Conservative Donnybrook

For too long the Republican Party has been beholden to the Christian right.  Organizations such as the Moral Majority, the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition have come to dominate the once freedom-seeking, federalism-defending and individual-rights-enforcing party.

When Ronald Reagan won in a land slide election over the hapless Jimmy Carter, the Moral Majority claimed to be the reason.  Robert Grant and Jerry Falwell had won a dramatic victory, not over the heathen Democrats but the Grand Old Party. Truth be told, any enraged bunny could have won in a landslide against the bumbling peanut farmer.

Yet, the damage was done, no longer would the Republican umbrella cover states rights. There would be no more sanctuary for the individual against the masses.  Nay, the era of the third Protestant reformation had begun.

The Moral Majority was formed after the above mentioned Protestant evangelical Robert Grant declared, “the Religious right is a sham…controlled by three Catholics (gasp!) and a Jew (gasp, gasp!).” (Gasps added by your humble Catholic author.)

Prior to Grant and Falwell’s entry into politics the Republican Party had a noble heritage of enforcing individual liberties (think freeing slaves) and defending federalism (like preventing a national education system). Those times have passed. Now the Christian right would have the GOP stand for the rule of the majority and big fat government.  Continue Reading »

Share This

Apropos of Karl and Mike’s comments on paleoconservatism and traditionalism, I thought I would throw out a few disorganized thoughts of my own on the subject.

Paleos are known as the vocal (and often angry) faction of the conservative movement that stands outside, and is endlessly critical of, the FOX News-National Review-GOP complex. What’s interesting to me is that paleoconservatism itself, like conservatism, is a coalition of distinct strains of thought. For example, the libertarian followers of Ludwig Von Mises and the Austrian School of economics who gather at LewRockwell.com comprise a major component. Then there are those Russell Kirk-following traditionalists (like our own Karl), once well represented in the National Review orbit, who now find themselves increasingly alienated from the mainstream conservative movement, and may or may not self-identify as paleos. Closely related are advocates of localism and community, in the mold of social theorist Robert Nisbet. Then you’ve got the Old Right-types, the inheritors of the isolationists of the 1930s who criticized the New Deal and opposed the American entry into World War II. Continue Reading »

Share This

In his editorial on washingtonpost.com, Rutgers University historian, David Greenberg makes the claim that, to any New Yorker, Rudy can hardly be considered a liberal. That may be so. Empire Staters accepted Michael Bloomberg as a Republican. If that’s what passes for conservative in New York, then they are bad judges of the labels conservative and liberal. Indeed, it is a relative thing. In New York, Rudy Giuliani probably would qualify as conservative. In the heartland…well, not so much. When was the last time a true conservative came from New York? John Jay?

Greenberg attempts to use Giuliani’s support for abortion as evidence of his conservative bona fides simply because he doesn’t go as far as the most left-wing advocates for abortion would. Likewise, he cites Giuliani’s lust for executive power (which he calls Cheney-esque, and which I would call FDR-like) a conservative trait, even though conservatives are reknowned (and vilified) for their stance on limited government. Try to cut any government program (other than the military) and see who cries out that the chidren will be eating dog food in the streets - hint: it’s not the Republicans.

In the end, the fact that Giuliani is like George W. Bush is conclusive proof that he is a far-right-wing conservative zealot, according to Greenberg. Ironically, for those of us on the Right, the same comparison serves as conclusive proof of the opposite. I would imagine that, in Mr. Greenberg’s world, the fact that President Bush’s prescription drug benefit “only” cost $500 billion instead of some figure in the trillions would qualify Bush as a hard-core, child-hating, right-wing bogeyman.

Strange world when Bush’s Wilsonian nation building venture in Iraq can be cited as evidence of conservatism. Of course, David Greenberg lives in a strange world. He should remember that New York City is not the United States. What passes for conservatism in the Big Apple may not always be perceived the same everywhere else.

Share This

In H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine, a time traveller fast forwards to discover that the human race has devolved into two species.  The downtrodden working classes have become human spiders, or Morlocks, who toil underground maintaining the machinery that keep the communist Eloi docile and plentiful, as they are the staple of the cannibalistic Morlocks’ diet.  Both species are routinized with very little, if any, intelligence.

Now, accoring to this article in the Daily Mail, a top scientist claims the human race will split into two: “an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures.”  The cause of this bifurcation?  Sexual selection, of course.  However, as long as we have this on hand, I find this claim to be very suspect.  Then again, some have said this great divide in humanity is already underway (intelligent ruling elite on left).

Share This

The draft is on in Iraq. That is, if you are a diplomat in the Foreign Service. According to the story, the embassy in Iraq will be short 40 to 50 persons in the next year if staffing remains voluntary. The State Department has already sent out notification to 200 to 300 entry-level dimplomats that they have been selected to serve in Iraq. Those notified now have ten days to accept or decline the assignment. Those declining may be dismissed from the Foreign Service, according to Harry Thomas, the director general of the Foreign Service.

This story reminds me of Tom Hanks’ great line in Volunteers when his character, Lawrence Bourne III, jumps on a plane to avoid debts and inadvertantly joins the Peace Corps. As they are flying to Southeast Asia to build a bridge for the local inhabitants, Lawrence tells Beth Wexler (another volunteer, played by Rita Wilson), “It’s not that I can’t help these people. It’s just I don’t want to.”

Share This

Here, here, here, and here your friends at CD discussed the possibility of voting for a socially conservative third party candidate should Benito Giuliani get the nod from the GOP in ‘08.  According to Catholic News Agency, that third party candidate will definitely not be the conniving Sam Brownback, who is in “talks” to endorse Benito.

For some Catholics who hate Hillary just enough to vote for Benito, this “back door” endorsement would serve as a fine conscience cleanser.  As Brownback himself seems to explain away:

I’m going to meet with him and I’m going to talk to him and hear what he is specifically saying now because he’s changed on a number of the abortion issues…He’s changed on partial-birth [abortion] and he … has said he would appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court.

Apparently, Brownback feels “much more comfortable” with the credentialed abortionista.  But, as Charles Karauthammer noted, Rudy’s definition of strict constructionism is so muddled that his appointment of a strict constructionist might result in more of the same penumbras and emanations that have enveloped society for nearly 35 years.

Brownback is clearly maneuvering for his post in Benito’s administration, but his endorsement would serve Giuliani well.  It seems his own Faustian bargain might eliminate one for a lot of Catholics on election day: “Well, Brownback supports him and he’s pro-life.”  I’d like to think people are incapable of bringing this puerility into the voting booth, but then again Karl is thinking about voting for Huckabee in the primary.

Share This

Mike, I don’t have the political science background you, SM, and Willmoore possess and therefore, it is always perilous when I get into basic definitional discussions with any of you. Having thrown my caveat out there…

I have taken to calling myself a Traditionalist. However, the first few sentences of your description of paleoconservatism seem to nicely describe what I mean by Traditionalist. I tend to think about law and culture in terms of how they support our long-held traditions and values. And when I say long-held, I include our traditions as they developed under the Crown of England leading up to, and providing a common inheritance for, the founding of this nation. The reason is because those traditions and values have been time-tested and are known to be salutary to good government and the development of a stable culture. By that token, I object to innovations and experimentations that threaten to overthrow the continuity of that culture. In that sense, my basic outlook on government is preservative of the old order. One might even say that is conservative. But, upon closer inspection, it may be anything but conservative in that many of the innovations that so-called conservatives today insist on preserving are really innovations of the last 50 years. This is why I call myself a Traditionalist rather than a conservative. I do not seek to conserve those recent innovations, but rather to reform them and reestablish the values and norms that they have replaced. I would restore a culture that would cause Alexis de Tocqueville to say today, “America is still great, because she continues to be good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” My insistence on recreating a culture of life in this nation, based on a common Christian understanding of the common good and the sanctity of life, is one example. Continue Reading »

Share This