The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Feature

Up From Ideology

By from the April 2010 issue

A conservative’s definition of conservatism — an essay adapted from RET’s new book, After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery, published April 20.

Ever since the Reagan presidency, the smokestacks of the Kultursmog have pumped out the myth that conservatives intent on cutting taxes, deregulating industry, privatizing government services, or strengthening the military are acting as ideologues. In the Kultursmog — our political culture thoroughly polluted by Liberal bugaboos and pieties — it is understood that ideologues are unreasonable enthusiasts, often given to unworkable political projects dangerous to the commonweal — the kind of projects Edmund Burke warned about while witnessing the French Revolution. When Liberals use the term, it is a term of disparagement, which they disdainfully apply to conservatives. Yet when they are calling conservatives ideologues, they are again engaged in Masked Politics. That is to say, they are advancing big government projects behind a mask, say, the mask of sweet environmentalism, or reasonable consumerism, or sexual hygiene — one of Eleanor Roosevelt’s favorites.

Behind their masks of measured reason, it is the Liberals who are the ideologues. Conservatism is not an ideology but, as the great conservative political philosopher Michael Oakeshott has explained, a “disposition.” The fact that conservatism is but a disposition explains why the conservative’s political libido is restrained while the Liberal’s is famously inclement.

Ideology is a word that has undergone many changes since the Frenchman Destutt de Tracy introduced it in the late 18th century as meaning the “science of ideas.” Shortly thereafter, in the early 19th century, Napoleon conferred on the word the deprecatory sense that makes Liberals don their masks and apply it to conservatives. Napoleon applied the word to the zealots of the French Revolution, whose enthusiasms for abstraction and for balmy projects were the ruin of France and a threat to his well-run army. Had he not thwarted them, he never would have become an emperor, and his army might never have gotten to a battlefield on time. The French Revolutionaries even imposed their abstractions on time. They dreamed up a revolutionary calendar, revising months, days, and even the clock. It led to all sorts of impractical results that brought France ever more grief.

Unsurprisingly, no other country adopted the Revolutionary clock. Not even President Barack Obama has shown an interest in it. If Napoleon were forced to use it, he might have found himself ordering his troops into battle about the time that, according to the Revolutionary clock, his infantry was expecting lunch or his cavalry’s horses all had to go to the bathroom. The revolutionaries’ exaltation of reason that struck Burke as cruel and tyrannical struck Napoleon as imbecilic. Ever since Napoleon’s denunciations, the ideologue has been suspected of imposing impractical academic schemes on ordinary life, which is precisely what Liberals often do. The Liberal imposes such ideological constructs as diversity, income redistribution, and gender or racial quotas on society, while deviously denying their ideological designs. The conservative implements tax cuts that actually spur economic growth, and is dismissed by the Liberal as an ideologue. Tax cuts, of course, are popular with ordinary Americans. Quotas and income redistribution are not. The Liberals’ recourse is to the Kultursmog, where they just pump out more smog: “Tax cuts are unpopular and cause deficits!” “Quotas and income redistribution are a matter of justice, and people love them!” “Only bigots oppose them!” Here again, the Liberal is engaged in Masked Politics.

MICHAEL OAKESHOTT SET DOWN his finding that conservatism is a disposition in an essay still popular with many conservative intellectuals, “On Being Conservative.” There the distinguished British philosopher explains that, rather than being an ideology, conservatism is a disposition, one that favors, he says, “the present.” As he analyzes conservatism, conservatives — unlike Liberals — rarely seek to impose ideas or policies on the present unless the present is “arid” or “remarkably unsettled.” Those ideas or policies that conservatives actually impose on society will not be the academic contrivances of revolutionaries or of hell-bent reformers, but what Oakeshott would perceive as being tried and true. Where conservatism is au fond a disposition toward the present, Liberalism is au fond an anxiety about the present. Keeping this analysis in mind, we can understand the origin of Liberalism’s one unwavering political value, namely: to disturb the peace. Once we understand that it is personal anxiety that provokes the Liberals’ petty crimes against society, the bloom is off their claims to noble visions and humanitarian reforms. Armed with an awareness of Liberalism’s anxious nature, conservatives will be better prepared for the Liberals’ furious opposition. A disposition is always more nonchalant than an anxiety.

To be sure, there are restless, impulsive conservatives. Newt Gingrich comes to mind. However, the true conservative will put golf before the meetings of “concerned citizens,” the cocktail hour before a flag burning, and a day at the office before flying off to the Indus Valley to sit at the feet of a smelly swami or to Scandinavia to arrange a sex change.

Oakeshott also explains how conservatives are roused to political action, albeit reluctantly:

If the present is arid, offering little or nothing to be used or enjoyed, then this inclination [this disposition to use or enjoy] will be weak or absent; if the present is remarkably unsettled, it will display itself in a search for a firmer foothold and consequently in a recourse to and an exploration of the past; but it asserts itself characteristically when there is much to be enjoyed, and it will be strongest when this is combined with evident risk or loss. In short, it is a disposition appropriate to a man who is acutely aware of having something to lose which he has learned to care for; a man in some degree rich in opportunities for enjoyment, but not so rich that he can afford to be indifferent to loss.

That “something to lose,” for modern conservatives, has been individual liberty, and it has been infringements on individual liberty that have incited conservative activism from the days of the New Deal to the present collectivism of Obamaism. The New Conservatism was roused by the New Deal. The Reagan Revolution was roused by the Great Society. The Republicans’ Contract with America was roused by premonitions in the early Clinton administration of a return to big government, particularly in the area of health care. Always conservatism’s impetus has been to preserve individual liberty, as warranted by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

IN THE 1950s AND 1960s, Frank Meyer, a senior editor to the New Conservatism’s leading magazine, National Review, became the intellectual strategist and practitioner of Oakeshott’s lyrical philosophizing. Through his national lecture tours, his service as the magazine’s book review editor, and his political column in the magazine, aptly titled “Principles and Heresies,” he refined the movement’s principles and resolved disagreements among the movement’s first constituent groups — the anti-Communists, the traditionalists, and the libertarians. In the case of the last two groups, he developed a political analysis that kept them together when they were perhaps at the point of breaking away from each other and slipping into obscurity. The analysis was dubbed “fusionism,” by his friend L. Brent Bozell, Bill Buckley’s brother-in-law. Frank did not like the term, but he accepted it, and it caught on.

A graduate of Oxford’s Balliol College, Frank was an active Communist through the 1930s. Working in Chicago, he became one of the Party’s most effective organizers, and after he broke with the Party in the 1940s an effective anti Communist. He left the Communist Party with at least two invaluable troves of knowledge, the nature and practice of Marxist-Leninist ideology and the locations of all the best restaurants in Chicago. The Reds’ appreciation of history might have been defective, but not their appreciation of cuisine. Frank raised the epicurean standards of the conservative movement as well as its standards of political analysis.

From his modest house on a quiet rural road up a mountain in Woodstock, New York — for a while Bob Dylan lived down from it — Frank read and wrote and telephoned fellow members of the New Conservatism all over the country from dusk to dawn. Fearing that the Communists would kill him in his sleep, he slept by day and worked from wake-up time, around 4:00 p.m., until bed-time, around 8:00 a.m. He slept with a shotgun at his bedroom door. Chain-smoking through the night and alternating coffee with an occasional tumbler of Scotch, he cultivated a network of anti-Communist, traditionalist, and libertarian intellectuals to review books for National Review and organize throughout the country. In the early 1960s, when a serious break between traditionalists and libertarians threatened the unity of the movement, he kept them together with fusionism, which mined the best thought of both groups and demonstrated their coherence.

As a member of the conservative movement’s two youth groups, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (originally founded as the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists in 1952, when Buckley and other founders of the modern conservative movement were more comfortable calling themselves individualists than conservatives) and the Young Americans for Freedom, I spent as much time with Frank as I could. He was a born prof, who relished speaking on campus and developing the next generation of conservative intellectuals and activists. I, as editor in chief of a conservative student magazine, had little difficulty becoming one of his friends before his untimely death at age 62 from lung cancer. In terms of intellect and selfless energy, there has been no one to equal him since.

Usually I visited with him when he was on one of his frequent speaking tours. I only spent one working night with him in Woodstock, but it was a memorable one. From New York City I brought along a young friend whom I knew Frank would see as a potential conservative activist, Bill Kristol, the son of the emerging “Godfather” of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol. I was a graduate student, working on a PhD in American history. Bill was a high school student. Even then Bill was not what you would call a neoconservative. At a very early age, Bill was pretty much a movement conservative, exuberantly to the right of his father. We arrived around dusk; had dinner at Frank’s usual time, 8:30 p.m.; and for the rest of the night talked about politics, philosophy, the arts, and sports. Bill was too young to drink. I compensated. Until we all turned in after breakfast at 6:00 a.m., it was a raucous night punctuated by Frank’s long-distance calls to his apparatchiks and book reviewers and by cups of coffee alternately taken with the Scotch. Frank had a theory: coffee kept him alert; Scotch kept him relaxed.

After our brief retreat to sleep, we were awakened by his graceful wife, Elsie, who led us to my car and the bleary drive back to Manhattan. Mark that night down as one of the most grueling nights I have ever spent. Dancing at a Manhattan nightclub until dawn can be hard on the liver and other interior plumbing, but trying to keep up with Frank was far more punishing. By the time we got back to the Kristol family’s Manhattan flat to greet Irving and his wife, the historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, I suspect we looked more like we had spent the previous 24 hours with Frank’s neighbor, Bob Dylan, than with the book review editor of National Review.

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (80) |

Brian Mc| 4.20.10 @ 7:37AM

Mr. Tyrrell,

You appear to enjoy cutting right to the marrow. A fascinating piece and I look forward to reading the book.

Keep up the good work, with temperment!

Alan Brooks| 4.20.10 @ 8:12AM

But the question is, as always: is Reaganism outmoded; and if not, can the GOP do better than Bush, Dole, McCain? or am I gullible? (offspring of liberal families tend to be). Is politics dominated by SNAFU?:
Situation normal all fouled up?

Old Soldier | 4.20.10 @ 9:24AM

The question is: "Is Reaganism repeatable?"

I doubt it. It's unlikely that we will find a leader with that kind of charisma in the next 2 years. Even if we do, the political climate has changed too much.

Our current media would attack a Reagan relentlessly. And, present day Democrats would never cooperate with a Republican President the way Tip O'Neil did.

JP| 4.20.10 @ 10:42AM

You do bring up a good question. And the answer is an obvious -yes. Reaganism is outmoded for a number of obvious reasons: Liberalism has changed; the Cold War is over; and the old coalition of Cold Warrirors, Neo-Classicists (or NeoCons), Evangelicals, Paleocons, Rockefeller Republicans, and Libertarians is gone. Reagan presided over a very unhappy group of people who in many ways distrusted eachother as much as they did Liberals.

The old Rockefeller Republicans are now extinct (they died out with Jeffords and Chaffee); the Iraq War split the Cold Warriors. Some, such as Sen Webb became Democrats. The NeoCons lost thier influence once GW left in 2008. That leaves, Evangelicals and Libertarians.

The next leader will have to forge an alliance that unites the various elements. The leader must appeal to Bostonians as well as people from Bronson. Scott Brown's election highlighted both what is achievable for the GOP as well as its limits. I hope two things will come out as highlights for the GOP these next 2 years - Ordered Liberty and a desire to conserve what is left of our civic Traditions. Federalsim should be included, but that is probably too abstract for most people. Freedom (which is what Ordered Liberty produces) is much easier to connect to. We as a party must convince the voters that Liberty is much more important than short term comforts. I would hope that a new vibrant, intellectually deep, as well as a populist political movement can be formed by the union of all of these different factions. I hope too that this movement can produce a national politician that can go beyond what the current group of pols offers.

Mimi| 4.20.10 @ 12:47PM

IT HAS BEGUN!..... the media against R epublicans has always been there .It is perenial asthe GRASS! We have to wait for that person!

Margie| 4.20.10 @ 4:31PM

Reaganism is a temperament. And many of us possess it. It's never going away.

Alan Brooks| 4.26.10 @ 11:06AM

Cloning is unethical-- but can't we clone Washington, Madison, Coolidge, and Reagan?

couldn't God forgive us four times?

Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 4.20.10 @ 8:13AM

"Recovery" was just published? Hmm, that's funny!! I've had it sitting on my desk here, for a few weeks now, not having the time to read it yet, but it's making a fine paperweight for me so far. If you'd just open up that wallet of yours, and make a "small" contribution to this fine website that we all enjoy reading (to help them stay in business), YOU TOO, could have this fine paperweight on your desk too. Seriously, have you ever left a T.I.P. that you can fold?

But I swear I'm going to read it this weekend!!

Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 8:21AM

Neoconservatism or Conservatism .

Curly Smith| 4.20.10 @ 8:24AM

Or, if you want the tattoo, stick with Ringo's Law which states "Everything government touches turns to crap." For the 'utes, Ringo is Ringo Starr of a little rock band called The Beatles.

Old Soldier| 4.20.10 @ 2:00PM

You had me running through John Ringo books in my mind. It is something he would say too and I absolutely agree.

There are no "successful" federal government programs. Only those that have yet to go bankrupt or explode in corruption and the ones that have.

Stuart Koehl| 4.20.10 @ 8:47AM

"A. "Conservatism assumes the existence of an objective moral order based upon ontological foundations.""

Mr. Tyrrell puts the cart before the horse by having as his first principle for conservatism a belief in an objective moral order. Even before this, a true conservative knows (it is much stronger than belief) that human nature is both fallen and immutable. Conservatives believe virtue is an objective, but they do not believe it can be attained through purely human efforts. Thus, conservatives must, out of hand, reject all utopian projects and ideologies.

JP| 4.20.10 @ 10:56AM

You hit the nail on the head. I would hope we have learnt much since George Will penned his classic, Statescraft as Soulcraft. In that book, he outlined his Torrie dream of using the levers of the federal government to instill moral virtue on our population. The seeds of Compassionate Conservatism were sown in 1982 with publication of that lecture. Ironically, George Will's ideas were adopted by a family whom he never really care much about -the Bush family.

As you stated, the existing moral order informs our politics; not the other way around. Being a Roman Catholic, I am a big believer in the traditional moral order; however, the federal government is not the place to instill those virtues. It is the family, the church, schools, and the lowest levels of self government that do this (ie the local community). It's funny how messed up things have gotten. This Federalist ideal has been inverted. For most townships, villages, and nieghborhoods cannot even post a Christmas creche. But a distant federal bureaucrat has the power to regulate everything from the cereal you eat to how much water you can use to flush your toilet. A local courthouse cannot post the 10 Commandments, but the Federal Appeals Court sees no problem in raising awareness of Islamic Observances such as Ramadan in our public schools.

pgp| 4.20.10 @ 3:23PM

Excellent reminder of Statecraft as Soulcraft, one of the milestones in the decline of American Conservatism. (Didn't it win a Coogler award?) Will's ridiculous book actually persuaded some "conservative Democrats" of my acquaintance that they could realize their High Tory paternalistic goals from within the GOP. This appealed to them as the GOP seemed to have all the energy and optimism back then. Guess where they ended up - voting for Obama, just as Bush 43 paved the way for Obama's overreach with the bailouts of both banks and GM. Good riddance to the lot of them..

Stuart Koehl| 4.21.10 @ 6:38AM

True Tories were paternalistic, but not because they thought they could instill virtue in the lower classes. Rather, they were paternalistic because they did not believe the lower classes were capable of virtue, and thus needed regulation in order to maintain order and decency in society.

The Founders were Whigs, who took a path between the two poles of toryism and progressivism: they did not believe human nature was redeemable by human effort, but they did believe that civic virtue, founded on personal virtue, was attainable by free men whose baser instincts were constrained by a limited government on the one hand, and religious and social institutions on the other.

Modern American conservatism is heir to that Whig tradition, not to the toryism or reactionary conservatism of Europe.

And, though American conservatism believes in individual liberty, it is not libertarian, for libertarians are just as utopian and doctrinaire as their statist counterparts.

As I have said before, both build sandcastles in the air, whereas conservatives ought to be empiricists who do not base their plans on overarching theories.

Stuart Koehl| 4.21.10 @ 5:58AM

I might also point out that this belief in a fallen, immutable human nature, as well as an innate belief in organic social institutions, is why true conservatives support organized religion, even if they are not believers themselves. The concept of an openly atheistic conservative is oxymoronic, for even if they don't believe, conservatives know that for the majority of people, religious faith is what instills a belief in the objective moral order in most people, which is enforced through a system of supernatural rewards and punishments.

Of course, this is hypocritical, but the true conservative understands that hypocrisy is the 10W40 that makes the world run smoothly. Liberals, on the other hand, are more concerned with "authenticity"--but it is amazing how often they manage to use "authenticity" as a cover for their own hypocrisy.

Mike| 4.20.10 @ 9:15AM

Mr. Tyrrell,

I found this article more an exercise in name calling and a trip down memory land than an exposition of conservative philosophy.
I'm off to read Michael Oakeshott.

davelnaf| 4.20.10 @ 9:19AM

Interesting article. Liberals indeed have “anxieties” that drive them to change what works with what is new, untested, and often based on dubious logic. Why they are motivated to seek to replace the tried and true with the untested and unfamiliar is not fully understood and awaits a thorough exploration of the intellect and the way it is influenced by our other mental activities and functions. The very fact that we do not understand why so some people use one ideology or another to help them interpret reality and why others prefer a heavier inclusion of commonsense and logic strongly suggests that the results of such an analysis would very likely improve the quality of life for everyone.

Pingback| 4.20.10 @ 9:39AM

Assorted Reads for a Tuesday « Nebraska Redneck links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…The election of Barack Obama made nonsense of the idea that America remains a racist country and thereby necessitated an intensifying of attacks on the opposition as racist. * * * * * Word of the day:   Kultursmog.   Defined in the Urban Dictionary as A term coined by columnist, Bob Tyrrell, to describe the cloud of “liberal misconceptions and bugaboos” that “pollutes the liberals’ minds and…

Becky| 4.20.10 @ 9:40AM

Something I have noticed since Obama is that I spend way too much time concerned with what government is thinking and doing, and not in an excited, can't wait way, but in an anxious, oh, no we are screwed way.

Limited government means citizens have more time to be productive, and go about your business without fear of suddenly being arrested for doing something illegal of which was legal yesterday. Under George Bush you could resell your old high chair, not have to buy health insurance, not worry about your kids singing praise songs to the president in school, and eat a fast food burger without guilt. And he wasn't conservative.

I very much like the description of conservatism as a temperament.

In a mathamatical sense, what does the differential equation look like from New Deal/conservative push back; Great Society/conservative push back and where are we on that curve regarding Obama?

Bob S| 4.20.10 @ 2:25PM

The answer is easy. We're on the part of the curve where the slope = -0.0000000001. In other words, damn close to rock bottom.

Mimi| 4.20.10 @ 10:05AM

THANK YOU Mr. Tyrrell, "Ordinary Americansmade uneasy by the liberals feverish projects" This quote sir, has brought us today to where we are at in this point in time. The universal consciousness of the whole of the people in this nation are more than made uneasy. We have teapartys', patriots stepping up to run for office, all coming out of the woodwork! HANGOVER? the current democrat crew are DRUNK with power and CONTROL,spending like "DRUNKEN SAILORS" on and on. NOW: We need " "68" senators {veto proof}. We need honorable judges to stem the federal take over of the business of the 50 states {ie healthcare, Cap and trade}. We need, every elected servant of the people to vigorously honor their OATHS. In our HANGOVER" were in the "SHAKES and SWEATS" stage of recovery. On to the " 12" STEPS. RN. retired, ETOH& DRUG nurse MIMI

Siegfried X| 4.20.10 @ 10:35AM

This article, unfortunately, is purely theoretical, and a waste of time. In fact it is self-deception.

The leadership of the Republican Party has rejected conservatism and instead decided to govern as "Democrat Light".

So this article constructs a theoretical conservative philosophy which will never matter in the real world because the Republican leadership, the insiders, oppose it, and don't want to be conservative. It is self-deception to vote Republican on the assumption that Republican politicians will agree with this philosophy. Pretending that the Republican leadership exactly agrees with me won't make it so.

William R| 4.20.10 @ 10:39AM

Bill Kristol movement conservative??

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.20.10 @ 11:17AM

Mr. Tyrrell
Thank you.
You "set the table nicely" and I'm looking forward to your book.
This article went into my "permanent docs."

Mike,
If you go look up the words you don't understand in the article, it might make more sense to you.
Heh.
I did say "might", folks.
...not holding my breath though. Soros did not send him a dictionary or Thesaurus.

TURK| 4.20.10 @ 11:18AM

Conservatism has struggled mightily for a home for decades. In the 60's it was not just leftist hippies who ascended(and became the present ruling class). Within the eastern oriented country club republican party the Conservatives defeated the Rockefellers et al and nominated Barry Goldwater. A recent book (to me) "Before the Storm", provides insights to that 60's battle within and among the Repubs. A subtitle appearing on the cover calls the events "the Unmaking of the American Consensus". This a great descriptive to the reality that came before Goldwater---ther were 2 parties but one reality-liberalism! Reagan utilized the fruits of 64 but along came 12 yrs of the Bushes and their antipathy to Conservatism (kinder gentler--no new taxes-compassionate etc etc) and we got 8 yrs of Clinton and this present socialist/statist disaster. The good news? No more 'consensus!!

Al Adab| 4.20.10 @ 1:54PM

Underlyingthe current problems of the Conservative Movement and the Tea Party Movement is the issue of allowing oneself to be defined by the statements of the opposition. Aided by the Left media organs it is the Left which is telling the public what the Movements represent. Until we begin, through positive action, to present a clear image to the public confusion will continue.

Since neither the Tea Party nor the Conservatives intend to blow up buildings or take arms against our current "sea of troubles" other actions are needed. Our lcal Tea Party is preparing a Memorial Day fundraising effort for both Wounded Warrior and Coalition for America's Heros. That is exactly the type of direct action best suited to show the best of the movement. Our opposition cannot be allowed to continue to define the meaning of the groups.

pgp| 4.20.10 @ 3:47PM

RET -

First, thank you for reminding us of Frank Meyer, whose status as a prime mover of self-conscious conservativism is almost forgotten.

Second, I hope the rest of your book continues discussing the importance and difficulties in holding together the disparate philosophical grounds on which conservatives stand. I'll certainly be getting it on the strength of this.

Third, please focus on making TAS the deflator of High Seriousness in service to Current Wisdom that it once was. TAS throughout the Carter and Reagan years (when I discovered it) was far and away the best magazine I've ever followed. There are would-be pedagogues on right as well as the left who need taking down, and they reach beyond the Books and Frumps. Occasionally, they can be found on this website attacking the conservative bona-fides of both the obvious suspects mentioned above and worthy toilers who may not be their preferred candidate. This needs to stop.

If TAS wants to make a specific critique or analysis of one person's stand on a particular issue, that can be constructive criticism (see the recent piece on Mitt's problems because of Romneycare). But the kind of personal condemnation launched against Palin in the new issue makes TAS seem as self-destructive as the "I'll Be The Next Broder!" twins. It's destructive of the conservative movement and just unworthy of the name of this once sprightly yet always grounded publication. Don't forget that Frum led NR down this path with his anti-traditionalist screed before abandoning the movement altogether.

Regards, PGP

Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 4:13PM

Frum is a Toronto Born Canadian Neoconservative ,Not a Conservative.

Brooks is a Toronto Born Neoconservative ,Not a Conservative.

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.20.10 @ 6:20PM

Tim*
Would you please give me your off the cuff "definition" of a Neoconservative?
Thankyou.

Siegfried X| 4.20.10 @ 6:47PM

neo-conservative - new + conservative

An individual who feels that regular conservatism isn't good enough so he must replace it with something else.

The first generation (1960's) neo-cons were card-carrying Democrats who switched to Republican solely because they wanted tough military action against Communism.

Today's neocons are the same thing, Democrats-except-for-one-issue. They are Republican for only one issue, which is usually wanting a military war against all Muslims.

Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 7:19PM

In economics, unlike paleoconservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.

Margie| 4.20.10 @ 7:47PM

Folks:
Here is what the lovely *Tim is made of. *Tim is a fraud. Here is his post to me in another thread, today. I am his definition of Neo-conservative!

Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 6:49PM

Now Margie ,You Slandering Slut !

My ilk is Tea Party Rebel ,while Your Ilk Margie ,is Israeli Firster NeoConservative Fanatic ,who attempts to slander anyone ,who dares to question The Foreign Nation of Israel's Agenda ans Uunited States National Interests in The ME.

Watch your Scummy Slandering Mouth ,Maniewoman.

Margie| 4.20.10 @ 8:11PM

Yet another gem from *Tim:

Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 6:53PM

Gee Margie, Our Tea Party America First Agenda Trumps Your Israel Firster Agenda, Fascist Sweetie .

Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 8:38PM

Now Fanatical Neoconservative Israel Firster Margie ,are you disputing that America First trumps Israel First ?
You're Up Nutbag !

Margie| 4.20.10 @ 8:52PM

By their posts you will know them.

Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 9:00PM

That's My Point Crazy Lady.

See A Therapist.

Margie| 4.20.10 @ 11:04PM

Poke a Paul-bot anti-Semite and what do you get?

victor| 4.20.10 @ 9:05PM

*Tim*:
"You're Up Nutbag !"

Ahh, yes, more mush from the Wimp.
"America First trumps Israel First"

Standing up for Israel does not mean standing down from America you miserable creep.

America stands by its friends, but you wouldn't know that, since you have no friends.

What a nasty piece of work you are spewing your Pauleo hatred towards Margie.
Bet you feel reallly comfortable degrading and debasing women, don't you little boy?
You're also quite comfortable spewing hate towards the Jewish People don't you?
Bet you don't have the guts to say that crap to their faces, do you, naaahh, you just hide behind that keyboard and spew your anti-semitic filth.
There's plenty here that served so that you can be a miserable little puke, know that?

Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 9:20PM

Well Golly Gee Vic Baby ,I can say it to your face , Puddin'.
If ya wanna ,you could come to my gym ,and sign a waiver and I'll give ya a free boxing lesson , Cupcake.

victor| 4.20.10 @ 9:35PM

*Tim*:
"Well Golly Gee"

Sure thing, Little Timmy, anytime you want.
I could drive up to you in about six hours or so.
Bet you look real cute in your tutu, eh?

Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 7:31PM

Ken ( Old Texican), now would you give me your definition of a Neoconservative and how they differ from Conservatives.

Thank You .

Northern Rebel| 4.20.10 @ 7:38PM

Margie:

Conservatism is a temperament, or an attitude, you are exactly right!

It is how the vast majority of Americans raise their families. Most people live their lives as conservatives, not even knowing what the word means.

We live in a country that so far, has allowed the normal American to live his life without regard to politics. No other country is so free, as to allow this phenomenon.

The first time I heard Rush Limbaugh, I said to myself,
"This guy is saying everything I always believed, out loud!"

I didn't know the machinizations of the political structure; it was just the way I, and most everyone around me behaved, and it was the same values we attempted to instill into our children.

But folks, we are under assault, have been for a long time, but never to this degree. We'll get no help from outside sources, because a diminished America strengthens others. We must conquer this social problem from within, ourselves.

We must do it by educating the youth who will be stuck with the bill, but we also must be willing to be uncomfortable ourselves.

Nothing is guaranteed, and that includes personal liberty most of all.

Being a boomer, my dad was a part of the "Greatest generation" that saved the world. They lived through depression, war, and countless horrors, to make our lives better.

The trouble is they made my generation, the WORST generation, and we became soft, and liberal.

It's now time for us to stand up and continue the job our parents started! The threat is from within, and needs to be weeded out at the ballot box, and if necessary, through the assertion of our God given right to life liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

It is apparent that sacrifice is coming, it already has in my personal life. My economic security that I spent 35 years working for is dashed, thanks to this madministrations economic policies.

So I intend to dedicate my life to halting this injustice, so that others never become victim to one party's evil agenda ever again.

I have nothing to lose, and liberty for America, to gain.

'Nuff said.

Margie| 4.20.10 @ 9:45PM

Great post, NR!

Actually, I used the term that Mr. Tyrrell used in the article, temperament, (so as not to take any credit).

The first time I listened to Rush I thought, "who IS this guy?!" I was never interested in politics because every time a politician would talk it was like Greek to me. Rush was so plain speaking and honest and funny (my favorite thing about him), so he got me interested. That was in '92.

You're so right that conservatism is the way most people raise their families and don't even know it. But thanks to the Lame Stream Media's Leftist propaganda, when you try to talk to them, they have been so duped that they think you're the one who's wrong. THAT is a sad thing! But there's always hope. Even the most hardcore Democrat nowadays can't stand what Obama is doing, and they are really waking up.

I'm with you,
Nothing to lose and freedom to gain.

victor| 4.20.10 @ 9:45PM

Hey N.R., couldn't have said it better myself.
Then again, I have said it before, and probably will say it again in the future.
Have to say that Rush rubbed me the wrong way the first time I heard him, but then again I was still suffering from the Big "L": Liberalism. Suffered for 20 years til I heard Bob Grant and then Rush made sense.
He is right, the time is now, mobilize for the coming months and toss out as many as we can in November.
My father too, fought for his country, but when it was over he was heading west towards freedom and liberty and just kept going til he landed in Canada. Spent 11 years there and once his number came up, came here to America and as far as I know, he never regretted it.
One last thing, I have always thought that Conservativism is not just a philosophy, but a way of life.
Now if we can only get as many of us in the the government as possible and straighten it out and get it back to the way the Founders envisioned it.

Margie| 4.20.10 @ 9:33PM

Ken,
Guess you got your definition of Neo-Con.

It's anyone who isn't an Anti-semitic freakazoid.

Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 9:52PM

Uh Oh ! Look what the cat dragged back in.

Sorry Margie,We,Tea Party Rebels don't cotton to gettin' your Israel Firster Agenda Browbeaten into us.
Shove Off Zany Lady.

Margie| 4.20.10 @ 10:05PM

Phony little man. God will deal with you.

Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 9:47PM

Well then Vic Boy ,head on up to Berwyn Pa. to The Upper Mainline Y and ask for Tim , Sweetie Pie.
Now, tell us all about Ben Ami Kadish , Pollard, The Illegal Arms Sales To Red China,The U.S.S.Liberty and The Marine Barracks in Lebanon ,ya phoney .

victor| 4.20.10 @ 10:14PM

Oh,, forgot one:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009.....piers.html

victor| 4.20.10 @ 10:18PM

*Tim*:
"The Upper MainlineY"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9OO0S5w2k

Which one would you be *Tim*?

Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 10:11PM

I got lots of pull with God ,Neurotic Obsessive Lady.
Want me to ask God to cure you ?

Margie| 4.20.10 @ 11:08PM

I don't think so, liars have no pull with Him. Especially anti-Semitic liars I would imagine.

Someone's neurotic alright.
And filled with obsessive hatred of the Jews.
You're a sick man.
I pity you.

Tim*| 4.21.10 @ 7:30AM

Crazy Margie,you're a Bus callin' a Banana Yellow.

See a Therapist .

Margie| 4.21.10 @ 1:57PM

Here you have on display the thuggery tactics of the loony Paul-bots. The more you expose them for the anti-semitics they are, the more the hurling of hatred. Paul-bots don't look to convert you to their way of thinking, but like the Islamist religious zealots, you either agree or you're dead. You have no right to exist. So ridicule, insult, demean, and try to run off the opposition. The old "mentally challenged" routine smells of Toddard, also an anti-semitic Paul-bot.
You sure you don't work for S.E.I.U., thug boy?

victor| 4.20.10 @ 10:13PM

But first, tell us all about your hero Grover Norquist:

http://www.danielpipes.org/blo.....n-islamist

And you never told us why Randy Paulette is hanging out with Adam Koresh:

http://codepinkdc.blogspot.com.....ition.html

Boy, you gotta lot splainin' to do first.

PS I'm a lot closer than you know.

Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 10:26PM

So Come &Get; Me Toughie Girlyman .

What's the matter can't address Kadish, Pollard,The Arms Sales to Red China ,The Liberty ,The Barracks, Phoney Boy?

victor| 4.20.10 @ 10:32PM

And you never told us why Randy Paulette is hanging out with Adam Koresh:

http://codepinkdc.blogspot.com.....ition.html

Boy, you gotta lot splainin' to do first.

*Tim* at camp:
http://histclo.com/youth/youth.....rm053s.jpg

That anti-semitic attitude of yours is really shining through.

Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 10:34PM

Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha !
Obviously,you don't know who the hell you're talkin' to.
I was over at Dan Pipes home a few weeks ago.

You're an imbecile !

victor| 4.20.10 @ 10:43PM

Let me gues, you're a self-hating Jew?

victor| 4.21.10 @ 11:20AM

*Tim*:
"Obviously,you don't know who the hell you're talkin' to."

The last refuge of the truly deluded.
As if knowing who you are is going to excuse or expunge any of the vile, viscious and vehement things you have said to Margie.

Yeah, your *real* identity is going to excuse your behavior. As it does in the case of Bill Clinton, eh?

Some of the other trolls have used that same line.

It doesn't matter *who* you are, what matters is what you say.
Sound reasonable one minute and the next; pure bile.
Dr T. and Mr. Tim?
BTW Rand Paul is not going to win.
Splain this:
And you never told us why Randy Paulette is hanging out with Adam Koresh:

http://codepinkdc.blogspot.com.....ition.html

PS you need to take some courses in comma and period placement.

victor| 4.20.10 @ 10:45PM

*Tim*:
"I was over at Dan Pipes home a few weeks ago."

What. troubleshooting the phone lines?
Or delivering pizza?

Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 10:48PM

Ha,Ha,Ha ! !
That's beautiful !
I'll tell him the next time I see him. He'll get a kick outta that.
You're completely Whack .

victor| 4.20.10 @ 11:08PM

Hanging out with Neo-cons now?
And jews to boot?

Tim*| 4.20.10 @ 11:30PM

Yeah Punk ! Unlike You ,they agree to disagree , agreeably.
By the way, Neoconservative Dave Brooks parents are friends of my sis . His mom served in politics with my sis. They live down the road .

Again ,they agree to disagree agreeably.

sinanju| 4.21.10 @ 1:46AM

I get so sick and tired of this search for another conservative Tulku (reborn Buddha). We don't need to wait around for "another Reagan" to lead us back to the promised land and rebuild the temple, etc. etc. Reagan was not superhuman. He was not chosen by God. He did not have an Excalibur in hand or Harry Potter's lightning bolt in his forehead. He was not born on Kim Jong-il's sacred mountain of Baekdu while angels sang.

Reagan was a man who stood for conservative principles and an able politician to boot. He would consider us attaching an "ism" to his name to be the height of folly.

Let's just stick to first principles, people, and vote for politicians with a track record of doing likewise.

canuckistani| 4.21.10 @ 10:11AM

"Let's just stick to first principles, people, and vote for politicians with a track record of doing likewise. "
Here's the problem: they don't exist as they all end up retiring or losing to populist dems. The people are not ready for real reform. Too many sacred cows to slaughter.
Start with one, balanced budget amendment and cuts to discretionary spending across the board. See how that one works and then move on to the next issue....baby steps

Siegfried X| 4.21.10 @ 7:24PM

We absolutely need a new leader. Only a leader can pull the factions of the party together, as Reagan did. Only a leader can put together a conservative platform, because many in the Republican establishment are RINOs.

After who saw how quickly the media and his own appetites tore Gingrich apart in 1995 knows that it takes a great leader to survive the attacks of the liberal mainstream media.

Derek Leaberry| 4.21.10 @ 12:37PM

Although the essay was a joy to read and there was much to agree about Mr. Tyrrell's assertions, I think most Liberals don't think ideologically. They think on whim and on impulse. Liberals combine the childish desire of wanting to be right with the newest fad with a general sense that progress is always right and the past is always wrong. Thus Liberals support homosexual marriage no matter that homosexual marriage stands 7000 years of civilization on it's head. The Constitution is a "living document" that must be altered by judicial fiat because times are new and the Founders are long dead and white to boot. The historic American nation is racist, sexist and non-egalitarian and is not worthy of respecting while the only good America is the one Liberals created in the 60s and improved by Barack Obama and his leap into the future.

keyboard.jockey | 4.21.10 @ 1:42PM

Look Who Is Dominating The News.

Get Down To Business With Imus Sweepstakes Fox Business News, Ends May 3rd...Scroll Down To Chickaboomer's Political Bondage & Discipline. It's not just an RNC issue. Domination it's an American thing ;)

Is It A Genetic Predisposition For The Political Class's Desire To Dominate?

It's possible this is what keeps a viable 3rd party marginalized unable to gain traction. These established political folks are sucking up all the campaign donations, they have their fund raising operations up and working.

http://youhavetobethistalltogo.....g-get.html

Pingback| 4.21.10 @ 2:05PM

Quote of the Day: Love Monopoly, My Philosophy, Don't Go Fooling With Private Propert links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…I was up to speed on the philosophy of Ringo Starr, but twice today I've been surprised by this earthy libertarian gem from the former Beatles drummer: "Everything government touches turns to crap." Here's a citation from a commenter at the American Spectator. Here's another from post-modern neo-feminist libertarian cyberpunk Becky Chandler. Strike the Root expands this comment into a more general Ringo's Law. Maybe it's…

WM| 4.21.10 @ 2:06PM

You cannot have a stable movement founded on "temperament." What is fundamental about temperament? Nothing. You have to found a movement on ideas. And the only stable, predictable, reliable, and beneficial idea that can underlie the conservative movement is that government exists to protect individual rights, and only to protect individual rights.

Conservatives were only ever lying to themselves when they said that the state imposing virtue on the population was compatible with the idea of preserving freedom. They are contradictions. One side has to win, and one side has to lose, and the mountains of rationalizations won't change this reality. If government bans gambling, for example, then freedom is lost. You cannot make the argument that you are still preserving liberty by banning (or regulating) gambling. You are annihilating liberty.

And the "traditionalists" have had free run of the movement for decades now, and the free marketeers have had to put up with the violations. Why should free marketeers have to take a back seat, especially now? The "traditionalists" took over the wheel and crashed the car. They have lost the right to define the movement and its direction. It is time for them to sit down and shut up. The free marketeers deserve to be in charge for once after all their years of being thrown under the bus. You cannot keep suppressing the free market factions. Those days are done. Move over.

Siegfried X| 4.21.10 @ 7:18PM

I read the book and was disappointed. While Tyrrell makes some good observations, he ignores the real problem: conservatism is not fading it away, but rather it is transforming into Liberalism.

The dots can be connected. Every observation Tyrrell makes can be explained by this theory, that practical conservatism is sliding to the left, becoming identical with the Democratic Party's platform. The reason why there are single-issue conservatives is because they agree with the Democrats on other issues. Some pro-life "conservatives" have no problems with voting for a pro-life Democrat, because they really don't care about the other issues and agree with the Democrats on them. The reason why there are so many RINOs, including in Congress, is because they don't really believe in conservatism, and see it as being a political loser.

The reason why there is no activist Republican plaform, is because most Republicans are happy with the status quo, including all the current entitlements. Liberals want more, so they fight to change, but "conservatives" don't care, except for a backlash for a few years after liberals pass something new.

The reason why there is a left-wing "kultursmog" and not a conservative one, is that conservatives really don't want one. They are happy with things the way they are, and with liberals dominating the media.

Yosemeti Sam| 4.22.10 @ 12:03AM

November - will necessarily starkly augur
either the height and depth of conservatisms'
rejuvenative fortunes or the political caste
level they will be relegated to the future.

The PRIMARIES - be the highway with billboards: lead, follow - or get out of the way!!

The RINOs naturally - be the byway and
the ditches!

Wisdom:

" And the best plan is, as the popular
saying was, to profit by the folly of others."
Historia Naturalis bk. 18, sect. 31
Pliny the Elder AD 23-79
Roman statesman and scholar

Plenty of CONSTITUTIONAL 'folly' -
courtesy of BHO and his three-ring circus
ballet.

Oh - the welcome schadenfreude experience
of Leftoids being tick yanked out of office!

But - I digress.

Really though - with stolid temperament - um, that Mao Zedong ideologically embraced ornament thingy. WHERE IS IT?

I do try to be pithy! LOL.

fjdsk| 7.1.10 @ 1:25AM

beijing massage shanghai girl

More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

More Articles From Feature

Hannah and Her Friends

May 14, 2013 | Matthew Walther

Black Sea Changes

April 25, 2013 | Matthew Omolesky

The D Team

April 12, 2013 | Matt Purple

Margaret the Magnificent

April 12, 2013 | Maurice Cranston

Rand the Realist

April 10, 2013 | Matthew Walther

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/20/up-from-ideology

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|116 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|69 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|62 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|18 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|11 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|27 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|21 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 3:12PM

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

Muslims Murder British Soldier in London

Ross Kaminsky | 2:00PM

Anthony Weiner’s Campaign Video

Patrick Ryan | 1:33PM

Congressional Democrat Outraged Over IRS Scandal

Kaylin Bugos | 12:57PM

Immigration Bill Clears Key Committee

Jordan Gonzalez | 11:56AM

Nixonian

Yogi Love | 11:54AM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.