A summer of conservative discontent

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by The_Rorschach

"Conservatism has been disoriented by events in the last several weeks."

No it hasn't. Regardless of the Neo-Conservative zenith, those of us whom disagree are merely disappointed, not disoriented.

Will: A matter of semantics. The guy running the train is a neo-con, and that's where the policy is headed. You may be disappointed, by conservative icons are turning in their graves.

"Cumulatively, foreign and domestic developments constitute an identity crisis of conservatism, which is being recast -- and perhaps rendered incoherent."

This is confusing only for those on the outside looking in. Those of us whom ascribe to the Conservative philosophy know the trend for what it is: A true schism. There have been many in the past, and there will be more in the future, it is the natural process of any party which seeks to properly reflect the will of the people. Adaptation and change.

This is tough, b/c I'm reading it out of context in an attempt to defend George Will, but anyway...

Will: Liberalism and Conservatism transcend the Party institutions. Sure, the Party lines will change, but change isn't always a good thing (see LBJ and the signing of the Civil Rights Act. Try to get a southern conservative to vote Democrat again...).

"George W. Bush may be the most conservative person to serve as president since Calvin Coolidge."

Calvin was a man whom believed in a small government wholely responsible to the people. He is the only President to have left the deficit in the same condition leaving office as he found it when he first began his term. Bush has abused almost every sentiment that Coolidge found hallow. To compare the two is eggregiously ignorant.

I don't know who I'm speaking for: Again, I think Will distinguishes between the Bush of theory and the Bush of practice. I disagree that Bush is a real conservative in the "traditional" sense of the word, but he's certainly more of a moral conservative than what this country and her liberalism will allow him to be.

"Preserve U.S. sovereignty and freedom of action by marginalizing the United Nations."

The United Nations should have been aborted, rather than adopted. Any power which can subdue the sovereign power of a nation through majority vote of contending countries is inherently unscrupulous, possessing indiscreet powers of adjudication. Every nation has the right to manifest destiny, perhaps its only right, and any power or principality which would stand against that right should be cast down utterly -For it was that sort of power which the Axis sought in World War 2, and the Soviet Union took upon itself after. No man, or tribunal of men, is wise enough to hold judgeship over the Earth.[/quote]

Will: I agree, but we can't be Monday morning quarterbacks, now can we??? Subvert, subvert, subvert!!!

"Reserve military interventions for reasons of U.S. national security, not altruism."

No military action undetaken by this country since its conception had been in pursuit of purely altruistic nor national security reasons. If any disagree, I will happily meet their contention and assert otherwise. With great power comes great responsibility; Were it not for our politically inspired wars of the past, So Korea would likely be in the same condition as No Korea. Russia would likely still be socialist, and the Panama Canal would be in the hands of the Germans. Having abandoned our isolationist ideals, we can not now assume them again because it seems easier. We must shoulder the burden we have undertaken and commit ourselves wholely.

Will: But the altruism came along for the ride, with the national self-interest driving the car, as it should be. Any altruistic benefits to those mentioned wars should've been nearly coincidental, and really just make your case for war stronger. In the end however, N. Korea and the Communist threat..er, threatened the free world, Russia was it's starting point, and the Panama Canal improves our ability to transport goods and materials. AND, not having it in the hands of the Germans is a GOOD thing as far as our security went, and there's nothing altruistic about that at all.

"Avoid peacekeeping operations that compromise the military's war-fighting proficiencies."

The US has never faced any war action fully prepared; Indeed, it was the threat, and sometimes the reality, or war which prompted growth in our technological and tactical abilities. Success and failure in peacekeeping operations, while costly at the time, saved lives in future engagements. Until peace is proclaimed across this tired Earth, we can not afford to trade swords for plowshares.

Will: Somalia, and dare I say Kosovo contest your argument, and further, why were we in these countries?? Kosovo is arguable, since the preservation of NATO's utility seemed important for our own interests at the time, but Somalia?? Any military action taken for purely altruistic reasons is a waste of our resources.

"Beware of the political hubris inherent in the intensely unconservative project of ``nation-building.''

Beware also the mewling words of cowards who see hardship and flinch at the challenge. The US, regardless of pitiful muttering to the country, is not acting imperialistically. We are not nation-building, or annexing, or colonizing in the Middle East or any other country.

Will: Fair enough, but I was actually just addressing the premise of the ideology, not naming names or operations. But on that note, how are we not nation building in Iraq? It will require millions, if not billions, to get them on their feet. We will need to keep our brave men and women there, when their key goal should be protecting our borders. A true conservative would model the Afghanistan operation rather than this one. We went in, bombed the threat, and have done little in the ways of nation building thus far.

"Today a conservative administration is close to asserting that whatever the facts turn out to be regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the enforcement of U.N. resolutions was a sufficient reason for war."

If the UN is not able to enforce its decrees, then its judgements are invalids - in deed and truth.

Will: I'm an international conservative. Their deeds and supposed "truths" have never meant a thing to me, so why start now???

"If so, war was waged to strengthen the United Nations as author and enforcer of international norms of behavior."

Not necessarily. If we had desposed Sadaam Hussein because of his genocidal campaign against the Kurds, it would not have been for the Kurds, but simply because the actions were an affront to our sensibilities.

Will: A what?? Conservatives don't use such big words, my boy (NOTE: Sorry, I couldn't resis that interjection, I feel like I have a split personality).

Seriouisly though, our sensibilities belong HERE. Conservatives are NOT nation builders. Let nations build nations.

If we had desposed Sadaam Hussein because of his imperialistic campaign against the Kuwaiti's, it need not be because we are an ally to Kuwait, but because we see that in a world where the propensity for massive loss comes so easily to even the smallest countries, any nation which does not value peace must be stilled whatever the cost.

Will: Poetic, but unrealistic. Fact of the matter is that any real conservative DID support the 1st Gulf War, because it was in our own interests. I'm having my doubts about this war, however.....

"The administration also intimates that ending a tyranny was a sufficient justification for war."

Would any disagree? Or is tyranny to be ignored so long as it's cancerous touch is not directly felt upon one's self? I say reap the whirlwind George Will, and study the Reich's rise to power, and tell me again when intervention is called for against tyrannical powers.

That tyranny became a problem when it infringed upon others, particularly our allies. And we did wait a while to get in the war, all to that Socialist FDR's dismay.

"But this faction must be unsettled by signs that the president's refusal to veto last year's abominable farm bill (in fact, he has vetoed nothing) was not an aberration."

A President should only rarely need to exercise his Veto abilities. Each Senator and Congressman is intimately attatched to the constituants which both suppose and oppose him. Their actions should be an apt reflection of what the majority will accept. The President, a single man whom neither debates over nor possesses a complete understanding of any Bill set before him, should agonize over every Veto he commits himself to. Clinton may have been glib with the powers invested in him, but hopefully not all Presidents will have the same expected of them.

Will: It's the nature of the game. Democrats HAVE used it to their own ends, as have Republicans. And by golly, why shouldn't they? We were elected by the people, and in that trust we will use our discretion to govern in the way we see fit.

"The president is rightly reluctant to endorse a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual institution: constitutionalizing social policy is generally unwise."

And writing referandum regardling the legality of private practices which reflect social acceptabilities goes against everything the spirit of this nation stands for. Whatever the reason for Bush's refusal to endorse such an amendment, any conjecture is a fruitless reflection of the author and his opinion, rather than an apt portrayal of the reality.

Will: Well, it seems I may have been wrong. Looks like Mr. Bush (G.W. as I call him on the golf course) will oppose gay marriages. Whether or not this is very conservative of him is debatable.