Posted on 05/19/2007 11:48:34 AM PDT by 68skylark
WITH the death on Tuesday of the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Baptist minister and founder of the Moral Majority, and the announcement on Thursday that Paul D. Wolfowitz would resign from the presidency of the World Bank, two major figures in the modern conservative movement exited the political stage. To many, this is the latest evidence that the conservative movement, which has dominated politics during the last quarter century, is finished.
But conservatives have heard this before, and have yet to give in. Weeks after Barry Goldwater suffered a humiliating defeat in 1964 to Lyndon B. Johnson, his supporters organized the American Conservative Union to take on the Republican Party establishment. After failing to unseat Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination in 1976, Ronald Reagan positioned himself for the 1980 election. The conservatives dismayed by the election of Bill Clinton spent the next eight years attacking him at every opportunity. And after failing to impeach Mr. Clinton, House Republicans far from retreating into caution or self-doubt, kept up the pressure and turned the 2000 election into a referendum on Mr. Clinton’s character.
What accounts for this resilience — or stubbornness?
For one thing, since its beginnings in the 1950s, conservatism has been an insurgent movement fought on many fronts — cultural, moral and philosophical. Leaders on the right, as well as the rank and file, have always believed that defeats were inevitable and the odds often long.
Consider the careers, or cases, of Mr. Falwell and Mr. Wolfowitz . That the two were polar opposites in almost every way says a good deal about the movement they served — for one thing about its ability in its formative years, the 1970s and 80s, to make room for a constellation of agendas....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
But it also makes some good points about resiliant the right can be, and how the right can accomodate a variety of views to gain strength.
I hope the jewelry store won’t be facing a big lawsuit over this.
Sorry that the comment above got posted to the wrong article — I made a mistake when trying to fix a browser hang-up.
But it also makes some good points about resiliant the right can be, and how the right can accomodate a variety of views to gain strength.
Resilient to be sure, but who would have predicted Wolfowitz or Falwell in 1964 or 1976?
There's a lot of adaptability and life left in conservatism, but for that very reason it's hard to forsee where it will end up.
The parallel between Wolfowitz and McNamara is shaky. McNamara did more harm to the country. He darned well better have been "penitent."
But I don't think the example of Wolfowitz says anything at all about conservatism. He's just another Washington hanger-on with little appeal outside the Beltway.
The article gives me hope because they show their blindness. By saying the conservative movement arose in the ‘50’s, they overlook the source of the conservative principles—our founding fathers and the Bible. These things do not change and will not change. The values reflect how reality works and will not cease to operate whether liberals, conservatives, or RINOs are in power.
Paul D. Wolfowitz is a leader in the conservative movement? First I knew about that. And Falwell? Maybe in the ‘80’s
Clinton was impeached. The Senate failed to remove him from office. This is about the standard of accuracy one has come to expect from the NY Times, though.
An interesting article written by a liberal who casts conservative’s as some kind of rare species that is to to be examined like a wild animal. He is factually wrong on at least 2 counts. He says the GOP tried to impeach Clinton but failed. He was impeached but not convicted. He also said the conservatives have been the insurgents in the cultural and political wars. In reality we have been on the defensive not on the attack trying to hold on to our traditional values. Battles have been won and lost, but the war goes on.
Thanks for correcting the Times... they really need help keeping their "facts" straight. Although we knew the Senate wouldn't follow-through, I remember how proud I was the day the House voted to impeach the Liar in Chief.
I won't read the full article... I'm sure Mr. Tanenhaus doesn't understand why Conservatism has dominated the past quarter century -- I'm sure he doesn't acknowledge that this is how things work... This is how people work... You cut tax rates, and the economy improves... and tax REVENUES rise... You confront bullies like the Soviet Union and you challenge them by building up your military ("Peace Through Strength") and it works -- the bully gives up and the Iron Curtain falls.
When will the left recognize that their statist policies and top-down management doesn't work. We may stumble at times with our politics, but if we stick to our principles, we will always come back as the winners and the country will be better off as a result. I just thank God that we had a leader in Ronald Reagan who put it all together: the ideas, the communications ability, the Leadership... he showed the way. I'm sure Mr. Tanenhaus regards that as just a fluke.
Prior to that, there was no need for a conservative movement.
They really don't know the first thing about conservatives, do they? lol.
Here’s a freebie for Libs that are trying to understand us:
1. We’re not reversed mirror-images if you. We operate on a totally different paradigm. You may be convinced that you understand it. You don’t. You may someday- this forum has lots of ex-libs in it. DU has very few, if any, ex-conservatives in it, and those falsely claiming it are easy to spot.
2. Our ‘leaders’ are never who you think they are.
3. We usually don’t listen to our leaders, anyway. We don’t need to be led. Government’s function is not to ‘lead’ us anywhere at all. We expect ‘our leaders’ to stay out of our way and run interference for us, so that we can live our lives as we see fit.
Also John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes, etc etc etc.
I didn't (and won't) read that far.
Did they assert that McNamara was a Republican?!?!?!
Under the warmonger Nixon during the VN buildup of 1964 to 1972????
And that Jimmy Carter got us out with his Democrat Congress in 1974, after they'd impeached the tyrant Nixon for war crimes?????
Literally, when Hell freezes over.
"Their statist policies", as you call them, are the left's articles of faith. They are no more likely to renounce their religion than is a devout Christian to renounce his.
I remember a terrific vanity thread, asking former the Liberals among us to describe the events around their idealogical epiphanies. It was fascinating. There were *a lot* of them.
Modern conservatism truel arose in the founding of this nation, not the 1950’s. Conservatives appeal to lasting is its basis on moral and historical, as well as real world (economic) truth!
Many of them, as I recall, equated to "woke up one morning and realized I was worshipping a false god". Or otherwise somehow grasped the inherent inconsistenciesa and hypocracies of their "faith".
Most, I'd wager, were inherently conservative people who had simply gone with the flow...until they woke up.
Most weren't, in any sense, committed liberals. David Horowitz and his ilk are the exception to the rule -- true apostates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.