Posted on 10/22/2016 2:41:18 AM PDT by Rummyfan
A few years before he became president, Ronald Reagan appeared on Firing Line. The topic of the January 13, 1978, episode of William F. Buckley Jr.’s long-running debate show were the treaties by which the United States relinquished the Panama Canal to its host country.
Reagan had been against the treaties for years, using them to catch up to President Ford during the 1976 GOP primary. And Buckley had been against them, too, until a visit to Panama changed his mind. What might first appear as a trivial issue at a time of economic stagflation and diminishing American power was in fact incredibly meaningful to large numbers of voters, especially conservative ones. “Certainly it was of major consequence in my own career as a conservative,” Buckley wrote later. “I received much disparaging mail for having deserted first principles, and the stand I took is still here and there cited as evidence of my unreliability as a conservative.”
The debate was between two teams of four. Reagan led the opposition. Alongside him were journalist and presidential aide Patrick J. Buchanan, Latin America specialist Roger Fontaine, and Admiral John McCain Jr. Buckley argued pro. His teammates were National Review senior editor James Burnham, syndicated columnist George F. Will, and Admiral Elmo Zumwalt. Former senator Sam Ervin was the judge.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
Today cuckservatives would rather dump Trump than stand athwart history and yell “Stop!”
So much for championing conservative values to the liberal culture.
If you’re not going to even try, we might as well accede to the uniparty state.
I think the problem is that the intellectual elites (like the politicians) have become hand-servants to the financial elites.
In a world where a small group elites gain more wealth and power while everyone else is losing ground almost all professional intellectuals are finding themselves on the wrong side of history.
All the intellectuals need to get out of their ivory tower, eliminate all their prejudices, and just talk to regular people—a lot. They need to start listening and stop talking—and they need to stop theorizing and start understanding.
What is needed now is a clear vision of where we can go after the elites are removed from power—that is a difficult question and I have seen no serious discussion of it.
Good post and article - bookmarking to read at my leisure.
In today's age of technology, why does a politician need to spend a majority of their time IN Washington DC? I'd like to see a politician forego living inside the Beltway while in the House, or Senate, and telecommute a majority of that time to work. They could attend the various meeting and committees via teleconferencing and spend more time with their constituents. They would be able to get almost instant feedback from the people who elected them on their performance and not be under the constant siren song of the lobbyist and the herd mentality of the "conventional wisdom" of Washington, DC.
This WFB Editor in Chief is BILL KRISTOL’s son-in-law.
Enough said.
perhaps i missed it - but don’t see any mention of the Tea Party movement which signalled a recognition by the American public that we were moving from a democratic republic to move of a dictatorship - as Congress thwarted the will of the people on Obamacare, using logistical hijinks to get it through with 51 votes in Senate. the establishment Republicans really refused to feel the heartbeat of the public - and did not vocalise the public’s concerns nor mount a major fight to the usurping of power by Himself in the White House. they defaulted not only on representing their base - but also defaulted on keeping true to the powers granted to Congress in the Constitution. so pretty much the Establishment is the reason for Trump - including NR, et al.
Ah. That explains it.
why does a politician need to spend a majority of their time IN Washington DC?
...as Hilda says...while campaigning in upstate NY
“ WHAT the *UCK am I doing here?...there’s no money here”
I was fascinated by the article, until the last two paragraphs, where he suggests the conservative movement accept meekly all the progressive movement’s gains. The whole purpose of Reaganism was to dismantle the house of cards that is progressivism, and that is the hope of those who support Trump. To accede to progressivism is to become a progressive. We must instead be as Luther: here we stand, we can do no other.
Bookmark for later.
Being in DC makes it convenient for the lobbyists to pay personal visits and drop off cash and women.
eyep....or boys
Writer presents an interesting summary of modern conservatism colored by his view from his fledgling academic perch.
The long item finally reveals his true belief that ends with the nagging truth.
".... is the same discourse, the same methods, the same antinomianism, the same reaction to demographic change and liberal overreach that we encountered in the 1970s. The difference is that Donald Trump is so noxious, so unhinged, so extremist in his rejection of democratic norms and political convention and basic manners that he has untethered the New Right politics he embodies from the descendants of William F. Buckley Jr.
Notice that the pull quote describes his gut reaction and blythly ignores the destructive, unhinged, barbaric, and ignorant policies and actions of "the new left" Clinton/Obama regimes which have taken this Republic to the edge of the abyss.
He closes with his writ of capitulation to the status quo in a shaky manner that suggests the seeking of some spectral parental approval. Total scrote.
"The triumph of populism has left conservatism marooned, confused, uncertain, depressed, anxious, searching for a tradition, for a program, for viability. We might have to return to the beginning to understand where we have ended up. We might have to reject adversarianism, to accept the welfare state as an objective fact, to rehabilitate Burnham’s vision of a conservative-tinged Establishment capable of permeating the managerial society and gradually directing it in a prudential, reflective, virtuous manner respectful of both freedom and tradition. This is the challenge of the moment. This is the crisis of the conservative intellectual. What makes that crisis acute is the knowledge that he and his predecessors may have helped to bring it on themselves."....end quote and item
30
The quaking, squirming accomodationists hang themselves with ropes of their own making.
“Today cuckservatives would rather dump Trump than stand athwart history and yell “Stop!””
Stop voter and election fraud by the opposition or ?
>>Buckley argued pro (Panama Canal giveaway). His teammates were National Review senior editor James Burnham, syndicated columnist George F. Will, and Admiral Elmo Zumwalt.<<
George Will, on the wrong side of history, since 1975.
>>We might have to reject adversarianism, to accept the welfare state, as an objective fact,<<
Therein lies the problem. So-called Conservatives are all too willing to sacrifice principles for power.
Thanks, Gaff.
Freepers looking for cuck affirmation are the equivalent of Hugh Grant, looking for Divine Brown. If you want to indulge your perverted fantasies at Free Beacon or The Blaze, go right ahead. But don't bring your ideological STDs back to FR.
With so call conservative intellectuals such as George Will, Bill Krystol, Charles Krauthammer, who needs enemy? They are either phoneys, or liberal plants or turncoats.
Yes I realize that it provides a detailed compendium of knowledge, most assuredly not of his own making (at least in some of the historical conclusions and insight he adds). He was in diapers when most of the events he deciphers happened.
He is, to put it mildly, a sophomoric conservative easily influenced by some around him who have hidden among us for quite a while. We’ve not seen their true colors come out until this election.
In the end, it all boils down to money, prestige and beds to feather. Kristol, Krauthammer, Will, et al plus him as the next generation “Principled Conservative” are all in it for themselves. Take a look at the WFB page - it has no less than 35 ad tracking software ticks - money for him and his ilk.
While there are some good historical points and good-to-know items, overall this is just another attempt to demean Trump and give credence to the myth that there is something noble and just about the kind of conservatism these leeches represent.
We are in accord.
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.