tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post3738977998497212287..comments2023-12-31T03:18:37.403-06:00Comments on "E pur si muove!": American Conservatism, RIP?Lester Hunthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-29543094948529252612008-03-09T07:31:00.000-05:002008-03-09T07:31:00.000-05:00I do like the honesty of the Aussies, calling thei...I do like the honesty of the Aussies, calling their further left party Labour, and their less left party Liberal. (Of course, I wouldn't vote for either, just as I don't vote now; I'm like Ms. McElroy, in that I see it as pointless, a waste of time. I'm an old-fashioned Tory, and since there are none anymore in Canada, running for office, I'm politically homeless, and I don't buy into the 'civic duty' nonsense promulgated by those who feel we have to vote. Freedom should mean choices, and I choose not to participate in the exercise in fraud.)Will S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02714519301979594160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-32473582268728561102008-03-08T22:58:00.000-06:002008-03-08T22:58:00.000-06:00Will, Once years ago the Australian philosopher Jo...Will, <BR/><BR/>Once years ago the Australian philosopher <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Passmore" REL="nofollow">John Passmore</A> came up to me at a conference we were attending and said, "Tell me! Why do Americans call liberals 'conservatives'?" He meant of course that what we call "conservative" in the US is very similar to what they call a "liberal" in other countries. I think I said something like, "In America, the political tradition is actually liberal. So if you are a conservative, you actually <I>are</I> a liberal. Confusing, isn't it?"Lester Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-5777672652924293252008-03-08T18:33:00.000-06:002008-03-08T18:33:00.000-06:00I've long believed that a consistent, true America...I've long believed that a consistent, true American conservatism, is a theoretical and practical impossibility, because of the paradox that lies at the heart of such an undertaking. That is, namely, the fact that America was founded on liberal ideals and liberal principles, and hence, all attempts to put forth a case for an American conservative tradition, amount to special pleading to preserve the original liberal goals of the Founders, but not follow the logical implications that flow out of such. In other words, let's conserve 18th century liberalism, but go no further down the liberal road. I truly admire the paleoconservatives, but I think they're on a fool's errand.<BR/><BR/>IMO, the only internally consistent true conservatism that can be, is indeed, the British, collectivist, anti-liberal, Tory tradition, best exemplified by the likes of Canadian philosopher George Parkin Grant, who didn't identify in the least with the radical individualism of American conservtism, and its uncritical acceptance of unbridled capitalism. Alas, even Grant's conservatism has proved untenable, politically, here in Canada; Grant's self-described label of "Red Tory" has mutated, and generally come to mean one who combines a belief in wide-open, unfettered, free-market capitalism, with liberal stances on social issues. (Which would have irked the devout Christian Grant, to no end.) No "Conservative" who holds office here in Canada holds to true, traditional Toryism.Will S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02714519301979594160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-53312278306736178682008-03-03T21:06:00.000-06:002008-03-03T21:06:00.000-06:00Craig, With your underlying point I agree: a maj...Craig, With your underlying point I agree: a major cause of pragmatic drift is lack of clear principles. One reason the conservative movement lost its bearings was that they weren't any too clear about their bearings in the first place. These people were often openly contemptuous of "abstract" theories, after all. ... Where I guess I disagree is on your interpretation of Buckley. Though I haven't been a fan of his since the early sixties, I see him as a more mixed and equivocal figure than that. Buckley wasn't Kirk.Lester Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-42754043996727873472008-03-02T20:52:00.000-06:002008-03-02T20:52:00.000-06:00This Blog entry is 80% accurate, and that part whi...This Blog entry is 80% accurate, and that part which is accurate is very well written. <BR/><BR/>The part that isn't accurate is the generalizations about what American conservatism was like at the time that Buckley came on the scene. The truth is that conservatism was half and half even at that time, and Buckley consistently promoted the dark side. <BR/><BR/>Part of what use to be known as conservatism was a vestige of the libertarian ideals of the American Revolution. The other part was an exaggeration of British Toryism. Buckley and his fellow "traditionalists" consistently opined that rationality, consistency and ideals in politics were evil and that freedom should be subordinated to virtue. The virtue, of course, was whatever was being promoted by the "statesmen" of the hour [i.e., whoever was nominated by the Republican Party]. <BR/><BR/>No, Buckley was not a representative of "tough and lean conservatism." He was the main force behind the transformation of conservatism into a principleless variety of corrupt patronage collectivism generously intermixed with xenophobia and puritanicalism in the fond tradition of the prohibitionists.Craig J. Boltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14147500914677148689noreply@blogger.com