MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Conservatism’

Why David Brooks, the Atlantic and the New York Times are Irrelevant

Posted by M. C. on December 11, 2023

The Atlantic slimes Substack, I slap back.

elizabeth nickson

(this is an old piece but few subscribers have read it, and since the mainstream has started throwing shade onto Substack…..

“Brooks is irrelevant,” I snapped to a email friend who sent me David Brooks’ recent self-congratulatory snooze-fest “Why Conservatism is Dead Because it Doesn’t Listen To Me”, in The Atlantic. “Furthermore,” I continued, “The New York Times is irrelevant, and all its columnists are irrelevant because they just are.”  

Remember Time Magazine?  A few short decades ago, it was the dominant magazine in the world. Ten million copies a week sold for real money. Pages and pages of advertising. Now, it’s a joke edited by a woman who I used to report for and who, trust me, is a bear of limited brain. And that fate is soon coming for the Atlantic, the Times and most other broadsheets. They are, as someone clever (Sarah Hoyt) recently said, barking orders at platoons of invisible foot soldiers, their world hollowing out beneath them.

One of my last editors informed me “we are gatekeepers,” to my stunned silence. This was a charming woman, who I adored, but who had never done anything but copy edit her way to editorship, had virtually no life experience, and as far as I could see, no real interests, other than her career and Holt Renfrew. Honey, I grew up in Westmount and there were a whole lotta women who thought they were gatekeepers too. Their world? Vanished without a trace. This goes for almost anyone dug into the current “mainstream” of the culture, wrapped up in a plush packet, filled with velvet and down and praise for lo these many years. None of them has any idea of how real life is lived.

To a man or woman, right and left, they are all scathing of the messy unwashed populists thronging the streets of the world fit to be tied by their lives being foreshortened with every single year that passes. Like Brooks, they flatter themselves with droning graduate level synopses of conservative (or liberal) thought over the ages, compare it to Trump’s syntax and cry ‘Civilization is DEAD!”

Never mind the badly dressed, snorting barely-humans at the barricades. They have no beef, no complaint, just shut up. They are anathema, human garbage who dare to rebel against the ferocious incompetence of their so-called leaders who have assumed police power over every aspect of their lives. Brooks et al are part of the New Class, a group identified by William F, Buckley’s National Review sometime in the 70’s, forgive me for not bothering to check, I have just plodded my way through several thousand words of basic conservative thought history, which I rather hoped I’d read for the last time, the last time I was plodding through the virtues of Locke and Montesquiou and Burke.

The New Class for those who haven’t done the plodding is that modern caste of brahmins and mandarin bureaucrats who simply know better and who clip a bit of every dollar in the economy until those dollars reach those people who produce the product as 40% of what’s left. Every career politician, bureaucrat, contract worker, academic, consultant, union head, etc etc etc.  The people my industrialist father used to call parasites.

Anyway to get to the part where Brooks says conservatism is dead, despite the three billion strong furious anti-government populists simmering in their houses, getting ready to take power, because damn, this is coming whether Brooks likes it or not. Turns out he doesn’t actually have an argument. He just devolves into Trump frenzy.

Let me count the risibilities:

1. Conservatism ended with Mitt Romney in 2012. (I died laughing at that one – the vulture capitalist is the true conservative.)

2. Populists are spiritually sick because they don’t listen to the New Class anymore. (Do you ever ever ask yourself why?)

3. We know better. We can cite Burke.

4. All of life is seen as an incessant class struggle between oligarchic elites and the common volk (well yeah)

5. A lot of my friends are trying to reclaim the GOP and make it a conservative party once again. I cheer them on  (ie listen you common volk who can’t cite Burke)

6. He makes the usual charge of racism at Americans complaining about people and criminals flooding across the southern border, calling it a rejection of “pluralism”.

Because Brooks never leaves his leafy bower, he has no idea how people live anymore.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Foreign Aid Shows True Nature of Conservatism

Posted by M. C. on November 7, 2023

“Never mind” is the cry of conservatives. As long as the corrupt government of some country does our bidding, then never mind. As long as we can bribe some country to see things our way, then never mind. As long as we can enrich some American special interest who will benefit from the foreign aid, then never mind. As long as foreign aid advances some U.S. interest, then never mind.

Foreign aid shows the true nature of conservatism: Conservatives have no philosophical objection to the government taking money from American taxpayers and giving it to foreigners, NGOs, and foreign governments.

Dems too. Everyone is on the giveaway bandwagon.

by Laurence M. Vance

After the horrific attack on Israel by the Palestinian militant group Hamas, conservatives wasted no time in denouncing U.S. foreign aid to the Palestinians. Although it was not their intention in doing so, they showed the true nature of conservatism.In light of the egregious war against the Constitution waged by members of Congress who vote for foreign aid spending, not one more American taxpayer dollar should flow to or underwrite any foreign person or entity.
[Click to Tweet]

Advancing American Freedom, an “organization advocating for Conservative values and policy proposals” founded by former vice president Mike Pence, recently issued a letter to members of Congress titled “The Palestinians Must Be Defunded in the Appropriations Process.”

AAF “serves the Conservative Movement by developing innovative policy solutions, strategies, coalitions, and messaging that builds upon those accomplishments, expands freedom for all Americans, and hampers anything that would threaten America’s standing as the greatest nation on the face of the Earth.”

The text of the letter reads:

Dear Members of Congress:

We the undersigned demand the immediate and complete defunding of the Palestinians via the appropriations process underway this fiscal year. In light of the heinous war against Israel started by Hamas and supported by other Palestinian elements in the region, not one American taxpayer dollar should flow to or underwrite any Palestinian entity or person, whether government or non-government, whether direct or indirect, and whether military, political, or civilian.

The language in the relevant appropriations legislation, including continuing resolutions, composite appropriations bills, and individual appropriations bills, must be clear, very specific, comprehensive, and not able to be circumvented by unscrupulous bureaucrats.

We stand ready to assist you in any way to accomplish these objectives above. Thank you.

The letter was signed by more than 60 conservative “leaders,”

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Our Greatest Ally? I Doubt It

Posted by M. C. on November 3, 2023

What it has done is made enemies that the U.S. would not otherwise have had.

The Truman State Department warned in the late 1940s that the U.S. would squander this good will via President Truman’s bias toward Israel (which Truman told Clark Clifford was dictated largely by domestic political considerations). The U.S., they said, would share the blame for whatever Israel did (and indeed Truman was evidently appalled at how Israel handled the refugee situation).

You will not run across anyone in official conservatism telling you this. Their salaries depend on not telling you.

From the Tom Woods Letter:

I lost some subscribers yesterday, which I expected. But I’m still here and all is well.

One person accused me of a “double standard” because all lobbying groups pursue their interests. So why was I singling out AIPAC?

How about because AIPAC smeared the most principled and courageous U.S. congressman we have? Is that answer sufficient for the police?

I wouldn’t say there’s exactly been a shortage of criticisms of other lobbying groups — the military-industrial complex gets its share of attention, I’d say — in my writing.

Again, imagine creating an organization aimed entirely at enriching a foreign country at the expense of the one in which you live, and then throwing career-destroying smears around at people who decline to comply. You cannot imagine that, thank goodness, because you’re not motivated by narcissistic self-preoccupation.

I have heard and I understand the reasons people have for supporting the Israeli regime.

My points are these:

(1) It is not reasonable to describe the Israeli government as our “greatest ally.” If you thought silly platitudes that are supposed to become true through repetition were confined to the left, think again. This particular one is a favorite of Conservatism, Inc. The “special relationship” with Israel confers no benefit on the U.S. How could it? What can a country of 9 million, half a world a way, do for us?

What it has done is made enemies that the U.S. would not otherwise have had.

Yes, I have heard the arguments: the Muslim world would have hated us no matter what we did, etc. I don’t buy it. At the time of the King-Crane Commission, the United States had an excellent reputation in the Middle East. When asked what country they’d like to govern them as League of Nations mandates, Middle Easterners overwhelmingly said the United States. That’s so inconceivable today that I wouldn’t blame you for not believing me.

The Truman State Department warned in the late 1940s that the U.S. would squander this good will via President Truman’s bias toward Israel (which Truman told Clark Clifford was dictated largely by domestic political considerations). The U.S., they said, would share the blame for whatever Israel did (and indeed Truman was evidently appalled at how Israel handled the refugee situation).

You will not run across anyone in official conservatism telling you this. Their salaries depend on not telling you.

(2) Christians may have their own secular reasons for wishing to lend support to the Israeli government, but they are under no theological obligation to do so.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Conservatism

Posted by M. C. on October 21, 2023

If conservatism means anything, it means upholding moral norms against the perennial temptation to erode or discard them. It’s a sign of our times that nominal “conservatives” now represent that temptation, and are assailing those-including some liberals-who are trying to conserve those norms.

Joseph Sobran – Subtracting Christianity/War and Moral Novelty

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

“National Greatness” Is Not the Appropriate Response to “Wokeism” | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on August 12, 2023

A policy of high tariffs would require the state to pick winners and losers, and this is even more true of the massive partnership between business and the state that David Goldman advocates to promote research and development. Whether this is the path to American “greatness” must be left for others to determine. Certainly it is not the path to liberty.

https://mises.org/wire/national-greatness-not-appropriate-response-wokeism

David Gordon

Up from Conservatism: Revitalizing the Right after a Generation of Decay
Edited by Arthur Milikh
Encounter Books, 2023; 328 pp.

The contributors to Up from Conservatism, most of whom are associated with the Claremont Institute, think that “movement” conservatism has failed, in large part through acceptance of the premises of the Left. The Right needs to carry the battle to the enemy, aiming at its destruction and its replacement by a sounder regime. The contributors include Michael Anton, David P. Goldman, Scott Yenor, and, much in the news of late, Richard Hanania, and their essays make many useful points; but the book suffers from a fatal flaw.

On the one hand, it protests against the tyranny of the state; but on the other, it calls for the expansion of that very state to bring about its own favored goals. A leftist “woke” state is bad; not so a “national greatness” state. The contributors differ among themselves, and it would be wrong to impute the statist proclivities of some of them to the others, but this is a book divided against itself.

Many of the contributors find disturbing the “woke” movement, which holds that because of past oppression of “protected” groups, members of these groups must receive preferential treatment today. Those who dissent from this view are ruthlessly suppressed, and the inquisitorial powers of the state are deployed against them. According to Joshua Mitchell and Aaron Renn, the “woke” movement has become a religion, and unbelievers must be cast out from society. They write:

Identity politics, . . . now upon us, immanentizes the scapegoat, a Christian heresy, while at the same time affirming that a scapegoat is necessary to take way the sins of the world—an article of Christian faith. . . . Man’s stain is still the consuming issue. But moral cleanliness and purity are not purchased through Christ; instead they are purchased by scapegoating another person or group said to be responsible for the sins of the world. “Not all of mankind is unclean,” declare our identity politics priests, “just the white race”. . . . The unclean must be purged from our midst. . . . In the New Awakening that is identity politics, cathartic rage is directed toward whiteness and all that it has supposedly wrought. (emphasis in original)

As Robert Delahunty notes, the FBI and other national security agencies have become a “deep state,” able to spy on those who incur the displeasure of the government and to harass them:

There is a growing risk that the vast and intrusive state security apparatus created during the War on Terror might now be turned against legitimate political opposition within the country, and that manufactured fears of domestic extremism might be used to justify repressive measures. . . . the actual practice of the Justice Department and FBI under Biden strongly suggests that the focus of “domestic security” investigations will be political conservatives exercising their constitutional rights, such as parents of school children objecting to mask mandates, pro-life activists and licensed gun owners. . . . For the Biden administration and the intelligence community that services it, violent left-wing domestic extremism seems invisible.

One would think that the lesson from this abuse of power is to curtail the powers of these nefarious agencies, and Delahunty deserves great credit for considering their outright abolition. He says:

Proposals not merely to reform but to abolish the FBI have been raised over many years on both the civil libertarian Left and the antistatist Right. The FBI’s proclivity to illegal and unethical conduct seems inscribed in its DNA and its recent shameful attempt to undermine a democratically elected president have [sic] taken its wrongdoing to a new level. The difficulty, however, is that a successor agency, even If populated by an entirely new staff, would likely return to the current agency’s patterns and practices if it were to possess the same powers and responsibilities.

Evidently, he does not fully grasp that under the libertarian proposal, there would be no successor agency at all.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What Is Conservatism? | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on September 25, 2020

The Austrian-born nobleman Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, described himself as a conservative arch-liberal and opposed democratization, mass movements, fascism, and totalitarianism. Kuehnelt-Leddihn is notable for asserting in a variety of scholarly works that had the conservative regimes of Europe survived the First World War, Europe would have avoided the totalitarianism of the 1930s and 40s. At the same time, he accepted numerous tenets of liberalism, including natural rights and the benefits of laissez faire, and was a columnist for publications of the American conservative movement.

Similarly, Otto von Habsburg, at one time the heir to the throne of Austria, was a conservative, a close associate of laissez-faire liberal economist Ludwig von Mises, and a member of the liberal Mont Pelerin Society. An internationalist conservative, opponent of Nazism, and early advocate of European integration, Habsburg was a member of the European Parliament during the 1980s and 1990s, an opponent of communism, and a supporter of what he viewed as traditional European civilization.

https://mises.org/wire/what-conservatism?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=fb30483fde-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-fb30483fde-228343965

Conservatism is a group of political and social ideologies that promote traditional social and political institutions, gradualism in political action, and opposition to radical political and social movements.

As an identifiable international intellectual and political movement, conservatism originated in opposition to the French Revolution, and was heavily influenced in its early years by Edmund Burke’s essay Reflections on the Revolution in France, first published in 1790.1 After the revolution, conservatism spread throughout much of western Europe, and was influential in the ideologies of leading diplomats and intellectuals of the nineteenth century, including Klemens von Metternich, Joseph de Maistre, and Juan Donoso Cortés.

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, conservatism was characterized by a preference for political rule by the established elites and aristocrats and opposed to rule by the middle classes or working classes. By the twentieth century, conservatism began to lose its particular attachment to the established aristocracy, but continued to promote rule by natural, untitled elites. In all historical periods, philosophical conservatives have expressed opposition to mass democracy movements, fearing that democracy leads to dictatorship.

The specific policies and political programs favored by conservatives have varied significantly among differing societies, and have changed over time depending on the nature of traditional institutions in each society. The traditional status of capitalism or monarchy or Catholicism, for example, greatly influences the nature of the society that the conservative seeks to preserve.

Today, conservatism is associated with numerous center-right and right-wing political parties throughout Europe and in Anglophone countries including the United States, Canada, and Australia. The degree to which ideological conservatism influences the political programs of such parties is a matter of dispute, however, as modern political parties and movements associated with conservatism often embrace ideological components in conflict with traditional conservatism, such as liberal economics and mass democracy.

Reaction against Revolutions in Europe

The French Revolution and the subsequent destruction of church and royal power in France, followed by the Reign of Terror, was a source of widespread dismay among aristocrats and elites in both Europe and the United States. Even before the Terror, Burke responded to the early stages of the revolution with his Reflections on the Revolution in France, which condemned the revolution on the grounds that it uprooted most traditional French institutions and was based on excessively theoretical assertions. Burke had earlier supported the American Revolution on the grounds that the Americans were seeking to preserve traditional rights and an established way of life against interference from the British crown. In Burke’s view, the French Revolution, unlike the moderate American Revolution, was radical and rootless.

The de-Christianization of France during the revolution, coupled with the destruction of the established aristocratic ruling class, alarmed other intellectuals among the aristocracy throughout Europe in the following decades.

Joseph de Maistre, an aristocrat of Piedmont-Sardinia, called for the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy following the war and embodied the conservative creed of “throne and altar” which Maistre considered essential to maintaining a just and lasting society. Unlike Burke, who promoted individual liberties and decentralization of political power coupled with religious freedom, Maistre was dogmatic in his support of monarchy and traditional religious institutions, going so far as to declare that citizens must respect and even love a despotic ruler. According to Maistre, when faced with a severe and suspicious prince:

There is no better course than resignation and respect, I would even say love, for since we start with the supposition that the master exists and that we must serve him absolutely, is it not better to serve him, whatever his nature, with love than without it?

Later European theorists, such as Juan Donoso Cortés, who supported constitutional monarchy against the liberals and socialists of Spain, were influenced by Maistre either directly or indirectly.

Klemens von Metternich, who in later decades would, perhaps unfairly, become a symbol of right-wing reaction for the European left during the nineteenth century, rejected the more authoritarian and reactionary strains of conservatism found among the disciples of Maistre, and embraced a doctrine of stability through peace and economic progress, and a less authoritarian version of the “throne and altar” doctrine. Metternich, who referred to himself as a “conservative socialist,” urged the formation of a limited parliamentary system in Austria and recommended increases in local self-government, provided that such reforms did not lead to revolutionary changes.

The liberal and socialist revolutions of the mid-nineteenth century continued to spur conservatives toward political action and philosophical argumentation against the perceived excesses of democracy, capitalism, and the revolutions which were spreading across Europe.

The Syllabus of Errors, a papal document published by Pope Pius IX in 1864, represented a significant international victory for the hard-line conservatism of Maistre and Cortés, and to a lesser extent the less authoritarian conservatism of the Metternich school. The document condemned liberalism, socialism, communism, and some forms of rationalism, and denied that “the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.”

Continental strains of conservatism, most typified by the works of Maistre, Cortés, Metternich, and Friedrich von Gentz, were significant in European political development, but in the centuries since the French Revolution, Burke’s brand of compromising, nonideological conservatism has proven to be the most influential and widespread form of conservatism. This is especially true in the English-speaking world.

Chief characteristics of conservatism that were general across most schools of conservatism prior to World War II include opposition to mass democracy, support for religious institutions, a preference for rule by aristocrats or a natural elite, and an aversion to theories of government not based on established experience.

Conservatism continued to be an influential ideology among the established elites in Europe through the twentieth century. The Congress of Vienna, chaired by Metternich himself, was followed by nearly a century without any large-scale wars in Europe, which contributed to the stability of the conservative regimes then in place, and enabled them to withstand the many liberal and socialist revolutions of the mid-nineteenth century. The success of secular democratic and socialist regimes following the end of the First World War brought the end to conservative dominance in Europe.

Nationalism and Internationalism

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Tyranny of Conservatism – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 19, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/03/laurence-m-vance/the-tyranny-of-conservatism/

By

Conservatives say they believe in the Constitution, limited government, federalism, free enterprise, individual freedom, private property, and the free market. But, of course, this means absolutely nothing since they say they believe in these things even when their actions show that they don’t believe in any of them.

Consider the drug war.

Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to have a war on drugs? Of course not. But that doesn’t stop conservatives from supporting the DEA and the federal drug war.

Is a government limited to reasonable defense, judicial, and policing activities compatible with government interest in the eating, drinking, smoking, medical, and recreational habits of Americans? Of course not. The only limited government that conservatives seek is one limited to control by conservatives.

Do conservatives believe that all drug polices should be instituted on the state level and that the federal government should have nothing to do with prohibiting or regulating drugs? Of course not. Conservatives only believe in federalism when the federal government does something they don’t like.

Do conservatives believe that free enterprise includes the freedom to buy and sell drugs? Of course not. They want the government to prohibit people from peacefully buying and selling drugs. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Conservatism, Inc. Indulges Its Own

Posted by M. C. on June 28, 2018

Nice piece on the demise of the GOP and the rise of the republicrats.

Just don’t confuse today’s conservative with someone that believes in liberty, free trade, minding one’s international business and the Constitution.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/conservatism_inc_indulges_its_own.html

By Paul Gottfried

Watching a recent discussion on Fox News between Chris Stirewalt and Guy Benson concerning George Will’s exhortation to Republican voters to support Democratic candidates in the upcoming congressional election, I thought of the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.  According to this teaching, those whom divine Providence elevates to sainthood can never lose their ascribed status.  Once divinely elected, the sinner remains in a state of grace no matter how far he strays.  The conservative movement offers a somewhat less dramatic, secular version of this dogma.  It goes like this: someone whom the movement has raised to celebrity can never lose his “conservative” cachet no matter how far he deviates from the established party line.  The only obvious exception to this rule concerns those who move inappropriately toward the right or else fail to move toward the left when the rest of the authorized movement does… Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »