Conservative Donnybrook

Dr. Jack Kerwick posted a poorly reasoned piece on the Intellectual Conservative web site concerning the difference between, well, him and me.  He being the “Classical Conservative” (i.e. paleo-conservative) I representing the “Neo-Conservative” camp.  Dr. Kerwick begins his discussion by comparing a utilitarian’s opposition to abortion to that of natural law theorist’s.  Mr. Kerwick writes:

“The utilitarian opposes abortion because he believes that the general practice of abortion will in the long run cause more pain than pleasure for the greatest number of people. In stark contrast, the Roman Catholic natural law theorist opposes it because he thinks that abortion is inherently wrong, irrespective of consequences.”  So far so good, no objections here. He goes on to state how classical and neo-conservative philosophies differ in much the same way.   Kerwick then compares the classical and neocon perspectives in three areas; reason, morality and the State.

Reason/Knowledge
Kerwick states “Neo-conservatives endorse a trans-cultural, trans-historical conception of reason.  Reason…is ultimately capable of rising over and against [tradition].”  Classical conservatives on the other hand, according to Kerwick, believe “…reason is the product of…tradition.  [Reason*] consists not [of]…’self-evident truths’ but in unarticulated feelings, habits and customs….”

Continue Reading »

Share This

I mean a war to liberate someone else.

Paleos (not to mention their liberal fellow travelers) might reflexively sputter out “No!”.

But then, the First Crusade was a war of liberation, and it was judged as “just”, not only by the combatants at the time, but by almost everyone in the West until relativity recently.

So, seriously, what do you think?

WAC

Share This

Here is an interesting article on secession movements around the world.

Share This

The National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine have published a report on why public schools ought to be required to teach evolution to students.  The debate over creationism and evolution has raged in the United States for many years now.  While there is no end in sight, this report serves as yet another salvo in heated debate. 

Proponents of evolution are split into two main camps: Those that believe evolution demonstrates the lack of a god and those that believe evolution is all part of the mysterious plan God put in place from the beginning of time.  Proponents of creationism believe that God created everything as it is.  Some go as far as to claim that the world is much younger than science demonstrates, that dinosaurs are a fiction and that evolution is impossible if not an outright lie.  A middle road is the “Intelligent Design” camp.  This philosophy holds that the vastness and complexity of the universe and all its treasures demonstrate that an intelligence of one sort or another provided a guiding hand to creation. 

I, for one, believe in evolution.  It seems clear that animals, plants, fungus and bacteria evolve and change over time.  I also believe that God intended it this way.  I therefore, believe that evolution ought to be taught to our youngsters.  Whether the hand of God controls or implemented the process is best left to Sunday school teachers and parents. 

Share This

Over at Taki’s, Jack Ross has some thoughts on Norman Podhoretz and the New York Intellectuals. The “Intellectuals” were a group of writers, originally leftist and many Trotskyite, most NYU alums, who became influential in politics and literary criticism. From this milieux came the early neoconservatives, including Irving Kristol and Nathan Glazer.

Ross:

The Trotskyists—many of whom were, indeed, New York Intellectuals— gave to neoconservatism its totalitarian mind, and a fervent belief in the redemptive power of violence.

A little overblown, perhaps. Totalitarian? Not quite. But still, these are guys who write manifestos, preach global revolution, promote militarism, and despise localism, tradition, and culture. So, not exactly what I’d call conservative, either.

There is actually a documentary on the N.Y. Intellectuals called “Arguing the World” that is moderately interesting–not enough to buy, but a good candidate for Netflixing.

Share This

If you’re increasingly annoyed and bored with the mindless screeds of conservative talk radio, and even more bored with the dull liberalism of NPR, might I suggest some excellent lectures and talks available online as MP3s?

For instance, lectures sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute are available on their Web site in both video and audio formats. Outstanding examples include George Nash on Russell Kirk, Rod Dreher on Crunchy Conservatism, Bill Kaufman on American Regionalism, Bruce Frohnen on Robert Nisbet and communitarianism, and Roger Scruton’s “England: an Elegy.” (These links go directly to the MP3 files. Right-click and “Save As…” to download them.)

Also noteworthy is the Ludwig Von Mises institute’s collection of lectures. Particularly, all of historian Thomas Woods Jr.’s lectures are excellent. Paul Gottfried also has a number of fascinating talks there.

Share This

I’d like to mention a terrific little book I’ve recently read called “Conservatism in America.” It’s written by Paul Gottfried, a fixture of the various paleo fever swamps of the web such as LewRockwell.com, VDARE, and Taki’s Top Drawer. If a study whose subject matter encompasses Joseph de Maistre, German historicism, Harry Jaffa, Bill Buckley, FOX News, and Sean Hannity appeals to you, then you, too, will find this book to be a rollicking good time! (Okay, that might be overstating things a bit.)

(Incidentally, Gottfried, who coined the term “paleoconservative,” also penned the entry on paleoconservatism for the excellent American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia, which, if you don’t own already, you should buy immediately!) Continue Reading »

Share This

Folks, the godfather of all of the recent attacks on God (see Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, et al.), Professor Antony Flew, has abandoned his celebrated atheism. He is said to have been convinced of a personal God because of the evidence derived from the complexity of life and the universe. This is what we philosophers call “natural theology.” I sincerely hope Dr. Flew continues his study of the claims of the monotheistic tradition of Christianity.

Share This

Re: We Must Bomb Iran.

The very suggestion that Iran is not a real and current threat to the United States and the world at large is absurd. While Karl appropriately extols the virtues of traditional Just War philosophy, the application and analysis are way off.

The real and continued threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb justify if not immediate military action then action in close proximity to today. Action is justified not because the bombing of Los Angeles or New York is imminent, but because the proliferation of technology, fuel, fascist bravado and, most importantly, weapons used against the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan are. In keeping with Karl’s post, let me examine the 4-prong test for justified military or even violent action.

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

One of the highlights of my otherwise mundane day is receiving the Mises Daily Article in my Yahoo! inbox.  Today’s article, written by Jeffrey Tucker, examines the life and work of an often forgotten figure of American conservatism, Garet Garrett. 

In a Q & A session with NRO’s Kathryn Jean Lopez, Professor Bruce Frohnen, co-editor of American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia, refers to Garrett as a galvanizing force for libertarians and traditionalists opposed to the New Deal.  Unfortunately, his answer is spurred by this question: “What’s the most obscure entry you’ve got in there?”

Garrett was a celebrated writer and editor, contributing his talents to the New York Sun, New York Tribune, and Saturday Evening Post, among others.  He was a stentorian voice against Roosevelt’s socialist New Deal and criticized his desire to intervene in WWII.  It is a wonder why Garrett’s name is all but forgotten in conservative circles.  Tucker provides the most coherent explanation available:

Despite astonishing eloquence and prescience, Garrett’s stirring attacks on the New Deal and condemnations of the American imperial mindset found few takers in the Cold War era…Whereas many intellectuals on the Right and Left regard the peaceful, bourgeois society as something of a bore — with the middle class amassing wealth and spending it on fripperies — Garrett saw peace and freedom as the essential precondition for the real drama of human life that revolves around creation, association, love, courage, and the full range of human vices and virtues that transform society in spectacular ways.

In a sense I am guilty as charged, because I have not taken the time to read as much of Garrett as I’d like.  However, if you have some free time I suggest picking up The People’s Pottage, a rather dark work that chides the welfarism of the New Deal.  Help remember Garet Garrett for something other than his parents’ droll sense of humor

Share This