56,003
edits
Document:LP News 1973 May-June Issue 14: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Document:LP News 1973 May-June Issue 14 (view source)
Revision as of 19:58, 9 July 2021
, 9 July 2021→XI. THE "NEW CONSERVATISM"
| Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
There is a great deal of ballyhoo these days about "The Renaissance of Conservatism" or "The Squaring of America" -- a growing public rejection of "liberalism" and an accompanying return to "traditional values." | There is a great deal of ballyhoo these days about "The Renaissance of Conservatism" or "The Squaring of America" -- a growing public rejection of "liberalism" and an accompanying return to "traditional values." | ||
Indeed, it is becoming almost | |||
be a conservative. Intellectuals from Herman Kahn to Daniel Moynihan, Irving Kristal to Norman Podhoretz, are suddenly proclaiming their disillusionment with the Left, and their new-found admiration (or at least respect) for the Middle/Right. | Indeed, it is becoming almost "in" to be a conservative. Intellectuals from Herman Kahn to Daniel Moynihan, Irving Kristal to Norman Podhoretz, are suddenly proclaiming their disillusionment with the Left, and their new-found admiration (or at least respect) for the Middle/Right. | ||
In the past few months, there have been major newspaper articles in the L.A. Times and Denver Post (and in other papers which pick up material from the Post-Times syndicate) on the new intellectual respect ability of conservatism. U.S. News and Intellectual Digest have carried interviews with Herman Kahn on this subject. And the National Observer devoted the front page of its March 10 issue to this topic. | In the past few months, there have been major newspaper articles in the L.A. Times and Denver Post (and in other papers which pick up material from the Post-Times syndicate) on the new intellectual respect ability of conservatism. U.S. News and Intellectual Digest have carried interviews with Herman Kahn on this subject. And the National Observer devoted the front page of its March 10 issue to this topic. | ||
So, apparently, the counter-revolution is here. Americans are finally reacting to the excesses of the New Deal Liberal philosophy which reached (we hope) its logical conclusion in the McGovern campaign. | So, apparently, the counter-revolution is here. Americans are finally reacting to the excesses of the New Deal Liberal philosophy which reached (we hope) its logical conclusion in the McGovern campaign. | ||
a somewhat lesser extent) Robert Welch; large remnants of the "old" Right philosophy can still be found (in diluted and impure form) in the Birch Society sector of the American Right. Some leaders in this sector have gone so far as to state that Communism is largely a hoax, set up to scare Americans into accepting socialistic | The question is -- how does this affect us? Is this a development to be hailed, or damned? What should we be doing as a result of the emergence of "the new conservatism?" In order to answer these questions, we must first determine precisely what this "new conservatism" is -- how does it differ from the 11 ol d11 conservatism? | ||
or fascistic rule at home. | |||
Despite the efforts of the | The answer to this latter question depends largely on how one defines "old" and "new." For our purposes, h wever, it seems to this writer that we can define the "old" conservatism as the isolationist-abolitionist ideology espoused by people like [[Albert Jay Nock]] and [[Frank Chodorov]] -- the people who opposed Roosevelt's domestic statism and foreign adventurism with equal vigor. | ||
became the dominant force on the Right in America. And thus, when young people of libertarian inclinations were seeking a political "home" in | |||
the early 1960 | This "old" conservatism gradually fell from favor during WW II and the ColdWar era that followed. By 1960, it had been almost entirely superceded by Buckley-style conservatism -- a potpourri of anti-Communist interventionist bromides in the foreign policy area and pro-economic-freedom stands mixed with anti-civil-liberties stands on domestic issues. | ||
YAF and its allied organizations. | |||
This "new" conservatism carried within it a terrible contradiction; namely, the conflict between the theoretical devotion to freedom (at least in the economic sphere) and the 11 gut II anti-Communism. Unfortunately, the latter almost always triumphed, and thus the 11 new 11 Conservative of ten to 15 years ago almost always wound up on the side of the big-budget, anti-free-speech forces in any debate. | |||
Not all Conservatives succumbed to this new orthodoxy; a fair number resisted the notion that in order to defeat 11them 11 we needed to become like "them." Among those who stuck fairly close to the "old" line are [[Willis Stone]], [[Vivien Kellems]], and (to a somewhat lesser extent) [[Robert Welch]]; large remnants of the "old" Right philosophy can still be found (in diluted and impure form) in the Birch Society sector of the American Right. Some leaders in this sector have gone so far as to state that Communism is largely a hoax, set up to scare Americans into accepting socialistic or fascistic rule at home. | |||
Despite the efforts of the "old" conservatives, however, the 11new 11 conservatism gradually became the dominant force on the Right in America. And thus, when young people of libertarian inclinations were seeking a political "home" in the early 1960's, it was to the "new conservatives" that they were first attracted -- most notably [[Young Americans for Freedom|YAF]] and its allied organizations. | |||
This alliance was tenable at that time; there was a common enemy (Kennedy) at home, and domestic issues were dominant; libertarians and Buckley conservatives could work together in harmony, opposing MediCare, AID and so forth. | This alliance was tenable at that time; there was a common enemy (Kennedy) at home, and domestic issues were dominant; libertarians and Buckley conservatives could work together in harmony, opposing MediCare, AID and so forth. | ||
Since then, libertarianism and conservatism have been diverging, ever more widely and ever more rapidly. The Vietnam war brought out the rabid interventionist streak in the Buckleyites (and helped drive wedges between them and both libertarians and 11 old 11 conservatives). And the shift in domestic issues from economic to social (e.g. drugs, the 11 hi p11 lifestyle, and sex-related questions like censorship and abortion) has put libertarians . inc reasingly on the opposite side of public debates from conservatives of all stripes. | Since then, libertarianism and conservatism have been diverging, ever more widely and ever more rapidly. The Vietnam war brought out the rabid interventionist streak in the Buckleyites (and helped drive wedges between them and both libertarians and 11 old 11 conservatives). And the shift in domestic issues from economic to social (e.g. drugs, the 11 hi p11 lifestyle, and sex-related questions like censorship and abortion) has put libertarians . inc reasingly on the opposite side of public debates from conservatives of all stripes. | ||
Today, the | |||
In sum, the "new" conservatism that is gaining acceptance seems to be a sort of crew-cut | Today, the "new" conservatives have finally begun to win public acceptance for themselves but for precisely the wrong reasons; from our viewpoint. They are winning support, not for their economic views (with which we largely agree), but tor their social stands. What's even worse, they seem to be willing to abandon or largely soft-pedal their economic views in order to get support for their social stands. | ||
New Deal Liberalism; "welfare is okay, as long as everyone dresses neatly, goes to church, eschews marijuana, and respects their elders." The "new conservatives" are effectively "selling out" on economics -- accepting the Welfare State as a given -- in the hopes of salvaging their social prejudices. | |||
In sum, the "new" conservatism that is gaining acceptance seems to be a sort of crew-cut New Deal Liberalism; "welfare is okay, as long as everyone dresses neatly, goes to church, eschews marijuana, and respects their elders." The "new conservatives" are effectively "selling out" on economics -- accepting the Welfare State as a given -- in the hopes of salvaging their social prejudices. | |||
Needless to say, this is not a good development, from our viewpoint. It means that things are not likely to get better under a conservtive administration (if we ever get one), and that it will now be harder to recruit conservatives to our ranks, since they may now get what they want without our co-operation. | Needless to say, this is not a good development, from our viewpoint. It means that things are not likely to get better under a conservtive administration (if we ever get one), and that it will now be harder to recruit conservatives to our ranks, since they may now get what they want without our co-operation. | ||
Looking on the bright side, however, this development will make it easier for us to achieve recognition as a force distinct from conservatism. It will also make it easier for us to reach disgruntled liberals -- those who recognize the failure of liberalism, but can't stomach the "new conservatism." | |||
What should our strategy and tactics be? In this writer's opinion, the rise of the "new conservatism" dictates that we change our strategy from one that is essentially "Right-oriented" to one of concentrating on the middle, the Left, and the uncommitted. We aren't going to be able to out-Buckley Buckley, or out-Agnew Agnew, so we might as well not try. | |||
As far as tactics are concerned, it would seem that our best approach is to emphasize our consistency -- our advocacy of freedom in all spheres. Let 1 s face it; this is what makes us unique, and is basically the only thing we have to offer. If someone is interested only in some kinds of freedom, and is even opposed to other kinds of freedom, he (or she) isn't much of a prospect for us. | |||
For years, liberals and conservatives have been getting elected by saying to people "Vote for me; if I'm elected, I'11 screw all those other guys for your benefit. I'11 outlaw the things you don't like, and take other peoples' money and spend it on things you want." | |||
And for years, people have been buying this line. At last, however, they've begun to catch on that a lot of the time they are the ones getting shafted. That Left Minus Right does indeed equal Zero. | |||
Our only hope is to appeal to people on a completely different basis. To say "Look. if you elect us, we won't screw anybody for your benefit ... but we won't screw you ror anyone else's benefit, either." | Our only hope is to appeal to people on a completely different basis. To say "Look. if you elect us, we won't screw anybody for your benefit ... but we won't screw you ror anyone else's benefit, either." | ||
All we have to offer is freedom. All we can hope is that people have reached the point where they would rather gain freedom for themselves than take more freedom away from others -- in all areas, civil and economic. | All we have to offer is freedom. All we can hope is that people have reached the point where they would rather gain freedom for themselves than take more freedom away from others -- in all areas, civil and economic. | ||
If we have reached that point, then libertarianism is indeed an idea whose time has come -- an idea which cannot be stopped. If, on the other hand, the bulk of humanity would rather oppress others than free itself, then there is nothing we can do. | If we have reached that point, then libertarianism is indeed an idea whose time has come -- an idea which cannot be stopped. If, on the other hand, the bulk of humanity would rather oppress others than free itself, then there is nothing we can do. | ||
-/- DFN | -/- DFN | ||