[Pharmboy]

This was a page one, Saturday article. For the most part, this was written straight, without sneering (unless i missed it).

Thought you Freepers would like to see this.

[madprof98]

But several conservatives, young and old, said the greatest division in the movement pitted young traditionalists against their more libertarian peers. David Weigel, 22, the former editor of a conservative magazine at Northwestern University, a contributor to the libertarian magazine Reason and an intern at the editorial page of USA Today, said that last spring his college paper had trouble finding any conservatives on campus who supported amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

He contended that even young conservatives who maintained a strict moral code for themselves were increasingly reluctant to regulate the behavior of others. "I am personally abstinent," he said, "and I plan to stay that way, but I have no problem with international aid programs that use or distribute condoms."

So the latest thing in conservatives is the "personally opposed but" crowd? Maybe today's young people are so indoctrinated in individualism and relativism that they no longer even think about the quality of the larger society in which they will have to raise their children. But maybe this is just wishful thinking on the part of the NYTimes crowd. I certainly hope so.

[Always Right]

"It tells you almost nothing about where a person stands on a lot of questions," he said, like gay marriage, stem cell research, the environment and Iraq.

Oh yes it does. Conservatives are against gay marriage. Conservatives are against fetal stem cell reseach. Conservatives are for sensible protections of the enviroment. And Conservatives strongly support the war on terror.

[Old Professer]

If conservatism is dying it is simply because there is nothing left to save.

[randog]

So Buckley retires and the NYT immediately looks under rocks to find no-name twenty-something Libertarians to crown as heir-apparents? No mention of the mass of time-tested conservative banner-carriers out there.

[BunnySlippers]

Thanks for posting. I'm bookmarking this one.

[NYCVirago]

Could somebody tell the member of the "young right" that he'd look more professional if he didn't dress like a 70s game show host? Yikes!

[George W. Bush]

I think Buckley has been retired for years. This merely formalized it.

Every year or so we see these kinds of articles breathlessly describing "new directions from young liberals (or conservatives)".

Drivel.

I expect neo-con ascendancy will continue for some time. The momentum is with them currently. And neo-con interests coincide with the RINO-ization of the GOP and the sidelining of fiscal and social conservatives. Neat and tidy, this is the Standard Total View.

And Buckley's feelings and those of these young conservatives don't really mean diddly.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

He contended that even young conservatives who maintained a strict moral code for themselves were increasingly reluctant to regulate the behavior of others. "I am personally abstinent," he said, "and I plan to stay that way, but I have no problem with international aid programs that use or distribute condoms."

Good grief. Is this what has happened to the conservative movement? Whining about condoms for Pakistan and Zimbabwe? No wonder Kerry-Edwards has an edge on Bush-Cheney in some polls. What a waste of time. What ever happened to cutting taxes and reforming education? What on earth are these kids studying these days?

Btw, how did National Review degenerate to becoming a playground for a bunch of dorks?

[x]

In May the Philadelphia Society, a prestigious club for conservative intellectuals, tapped Sarah Bramwell, a 24-year-old Yale graduate and writer, to address the views of the young right at its 40th-anniversary conference. "Modern American conservatism began in an effort to do two things: defeat Communism and roll back creeping socialism," she began. "The first was obviated by our success, the latter by our failure. So what is left of conservatism?"

Well, government and its role in the economy aren't going to go away anytime soon. It's foolish to think that they will or could disappear, but the socialist idea or ideal certainly doesn't have the appeal that it did 20 or 40 or 60 years ago. That can be regarded as a major success, rather than a failure.

Once the "movement" succeeds -- once you defeat major left-wing ideas and aspirations not finally and utterly, but substantially and in an impressive way -- what's next? To try to impose a right-wing vision on society or to celebrate the victory, strike the tents, and move on to a less ideologized, less polarized politics.

The united sense of a "movement," the idea of being "for us or against us," is easy to maintain when one is opposing or resisting something, but after a victory, when one can really change things, can the "movement" keep to a single set of objectives? Don't various factions start to pursue their own favorite objectives without a strong opponent? Without such a threatening enemy isn't it time to take the volume and the pitch of political discussion down a notch and recognize what we have in common, as well as what divides us?

Josh Chafetz at oxblog.com (mentioned in the article) takes issue with "movement" thinking. He's involved in academia and takes issue with liberal or leftist professors but doesn't like the wholesale disdain that many organized movement conservatives have for academia as a whole.

I don't take my bearings from oxblog and disagree with it about a lot of things. There's a lot more to be said for a more populist, less elitist approach than the oxbloggers take, but Chafetz does have a point.

When people begin to think that one is either in the movement or out of it, either for us or against us, real thinking stops and knee-jerk reactions take over. When one can just dismiss opposing ideas because of their political incorrectness or lack of doctrinal purity one has ceased to think and simply reacts.

People naturally form movements to pursue common goals, and there's nothing wrong with that. But there's a lot to be said for staying outside organized movements and relying more on one's own judgment.

[John Lenin]

Ronald Reagan defines the conservative movement best.

[GeronL]

The writer seemed confused between conservatism and libertarianism

[KangarooJacqui]

"There is a serious possibility that the libertarian wing of the conservative movement goes off in its own direction, either breaking off or allying with the Democrats," he said.

'Scuse me while I lose my lunch... < /8>0

[uglybiker]

Somewhere there is a really pissed off old lady 'cuz somebody stole the upholstery off her couch.

[Meldrim]

Bill Buckley served as an infantry lieutenant. It would be interesting to see how many of these would-be replacements have had a day in uniform.

I think conservatives had a terrific run with the likes of Buckley, Helms, Goldwater, Reagan as well as smaller players like Paul Laxalt and Meldrim Thompson. The current crop does not seem to measure up to the past one.