The American Spectator

Red Phillips| 9.8.09 @ 5:57PM

Yes. Be very skeptical of conservatives who talk about "creativity" and "progress." (Are you listening Newt Gingrich and Gingrich supporters?) Conservatives should talk about the virtues of the old ways.

Nick| 9.8.09 @ 8:45PM

"Borrowing liberal arguments to attack fellow conservatives? Much, much worse [...]".

See, S.L. Toddard, you are in very, very bad company!

Red Phillips| 9.8.09 @ 9:07PM

Nick, conflating SLT who is to the right of the conservative establishment and opposes them from the right with these crybaby centrists who oppose from the center what they see as unsavory elements of the right demonstrates a lack of nuance on your part. Although I am sure he can defend himself if he sees this.

Mary Louise| 9.8.09 @ 10:13PM

Excellent take and takedown. Peter Wehner has a good takedown too.

Glenn Beck has been in my area for a few years now. Before today, I listened to his show about 4 or 5 times. The disgust w/Beck having been right on the Jones situation sent me to him today. He said, and I agree, don’t waste your time talking to people whose minds and opinions can’t be altered. Talk to those (Reagan’s 59%) who may have even voted for Obama, but in no way voted for the transmogrification he has in store for us all.

Tanenhaus is right about one thing: present day conservatives do not believe in the conservative principles they espouse. Wehner treats that part of the Tanenhaus interview with more nuance, and that’s as it should be. But I think it won’t do conservatives any good to pretend that you can “kill the free-market to save it,’’ or you can grow an entitlement that will produce self-reliance or personal responsibility. Additionally, if conservatives can’t really discuss the possibility that invading Iraq was a mistake then we’re in a kind of trouble that is very deep and very worrisome. I don’t pretend to know if it was a mistake, but being able to discuss it freely is a must -not for yesterday, but for tomorrow.

In Charles Kessler’s piece at the Claremont Review (August 2009) he impresses upon conservatives the pressing need to stand up, ad alta voce and declare to Obama and his administration: First do no harm!

These Young Turks, as you call them, are not even savvy enough to recognize this as an absolute necessity. You don’t want conservatism in their hands because they’re like Obama. They haven’t lived enough, or accomplished anything of substance on behalf of conservatism, to be able to be thought of as competent.

Spinoza worked as a lens maker. Some of the time, when funds were low, he lived on a gruel of raisins and butter. Spinoza wanted to be able to think freely. Whether he was truly an atheist, I can’t really tell. He did know and advise that any society unmoored from the religious impulse -he recommended coming up with something new and quite a bit more works oriented as it related to communal living- was pretty much doomed. His own misunderstanding and attempt at a do-over led exactly to that unmooring he knew would spell disaster.

What will hold conservatives and libertarians together is what holds all free, healthy, productive, strong and progressive (in the good, non-Luddite sense) nations and organizations together, and that’s an honest-to-goodness sense of one’s own fallibalism.

Fallibalism is not equal to relativism. It allows a dogged pursuit of the truth, holding on to what has been painstakingly acquired, and always encouraging progress. It can live and thrive with tension.

Shaidle is absolutely wrong to relegate Burke to quaint anachronism. He believed strongly in Providence, and he gave to other nations and cultures their due whether they be Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Reading Burke and Karl Popper is always eye-opening. Each one takes us back and then forth.

I think she’s right about Buckley.

Last thought on Tanenhaus: "Da chi mi fido mi guardi Dio, da chi non mi fido mi guarderò io."

Mary Louise| 9.8.09 @ 10:19PM

Spelled properly it's fallibilism.

Red Phillips| 9.8.09 @ 11:14PM

Mary, don't you think the folks at Commentary citing Burke is a bit rich, seeing as how they promoted a foreign policy that was rank Jacobinism?

Nick| 9.8.09 @ 11:53PM

Mr. Phillips,

Believe me, I know Mr. Toddard claims to be the most conservative person on earth.

But my point, by quoting Mr. McCain, is that Toddard always uses liberal sources to try to prove his "conservative" assertions and diatribes.

Strange thing for a "conservative" to do, don't you think?

He has used Glenn Greenwald to try to make a point. How can one make a conservative argument with liberal talking points?

If you need proof, just search his posts on Miss Sotomayor.

Red Phillips| 9.9.09 @ 12:23AM

Nick, just because a liberal thinks something doesn't necessarily make it invalid. It is natural that anti-war liberals and anti-war conservatives would agree on much, sometimes for different reasons. It is a problem of modern conservatism that it has defined itself so much by hawkishness on foreign policy that it can't conceive of a conservatism that is anything else.

I know of SLT from some other sites. He is not a closeted liberal if that is what you think.

And FTR, I have found Glenn Greenwald to be very thoughtful on the War. One of the most thoughtful commentators on it left or right. Ultimately he is a liberal, and I am a conservative. He voted for Obama. I voted for Chuck Baldwin. But that doesn't invalidate his every thought.

Nick| 9.9.09 @ 1:35AM

Mr. Phillips,

Most liberals are liars, by omission or commission, or use obfuscation to dupe the ignorant. Sure, there are some honest liberals, but not many.

And yes, there are conservatives who were against the war for conservative reasons. The late, great Bob Novak was one with whom I disagreed but respected. I even agreed with his reasons against the war. But he made CONSERVATIVE arguments agianst going to war, not liberal ones.

I'm not surprised you find Greenwald "very thoughtful", you agree with him that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Shocking!

But Greenwald lies (1 million civilian deaths) and uses liberal talking points (Bush lied us into war) to try to prove he was right about the war. That is neither honest or conservative.

Whether Toddard is a bleeding heart liberal or not, I can only surmise by my interaction with him. The king of "cut & paste" has used conservative sources exactly ONCE in our debates.

And the guy he quoted was someone I've never heard of, who wrote for Pat Buchanan's rag. But then, I'm not that well read, so what do I know!

Toddard's MO seems to be when confronted, Google to find someone who agrees with you, then cut and paste into a post.

And his contempt for the people who post here belie his conservative assertions. Only liberals possess such arrogance and ignorance at the same time, in my experiences.

Mary Louise| 9.9.09 @ 6:22AM

I think Wehner used Burke properly, and in context not very "rich" at all.

I'm very conflicted about Iraq, but I don't think the invasion can be written off so easily as a mistake either.

We were attacked, and if getting a presence in that area for purposes of real, on-the-ground intelligence saved us from something much worse, and continues to do so then it's the price of being a Nation as opposed to disparate States.

A hegemon is going to be, and if that hegemon has the power to influence a Country's ability to sustain itself then it has to be taken seriously. You can let a hegemon occupy the vacuum or you can. And there's another problem. Every Country needs a military to protect its interests and its citizens. A military, in order to work when it absolutely has to, can't be allowed to languish. As crude as that sounds, it's an ancient problem.

S.L. Toddard| 9.9.09 @ 7:50AM

Red - Nick believes that if Glenn Greenwald makes an argument in favor of limiting state power based on the original intent of the Constitution, that it is a "liberal" argument by virtue of who Glenn Greenwald is, rather than the essential merits of the argument. Nick's arguments are all essentially ad hominem, personality-based ones, i.e. "So-and-so is a Republican, therefore the idea of World Democratic Revolution is 'conservative'" and so forth. Because I do not source the Fox News Right in my arguments (he has urged me more than once to more regularly read the Weekly Standard and listen to Ann Coulter and other such talk show hosts) he considers my arguments "liberal" ones.

That is all that really needs to be said about Nick, I'm sad to say.

Nick - I suggest you listen to Red. Not merely in this instance, or because he understands that my arguments are waged against the GOP from the right, but because he's the best and most consistently conservative writer on the American Spectator, for all that he's only a commenter here.

Ran| 9.9.09 @ 8:35AM

"Spelled properly it's fallibilism. " I have my doubts abou..., er, never mind. :-]

RSM, It seems to me that not a few of our "conservative" brethren are conservative only of certain vestiges of the "progressive" experiment. There is a growing alternative, and it is a constitutional libertarianism that hopes to preserve instead the individual-anchored religious and political ideals that animated the Revolution.

When a Dreher or a Frum come knocking at the door with a basket of "Conservative Arguments for [insert pet statist cause here]", I politely tell them that I gave plenty at the office, but the old long-haired dope-smoker down the street, why, he just loves these "new" ideas. When the CoNors come around later in the day trying to sell me a "crucible of public discourse", I point up the street to the big smoking hole in the ground and tell them that some of their friends are stuck there, and would they be so kind as to bring them a coffee and a copy of Federalist 45 for light reading?

I am very much buoyed with optimism by RET and the crew aboard AmSpec, entrepreneures such as Libertarian-Republican Eric Dondero, talented funsters Smitty, Chris Muir, Iowahawk... Tea parties... the fundamental libertarianism of the American spirit is reawakening. It's going to be long frustrating work to undo the mess of the 20th Century "progressives", especially with "conservatives" underfoot, but there's a nice big smoking hole in the ground where they can congregate and get the H^ll out of the way.

Red Phillips| 9.9.09 @ 10:22AM

Ran, lumping Dreher, a crunchy con which is in many ways just paleo light, and Frum, a moderate for moderation's sake, together is evidence of the fundamental philosophical cluelessness of many self-identified conservatives. The modern movement is all you know. You are incapable of undersatnding how Dreher is making conservative arguments if they don't echo movement group think. And you are incapable of understanding that individualism is NOT the foundation of conservatism. And what the heck is "individual-anchored religious ... ideals?" I think there is another word for that. It's called heresy.

Red Phillips| 9.9.09 @ 10:40AM

"Most liberals are liars, by omission or commission, or use obfuscation to dupe the ignorant."

Nick, most people (all really) are liars. Some much more so than others. I do think there is some truth to the saying that conservatives think liberals are wrong and liberals think conservatives are evil, but I don't think lying is an inherent part of liberalism. Somewhere on a liberal blog, some liberal is asserting the exact same thing about conservatives. Exaggeration, impugning of motives, default hostility, etc. does seem to be an inherent part of partisanship.

I don't know how many civilian casualties there have been and neither does Greenwald. No one does. What is true I believe, is that supposedly pro-life and Christian conservatives have been appallingly unconcerned about collateral damage in their campaign to spread democracy, kick Muslim butt, topple dictators, secure WNDs, or whatever other justification was being used at the time. You can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs ya know.

I do absolutely think Bush lied us into war. The Pentagon's Office of Special Plans (what tone deaf PR illiterate came up with that Orwellian moniker?) was created expressly to massage intel to steer us into war. The neocons and other hawks had long wanted to topple Saddam and 9/11 gave them a convenient excuse to do so.

Thanks for the compliments SLT.

Bob| 9.9.09 @ 1:47PM

Red -- well said. I couldn't agree more....

Conservatism today lacks the intellectual heft of the past. It has decayed into a subset of religious banter. But the same must be said of the brand of populist liberalism we see today that has decayed into emotional secularist banter. The world, it seems, continues to move towards fundamentalism no matter which way you look.

Nick| 9.10.09 @ 12:17AM

Mr. Phillips,

I think Mr. McCain's title says it all.

If you think you are going to influence those like myself by quoting a guy who defended a neo-nazi who advocated killing a federal judge, you're delusional. Toddard influences no one on this site.

If you are unaware of how many and how often liberals lie, I suggest you follow them more closely and question their assertions constantly.

This in no way implies people on the right never lie.

Mr. Toddard,

I never urged you to pick up a copy of the moderate rag "The Weekly Standard". This is your problem. You can't remember what you've read nor what you've written.

And, Ann Coulter is not a talk-show host, she writes a very smart and funny column and best selling books. Try reading some. Be sure to bring your dictionary.