-
My Rahm Reunion
May 16, 2013 | 16 comments
-
The Left Hates Us
May 9, 2013 | 143 comments
-
Such a Dynamic Duo
May 2, 2013 | 49 comments
-
The Continuing Crisis
May 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Calvin Coolidge: His Times Are Our Times
April 26, 2013 | 22 comments
Feature
Up From Ideology
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.
(Page 2 of 2)
HAVING REJECTED COMMUNISM and found refuge in the writings of the Founding Fathers, Frank propounded “freedom of the person” as fundamental to American conservatism. Using the words freedom and liberty interchangeably in his writing, he considered freedom “the central and primary end of political society.” To him “the person” was a thinking and autonomous creature; “freedom was of the essence of his being.” Government must ensure that freedom, but that freedom existed for the high purpose of allowing the individual to choose virtue. Yet virtue could not be imposed by the state, whether it was governed by Liberals or traditionalists. As Frank wrote, “Unless men are free to be vicious they cannot be virtuous. No community can make them virtuous.” He argued that government’s end is to preserve freedom, and the citizen’s end is to choose virtue. Always it is the individual who has to do the choosing.
Frank believed that libertarians and traditionalists were compatible in the conservative movement. Balancing freedom and virtue would be crucial for that alliance. He subscribed to the Founding Fathers’ insight that freedom was the ultimate political end, but virtue was the ultimate end of man. Traditionalists and libertarians had different emphases. Traditionalists were soft on limited government. Libertarians were not in agreement on the importance or even the existence of virtue. Frank believed that the U.S. Constitution supplied the bridge between these two elements of conservative thought. Both had portions of what a serious political movement needed to protect the individual. Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Santayana, led the traditionalists in stressing order and virtue as apprehended through the Western experience by “right reason.” Traditionalists would use the state to impose virtue, much as monarchies and nation-states had throughout much of Western history. F. A. Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom, led the libertarians in stressing (A) individual liberty, (B) laissez-faire economics (now more popularly called free market economics), and (C) reason. According to Frank, as long as the state was not used to impose virtue, and society developed democratically, the two elements of conservatism were compatible. He proved to be right.
Frank’s position on government was strongly libertarian. Beyond national security, preservation of domestic order, and the administration of justice through the rule of law, state power should be limited. He feared, however, that the libertarian argument for freedom was shallow and needed to be fortified by accepting the traditionalists’ insight that freedom was God-given, that virtue was important, and that many Western traditions strengthened the free society. The skepticism of some libertarians toward these three values weakened their defenses against statism, either secular statism or totalitarian statism.
As much a student of Western history as of Western philosophy, Frank believed that the God of Abraham endowed us with individual liberty. Unlike the classical liberals who admired liberty for its utility, he understood liberty as being more than merely useful. In creating man, God made freedom the “essence of his [man’s] being.” God did this so that his creatures could choose to be virtuous. We might also choose to be evil, but without God-given choice, virtuousness was impossible. Doubting that the libertarians’ basis for freedom was as compelling against Communism and other statist regimes as was the traditionalists’ divine basis for freedom, Frank opted for the traditionalists’ basis. He came to believe in the traditionalists’ God, converting to Catholicism on his deathbed.
His practical insight was that whatever one thought of virtue or of God, as long as neither was imposed on libertarians, they had no grounds to break with the conservative movement. From tradition and history, God and virtue would make their appearances in the American polity. As long as libertarians were comfortable in that polity, the conservative movement could endure and prosper. It has for nearly 60 years.
THROUGHOUT MY NEW BOOK I play a happy tattoo on the already dated presumptions of David Brooks and David Frum(p), the spectacularly unprophetic leaders of that clutch of opportunists whom I call the Reformed Conservatives (RCs). Listening to their sermonics on precisely which adaptations conservatives must make to get elected, one might conclude that American conservatism is nothing more than a gimmick for attaining high office. Actually it is, as the founders of conservatism conceived it, an intellectual movement to preserve American values, preeminently the value of liberty. As an intellectual movement it will affect a wider realm than mere campaign politics. It will affect American society.
In the middle 1960s, as the conservative movement was gaining strength, Frank laid out a series of “articles of belief” that most conservatives would accept to one degree or another today. They are worth repeating as a prelude to unveiling the definition of a political movement that has come from its three constituent elements (advocates of limited government, anti-Communists, and traditionalists) to embrace neoconservatives, evangelicals, Reagan Democrats, and many ordinary Americans made uneasy by the Liberals’ feverish projects.
A. “Conservatism assumes the existence of an objective moral order based upon ontological foundations.”
B. “Within the limits of an objective moral order, the primary reference of conservative political and social thought and action is the individual person.”
C. “The cast of American conservative thought is profoundly anti-utopian.”
D. “It is on the basis of these last two points — concern for the individual person and rejection of utopian design — that the contemporary American conservative attitude to the state arises….Conservatives may vary on the degree to which the power of the state should be limited, but they are agreed on the principle of limitation.”
E. “Similarly, American conservatives are opposed to state control of the economy.”
F. “American conservatism derives from these positions its firm support of the Constitution of the United States as originally conceived — to achieve the protection of individual liberty in an ordered society by limiting the power of government.”
G. “In their devotion to Western civilization and their unashamed and unself-conscious American patriotism, conservatives see Communism as an armed and messianic threat to the very existence of Western civilization and the United States.”
Presumably, today Frank would say that the same holds true for radical Islam, in all its contemporary configurations and guises.
To one degree or another, most of the members of today’s conservative movement would accept these articles of belief. Even Americans who consider themselves conservative without giving any thought to being part of a movement would probably adhere to them, for as Oakeshott says, conservatism is a disposition, as he implies a reasonable disposition. Yet here let me take mild exception to Oakeshott’s choice of the word disposition. Irving Kristol and Bill Buckley, too, accepted it, but a better word is temperament. Herb London, a formidable mind in contemporary conservatism, who heads the Hudson Institute, argues for the word, and I think he is right. A disposition could be dismissed as a mere mood. Temperament has more substance and consistency. It is a manner of acting, feeling, and thinking. In our time it is a better description of the origin of the conservative sensibility.
A proper definition of modern conservatism is then this: Conservatism is a temperament to delight in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — including in that pursuit the desideratum that John Locke mentioned in his original variation of this theme, the acquisition and exchange of property. Modern conservatism is a temperament, not an ideology or an anxiety. It is a love of liberty, not a misdemeanor.
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) | Leave a comment
More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/20/up-from-ideology
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
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:
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:
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