Conservative Donnybrook

It has probably been obvious to anyone paying attention that I have been posting infrequently of late. The truth is that I have had nothing I wanted to say about politics or government for quite some time. To be perfectly frank, I am disgusted by the whole works and find it distasteful and pointless. I find I no longer can dredge up any passion about political issues when, in the back of my head, I know whatever passion I add to the mix is ultimately without any effect. Washington will continue in its ever-more-corrupt ways, sinking into baseness and depravity, regardless of how fervently I decry the movement. And yet, we, as Americans, clamor for more and more attention from the reprobates in Washington D.C. The role of government grows and we as citizens must diminish. I have lost hope that any argument, any political movement, any amount of effort can forestall our country’s inexorable march to despotism. The only question is the speed by which we goosestep our way to totalitarianism. The ultimate outcome is so clearly evident as to seem inevitable.

And so, I wish all of our readers a heartfelt thank you. I apologize for abandoning my post. But, I truly believe there are far more important things to write about and to care about than government and politics. I leave this website and the donnybrook to those who still have the stomach for the fight. I do not.

The last year of this first decade of the 21st century will bring us many challenges and, D.v., many blessings as well. Speaking for my part, I resolve to strive for constructive policy recommendations along with my typical criticisms. Conservatives face a tremendous opportunity to once again, as Buckley once said, stand athwart history yelling “Stop!” And it is clear that they must be stopped: those forces of destruction, confiscation, redistribution, secular salvation, usurpation, and tyranny. The question before us, as has been handily demonstrated in the recent past here at CD is, “what is conservatism?” How shall we then live? What methodologies will we need to adapt and resurrect to counteract these agents of “change”? Whom shall we trust to carry our standard? What, in short, is a credo by which we can measure all our rhetoric and action?

Peril abounds, as it always has. Folk wisdom tells us not to bash a bee hive with a creek rock. Doubtless, the occasional sting will occur, even with due caution in the apiary. Such stings do not imply that the caution we were exercising was inappropriate or should be jettisoned in a fury of pain and trauma. Especially when an epinephrine pen won’t work to prevent the anaphylaxis anymore.

Debt looms insanely large, and yet more and more clamoring is heard from old and new quarters. A serious audit of the books is due, and serious cutbacks are not only necessary but inevitable, regardless of how they come. Borrowing billions to send $50 billion annually in foreign “aid” is no longer feasible. We have long since shifted from a manufacturing and production economy, and thus the idea that we as a country can or should take on the burdens of other countries is as ridiculous as taking out a third mortgage on my house to pay my neighbors’ cable and electric bills. That’s one slice of a tragically large pie that has to be — finally — served.

Lastly, liberty should not be spoken of apart from attendant responsibilities, because it is derived therefrom. We are created beings, social beings, and the most basic duties we have are to the One Who created us and to those whom we are familially and then societally related. It is inside those boundaries that we are truly free from fear, from want, and from oppression.

We have our work cut out for us, friends and readers. Let us get to splitting the wood.

Happy anniversary, conservativedonnybrook.com!

Ordinarily, I would take a good deal of time to point out that many here at the site have repeatedly pointed out the nakedness of the emperor. I would rehash the times Patriot-Act statists in conservative wool have been called on their leftism, secularism, and big-government authoritarianism. I would also bewail the unmitigated gall of such a character having the chutzpah to call his critics allies of Michael Moore, George Soros, and Nancy Pelosi.  I would loudly and often decry the shameless and unguarded honesty of those who reduce their philosophy to “kill” to the exclusion of sound economic policy, the sanctity of life, the sovereignty of our country, and a host of other issues. Normally. Not this time. This time I’ll let the argument you presented dismantle itself and show the readership of this blog how one-note, indefensible, and breathtakingly destructive your side is.

The article to which you linked, when read through the lenses of one conversant with history (which one would expect a self-described historian to do), demonstrated far better than I could of the bankruptcy of your side. Kagan starts out by mentioning the Great Depression. He failed to note any of the actual causes of that depression. He failed to take into consideration the “adventurism,” to borrow one of your words from a recent comment, of the United States leading up to that crisis. The economic decisions in the midst and wake of the Civil War (National banking acts of 1863 and 1864 which consolidated currency to fund the Union’s war; Federal Reserve creation in 1913; Aldrich-Vreeland in 1908, etc.) and the domestic and foreign policy decisions in the wake of the war (Reconstruction; almost immediate attempts at imperialism in Santo Domingo, Cuba, and Liberia – all of which came about due to slavery and its end; westward expansion, Indian wars, Alaskan purchase; Roosevelt’s splitting of the Republicans, his appointments to the Supreme Court, etc.; financial, monetary, and fiscal management and mismanagement), not to mention World War I, all contributed directly to the spreading thin of the American military and building resentment throughout the world.

Kagan goes on to insinuate that, because the United States seemed to somehow ignore foreign policy, Japan militarized and Germany fell under Hitler’s sway. This is howlingly funny. What we are required to do if we are to accept Kagan’s hypothesis is to absolutely and unequivocally deny that black is black, that water is wet, or that fire is hot. Aside from the fact that it was American “adventurism” (e.g., with the Great White Fleet, which further fueled a zealous desire to militarize in newly-nationalist Japan) which thrust Japan on its path toward imperialism (read about Perry’s Black Ships and the cracking of isolationist Japan, the Meiji Restoration, the Manchurian, Korean, and Russian campaigns of Japan), we can hardly be faulted for “ignoring” Germany: we had shipped thousands of American boys there to fight, bleed, die, and kill, and had established a new world-political body to deal with the German problem only 20 years before the 1933 Nazification. One could be excused for refusing to read any of the rest of Kagan’s ludicrous bombast after realizing this, but, intrepid soul that I am, I trudged on.

Kagan engaged in your least-favorite pasttime. He had the balls to criticize Ronald Reagan (gasp! the horror!) in practically the same breath as he criticized Jimmy Carter. Calling Reagan’s policy decisions about Lebanon “failed” and asserting that these policies led to the bombing of the Marine barracks is hardly what one would expect to hear you lauding. Implicit in this is the recognition that we should not have been there to get bombed. Reagan quickly and wisely realized this and did exactly the right thing: he got out and left Israel to what it was perfectly, demonstrably capable of doing: defending itself and letting Beirut and the Lebanese tend to their own damned affairs. No more Marines were killed there after that. No Al-Aqsa,  ”Quds Force,” or Hezbollah started trouble by killing Americans there. What a concept.  What were “Reagan’s failed policies” in Lebanon? Assisting a “multinational force” along with French troops and others to “keep the peace” in a sectarian civil war. What spawned the Muslim hatred and subsequent suicide bombings? Perceived American preference for Maronite Catholics and the shelling of Druze areas which inadvertantly killed civilians.

Kagan touches tangentially and seemingly accidentally upon one truth: things now are probably more dangerous for the U.S., but because of our huge overseas presence and constant “spreading of democracy” or “war on terror” or “search for WNDs” (we really do need to find those nasty World Net Dailies) or whatever they’re calling it these days, not because we are letting our guard down.

People are growing weary of the wars, growing weary of the constant misequation of the United States of America with Israel by the radical Zionists, and people are growing weary of the stubborn economic hardships put upon them by constant imperialism. Bring Americans home to defend America. Root out radical Islam here and deport it. If the resistance starts here, put it down swiftly and with no remorse. But there is no way we need to be defending South Korea from a tinpot near-dead in charge of a run-down non-entity. There is no justification for making all those “security guarantees” to states in the Russian sphere of influence. There is no way you could possibly believe that Kagan essay if you know and understand history. There is no way you can continue to call yourself a conservative and defend such Wilsonianism. It is definitionally schizophrenic, or alternatively simply mendacious, to claim to be conservative and yet espouse this baseless, historically-illiterate, radical Ledeenishness while at the same time believing it makes us safer. Your apologists split their time between appealing to how much safer we are and how dangerous it’s getting. Your side constantly purports to support “democracy” and “freedom” while working overtime - often in cahoots with outright radical socialist would-be totalitarians – to quash them through Patriot Acts, occupations of foreign countries, propped-up banking cartels and outdated unionized auto companies (remember which President started those great things?). Your side is trying to cling desperately to relevance, which is understandable. But for whom are you striving?

It is disappointing when one’s opponent in a debate resorts to exaggeration and generalization. My latest post seems to have enflamed passions and caused people to abandon any attempt at reasoned debate, instead they have resorted to name calling and gross generalizations.  The question on the table seems to be “Does America maintain an empire? And, if so, is it beneficial to America to be an imperial power?”

I have posited that America is maintaining an empire – a claim that is refuted by Doughboy who prefers the term “peacekeeping.”  By using the word empire, instead of a more misleading term, I have been labeled a “guy who care[s] about your pocketbooks and cozying up to the anti war left”; that I am a cult member of Ron Paul’s; that I am a xenophobe who lacks understanding of the “global nature of the present times”; that I maintain a “leftwing site” that “never [has] any praise for our military, our Republican leaders, America etc. And there’s never any criticism twrd Obama, Pelosi, etc, only the military, Bush and peacekeeping.”

As to the last several specious arguments: that this website “never [has] any praise for our military,” see here, here, here for instances where I, personally, have praised the military during the last year. These do not reflect Bill’s constant praise for our soldiers. As for praising our Republican leaders, I would direct Doughboy’s attention here, here, here, here, here, here, and here where I have praised Republicans. Just recently I wrote this praising the very idea of America and I would note that virtually everything I write is suffused with an abiding love and respect for our constitutional way of life. So, as for Doughboy’s criticisms of the website, I think we can safely view them as hyperbole and emotional reaction unrelated to actual facts. I admit that I do criticize Republicans and even conservatives. As I have written before, the more vigorous the debate on the issues, the better. A strong debate tends to cull weaker ideas that cannot be justified. In that sense, debate among conservatives is healthy. When conservatives cease debate about their plank, that is a sign of unhealthy group-think that will inevitably lead to trouble.

As for the primary question, whether America is an empire, I point to our continual military presence in far-flung provinces as evidence of empire. Doughboy responds that these are for the purpose of peacekeeping, although one wonders if Germany still remains at risk of descending into chaos but for the presence of our soldiers there. Wouldn’t America be safer if its allies maintained strong militaries instead of abdicating their responsibility to defend themselves to the United States? Think of it this way. If you were a criminal looking for victims and you saw a huge, tough guy walking around with a bunch of four-year-olds in his gang, you would instantly recognize that in order to take control of the gang, you would simply have to take out the huge, tough guy – the rest would fall into your orbit from a lack of any real options. However, if you approached a gang where the huge, tough guy were accompanied by a fair number of sizable companions, you may find yourself less likely to consider them as a potential target. I invite Doughboy to consider which model the situation in Europe is more like. The fact is, our presence there excuses them from providing for themselves. Their refusal to accept responsibility for themselves, in turn, places the United States at greater risk, not lesser. A strong allied Europe would be a boon to the United States, but that will never happen as long we maintain our protective umbrella over our European provinces.

Oh, I’m sure referencing “our European provinces” is likely to draw fire, but if one nation cannot defend itself and relies on another, the stark reality is that the nation that holds the strings of life or death over the other actually holds the nation. It has been rendered a dependent state and cannot in any meaningful way be regarded as sovereign as long as such a condition persists. America was once in that position; it was then a colony of Great Britain, a holding of the crown. I will readily admit that America is bad at maintaining an empire. For instance, it is customary to force the colony to pull its own weight by remitting taxes or tribute to the emperor. Instead, we foot the bill for the entire world’s security.

Doughboy maintains that we are safer because we have troops scattered all over the world. He maintains that we benefit economically from this arrangement and that the world is more secure as a result. I have asked him to make his case. I am persuadable, I will listen to cogent argument. I will not listen to a harangue about how I have turned the website into a CNN.com chatroom by making myself into a leftist, who harbors a secret love for Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. Set me straight, Doughboy. I welcome the opportunity to engage in reasoned debate.

When it comes to Obama, there are vast differences in opinion/approval.

Therefore, I penned & posted this article with some background today at Planet Daily. A shorter version will appear in the 12 Aug edition of the Jewish Post & Opinion.

There has been a behind-the-scenes debate going on among some of the authors of Conservative Donnybrook in the past few days and weeks. The question that has been posed is why should we spend so much time debating the minutiae of conservatism when the real enemies are Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their statist cronies? Certainly, there is nothing wrong with taking shots at those persons mentioned. They richly deserve it. But the premise of this website has always been to explore the nature of conservatism. What are its boundaries? Are there orthodoxies and heterodoxies, dogmas to which every conservative must accede? Personally, I believe that this is a worthy question for exploration and have even found myself being persuaded at times by arguments made by my fellow contributors as to basic foundational beliefs on which I judge our society or exercise my franchise. To that end, the contributions of our writers and commentors are invaluable (even – or maybe especially – when I argue with them).

Jack Hunter, over at Taki’s Magazine, recently wrote a review of Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by radio talk show host, Mark Levin. I recently read the book on the glowing recommedation of one of my friends and had intended to write my own review. In retrospect, I do not believe that I could add anything to Mr. Hunter’s review or that I would add anything different. Anyone who has listened to Mark Levin’s radio program will immediately note a significant difference in tone in his writing. He is far more reasonable and evenhanded in his manifesto and there is much that is valuable in his presentation. I, however, had exactly the same reaction as Mr. Hunter when it came to Levin’s treatment of “national security” and “foreign policy.” To me, after such an excellent exposition of conservative (dare I say it?) orthodoxy, Levin turns conservatism on its head with his celebration of American interventionist foreign policy.

The old wisdom used to be that Democrats took the nation to war and Republicans brought us home. Today, as Mr. Hunter points out, such mainstream expositors of conservatism (or at least what the public is told is conservatism) as Sean Hannity and Mark Levin now routinely decry any position as liberal which questions whether America should send troops to a foreign land. No more do Republicans stand for the idea of “speaking softly and carrying a big stick.” Of course, we still have a big stick – the biggest stick going by far (there’s something especially satisfying as a male to write those words and know they are true). However, we have long since given up the idea of speaking softly. We, as a nation, are in EVERYBODY’S business, telling them how they should live, govern, trade, lend money, etc. Today, we speak non-stop, like a drunken idiot who believes he is the life of the party, waving our stick menacingly around the party. Meanwhile, some of our fellow party-goers have been grumbling about calling the cops and having us removed from the party, but lamenting the fact that the cops cannot handle us.

The wisdom about the political parties was true as recently as the Nixon administration and somehow in little more than three decades what was once the liberal statist position has become the mainstream conservative position. I’ve spoken about the ratchet effect elsewhere; here is a rather striking example. To some extent, I think some of the explanation for how this has happened can be found in the rise in popularity of talk radio and the hosts who hold forth on that medium. For the most part, I believe, they and their listeners are largely orthodox conservatives who believe in small government in most realms except in foreign policy. When, as Mr. Hunter points out, most modern-day conservatives have received the entirety of their political education from talking heads on the radio, but have not read Kirk or Burke or Hayek, it is understandable how they could arrive at the screwy conclusion that there is something conservative about intervening in every conflict in every hell-hole that erupts around the world. Nonetheless, one can only conclude that most of these people have not made the effort to fit that position into the larger structure that conservatism as a worldview provides. The two positions are entirely unreconcilable.

The belief that government should be fashioned so as to be as unobtrusive as possible to the individual and executed at the lowest possible level, but also believing that the nation’s role is to project its power into every corner of the globe creates a cognitive dissonance that is unsettling to a systematizer like me, who wants everything to maintain a certain internal consistency and harmony. How does it support small, local government to tax people to the tune of more than $1 billion to wage a war in Iraq against a nation that had not attacked us, posed no threat to attack us, and had only the most tenuous of relationships with those who had attacked us (namely, a common religion)? Yet, many propose to continue our intervention in neighboring Iran. I can imagine Bill and Doughboy pulling their keyboards closer to respond that Iran has attacked us. They have, after all, undoubtedly caused many of the casualties we have suffered in Iraq. But, that begs the question. If our troops had not been in Iraq, what harm would (or could) Iran have caused the United States? If we were to remove those troops and bring them home, would Iran still pose a threat to the United States? Wouldn’t it be prudent at this juncture to save our money, our blood, and our capacity for self-defense by leaving the region and focusing on our own borders? We have won the war in Iraq it is said. Great! Let us enjoy the fruits of that victory and withdraw the victor. But, we must ask ourselves: Are we safer for having waged that war? Has our victory secured American security? If not, one must ask himself why not or he will commit the same errors again as is being urged.

I propose that resolving this question – how the idea of small, local government comports with global interventionism – may be more important to the future of this country than is exposing Barack Obama’s agenda. It is only if we can save the soul of conservatism that there can be any resistance to the creeping fascism of statist policies like President Obama’s.

…our newest contributor: Doughboy.

Born and raised along the coasts, but now happily residing in the Heartland, Doughboy is a former teacher who now freelance writes and works full-time as a military historian.

In his first election, he voted for Bob Dole, then made the biggest political mistake of his life by voting for Al Gore. On 9-11, he woke up and made national security his priority, leading to his admiration for Pres. Bush and his current career.

A fervent Zionist and Patriot who works with the military daily, he therefore considers himself a 9-11 conservative or “neo con,” though he disagrees with some tenets of the latter.

Aside from national security funding, he concurs with much of libertarianism.

I think most of readers will recognized that Doughboy brings a fresh voice to the Donnybrook. While he is likely aligned with the neoconservative contigent, his approach will almost certainly depart from the neoconservatives that currently contribute. He should add to a hearty and robust debate, offering a new persepctive that heretofore was missing on the Donnybrook.

To Doughboy, let us all welcome you to the brawl with the advice: keep your chin in, your hands up, and come out fighting!

I am headed in to finals for (hopefully) the last time in my life!   So long, farewell, auf weidersehen, good-bye.  I will return to posting duty sometime during the third week of May.

In the meantime, I am sure my fellow cohorts will titillate you with wonderful if not poetic posts.

I think I speak for all of the regular contributors when I say that Conservative Donnybrook is embarrassed to admit that it missed a pretty major story. Apparently, there was some sort of ill-conceived effort to increase the tax on beer in Oregon by 1900%. This should have been filed under OUTRAGE ALERT and all of us missed this story. I did not learn of it until my father came to visit me this previous weekend and he asked me about. You can imagine his astonishment as I admitted that I knew nothing about it. Even worse, it appears that the ultra-left-wing-activist site, Huffington Post, cadged to the tragedy while we sailed blithely onward. We apologize to our readers and pledge to spend more attention on beer and alcohol-related stories in the future.

It has been one year since the Donnybrook began!  Thanks to everyone for reading, writings and, occasionally, arithmetic!  May there be decades more.

The original conception for the site design was to include a still shot of the great donnybrook scene from The Quiet Man as the banner image. Unfortunately, I was unable to find a suitable graphic that could be diverted to that use. The photo that has been used since the inception of Conservative Donnybrook is from another John Wayne movie, Red River and shows the scene where Thomas Dunson (John Wayne) and Matt Garth (Montgomery Clift) finally come to a climactic confrontation.

However, in my mind, the fight scene from The Quiet Man is the greatest donnybrook ever depicted in cinema. See for yourself below.

I’d love to hear your nominations for the title of Greatest Donnybrook scene. Also, if anyone is technically adept and has access to a DVD from which the fight scene above can be captured (in particular, the fight scene around the hay stack and showing Thornton in the process of clocking Danaher), feel free to send it to me at Karl@ConservativeDonnybrook.com. Unfortunately, I only have the movie on VHS.

This sounds like some of the commenters around here.

Ave Maris Stella

Ave, Maris Stella,
Dei Mater alma,
Atque semper virgo,
Felix coeli porta.

Sumens illud Ave
Gabrielis ore,
Funda nos in pace,
Mutans Evae nomen.

Solve vincia reis
Profer lumen caecis,
Mala nostra pelle,
Bona cuncta posce.

Monstra te esse Matrem,
Sumat per te preces
Qui pro nobis natus,
Tulit esse tuus.

Virgo singularis,
Inter omnes mitis,
Nos culpis solutos
Mites fac et castos.

Vitam praesta puram,
Iter para tutum;
Ut videntes Jesum
Semper collaetemur.

Sit laus Deo Patri,
Summo Christo decus,
Spiritui Sancto,
Tribus honor unus. Amen.

Hail Star of the Sea

Hail, thou Star of ocean,
Portal of the sky !
Ever Virgin Mother
Of the Lord most high !

Oh ! by Gabriel’s Ave,
Uttered long ago,
Eva’s name reversing,
Stablish peace below.

Break the captive’s fetters ;
Light on blindness pour ;
All our ills expelling,
Every bliss implore.

Show thyself a Mother ;
Offer Him our sighs,
Who for us Incarnate
Did not thee despise.

Virgin of all virgins !
To thy shelter take us :
Gentlest of the gentle !
Chaste and gentle make us.

Still, as on we journey,
Help our weak endeavor ;
Till with thee and Jesus
We rejoice forever.

Through the highest heaven,
To the Almighty Three,
Father, Son, and Spirit,
One same glory be. Amen.

Congrats Bill and Sarah.

Today I have added a new webzine called The Catholic Thing to our blogroll. The Catholic Thing is being launched (actually it was launched in early June – I am behind in finding it and spreading the word) by Dr. Robert Royal in association with Dr. Michael Novak and Dr. Ralph McInerny. Some of you may remember Dr. McInerny for his now-sadly-defunct magazine Catholic Dossier: Issues in the Round. By far, Catholic Dossier was my favorite Catholic magazine of any I’ve ever read.  Some of the other regular columnists are: Hadley Arkes, Michael Uhlmann, Mary Eberstadt, George Marlin, Bill Saunders, Brad Minor and Austin Ruse. With any luck, and with our prayers, Dr. Royal’s new enterprise will capture some of the spirit of that publication. So far, the results are promising.

After reading Karl’s rhythmically challenged comments on “Kiddie Cocktails” I nominate him for number one on this list!  Move over Rob Van Winkle!

I have downloaded a new anti-SPAM plugin that I hope will assist in keeping down the amount of SPAM this site has begun to receive. I am hoping that it does not impact our regular posters, but I am not really sure how it works. If you post a comment and it does not promptly appear, send me an email (which I check about once a dayor so, usually late) at Karl (at) ConservativeDonnybrook (dot) com. I will locate your comment, and if it is indeed non-SPAM-ful, I will approve it. Please forgive the inconvenience, but this site has recently been attracting approximately 60-100 SPAM messages a day and I’m getting sick of deleting them. I’m also getting sick of the few which tend to get through that you are subjected to until I notice them and delete them. Please bear with me as we try this new option.

I just approved one of the contributors’ comments so it appears that I may have approve your comments before the new filter gets the idea that you’re okay in our book. This should be a message to you LTG…your next comment better be good. Please bear with us.

If the other contributors would keep an eye on the comment queue for the next couple days, I would be grateful since I cannot do so while I am at work or while I am sleeping.