The American Spectator : Beyond the Basics

Text Size

Beyond the Basics

By Michael Brendan Dougherty on 12.10.10 @ 6:06AM

A new collection of intelligent and thoughtful essays on the dilemmas of American conservatism.

The Dilemmas of American Conservatism
Edited by Kenneth L. Deutsch and Ethan Fishman
(The University Press of Kentucky, 212 pages, $40)

Order or Liberty. Tradition and Innovation. Every year young conservatives of an intellectual bent are introduced to the great debates of their forebears. The colloquies and conferences by groups like the Intercollegiate Studies Institute have been going over the same material for years. Read some Adam Smith. Now some Richard Weaver. Discuss. Eat chicken. Repeat next year. Perhaps this is as it should be; we are called conservatives for a reason. Why shouldn’t our internal debates seem so familiar that they become comfortable?

The Dilemmas of American Conservatism is a collection of essays that moves out of the safe colloquies and into deeper, even dangerous intellectual territory. The editors, Kenneth Deutsch and Ethan Fishman, cop to being “traditionalist” conservatives, and ones that stand aloof from the day-to-day workings of the political movement that calls itself conservatism. After noting some of the official hypocrisies of the Reagan and Bush presidencies (government expansion, debt) they admit that “in a society where liberals and most conservatives oppose traditional conservative positions we will be relegated to the role of gadfly.… Fortunately authentic gadflies never required large audiences.” And while this book is unlikely to reach the best-seller list. it would profit anyone looking to take their conservatism beyond the dorm-room debates of youth.

The book is composed of nine essays by contemporary academics and writers on the intellectual titans of the Right. Fishman’s own contribution on John H. Hallowell, suggests that sometimes the fundamental debates on the right should remain open. “To [Eric] Voegelin and Hallowell, indeed, tension is not a dilemma to be resolved but a permanent feature of human existence to be respected. They therefore urged students to resist the temptation to gain a monopoly on truth and seek contentment in discovering partial and temporary solutions to ultimately insolvable problems.” The advice is applicable to the conservative movement’s leaders today who too often wallow in a shallow ideology that provides instant and clear answers that are not only politically inexpedient, but impractical altogether.

In fact, many of the thinkers profiled in this collection would outright despise some of the tendencies within the modern conservative movement. Richard Weaver, author of Ideas Have Consequences, loathed egalitarianism. Kirk abhorred freedom when it was defined as autonomous individualism. Willmoore Kendall had a strong distaste for traditionalism if it worked to separate American conservatives from the mainstream of life in their own country. It would actually be difficult to assemble a collection of conservatives who would be more ambivalent to the modern political movement that claims to bear the name conservatism. And that is precisely why this collection is so challenging and valuable.

The essays contain some surprises. Second-hand reading had hardened me to intellectual figures like Leo Strauss and John Courtney Murray. I had encountered these names in polemics before, but Dilemmas provided the first occasion of truly encountering their thought. Murray, a Catholic priest and key intellectual figure in 20th-century Catholicism, is not nearly as sanguine about modern democracies as I had come to expect. He found that democracy “once a political and social idea, now pretends to be a religion, the one true religion transcendent to all warring ‘sects.’” Traditionalists who had suspected Murray of inspiring Catholic capitulation to modernism will find a helpful corrective in Peter Augustine Lawler’s treatment. Murray was adept at using the thought of one modern thinker to demonstrate the implausibility of another, while vindicating Christian orthodoxy. And even when his thought is implausible or oversimplified (Murray believed the Founders’ combination of John Locke and Jean Calvin was roughly synonymous with St. Thomas Aquinas’s political philosophy), it is still engaging.

Readers of Dilemmas may find themselves introduced to new political binaries to replace “left and right” or “conservative and liberal.” Brad Lowell Stowe’s essay on Robert Nisbet shows us a figure who saw the great battle of civilization drawn between “political monism” and “social pluralism.” Conservatives should be on the side of the pluralists who include not just Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville, but even the anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin. Buckley collaborator Willmoore Kendall points to the conflict between the “great tradition” of Western philosophic and religious truths against a revolutionary moral relativism

Stowe’s essay on Nisbet is one of the most sterling. Nisbet was an anti-statist to the core and believed that war was the handmaiden of the welfare state. He defined as the “sole object of the conservative tradition” the task of protecting “the social order and its constitutive groups from the enveloping bureaucracy of the nation state.”

Daniel McCarthy’s takes on the challenging task of presenting the thought of Willmoore Kendall, who struggled to make sense of and defend the doctrine of majority rule and the philosophy of John Locke throughout his life’s work. (Full disclosure: McCarthy is a colleague of mine.) McCarthy’s contribution stands out for the wonderful biographical details and storytelling, signs that a journalist was at work. He deftly traces Kendall’s views on majoritarian rule and legislative supremacy as they spring forth and mature over his career.

The truly wonderful thing about Dilemmas is that its very structure and tone embodies the best traits of conservatism. These nine essays never descend into sloganeering, or reduce their subject’s work to mere ideology. Instead they clarify, distill, and in some cases begin to build upon the legacy left by our intellectual forebears. This collection is an antidote to the immaturity that characterizes so much conservative polemic. Aspiring conservative intellectuals can learn not just from the content of this collection, but from its style and generosity of spirit.

About the Author

Michael Brendan Dougherty is a contributing editor of the American Conservative.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (53) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Chalkdust| 12.10.10 @ 9:01AM

The problem with reading the nuggets or tomes of intellectuals pawing through the ashes of history trying to build a foundation of anything, is like trying to circumnavigate the globe by walking in concentric circles. You can't get there for here because "there" has moved and besides, you're so dizzy from seeing how many angles can fit on the head of a pin, it's time to take a nap.
Conservatism is the belief in a few bedrock principles of governance that humans can depend on to not change the rules of the road from generation to generation. Humans may evolve and morality can change, but the bedrock principles of governance should never change.

Alan Brooks| 12.11.10 @ 12:01AM

Main point is: America will remain great at commerce, but poor in education; a school is not the same as a pork factory, students are not pork bellies on a conveyor belt.
Nor can Americans work together to lower crime.

The business of America is business.

Alan Brooks| 12.11.10 @ 3:15AM

BTW, I say America is a bad country--
it is merely better than the others.

Ted R.| 12.10.10 @ 9:14AM

Conservatism does have an impressive intellectual history. One question conservatives never bother asking themselves, is: Why is a movement which is in fact so rich in ideas, so anti-intellectual? With this kind of history to draw on, why have the contemporary conservatives' movement leaders - Glenn Beck et al. - always indulging in the "sloganeering and immaturity that characterizes so much of conservative polemic" - ?

Clint| 12.10.10 @ 12:27PM

That's Easy.
Because they reach way down & real low to counter-in-kind the sloganeering and immaturity that characterizes so much of liberal polemic.

Occam's Tool| 12.10.10 @ 11:28PM

Dear Ted:

Do you get Imprimus? It's free. Read it, and argue that Conservatives are "anti-intellectual."

However, what passes for intellectual outside the science and mathematics faculties at today's Universities tends to be swill not worth reading.

Alan Brooks| 12.11.10 @ 12:03AM

As long as you are willing to admit America can be changed materially, but in no other way.

Alan Brooks| 12.11.10 @ 3:16AM

... BF Skinner has been dead for many years.

Clint| 12.11.10 @ 3:12PM

You're swill not worth reading Pseudo-intellect Creepy Dude with Ego Issues.

Petronius| 12.10.10 @ 10:46AM

Today Conservatism is problematic to intellectuals because it's basis is common sense. They must reject it out of hand since it's not "their" idea, and "they" are well above the commoners on the social food chain. So Conservatism must be crushed to promote their status and facilitate their command no matter how destructive their beliefs and policies are to all others.

Bill| 12.10.10 @ 11:42AM

Conservatism suffers from an intellectual handicap: it reflects actual human motivations and actions, while other political ideologies are the creations of pure intellectual wool-gathering. Accordingly, conservative thinking has high odds against being thought "elegant" in the intellectualist sense.

Alan Brooks| 12.11.10 @ 1:23AM

"it reflects actual human motivations and actions"

Not since the Age of Reagan.
Conservatism today is toast.

Alan Brooks| 12.11.10 @ 3:19AM

... conservatism needs someone very similar to Geo F. Will to reinvigorate it. Or else it IS in fact toast- an obvious fact by now.
Then there is the Derb, who knows science and math...

Simon Templar| 12.10.10 @ 12:13PM

I think Ben Franklin foretold and indirectly explained this dilemma that you speak of when he told the woman asking what he and the other framers brought her..."Madam, a Republic if you can keep it!" The reason conservatism has lost ground in the past century and half is rather simple and was foretold by our founding fathers. First, we have neglected our responsibility to teach the public the essentials and meaning of a constitutional republic and have failed to effectively counteract the lies, distortions, and historical revisions that socialist and elitist thoeries have promoted with every succeeding generation in the last century. As a former young radical liberal, I was an ignorant, arrogant twit with essentially no understanding of history, the roots and true philosophies of republican constitutional government, human nature, natural law, or economics. My education, like many in the past century, was devoid of the above and replaced with a shoddy review of American history, law, and government from a marxist perspective. I was taught such silly and dangerous notions like, "Humans may evolve and morality can change." Humans nor human nature does not evolve nor does morality (in the sense of what is right and wrong moral codes of conduct). This essential concept was written at length about by our founding fathers and forms the basis of their belief system. Why do you think they incorporated a check and balance system? This very notion of human nature and morality has led to the moral corruption of this nation. The fundamental beliefs and morality of Judeo-Chritian belief have been under severe attack for nearly a century and the consequence of this attack can be seen all the way from the supreme court to our schools. Many so-called conservatives today do not even fully understand what conservatism is nor the history and foundation of a constitutional goverment as ours. It has been a long learning process even for myself and I am continuing to learn every day. I like many liberals and radicals believed the lie that conservatism was anti-intellectual not realizing that liberalism or socialism was in fact anti-intellectual. Who are the first to be exterminated in a communist revolution? But what was Franklin saying? He was saying that you have to fight to keep it because there will be inevitable forces of tyranny, misguided benevelont notions, corruption, and laziness that will continue to attempt to destroy it. Glenn Beck is babe in the woods. He is ready to chuck it all over board with not even a fight. He announced yesterday that the revolution has begun. He now advocates that we hunker down and go into the survivalist ark and I guess wait it out. He is a very sincere and I am sure intelligent, decent man but a great example of many conservatives thinking people today. Let me ask you and please honestly answer, do you think this would be the advice of Franklin, Washington, Jefferson or James Madison?

Simon Templar| 12.10.10 @ 12:41PM

The author writes,"The advice is applicable to the conservative movement's leaders today who too often wallow in a shallow ideology that provides instant and clear answers that are not only politically inexpedient, but impractical altogether."
This very sentence is the crux of what is wrong with our nation and one of the most dangerous lies that has been foisted on the America public for nearly a century. It is the foundation belief of the American Progressive and the so-called RINO or modern politician. It is the essential betrayal of the founding principles and beliefs that undergird our constitutional republic. This so-called shallow ideology you refer to is the essential underpinning of our republic as established by our founding fathers and is just as relevant today as it was 250 years ago! Ideas of limited government, fiscal restraint, and American exceptionalism are not outmoded or shallow!
Conservatives should be on the side of the anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin? Have you lost your mind?

GW| 12.10.10 @ 4:07PM

"Ideas of limited government, fiscal restraint, and American exceptionalism are not outmoded or shallow!"

That very well may be true, but when these ideas are discussed by "the conservative movement's leaders" of today, it occurs on cable news and talk radio, not places for deep intellectual thought. This is not taken to be a slight on the Becks, O'Reillys, or Limbaughs--all of whom are entertainers needing to draw viewers/listeners, but a comment on how modern conservative thought is portrayed.

simon templar| 12.11.10 @ 11:39AM

And where would these deep places of intellectual thought reside? It is a slight and quite frankly elitist! I currently hold 6 degrees in higher education and i do not find these mediums degrading nor places not suitable to DEEP intellectual thought. Thats the best you can come up with? Try addressing the point of my comment or just keep Your Deep Thoughts to yourself!

simon templar| 12.10.10 @ 12:55PM

Letter to the Editor:
I am all for a diversity of opinion on a web magazine site that presents itself as conservative and its mission is to promote conservative thought. The above article, however, needs to be addressed. You need to wrap a disclaimer around this one and a followup refutation. If intellectual honesty and integrity is a concern of this web site then I think it your duty to clarify yourselves and provide rebuttal from another contributor of your publication. Is this the new direction of AS, Conservatives should be on the side of the anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin?"

aware| 12.11.10 @ 7:10AM

"I am all for a diversity of opinion " .....unless you don't like the opinion, huh. I don't need a "rebuttal", I've read Kropotkin and proved capable of rejecting his ideology without any help. Its better to examine ideas themselves and know why you reject them rather than just being told to.

simon templar| 12.11.10 @ 11:52AM

Listen jackwagon...I do not appreciate be accused of not tolerating opinions other than my own because I want the Editor to exercise some of his/her editorial responsibilities. When a conservative publication begins to promote and allow opinions of columnist to support anarcho-communist and allow this individual to present himself as a conservative, we got a problem. There is such a thing as journalistic integrity and honesty. But I would guess you propably do not understand this as you were brought up in the post modern society of all opinions are equal, truth is relative, and people can spin any kind of narrative they want without being accountable.

aware| 12.11.10 @ 5:06PM

You'd rather have the "truth" approved for you and me? Maybe AmSp needs a Ministry of Truth? I'm even for having communists post here so we could get at the point by point demolition of their beliefs.
If I reject Kropotkin, I feel quite confident that everyone who posts here will too, and by the way I happen to agree with you about him. I wouldn't consider him a conservative either. I even think the term "anarcho-communist" a stupid contradiction and an absurdity. Kropotkin was a communist because his plan for expropriation not only of the means of
production (land, mines, factories, etc.), but of all goods would require not just a state, but a nasty and powerful kind of state. So I don't even consider him an anarchist, even if he did.

simon templar| 12.11.10 @ 8:14PM

Your posts, I am afraid, do not carry the weight as you might want to believe that a paid journalist does nor the degree of influence. Nor does mine for that matter. Do I have to now defend myself against the ridiculous assertion that I want a Ministry of Truth? Perhaps I should break it down for you in a much simpler way. One upon a time, long ago in another day and country before postmodern thought, there use to be newspapers and media that upheld journalistic integrity, consistency, and honsesty. They allowed divergent opinions on all kinds of matters and issues. But they also had rules for debate and standards for participation in that debate that they expected from the grand writers of their publications. One of those was consistency, reason, and logic in their arguments and opinions and another was not misrepresenting oneself to be something that you are not. Furthermore when someone spoke on a particular hot and divisive topic it was always good practice to present an opposing view for the readership particularly when those views challenged the basic core values and objectives of the media oultlet itself and its editors and readers. Given the fact that the publication presented itself as a journalistic enterprise dedicated to spreading knowledge and argument in favor of a particular philosophy, say conservatism, it did not think it was necessary to provide a platform to opponents and propagandist disguising themselves as conservatives, for example, without challenge to their identities and viewpoints. At the same time it did not want to appear in any way suppressing various viewpoints on various matters. So sometimes it would allow these articles to be printed but with disclaimers and rebuttals so all readers could see that they were NOT advocating or promoting these ideas and arguments as representative of the publication nor the readers. Is this too hard for you too grasp?

aware| 12.12.10 @ 12:17PM

Are you always so condescending and hard to get along with or am I just lucky with my first encounter? Get a grip, this article is a book review and does not advocate or even express agreement with Kropotkin beyond his "pluralism" and the fact that the editors found some reason to include him.

I have as much problem with Kendall who was a defender of the Leviathan State and the tyranny of the majority. But I don't feel compelled to call for a disclaimer.

Note that the reviewer is from the American Conservative, which is much more open and wide ranging with its contributors than you are likely to see here for sure. And consequently much less conformist.

simon templar| 12.13.10 @ 3:29PM

You never address my points, respond with lame criticisms and unfair personal attacks, and skirt the issues at the heart of the discussion. You insult me and then when I respond in my defense to your lame implications and arrogant attitude, you accuse Me of being condescending. I am guessing you are not a conservative but likely another liberal troll that post out here under various names. Your thought pattern, sentence structure, and reasoning sounds very much like someone in their twenties. Frankly, you are a waste of time. As far as the article, it does advocate a particular line of thought and support of ideas of the book in review. It is a poorly written review and not to the standards of this publication. Life is not about being more open or being non-conformist or comformist. It is about being discerning, logical, consistent, honest, and rational.

Margie| 12.10.10 @ 2:30PM

It seems to me that there's a new form of Leftist Communism among us. That of the Leftist Libertarianism and the so called Paleo-conservative.

The Leftists like Obama are one thing. Then you have the above~ the anti-war, anarcho-Capitalists such as Kropokin and his ilk, trying to infect the conservative movement.

Liberalism is a mental disorder although they haven't yet discovered the gene.

The sneaky Communistic Anarchistic dreams of this "new" conservatism will not prosper.. unless of course we want to become blind to it. You know the saying~ Evil prospers when good men do nothing.

Do you not know that pro-Israel, pro strong Military Defense conservatives are considered Traitors to those of this ilk? Even at the mention of pro-Israel it will bring them out in vulgar howls of same.

It astounds me to no end. Anarcho Capitalists have no place in conservatism. Get real.

aware| 12.10.10 @ 6:54PM

Anarchro-capitalists(which Kroptkin most certainly was NOT) are mostly former conservatives that figured out that the modern incarnation that calls itself conservatism long ago made peace with the state and the corrupt system it begets, with its professional parasite class of rulers/exploiters. The looting continues.

Notice the wide variety of thought in the book mentioned that once was the open and vibrant movement of conservatism? Now notice the "litmus tests" that now characterize whether or not you can even be "called" conservative. Or accepted allies in a common struggle. This is progress?

Not hard to see why conservatism can now be successfully, even if not quite accurately, tagged with the label of anti-intellectualism.

You knew you'd get a rise out of me didn't you, Margie.

Margie| 12.10.10 @ 7:36PM

Long time no see, aware! I remember that our last conversation was a good one and maybe we can have another.

As to your first paragraph, when you say that Anarcho-Capitalists are former conservatives, well that right there is admitting they are not conservative any longer for one thing. And I do get confused with all the categorizing but (and I did read Anarcho-Communisim w/ regards to Kroptkin wrong), isn't Anarcho-Capitalism basically a rejection of Capitalism by its very name? So what's left, then? If you claim that conservatives have basically sold out to "the system"~ the only one we have in place, then you set yourselves up as what?

Isn't a rejection of our "system" of governance a way for grievous wolves to come in and take over? Where does it lead?

I'm all for being allies in a common struggle, but if it isn't he same struggle, then what? Would you or could you say for example that you and I would be allies in a common struggle? Because I could not become am Anarcho-Capitalist.. but could you or would you vote for any of the good conservatives that are running for office? If so, then we could be allies in that common struggle, no?

aware| 12.11.10 @ 6:46AM

Margie, you misunderstand what an anarcho-capitalist is. We are fierce freemarket capitalists(and upholders of private property) and believe the state is a hotbed of corruption that perverts capitalism into a system of insider cronyism. We are also not exactly libertarians, though much affinity exists between us, as it does with conservatism.

It is impossible to love the ideal of America and yet support what government has become and what it does. Unless you really believe that state groping of your little girls and boys at airports is how a "free" society should function, just to point out one example. Or that the state has first claim to your wealth and time, to any extent the state decides.

Rothbard said the greatest threat to the state is independent intellectual criticism. Pick up his Anatomy of the State, it is only 50 odd pages and easy to read. Robert Nisbet mentioned in this article is another good example worth perusing.

The bottom line is without individual liberty the citizens become nothing but the property of the state, which makes increasing demands on them and even claims the right to whatever they have "for the greater good". And without economic freedom all other "freedoms" are meaningless.

As far as voting for "good" conservatives, haven't seen too many of those lately but if one appears I would consider it. A hint would be that they come not to praise the state but to bury it. Changing who runs the corruption doesn't change the corruption and it doesn't get our liberties back. Its gone too far for nibbling at the edges. The current group of career criminals(Obammy) fills you with fear and loathing, as they should. All I'm saying is that anybody in that position should make you feel the same way. The more authority a person has over other people, the less trust they deserve.
While you can certainly take issue with some of the stands of anarcho-capitalists or paleos, we welcome open and free exchange of ideas, you can never lay any of the blame for this stinking mess at their feet cause they don't run anything and have been marginalized by both sides who do own the blame.

Margie| 12.12.10 @ 4:12PM

Can't lay any of the blame for this stinking mess at their feet? Are you kidding me?
The Anarcho-Cop-Outs are part of the problem.
You won't vote for conservatives because they aren't fellow Anarcho's.
You don't seem to agree with our present system of government.. it sounds like you don't think there ought to be Presidents at all. .."All I'm saying is that anybody in that position should make you feel the same way." ..Why? I agree with our form of government set up by the Founding Fathers.
Yet you try and say you're conservatives?

"The state", "the state!" You cry.. what is the state to you? You make it sound like we are a Communist country!

"We are fierce freemarket capitalists(and upholders of private property)" ..Really? Well that is what a conservative is.

No, it seems to me that the difference between you if you are an Anarcho-Capitalist, and a conservative is that you want NO laws, NO standards, and NO involvement in foreign affairs.. and especially Israel.

I see nothing in common with conservatism here, in that Anarcho-whatever rejects the form of government we have always had.

aware| 12.13.10 @ 7:10AM

But Margie, take a look at where we are and were we are going. The boundaries of state power extend right into your home so that you are not even given a choice of light bulbs or toilets. The federal registry is pushing the hundred thousand page mark(most of which your "representatives" never voted for, but are instituted by unaccountable bureaucrats). Do you really imagine this is what the founders envisioned?

If what you are saying is true then they had no right to even revolt against the power of the king and push for independence. According to you they should have been content to accept the state as it was and worked within the rules set by it. Here is the essence of contradiction that besets your version of "conservatism". Your standard makes the founders nothing but seditious traitors for their rejection of the corrupt system they overthrew, even as you claim to revere them.

"The law perverted! And along with it all the collective forces of the nation! The law, I say, not only turned aside from its proper end, but made to pursue a directly contrary end! The law become the instrument, instead of the restrainer, of all kinds of cupidity! The law itself perpetrating the very iniquity that it is its function to punish! Certainly, if this is so, it is a serious matter, to which I should be allowed to call the attention of my fellow citizens."....from The Law by Frédéric Bastiat.

What is the state to me? A vast criminal gang that maintains control through coercion and violence. That finances itself through extortion. That hands out favors to the cronies and minions at the expense of working people who are kept in the dark with fables, myths, and promises. It treats you as nothing more than a herd of milch cows to be fenced and milked. It makes citizens into consumers and then distracts them with bread and circuses. And the cows are up in arms when their owners are attacked. How duped can you be?

It is not law I reject, but the perversion of the law. Right under your very eyes we see the American ideal wasting away. Yes, under the leftists AND "conservatives". You cannot pretend that conservatives have had no part in it. Not only have they failed to halt the process, they have actually contributed to it. How can this be? If freedom is as important as you "conservatives" claim, then how has this happened?

"...rejects the form of government we have always had."....then what's your problem? If what we have is what we always have had then why so much angst about the current regime? If it is the same as when Washington was president then your efforts to replace it are pointless.

Your version of conservatism is nothing but a hand full of loose strings that can never be tied together. A collection of beliefs when carried to their logical conclusions turn out to be mutually contradictory. No wonder it is a failure at opposition to tyranny. It charges up the hill and retreats back down when it trips over a contradiction. You now sound like Bill Clinton who claimed you couldn't love your country and hate the government.

Margie| 12.13.10 @ 2:40PM

What I see by your comments is more of the same. The same assigning to me of falsehoods that every Anarcho-whatever or Paleo-con artist seeks to try and assign.

There's a psychological term for doing what you do here, I just don't know the terminology, but it has something to do with making everyone else out to be your enemy. Heh, I think you know you are just plain wrong.. and it can't help your conscience to be this way.

As to your paragraph #1~ No, I do not "really imagine this is what the founders envisioned?" And by my posts here for the past 2 years or so, I have made that perfectly clear. I am with my fellow conservatives who reject Communism, Socialism, and I also reject Libertarianism, which I consider more of the same as it is only Leftism under a cloak.

As to your paragraph #2~ Very funny! Hilarious, in fact.
You say: "Your standard makes the founders nothing but seditious traitors for their rejection of the corrupt system they overthrew, even as you claim to revere them."

No, actually that is a lie. I agree with the form of government that the Founding Fathers (See, Sheila, I got it right again, I was thinking of you!).. no aware, I am in agreement with them. How you are able to twist that into what you want to think is beyond me.. and only shows a twisted mind on your own part.

You try and say that because I agree with the form of government that we now have I am calling them traitors? Like I said, very funny!

When in reality, YOU are the one turning from this form of government, aren't you? I mean isn't that the very definition of "Anarcho?" Hmm.

As to your paragraph #3~ The French guy had it right. I don't disagree. But YOUR solution is Anarchy? Sorry, your just plain wrong.

As to your paragraph #4-6~ So, as an Anarchist, your idea is to do away with the state? That is, you do not wish to have a Presidency, or even the Legislative branches or anything? I mean.. come on! Tell us how far you want to go here.

Come out with it, honestly, instead of just throwing stones.

You say, "If it is the same as when Washington was president then your efforts to replace it are pointless." ..Huh? I never said things are the same as when he was President. I said I agree with his form of government. (This is just another example of the twisting).

As to your paragraph #6~ Wow.. what a conclusion! Heh, but false once again, thankfully. I am one of the millions of conservatives who happen to hate what is happening to this country. Americans have been asleep at the wheel for too long and so we have gotten the government THEY deserve! I say that because I don't deserve it.. I've been voting conservative my entire voting life.. doing my part. It isn't conservatives who have caused this mess.. it's the Left. Anarchists only help to contribute to it.

Sorry, aware. My "form" of conservatism is Rush Limbaugh's form of conservatism, it's Mark Levin's form of conservatism, it's Sean Hannity's form of conservatism, it's David Horowitz's form of conservatism, it's Thomas Sowell's form of conservatism, it's Clarence Thomas' form of conservatism... and George Washington's form of conservatism.

I believe I'm in pretty good company.

Can't say the same about you, though.

Merry Christmas.

aware| 12.13.10 @ 7:18PM

Yet for all your effort, we still got right where we are. How do you account for it? The proof is in the pudding. I think your blind trust in government would have made you suspect in the company of the founders.

I have expressed nothing any different than Jefferson and most of the other founders, with the exception of the Hamilton wing. In fact, some of them were even more suspicious of government than I. I haven't called for watering liberty tree roots with blood.

In the near future when you have to actually pony up your part for the party that is currently going on with your wonderful government I think your affection will fade. Ask the Greeks or the Irish. They are already at the place of paying the tab. The money you won't have then has already gone into the pockets of the bankers now.

When this realization finally hits you, remember that it wouldn't have been possible without precisely the government we have now. And elections won't change it, the money has been spent and the deal is done. Its all over but the crying and the collecting. Guess which one you get to do.

"It isn't conservatives who have caused this mess.. ".... Really? So the Gingrich congress never happened? Nor Bush? Prescription drug benefits? No Child Left Behind? Tarp? Or maybe these weren't really "conservatives"? What about Easy Money Greenspan(Reagan appointee) and his mighty housing bubble to fix the tech bubble? Or maybe "supply side" , with its tax cuts and spending increases and the difference covered by public debt, is really a leftist planted time bomb.

Not near as bad as the commies, but pretty damn bad just the same.

Margie| 12.13.10 @ 9:18PM

"I think your blind trust in government would have made you suspect in the company of the founders."

When I see them in Heaven, by the Grace and mercy of God, I'll ask them that for you, ok?

I hope I will see you there too, aware. Then you can ask them yourself.

God bless.

Margie| 12.13.10 @ 9:23PM

p.s. I neglected to add something. I do not blindly trust government. YOU said I do.

simon templar| 12.11.10 @ 12:16PM

I have not the sightest doubt that you know an inkling about what conservatism or a constitution republican philosophy entails. Anarcho-Capitalist?! How about a Communist Conservative? Or a Liberal Anarchist Capitalist? Or maybe a Chinese Communist Capitalist Anarchist?

Margie| 12.12.10 @ 4:22PM

Or how about a Paleo-conservative. Heh, my definition? The digging up of old Communists bones for political political purposes.

What's the difference in the ideology anyway?

Anti-Israel is underneath it all, and you don't have to dig very deep.

Clint| 12.12.10 @ 8:29PM

You're An Obsessed Israel Firster Fanatic with An Apocalyptic Crank Agenda Victor-Margie.

Maybe, PsycheBoy Israel Obsessed Tool Job will take ya on as a patient.

The Blind Israel Firster Leading The Other Blind Israel Firster.

Occam's Tool| 12.12.10 @ 10:29PM

Some advice from Minnesota, Clint, particularly useful given your penchant for chasing cars on all fours:

Well I turned around and I said oh, oh oh
Well I turned around and I said oh, oh oh
Well I turned around and I said ho, ho
And the northern lights commenced to glow
And she said, with a tear in her eye
Watch out where the huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow
Watch out where the huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow.

Don't do it, Clint, no matter what your grandmother's genes compell you to do.

Clint| 12.13.10 @ 4:38AM

That's Bold Advice from A Convicted Dog Humper like You, Tool Job.

Speakin' of Dogs, how's that Wife of Yours.

Stay Wifey !

Occam's Tool| 12.10.10 @ 11:30PM

The idiot Paleos on this site, Margie, being Clint and Tim* (if indeed they are separate people, as they write disgustingly alike). More famous examples are Buchanan and Taki, both vicious antisemites, like Margie and Tim*.

Margie| 12.11.10 @ 12:13AM

OT,

Yes, they are one in the same. But who cares? Only his psychiatrist (and his (IP) server) knows for sure, right?

Heh, I know the Paleos generally have "issues" with the Jews. A trait that is also generally shared by both Libertarians and their cousins, the Leftists.
Why? A mental illness that lies deep in the psyche sometimes realized, sometimes not by the individual in question. As yet I do not believe that they have discovered the gene. Perhaps "they" (scientists) will do so and effectively cancel out any needed excuse or justification for being same.

Clint| 12.11.10 @ 3:15PM

The Apocalyptic Crazed Zany Crank Lady Bus calls The Lemon Pie Yellow.

Get The Net.

Occam's Tool| 12.12.10 @ 10:20PM

Clint:

I know the temptation is overwhelming, as it was passed down to you by your grandparents, but DO NOT GO OUT INTO THE SNOW AND CHASE CARS ON ALL FOURS. Don't do it man!

Clint| 12.13.10 @ 4:40AM

You Dog Humpers,got a Creepy Sense of what's funny.

Sit Dog Humper !

aware| 12.11.10 @ 7:01AM

Calling those with whom you disagree "idiots" does not further your cause, does not increase your(or others) understanding or intelligence, and in no way "proves" you right. Why not leave the personal attacks to those who invented and practice it with talent, the commie left. After all, they know they can't win on the merit of the facts so its all they got.

Clint| 12.11.10 @ 3:19PM

Awwww ! The Little Creepy Israel Fieszter Dude is Upset Wit Da Big Bad Conservative Mens, who won't genuflect to His Israel Firster Agenda.

Shove Off Creep.

Clint| 12.12.10 @ 8:20PM

What's a hellava lot more disgusting are Pseudo-intellect Bloviating Psyschiatrists like Israel Fister NeoCon Tool Job & Anti-Catholic Bigot Israel Firster NeoCon Victor-Margie,who sell out U.S. National Interests and attack American Patriots because American Patriots won't crawl to Their Israel Firster Agenda.

Occam's Tool| 12.12.10 @ 10:31PM

Love the Caps, Clint---hope they make you feel righteous. However, just in case you missed it the first time, some advice for you, very necessary given your level of intellectual achievement:

Clint| 12.13.10 @ 4:43AM

More of what passes for Tool Job,The Dog Humper's sense of humor.

Now, go fetch your leash Dog Humper Tool Job.

Clint| 12.10.10 @ 3:23PM

Duuuhhh !
Kroptkin wasn't an Anarcho-Capitalist

Kroptkin was a Russkie "Anarcho-Communist ": A theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, private property, and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production.

Do Your Homework.

Vern Crisler| 12.11.10 @ 1:15PM

"conservative movement's leaders today who too often wallow in a shallow ideology"

What does this mean? Are the reviewers talking about political leaders? I've got news for them: politics is always shallow. Why? Because voters are shallow.

The message always has to be dumbed down enough for the average working stiff to understand it.

You can't regale Joe Sixpack with the writings of Eric Voegelin, or even Bill Buckley (who makes more sense). You have to retranslate it for the masses.

Conservative intellectuals may not like that, but that's the way the world works.

I have a feeling that these authors really don't like Sarah Palin, and that's what they're really whining about.

The American Spectator