Whither Conservatism?
I read with great interest Jason Steck’s post below on “Why Defend Conservatives� and the many comments, which included a fair number of thoughtful responses to Jason’s view that conservatives have been bullied and are misunderstood.
I will reserve comment on that contention because it was amply answered by others.
But while Jason’s post and comments tasted great, they were less than filling because in my view the most important question was left unasked and unanswered:
Conservatism is at a nadir in the U.S. (and I don’t mean Ralph) after six years of hegemony over government and policy. I happen to agree with the core tenets of conservatism and believe that a healthy conservative movement is vitally important to the body politic. What can conservatives do to get their mojo back and march proudly into the future?
65 Responses to “Whither Conservatism?”
Using fear tactics to draw our country into an unnecessary war with Iraq DESERVES criticism. And as I’ve argued repeatedly over the last 48 hours, it’s not just liberals who have been critical of Bush’s foreign policy. It’s liberals, moderates, libertarians, and paleoconservatives.
nic- I have never agreed with you more! Why is it the right always thinks it is only liberals who disagree over the Bush Doctrine. Last I checked liberals made up about 22% of the entire population. So if 75% of the country disagrees with the war in Iraq, the other 52% must be made up of the groups you described. I guess the neocons are not math whizzes.
My God, this is getting out of hand.
We’re throwing the words liberal and conservative around like they were rice at a wedding. I don’t even know who’s referring to who, anymore.
Guys,
When you use the word liberals, are you referring to liberals or are you referring to Democrats? They are NOT one and the same.
When you use the word conservatives, are you referring to conservatives or Republicans? Again, they are not the same.
So much unnecessary misunderstanding is caused because we refuse to elaborate on WHO were talking about when we refer to liberals and conservatives.
Jason, you’ve complained of those posters here who have criticized conservatives, but just who are these conservatives? What constitutes a conservative position anymore? Much (but obviously not all) of the criticism at TMV has been directed toward the Iraq War.
There is nothing intrinsically liberal or conservative about supporting a war. When a war is popular, both parties support it. When a war is not so popular, typically the opposition comes from the party that is not in control of the presidency. It was true when Clinton was president, and it’s true now that Bush is president.
Or do you disagree with my argument that there is nothing intrinsically liberal or conservative about supporting a war?
If we’re now going to say that being “pro-war” is a conservative position and being “anti-war” is a liberal position, then we might as well be intellectually consistent with regards to this. If being “anti-war” equates with being a liberal, then we ought to go back through history and call Senator Robert Taft and other isolationist Republicans liberal.
The problem with that is that Senator Robert Taft (AKA, “Mr. Republican” is widely regarded as being one of the most conservative politicians of the 30′s and 40′s.
Many of things considered conservative today, NEVER would have been considered conservative 50 or 60 years ago. Heck! Some of the things considered conservative today, wouldn’t have been considered TEN years ago!
Case in point: If I were to criticize “nation-building”, am I criticizing liberals or conservatives. In the 1990′s, “nation-building” was considered to be liberal, and George W. Bush, roundly criticized Clinton for “nation-building” during the 2000 Presidential debates.
But suddenly, now that it’s a Republican president who’s “nation building” (literally in the case of Iraq), “nation building” is no longer seen as being liberal.
Or I’m told by Republicans . . . Or is it conservatives? I’m so confused!!!
So Jason, when I criticize the Iraq War, am I guilty of criticizing conservatives or am I criticizing Republicans? Or am I criticizing liberals–or what would have been “deemed” liberal by Republicans back in the 1990′s?
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t define conservative as one thing in the 1990′s and then give it the complete opposite definition ten years later. It leads to endless confusion.
Being pro-war isn’t a liberal position or a conservative position. It’s a neoconservative position.
Why do I say this? Because the OVERWHELMING majority of neoconservative publications and thinktanks support the Iraq War–a war which they have been agitating for since the mid 1990′s (if nothing else, at least they’re consistent).
Because unlike liberalism or conservatism, neoconservatism is specifically defined by a strong interventionist foreign policy. The manisfestos of the leading neoconservative think tanks make this explicitly clear.
Let us not toss the words liberal and conservative around and assume that everyone knows what we’re talking about. If someone comes out and says, “I hate conservatives” or “conservatives or all idiots”–well, then there you have it. That, my friend, is a conservative-hater.
But let’s stop pretending that criticism or even over-the-top rhetoric in opposition to the war equates with a hatred of conservatives.
The most consistent and outspoken critic of the Iraq War is Republican Ron Paul of Texas. And he’s more conservative (in the smaller government sense of the word) than you or I will EVER be.
Good response Nicriv, now just play nice with Jason and MvdG:}.
“and MvdG”? I was well asleep and all I’m trying to do, generally, is trying to make people realize that the level of the debate… umh… could be improved.
Anyway, Nic good response.
Nic you must be from a foreign country. Liberals and conservatives have their own meanings inside the USA body politic. I have read your views on it and michaels views on it and quite honestly your views do not represent very many people who fit the tag liberal and conservative in American politics. Your definition does not fit American Politics.
Others have asserted that we were fear mongered into going to war is absolute CRAP. Spelled with a capital K. Its really quite comical. Its like FDR saying a state of war has existed between the USA and Japan……..and you jumping up and claiming there he goes again trying to convince us they will attack again unless we go to war.
Terrorist attacked the USA. America responded. Doesnt take a math wizz to understand that around 90 percent agreed with attacking Afghanistan and that almost 77 percent of the population at this juncture of time agreed with the decision to go to war with IRAQ.
Yes you guys are quite good at distorting facts for your agenda.
It also doesnt take a math wizz to understand that 69 percent oppose abortion yet abortion is legal in the USA……whats the point you ask?? Because something may not be popular does not mean its not necessary or needed.
This war was perhaps not needed but you antiwar types are confusing the issue and making the war seem like ANY war, ANY action taken by GWB is fear mongering. LIES and distortions and the use of Facts X why denying Facts Y.
Again I have abandoned the Democratic party because they not only lied to themselves but they lied to me by saying……YES we agree lets go get Saddam and then said……oppssss we were just kidding. No they lost any respect they had from me and actually made a Republican out of a Democrat because they do not have the backbone to fight an unpopular war because IMO…..It must be fought. It just must be fought better.
Yeah, UIS, but the point is that the words “liberal” and “conservative” have actual meanings in terms of a political philosophy, and those meanings have been distorted in American politics. You’re right that the meanings that MvdG and nic have discussed don’t match with the terms as used in colloquial politics here, but we’re the ones who are wrong about the meanings, not MvdG and nic. And discussions would be more clear if we get the definitions right instead of using the terms to mean something else.
UIS- We weren’t fear-mongered into war??? Yes we were attacked by al queda, whose stronghold was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Saddam Hussein was not an ally of OSB or an al queda supporter. You don’t remember Condi’s mushroom cloud reference? The sixteen words in Bush’s SOTU about Iraq getting uranium for its nukes from Niger, which later had to be retracted because they were based on documents that were known forgeries??? What about the unmanned drones that were going to carry WMD’s onto the California coast? Colin Powell’s speech at the UN containing highly questionable overhead photos of Saddam’s chemical labs? You have got to be kidding!
C.S.: thank you and well said.
Upinsmoke,
Nope, I was born right here in the U S of A. And I actually know enough about American history to realize that the terms liberal and conservative most certainly DO NOT mean today what they meant sixty years ago. That’s not an opionion. It’s a documented FACT. All you have to do is go back and read the opinions of Senator Robert Taft and other leading conservatives of the 30′s and 40′s to see that the conservatism of of that era differs significantly from modern day conservatism–particularly with regards to foreign policy. A similar argument can be made in regards to liberalism (many die-hard defenders of the free market called themselves liberals until FDR co-opted the word back in the 1930s).
C Stanley hit the nail right on the head. There’s a reason why Europe and most of the rest of the world have a completely different definition for the terms liberal and conservative then we Americans do. It’s because Democrats and Republicans have, over time, distorted the meanings of those terms to the point that they no longer mean what they once meant (and in some cases, have come to mean the EXACT opposite).
You say that I’m wrong about the terms liberal and conservative, because you choose to believe that these terms mean whatever the Democrats and Republicans tell you they mean.
I gave you plenty of examples in which the definitions of these terms have changed over time in regards to foreign policy–including the example of “nation building” which somehow transformed from a liberal position to a conservative position in a span of LESS THAN TEN YEARS.
What that tells me is not that I’m the one who doesn’t know what these terms mean but that Democrats and Republicans will do ANYTHING to hide the fact that they’ve changed their political positions over the years.
But that is exactly my point. American Politics has reached its own equilibrium despite and void of any outside influence. We do not let Canada’s definitions of politics affect our own. We do our own thing and if we Have chosen to make Liberal and Conservative mean one thing that is in direct contrast to the rest of the world……..well sorry world, close your ears and dont listen when we use the words.
You are discussing semantics and in this case the words Liberal and Conservative have taken on a life and a meaning all of their own. The definition has changed and most of us understand what each of these words mean. Im sorry FDR’s definiton of the words is not the same as today. Times change. So do words and their meanings.
I give you the words Kick Ass. It could mean Im gonna kick your butt or it could mean thats a really cool thing. The words are not important. Whats important is that both parties know what the meaning is when used.
I think We in America understand that. The ones having the problem are non Americans. Sorry. If its so confusing, then do something else with your time.
But UIS, as a fellow American I disagree with you. I don’t think this is an issue of foreign intervention into our internal affairs. The words haven’t just evolved to mean something different, they’ve been manipulated that way by the two parties. Each one at times wants to demonize its opponents (just like you see the left demonizing neoconservatism). So the suggestion to get back to the roots of the words is really just to clear out all of the partisan manipulation and deceitful rhetoric so that we can all really discuss the actual philosophies rather than the strawmen that they’ve been made into.
You’re amazing, Upinsmoke.
You come in here and complain about the rhetoric used by liberals, arguing:
I point out that here in the United States, we have the tendency of distorting what liberal and conservative means (thus, agreeing with your statement) and make a suggestion that we be more specific who we are referring to rather than tossing the terms liberal and conservative around without any thought to their meanings, and what do you do?
You defend the status quo.
If the terms liberal and conservative are well-defined and understood by everyone as you claim they are, then answer me this, Upinsmoke:
Is nation-building a liberal position or a conservative position?
Well, then between you and me, Upinsmoke, only one of us was ever a Democrat.
Congratulations.
Well Nic you have missed out then. Heck even Ronnie Reagan was once a Democrat. He changed for many of the same reasons I have. Actually in deference to a great American I should say I changed for many of the same reasons he did.
Its probably because we both read your definition of Liberal and conservative and chose the lessor of two evils.
But we both have one thing in common. We both believe that America is a great country.
Upinsmoke,
I notice that you still haven’t answered my question, despite me having asked it twice now.
If the terms liberal and conservative are well-defined and understood by everyone as you claim they are, then answer me this:
Is nation-building a liberal position or a conservative position?