11:07 am
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a liberal. And it has been proven in poll after poll that people are Centralist not Conservative as you state up above.
And we all know how to get the gas prices down, begin investigating Big Oil for Price Gouging and those who trade oil as well.
2. Just Another Taxpayer | May 16th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Social conservatism is another term for denominational liberalism, which teaches the Calvinist doctrine of the “elect”. If you got yours, your blessed. Unfortunately, the poster child for the the elect, numerous American CEO’s who’ve lost billions in shareholder value, yet still manage to arrange for themselves millions in severance, are the beneficiaries of this doctrine.
Any homeowner, (including condo holders) who’ve lost equity, seen fuel prices soar, lost their job, etc(servicemen included) is obviously not part of this elect. Leaving to take the crumbs left over in the ruins
Secular liberalism, with it’s emphasis on getting money to the poor, does no better. neither type of liberaism is concervative, as the mandates must be paid for with the earnings of those who have been thrifty and prudent.
Neither represents any recognizable branch of conservatism, whose tenets emphasize thrift, prudence, and individual responsibility.
A true conservative doesn’t give a rip about anyones behavior as long as as the individual takes full responsibility for it, and does not obligate others to suffer for behaviors they had nothing to do with. No socializing losses, while privatizing profits.
A true conservative has only 2 questions:
How much does it cost, and whose going to pay for it. The rest is just conversation.
I, like many other Americans, have grown weary of paying for the failures of the rich in this country,as well as the poor. We are weary of those who wish us to make sacrifices they have refused to make themselves.
Economy is morality. The way you make money, and how you use it makes moral. Church going does not change that dictum one bit. Proof: southern plantation owners who were amongst the most ardent churchgoers. They taught their slaves religion so that they would know their place in the scheme of things.
Social conservatives have forgotten George Wills definition of a conservative, which fits “fiscal” conservative far better than “social” conservative.
“Liberalism embraces personalities. Conservatism embraces principles.” Obsessing
about any personality removes one from the second part of the definition. Bush is no conservative, and neither is anyone who supports his policies.
Oil reached $127 a barrel, while nearly all the worlds other economies have grown. Looks like the world is leaving the social conseravtive “elect” behind. Something to think about.
Have a nice day.
3. OhioOrrin | May 16th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Reagan was NOT a social “conservative”!
social “conservatives” are to blame 4 the current destruction of the GOP at the fed, state, and local levels.
socials are NOT conservatives to wit:
1) socials support the fed govt trampling states rights & individual privacy issues.
2) they support an activist fed judicairy.
3) they have no evident care about balancing a budget nor borrowing monies from the chinese communist govt.
4) they don’t care about important environmental issues despite what some of their leaders have only recently declared.
5) they live overcomsumptive lifestyles in suburbia thus compromising our national security.
6) they are racist (blacks n browns), homophobic, and anti-immigrant.
shrink the fed govt, balance the damn budget, keep our military strong yet resist foreign entanglements, respect state & individual rights, reasonable compromise w the loyal opposition - this is conservativism!
we need a center third party & jettison the extremes to the back bench where they belong.
4. OhioOrrin | May 16th, 2008 at 11:51 am
as a followup to my above post -
“What’s next for the Ron Paul revolution?
The effort to renew the Founding Fathers’ vision is good for America.
Ron Paul and his 1 million supporters aren’t going away. And that’s probably a good thing for America’s future.
Following in the footsteps of Barry Goldwater, Paul has also just published a 167-page book, “The Revolution: A Manifesto.” He spells out his positions on everything from abortion to Iraq to the collapsing dollar.
Forty-eight years ago, Goldwater’s classic “Conscience of a Conservative” launched a public groundswell that helped propel Ronald Reagan into the White House.
Paul’s own politics hark back to classical conservatives, such as Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio (1939-53), and to the nation’s Founding Fathers. He favors smaller government with limited powers. To rescue a falling dollar, he’d dissolve the Federal Reserve and urge a reconsideration of the old gold standard. He would close hundreds of foreign bases and would force deep cuts in the Washington bureaucracy by abolishing the income tax.”
“Ron Paul is talking to people who are thirsting for the real thing. And he’s hitting the same chords that Goldwater hit and that Reagan hit in the early days…. He’s a very healthy phenomenon.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0516/p09s02-coop.html?page=2
5. Mark Noonan | May 16th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Magnum and JAT,
You, unfortunately, have zero understanding of what I wrote - but, then again, it wasn’t directed at you. Spend of few years learning about conservatism and then get back to me.
6. Mark Noonan | May 16th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Ohio,
That’s a load of nonsense - and Paul is no conservative…he’s a direct descendent of that 18th century liberalism-cum-Manchester School which conservatism has always been opposed to.
7. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 16th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Mark,
I think you have hit the nail on the head in your defining of what Conservatism is but I do not think that outside of a maybe 30 Congressional districts in the US you could actually field a candidate that could come coem in second in a three way race between a Democrat, A fiscal Conservo and your Social Conservo. Still your definition of what is conservative is one of the clearest I have ever read.
That said I do not think there are more than 10 or possibly as many as 12 million Americans that would vote their morals over their wallets. I also do not see that number increasing no matter who attacks the United States or how. I do see that number decreasing if the US economy worsens, meaning the energy shocks get deeper and longer, over the next decade.
8. OhioOrrin | May 16th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
dearest Mark - luv ya, but after the coming november destruction (fed,state,local), it’ll be left to actual conservatives to rebuild the damage done by the socials.
and to redefine the GOP.
9. OhioOrrin | May 16th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
mark, read (Peggy) Noonan in the WSJ -
“What happens to the Republicans in 2008 will likely be dictated by what didn’t happen in 2005, and ‘06, and ‘07. The moment when the party could have broken, on principle, with the administration – over the thinking behind and the carrying out of the war, over immigration, spending and the size of government – has passed. What two years ago would have been honorable and wise will now look craven. They’re stuck.
Mr. Bush has squandered the hard-built paternity of 40 years. But so has the party, and so have its leaders. If they had pushed away for serious reasons, they could have separated the party’s fortunes from the president’s. This would have left a painfully broken party, but they wouldn’t be left with a ruined “brand,” as they all say, speaking the language of marketing. And they speak that language because they are marketers, not thinkers. Not serious about policy. Not serious about ideas. And not serious about leadership, only followership.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
10. Mark Noonan | May 16th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Cavalor,
Morals trump a lot of things - we are not “homo economicus”, as evidence by the 60-80% who vote to ban gay marriage when given a chance. And, at any rate, no one is announcing that one must campaign on one issue - it all folds together, and the fiscals and socials have a community of interest…the precise “why” of support for low taxes might be different, but they still both want them…and both of them are in opposition to the left.
11. Mark Noonan | May 16th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Ohio,
If we’re destroyed this November, I do believe it will be for a very, very long time…there’s no easy coming back from the socialism Obama will impose, nor the culture of death he’ll midwife…if you want to have a chance at implementing your libertarianism, you’d better get a McCain yard sign and work like heck for GOP victory…
12. Danish Artist | May 16th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
The current “downfall” of the GOP is due to the fact that Republicans started acting like liberals - increased spending, increased government power and size, increased pork and earmarks, more social programs, etc. etc. etc.
It goes to show you that modern liberalism is an utter failure. If the GOP want to recover they need to return to conservatism and CLASSIC liberalism concerning liberty and the Constitution.
MS - you are living in the seventies. Hint: we did start a new century. You do realize that many cities and municipalities have BY LAW a minimum price for gasoline to protect the mom and pop stores from those larger stores that could sell gasoline ridiculously cheap to attract customers. These minimum prices are not set by Big Oil but by cities and municipalities.
Why haven’t the profit margins of Big Oil increased?
Now we may see if you get your information from those like Matt Lauer or maybe you have a clue.
13. Mark Noonan | May 16th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Ohio,
Ms. Noonan is a very intelligent lady who is 180 degrees out of kilter, flat wrong on the war, flat wrong on immigration…and her being wrong on these two issues have led her to lay all of conservatism’s problems at the door of President Bush, who has done more for conservatism than any other President since Reagan.
I know there is a great deal of opposition to the President - he is clearly the most unpopular man to ever hold the White House…and he’s also been right about everything save his signing on to CFR. Proof that honesty and courage are some times very unpopular characteristics. If we’re dragged down to defeat because of President Bush it means we’re dragged down to defeat because of low taxes, the culture of life, free markets, free trade, patriotism and victory in war….and you know full well that we won’t be dragged down because of that.
We might very well lose in November - but the reason for defeat, if it happens, will be the Congressional GOP going on a spending binge, liberal Democrats mounting the most atrocious, treasonous campaign of defeatism since the Copperheads of the Civil War and the failure of some conservatives to resolutely stand by the President. Too many times President Bush has been out there in the forefront, only to find that some of his conservatives are not with him because he’s failed to be “perfect” as defined by some branch of conserativism which is so narrowly focused on gnawing its own bone that it’ll see conservatism as a whole damned before making those small compromises necessary for victory over the real enemies.
Ms. Noonan neatly encapsulates this - because the war became long and difficult and because President Bush dared to not be in favor of mass deportation of illegals, Noonan has decided that the whole kit and kaboodle is worthless and that everyone must throw President Bush under the bus, or be anethametised. There’s a word for that position - and it has to do with what bulls do after dinner.
14. OhioOrrin | May 16th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
fair enough mark, back 2 the basic issue.
you wrote - “Conservatism, at bottom, is the defense of the old, Judeo-Christian civilization against all of those - for whatever reason - who seek to overthrow Judeo-Christianity and replace it with a new paradigm.”
but modern american conservatism is much, much broader to wit;
wikipedia - “Conservatism in the United States comprises a constellation of political ideologies including fiscal conservatism, supply-side economics, social conservatism,[1] libertarianism, bioconservatism and religious conservatism,[2] as well as support for a strong military,[3] and federalism.”
Types of conservatism
Defining “American conservatism” requires a definition of conservatism in general, and the term is applied to a number of ideas and ideologies, some more closely related to core conservative beliefs than others.
1. Classical or institutional conservatism - Opposition to rapid change in governmental and societal institutions. This kind of conservatism is anti-ideological insofar as it emphasizes process (slow change) over product (any particular form of government). To the classical conservative, whether one arrives at a right- or left-leaning government is less important than whether change is effected through rule of law rather than through revolution and sudden innovation. This form of conservatism is generally considered to be of limited relevance in the modern era.
2. Ideological conservatism or right-wing conservatism — In contrast to the anti-ideological classical conservatism, right-wing conservatism is, as its name implies, ideological. It is typified by three distinct subideologies: social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and economic liberalism. Together, these subideologies comprise the conservative ideology, while separately, these subideologies are incorporated into other political positions.
3. Neoconservatism has come to refer to the views of a subclass of conservatives who support a more assertive foreign policy coupled with one or more other facets of social conservatism, in contrast to the typically isolationist views of early- and mid-20th century conservatives. Neoconservatism was first described by a group of disaffected liberals, and thus Irving Kristol, usually credited as its intellectual progenitor, defined a “neoconservative” as “a liberal who was mugged by reality.” Although originally regarded as an approach to domestic policy (the founding instrument of the movement, Kristol’s The Public Interest periodical, did not even cover foreign affairs), through the influence of figures like Dick Cheney, Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Ken Adelman and (Irving’s son) William Kristol, it has become more famous for its association with the foreign policy of the George W. Bush Administration.
4. Small government conservatism — Small government conservatives look for a decreased role of the federal government, and as well weaker state governments. Small government conservatives, rather than focusing of the protections given individuals by the Bill of Rights, try to weaken the federal government, thereby following the Founders who were suspicious of a centralized, unitary state like Britain, from which they had just won their freedom.
5. Paleoconservatism, which arose in the 1980s in reaction to neoconservatism, stresses tradition, civil society, classical federalism and heritage of Christendom. They see social democracy, ideology, and managerial society as malevolent attempts to remake humanity. [1] Supporters say that the dominant forces in Western society no longer support conserving the traditions, institutions, and values that created and formed it. [2] Therefore, they say true conservatives must oppose the status quo. In statecraft, they call for decentralism, local rule, private property and minimal bureaucracy. [3] In society, they are traditionalist, support a Christian moral order and proclaim the nuclear family is a wise system. Some like Samuel P. Huntington argue that multiracial, multiethnic, and egalitarian states are inherently unstable.[9] Paleos are generally noninterventionist, arguing that American entry into foreign wars is unnecessary and unwise.
6. Libertarian conservatism emphasizes a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, particularly with regard to federal power. This mode of thinking tends to espouse laissez-faire economics and a disdain for and distrust of the federal government. Libertarian conservatives’ emphasis on personal freedom often leads them to adopt social positions that would be considered moderate or, in some cases, even liberal; Barry Goldwater, for example, was staunchly pro-choice.”
I believe you, Mark, are a paleo.
I’m # 4 & 6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States
15. Jay Gaultieri | May 16th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Social conservatives have been voting Republican since the days of Roe vs. Wade in 1973. Republicans have been President 23 of those 35 years, have appointed almost all of the Supreme Court judges, held a majority of the governorships and framed the debate on most of the issues.
In that time prayer has remained out of public schools, Roe vs Wade has stood, illegitimate births soared to record highs, VDs spread in unprecedented numbers, 6 states recognized gay marriage or civil unions, the Supreme Court ruled all consenting sexual relations between adults were legal, pop music got coarser, movies and TV got more violent, the pornography industry exploded and the American people reacted to charges of President Clinton being fellated with an eye-watering yawn.
Is there something to be said about the debasement of American culture? Yes. Will voting Republican change things? Obviously not. You guys have been played for chumps.
16. Just Another Taxpayer | May 16th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Mr. Noonan,
I am not concerned with whether or not what you wrote was directed at me. I”M BEING FORCED TO PAY FOR MISTAKES I DID NOT MAKE!!! That you advocate this forced payment gives me the right to speak here.
In a very real sense, like Reagan before me”I paid for this mike”..
While you may object only to being forced to pay for the mistakes of the countries most marginal citizens, I object to being forced to pay for anyones mistakes, rich or poor. Being forced to shoulder the burden of others failings is the very essence of liberalism.
If you can find some way to restore my homes equity, take back the tax money that goes for interest my great grand children will be paying in perpetuity to the Chinese, or anyone else Bush and his ilk could find when they wouldn’t pay for anyhting themselves, including war, and find a way to get the Iraqis to shoulder the cost of whatever we’re doing over there, and get the price of energy back down I’d be really appreciative. So would alot of servicemen. And while your at it, cut any secular liberal spending you like. You’ll be thanked for cutting both.
Use the surplus to generously supplement the paltry 2.2% pay increase that servicemen recieved last year, the lowest in 13 years. I’m sure they’d really appreciate it.
Especially my neighbor.
As far as your differences with Ms. Noonan go, I believe that its less your differences on the war and illegal immigration as much as your differing views on the $200,000 in equity that you’ve lost on your home that is forcing you to pay more for your home than its worth.
Ms. Noonan, as solid as her own financial position might be, may not like what is happening to her fellow countrymen, including you. You choose to live that way, and so be it. It’s your right. Others of your countrymen, including an increasing number in your own party, do not feel the same way. I believe this is what she thinks is what will bring about the demise of Reagan legacy. She could well be right.
So the question is how much do you have lose, Mr. Noonan, before you start advocating freedom from the obligation to pay for the liberal mistakes made by both sides of the aisle?
Till you start advocating for such freedom, your as liberal as Edward Kennedy.
Ron Paul for President!!! A REAL conservative for REAL change!!!
17. Freedom1 | May 16th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Whither Conservatism? Indeed. What the hell is the White House doing?! What is President Bush thinking?!
The United States Is Going To Supply Saudi Arabia With Enriched Uranium - AFP
Tell me I’m having a nightmare! The US is actually going to give Wahhabi Islamist Saudi Arabia the ability to build dirty bombs or possibly even nuclear weapons?! This is insane!
18. Mark Noonan | May 16th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Freedom,
Its tricky - but Saudi Arabia fears greatly a nuclear Iran…what we’re trying to do is prevent the Saudis from building nukes of their own in response.
19. Mark Noonan | May 16th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Ohio,
Well, more to the point, I’m Catholic…you know THE basis of our Judeo-Christian civilization, outisde of its Jewish roots, right?
What I think we might have to clarify here is what we’re trying to conserve…I guess you could call a communist in Russia a conservative because he’s trying to conserve Russia’s communist legacy…but that, of course, is not what anyone really means when they say “conservative”. As I’ve said, conservatism is the defense of Judeo-Christian civilization against those who would overthrow it - in as much as anyone adheres to these Judeo-Christian roots, that person is conservative. I would put it more that you have conservative elements within an over all libertarian worldview - which makes you my Rt. Hon. Friend (as the Brits would put it) in most political debates, but we’ll part company from time to time on various issues. Libertarianism’s primary strength is its respect for the individual - which is a very basic Christian principle (Christ came to save individuals, not groups, ya see?) - its primary weakness is its inability to see that the human unclothed with social convention is a wild beast more likely to destroy than to build - but at least Libertarians have no beef with we Christians trying to convert people.
My primary focus here in 2008 is how necessary it is for all conservatives - even those I don’t actually consider to be all that conservative, but who are Friends - to unite behind John McCain and that oh, so fallible GOP. I’m not asking you to see white and call it black, but I am asking you to see that any retreat of political power on our part will be swiftly filled not just by the old liberalism, but with radical leftism bent on destroying the United States. Our opponents aren’t quasi-fascist New Dealers of yore wanting to just make everything swell via government regulation…oh, no; these are social revolutionaries who want to cut at our society root and branch. The libertarian in you may be very pro-choice on a lot of things - but the leftists who may win in November are the people who will set up nationalised health care, and then start to ration it, and then start killing “unfit” people who are a burden on the system…and so much for “choice”.
You’re going to get a much better chance at your smaller government with McCain than with Obama - and I believe your choice is clear.
20. against libertarianism&hellip | May 17th, 2008 at 2:08 am
[…] care about the party only insofar as it serves the movement, not the other way around. If the partyhttp://blogsforvictory.com/2008/05/16/whither-conservatism/For Media Cato InstituteWASHINGTON–Naomi Klein’s popular book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of […]
21. Brian | May 17th, 2008 at 3:02 am
Mark said:
“This is not to say that conservatives can’t or won’t take exception to various aspects of McCain’s global warming plan, or other efforts of his (notably things like CFR) - but the crucial battles for conservatism are not whether we’ll have “cap and trade” and absurd restrictions on campaign spending, but whether marriage will remain between one man and one woman; that parents will remain the ultimate authority in a child’s life; ”
McCain has the same position as Obama on gay marriage. They both believe the issue should be left up to the states. They both voted against a Constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage
Mark said:
“The most conservative Americans in the world are ticked off at high gas prices - they don’t go for the stupidity of leftwing thinking on it (ie, an evil cabal of Big Oil making prices go higher), but the high prices are annoying,”
There is an evil cabal of Big Oil making prices go higher. It’s called OPEC.
22. Mark Noonan | May 17th, 2008 at 3:49 am
Brian,
No, they don’t - Obama is de-facto in favor of gay marriage, McCain is definitively opposed to it.
No, it isn’t a cabal keeping oil prices high but some rather obtuse speculators in the oil futures market.
23. Eric T | May 17th, 2008 at 7:47 am
The author writes-
“The most conservative Americans in the world are ticked off at high gas prices - they don’t go for the stupidity of leftwing thinking on it (ie, an evil cabal of Big Oil making prices go higher), but the high prices are annoying, and if supposed conservative leaders want to offer a series of excuses for the high prices - even if the most carefully reasoned in terms of basic economics - then they are going to get blindsided by the guys who are proposing solutions.”
This piece the author writes is great. It really is very accurate too. Energy Prices will be a bigger factor than most people think in the 2008 election . We are coming up to Memorial Day, a day to remember those who have given their lives for our country. Our pals on Wall St. see the day as reason to push energy prices to record highs and break it off in everyones rear.
The crude was $78 after Katrina, when there really was a supply disruption. Today no problems with supply and 127 a barrel. Our fiscal conservatives on talk radio, push “oil is our friend” and all this stuff about biofuels are terrible.” We stay at this rate, and don’t look for alternatives for energy, oil will be a several hundred dollars a barrel in a few years.
Many forget Bush was behind many of the ideas for alternative energy.
24. liberty mutual&hellip | May 17th, 2008 at 11:29 am
[…] care about the party only insofar as it serves the movement, not the other way around. If the partyhttp://blogsforvictory.com/2008/05/16/whither-conservatism/Bush basks in Israel’s love AFP via Yahoo! News Facing dismally low approval ratings at home, US […]
25. Freedom1 | May 17th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Mark,
Giving Saudi Arabia- Islamist Shar’ia Hell-on-Earth - from which 15 of the 19 9/11 WTC hijackers came from enriched uranium is insane. They will make dirty bombs out of it and perhaps the Russians or the Chinese or Pakistan will sell Saudi Arabia the plans to make nuclear weapons. It’s unbelievably insane. Once the jihadis acquire nuclear material/nukes, they will use them.
Yes, the Saudis greatly fear a nuclear Iran. But, the sane and proper response isn’t to make the entire Middle East nuclear, it’s destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. Take out Iran’s nuclear facilities, keep the rest of the Middle East nuclear weapon-free (Except for Pakistan, and look what we have to put up with there. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have set up their base there and we can’t touch them because of the potential for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal to fall into Taliban hands.)
26. Freedom1 | May 17th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Oh, and one more point. Iran is Shiite. Saudi Arabia is Sunni. Sunnis and Shiites are bitter enemies. Once Saudi Arabia goes nuclear, Iran will fear Saudi Arabia. Iran will never give up its nuclear weapons program, then. Ever.
The only sane and reasonable response is to militarily destroy Iran’s nuclear program, before the rest of the Middle East goes nuclear - to protect each other from each other.
27. phnx | May 17th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
“There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a liberal. And it has been proven in poll after poll that people are Centralist not Conservative as you state up above.
And we all know how to get (fill in the blank), begin investigating (fill in the blank).” MS
The liberal mantra…”when in doubt…investigate”
Have you ever heard of the law of supply and demand moron?
There are only three ways of getting the price of oil down:
1. Increase supply
2. Reduce demand
3. Both of the above together
You leftists are a scarry lot.
28. Just Another taxpayer | May 17th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Phnx,
You forgot something.
Demand it from any country after you put half a trillion dollars and 4,100 lives into it with no end in sight either for bloodletting or red ink. Iraqis stand to make 70 billion from their output this year. Send some this way. Or do they make money dissapear the way Bush does?
Americans are as tired of paying for the mistakes of the Bush elite as they are of paying for the failures of the poor.
Start being real conservatives instead of lapdogs for religious and secular liberals.
29. phnx | May 18th, 2008 at 6:27 am
JAT,
While what you propose may help to recover some of the cost of the Iraq war, it will not reduce the price of oil. Re-read #27. Those are the only ways to do so.
30. Pain | May 18th, 2008 at 6:59 am
27. phnx | May 17th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Let Us be a bit more blunt, invade another oil producing nation and steal it.
31. Just Another taxpayer | May 18th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Phnx
Why not? Won’t that increase supply? It seems you’ve finally seen why Bush policy in Iraq is a failure and any notion of success is a sham.
If our policy was a success, the Iraqis would want to help shoulder the cost of what we’re doing there. Bushs certainty that he can’t make the request proves Iraqis would just as soon have us leave.
After Katrina, France, despite how Bushies trashed her even after their failure in Iraq became apparent, stepped up and convinced the European Union to release 2 million barrels of gasoline for our use. Watching Bush thank them was one of the more edifying moments of his presidency.
Iraq didn’t offer a single barrel of anything in response. They offer nothing now.
Phnx, Americans would like to see some substantive appreciation for our sacrifice there,
not a continous affirmation Bush effort to portray failure as success.
Wouldn’t our troops like to see that, too? Put up or shut up. Right.
32. FmrMarine | May 18th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
painintheass
>>>Let Us be a bit more blunt, invade another oil producing nation and steal it.<<<
Only a leftist MORON would spout such rubbage.
First all of the middle east was one of the poorest places on the planet.
The US and other free world nations developed the oil fields with OUR, expertise, money, and industry.
We in turn had assurances of availability of the oil at fair prices.
It seems the radical islaminists would now deprive us of the oil WE built for them.
This is national survival for the free world, we cannot let some small country smash our economy.
The way around this problem is continually blocked by leftists nutcases in congress.
33. Gay Sex Gay Sex Videos Bl&hellip | June 27th, 2008 at 4:29 am
Gay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view