What True Conservatives Believe??

[Bonnie]

JONAH GOLDBER

First, an apology: I intended to respond to Jonathan yesterday, but for reasons largely beyond my control I couldn't. I imagine all those readers who were crowded around the bars of the Opinion Duel thunderdome all day yesterday chanting "Two men enter, one man leaves!" were mighty disappointed. Sorry about that.

Second, let me say I'm a bit disappointed. Frankly, I'm not quite sure I understand what I'm supposed to be doing here. I wrote an admittedly too lengthy, two-part column trying to beat back this flatly absurd notion that liberals are demonstrably and obviously more "reality-based" than conservatives are. In one extended section of the second column I used Jonathan's essay as one example among many. Jonathan takes that column as a "response" to him. It wasn't. As much as I respect Jonathan and his intellect, to paraphrase a current bestseller, I'm just not that into him.

But here we are. So let me start by clearing some brush.

Jonathan begins by restating his argument that "conservatives believe that smaller government is an end in itself, because it promotes freedom. Liberals, on the other hand, do not see bigger government as an end in itself. Therefore, on economic policy, liberals are much more interested in what works than are conservatives."

Already we have flags on the play. Let me explain what conservatives — or at least the ones Jonathan is referring to — do and don't believe. It's true that some — and I hope most — conservatives still believe that limited government is a good in and of itself. Smaller government — which I like very much, by the way — is a sloppy shorthand for the conservative's true desire for a government that has very defined responsibilities that it does not exceed without very good cause. Hence, conservatives who believe in limited government also believe in a government that protects us from foreign enemies, enforces contracts and civil rights, etc. A government that isn't activist in upholding the rule of law endangers freedom. I bring this up because it isn't accurate to say that all conservatives believe that merely "shrinking" the government increases freedom.

Then there's the second flag. I don't care whether or not liberals see "larger" government as an end in itself (though I think the claim that they don't is a more contentious declaration than Jonathan realizes). What liberals certainly do believe is that government can have a role in any problem and that very often government is the best means to their ends. This is particularly true on economic policy. The old adage that if all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail comes to mind. I will concede that most liberals don't see the hammer as an end, but they do have a well-deserved reputation for bringing a hammer to every problem and saying "Hey, will this work?" Jonathan sees a man willing to pound a broken vase with a mallet and says, "Aha! A pragmatist!"

"True" Conservatives vs. "True" Liberals

Jonathan insists that I'm wrong to interpret him as accusing conservatives of bad faith. I think this whole thing is a bunch of mush and gets to the heart of Jonathan's misunderstanding.

The reason it seems so mushy is that there are at least two ways of reading Jonathan's argument. One makes it very uninteresting, the other makes it very wrong. The uninteresting argument is that if God — or some other objective, irrefutable authority — were to demonstrate perfectly that liberal social welfare programs were beneficial, fairly low-cost, and in all ways worth the investment, some conservatives would still argue that the costs to personal liberty and the concomitant expansions in government would still constitute real costs for such programs. In other words, some conservatives would say, "The economic benefits don't outweigh the costs to our constitutional liberties."

Meanwhile, Jonathan concedes, other conservatives would not make such arguments. Ho-frickin'-hum. I agree completely with him. Indeed, I would add that many liberals would have the same reaction, depending on the economic policy in question. Surely, at some point, some liberals would object to the mass seizure of private property — even if it "worked" to help the poor — on principled grounds having to do with liberty and the rule of law. If not, then Jonathan's distinction between socialists and liberals is meaningless. Speaking broadly, socialists believe the redistribution of private property is a good in and of itself. If liberals are persuadable of the same, but just need a bit more data to be convinced, then liberalism isn't a distinct philosophy, it's merely a doughy socialism in need of a few more minutes in the oven.

Anyway, it clearly isn't Jonathan's intent to argue that some conservatives are reasonable, empirical-minded fact-finders and that some are not. And not just because such an argument would be so hum-drum. Rather, it is his argument that, in his words, "true conservatives" are ideologically hidebound while any fellow-traveling empiricists in their midst aren't really "true conservatives."

more....http://www.opinionduel.com/

 

[dmp]

Excellent!

 

[Annie]

JONAH GOLDBER

more....http://www.opinionduel.com/

Excellent, I'm going to read the whole debate! Thanks!

 

[William Joyce]

Sorry, campers. "Jonah Goldberg" is not a real conservative. Jonah Goldberg is a Jewish partisan with the primary goal of advancing Israel's cause. That makes him a fine Jewish nationalist, but an American Conservative, he ain't.

 

[Annie]

This is a few days old, but I think it addresses well what has been happening-at least between MM, Bonnie, and myself.

http://dbsoxblog.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_dbsoxblog_archive.html#111177299546572834

Friday, March 25, 2005
NO CRACK-UP
Glenn Reynolds and others are suggesting that the intramural skirmish on the conservative side over the Schiavo case portends a conservative crack-up. The thinking goes something like this: There are conservatives who are primarily conservative because of the so-called morals issues like being pro-life. There are others who find themselves supporting the President because of his muscular prosecution of the war on terror. There are yet other conservatives who primarily define themselves by their fealty to small government and limited federal powers.

The good news for conservatives and the conservative movement is that none of these things are mutually exclusive. That means that a lot of conservatives, indeed I’d wager the vast majority, find themselves supporting not just one of these planks passionately but the other two planks to varying degrees as well.

The reason the Schiavo case has occasioned the intramural skirmish that it has, where self described conservatives have turned on other self described conservatives, is because this is a rare case, perhaps an unprecedented case, where supporting two different planks of modern conservatism were indeed mutually exclusive.

If you were amongst those who considered life in all its forms precious, you firmly believed that Terri Schiavo’s life should be spared. If you were amongst those who valued a minimally intrusive federal government, it would be impossible to support Congress’ intervention into what was clearly a state matter. As the leftist website Daily Kos accurately and gleefully pointed out, the matter had been appropriately adjudicated and the matter “should” have been closed.

For some of us who believe passionately both in the value of life (in this case suggesting Terri Schiavo should have been kept alive) as well as a Congress that exercises its powers in a circumspect manner, it was impossible to take a position consistent with both principles. As some of you may remember, I offered my attempt at reconciling the positions a few days ago.

But for those who passionately believe in one but not the other, it was inevitable that they would clash over this issue. It’s too bad that the “conversation” has been so full of rancor; while Charles at Little Green Footballs has probably become quite accustomed to being called a Nazi by the “moonbats,” being so labeled by fellow Bush supporters is probably something new for him.

Yes, emotions have flared over the past week. You know when terms like “Auschwitz” (courtesy of the reliably overwrought Peggy Noonan) and “Mengele” are being tossed about, the debate has long since ceased being constructive.

I’ve been a consistent voice for Terri’s survival, so I think I have some credibility in offering the following: The ultimate goal is to move our culture to a greater appreciation of all forms of human life. This goal is not advanced with hostile accusations and hysterical rantings. And it’s certainly not advanced by death threats and other forms of intimidation that have long been the stock-in-trade of the Randall Terry types.

On this Easter weekend, let us grieve for Terri Schiavo and for her family, for all they’ve gone through and for what imminently lies ahead. And let us ponder how we can better convince our friends and neighbors that erring on the side of life is always to be preferred to erring on the side of death.

And let us commit to doing so with logic and passion, but not passion that mutates into hostility and bile. And lastly, let us realize that this is a unique situation – it is not a common occurrence where supporting life and supporting limited federal powers are mutually exclusive.

In other words, friendships frayed over this sad event should soon be mended. Let’s welcome that prospect.

 

[musicman]

This is a few days old, but I think it addresses well what has been happening-at least between MM, Bonnie, and myself.

Like anyone who is convinced of the rightness of his viewpoint, I marvel that everyone else doesn't see it my way.

But that in no way diminishes the affection and respect I feel for my dear friends at USMB.

 

[KarlMarx]

Sorry, campers. "Jonah Goldberg" is not a real conservative. Jonah Goldberg is a Jewish partisan with the primary goal of advancing Israel's cause. That makes him a fine Jewish nationalist, but an American Conservative, he ain't.

The Top 10 things that WJ hasn't blamed the Jews for (yet).....

10. Athlete's Foot
9. The heartbreak of psorriasis
8. Bad Breath
7. Thinning hair
6. Hemmorhoids
5. Toe Fungus
4. Male erectile disorder
3. Acid Reflux
2. Dandruff
1. Constipation

(Of course, I was out sick for a few days, so it is possible that he may have gotten around to blaming the Jews for some of these and I just missed it!)

I'm sure WJ, that with a little creative thought and some time, you will somehow be able to find a way to blame the Jews for these things as well.

 

[5stringJeff]

The Top 10 things that WJ hasn't blamed the Jews for (yet).....

10. Athlete's Foot
9. The heartbreak of psorriasis
8. Bad Breath
7. Thinning hair
6. Hemmorhoids
5. Toe Fungus
4. Male erectile disorder
3. Acid Reflux
2. Dandruff
1. Constipation

(Of course, I was out sick for a few days, so it is possible that he may have gotten around to blaming the Jews for some of these and I just missed it!)

I'm sure WJ, that with a little creative thought and some time, you will somehow be able to find a way to blame the Jews for these things as well.

Don't forget everything bad that happens in the months of Jew-ne and Jew-ly!

 

[manu1959]

Sorry, campers. "Jonah Goldberg" is not a real conservative. Jonah Goldberg is a Jewish partisan with the primary goal of advancing Israel's cause. That makes him a fine Jewish nationalist, but an American Conservative, he ain't.

how many people have been killed in the name of the jewish religion?

how many in the name of the christian religion?

how many in the name of the muslim religion?

how many in the name of no religion?

if in fact the jews are all powerfull why do the allow themselves to be persecuted both as a race and a religion?

 

[Bonnie]

Like anyone who is convinced of the rightness of his viewpoint, I marvel that everyone else doesn't see it my way.

But that in no way diminishes the affection and respect I feel for my dear friends at USMB.

I feel the same way MM. Like the article Kathianne posted suggests, this is such a clear case of my morals, my respect for human life, and my fear of a nationwide lack of respect of human life, coming into such conflict with what appears to be the true conservative hardline of federalism and seperation of powers. I can only hope that what comes from this are better defined laws at the state level giving more options to families in a similar situation so that any person will not just be at the mercy of either a spouse or relative that does not have that person's best wishes at heart.

 

[William Joyce]

how many people have been killed in the name of the jewish religion?

how many in the name of the christian religion?

how many in the name of the muslim religion?

how many in the name of no religion?

These are good questions. I'd say lots of people have been killed "in the name" of all three, and the last one. But it's not always "religion" that's the issue. Sometimes that's a proxy for race. Sometimes it's a proxy for getting more land or more resources. Or both. The Soviet Union was a Slavic body with a Jewish head. The Jews didn't want to be powerful as Jews per se, so they made communism their "religion." It ended up killing 7 million. That's more than the 6 million it's reported the Nazis killed.

I think the basic theme is that people band together for power and protection. Usually, they clump by race, because racial groups are genetically similar and communicate with each other easily.

 

[5stringJeff]

The Soviet Union was a Slavic body with a Jewish head. The Jews didn't want to be powerful as Jews per se, so they made communism their "religion."

 

[manu1959]

trolling for trolls.....one of my favourite past times

 

[William Joyce]

Churchill on Jews.

http://www.corax.org/revisionism/documents/19200208churchill.html

You're not against Churchill, are you, GOPJEFF? I mean, he's the neocon HERO! Look at what he says.

Bottom line is that Jews are quite conservative. Only what they "conserve" is the Jewish people. That's natural. All peoples should seek to preserve themselves. I wish we whites would!

 

[William Joyce]

Not everything comes down the race issue, but far more than is acknowledged does. Pick the modern issue -- welfare, immigration, gun control, crime -- and there's usually an unspoken race issue involved. I suspect that some issues are contorted because of the silence on race. I actually think that whites go nuts on some issues -- like Terri Schiavo -- because they are forbidden to even SPEAK about others, like racial discord. Other times, for conservatives, their "issues" are really the race issue, but hidden. When conservatives talk about "family values," what they really mean is that they don't like the foul black rap and the Jewish crap from Hollywood. But conservatives won't ever say, "We don't like that Jew Harvey Weinstein pumping shitty values into our children," so they just say "Hollywood" as a safe substitute. But nobody's fooled. Everybody knows what you mean when you talk about how "Hollywood" is corrupting us. Jews know it.

Or they say, "we need more personal responsibility." What they really mean is, "We don't like paying taxes to support black welfare mothers." Or crime. "We don't like black crack addicts having gun battles." Etc.

But white conservatives get no traction. They lose every battle. Think about it, Sir Evil. We watch interracial porn (Janet Jackson) for our frickin' Superbowl halftime show. THAT shows you who controls America.

Part of the reason they're such losers is that Jews have taken over conservatism, like Jonah Goldberg. Jonah is laughing at the whites who don't like watching Janet Jackson's black tit on TV. He thinks they're idiots. What Jonah wants is war for Israel. So he takes advantage of conservatives' taste for militarism and runs with it. But make no mistake: he doesn't give two shits what happens to conservative whites in America. He give a billion shekels what happens to JEWS.

This essay is very good on this particular issue (but is not safe for workplace viewing):

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/index89.htm

What we need to move toward is more white racial consciousness and a little bit of racial separation. We can't keep the current trend. Whites will soon be a minority in the U.S., and we cannot keep pretending that life will come up roses for us under those conditions. The other racial groups don't play nice like we do. We're at bottom a "nice" race: we don't want to be jerks or cause problems. We assume other groups are well-meaning like us, and that "we can all just get along," as Rodney King says. But we will quickly lose our virginity with the new demographics.

Churchill said of Germans that they are either at your feet or at your throat. The same could be said of whites in general. They can be docile, lazy, stupid, beer-drinking morons. But rouse them to the fight, and they will tear your fucking tongue out and nail it to your forehead. Not even stuff Willy J. is all that comfy with.

But this is what happens when whites are pushed to the wall. In Germany after WWI, they were. And they lashed out, with TERRIBLE consequences, both for them and other groups (Jews included). I just think it's a bad idea to fuck with whites too much, because they do have their limits. Go beyond them, and you can pretty much count on your group being in serious jeopardy. Someone much less rational than me will have A LOT of appeal if current immigration trends continue.

Personally, I would like to avoid such an ugly race war, but the way our nation is going, I don't see that it can be. We need to separate the races for real peace.

 

[dilloduck]

Not everything comes down the race issue, but far more than is acknowledged does. Pick the modern issue -- welfare, immigration, gun control, crime -- and there's usually an unspoken race issue involved. I suspect that some issues are contorted because of the silence on race. I actually think that whites go nuts on some issues -- like Terri Schiavo -- because they are forbidden to even SPEAK about others, like racial discord. Other times, for conservatives, their "issues" are really the race issue, but hidden. When conservatives talk about "family values," what they really mean is that they don't like the foul black rap and the Jewish crap from Hollywood. But conservatives won't ever say, "We don't like that Jew Harvey Weinstein pumping shitty values into our children," so they just say "Hollywood" as a safe substitute. But nobody's fooled. Everybody knows what you mean when you talk about how "Hollywood" is corrupting us. Jews know it.

Or they say, "we need more personal responsibility." What they really mean is, "We don't like paying taxes to support black welfare mothers." Or crime. "We don't like black crack addicts having gun battles." Etc.

But white conservatives get no traction. They lose every battle. Think about it, Sir Evil. We watch interracial porn (Janet Jackson) for our frickin' Superbowl halftime show. THAT shows you who controls America.

Part of the reason they're such losers is that Jews have taken over conservatism, like Jonah Goldberg. Jonah is laughing at the whites who don't like watching Janet Jackson's black tit on TV. He thinks they're idiots. What Jonah wants is war for Israel. So he takes advantage of conservatives' taste for militarism and runs with it. But make no mistake: he doesn't give two shits what happens to conservative whites in America. He give a billion shekels what happens to JEWS.

This essay is very good on this particular issue (but is not safe for workplace viewing):

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/index89.htm

What we need to move toward is more white racial consciousness and a little bit of racial separation. We can't keep the current trend. Whites will soon be a minority in the U.S., and we cannot keep pretending that life will come up roses for us under those conditions. The other racial groups don't play nice like we do. We're at bottom a "nice" race: we don't want to be jerks or cause problems. We assume other groups are well-meaning like us, and that "we can all just get along," as Rodney King says. But we will quickly lose our virginity with the new demographics.

Churchill said of Germans that they are either at your feet or at your throat. The same could be said of whites in general. They can be docile, lazy, stupid, beer-drinking morons. But rouse them to the fight, and they will tear your fucking tongue out and nail it to your forehead. Not even stuff Willy J. is all that comfy with.

But this is what happens when whites are pushed to the wall. In Germany after WWI, they were. And they lashed out, with TERRIBLE consequences, both for them and other groups (Jews included). I just think it's a bad idea to fuck with whites too much, because they do have their limits. Go beyond them, and you can pretty much count on your group being in serious jeopardy. Someone much less rational than me will have A LOT of appeal if current immigration trends continue.

Personally, I would like to avoid such an ugly race war, but the way our nation is going, I don't see that it can be. We need to separate the races for real peace.

This post and Churchill link are two af the best things you given to the board. I think they explain your position rationally and intellectually enough to make even the hardiest pro-semites think twice. I especially liked the exposure of the PC culture of consevatives. Truth can be a bitter pill for all but I prefer it to suffering under a lie.
I'll quit now because I'm starting to sound like the American Idol judges.
(I don't think it was too pitchy tho)