-
Throw the Book at Him
June 13, 2013 | 196 comments
-
Testimonial to a Great American
June 6, 2013 | 39 comments
-
A Close Call at the Newseum
May 30, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Obama’s Imbroglios
May 23, 2013 | 45 comments
-
My Rahm Reunion
May 16, 2013 | 16 comments
The Current Crisis
Sam Tanenhaus’s Continuing Problem
If Paul Krugman calls someone a conservative, watch out!
WASHINGTON—It has happened again. Sam Tanenhaus, the editor of the New York Times Book Review, referred to by Paul Krugman the other day as “a long-time conservative,” has essayed in the New Republic the modern conservative movement, and traced us all back to John C. Calhoun. I suppose our point of origin could have been more sinister. Sam could have traced us back to Nathan Bedford Forrest, the former Confederate General who went on to be an early member of the Ku Klux Klan, but John C. Calhoun is bad enough.
Of course, Calhoun is no kind of modern conservative. He is not even a typical conservative of the 19th century, at least outside the South. He would have made heavy weather of it in the north in the company of such conservatives as the Adamses or even the Virginia Founders such as George Washington.
Calhoun is commonly recalled as a brilliant political philosopher, a proponent of states rights, and a defender of slavery. I do not know anyone who defends slavery today, save for those who apologized for the Soviet Union. If Sam knows of such a dinosaur I suggest he be bold and take the fellow on in the pages of his Review. It would liven the place up. Next will come Prohibitionism, and I shall be eager to see which side Sam is on.
Actually the modern conservative movement was founded in the 1950s with an amalgam of anti-Communists, libertarians, and American traditionalists. As the years have gone on it has shown itself to be the most dynamic political movement in the country, picking up along the way sober-minded liberals (known as neoconservatives), Reagan Democrats, evangelicals, Tea Partiers, and even independents.
In the face of this Sam has been a bit flighty. In 2009, he brought out a book pronouncing The Death of Conservatism. Fourteen months later—just as Sam’s paperback came out—the Republicans swept into control of the House in one of the largest rightward swings in the history of America, nay, in the history of Democratic government. Yet not a single member of the Republican House supports Calhoun’s view of slavery.
Meantime the pollsters discovered that only 18-20 percent of the American people are, to use a superannuated term, “liberal”—they ought to be calling themselves socialists or possibly friendly fascists. Today around 42 percent of the American people are conservative, and with the independents who voted against Barack Obama last year thrown in that number climbs to around 57 percent—though I would say that number is only roughly conservative. I am looking forward to the 2014 elections.
Whether Sam belongs to that conservative consensus I very much doubt. When Krugman calls Sam “a long-time conservative” he is at his most tendentious. Sam is no conservative, and I have rather sadly come to the conclusion that he is not seriously anything. He has been absent from the fight for lower taxes and the struggle for sound money. He did not utter a word for Sarah Palin or Rand Paul or David Mamet or, not to put too fine a point on it, me. I as editor in chief of The American Spectator countered his book with a book of my own, full of facts and argumentation, and we chased him all over the globe for his response. He remained mum.
Neither has he appeared on the intellectual field of battle to support the hardliners in Israel. He has not joined in the revival of Constitutional fundamentalism or, so far as I am aware, sided with the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Jews who are fighting for the right to exercise freely their religion.
Incidentally, I have extended a friendly hand. Some years ago I invited him to a gathering I maintain in New York City called the Saturday Evening Club. There were there that night writers from the New York Post, the New York Sun, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, the New Criterion, National Review, The American Spectator, and doubtless other publications. There were serious business people in attendance. I asked Sam to ventilate his opinions. He has never reciprocated in any of the editorial space he controls.
What do we get? We get being likened to the most famous defender of slavery. Tanenhaus does this in that noted conservative journal The New Republic. Tanenhaus is what columnist Krugman calls “a long-time conservative.” This is because the New York Times Book Review panned Krugman’s latest shrill demand that Washington end this Depression now—by sending money that it does not have.
Why is Sam running interference for this crowd? Well, it beats me. Instead of sneering at conservatives and trying to tar us as racists, he should come and see what is happening on the right. Our movement is plenty diverse, ethnically, racially, religiously, and, most impressively, intellectually. The Republican Party, too, has all kinds of exciting characters in it. The only one who remains out is poor John C. Calhoun. That is because of something Tanenhaus forgot to mention. Calhoun was a Democrat.
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 (100) | Leave a comment
More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
More Articles From The Current Crisis
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/14/sam-tanenhauss-continuing-prob
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
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
Jack in Wi| 2.14.13 @ 7:26AM
Give me Calhoun, Jefferson, and Madison, and limited government over big government liberals like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon, Ford, the Bushes, McCain and Romney. Tannenhaus is still trying to get over the book he wrote about Whittaker Chambers, which told his story favorably. It was a good book. But you can't be a New York literati, if you don't renounce every conservative thought you ever had. There are 42% at least, conservative people in the USA. How come one of them never can get a presidential nomination? We need a new party of real opposition.
CJW| 2.14.13 @ 8:27AM
Jack
You do know that Calhoun, Jefferson, and Madison were Dems. Jefferson founded the Dem party.
All the so called big gov lib presidents, except unfortunately Romney, you cite are Reps. Maybe you forgot that the Dems such as FDR, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and Obama have created and expanded the big gov we now have.
Jack in Wi| 2.14.13 @ 9:53AM
The Democrats used to be the party of small government. The Reublicans were the party of big intrusive government. That suppposedly changed in the 1930s and they flipped. Of course Wilson was a big government exception to the general rule. Sadly except for Goldwater and Reagan the Republicans have run big government guys even up to now. I forgot to include Eisenhower in the big government group.
Quartermaster| 2.14.13 @ 1:07PM
Actually Wilson was the first example of the progressive virus taking over the Dimocrat Party. It has been down hill since, with no Dim POTUS being anything short of a progtard. Only JFK showed a few glimmers of sanity.
Rhoetus| 2.14.13 @ 10:12PM
Not since Grover Cleveland have we had a constitutional administration in the White House.
Occam's Tool| 2.14.13 @ 6:14PM
Calhoun, who attempted to destroy the United states and was a despicable racist of the First water, is beloved of Cheesehead jack.
Rhoetus| 2.14.13 @ 9:58PM
Neocons give every conservative or libertarian a bad reputation, it's libel and slander I say! ;-)
Guimo| 2.14.13 @ 9:35AM
Wide-eyed, dopey-looking, gaping-mouth Paul Krugman looks as if he just escaped from a mental asylum.
Rhoetus| 2.14.13 @ 9:59PM
He did.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.14.13 @ 9:36AM
America's original sin was not slavery. America inherited slavery from its British ancestors. America's original sin occurred during about the 1830s when a large segment of the American population accepted chattel slavery as a positive good -- the exact opposite view of the founders, including Jefferson. That made any reconciliation between the North & South impossible.
John C. Calhoun was among those who were largely responsible for this change of view regarding slavery.
The idea that modern conservatives should be traced to Calhoun is absurd. The Lew Rockwell loons, and perhaps some of the Russell Kirk type conservatives, may lionize Calhoun and the South, but modern conservatives are first and foremost loyal to the Constitution, not to tradition for its own sake.
Arnie| 2.14.13 @ 10:31AM
Vernon, I'll just remind you the original constitution supported slavery, and we needed an amendment to end it.
Plus, even as many of the founders, including Jefferson, detested slavery in some of their writings, many still owned slaves. And several founders had no problem with it.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.14.13 @ 10:38AM
You missed my point. Slavery was inherited, and the Constitution reflects that fact. However, all the founders "detested" slavery, as you say, even the southern ones.
But that changed in the 1830s.
Of course, as I think is clear from the context, when I refer to modern conservative loyalty to the Constitution, I mean the Constitution, as amended.
Arnie| 2.14.13 @ 10:49AM
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
loulou| 2.14.13 @ 12:21PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't we beat the slavery horse to death already?
Moe Blotz| 2.14.13 @ 12:34PM
That's a racist statement, loulou.
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 1:41PM
Ya gotta watch loulou, Moe. She does that stealth racist thing a lot. I heard, from very reliable sources, she voted for Romney and actually thinks it was OK for Rubio to take a drink of water. Obviously a closet racist.
CJW| 2.14.13 @ 3:13PM
KJack
Heard on radio that the genius Sheila Jackson Lee, Dem congresswoman, who thought the astronauts landed on Mars, said in Congress that she is a freed slave. I did not know we still had slaves in Congress making $200,000 per year, plus untold benefits.
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 3:19PM
CJ, not real sure but I think she and Hank Johnson were born to slave parents on Guam but managed to escape just before it flipped over. Must be what she's referring to.
CJW| 2.14.13 @ 5:17PM
KJack
You made my day.
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 7:25PM
CJ, was listening to Michael Medved a couple of hours ago while I was driving. Ready for this? Sheila Jackson Lee is a graduate of Yale AND Harvard Law School. Now, someone try to convince me she WASN'T a quota black. I'll give you two to one she can't even spell "Harvard"
CJW| 2.14.13 @ 8:18PM
KJack
Intereresting, her husband was an attorney in Clinton "Justice" dept. If you want a laugh, google Michele's term paper for Columbia. It reads like it was translated from some unknown language to Chinese and then to English. It is incomprehensible. She also graduated from Harvard Law.
CJW| 2.14.13 @ 11:18AM
We cannot blame only the British for slavery. There is plenty of blame to go around. The African tribes who sold the slaves to the Dutch to the British. We could have and should have abolished it in the Constitution in 1789.
Jefferson, like a typical Dem, talked a good game but did not match it in deed. Washington freed his slaves by his last will. Adams did not own slaves. Alexander Hamilton started one of the first organizations to free slaves. Jefferson kept slaves during his entire life, buying with and selling them, and was in Paris with Sally while the consitution was being drafted. If he really believed what he wrote in the Declaration of Independence he should have acted on those words, as did Hamilton and Adams.
All our presidents failed to deal with slavery and kept kicking the can down the road with various "compromises" until the Civil War. They should have dealt with it, as other countries did by outlawing slavery, to avoid the War and 600,000 casualties.
I agree that Calhoun is not a conservative.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.14.13 @ 11:58AM
Many of the founding fathers owned slaves, that's true. Slavery was considered a "necessary" evil at the time, and was part of the commercial society of early America. I don't blame the founders for participating in their own society including what was a LEGAL institution at the time.
But they NEVER doubted that chattel slavery was an evil. That changed in the 1830s and after. Southerners turned their backs on the founders and adopted the positive good view of slavery. Lincoln realized that the country couldn't continue as a free country and as a slave country. It had to be one or the other.
No, the British aren't the only ones to blame. In the original draft of the Declaration, Jefferson blamed the king for slavery. He explained that this was taken out because the Southern states objected to it, and also because northerners had been complicit in the traffic of slaves. So Jefferson in effect admitted it would be hypocritical to blame the king for slavery when Americans were willing participants in the institution.
Quartermaster| 2.14.13 @ 1:10PM
Methinks you know little beyond publik Skool history when it comes to Dishonest Abe.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.14.13 @ 2:47PM
And I don't think you know anything beyond what you read in DiLorenzo. Which means you don't know anything truly.
Occam's Tool| 2.14.13 @ 6:16PM
Quite a bit more, thanks. Your knowledge of power politics is vacant, QM. No doubt your dad was the Pearl Harbor idiot who refused to open the weapons locker.
Egil| 2.14.13 @ 1:26PM
I believe that the Framers had to allow slavery in the Constitution in 1787, so that the Southern states would ratify it. As C. Vernon Crisler has stated, many of the Founders were not happy with slavery. There were even anti-slavery societies in the South in the 18th and early-19th centuries. Many white Americans in the first few decades of the nation believed that slavery was destined to die out in North America. Yet the Founders could not wave a wand and make it disappear. This was because of not only political reasons, but also because of economic facts of life of the time.
Slavery became more entrenched and stridently defended with technological developments such as the cotton gin, westward expansion and the balance of power between slave states and free, and also because of events like the slave revolts in Haiti and the Nat Turner Rebellion. The rhetoric of abolitionists and pro-slavery advocates became increasingly inflammatory in the decades before the Civil War.
I don't blame the pre-Civil War presidents and other statesman such as Henry Clay for some of the compromises on slavery. It was not easy to keep the union together in those days. Many in New England considered seceding over the War of 1812. The situation with slavery might be somewhat analogous to abortion today. I think that there are many sincerely pro-life politicians who would like to see Roe v. Wade rescinded, but, again, there is no magic wand to accomplish that today.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.14.13 @ 2:39PM
Well said Egil.
CJW| 2.14.13 @ 3:11PM
The Ruling Class of the south that benefited financially certainly wanted slavery, but there was no benefit to the vast majority and it is unfair to lump it all together to say the South wanted slavery.
They did not have to allow it. By allowing it and continually compromising the Ruling Class allowed it to become entrenched as you say, and the result was the War.
I agree there is no magic wand to get rid of Roe/Casey. If the Supreme Court overrules it then the issue goes back to the states and each state can decide. This means some states will allow abortion and some states may restrict it. The only way get rid of abortion is a constitutional amendment.
While abortion is as evil as slavery, we will not have a war like the Civil War. Dead unborn children are not visible like slaves were, alive and fighting for freedom.
Rhoetus| 2.14.13 @ 10:02PM
Slavery impoverished every freeman in the south.
Seek| 2.14.13 @ 2:43PM
John Calhoun, who died in 1850, was indeed a conservative. He just wasn't a conservative in the familiar (i.e., modern) sense. The classical themes of European and American conservatism -- custom, hierarchy, order, reverence for ancestors, agrarianism, decentralization of political authority, divine transcendance -- were very much present in his stated views, especially his "Disquisition on Government." There is much about those views I find objectionable, but the notion that they were "liberal" in any way is ludicrous.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.14.13 @ 2:50PM
Yes, he was a "conservative" in an old sense of the term. He even trashed the Declaration of Independence, denying that all men are created equal. This is the main problem with the Burke-Kirk style conservatism.
John Navratil| 2.14.13 @ 4:06PM
C. Vernon Crisler,
And we conservatives are all "liberals" in the old sense of the term.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.14.13 @ 5:21PM
Right, like Lincoln, we'd be known as "classical liberals."
Occam's Tool| 2.14.13 @ 6:16PM
Yup.
Cpm| 2.14.13 @ 4:58PM
A constitution never would have been ratified at that time if it included abolishing slavery. That can was kicked down the road due to the expediency of establishing a unified national government while knowing that the ultimate question would be decided at a future time.
Anthony| 2.14.13 @ 9:41AM
Wow, no Ben Stein today. I think Krugman and Stein have the same shrink. They share the same delusions about ecomonic theory.
I bet Stein walks around in his underpants like Krugman does.
And speaking of delusions Emmett, your optimism about 2014 leads me to believe you need a new shrink as well.
Robert Nowall | 2.14.13 @ 9:51AM
What bothers me is that I heard Tannehaus was working on a biography of William F. Buckley. His biography of Whittaker Chambers was first-rate informative, but is someone who's written a book titled "The Death of Conservatism" someone who *should* be writing a biography of William F. Buckley?
Arnie| 2.14.13 @ 10:26AM
In 1957, Buckley wrote "Why the South Must Prevail" in National Review, 8/24/57.
"the central question that emerges... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.14.13 @ 10:41AM
Consider the date: 1957.
You can make Lincoln sound like a flaming racist by quoting him out of his historical context. Same with Buckley.
Arnie| 2.14.13 @ 10:55AM
Well, as for Buckley, I'm not quoting him out of context. He truly believed that whites were superior, at least for the time being (in 1957).
He also supported colonialism. My only point is that there are roots of a sense of 'white culture is superior' in modern conservatism. Of course there is no more support for slavery, but this generally can be seen by the likes of people like Pat Buchanan that cry over the lost white America of the 50s where white guys called all the shots.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.14.13 @ 12:02PM
Lincoln believe in white superiority too, as did Jefferson. Don't expect to find perfection in humans, even some of our best. If you're going to hold Buckley to a perfectionist racial standard, then you have hold everyone in history to that standard -- a quixotic pursuit.
Egil| 2.14.13 @ 1:34PM
In reply to Arnie, beware of the road you travel regarding opinions of the past. Many of the "progressive" views of today, with abortion for instance, have their roots in eugenics and other heinous ideas. Much of redistributionist economics can easily be associated with bloody French Revolutionaries and Marxists.
And regarding colonialism, was colonialism really as bad as today's anti-colonialist ideologues claim? Rhodesia under Ian Smith was much better for blacks and whites than Zimbabwe is today under Mugabe and his thugs. And there are other examples of how colonies, especially in the British Empire, were better-governed than they have been since independence.
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 1:49PM
Egil, in the interview Dinesh D'Souza did with Obamarx's brother in Kenya, D'Souza asked him what he thought the problem with economic progress in Kenya and other African nations was. His answer? The whites left too soon. That's why South Africa is prospering and the rest of Africa is not. The whites stayed in power in South Africa long enough to make it a viable country and they're still there. No wonder Obamarx has nothing to do with him.
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 1:53PM
Should have had that in quotes starting with "The whites left......and they're still there". One of these days this el cheapo site will develop an edit button. I know it's an advanced concept, but someday it's gotta happen.
Egil| 2.14.13 @ 2:08PM
That's interesting, KennesawJack, about Obama's brother. Can you imagine how that story would be major headlines if he was a brother of George W. Bush?
And now we can continue to watch in horror as Obama and the low-info voters transform our country into one that's more like Zimbabwe. Obama, in a rare moment of honesty, might claim he wants us to be more like Sweden, but with his wondrous racial-healing abilities, Zimbabwe is closer to the mark of what we're turning into.
Anthony| 2.14.13 @ 11:09AM
Well troll Arnie, we all can play this game. Your boy, slick wee Willie Clinton, just 5 years ago, said about Obozo, "Hey, a few months ago, this guy (Obozo) would be bringing us our coffee".
And need I remind you about Grand Kleig D senator majority leader Robert Byrd? Or Clinton's mentor, the racist senator J. William Fullbright? Funny thing though troll Arnie, turns out Mr. Buckley was precient afterall; not about race, but about the south being politically advanced over the rest of lefty America.
We will need to take such measures as are necessary to prevail politicallly and culturally to save America from Marxist Obozo and friends.
Stick around Arnie, you'll see for yourself.
loulou| 2.14.13 @ 12:16PM
Good one, Antny.
Arnie| 2.14.13 @ 12:48PM
You're actually praising the South? The only thing that region can proud about are its modern collegiate sports. That's it. Otherwise, it's been a worthless backwater. It's go nothing else on the rest of the nation, except perhaps more humidity, ignorance, and Bible thumping.
I couldn't care less about the retarded South. Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, the Carolinas, these states have been the centers of the most heinous crimes against Americans by Americans.
Slavery, lynchings, the KKK, segragation, whippings, beatings, hosing, chaining to trucks, wife beating, dog attacks, bombings etc..All that was justified because the white man and his Bible said so...
It's also the region that has kept America from becoming the great nation it always could have been. It's the slow, retarded brother of the north. So the south can suck my Big Northern C*ck. I'm glad my great great great grandfather killed a bunch of those retarded, southern slave owning rebels.
White Southerners are a bunch of losers, and always have been. So drink up your horse piss PBR and raise one, for South will Rise again Anthony!!!
Not.
And I'll add one thing. I wish Lincoln, after crushing the South, would have got all the blacks out, and settled them in the north and West, and THEN he should have let the South secede. The USA would have been better if he had done that.
Quartermaster| 2.14.13 @ 1:19PM
The south would certianly be better off. If you look at Blac Run America (places like Detroit, Memphis, Birmingham, etc.) you see corruption and dysfunction just like Africa. You, of course, I'm sure, see those facts as somehow racist.
The most inluential of the founders were southerners, the author of the declaration was a southron, as was the primary author of the US Constitution of 1787. Much of what is recognized worldwide as US culture is actual southern in origin. The biggest loser in secession would have been the north, and the new England moneyment that loaned FedGov money to keep it going after secession would agree with that, as they proved with their actions.
People like you are so ignorant it's hard to even hold you in contempt. Pity, however, is more than you deserve.
Butch| 2.14.13 @ 7:17PM
Arnie for King of the USA, eh, Quartermaster. I can only imagine the South after his solution.
Anthony| 2.14.13 @ 1:46PM
Whoa troll Arnie, better pray that no southerner at TAS finds out who you are. Especially all those family members of Democrats past, like George Wallace, Lester Maddox and Bull Connors.
I pity your worthless carcass, yours and your white trash hero's, Bill Clinton.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.14.13 @ 2:42PM
I think Arnie is still living in the pre-1960s.
Butch| 2.14.13 @ 7:21PM
Not at all, man. I'd take his last paragraph in heartbeat, and I'm a lifelong Southerner
bustunloose| 2.14.13 @ 4:25PM
Arnie it is even worse than you state. They have affordable government, send an inordinate number of their young citizens to serve in military, allow the middle class a chance to live an affordable life, and the white people who live there have babies !!!!!!!!!!!! They are EVIL!
Cpm| 2.14.13 @ 5:03PM
Unfortunately J.W. Booth didn't agree.
Grzmlyk| 2.14.13 @ 10:41AM
This is rather rich: "In 2009, he brought out a book pronouncing The Death of Conservatism. Fourteen months later—just as Sam’s paperback came out—the Republicans swept into control of the House in one of the largest rightward swings in the history of America, nay, in the history of Democratic government.
Gee, does he have egg on his face.
But wait: You wrote quite a fanciful fairy tale (as a rebuttal to Tanenhaus, I guess), titled "The Death of Liberalism," which came out in May of 2012.
Six months later, Barack Hussein Obama, the furthest-left president America has ever had (not to mention the least competent and by far the most puerile), was re-elected.
He was the first president since Eisenhower to break 51% in two elections. He took key states Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.
Dems picked up, what, two Senate seats and seven House seats?
Over at the Supreme Court, John Roberts, erstwhile conservative poster boy, enshrined Obamacare.
I'll be honest: I ain't seeing the death of liberalism. In fact, quite the contrary.
Grzmlyk| 2.14.13 @ 10:41AM
(cont'd)
But you wanted to preach to the choir; you wanted to make conservatives feel good, which is usually what Dems do with their liberal constituencies. When Peter Schiff challenged you with some inconvenient facts that prove that, in fact, liberalism has won the day and that there is no turning back, you begged the question, saying, "well, what would you have us do, give up?"
Whether conservatives should give up was not Schiff's question. His question was, given the myriad examples of an ever-more left wing culture, electorate, education establishment, science community and government itself, what proof do you have that liberalism is dead?
Indeed. Wishful-thinking polls not-withstanding, liberalism is THRIVING. It is a Stage 4 cancer that has consumed the American psyche and will soon ravage what's left of the body politic; it is a juggernaut whose momentum will only be stopped by a horrific crash - which is now just a couple of years away (and conservatives will, of course, be blamed when that happens).
So whose book was more foolish, Tanenhaus's, or yours?
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.14.13 @ 10:42AM
It would have been more accurate to title his book, The Death of Republicanism.
Grzmlyk| 2.14.13 @ 11:05AM
True.
In the aftermath of the rout of the GOP in 2012, most conservative pundits were telling us how we can win - and the advice generally fell under two camps: One was to adopt sections of the Democrat platform (be it on illegal immigration, entitlements, bailouts, monetizing the debt, etc.). The other was to articulate our message better.
The former is of course a reflection of the extent to which liberalism HAS won. The latter is simply not possible, because it is not our message that people have rejected. It is self reliance, capitalism, faith, tradition, objective values, a monolithic culuture, normative sexual relationships, individual responsibility, etc.
As long as the left commands the media, education, science and politics, our headlong rush into left-wing insanity will continue; it's not that our message needs massaging and we can turn this battleship around with the proper talking points; it's that America has, en masse, decided to reject reality, and they worship politicians who feed the delusion.
End of story. End of America.
Anthony| 2.14.13 @ 12:11PM
Grzmlyk, Your eloquence truly makes me weep for America.
Grzmlyk| 2.14.13 @ 12:28PM
Thank you, Anthony. That means a lot to me, but it is bittersweet indeed.
I still cannot understand this mass-hysteria that has most Americans embracing a false consciousness. I know human nature is frail, and denial is a common problem in our personal lives.
But this wanton disregard of cause-and-effect is mind boggling. It is now accepted "wisdom" that, in order to get out of debt, we must go further into debt; in order to treat people equally, we must treat "victims" with special consideration (calling to mind the sign in Animal Farm that says, "All Animals Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others"); in order to "spread the wealth" we must reduce everyone (except the ruling class, party Apparatchicks and pawns) to misery. In order to attain energy independence, we must shut down U.S. energy production. In order to have Americans prosper, we must punish the successful; in order to lead, we must follow; in order to achieve universal compassion, we must demonize those who won't get into line; in order to be moral, we must cast morality aside; in order to win, we must emulate losers.
And in order to rebuild America, we must destroy it.
George Orwell himself would be amazed at the extent to which newspeak has become not just the language of the left, but the collective consciousness of a ruined people.
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 2:01PM
And the pigs DO get to sleep in beds, don't they.
Al Adab| 2.14.13 @ 2:17PM
Nice job as always Grz. For the origins of modern Conservatism see Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind. Also John Adams,A Defense of the Constitutions...
Of course were the opposition to read these things, they would lose their ability to vilify from ignorance and would have to engage the actual issues.
Grzmlyk| 2.14.13 @ 2:28PM
I've been meaning to read the Kirk book, but haven't gotten around to it.
Well, if the left engaged the actual issues, they couldn't be liberals. It's never the reality of their policies (or even their dogma) that counts - it's the purity of their intentions, and how good their toxic brew of hackneyed bromides and ruinous policies make them feel about themselves.
Just look at the wasteland of America's culture today and you'll see it littered with the debris of liberal policies - the black family, big cities, crime, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, racism, professional victimhood, gun control, minimum wage, rent control, environmentalism - I could go on and on. They never look at the results. Only at the intentions (and, of course, how much corrupt money is in it for them).
And morality is defined as whatever they want it to be.
The Brave New World: Reality can go to hell in a handbasket, but we will simply mouth the right lines and that will make everything all right.
DRed| 2.14.13 @ 3:22PM
This is classic Grzmlyk-a paragraph after blasting liberals for being detached from reality you complain about high crime, when in reality violent crime rates have been falling for two decades. But yes, keep your hackneyed, fact-free diatribes coming. At least your hypocritical, introspection free (I mean, seriously-you're complaining about a culture of victimhood? Are there no mirrors in your house?) hysteria is eloquent.
CJW| 2.14.13 @ 5:29PM
Dred
One of the main reasons for the decrease in violent crimes is that most states have adopted mandatory sentencing based on published sentencing guidelines that the judges have to follow. More criminals are in prison.
There has also been a decrease in the population of the age group that commits much of the violent crimes. Reduction in the supply of potential criminals.
But there is still a high crime rate of violent crime, especially in the inner cities.
This is not inconsistent with Mr G's complaints about crime.
DRed| 2.14.13 @ 8:19PM
There's a higher level of violent crime in densely populated poor areas, yes. I'm not sure how this is a reflection of the failed policies of liberalism, but my point still stands-even in our most violent inner cities, like Chicago, the rates of violent crime are much lower than they were 20 or 30 years ago. That is to say, while 'Mr. G' has been bemoaning the increased liberalization of our country it's become a much safer country to live in. You claim it's a result of conservative policies, which might be right, but it's not what one would expect to see in a country that's now so far left that we're all essentially socialists. In terms of violent crime, reality has been getting better and chicken Grzyl thinks it's going to hell in a handbasket.
Butch| 2.14.13 @ 7:28PM
Right as always, Grzmlyk. You are truly a modern-day Jeremiah.
Von Mises Jr| 2.14.13 @ 3:28PM
Beautifully done, Grzmlyk. I also have been in a funk, not for myself or immediate family since we will do fine.
But While I saddened by the fact that Americans could re-elect a platform of class envy and racial hatred, I think that in about a year you are going to see events that produce real "Change."
When average Americans that sat home find out they are losing their health care and/or the new plans come with fines for not buying a GSA approved plan or they are fined a few thousand for smoking or having a large posterior, much of the population that sat it out will be loaded for bear.
Of course, the low-information takers will be little affected until the rest have had enough. Then they will only be like the Greek and Spanish rioters. But rocks and fists will not solve their problems. And the Middle Class will either fight for its freedom and property or they will be consumed.
cicero| 2.14.13 @ 10:54AM
These articles and books reccur because we no longer seem to care about history, and we certainly don't teach it in our schools. The founders inherited slavery - it was a universal institution since time immemorial. The Constitution provided doing away with the importation of slaves (Art. I sec.9) designating 1808 as the cut off date. Between that date, and 1861, virtually every Congress was abroil with debate on the demise of that institution - slavery. Calhoun and the Dems forcefully defended it - the Whigs argued against it. When the Whigs became more accomodating to the Dems, the Republican Party was formed for the express purpose of destroying slvery. The election of Lincoln brought on the Civil War.
What is so hard about reallizing that? This is 200 year old fact. As long as we refuse to educate our future generations on American history, and allow the liberal Dems to control the news and educational establishments, we will see a steady decline of love for thes country, and a continual dumbing down of our population.
CJW| 2.14.13 @ 11:53AM
Cicero
Good points. The really sad part is that probably over 99% of the Southern soldiers did not own slaves, and the Northern soldiers did not own slaves.
Who Knows?| 2.14.13 @ 11:21AM
Who is this Sam Tanenhaus?
CJW| 2.14.13 @ 5:20PM
A liberal author who did a decent biography of Whittaker Chambers.
bustunloose| 2.14.13 @ 11:24AM
The interesting point in the article is the number of various groups the author cites as being the parts of the conservative movement-American traditionalist, libertarians, Reagain democrats, independants and so forth that shows alot of diversity-many tribes. Mr. Tyrell omits one group of this movement-a group that seeks to dictate what the Republican must do and be at every turn-a group that insists on running pathetic candidates over pragmatist that can win-a group that hates the idea of the big tent-a group that hates poorer people-that adores the rich at every turn, never able to concede our free enterprise system is not perfect and can produce millionares and billionares of little merit-that group I Label Right Wing Hardons and the sooner they get out of the GOP the sooner we gain more Independants, Reagan Dems, and so many others.
Grzmlyk| 2.14.13 @ 11:56AM
I gotcha. The sooner we become Democrats, the sooner we will win.
What a bigot you are. But than all libs are bigots. Hate is what gets you up in the morning. Well, that and self-congratulation.
bustunloose| 2.14.13 @ 12:21PM
You are the close minded one. My pragmatic approach , one that builds a winning party to stop the madness is not good enough for close minded you. The left has a place for its' absolutist-the green party. Please form your version and GO ! Leave the real work to reasonable rational clear heads. Really It is time for you to go. Emmett has shown you the GOP is comprised of many parts-so are the dems-but they keep it under wraps, hidden. HEIDI H HAPPENED-she voted Reid for leader and now she is playing the game of being center right-like that guy from Nebraska for so many years-but when the needed his vote for Ocare he fell on his sword. That is how then win and we lose. You people are just not geared to fight this war-always CHARGE CHARGE CHARGE into their bullets,so sad.
Grzmlyk| 2.14.13 @ 12:50PM
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. More of the same. To be a succesful GOP, we have to be Democrats. I got it. You are in Camp # 1.
The problem is, it really doesn't matter if the GOP wins. We're headed in exactly the same direction regardless. THAT is the point. Conservatism has no place in a thriving GOP. Hence the leadership we've had for the last twenty years.
Funny how, even when we pay Dems the ultimate compliment of imitating them, they still hate us, and we are still the villains of the Zeitgeist's little simplistic melodrama.
No matter how you slice it, it's over.
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 2:13PM
And then we (or our kids and grandkids) get to start over again. We will never accept that this dystopian nightmare the left is building is the end game. Never gonna happen, my friend.
Al Adab| 2.14.13 @ 2:20PM
The republicans have betrayed The Conservative Movement since its modern inception. How many times have they led us to defeat with Ford, Dole McCain and Romney? Why, can anyone answer, should we ever follow them again?
Grzmlyk| 2.14.13 @ 3:01PM
Well, KJ, that is possible. But the fact is we had the best foundation the world has ever known and we have arrived at this.
The reason is human nature. We are a victim of our own wealth; when subsistence issues no longer take precedence and, as a people we are more concerned with what to do with our leisure time and unlimited number of gadgets and jimcracks that will entertain us, we lose sight of that which binds us to the soil and to our creator. We succumb to the hubris of self regard; we begin to worship ourselves.
I know exactly two conservatives. Everyone else I know - and have known for 30 years (with perhaps half a dozen exeptions) has either always been liberal or became liberal.
Most of these people are relatively affluent and want to be "GOOD." Having lost sight of the limitations of our humanity, and our obligation to humility, they embrace the fantasy that they can escape the bonds of that humanity and defy the causal universe; this is precisely the overweening pride written of in Greek tragedy.
And so they seek a secular beatitude in policy and government.
Not all of us have succumbed, of course, but the critical mass has; the culture tells the whole story, far more accurately than any self-serving poll could ever do.
So I think that, if we conservatives founded a civilization on another planet, and we began with the U.S. Constitution, that new planet would end up exactly as we did, exactly as every empire before us has.
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 3:34PM
Gryz, precisely why I said our kids and grandkids will get to start over. It's always going to be a process of starting over. The hope is, as each cycle turns, we learn and, finally, get it right. Yes, we had the best foundation the world has ever known. Before that the Greeks, then the Romans, then the Brits each, in turn, had the best foundation the world had ever known. It appears the present is nothing more than our turn at the wheel. I suppose, for lack of better explanation, it's simply the manifestation of dialectical progression writ large over time. Surely, what we have become in this country can't be the best man can come up with. Seriously, Obamarx, Sharpton, Tingles, Pelosi, Reid, Purp, et al, the best we can do? Nah.
Grzmlyk| 2.14.13 @ 3:45PM
I agree with you for the most part, but excellence does tend to devolve over time. Glory may belong to the great, but it is the mediocre who achieve longevity.
It's like companies - they tend to have cyclical behaviors (of course this isn't uniformly true, but a loose generality): They start out with a vision. An entreprenuer imparts his vision onto a select team of people who develop a common mission. They execute on that mission beautifully. The company becomes a star, the trend-setter in its industry. But stasis, complacency, entropy and competition eventually take their toll; more and more energy is devoted to internal politics and jockying among each other. Talented people are lured away or start their own enterprises. The company begins to slide toward oblivion. It is taken over or, very rarely, infused with a new sense of mission. Perhaps the cycle begins anew. Perhaps it disappears into the mists of time.
I saw it happen first hand with Sun Microsystems, with IBM (which is an uncharacteristically protean company), with Compaq, with Dell, with Motorola - many others.
So I agree that we get to keep starting over - but I also think human nature is immutable, which is what separates us from liberals!
KennesawJack| 2.14.13 @ 6:53PM
One major difference between the companies and this country. In the companies, the employees don't get to make the decisions. In this country, the people, ultimately, do. Couple that with the immutability of human nature and, voila!, cause for optimism (as long as you're not into immediate gratification).
bustunloose| 2.14.13 @ 4:28PM
Sorry but no Republican president or congress ever infilicted what we see now upon the nation.
loulou| 2.14.13 @ 12:13PM
" I do not know anyone who defends slavery today..."
Except for the Saudis. They own slaves to this day.
bustunloose| 2.14.13 @ 12:26PM
Not slaves but serfs. Anyone in private sector will become beast of burden to the state. You take them down with economic action. I did not watch super bowl this year. Actually seng Goodell a post card informing him that NBC is an enemey to the America I believe in. No reply yet. By the way it is the money-if we stop feeding them our money to use against us-well the implode.
sickofit5| 2.14.13 @ 1:07PM
I'm with loulou on this, we have beat this slavery horse to death already. Not that I haven't enjoyed some of the intelligent post thus far but as a country we have had a tendency to view the past through the prism of modern day morality. Modern day geniuses on our college campuses are poisoning our kids with this tripe and how terrible we are, did Colombus really infect blankets with small pox? Look, almost every civilization advanced through slavery. In most cases the slaves were conquered nations. The reality is africans were viewed as chattel because our intellect and morals were still developing as they are now. What sets us aside is that we came to this realization and have changed this. I know of no other country that has done so much to be inclusive. We are not perfect but we try. What bothers me is the government does not recognize or care what they have done. We are more balkanized then ever. I would bet that most black HS kids come out of the HS education and believe that slavery is uniquely American and are unaware of it's existence prior to our history and in existence in third world countries like Africa. Our government continues to victimize black to the point of causing them to balkanized more than ever before. I am 60 and in my twenties, brought up in the south, I felt bad for their plight. Now, I am older, wiser and less patient and I am sick of talking about it.
bustunloose| 2.14.13 @ 4:33PM
My mother went to public school in the FDR era-she was totally brainwashed. What drives the dems nuts is that most of the children from those parents thought on their own and rejected their politics. The dems hate whites like me, whose people came in off the boat, the Ellis Islan people-we were too often independant and this was not the plan. Thus-their Latino love affair.
Quartermaster| 2.14.13 @ 1:26PM
The war of northern aggression wasn't about slavery. It was about the constitution. The war did not begin until after Lincoln's call for troops to enforce an authority the FedGov did not possess, caused the upper south to go. FedGov has no authority to coerce the states.
Lincoln gave us, at the bottom line, the system that has yielded FDR, LBJ, Slick Willie, Zer0 and the GOP that has set the libtard welfare state in concrete. Until you can bring yourselves to realize what the real product of Lincoln and the GOP has been, you can not even start towards a solution.
Grzmlyk| 2.14.13 @ 2:00PM
Sadly, I concur. Lincoln arrogated power unconstitutionally.
Butch| 2.14.13 @ 7:36PM
The godfather of the Leviathan state. Period.
cicero| 2.14.13 @ 2:00PM
CJW - I always wondered about that, too. How did the south ever convince all of those poor farm boys to run into cannon fire for the cause of slavery?
Quartermaster - Yeah, we all know that the south was fighting for states' rights. The problem is that the state right they were fighting for was the right to hold other people in bondage. The war started after Lincoln was elected, but before he was innaugurated. The south knew that the expansion of slavery into the new terrotories was at an end. Remember Fort Sumpter? That had nothing to do with what Lincoln did or did not do.
But that having been said, I agree that the issue is no longer slavery. It is all about socialism, where th aristocracy of the beaurocracy will enslave everyone. All you need do is reflect on the Soviet Union, the Soviet satellite states in eastern Europe, Cuba, China, and anywhere else that it has been imposed. What is so hard to understand about this? It doesn't work for anybody other than th beaurocracy.
Al Adab| 2.14.13 @ 2:23PM
It began as a war for Southern identity and it was Lincoln who turned it into a war against slavery. None today would ever defend slavery or even the superiority of one "race" over another, but such thinking was a fact of life from ancient times up to the 19th century.
Butch| 2.14.13 @ 7:44PM
All you have to do is read Shelby Foote, Cicero. The Yankee soldiers knew full well that those Scots-Irish boys weren't slave owners. They would yell across the lines, "Why are you fighting?" The answer they got back: "Because Ya'll are here!" They were defending their homeland. C. Vernon Crisler no doubt considers Lee to be a traitor, but--given the original understanding of the Constitution as creating a confederation of states--he considered himself to be a Virginian first, an American citizen second.
cicero| 2.14.13 @ 3:14PM
Al - The problem was that "southern identity" was all about the right to own slaves, and the right to bring slavery into the new territories. The new Republican Party was instituted by the anti-slave people who were disaffected with the Whig Party that was not forceful enough in the stand against slavery and its expansion.. Lincoln was nominated as a compromise candidate, and went into the war with the intent of holding the Union together. He realized that if the south could break away, eventually every state would do the same thing, and you would have a continent full of banana republics. He turned it into a war against slavery when it became necessary to do so to keep the north in the fight, and cripple the belligerent slave staates.
But there is so much literature out on this, you guys don't need Cicero to lecture on it.
Occam's Tool| 2.14.13 @ 6:30PM
The South has many fine Universities, and some of the best Medical Centers in the World, the best, Hopkins, is Southern.
I like the South, except for the weather.
Butch| 2.14.13 @ 7:54PM
I respectfully submit a bone of contention with Mr. Tyrrell: the Tea Party people have always been there, traditional full-spectrum conservatives, before they became politically active. Prior to 2008, they confined their political activity to informing themselves, and voting. I have never not been a full-spectrum conservative; when I realized I was being misinformed by the mainstream media, I sought alternative sources of information. I have been a subscriber to National Review since 1972, and published in it (personal note of thanks from WFB). Spectator since 1990 (it has now surpassed NR, in my humble), Human Events, etc. We've always been there, we just weren't politically active, because we trusted the Republicans until we realized we couldn't any more.
Rhoetus| 2.14.13 @ 10:10PM
I love America, it's just that I can't stand all the retards and "Progressives", but I'm being redundant.
Marc Jeric| 2.17.13 @ 10:45AM
Komrad Krugman would have fitted well as the Kremlin's economic guru in the period 1950-90.