The paradoxical genius of modern conservatism.
I should like now to elaborate upon some nuances which might have escaped the public-at-large regarding the conservative mission, a mission that I must admit seems today to be in some little disarray. Specifically, I wish to demonstrate that President Obama, though conservative, is hardly what conservatism requires at the moment, and that President Bush, though not at all conservative, should be allowed through his proxies in the Congress to complete the work he began.
I realize this seems paradoxical, even inconsistent, to some lesser minds. Allow me to explain.
The conservative mission, or conservatism, can be mostly aptly summed by quoting John L. O’Sullivan, publisher of a 19th c. periodical entitled The United States Magazine and Democratic Review, whose motto read, “The best government is that which governs least.” How true! Is it not the case, for instance, that when I am outside, and it begins to rain, I am forced to wait, humiliated, by the door, until my people deign to notice my condition and allow me to enter my own house? How much better would we all be if my ingress and egress were not governed by that dam’ door! (You may have originally encountered this motto in its more famous paraphrase by Henry David Thoreau, and it has also been attributed to either Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine. That its wisdom has been recognized by such radical revolutionaries only strengthens my point.)
For a time, the actions prescribed by the sainted Buckley were enough: to stand athwart history and yell “Stop!” Certainly, it led to the halcyon age of the sainted Reagan, who pioneered the technique of not-government. By denying the government the funds that it rapaciously sought, Reagan forced it into a posture of not-governing, thereby lessening the amount of government and increasing freedom for us all.
But the creeping socialism and liberal fascism of the dark and doleful Clintonion age redoubled government’s efforts to a truly dangerous degree. When Bush fils took office, it was with the mandate that he save this country and freedom itself from this very present danger. He could see that a return to not-government would not be enough. The extremity of our predicament served as an anvil upon which his native genius was beaten into conservatism’s greatest weapon: anti-government.
Anti-government appears to violate several principles of conservatism: it spends a great deal of money, writes an inordinate amount of new laws and rules, and intrudes to an impressive degree upon the lives of the people-at-large. But it does so in the service of destroying the very government liberal fascists would otherwise impose. Not-governing merely prevents government from further encroaching. Anti-government actively rolls it back. The immediate effects of the drastic anti-governing steps that are taken may well obscure the freedom we will ultimately gain, but we must trust to O’Sullivan and his iron maxim, until government is reduced to a thing which I can bat about between my paws. On that day, we shall truly be free.
Thus, the paradoxical genius of George W. Bush, who, I fear, will always be a martyr to the cause of conservatism; who saved it by taking such radically unconservative steps. It is perhaps too much to hope that President Obama will learn the necessary wisdom of anti-government—though already he finds himself forced into not-governing. I take solace, however, in the fact that Republicans in Congress will not stop pushing our anti-governing agenda until that glorious day when they reduce themselves out of the offices we will no longer require.
Forget “conservatism,” please. It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
“[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
You know, Osama bin Laden makes the same argument about Saudi Arabia. If only he would do as you do – argue with cats. The world would be a bit safer.
Mr. Lofton, we are most of us Straussians in good standing, here. We may speak freely.
Kevin, don’t make me take your commenting privileges away. Kip left us with full admin rights for the day.
Rome destroyed itself by giving the people what they want. We need to earn what we want, not going on unemployment and smoking a carton of Marlboros every week. The U.S. is going to implode soon at that rate our government is handing out dollars.