Posted on 08/02/2007 1:12:26 PM PDT by ari-freedom
As we can see from Peggy Noonan’s recent putdown of any non-ideological sense of nationhood as no better than “mud,” the conviction among mainstream conservatives that America is nothing but the incarnation of universalist ideas is not waning with time, as one might have hoped, but is growing ever more dogmatic and uncompromising. By embracing propositionalism so fervently, modern conservatism once again reveals its essentially liberal or leftist character.
As has been often pointed out, modern conservatism consists to a large extent in complaints about the consequences of leftist premises that the conservatives themselves embrace. Thus they complain about political correctness, while refusing to see that PC is a logical consequence of the belief in non-discriminatory equality that the conservatives themselves support. Thus they complain about the anti-Western Muslims in our midst, while refusing to question the immigration policy that brought those Muslims here. Thus they criticize this or that excess in the feminization of the military, while declining to attack the very idea of having women in the military. Indeed, conservatives have gone along with every stage in this insanity, from the admission of women in the military academies in the 1970s, to the increasing of the numbers of women in the military under the Reagan administration in the 1980s, to the placing of women aboard navy ships and the resulting subsidization by the navy of the birth and care of the resulting out-of-wedlock babies, to the placing of women in quasi-combat units. Today, a conservative on the issue of women in the military is someone who, after having surrendered to all the stages in the feminization of the military up to this point, opposes the placing of women directly in combat positions...
(Excerpt) Read more at amnation.com ...
Since this is the position of The Federalist, I'm not sure why embracing it is leftist.
What I do know is that all the Blut und Boden nonsense proposed by some "palaeoconservatives" is definitely unAmerican in its provenance and leftist in its character.
True but we’ve hit the opposite extreme which accepts open borders as ideal and that differences don’t matter.
"Thus they complain about the anti-Western Muslims in our midst, while refusing to question the immigration policy that brought those Muslims here."
Like hell we don't.
"Thus they criticize this or that excess in the feminization of the military, while declining to attack the very idea of having women in the military."
There is nothing inherently liberal about women in the military.
Usually those claiming more-conservative-than-thou are simply old.
Heck, that's a slander against seniors. Even old people don't act so.... old.
Leaving aside the emotional stuff of flag and country, fatherland and military campaigns won or lost, please explain in objective terms why borders are a good thing.
I understand there is a traditional boundary to governments and their ability to tax the residents, and impose criminal justice etc. But why is there such a dramatic difference between any two states of the US, and any two countries?
My point in the questions is that everyone on the planet are humans, and I respect human rights. I understand the point that there are others in the world who don't feel that way, and it's necessary to protect ourselves from them. But among "friendly" countries such as the EU, what's wrong with a little more freedom to travel and perhaps live and work where you will? Isn't that what *freedom* is all about?
The history of human governments is a steady progression from smaller fifedoms to larger city states, and eventually countries. All "open borders" means is another level of enlarging the process of history.
All that said, I have a distaste for the mexican immigrant culture, and think we need to go on a binge of assimilation via English Only laws and required education in American culture. But where a person was born I don't have that much interest in as much as I care about how they fit into the American culture that is objectively the best on earth. If a person can't "fit in" here, then they should be "encouraged" to go to a place where they will, rather than trying to change our culture.
>>Leaving aside the emotional stuff of flag and country, fatherland and military campaigns won or lost, please explain in objective terms why borders are a good thing.<<
Borders allow a subset of the world to work and establish an improved environment for the people there. Without border prosperity generated locally would tend to dissipate reducing the incentive to sacrifice to create that prosperity.
yes it is about culture and you made the point in your last paragraph.
If people don’t fit with the dominant culture then it doesn’t matter if they are for democracy and our constitution...they are still not going to fit in completely and that’s a reality we can’t ignore.
??? What is this going on about?
Conservatism, on the other hand, is the "political philosophy that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices... prefers the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal... [and promotes] institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability" [1. In practice, this means that conservatives hold as their highest values religious and cultural Tradition, the natural Family, and widely spread private Property (TFP).
In every culture, those who hold TFP as their highest values are called conservatives. In the West, conservatives champion Throne (natural aristocracy) and Altar (the Judeo-Christian faith) and disparage popular government and the separation of Church and State; they hold that only natural sexual relations should be publicly permitted, and that the natural family that derives from them should be the basic nucleus of society (versus the liberal notion that "free" individuals are the basic building block of society); and they deem that private property should be as widely distributed as possible (via legal protection of family and small businesses) rather than concentrated in the hands of the State (communism) or Big Business (capitalism) as liberals would have it.
TFP is the key. If you place individual liberty at the top of your hierarchy of values, you are a liberal; if you value Tradition (Throne and Altar), the Family (rather than the individual), and widely-distributed private Property (versus concentrated property) above all, then you are a conservative. It's as simple as that.
I think the author is definitely on to something. The example of women in the military is a very good one (propably why it was chosen). Once you accept women into the military, the progression to total equality, women in foxholes, will not stop. How far are we from it right now?
I take the autor as saying, conservatism is about principles, very firm principles. Once you start compromising with the left, you lose. The left is losing nothing when we compromise.
Compare the gains of libralism (and I do count hedonism, anti-religion, anti-intellectualism, PC, tolerance/acceptance of the unacceptable, ad nauseum) to the gains of conservatism over the last four or five decades. Who’s winning and who’s losing? If you believe more positive things have happened than negative, then just keep on keeping-on, brother.
As for me, I thik our country and culture have been taking a sever beating, with more yet to come. Compromising may slow it down, but not much. It would not be easy to stop the decay, never has been, never will be.
Most of today's conservatives quietly whipser: could you just slow down a bit so I get a better view of the carnage as we drive over the cliff.
“Thus they complain about the anti-Western Muslims in our midst, while refusing to question the immigration policy that brought those Muslims here.”
Like hell we don’t.
That’s not true-many conservatives have no problem as long as they are legal. And we’re not even talking about the neo-cons who are in favor of amnesty for illegals.
>> Leaving aside the emotional stuff of flag and country, fatherland and military campaigns won or lost, please explain in objective terms why borders are a good thing.
Because the concepts of (1) governance by the consent of the governed, (2) limited governmental power and breadth, and (3) the supremacy of federalism.
Conservatism states that government derives its power from the consent of the governed, and that the more local a government can be, the better. Federalism was established to add continuity to the national government, because individual States or municipalities are very weak if not united for their own protection.
In a free society, localities have the option of CHOOSING where their local, state and national governments will be. Those States under the jurisdiction of the United States government have CHOSEN to be ... just as have those areas under the control of the Canadian government, etc.
Borders are simply the linear demarcations of where the national government (or State government) no longer has the consent of the governed (as their consent lies with another nation, State or municipality).
In short - borders are merely the FIRST sign of the limited power of a governmental entity.
H
A century ago, when I think the immigrant population was arguably as large a percentage as today, they solved that problem by encouraging public schooling, with heavy emphasis on "Grammar" schools, English and writing. The parents might not adapt very well, but the children sure did.
All this political fight in the immigration front I think is completely wasted. Instead that energy should be turned to fight for English only schools and find some way to discourage immigrant ghettos where foreign language dominates. I'm not sure how to do it within the bounds of the First Amendment, but things like Spanish options on telephones and bank teller machines need to go away. People will not assimilate unless they are pushed, and we need to push them.
And as every sixth-grader knows, we should persecute those who don’t fit in completely. :p
(lol, yeah, cheap shot)
Certainly in the American context, conservatism has classically liberal elements. By and large American conservatives (with the exception of some ‘rose-window’ types, and the Buchananite Blood-and-Soil types) want to conserve the patrimony of Western civilization, up to and including the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment, of which the American Founding was in some ways the crowning achievement, while resisting the Continental ‘Englightenment’ that brought France the Reign of Terror, and laid the ground-work for Marxism and Bolshevism.
It is, however, bizarre to characterize the classically liberal elements of American conservatism as ‘leftist’, as both our liberal and conservative (in the European sense) intellectual forebearers were united in opposing Jacobinism.
One of the ideas of Federalism was the "experiment of the various states". The idea that if one state was governing badly, then it's citizens were free to move to a new state, and thus force states to compete with one another to attract citizens.
What's the problem with expanding that concept? As long as we forcefully maintain the government and culture of this country, if people want to move here because they live in a cesspool, why not let them, as long as they adopt our culture? Eventually their cesspool country will depopulate to the point it's government cannot stand and a government offering more freedoms such as we enjoy will likely take it's place.
The stronger national borders are, the less competition between the countries will be. In capitalism, competition is always good, for both sides. Why would that not work in national governments as well, just as it worked well for the States of the US, which remember once were very much more isolated from each other both culturally and legally than today.
As modern definitions of American conservatism and liberalism go ... you’re entirely wrong. Modern American conservatism is based on individual liberty, the limitation of government (edxcept in a few defined Constitutional roles - namely national defense and criminal justice), and the supremacy of capitalism as an economic system, as well as emphasizing traditional family values (while allowing the freedom to choose otherwise).
Modern liberalism is based on equality, the concentration of governmental power to ensure equality, the economic supremacy of socialism/ communism for the equal redistribution of wealth, and the emphasis of hedonism over traditional values.
Traditional family values are AMONG the principles of modern conservatism ... but they do not outweigh capitalsim or individual liberty.
Simply lumping capitalism AND communism in among “liberal” ideas is ridiculous.
H
So any American conservatism is likely to have a liberal or radical component. Any American conservatism is likely to be "neo" in that it accepted the original overturning of monarchy, aristocracy, and established churches.
In fact, something similar was true of Edmund Burke. While energetically opposing the French Revolution of 1789, Burke didn't call into question the Whiggish English "Glorious Revolution" of 1689.
Auster's use of the word "Leftism" skews things. His opponents could argue that American conservatives are accepting the liberal or democratic or national elements of Europe's 1789 revolution and leaving explicitly leftist elements aside. Auster doesn't account for this possibility.
Some of the comments on the article posed at the url you gave are quite good. What Auster's trying to do (on this issue where it's convenient for him) is to posit some kind of urconservatism, a primal conservatism of all conservatisms. It doesn't exist. Every generation of conservatives have accepted at least some past "innovations."
see the problem is when you say that, while you accept the idea that American culture is important to us, you are denying the importance of the culture for the immigrants. They will either rebel and form their own clique or become some mixed up identity that denies the value of either culture.
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.