The American Spectator : The Myth of the Conservative Monolith

Text Size

Political Hay

The Myth of the Conservative Monolith

By Matt Purple on 1.18.13 @ 6:08AM

The right needs more unity, not more diversity.

Remember when we were evil storm troopers marching in lockstep?

That was the accusation hurled at conservatives during the Bush Administration when the left was on the outside looking in. Republicans were foot soldiers! Rubber stampers for President Bush! There wasn’t a divergent thought among them. As late as 2009, political strategist Paul Begala was chortling over conservative homogeneity: “The Democratic Party has a wide diversity of opinion, like the Republican Party used to,” he said on CNN, adding, “This is a bid for the Republican Party now. It’s all about purity. It’s all about rigidity.”

These days, Begala has given up chortling over conservative homogeneity in favor of chortling over conservative diversity. “The country clubbers hate the Tea Partiers,” he wrote in a recent Daily Beast column, “the neocons hate the traditionalists, the libertarians distrust the religious right; this isn’t a political party, it’s Yugoslavia circa 1991.”

Somehow the GOP went from an imperialist empire to a failed Balkan state in three short years. All that remained consistent was its capacity for evil.

But Begala’s latter critique contains a kernel of truth. The conservative movement, the triumphant political force from 1980 and 2008, which elected three presidents and forced a fourth to triangulate, has become intellectually divided. Everything from foreign policy debates, to generational chasms over social issues, to questions of first principles have ripped conservatism open and exposed its innards. For all the trendy talk about “epistemic closure” and “the closing of the conservative mind,” disagreement among conservatives is very much alive.

Usually this is a good problem to have. Political movements that don’t occasionally look inwards risk becoming ideologically stale. You need to let the fresh air in once and a while. Debate among conservatives is normally a sign of strength, not weakness.

But these aren’t normal times. The biggest challenge facing conservatives is the biggest challenge facing the nation as a whole: the ballooning national debt. The left is utterly derelict, preferring to close its eyes and murmur neo-Keynesian nostrums to itself. The center is busy fetishizing compromise. So the right, which has kept the ideals of individual freedom and restrained government alive for decades, must act.

The state doesn’t shrink itself, after all. As economist Robert Higgs rightly theorized, government spending increases steadily during peacetime and exponentially during a time of crisis. To cut back a bureaucratic behemoth that grows by default is an enormous challenge for even the most cohesive political movement.

And conservatism isn’t cohesive right now. As Begala says, the right is dividing into factions and squabbling over everything from political theory to personal dramas.

In an ideal world, conservatives would fall back on their belief in fiscal sanity and respond mightily to the debt crisis. Instead, the bloc that most urgently acknowledges the debt crisis, the Tea Party, is being targeted by an entrenched moderate bloc. As Scott Rasmussen recently noted, Republicans in Washington have grown disdainful of their own voters. Gray-faced political hacks in the most insular, myopic city in America think they understand the world better than the base. Some of them don’t even seem to acknowledge that the debt exists.

This divide is most visible in the House of Representatives. Republicans supposedly have a majority here, but those who support even the most basic measures of fiscal responsibility, such as paying for new legislation, are in the minority. John Boehner recently kicked several Tea Partiers out of committee positions. Now he’s cobbling together coalitions of moderate Republicans and Democrats to pass legislation. Even in the allegedly wild-eyed House, conservatives can’t come together to tackle the debt.

President Obama understands these divisions and is shrewdly exploiting them. His nomination of Chuck Hagel for defense secretary sent conservative foreign policy idealists and realists to war. His endorsement of gay marriage last year lined up younger libertarians against older traditionalists. The resulting squabbles end up overshadowing the debt challenge we have to face. Which is exactly what Obama, the big spender, wants.

“A conservative,” Woodrow Wilson said, “is a man who sits and thinks, mostly sits.” He’s right to an extent, and that’s not a bad thing. The country would have been spared a lot of misery if Wilson spent more time sitting and thinking.

But right now the challenge is to act, and conservatives can only act if they’re united and determined. Whatever the flaws of the Bush years, a little lockstep among congressional Republicans would go a long way. The House has the power of the purse. So link arms and use it.

GOP moderates are saying the opposite, demanding that conservatives abandon their ideological precepts and open their minds. Let’s play a thought game and concede every one of their points: there is epistemic closure, conservatives are increasingly insular, talk radio is having a deleterious effect on the movement, it’s tougher to be a moderate than it used to be, we all need to read more Edmund Burke, humility is in short supply, apostates are getting chucked from conservative think tanks.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Matt Purple is The American Spectator’s assistant managing editor.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (62) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Joellen| 1.18.13 @ 7:05AM

Excellent article, Matt Purple. The Republican party is in utter chaos and division has taken root.

But its not just in the Republican party; oh no, its in our families, schools, churches, its throughout our envirnoment and trust me it didnt just happen, the chaos and fraction has been active for years.

This website is the perfect example. Anyone think perp (who I believe is fed his answers - I dont think he writes them on his own), or vermine, anna, etc., dont actually enjoy the utter breakdown that is occuring. Their responses are gleeful when they talk of the take down that obama and ilk are perpetuating. Part of the plan folks. Everyone here knows their history.

As CJW faithfully points out, perp really believes that his god helped obama out with hurricane Sandy, how sick is that, yet he really believes that and you know his god might have helped out, after all satan does roam in this world.

So yeah, there is fraction within the Republican Party, and for that I say good. That means that we havent given up and are willing to fight to restore at least one representative party to its original intent; a Party for the People. So dont despair folks, when its fully a party for the elitist, well then we know we've lost the war. Until then, keep fighting the battle.

Jack in Wi| 1.18.13 @ 7:39AM

The trouble with the Republicans is that the gang of losers who has run the party into the ground does not want to change. They hate the 80% of the party which is conservative. We are supposed to lie down on every election day and get sold down the river till the next election. This party has to be taken over or else replaced. The Rockefeller, Bush,Neoconservative gang of banksters and warmongers would rather be ruled by Obama then by real conservatives and libertarians. They like things just fine the way they are and are not going to change. The only way to change things is to fight it out, and replace them.

OP4| 1.18.13 @ 8:38AM

Yep. The grassroots are fine. The disconnect between the constituents and leadership is the problem.

Aristocat| 1.19.13 @ 4:46AM

". John Boehner recently kicked several Tea Partiers out of committee positions. Now he’s cobbling together coalitions of moderate Republicans and Democrats to pass legislation."
Brilliant analysis by Matt Purple. Boehner has been doing this for years...marginalyzing conservatives, making deals with Democrats and Rinos....How can conservatives defeat Boehner?
He was just re-elected Speaker for another two years by cowardly House members, only 9 of whom had the courage to stand up against him.

Rhoetus| 1.20.13 @ 4:12PM

http://www.cato.org/cult-of-the-presidency

C. Vernon Crisler | 1.18.13 @ 9:12AM

The Republican party needs to become, as Jeffrey Lord said the other day, the party of Lincoln conservatism. They must love the Declaration and Constitution as much as Lincoln loved them. Until they get right with Lincoln, the Republican party will continue to drift down the road of Progressivism (fascism).

Jack in Wi| 1.18.13 @ 11:18AM

Chisler: Lincoln was the huge government liberal of his day. Lincoln is the last person we need running the party. He was a warmonger who gave us the draft, income tax, and total war against a 3rd of the population. The party needs to get away from the Lincoln worshipers like you and other 5th columnists, of the elites and neoconservatives. Lincoln hated the Declaration and Constitution. He used them for toilet paper everyday.

RCV| 1.18.13 @ 11:40AM

Jack, your anti-Lincoln tirades are tiresome. The overwhelming majority of Americans understand the thanks we owe this great man for preserving the Union -- our country, the United States of America -- and for freeing millions of human beings from bondage.

Derek Leaberry| 1.18.13 @ 4:48PM

You are exactly right about Lincoln. He would be near the top of the list of most evil Americans.

Bob K| 1.20.13 @ 2:51PM

Another Miniver Cheevy chimes in assailing the History of the country while sobbing for a time that never existed!

CJW| 1.18.13 @ 6:30PM

I agree, after Lincoln, the Republicans won most of the presidential elections until 1912. They would have won in 1912 if Teddy Roosevelt had not run as a third party candidate thus splitting the vote. We got the awful Woodrow Wilson.

Wildking20| 1.19.13 @ 10:45AM

CV...Lincoln did more damage to the Constitution than any other President until FDR. He violatated the 1st (He shut down papers which disagreed with him and had citizens arrested (Cong. Henry May of note) the 2nd (He confiscated weapons in Union States (Maryland)), the 5th (taking of private property) and not to mention the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Whether this was needed at the time to put down the rebellion is another debate. Lincoln is held in high esteem for guiding this nation through the War, but we need to look at the totality of his actions as it pertains to our waning Constitional rights we face today.

C. Vernon Crisler | 1.19.13 @ 9:45PM

How many more times do I have to correct this? The Constitution allows for the suspension of HC in cases of insurrection.

AlanKneeJerkLiberalBrooks | 1.18.13 @ 10:33AM

Jack,
these fools will run another Bush-type in 2016, and he might win.

Jack in Wi| 1.18.13 @ 11:21AM

Romney ccould of won if he hadn't beeen a braindead liberal himself Alan. After 8 years of Obama a lot of people could win. You can be sure the gang at the head of the party will run another phonie and backstab any real pro-life conservative.

AlanKneeJerkLiberalBrooks | 1.18.13 @ 11:33AM

No wonder they like Reagan so much: he was the best thing that ever happened to them. Now they are as lost sheep, roaming around the pasture,
saying

"Baaaa"
"Baaaa"
"Baaaa"

RCV| 1.18.13 @ 11:42AM

The way the GOP is going, it will be a long, long time -- if ever -- before that party wins a national election again.

AlanKneeJerkLiberalBrooks | 1.18.13 @ 1:43PM

Well, in the '90s we didn't think the son of George HW Bush would be elected in 2000.

There's always a hell to go through.

AlanKneeJerkLiberalBrooks | 1.19.13 @ 5:08PM

this is what I wrote at other articles today:

"Allright, alright. This will be my last comment at AS, not because of anything being written here, but because it is becoming more apparent by the month that you will run another empty-suit in 2016-- so this entire decade can be written off as a loss."

RCV, we'll be having these discussions into the next decade; and our asking them not to be contrarians is asking them not to be Rightists... is asking them to not be themselves.
We are the fools if we comment here, not them(unless one is a professional political-type).

Appleby| 1.18.13 @ 7:16AM

This is the same thing that happens in any "groupthink" organization eventually. Despite what the Democrats say, there is no "Women's Vote." Women are not a monolithic block of Marching Mommies who only want free birth control, abortion on demand, husbands, expensive homes and free daycare/education/breast pumps on the job site/three year maternity leave with pay. I work in a woman-intensive industry and the joke long ago became "We can't organize secretaries because no two secretaries can agree on what we'd Demand!" You name it, and a chorus of voices would reply "I'm not marching for THAT." But I can tell you that there's no constiuency for Northeastern Liberals masquerading as "moderates" in the top job. No matter now many times TLP demands that we support the same type of guy who has lost the last two elections and who will lose the next one, there is no constuency for these guys and it's well past time we tried running the guys the grass roots people actually support. Oh, and you could stop threatening people who don't support your candidate too. Americans never really did respond well to threats.

Al Adab| 1.18.13 @ 8:28AM

We can only wish for a monolithic Conservative Movement, one with a solid philosophy and known leadership. Instead we have Fiscal Cons, Social Cons, Neo-Cons, Paleo Cons, Movement Cons, Libertarians, Isolationists, Interventionists and a few Objectivists.

Since the entirity of Conservatism encompasses only about one third of the GOP is it any wonder we have trouble finding our voice and leading the party once again to success?

RCV| 1.18.13 @ 11:43AM

You're absolutely right, Al Adab.

Von Mises Jr| 1.18.13 @ 11:59AM

Did anyone notice our boy Johnny "Marbles" Boehner just passed $50B in a Sandy Relief Bill that still peppers money across the country to political insiders and creates more slush funds?

We went through weeks of bullshit over taxmeggedon; Boehner caved allegedly to raise $60B this year and pissed away $50B in one fell swoop. I am not amused.

All while Dear Leader plays a charade about taking our guns to take our eye off the ball. As Beck says "watch the other hand."

Al Adab| 1.18.13 @ 12:24PM

Eliminate non-germain riders. Most of the GOP members voted against the bill. Can it be so hard to vote a measure up or down on its merits without all the pork (vote buying) items attached?

Al Adab| 1.18.13 @ 12:39PM

As an aside Jr. are you familiar with Liberty Fund books? Most of the best is available from them.

Von Mises Jr| 1.18.13 @ 1:15PM

I am now my friend. That is what is so great about this and a few other sites. We learn sources and ideas not only from the authors, but the fine people who comment.

Al Adab| 1.18.13 @ 1:43PM

Thank you, enjoy.

PolishKnight| 1.18.13 @ 9:39AM

Believe it or not, if you want good news always look to your enemies for opportunities. One of the things lefts love to chortle over is that the Republican party is full of white males.

You know, the kinds of guys that Democrats prefer to pay higher housing prices to live next to. The guys who make up the primary demographic of Europe, the left's ideal playground. And the guys that the left has simultaneously unapologitically bashed for the past 40 years in order to pander for votes from their base electorate.

Starting with the rights primary electorate would be a good start. Perhaps focus on protecting their constitutional rights and see if that gets them out to vote and maybe steal a lot of votes from the left as well. It would certainly be more productive than attending La Raza meetings and promising to hand over the SouthEast USA to Mexico.

Naw. Let's talk about prohibiting abortion for victims of rape whose lives are threatened. That'll work much better!

nathan| 1.18.13 @ 9:53AM

I'm sorry but we have a MUCH bigger problem. We can't among ourselves agree on what "conservative" even is these days. This site is a perfect example of that. Look at the exchanges here over the last few months. We have people openly advocate what many would consider outright genocide. We have others who routinely support limiting Fifth Amendment rights when it suits THEIR purposes to accomplish their goals. When the totally unconstitutional and misnamed "Patriot Act" was proposed, who on the "right" vigorously opposed it? Did Rush, Sean, Mark or Romney speak out against the the Fifth Amendment destroying NDAA language? Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld routinely violated their oaths of office and arguably should stand trial for there actions. Who on the "right" agrees with what I just said? Quote Madison, Washington, Tom Paine, and that gets you defined as a "liberal" these days. How did insisting on strict adherence to the Constitution and the principles of the Founders suddenly become a "liberal" position? PR, Newt both supported Plan D and yet they're hailed as "conservatives". Anyone want to explain THAT to the class?

I propose that we use this column today to try and come up with a reasonable definition of what "conservative" really means before we try to do what the writer wants.

nathan| 1.18.13 @ 10:05AM

I can add many more examples where "conservatives" have supported positions that conflict with the Constitution and certainly their near unqualified support of Bush/Cheney despite their near daily trashing of the Constitution (show the article in the document that authorizes signing statements for example) raises serious concerns. Cheney is on record saying that the president is above the law and yet Bush today as does Cheney continues to enjoy considerable support from the "right". (Cheney, Rove and other administration officials show up on Sean's show with no little frequency.) Is "above the law" even in time of war for example a "conservative" value? Was holding Padilla indefinitely in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights consistent with conservative principles? The execution of those two Americans in Yemen not on the battlefield with no court supervision? Again, what really is "conservative" these days? Where really do "conservatives" stand on individual rights which the Founders went to great lengths to emphasize even if THEY sometimes were less than perfect about them.

The floor is open for discussion.

Dai Alanye | 1.18.13 @ 11:12AM

What Nathan and many others fail to acknowledge is that we are at war with Islamism, and in wartime certain rights should not be available to our enemies. As Justice Jackson put it, "The Constitution is not a mutual suicide pact." The problem we face from the Obama administration isn't mistreatment of traitors and enemies but persecution of loyal citizens.

nathan| 1.18.13 @ 11:28AM

Sir the Japanese/Germans made the same argument when they abused our people and how many of them did WE hang? And the Geneva accords, READ THEM CAREFULLY does not support Bybee/Yoo in their definition of either of what torture was, or say anything about "illegal combatants". The accords say, you lay your weapon down, no matter what y0u were doing right before, whatever people think you know, you can't be touched, you can't be abused, you can't have pain inflicted on you even if it doesn't leave marks, break bones, whatever.

And sorry the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution doesn't stop at the three mile limit. Note if you will the what the Bill of Rights say. Madison never once says "No American shall be deprived of life . . ." he said no PERSON. Second Amendment "The right of the PEOPLE" not the right of AMERICANS. Based on the wording of the amendments he never restricted them to Americans alone. Jackson can say what he wants but the Founders put strict limits on the government for a reason. I would ask you directly sir, do you agree with Cheney, is the president at any time under circumstances "above the law"? And cite a quote from the Founders supporting your answer if you say yes. But understand if you agree with Cheney then don't complain about BHO doing more or less what Bush did. For different reasons, but it's really the same thing.

Bob K| 1.20.13 @ 3:21PM

It is not at all that clear.

The Founders also gave Congress broad powers to authorize things like this.

Read Article 2, Section 8, Clause 11: The War Powers clause.

(congress can) make Rules concerning captures on Land and Water;...... .

CJW| 1.18.13 @ 6:34PM

Dai
Have you read Andrew McCarthy's "Grand Jihad" and "Wilful Blindness." Good on the Islamist threat.

Job| 1.18.13 @ 12:22PM

good comments Nathan the drone thing reminds me of this passage:

And he does great wonders, so that he makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

Job| 1.18.13 @ 1:48PM

DA is spot on with the Islam comment.
yet, our drones operating in countries we are not at war with is a dangerous precedent. it may be only a matter of time before drones are deployed right here.
Geneva accords are niceties; there are no rules to war.
it will be hard for the US to win another war when everyone on the planet has an Iphone/camera in their pocket.
someone said yesterday that if we don't stay and rebuild the places that were never built maybe we'd have better outcomes; true that.

Rhoetus| 1.20.13 @ 4:23PM

Being "conservative" should mean supporting a strict construction of the US Constitution. Our goals should include [but not limited to] repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments, following the Bill of Rights and a return to Federalism which means dismantling the National government's abuse of power since TR became President after the death of McKinley.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.18.13 @ 10:10AM

"The conservative movement, the triumphant political force from 1980 and 2008, ..."

One problem with being young is that your peer group often also lacks the insight obtained from having been there, and doesn't challenge you on your facts which aren't so. As someone who was around during the era you describe, please allow me to whittle around the margins.

Conservatism was not the dominant ideology in 1980, I would argue that dissatisfaction with Jimmy Carter's progressive platform drove his defeat. Still, 1984 was a referendum on conservatism, and GHWB ran from the right, so I'll spot you until 1992.

Clinton ran as a centrist in 1992 and won, and then tried to govern as a radical. That led to Republicans controlling the House from 1994-2006, but conservatism did not dominate during that era (Clinton re-election in 1996, Gore won popular vote in 2000, Dems took over Senate 2001-2003, Dems took House & Senate 2006).

While your overall thesis about the division amongst those on the right has merit, you should not try to support it with facts that aren't factual. Reagan used to say that the problem with his opponents was not that they were ignorant, but that they knew so many things that weren't so. We should avoid that, too.

nathan| 1.18.13 @ 11:38AM

Sir with respect honestly, Reagan wasn't a conservative. I know that's heresy, if the Inquisition was still here I would be hauled off and get burned at the stake but no objective look at HIS RECORD supports the notion that he was in any way a meaningful conservative. And that's part of the problem we face today. He was like his mentor WFB, a neocon, focused primarily on the external threat, and did little or nothing domestically besides lower taxes. If I'm wrong, cite one New Deal/Great Society program, programs that are now destroying us and in their own way were as much if not more a threat than the Soviets then and certainly far more of a threat than the bad guys now, name me one that he got rid of? He had majorities in congress. At least for one two year period. But he was too busy violating the restrictions on aid to the contras, outright breaking the law.

And until we see Reagan for what he was and wasn't it poisons the whole idea of what "conservatives" are and aren't.

Sorry but again Reagan is totally misunderstood. If I'm wrong show me I'm wrong show me his great commitment to domestic issues. Show me all he did domestically. Show me all those Great Society like Head Start he got rid of.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.19.13 @ 6:46PM

“He had majorities in congress. At least for one two year period.”
“If I'm wrong show me I'm wrong”

I will indulge you in one example, your quote above, where you're wrong twice. Reagan never had “majorities in Congress”. There was a Republican majority in the Senate from 1981-1987 (Reagan’s term ran from 1981-1989, I’m sure you recall). Tip O’Neill was Speaker of the House during the first six years, he was succeeded by Jim Wright in 1987. Both were Democrats, as were the majorities they presided over in the House of Representatives. When Gingrich became Speaker of the House in 1995, it was the first time that Republicans held the majority in the House in 40 years (they got the Senate again then, as well, though a Democrat named Clinton was President at the time).

None of us own the copyright on what is conservatism. We are each entitled to our own opinions (about Reagan, Buckley, Goldwater or anyone else), but not to our own facts. While I haven’t parsed everything you wrote, I picked out two glaring examples where your facts weren’t factual.

Job| 1.18.13 @ 10:20AM

if everyone has to say the Nicene Creed to be a Conservative the whining will continue in 2016. but a council on conservatism is a good idea.

Appleby| 1.18.13 @ 11:36AM

The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Al Adab| 1.18.13 @ 11:52AM

Thereby hangs the question Appleby, what recourse is there when the elected person violates their oath of office to defend the Constitution? The President is required to see that the laws be faithfully enforced. What if he should refuse to enforce laws with which he disagrees?

Job| 1.18.13 @ 11:36AM

Lemme crunch the numbers 66 million for 61 million against.

Ok that’s done, what are the conclusions: we need more voters; swing voters, tea party voters, libertarian voters, fed up conservative voters, voters with a heartbeat.

How to do, how to do...oh...how about not alienating them with the mentality that approximately half of the country needs to be pinned to the ground and made to say uncle on a number of hot button topics that have no place being decided on a national level.

Half the country wants to kill the zombies that are gonna be everywhere and the zombie handlers wanna round up that half and put them in cattle cars; can't we all jus gidalong.

Seek| 1.18.13 @ 12:14PM

What we need, frankly, is more white voters -- and fewer nonwhite ones. Check the data at www.vdare.com.

Job| 1.18.13 @ 1:17PM

in that election there were approximately 96,523 white voters; more than enough to have tipped the vote in Romney's favor which would have required 78,347 votes to do (half of the 156,693 total votes cast). so yes Romney needed more votes, more whites voting for him would have worked too.

Appleby| 1.18.13 @ 4:49PM

What you're saying is "we needed more people to be forced to vote for Romney even though they did not support him." How about we try nominating, for a change, someone that those voters would actually support? Or are you suggesting we do like Australia and fine people for not voting -- and send a handler into the booth to make sure those people pull the lever of our choice?

Rhoetus| 1.20.13 @ 4:28PM

Most of the white voters I grew up around were LBJ fascists - blame them!

Derek Leaberry| 1.18.13 @ 11:37AM

Republican politicians of all stripes are united in their devotion to big spending. Witness no calls last November and December to cut spending to the enormous Bush budgets. That is because all Republicans want to spend more and more and more. From Marco Rubio to Ted Cruz to Mike Lee to Mitch McConnell to John McCain to Paul Ryan, Republicans are a big spending party.

Rhoetus| 1.20.13 @ 4:27PM

Gee Derek, Ted Cruz just got sworn into office. Give him time. ;-)

nathan| 1.18.13 @ 11:42AM

For the post war period by the way we simply cannot ignore the massive influence that National Review had on the conservative movement. But the magazine was dominated by James Burnham, Chambers, Frank Meyer, and others who were just totally neocon in outlook as was the magazine's founder, WFB. In terms of the discussion I proposed today we can't ignore that magazine because most all of us in our 50's and above read it. But how "conservative" was it really?

Again the floor is open.

Seek| 1.18.13 @ 12:18PM

Ridiculous. Neoconservatism didn't even exist at that time. It wasn't even a defineable movement until the mid-70s. The early NR people were a mix of traditionalists (Kirk), Old Right libertarians (Chodorov, Rothbard) and neo-Machiavellian anti-Communists (Burnham). Buckley and Meyer tried to fuse these sensibilities, with a certain amount of success.

Al Adab| 1.18.13 @ 12:28PM

Fusion is the key. What concerns do the various aspects of Conservatism have in common and how can we fix the focus on those few rather than on the ones which divide us? We do the enemy a great service when we debate one another, remember divide and conquer?

Bob K| 1.20.13 @ 10:34PM

Exactly right!

The Conservative Movement came about from a fusion of and a winnowing out of ideas after WW II.

In fact there was never a Conservative movement of ANY kind in the United States until after WW II. Both Parties were Progressive prior to that.

Petronius| 1.18.13 @ 12:00PM

Want the lowdown on the GOP meltdown? Ask Pat Buchanan after what was done to him by the RNC. He told it as simply as you can make it. "They're Snobs!" At the top, the Republican Party is still a damned club where ideology doesn't mean squat. It's who you are and who you know. Real Conservative are despised by both parties because WE are Honest and want government at all levels to Respect OUR Rights. But all my life the political experience has been the same. The pols tell us what they think we want to hear. When they take office they don't just give us the finger, they jam it in our eyes. This piece is just extrapolated tosh. If you want something from anybody in government, get out your check book or get lost. Conservatives get nothing we want for that reason. The Law is for sale and all we can do is window shop.

Rhoetus| 1.20.13 @ 4:30PM

http://www.cato.org/cult-of-the-presidency

Doctor Right| 1.18.13 @ 12:10PM

Begala = Complete moron.

Who cares what he says?

C. Vernon Crisler | 1.18.13 @ 8:11PM

Yeah, I was going to say that, too.

Purp| 1.18.13 @ 5:45PM

Matt Purple is Asst Managing Editor? What is he - 12?

Anyway - "Rubber stampers for President Bush!" - got that backward Matty - Bush signed everything the R Congress sent him. He was a puppet. Darth Cheney pulled the strings.

In Lockstep, yes. You used to be proud of your good little Bundists, falling in line - all you were missing was "Heil!" and the click of heels and the Nazi salute!

CJW| 1.18.13 @ 6:37PM

Purpie the Village Idiot wrote:

"Purp| 11.8.12 @ 10:35AM

"The Lord rules, not Obama." - CORRECT!

The Lord works in mysterious ways... and this is something for the faithful to contemplate in the way the see the world:

Hurricane Sandy and Chris Christie was the Lord's way of pressing his thumb on the scale to tilt in the direction of President Obama. It was His punishment of Republicans for their lying and trying to cheat (Voter Suppression) their way to political victory, while espousing faith, freedom and constitutional credentials."

So God killed and injured hudreds of persons, and destroyed millions of dollars of property to elect Obama, according the Village Idiot

Rhoetus| 1.20.13 @ 4:24PM

Beware the Cult of the Presidency!
http://www.cato.org/cult-of-the-presidency

Rhoetus| 1.20.13 @ 10:36PM

George HW Bush, George W Bush and McCain were not conservatives. They were from mostly conservative states. Romney was from Massachusetts one of the most left leaning states in the USA. The Republicans only nominated two conservatives: Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1980, 1984.

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|26 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|79 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|59 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|93 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 10:45AM

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats