Conservatism in defense of liberty

The American Thinker ^ | July 19, 2009 | Mark Levin

[Scanian]

Peter Berkowitz, who reviewed my book Liberty and Tyranny for the Weekly Standard, and did a pretty poor job of it, sees the most aggressive assault on representative and constitutional government in modern history and preaches moderation and, ultimately, inevitability.

In the first sentence of his review he asserts "Moderation ... is an essential political virtue and a quintessentially conservative virtue." This is the way forward for conservatism, he insists. At no time does he define "moderation" or any governing principles, other than to misapply moderation as prudence, when prudence is, in fact, about judgment.

Edmund Burke, who Berkowitz misunderstands and, therefore, wrongly cites for his proposition, supported the American Revolution (while rejecting the French Revolution). The American Revolution can hardly be described as a moderate reaction to England's usurpations. Nor can it be said to be a popular uprising, given that a majority of the nation either opposed it or was indifferent. But it was a revolution whose purpose was to establish a civil society rooted in natural law, a just rule of law, moral order, tradition, faith, reason, and, yes, liberty. Would Berkowitz describe it as a "moderate" revolution? An "imprudent" revolution? Does he think it was a good thing or a bad thing? Of course, moderations can be imprudent in certain circumstances. The conflation of moderation per se and prudence requires such an inquiry of those who misunderstand and misapply the concepts.

For the neo-Statist (or neo-Conservative), the problem is particularly acute when applied to international relations for he usually promotes a hawkish and interventionist foreign policy. If prudence is moderation per se, then how does Berkowitz square this circle? Is bombing Iran's nuclear sites, even as a last resort, a moderate or an immoderate act? Obviously, the question makes no sense.

[bruinbirdman]

Moderation = capitulation

Tolerance = acceptance

yitbos

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Bump

[RU88]

Mark Levin is one of the sharpest tools in the conservative toolbox. He loathes RINOs and thinks the neo-statists worse than the statist because they falsely cloak themselves in their own perceived notion of conservatism which is nothing more than a moderation which betrays all of conservatism’s core principals.

As Levin stated, if moderation is so beneficial to the Republican party how do explain the results of Ford vs. Carter, Bush vs. Clinton, Dole vs. Clinton, or McCain vs. Obama?

[Sergeant Tim]

Mark Levin ping!

[sloop]

all that - and he is the president of landmark legal - that filed a foia to find out what pelosi knew and when did she know it

http://landmarklegal.org/uploads/CIAScannedFOIA.pdf

concrete step to fight the libtards

[SoCalPol]

Thanks Tim for the ping.
Mark Levin is the type of person, you are glad he is on our side.

[LucyJo]

Thanks for the ping. I was thinking as I read Mark’s excellent “review” of the Berkowitz “review” of Liberty and Tyranny:

“Hello, Mr. Berkowitz. Here’s your arse on a silver platter. Have a nice day.”

[Canedawg]

Thanks for the ping.

[Sergeant Tim]

Well, what I was thinking was this. While I remain a big fan of The Weekly Standard and I've seen some good work by Peter Berkowitz, he rambled and dissembled this time.