With no pretense to so balanced, searching and profound an essay as which my illustrious colleague Maximos has produced here, nor nearly so elegant an appreciation as my friend Bill Luse has produced here; with only a thought toward fruitful conversation by provocation, I want to ask a second question.
What else is American Conservatism?
I propose that, setting aside the careful work of philosophical investigation as done brilliantly by Maximos elsewhere, Conservatism as a historical fact in social reality is very often that shock of defiance and outrage, inchoate and ill-articulated, at some grievous insult or injury, when the insult or injury has been delivered to political-social order.
So a further question is obvious: is the defiance and outrage justified; or, another way, is the insult or injury real?
The Left has been a very fierce critic of America — her history, her statecraft, her instincts, the aesthetics of her people and cities, in a word her political-social order going a long way back. It is much more recently that the sort of globetrotting financier and center-right libertarian, who doesn’t give a flip about the actual communities of America and could as well live in London or Geneva or Hong Kong, has appeared upon the scene. But even that anti-Americanism is a thing of ennui and despair; more insidious than bluntly destructive. The Left’s deep and unrelenting castigation of America and all her works is much older. Conservatives have always had abundant complaints and critiques, but only very rarely have they fully repudiated America in a manner reminiscent of the Leftists who, for instance, befriended and mentored certain prominent politicians.
To give the question another twist: Is the defiance of a political faction which has included prominently within it agitators who actually took up arms in treachery against America justified? Was the plot to massacre US noncommissioned officers and their dates to a dance at Fort Dix a real insult? (Its injury, thank God, was confined to its conspirators.)
If it was not then Conservatism is wrong to be in reaction against it. But if it was a real insult and attempt at injury then it is wrong not to join Conservatism in that reaction. The third option is back to ennui and usury. Such are the puzzles of politics and statesmanship in the world of men.
Comments (24)
"To give the question another twist: Is the defiance of a political faction which has included prominently within it agitators who actually took up arms in treachery against America justified?"
Yes.
"Was the plot to massacre US noncommissioned officers and their dates to a dance at Fort Dix a real insult?"
Oh, I thought you were referring to a different, earlier conspiracy against the United States, the one that started at Ft. Sumter, but I would back hanging these guys too.
"If it was not then Conservatism is wrong to be in reaction against it."
Paul, they were convicted of conspiracy. You seem to be alleging a wider conspiracy. Have you evidence of this?
Or is your point that conservatives are somehow justified in what? In America we reject notions of collective guilt - at least non-conservatives do (I hope).
"Conservatives have always had abundant complaints and critiques, but only very rarely have they fully repudiated America in a manner reminiscent of the Leftists who, for instance, befriended and mentored certain prominent politicians."
Do we join the war-mongering faction of American conservatism, or the Spenserian faction (privilege), or the culturally conservative faction (you know, the one that is associated with actual rebellion against the United States) in this reaction; it isn't clear in your post?
Who was the greater threat to the survival of the United States, the Communist Gus Hall or the conservative Jeff Davis? In terms of damaging America, who was the greater terrorist, Osama bin Laden or Nathan Bedford Forrest?
Posted by al | September 19, 2010 6:43 PM
Clever, clever. But you just skirt the issue. Do I believe that Lincoln was justified in waging war to subjugate the Southern revolt? Yes. Not only was the South activated to defend a wicked institution, and in the end even abandoned its own constitutional principles to defend it, but it is absurd to imagine that a chief executive could allow a rebellious section to, say, just walk away with the Lower Mississippi.
The comparison of this sectional war with the 1960s Leftist radicals is really a sideshow. However, I will grant that if you take your anti-revolutionary zeal ("execute the entire Confederate office corps") and apply it to Weatherman ("execute the punks that misused a Dylan line for treasonable purposes"), well, I might come around to a Strange New Respect for you, al.
Posted by Paul J Cella | September 19, 2010 6:59 PM
Lust as I do for the blood of traitors, I am still constrained by things like Constitutional definitions, due process, and even (though but slightly) mercy. You, of course, go me one better by making "abuse of lyrics" a hanging offense.
"The comparison of this sectional war with the 1960s Leftist radicals is really a sideshow."
Terrorists, domestic and foreign, left or right, should be seriously punished. Should any of the Weatherman faction be guilty of treason, I would gladly hang them but I don't believe any were actually so convicted. The last serious internal threat to the survival of the Republic was your "sectional conflict".
Many conservatives are still conflicted over that conflict. You would do well to remember that before advocating reaction to any other group (motes and beams). You have yet to explain why any further action is warranted in the Ft. Dix case and against whom.
To be accurate, I would have hung the general officer corps (and colonels) and the Confederate government above petty clerks. Had the Ft. Dix jihadis actually harmed anyone, I would add them to the mix.
Posted by al | September 19, 2010 7:43 PM
You, of course, go me one better by making "abuse of lyrics" a hanging offense.
BS. You talked about hanging folks. I talked about a just reaction against a framework of thought which would bring Weatherman disloyalty, still unrepentant years later, to the highest courts in the land.
I did not call for new trials, new charges or any such machination of law. I only posed the question about how a political faction that would embrace such men can possibly wonder at the popular reaction against it.
As I said, if your view is that the insult was unreal, then of course the reaction looks overblown. Such are the fruit we know you by.
Posted by Paul J Cella | September 19, 2010 8:00 PM
Al, I hold no brief for Lincoln in the War of Southern Aggression (who fired on who first at Sumter?). I think it more than likely that a dispassionate eagle-eye perspective would say that Lincoln was in the wrong. And that the Confederacy was ALSO in the wrong. Both to blame, neither gets a free pass.
Nevertheless, that doesn't really answer the question Paul posed us. Allow me to re-state it: Several men conspired against the United States at Ft. Dix. Not merely conspired against these or those personal goods of individuals, they conspired against the country. Why they did it is not germane to the court that finds them guilty of conspiracy, that's just a question of fact.
But why they did it is important to the rest of the country. The typical, normal Left response is, regularly and almost automatically, to put up a defense of such persons' conspiracy and treason; to find common cause with conspirators and traitors; to assume (before the facts are in) that these conspirators had some good reason for their hatred of America, and that their actions were somehow appropriate on that basis. It becomes clear, then, that the Left normal reaction is in perfect sympathy with hatred for America - not hatred for the evils in America, but for America herself. (Note: we are not talking about caution against trial in the media, we are talking about, on both sides, a hypothetical assumption that the events that are claimed to have taken place actually took place.)
So, the question we are left with is this: does virtue lie the response of the Right to be offended at these sorts of conspiracy and treason, or the response of the Left to excuse such actions, the correct emotional posture?
Posted by Tony | September 19, 2010 8:33 PM
"Do I believe that Lincoln was justified in waging war to subjugate the Southern revolt? Yes. Not only was the South activated to defend a wicked institution, and in the end even abandoned its own constitutional principles to defend it, but it is absurd to imagine that a chief executive could allow a rebellious section to, say, just walk away with the Lower Mississippi."
Exactly so, Paul. Spot on.
Posted by Michael Bauman | September 19, 2010 10:49 PM
~~The last serious internal threat to the survival of the Republic was your "sectional conflict". Many conservatives are still conflicted over that conflict.~~
Your liberalism betrays its Yankee Puritan busybody roots, Al.
Not conflicted at all here. The South's being allowed to leave peacefully would have harmed the Republic not a whit, at least existentially speaking. The remaining USA would have still been the USA. There simply would have been fewer of them.
I say this not to restart the Civil War debate but to note that is a far different thing to want to exit the Union altogether, than to stay in while working to subvert and damage it. Subversion and sabotage are treasonous in a way that secession is not.
Posted by Rob G | September 20, 2010 11:18 AM
1. Apologies for the typo above; s/b "hanged", of course.
2.No re-fighting Rob, you and Tony make my point and that's enough for this thread.
3. I will assume silence is agreement here, "who was the greater terrorist, Osama bin Laden or Nathan Bedford Forrest?" How many American Muslims would advocate naming a high school after OBL?
4. Paul, I still don't get this "insult" thing and where its supposed to take us. a plot was uncovered, the guilty were severely punished, what added value are you trying to extract?
5. "I only posed the question about how a political faction that would embrace such men can possibly wonder at the popular reaction against it."
What faction? Which men?
6. "The typical, normal Left response is, regularly and almost automatically, to put up a defense of such persons' conspiracy and treason..."
Ah, finally a testable assertion. You can, of course, supply us with sufficient examples of such defenses as to demonstrate this normality. We wait.
Posted by al | September 20, 2010 1:36 PM
It would really help your situation, Al, if William Ayers were some no-name Leftist agitator rather than a Chicago celebrity who had the ear of a future President. Alas, the facts are otherwise.
The faction I speak of is of course the anti-American Left. The faction that can't see anything wrong with Ayers and Rev. Wright. The faction that forces thousands of undergraduates every semester to read the Communist Howard Zinn's anti-American fables. The faction that still believes Hiss and Harry Dexter White were innocent. That faction.
Where is this "supposed to take us"? To understanding, to enlightenment, to a better grasp of the character of our age and the nature and destiny of the men in it.
It is always possible that a regime might become so tyrannical and wicked as to enjoin rebellion amongst patriotic men. It is always possible that men will judges there to be such a wicked tyranny when in fact there is none. I have never denied this. Indeed I affirm it all broadly. This question of disloyalty is a permanent problem of human politics and statesmanship, which is the subject I am hoping (perhaps vainly, given the heckling and caviling that characterizes your responses so far) to illumine by thoughtful discussion.
The American colonists decided upon disloyalty from principle and won. They treated the dissenting Loyalists rather roughly, if I have my history right. The South decided upon disloyalty from principle and lost; some of our more progressive-minded folks think Lincoln was far too magnanimous in victory. (But don't tell Mr. Glenns Greenwald that the conspirators in his assassination were hanged after a military tribunal.)
The fellow-traveling Left decided upon disloyalty and . . . well, there's the rub. There has never been a reckoning. There were a few scattered trials and prosecutions. A small handful of obvious traitors were executed. Hiss got a few years for perjury, etc. But no real reckoning. And now these folks and their intellectual descendants comprise a major faction in the ruling party of the country. Curious isn't it? Possibly something worth thinking about in the context of Conservatism as reaction against national insult and injury as laid out above.
Posted by Paul J Cella | September 20, 2010 3:21 PM
It would really help the conservative position, if G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North were some no-name former criminals rather than celebrities who have the ear of large numbers of conservative radio listeners. Alas, the facts are otherwise.
The faction I speak of is of course the anti-American Right. The faction that can't see anything wrong with breaking laws (extra-legal activity in current parlance) in service to their cause. The faction that convinces millions of dittoheads to believe in an American exceptionalism where only their motives are pure and an opponents' are always wicked. Because plainly the world should only be black and white, gray being an unnatural byproduct of mixed breeding. The faction that still believes Nixon wasn't a crook. That faction.
The fellow-traveling Right decided that scofflaws are acceptable for the right reasons and . . . well, there's the rub. There has never been a reckoning. There were a few scattered trials and prosecutions. A small handful of obvious criminals were jailed. Liddy got a few years for conspiracy, burglary, etc. But no real reckoning. And now these folks and their intellectual descendants comprise a major faction in a major political party of the country. Curious isn't it? Possibly something worth thinking about in the context of Liberalism as a movement interested in preserving and expanding protection under the law, which would help explain Glenn Greenwald's utter contempt for this administration.
I like this game. When you have trouble deciding amongst yourselves the core principles of what it means to be a conservative, it takes a miraculous leap to assume all or even most democrats, liberals and leftists are on the same page.
Posted by Step2 | September 20, 2010 6:17 PM
Very clever, Step2. I'm impressed. However, if you truly believe that mere law breaking or extra-legal activity is the same as sedition and treason and disunion, well, cleverness is not always correlated with an ability to think.
That is, if you think the problem of disloyalty is undifferentiated from the problem of crime, you have a lot to learn on the subject of political science. Both are real. One is germane to my topic here.
Posted by Paul J Cella | September 20, 2010 6:42 PM
"I like this game. When you have trouble deciding amongst yourselves the core principles of what it means to be a conservative, it takes a miraculous leap to assume all or even most democrats, liberals and leftists are on the same page."
Well said. Maybe someday these folks will understand that there is no Left in any sense that they use the term.
Still waiting Tony.
Paul, how about all the schools and parks named after terrorists and traitors? The ones defended by the Anti-American Right.
Posted by al | September 20, 2010 6:50 PM
"mere law breaking"
Like killing journalists and funding terrorists as well as overturning governments. Step2 cut you a break by not mentioning the war crimes of the previous administration. Paul, treason is defined by the Constitution. What do you know that Justice doesn't? It is good that you agree with me about disunion however that has never been an action item on the left.
Posted by al | September 20, 2010 6:57 PM
"Like killing journalists and funding . . . blah blah blah" That might have been a good purely polemical point, except that you're too ignorant to realize that I opposed the last administration on most things, and certainly on its policy vis-a-vis the Jihad. Maybe Step 2 is not such a fool.
But c'mon now. How long shall this go on? Do you want to talk about What Conservatism Is or not? I mean, seriously.
Again, if Ayers and Zinn were right in their estimate of our country then every patriotic man is impelled to disunion with so wicked a power as America.
Posted by Paul J Cella | September 20, 2010 7:28 PM
I will assume silence is agreement here, "who was the greater terrorist, Osama bin Laden or Nathan Bedford Forrest?"
Or maybe it's that people don't feel obligated to answer every stupid question you come up with.
Posted by William Luse | September 21, 2010 3:58 AM
To be even more accurate, this is probably why God put men like Lincoln and Johnson in office and not men like you. Unlike you, and those like you back then, they understood that such a course of action would have made reconciliation impossible and a second, probably even bloodier civil war inevitable.
If you think I am being unrealistic here, then I would remind you that the US military from about the late 1920s to mid 1930s was so weak and underfunded, the Army was using trucks with signs on them to simulate tanks. A popular uprising in the South would have been logistically impossible for the federal government to quell in time.
Posted by Mike T | September 21, 2010 8:20 AM
It is good that you agree with me about disunion however that has never been an action item on the left.
Who needs disunion when you're agitating for disorder and depravity?
Posted by j. christian | September 21, 2010 5:04 PM
Maybe someday these folks will understand that there is no Left in any sense that they use the term.
Another al howler. "We're not monolithic." Yes, please share that with your political comrades who think every pro-lifer is just itching to blow up abortion clinics. Problem is, everyone Right and Left needs to have some loonies as political bedfellows. Difference is, ours don't have tenure.
Posted by j. christian | September 21, 2010 5:09 PM
Wait, did G. Gordon Liddy murder police and try to blow up people? Darn, I missed that.
Wait, do conservatives say that Liddy's burglary and perjury were "really, ok, since they were done for the good guys." Well, not this here conservative. And most of the conservatives I know don't excuse the crimes either. And, that would be, because conservatism doesn't support doing evil in order to further good causes. (Note: there are some people who call themselves conservative, who support that notion, but there is nothing about their support of doing evil to support good that springs out of their conservative ideas.)
Is Liddy considered a conservative idol because he did those crimes? I don't know conservatives who supports that point of view, although maybe a number of liberals think they do. There are plenty who make an idol out of him for refusing to rat out on some other rats. That's not committing a crime.
Posted by Tony | September 21, 2010 5:47 PM
Mike, had they been hanged in the 1860s and Reconstruction continued until the last vestige of treason was stamped out and the Freedmen has been given the time to assume their rightful place in the scheme of things then the South would have been peaceful in the 1930s. The only fly in the ointment here would be the conservatives that Grant appointed to the Supreme Court.
Posted by al | September 21, 2010 7:26 PM
Indeed, a Katyn Massacre at Appomattox would have surely sown the seeds of peace for generations. Thus the compassion of the Left.
Posted by Paul J Cella | September 21, 2010 8:51 PM
"had they been hanged in the 1860s and Reconstruction continued until the last vestige of treason was stamped out and the Freedmen has been given the time to assume their rightful place in the scheme of things then the South would have been peaceful in the 1930s. The only fly in the ointment here would be the conservatives that Grant appointed to the Supreme Court."
And you thought forced busing was a bad idea.
Posted by Rob G | September 21, 2010 9:09 PM
Wait, do conservatives say that Liddy's burglary and perjury were "really, ok, since they were done for the good guys." Well, not this here conservative. And most of the conservatives I know don't excuse the crimes either.
Why are you and your "conservative" friends so disloyal to The Cause, Tony? Honestly, if you can't support the Leader during a time of crisis, you might as well be a subversive.
Again, if Ayers and Zinn were right in their estimate of our country then every patriotic man is impelled to disunion with so wicked a power as America.
Since I went to the most recent Illuminati meeting, I'm pleased to report that nobody nominated Ayers or Zinn to be our spokesperson. In fact, we were told it was permissible to disagree with the things they said or wrote. Which was a relief to me, knowing I was allowed to be critical of someone else among the Tribe.
Posted by Step2 | September 21, 2010 10:17 PM
These posts and comments just show the blithering idiocy of "conservatism".
Not one OP nor comment has ever gone into the semantic history of this word. The history of this word gives a clue to what it really means.
The word "conservative" was coined at the outbreak of the French Revolution in France. It was used by those who wanted to "conserve" the Old Order. That is the true meaning of "conservative". That is the continental meaning of the word. It means to be against democracy and for Monarchy. It is about preserving the Old Order of King, Aristocracy, commons; i.e. a mixed caste society.
The American Revolution was about destroying the Old Order! The FFofA were liberals, not conservatives! The Loyalists of the American revolution were the true conservatives and that the children of the FFofA and the American revolution should now call themselves "conservatives" is simply ludicrious and assinine. Benjamin D'Israeli, a British parlementarian, changed the meaning of conservatism in 1825. The Anglo-sphere meaning of conservatism is just another word for Liberal!
Fr. Seraphim Rose in his book Nihilism, The Root of Revolution in the Modern Age (online) states emphatically "to destroy the old order" is nihilism. The FFofA were nihilists! How in bloody hell can you call yourselves "conservatives" and uphold the American Novus Ordo?
Obviously, you people really don't know what you are talking about. It is no wonder that "American conservatism" is in such shambles. You're liberals. Every single one of you.
Posted by WLindsayWheeler | September 24, 2010 1:37 PM