|January 21st, 2011||#21|
Celebrating My Diversity
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
|January 21st, 2011||#23|
|January 22nd, 2011||#24|
Wow, it's cool that's still up, I had totally forgotten about it. But yes, Haves is the conservative type: a true beliver and a Ph.D. But no balls. There's something particularly shameful about his type. I don't know how they can look at themselves in the mirror.
|January 22nd, 2011||#25|
[jew Gottfried in 'AlternativeRight.com discussing the jewing of conservatism by neocons]
Exactly how the neoconservatives, who came from the left, managed to do this has been the subject of numerous studies. The most important fact to note here is that those who imposed their will were entirely successful. They were able to remold a generally pliant movement, which had run out of real leaders and "conservative" ideas. But that eroded movement had lots of professional conservatives who needed jobs and direction; and the neoconservatives were able to supply both.
One puzzling aspect of what might be considered a generally friendly takeover is the bullying way in which the neoconservatives went after the already marginalized forces on the right. Although this opposition could have mostly been bought off with random acts of kindness or by occasional flattery, the neoconservatives, as witnessed by their treatment of Mel Bradford, were determined to crush what remained of opposition to their rule. They not only smeared the hapless Bradford when they decided to oppose him at the NEH, partly in order to put that agency under the control of one of their vassals. They also worked to keep this Southern literary scholar out of a post as Librarian of Congress, a compensatory post that Bradford sought after being turned down at NEH. They also made sure through their snide attacks, put into the national press, that his name would become synonymous with Southern bigotry.
There were lots of similar cases. And as someone who suffered in one of them, I spent years thinking about what seemed gratuitous nastiness. Why couldn't the neocons have left small pockets of reactionaries untouched in the movement they were taking over? Another leftist, Lenin, paid non-Marxist Hegelians to teach in universities after the Bolsheviks took over Russia. And a victorious Christianity waited almost two hundred years after it had become the imperial religion to shut down the pagan Academy in Athens.
Obviously the neocons were more serious about achieving democratic centralism overnight -- including unanimity of thought. They have also persisted in their exclusionary practices down to the present, as shown by the continued exclusion of Old Right thinkers and journalists from anything they oversee. As late as a year ago, when a neoconservative Mackubin Owen succeeded the paleoconservative James Kurth as editor-in-chief of the foreign policy journal Orbis, anyone identified with the Old Right was unceremoniously purged from the editorial board. I and several other contributors saw commissioned articles of ours bumped, because they failed to reflect the new ideological line.
|January 22nd, 2011||#26|
The jews are a team, as jew Gottfried shows. That's how they were able so easily to takeover the right. To beat them requires a counter-team. But those who might form that team can't even grasp the need to exclude jews and jew-enablers as a principle of the counter-group's formation. Very, very basic stuff, but more than Kevin MacDonald, to pick one of a dozen examples, can grasp. You can't build a team to fight the jews when you're full of praise for jew Gottfried and jew frontman Jared Taylor. All that does is confuse people who need leadership.
|January 22nd, 2011||#27|
Very good, informative piece by Paul G., but doesn't quite plumb the ethnic depths of the situation. Basically, organized Zion completed its takeover of the Democrat Party during the pre-election months of 1947-48....when the partition of Palestine was in question at the UN, and Truman desperately needed big Jewish money and media traction. As far as Zion was concerned, though, Republican Party still a rogue elephant, as witness Eisenhower's 1956 crackdown on Israel's Suez aggression. Gottfried somewhat elides the essential ethnicity of the neo-con movement, but his description of the vicious neo-con takeover of formerly conservative institutions, magazines, etc. is masterful, as is his definition of the neo-con hijacking of the Republican party. In essence, our national politics is now no more than a struggle over power, pork, and patronage between two half-corporate, half-socialist, 99% Zionist-globalist bandit gangs.
|January 23rd, 2011||#28|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Saluting James Piereson
By GARY SHAPIRO | April 8, 2005
'Looking around the room," said master of ceremonies, William E. Simon Jr., "I don't think there has been so much brainpower in one place since the time Karl Rove got stuck alone in an elevator." The event, hosted by the Washington-based Philanthropy Roundtable, was a dinner honoring James Piereson and the John M. Olin Foundation.
Mr. Piereson joined the Olin Foundation in 1981 and became its executive director four years later. He worked with the foundation's late president, William E. Simon Sr., and its board in supporting a remarkable array of initiatives to buttress the economic, political, and cultural institutions upon which our liberty and private enterprise are based. Industrialist John M. Olin (1892-1982) intended that the foundation be eventually phased out, and its work will end with the close the year.
The founder and director of the James Madison Program in American ideals and institutions at Princeton University, Robert George, gave the invocation. He was filling in for the Reverend Richard John Neuhaus, who was described as "otherwise occupied" - in Rome for the funeral of Pope John Paul II.
The editor of the Weekly Standard, William Kristol, read a note from his father, Irving, who was unable to attend. The note began, "Having been present at the creation of Jim Piereson as a philanthropist, I take special pleasure in witnessing, if from a distance, this dinner in his honor. It is such occasions that give an incomparable sweetness to longevity."
William Kristol described becoming friends with Mr. Piereson at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Their offices were next door to each other, and the scholars became friendly as conservatives in a liberal department. Speaking of Mr. Piereson's move to the Olin Foundation, Mr. Kristol said, "Penn's loss is the country's gain. It was a good trade." He cited Mr. Piereson's intellectual curiosity, saying he never lost interest in the ideas he was funding.
The foundation's chairman, Eugene Williams Jr., said that John Olin had been concerned that the foundation not morph into something different than the he wished. "We all know what has happened to the Ford Foundation," Mr. Williams said.
"Tonight we are feting Jim Piereson but fretting that he has worked himself out of a job," said the American Enterprise Institute, president Christopher DeMuth. "We don't know who the next John Olin will be nor whether he will be smart enough to hire someone like Jim." He said an epitaph for the Olin Foundation might be "Organization Has Consequences" (echoing Richard Weaver's book title "Ideas Have Consequences"). He said its lessons have been to invest in institutions, people, and big projects: "They concentrated on sustaining institutions with reliable management and proven performance, and on bankrolling individuals of singular talent such as Allan Bloom, Irving Kristol, and Heather MacDonald, and a long line of postgraduate fellows."
The final speaker was Mr. Piereson himself, who noted, "John Olin set this foundation in motion in 1975 - a year when the prospects for the future seemed darker than at any time since the Great Depression. American power was in retreat around the world; Soviet power was on the march. Socialism, indeed, or at least some form of it, seemed the wave of the future. Our cities were ungovernable, it was said; perhaps it was true of the nation as well. Our institutions and very form of government, some said, were inadequate to the challenges of modern times. Our economy was burdened by both inflation and unemployment. Americans were told by experts that they must adjust to a declining standard of living. The American Century, as Henry Luce had called it, was over."
"Today, thirty years later, as the foundation closes, the conventional wisdom of that period has been turned on its head. The experts were wrong about every important issue of our time. The historic events of recent decades are familiar to us all, from the fall of communism to the rise of free markets and the spread of liberty and democracy around the globe. Today, in contrast to the past, there are complaints that the United States is too powerful in the world, that the economy is too strong and efficient, that Americans are too proud and self-confident about themselves and their institutions. This is an exchange that John Olin would have gladly accepted."
Mr. Piereson went on to say, "In some small way, perhaps, the modest foundation that [Olin] established contributed to this historic turnabout," and it was in the world of ideas where the Olin Foundation made its mark.
He cited Robert Frost's preference for revolutions by half or "semi-revolutions." Mr. Piereson said what is called a conservative revolution was more a renewal - "a renewal of faith in American institutions, a deepened respect for the past, a recognition that a free and prosperous future must be built on our inherited institutions and ideals. And because it was a renewal rather than a revolution, it could draw on the varied currents of the American experience, could proceed from many directions in different fields, in different kinds of institutions, and through the efforts of people with different views."
"Perhaps the best way to think of the John M. Olin Foundation is not as a charitable foundation, but as a source of venture capital for the conservative movement," wrote National Review political reporter John Miller in the program booklet that evening. (He is writing a book about the foundation, tentatively titled "A Gift of Freedom.") Mr. Miller cited the 1982 conference of law students that was the springboard for the creation of the Federalist Society; a grant that helped Allan Bloom write an article for National Review that became the basis for the best seller "The Closing of the American Mind"; support of a John M. Olin fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Dinesh D'Souza, to write "Illiberal Education"; Francis Fukuyama's delivering his "end of history" lecture at Allan Bloom's Olin Center in Chicago and being criticized by Samuel Huntington (known for "The Clash of Civilizations"), the long-time head of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic studies at Harvard.
Among those present at the event were Philanthropy Roundtable president, Adam Meyerson, who gave welcoming remarks; Roger Kimball and Hilton Kramer of the New Criterion; Daniel S. Peters of the Ruth & Lovett Peters Foundation; the Wall Street Journal editorial page editor, Paul Gigot; Olin senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Max Boot; William F. Buckley Jr.; Norman Podhoretz and Neal Kozodoy of Commentary; the Manhattan Institute president, Lawrence Mone; the pollster Frank Luntz; the executive director of the John Templeton Foundation, Charles Harper; the president of the Hoover Institution, John Raisian; the president of the Federalist Society, Eugene Meyer; and publisher Alfred Regnery Jr.
Looking on the crowd at the reception before the dinner, author Diane Ravitch said, "The counterculture is all here."
|January 23rd, 2011||#29|
Join Date: Jul 2007
|November 29th, 2011||#30|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Memo To David Frum: The GOP Is “Extreme” Because You Helped Purge Its “Extremists”
By James Kirkpatrick on November 28, 2011
David Frum has recently argued in New York Magazine that the Republican Party has “lost touch with reality.” [When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality?, November 28, 2011] With new GOP Presidential “front runner” Newt Gingrich expounding on the glories of child labor, Herman Cain worried about China acquiring nuclear weapons, and Rick Perry enjoying a spectacular meltdown in front of millions of people, Frum advances what I think is a compelling case that the late-phase Establishment conservative movement/ Republican Party (to the extent that the two can now be distinguished) no longer produces credible political leaders or policy options.
Frum gives several examples. The Republican Party has openly turned its back on the poor, calling them “lucky duckies” who don’t pay taxes. It’s hard to argue with Frum’s charge that “[the] party’s economic ideas seem to have shrunk to just one: more tax cuts for the very highest earners.” Historically Republican-supported economic policies, such as a stimulus program that contains tax cuts or the Federal Reserve’s keeping interest rates low, are now called “socialism” or “treason” respectively.
I think Frum is also correct when he explains that, because of the Republicans’ failed strategy of outright confrontation over Obamacare, the country is probably forever saddled with an expensive and deeply flawed entitlement program that has no chance of being repealed absent the deus ex machina of a court ruling.
Unlike sausage-making and legislation, the race for the Republican nomination is conducted perforce in full view of the public. I believe Frum is essentially correct when he argues that “these tea-party champions provide a ghoulish type of news entertainment each time they reveal that they know nothing about public affairs and have never attempted to learn.” Every week brings a new catastrophe as a “conservative” leader says something remarkably ignorant or stupid. Even controlling for left wing media bias, a number of the leading candidates for one of the two major parties in the country seem to have no idea what they are talking about.
More ominously, liberal media criticism seems have the perverse effect of reinforcing “conservative” credentials, guaranteeing that “conservative” leaders can essentially say anything, regardless of how absurd, and have a guaranteed mass following.
Frum identifies three major reasons why this kind of insularity is not going away:
•First, conservative constituencies (the wealthy, the elderly, the rural, and veterans) benefit from federal largesse, even as they rail against big government.
As a result, their interests are in conflict with their ideology, creating more “suspicion that shadowy Washington elites are playing tricks upon them.”
•Secondly, in Frum’s words, “White America has been plunged into a mood of pessimism and anger since 2008.” Most whites believe their children will have a harder life than they had.
To Frum’s great credit—not for the first time on the immigration issue, although his new Main Stream Media friends don’t appear to have noticed—he points out that white workers are not being irrational, because “in post-recession America, employers seem to show a distinct preference for foreign-born workers.” (The figures he cites are drawn, unacknowledged, from one of Edwin S. Rubenstein’s National Data columns for VDARE.com)
•Finally, and most importantly, Frum writes, “conservatism has evolved from a political philosophy into a market segment.” An entire “alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, [and] its own laws of economics” has been created.
As a result, huge percentages of the population will continue to believe in even demonstrably untrue assertions (such as that the United States is unique because it has no rigid class system) regardless of the facts at hand. Frum is also completely accurate when he notes that today’s “conservative movement” leaders (and more critically, funders) really do believe their own propaganda.
Frum complains that criticizing this trend has cost his career a great deal. He was dismissed from the American Enterprise Institute for (he says) criticizing the Republican Party’s position on health care. Speaking slots on television and radio were canceled when producers realized Frum would not give the standard conservative line. His speechwriting work for Republican candidates must now be secret, lest the employer be instantly discredited by association with him. Within a conservative movement that has gone crazy, Frum claims that he has become persona non grata.
So Frum is significantly correct on all of his points. But he is also responsible for much of the problem. He helped ensure there is no effective Right Opposition on the most important questions of the day.
David Frum is best known as the commissar directing National Review’s most recent purge of the American Right. In his infamous cover story Unpatriotic Conservatives (March 19, 2003), Frum castigated Patrick Buchanan, Robert Novak, Sam Francis, Jude Wanniski, Joe Sobran, and others for “hating their country” because of their opposition to the Iraq War.
But the bulk of Frum’s polemic actually had nothing to do with foreign policy. It was an attack on traditionalist conservatives for being, allegedly, racist and anti-Semitic. Murray Rothbard, Kevin MacDonald, Justin Raimondo, Lew Rockwell, Chronicles Magazine—and even VDARE.com in a cameo appearance although it takes no position on foreign policy!—were all woven together as part of a reactionary movement that was inadmissibly hostile towards the more, ah, “vibrant” practices of our multicultural and diverse utopia.
As a result, Frum called for all right-thinking conservatives to “turn our backs on them.”
This kind of attitude is an essential characteristic of the late, degenerate “conservative movement”—what Paul Gottfried has called “Goldbergism”. Frum’s column was only one salvo in National Review’s long war against conservative champion Pat Buchanan, who predicted and campaigned against the ruinous consequences of mass immigration, profligate spending, unilateral surrender in the cultural wars, and globalism. Similarly, Sam Francis was fired from the Washington Times because of Dinesh D’Souza triangulated against him to gain cover for his own timid book The End of Racism. Peter Brimelow and John O’Sullivan were removed from National Review for being premature immigration patriots at a time when California (and perhaps conservatism) could have been saved. Kevin Lamb was fired from Human Events for repeating positions that the National Review of the past would have regarded as common sense. The list could go on.
Unlike David Frum, none of these men were received with open arms by the New York media, or given a platform by liberal talking heads delighted to attack the Right. There is always personal benefit in attacking the Right. There is no surer way of creating instant respectability, a sudden reputation for deep thinking and praise from courtiers like Stephen Colbert. In contrast, the reward for Right Opposition dissent is financial insecurity, disgrace, and deliberate attacks calculated to utterly destroy families, personal lives, and even physical safety.
The result is that the late-phase “conservative movement” is, by intent, intellectually stunted. Movement conservative operatives clamoring to become “Senior Fellows” at one Think Tank or another know instinctively to avoid certain topics—such as Affirmative Action or mass immigration.
Frum is entirely correct when he charges that the Beltway conservative Establishment pays people to repeat, rather than think. But Frum himself has played a crucial role in setting the boundaries of what “conservatives” are allowed to think. Today, successful movement “conservatives” are either approval-addicted sociopaths or have deliberately crafted a protective stupidity that prevents them from reflecting on or even paying attention to issues that might get them in trouble with the Southern Poverty Law Center—$PLC to VDARE.com—or worse, purged by National Review.
Instead, we get never-ending wonkery about drilling for oil etc. in national politics, irrelevant at best and idiotic at worst. More than that, we find conservative “intellectuals” who have reached their positions by not rocking the boat—for example, John O ‘Sullivan’s replacement as Editor of National Review, Rich Lowry. As a result, their counterparts on the Left are simply intellectually superior and run circles around them.
The Establishment conservative media itself operates as a kind of bizarro reflection of the MSM. Rather than breaking new stories or asking tough questions of the governing establishment, the main fixations of the Fox Nation are focusing on the anti-Semitism of Occupy Wall Street (as proven by YouTube comments), the cover up of the black Founding Fathers by racist progressives, or the secret plans of the Obama Administration to lead the country to National Socialism. “Conservative” publications feature learned dissertations on how Martin Luther King Jr. was actually a great conservative theologian. Meanwhile, think tanks give us fantasy world analysis about how the real problem with Detroit was “unions” (mysteriously, Pittsburgh was somehow spared) or how the real problem is that American workers are overpaid.
This late-phase “conservative movement” is captured by delusions and fantasies—but not of the authentic Right. The main constituency of the American Right is those whites and social conservative who have legitimate economic and cultural fears that they are being dispossessed in their own country. But the current “conservative movement” takes these fears, strips them of substance, meaning, and Political Incorrectness, and repackages them as absurd conspiracy theory that is then circulated throughout the Republican Noise Machine.
The result is a movement that is simultaneously extreme and Politically Correct, rhetorically militant and absolutely no threat to the governing order.
•race has been absolutely central to Barack Obama’s life, career, and politics, as detailed in his autobiographies and in Steve Sailer’s book America's Half Blood Prince.
However, it’s more Politically Correct (and ridiculous) to claim that Obama’s true motivation is D’Souza’s theory of “Kenyan anti-colonialism”, so that is what is instantly adopted by the “conservative movement’s Deep Thinker, Newt Gingrich.
•It is reasonable to oppose Muslim immigration because it will fundamentally change the character of the community and create a never ending series of cultural conflicts. It is also Politically Incorrect.
Therefore, it is more mainstream to claim that of course you have no problem with Muslim immigration—but that this particular mosque is going to be used as a base by Saudi Arabia to implement sharia law in New York City. [Ground Zero Mosque: It's The Sharia, Stupid, by Deroy Murdock, Human Events, August 30,2010]
•It is factually correct but politically incorrect to note that mass immigration will lead to a hostile group of culturally and linguistically distinct people who embrace their ethnic identity and quite rationally use it to agitate for government privileges and transfer payments.
It is more Politically Correct, but also absurd, to blame this on a secret progressive conspiracy of racist whites that are seeking to destroy the “free market” over the objections of hard working Hispanics who want cuts in the capital gains tax.
If you want a career in the Establishment conservative movement, it’s an easy choice deciding what to say.
Frum is absolutely correct when he observes that economic recession and white displacement are leading to Republican radicalism. However, he and operatives like him have done their best to make sure that conservative leaders who have real, practical responses to these concerns—above all Buchanan—have been cast out.
Consequently, Republicans can no longer articulate why they should defend aid to their (white) core constituents. Instead, they champion self-destructive wonkery like torpedoing Medicare. The GOP/ Beltway conservative movement leadership simply sees suffering whites as so much cannon fodder to be sacrificed for the "tax cuts for billionaires" agenda that Frum rightly criticizes.
The result: a Permissible Republican Ideology that ignores the interests of the people who vote for it. The Republican Noise Machine, with its lunatic combination of paranoia and Political Correctness, is a necessary step to keep the cognitive dissonance from jeopardizing party loyalty. Given the choice between a Stupid Party that will ignore them and defend plutocrats and an Evil Party that actively hates them, most Americans will give the Stupid Party the victory—until the whole thing breaks down.
Unfortunately, that time is drawing near. It’s worth noting that a significant part of Frum’s 2003 National Review jeremiad criticized paleoconservatives for their perceived pessimism regarding the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. His critique doesn’t age well as our country’s relationship with Pakistan is on the brink of collapse after 10 years in the graveyard of empires.
Frum also ripped the “Unpatriotic Right” for doubting the country’s moral fortitude after 9/11, writing,
“The nation responded to the terrorist attacks with a surge of patriotism and pride, along with a much-needed dose of charity. Suddenly, many conservatives found they could look past the rancor of the Clinton years, past the psychobabble of the New Age gurus, past the politically correct professors, to see an America that remained, in every important way, the America of 1941 and 1917 and 1861 and 1776. As Tennyson could have said: "What we were, we are."”
But Frum was, simply, wrong. 9/11 did not herald an age of American renewal and patriotism. It was simply one more chapter in the long American collapse, commemorated by college campuses and government entities around the country with de rigueur condemnations of imperialism, racism, Islamophobia, and America itself.
Thus on September 10, 2011, Mark Steyn wrote in a column entitled Let’s Roll Over
“We commemorate an act of war as a “tragic event,” and we retreat to equivocation, cultural self-loathing, and utterly fraudulent misrepresentation about the events of the day. In the weeks after 9/11, Americans were enjoined to ask, ‘Why do they hate us?’ A better question is: ‘Why do they despise us?’ And the quickest way to figure out the answer is to visit the Peace Quilt and the Wish Tree, the Crescent of Embrace and the Hole of Bureaucratic Inertia.”
Steyn’s latest book, After America, posits that American collapse is all but a fait accompli. Steyn has not yet been purged from National Review. Indeed, his book was sent free with every new subscription to the magazine.
The Establishment conservative movement today is nothing but a glorified corporate lobbying firm. But the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party are openly hostile to the interests of the country. The Democrats now openly express their scorn for American workers. They are far more interested in importing a permanent underclass of Democratic voters than fighting inequality or combating unemployment.
The only possible answer would be a more rational conservatism united around a vision of ending nation-breaking immigration, fiscal restraint, a responsible foreign policy, confrontation of corporate corruption, and aid for American workers, industry, and the poor.
However, that would mean sounding too much like Pat Buchanan—and it is far more important for Frum to pretend it will all be ok rather than be seen with the likes of him.
A “responsible” governing conservatism of the type Frum fancies presupposes a nation left to govern. And that may no longer exist.
More than its laws, its economy, or its governing document, a nation is the people and the culture that make it up. If they are dispossessed, it is no longer the same country.
But that is what is happening today—and Americans, to a significant extent because of David Frum, are not allowed to talk about it.
James Kirkpatrick [Email him] travels around the United States looking for a waiter who can speak English, a libertarian who believes in America, and an actual patriotic conservative.
|April 23rd, 2012||#31|
Why Conservatives Have Lost the Political Battle for America's Soul
by Gary North
Tea Party Economist
This was posted on one of GaryNorth.com forums.
The battle for America’s political soul is always fought on the battlefield of federal politics. That’s why conservatives lose, generation after generation.”
Dr. North, would you please elaborate on this, why you believe the battle for America’s political soul is fought in Federal politics and why it is that conservatives continue to lose, generation after generation?
From the time of the ratification of the United States Constitution, American politics shifted to the national level. One of the things that I realized late in my career, even though I had been trained as an historian of the colonial period, was this: it is virtually impossible to write a history of the United States after 1788 without dividing it into four-year segments. Presidential election years set the tone for the direction of the country, and this has been true ever since the early 19th century, when the federal government’s share of the economy was minimal. It is not a matter simply of money; it is a matter of political legitimacy. Issues of legitimacy are much more important than issues of taxation. Legitimacy tells what the taxes will be spent on. That is far more important than the amount of taxes collected.
The problem is this: voting for the President, who is the only representative of all the people, is functionally a covenantal act. People ratify a particular President, and in doing so, they transfer authority and legitimacy to him and to his administration.
Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, these events were limited to state and local governments, and before that to colonial governments that were technically under the authority of the King of England. Politics was local, and the great issues of the day were also local. These issues differed from state to state, or from colony to colony.
There was no national civil government. There was no national political issue that confronted citizens in every region. Because there was no national government, there was no means of covenant ratification, which first took place in 1788. There was no means of covenant renewal nationally. So, people did not think of themselves as Americans; they thought of themselves as residents of their particular state.
It is difficult to write a history of the United States politically prior to 1775. Other than the American Revolution, there were no national political events. There were so many different colonies, and so many different issues, that the focus of the historian of necessity moves to issues of economics, social institutions, literary trends, political theory in general, marriage patterns, church planting, and basically nonpolitical issues. These are what conservatives regard, at least in theory, as the central issues of civilization.
The problem with political conservatives today is that the Constitution created a national government, and this national government has the power to tax. It has grown systematically and without reversal since 1788. The issues of the day are increasingly those of national politics, because the federal government extracts a greater percentage of the public’s wealth than any other single institution. When there is that much loot to be divvied up, everybody wants to get his hands into the pile of loot. In taking this money, the government legitimizes certain activities of the government, and these activities steadily replace private institutions and local governments. The money that the government collects baptizes the various proposals that special interest groups have for national renewal. Renewal is seen as political. It takes a lot of money to redo the whole nation.
Conservative social thought de-emphasizes politics. This is why conservative social thought never gains much of a hearing in the modern world. The modern world is so obviously political, and the power of central governments is so great over every area of life, that all issues become politicized. The traditional conservative opposition to the very suggestion of political salvation is co-opted by their enemies. Conservatives over and over go out to vote as if their votes will fundamentally change the nature of American society. Ultimately, this cannot be true if conservative social theory is correct. Ultimately, the political institutions represent the people, and the great issues of daily life are not political; they are social, ethical, economic, ecclesiastical, and educational. The great issues of life are not political, yet at the same time the central government is pushing its way into every area of life. It is politicizing that which was not political prior to the Enlightenment.
So, the conservative faces a dilemma. He wants to make the case for a particular national political candidate in terms of conservative values, but conservative values tell him that no political candidate can do much of anything to make the country any better. If the essence of social life is nonpolitical, which is what the conservative says is the case, then how can an election every four years fundamentally change the foundations of American life?
I always quote the letter written by political activist Paul Weyrich in 1999, in which he specifically said that we have lost the culture war, which ultimately is an ethical war. He did not see how politics could roll back the debauchery that America has become. He did not think that anything that could be done at the federal level through politics could fundamentally reverse what Robert Bork called slouching towards Gomorrah.
The liberal believes in something like political salvation. He believes in political healing of every area of life. He believes that federal power, coupled with federal money, can make society better. Therefore, he is active in politics, he puts faith in politics, and he puts a whole lot of money in politics. He sees political mobilization is the heart of social transformation. He becomes highly skilled at getting votes. He becomes a master at political fund-raising. He has all of the skills that a professional has in any field, and he is up against conservatives whose very philosophy of life militates against political salvation and hard-core political mobilization.
So, every four years the conservatives go off to vote, telling themselves that this is going to change something fundamental in the country. It never does. It can accelerate certain trends. But, given what George W. Bush did to the budget deficit, and given what he did in Middle Eastern wars, it is hard to make a case that the election of Al Gore would have made America far worse than it is today. The great thing about Al Gore was that he was indecisive. He did not trust his gut in the way the George W. Bush trusted his.
I suppose the best example in my lifetime was Franklin Roosevelt’s decision in 1944 to replace Henry Wallace with Harry Truman as Vice President. Henry Wallace was the most radical political figure ever to advance to national politics. He was further to the left than Huey Long. He would have replaced Roosevelt in April of 1945. Had he done so, America would be a far better place to live in. Harry Truman personally imposed the modern national security state. It was Truman who created the CIA. It was Truman who created the foundation of the Department of Homeland Security. It was Truman who expanded America’s Empire around the world. It was Truman who got us into the Korean War, and would not even call it a war, never gaining congressional approval. Wallace would never have been able to get that through Congress, because conservatives in Congress would have opposed him. Everybody knew how far to the left he was, and he had no national constituency of his own. Conservatives looked at Truman as preferable to Wallace. They make that sort of mistake all the time.
So, the conservative movement by its own nature is not an effective political competitor. Because local issues are far more tied to social issues, where conservatives say a country is established, they are better equipped to fight political battles of the local level than liberals are. Liberals look to Washington for salvation; conservatives ought to look to county government as a barrier against the expansion of the federal government into their lives. But they do not know the philosophy of local government which undergirded the foundation of this nation, beginning in the colonial era, and extending even through the period immediately preceding the ratification of the Constitution. That legacy has got to be restored, and conservatives have got to adopt it. If they do not adopt it, we are simply going to get more of the same, until the federal government finally goes belly-up.
Sadly, I think that is what is going to happen. I do not think most conservatives are going to spend the time, money, and effort to build up local resistance governments at the county level to step in when Washington’s checks bounce. They will have to do it after the Great Default.
Reprinted with permission from the Tea Party Economist.
April 23, 2012
Gary North [send him mail] is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com. He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible.
|April 23rd, 2012||#32|
Join Date: Feb 2012
Regardless of the shortcomings of the document, the US would be a better place today had it stayed under the articles. I don't buy into the belief that America would have been reconquered by some European force had the constitution not been ratified. There would be no national currency, no federal taxation, none of the things which are fundamental to the survival of ZOG.
|April 11th, 2013||#33|
Murray Rothbard on Russell Kirk and Willmoore Kendall
by Bradley J. Birzer
If you’ve not had the chance, please check out the Ludwig von Mises website, www.mises.org, as the archival resources available are astounding.
This afternoon, I had the chance (as a reward to myself for each final exam graded!) to read through one of the site’s free e-books, Murray Rothbard’s Strictly Confidential: The Private Volker Fund Memos.
I personally know very little about Rothbard, but I found his analysis fascinating–offering us an important piece of the conservative-libertarian puzzle of division and tension in the 1950s.
The following two quotes come from Rothbard’s notes regarding a conservative conference and Dr. Russell Kirk in Buck Hill Falls, Pennsylvania, 1956.
“We should now face the question: how does [Wilmoore] Kendall differ, say, from Russell Kirk in the ‘new conservatives’? Why is he anti-Kirk, as he is reputed to be, even though both of them unite in being opposed to free speech and Mill’s On Liberty? Answer: there is great difference between them. Kirk is the philosopher of old pre-Industrial Revolution, High Anglican England, the land of the squire, the Church, the happy peasant, and the aristocratic bureaucratic caste. He is essentially and basically antidemocratic. Kendall, on the contrary, is, as I have said, the pattern of the Lynch mob—he is an ur-democrat, a Jacobin impatient of any restrains on his beloved community. He hates bureaucracy, but not as we do, because it is tyrannical; he hates it because it has usurped control from the popular masses. He is the sort of person whom the Rossiter-Viereck ‘new conservatives’ are combating, for they are trying to defend the existent rule of the leftist bureaucracy against any populist mass upheaval. So they—the leftists—have shifted from mob whippers to soothing conservatives.” [David Gordon, ed., Strictly Confidential: The Private Volker Fund Memos of Murray N. Rothbard (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute,” 2010), 48.]
This leads me, at long last, to the question of what has happened to the Right in the last decade. It has grown but it is also decayed in quality by becoming confused, and confusing itself with wicked [end page 49] doctrine. A dramatic contrast can be shown, for example in taking a very early issue of Plain Talk—I think late 1946–and noting a moving article by Edna Lonigan, “I Taught Economics.” There, at the very beginning of this postwar flowering of the ‘radical Right,’ Lonigan wrote of her experiences as a wartime college teacher. The climax came when she converted some Pro–Commies in the class, after arguing with them all term for individual liberty, by giving them Mills On Liberty. In those days, the Right was small, but we were libertarian. We all fought for individual liberty, and battled majority as well as elitist tyranny of all types. And now, when we find Mill’s On Liberty discussed today—extensively by ‘rightists’ also, what do we find? Kirk and Kendall, each from his own point of view blatantly attacking liberty—and who is there to challenge them on the Right? This is the tragedy of the decade. How did this change happen to the “Right”? How did they change from pro–liberty to pro–tyranny without noting the difference? I submit because of the change in spirit from being a conscious minority to being almost, at least, in the majority in the country. And this came about from a switch in emphasis in doctrine. It came about from increasing stress on the Right on the twin issues of Communism and Christianity. Since the bulk of the populace has become converted to anti–Communism in this decade, the rightist can give up the burdens of being a lonely minority, by forgetting about libertarianism and stressing only Red–baiting. The same thing happens when the completely irrelevant issue of Christianity crops up; by arrogating to itself the Christian, or more, the theist mantle, the Right can again join a majority. So this is what has happened. The journalists write about the iniquities of Moscow, and the “philosophers” talk about the Christian tradition. It seems to me that to advance libertarianism, therefore, we should cut ourselves off completely, and even attack the Christian Red–baiting Right, which has become the evil exponent of tyranny that we know today. Red baiting and religion mongering should be exposed for the red herrings that they are, and shelves to concentrate on the prime issue: liberty versus tyranny.” [David Gordon, ed., Strictly Confidential: The Private Volker Fund Memos of Murray N. Rothbard (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute,” 2010), 49-50.]
Books mentioned in this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore. Essays by Dr. Birzer’s may be found here.
Dr. Bradley J. Birzer is co-founder of The Imaginative Conservative and a Senior Contributor. He is the author of Sanctifying the World: The Augustinian Life and Mind of Christopher Dawson, J.R.R. Tolkien’s Sanctifying Myth, and American Cicero: The Life of Charles Carroll. He is also author of The Humane Republic: The Imagination of Russell Kirk (forthcoming, University Press of Kentucky). Dr. Birzer also teaches Catholics in the Public Square for Catholic Courses.
Brad Birzer says:
May 10, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Almost a decade ago, ISI published a really nice piece by Gerald Russello on the critics of Kirk. Worth rereading:
John Willson says:
May 15, 2011 at 6:37 am
Murray was likable, but when one reads (for the first time in many years) this drivel it recalls the truth and the bite in Kirk's label for the libertarians: "chirping sectaries." For Rothbard to call Christianity irrelevant blows his whole ball game. What did he think was the source of his freedom?
Javier R. says:
June 5, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Murray wasnt downplaying Christiantiy in the above statement but was taking on the use of religion in the context of the anti communist scare. Actually, Rothbard was very positive (for being a secular/agnostic Jew) of Christianity's (specifically Catholicism) role in the developmemt of economic theory of price. He defended the Catholic school of Salamanca as being the forerunners of free market ideas long before Smith and co. Rothbard went so far as to criticize (rightly in my opinion)Max Weber's conteniton that Protestantism (specifically Calvinsm)led to capitalism. Rothabard believed that Calvinsim was the percursor to the anti free market labor theory of prices. I would simply remind folks that his beloved wife Joy Rothbard, a scholar in her own right,was a devout Christian. Nathan Branden, an Ayn Rand devotee tried to get him to divorce her. Rothbard pretty much told him to go fly a kite.
Here are some of Rothbard's writings in this regard. Rothabrd's "drivel" is always worth the read (and he is still likebale today)
In the last link Rothbard criticizes one encyclical as being "pro fascist" but another as being "fundamentally libertarian and pro-capitalist".