Mark Thompson found an interesting quote that is relevant to the current healthcare debate:
Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. . . . Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken, . . .
Here’s a sign of the times: If a libertarian cable TV personality or a conservative talk radio host were to hear this quote they would likely accuse its author of espousing socialism. No doubt they’d be shocked to find the passage is found in their favorite anti-socialist tome, F.A.Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.
Like Alexis de Tocqueville, Hayek is more quoted than read. Despite being on the short list of leading intellectual heroes for the American right, few conservatives or libertarians are all that familiar with his actual views on classical liberalism and free-market capitalism. Instead, as Thompson notes in his post, the rhetoric of the right reveals that we are more influenced by Ayn Rand than Hayek:
This is why, for all the bluster about “death panels,” and health care reform being an irreversible step on the road to socialism, it is the Randian vision of the world that animating the Right’s position on reform at the expense of the far more rigorous, thoughtful, and classically liberal vision of Hayek. Were the influence of these visions reversed, we would have a situation where the Right would actually make a good-faith negotiating partner on the issue of health care reform rather than leaving it up to liberals to negotiate reform with spineless and philosophically unmoored centrists.
I think this is a very astute point that cuts to the heart of the problem on the right. The libertarians often prop up Hayek as their hero while we traditionalist conservatives like to trot out Edmund Burke. But the truth is the vast majority of the right subscribes to a form of libertarian populism inflected with social conservative attachments—an unholy hybrid of Ayn Rand, William Jennings Bryan, and Morton Downey, Jr.
One of the key concepts in this weird era—adopted from Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged—is “Going Galt.” From Tea Party protestors to think-tank intellectuals, folks talk about Going Galt without the slightest hint of irony. The problem is not such much that it’s a silly hollow threat, but that it exemplifies a trait that is prevalent in conservative movement: The embrace of personality driven ideas that are often incompatible with some of our most basic philosophical, religious, or political beliefs.
This lack of reflection about how foundational views mesh is one of the most significant failings of the modern right. During the Cold War-era people who held incompatible views—such as libertarianism and social conservatism—embraced a limited form of “fusionism” in order to provide a united front against a common enemy—communism.
Today, the common enemy is liberalism and the fusionism occurs not between disparate groups but within an individual. People who would laugh at the absurdity of a “Christian Muslim” seem not to recognize the similar incongruity between being a follower of Christ and an acolyte of Ayn Rand.
The American right has begun to mimic the left in adopting a perverse form of political syncretism. A decade ago we’d mock well-intentioned, but misguided, liberals for being so intent on advancing their cause that they’d gloss over the views of their nutcase, extremist radical allies. Now, we do the same thing without giving it a second thought. Indeed, if you point out that there may be something wrong with embracing the loony ideas of fringe cultists—directly as with Ayn Rand, or indirectly, as with W. Cleon Skousen—you’ll be accused of being, depending on how polite your accuser, everything from an elitist to a socialist dhimmi.
Despite the fact that these well-meaning conservatives fail to exhibit any discernment about the views they are imbibing, they become terribly offended when you question how they could accept such nonsense.
Their defense tends to be based on a variation of a common theme: They don’t actually subscribe to those crazy views (at least not all of them), they just align themselves with a personality that does. It’s politics by proxy with a Machiavellian cult of personality twist. If any victories against liberal elites can be attributed to our favorite TV personality/failed politicians/radio host/third-rate novelist, then that cult figure, their views, their motives, and their actions, are provided blanket immunity against criticism.
These St. Georges slaying the liberal dragons are placed beyond reproach. You are no more allowed to question the right’s preferred cult of personality—CoulterHannityBeckLimbaughPaulLevinRandPalinWhoever—than liberals can challenge Obama. Even thinking contrary thoughts about these figures is enough reason for them to question your conservatism (if not your patriotism, manhood, and love for small animals).
The result is that the conservative movement is becoming increasingly ineffective, insular, and irrational—in other words, we’re becoming the mirror image of the political left.
This reliance on personalities rather than ideas is particularly worrisome. Conservatism has never exactly been a bookish movement. And since the rise of talk radio during the Clinton-era, we’ve become accustomed to having ideas and issues presented to us in the form of pre-digested talking points.
But it doesn’t have to be this way, does it? Isn’t it possible that we could create a movement where people read books—real books, not insta-books ghostwritten for a former Morning Zoo DJs or brick-sized political novels about narcissistic atheist industrialists? Is it too much to ask that ideas be presented to us in a sober manner rather than like a dramatic reading of the apocalyptic Left Behind novels? Shouldn’t we hold our pundits and politicians to the same standard of behavior—no screaming, lying, talking gibberish, or fake crying on national television—that we expect of our children?
If not then the movement has morphed into something beyond recognition. I don’t know what this syncretic cult of libertarian populism should be called, but its certainly unworthy of the label “conservative.”
October 2nd, 2009 | 11:08 am
This is a vitally important subject. This is a moment when clear and careful exposition of ideas is needed; if ever, now. (The reference to “Left Behind” seemed out of place in this otherwise excellent post.)
October 2nd, 2009 | 11:17 am
*Applause*
Thanks for the link, but more importantly, thanks for using it to write one of the best diagnoses of the Right’s problems I’ve seen in awhile.
October 2nd, 2009 | 11:40 am
Ars Artium: The reference to “Left Behind” seemed out of place in this otherwise excellent post.
I’m not sure it helps but the original had a typo. It should have read, “. . . rather than like a dramatic reading of the apocalyptic Left Behind novels?”
I threw in a bit of evangelical code-language “Left Behind = apocalyptic scenario” that might not have translated well.
October 2nd, 2009 | 11:53 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dave Gullett and Blake Schwendimann. Blake Schwendimann said: RT @ROFTERS: Has Modern Conservatism Become a Cult? http://bit.ly/JwMBO [...]
October 2nd, 2009 | 12:01 pm
Talk about not reading Hayek. Nearly twenty years before, Hayek was arguing that we should stay on the gold standard during the depression, and twenty-five years after RTS, he’s so radical that he’s talking about the private evolution of law. You picked Hayek’s most statist period because, in fact, for the time he was on the extreme right. In later interviews, Hayek makes it clear that he thinks markets could provide most social insurance.
Second of all, you’re overestimating conservative “radicalism”. Few conservatives talk about abolishing Medicare and Medicaid. So they’re not as radical as you think; it’s pretty rhetorical.
Finally, yes, we all know that populist conservatives don’t read Rand. There’s a lot of virulent anti-Christian stuff in there. But here’s what the “folks” get: creators, innovators and honest producers get blamed for a lot of things that aren’t their fault, they rarely have popular defenders, and instead those who siphon off the fruits of their labor are praised as great. Jesus tells us to give a man his wages, and it was Paul who said that if an able-bodied man won’t work, he doesn’t get to eat.
I think that’s what’s going on; its the populist expression of a perfectly valid sentiment – the government is violating the dignity of persons by taking the fruits of their labor far beyond what could be justified.
Usually, I love First Things guys. But I find that when most of you talk about economics, you come off as snobby and condescending. This is why your influence is dwindling. It’s not Glenn Beck’s fault that the conservative movement is run by idiots; he’s a symptom, not a cause. The real problem: you guy aren’t providing any leadership. You’re just grumbling!! Stop whining! Get off your butts and change minds!
October 2nd, 2009 | 12:18 pm
Octagon: Usually, I love First Things guys. But I find that when most of you talk about economics, you come off as snobby and condescending.
In the last few issues, FT has run two major articles on economics: Economic Justice and the Spirit of Innovation and The Rule of Law and the Wealth of Nations. What in these did you find to be “snobby and condescending”?
(I’d also be interested in hearing whether you thought I was being snobby and condescending about economics in my post.)
October 2nd, 2009 | 12:50 pm
But since the Church will not actually get to know their needy neighbors as is necessary to determine to what extent they won’t work or can’t work, we need the Government to make these abstract determinations from a distance based on reductive formulas and easily gamed criteria, coerce funds for charitable giving from unwilling people in contradiction to 2 Cor. 9:7, and exercise the vocation of love the Church is too busy to do.
October 2nd, 2009 | 12:56 pm
Thank you for making your very appropriate point clear. With reference to the post by “The Octagon”: A more formal, serious tone is (at least in my opinion) appropriate for serious matters. Accusations may be emotionally satisfying to us when we are troubled and even frightened with the way matters of state are tending but violent speech can have very serious, unintended consequences. The greater the danger, the more we need clear thinking, a “steady hand at the helm”. A passage from St. Bernard of Clairvaux makes an impression: “When the battle is at hand … They think not of glory and seek to be formidable rather than flamboyant. At the same time, they are not quarrelsome, rash, or unduly hasty, but soberly, prudently and providently drawn up into orderly ranks, as we read of the fathers. Indeed the true Israelite is a man of peace, even when he goes forth to battle.” If there are times when inflammatory rhetoric presents no great danger, that time is not now. Setting one unsettled mind afire is all that it takes; that spark can be the beginning of a conflagration.
October 2nd, 2009 | 1:05 pm
1. In addition to the problem mentioned by Octagon, the kind of health care “reform” under consideration now bears little resemblance to what Hayek was discussing. Health care change in the forms currently under consideration (and the only forms that could possibly be approved by our current government) is not about protecting individuals against extraordinary and unpredictable catastrophic situations. It is about the government getting involved or taking over the insurance of ordinary medical care needed by everyone at some point. It is therefore completely consistent with Hayek’s point to consider the whole direction of current health care change proposals something to be rejected entirely, rather than something on which to negotiate.
2. There seems to be a criticism of people for holding incompatible views here, but then grouped together as a target of this criticism are figures who are rarely in fact embraced by the same people. The media figures you identify are almost entirely hostile to Paul and his supporters, for example. There is no discussion here of actual philosophically incompatible issue positions held by the same people at the same time. Without such an argument, it seems you are just telling us you don’t like certain figures on the right, and don’t like libertarian populism. That’s fine, but not terribly enlightening about the state of the conservative movement, and I’m not sure you’ve really surpassed the level of discourse you complain about here.
October 2nd, 2009 | 1:12 pm
This is an insightful article that I really appreciate. Steven Hawyard’s column in the Washington Post (“Is Conservatism Brain-Dead?”) is raises similar points. Clearly, some commonly-identified, important challenges lay before us.
Supporters of the principles of the Declaration and the law of the Constitution need to read more extensively, think more deeply, and ultimately speak more dynamically about the truths we hold and defend. That’s a lot easier said than done. (For my own part, I’ve got a long way to go.) But I think that anyone who takes up that challenge will find it personally rewarding.
That said, I’ve spent much of this year reading and re-reading Hayek (among others). It really is too bad if people only selectively quote him without seriously reading him. His works are profound, with strengths and weakenesses throughout. For instance, early works “Road to Serfdom” and “Counter-Revolution of Science” stress the importance of truth, whereas later works (esp. Vol. III of his “Law, Legislation & Liberty” trilogy) get murky and suggest moral relativism. To some extent “Serfdom” could be read as endorsing welfare state policies that Hayek himself later retracts. But all throughout, Hayek’s brilliance shines when it comes to the limits of human knowledge and the dangers of technocratic, centrally planned government. Both Hayek’s insights and ambiguities offer readers real mind-sharpening opportunities.
In addition to gaining a greater hold on the classics of classical liberalism and the like, we definitely need more brilliant books in our own day. Although Hawyard’s article makes no mention, I think today’s conservatives and libertarians are well-served by the writings of Thomas Sowell (I re-read “Quest for Cosmic Justice” earlier this year and will be re-reading “Vision of the Anointed” before I go on to read “Knowledge & Decisions.”) There are also some promising younger thinkers who may be the key to an intellectually healthy future, such as R.J. Pestritto (mentioned by Hayward) and Jay Richards (whose recent book on the moral basis for capitalism is a strong rebuttal to Randian “greed-is-good” nonsense). In the end, I believe a greater supply from new thinkers will fuel a stronger demand.
October 2nd, 2009 | 1:17 pm
I should qualify my own last comment concerning “Road to Serfdom,” a wonderful book. Only a few snippets of the book allow for some kind of social welfare “safety net.” But I don’t want to be accused of misrepresentating such a fine book. It’s clearly an individualist, anti-statist book. Regardless of the extent to which Hayek qualifies his own endorsement of such safety nets, he seems to only have in mind minimal programs for insuring against risks of a severe kind—NOT welfare entitlement programs for managed care.
October 2nd, 2009 | 1:26 pm
[...] Joe Carter on the cultish nature of conservatism: [...]
October 2nd, 2009 | 2:02 pm
There seems to be a criticism of people for holding incompatible views here, but then grouped together as a target of this criticism are figures who are rarely in fact embraced by the same people.
That’s a fair point. I should have been more clear that my intention was not necessarily to criticize the people who are embraced (i.e., Rand, Palin, Beck, Paul) so much as those who are doing the embracing—and doing so uncritically. I think Rand’s worldview is fatally flawed and that Randians are very confused people. But I can respect their position more than I can those who try to reconcile Rand’s atheist libertarianism with Christianity (as I tried to do at the age of eighteen).
The media figures you identify are almost entirely hostile to Paul and his supporters, for example.
That’s true. And again I have to say that my point was not to take a shot at Rep. Paul. As much as I disagree with him, I find him refreshingly consitent in his approach to political philosophy. The problem I have is with two types of his followers:
1) The ones that embrace both Paul and his critics (like Beck) with equal fervor despite that fact that what is being advocated by each are often not compatible.
2) The ones that treat Paul as if he were the physical embodiment of his ideas and that treat all criticism of the man as an attack on their beliefs.
This second one is common not just among Paul supporters but among almost all conservative figures. Take, for example, Rush Limbaugh. Twenty years ago I thought he was entertaining, and though I now find him boring, I can still understand why people listent to his show. I do think at times, however, that he has been a negative influence on the conservative movement.
Now that statement is rather mundane and not all that critical. Yet I’ve literally lost friends for having the audacity to express such light criticisms of Rush. There are people that really believe—though they might be embarrassed to say so explicitly—that Rush should never be criticized from the right. Anyone who thinks I’m exaggerating should try saying something negative about Rush in public and see how long before people start trashing your reputation.
There is no discussion here of actual philosophically incompatible issue positions held by the same people at the same time.
That’s also true, but that’s not my primary concern. In fact, I would say that is because the philosophical incompatibilities do not affect issue positions all that often is the reason that they are glossed over. My point is not that holding incompatible views will cause people to support unconservative policy positions on the microlevel of specific legislation (though that’s possible) but rather that it will lead to a movement that embrace positions that are detrimental at the macrolevel.
For example, many conservatives are finally beginning to realize that Big Busines and free markets are not necessarily compatible. Big Business, by its nature, often leads to greater levels of statism. Yet many conservatives uncritically embraced the “What’s good for GM is good for America” style of thinking because they thought it was synoymous with free enterprise. While we may not like to face the truth, the rise of Big Government is often due to our embrace of incompatible ideas of what constitutes a “conservative” position.
October 2nd, 2009 | 2:27 pm
I appreciate Mr. Carter’s fine statement of the very valid concern that the public discourse of the putatively conservative “right” is developing in a way parallel to the earlier development of the so-called liberal “left,” and that this development is just as negative in the current case. I would ask: does this not point to causes which may be found within American culture itself, this being, after all, the common inheritance of the two factions?
October 2nd, 2009 | 3:00 pm
@Darcy:
“In addition to the problem mentioned by Octagon, the kind of health care “reform” under consideration now bears little resemblance to what Hayek was discussing. Health care change in the forms currently under consideration (and the only forms that could possibly be approved by our current government) is not about protecting individuals against extraordinary and unpredictable catastrophic situations.”
I don’t think anyone denies that, least of all me. The problem is that the movement Right seems to have zero interest in even pushing for good reform beyond an occasional gesture in the direction of tort reform and, less frequently, eliminating restrictions on interstate sale of insurance, neither of which remotely address the issue of the uninsured and neither of which would do terribly much to make health insurance affordable. I would submit that the reason the reforms on the table are so absolutely terrible is because the Right has consistently refused to engage on this issue, leaving it to be resolved by liberals and philosophically unmoored centrists.
Moreover, there is at least one reform on the table (well, at least it should be on the table) that liberals absolutely love and which would in fact be highly negotiable to reform in a Hayekian direction. It is not perfect, to be sure since it would introduce regulation into the individual market (but then again, it would result in everyone being on the individual market), but on the whole it moves in a very good direction that would allow for the uninsured to readily get coverage, would solve the preexisting conditions problem, would reform Medicare, would cut overall costs, and would not increase government spending by a dime.
Even if it became law as-is, it would be an improvement over the status quo, but if the Right were willing to get behind the general cause of reform rather than shouting “death panels,” there’s no doubt in my mind that some of the less-good aspects of it could get taken out in order to get the Right’s backing for the bill.
But instead of getting behind the bill, or recognizing (as the Heritage Foundation did) that it’s at the very least an excellent starting point for negotiation, the movement Right has lambasted any GOP pol who gets near it. Indeed, the co-sponsor, Sen. Bennett, is being targeted for a primary challenge by the Club For Growth for his sin of daring to negotiate with a liberal on health care reform.
It’s things like that which tell me that despite the (very) occasional nods in the direction of reform being necessary, the movement Right is more interested in taking the Randian view of in essence blaming the victims of the existing system rather than attempting to apply conservative/libertarian economic philosophy to fix the problems.
October 2nd, 2009 | 4:38 pm
“For example, many conservatives are finally beginning to realize that Big Business and free markets are not necessarily compatible. Big Business, by its nature, often leads to greater levels of statism. Yet many conservatives uncritically embraced the “What’s good for GM is good for America” style of thinking because they thought it was synoymous with free enterprise. While we may not like to face the truth, the rise of Big Government is often due to our embrace of incompatible ideas of what constitutes a “conservative” position.”
Mr. Carter, where have you been? It would appear that the “What’s good for GM (Chrysler) is good for America” crowd is not crowded on the right side of the aisle. Have you not observed people on the conservative side of the conversation not only recognizing the link between regulation and preservation of an absence of competition, to the benefit of the political rules makers and the ones who pay them to make specific rules, but calling it out and opposing it? (Any honest hearing of the commentariat on the right will provide multiple examples daily.) How did we get rules in health care forbidding interstate sales of insurance? How do we get uncompetitive limits on provision of hospital and nursing home beds? How do we get the disparity between employer ability to use pre-tax revenue for health coverage, but not individuals? Why do some states still disallow the deductibility of HSA funds? Who put the rules that limit competition in place to begin with? Who has blocked the formation of purchasing pools of small businesses? Who mandates the content of insurance coverages? How do we get rules prohibiting publishing of rates for medical care? How do we get the “I won the Lottery!” forms of malpractice suits? None of these work to the favor of individuals and their freedom to choose. Every one was likely passed with some kind of populist appeal to a “for the little guy” mentality. Yet, every one of these outcomes was because of a government action in concert with some industry or group seeking to eliminate competition. The current proposals in congress are, by the admission of the legislators themselves, totally incomprehensible, nay illegible. The base premise of much of the “debate” is a manufactured air of crisis to be exploited. This is the kind of opacity that leads to more of the same, once again to the detriment of choice and the enhancement of the leverage of the few and powerful. Why should it not be challenged in its current muddled iteration?
Take these same questions regarding health care/health insurance and modify them to be applied to education, provision of other forms of human service, land use regulation, tax policy, regulation of financial transactions, so called industrial policy, the whole “Carbon” issue, federal housing policy, farm subsidy and agricultural policy…
It would appear that in your rush to dis Rush and his supposed fellow travelers you have fallen into a projection trap of ad hominum thinking. Yes, an uncritical embrace of a projected image is dangerous to the body politic, e.g. Mr. Obama. But I find it difficult to take you seriously as a thinker when the best you seem to be able to offer in your blog is the same straw man ranting you would decry in others. What’s your reading list for the great schizophrenic conservative unwashed? For starters, I’d recommend Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism and Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics. Amity Schlaes’ The Forgotten Man is also a good introduction as to how we got to where we are. Then a jump to the Federalist Papers could be made for some historical context.
October 2nd, 2009 | 5:03 pm
Mark Renner: Mr. Carter, where have you been? It would appear that the “What’s good for GM (Chrysler) is good for America” crowd is not crowded on the right side of the aisle. . . . It would appear that in your rush to dis Rush and his supposed fellow travelers you have fallen into a projection trap of ad hominum thinking.
Glenn Beck (speaking to the CEO of GM): “Please, sir, keep in mind. As goes General Motors so goes America.” (http://bit.ly/y6R9R)
Rush Limbaugh: “They accuse of us being Nazis, and Obama’s got a health care logo that’s right out of Adolf Hitler’s playbook. Now, what are the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi Party in Germany? Well, the Nazis were against big business — they hated big business. (http://bit.ly/4nKKuK)
October 2nd, 2009 | 5:26 pm
The Libertarian-Conservative thing really began with the 19th century Democrats, as described in THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS at Amazon.com and described on http://www.claysamerica.com. The 20th century Democrats are the Rousseau to Marx Party, not the Jefferson to Cleveland Party it once was. They defined American libertarian-conservative thought.
October 2nd, 2009 | 7:09 pm
You reap what you sow.
October 2nd, 2009 | 7:30 pm
This “analysis” is disturbingly wrong and Thompson is neglecting the context in which Hayek wrote (and, yes, I’ve read “Road” from cover to cover).
Hayek wrote at a time before 50+% of the US Federal budget was spent on social entitlements, when the Federal deficit was not rapidly converging to equal the GDP, and when the government itself has displayed profligate lawlessness in ignoring the enumerated powers doctrine in limiting its powers.
Simply put, Hayek would certainly NOT favor the phony healthcare “reform” currently being flogged by the Left. He would have further had very sharp words for the Left on virtually all other matters on which it speaks. Trying to paint Hayek as somehow sympathetic to today’s statists and their government-over-all aspirations is desparately wrong, inaccurate, and fundamentally dishonest.
October 2nd, 2009 | 7:40 pm
“CoulterHannityBeckLimbaughPaulLevinRandPalinWhoever”
I think you need to do a little more research if you think that Ron Paul can be wedged in with those others. For one thing, he is strongly anti-war and anti-torture.
October 2nd, 2009 | 8:31 pm
“People who would laugh at the absurdity of a “Christian Muslim” seem not to recognize the similar incongruity between being a follower of Christ and an acolyte of Ayn Rand.”
It is actually Joe that doesn’t recognize the stupidity of his statement. Both Christians and Ayn Rand alike would believe in the fundamental principal that it is IMMORAL to forcibly take the fruits of another’s labor. No matter how worthy the results, the means are completely immoral and bordering on evil.
Show me a Christian who believes it is right to do good with someone else’s forcibly taken labor and I’ll show you someone who isn’t a good Christian. Both Liberals and Conservatives agree that there are problems in society that need to be addressed. Whether its caring for the sick, caring for the elderly, serving the least among us, etc. But it is Liberals who believe that the solutions are best achieved with the fruits of others labor. i.e. Social Security, Medicare, heck..any government program. It is the conservative, Christian, Rand follower that believes charity must come from the heart and not the force of the state.
The sick, elderly, hungry are best cared for by unleashing the talents, skills and abilities of the producing class. The chattering class like your self likes to talk, while the producing class like the silent majority of engineers, scientists, researchers, businessmen, entrepreneurs likes to do and accomplish.
I’d argue that you cannot be a good Christian while NOT believing in the same basic precepts that Rand teaches. It is difficult to be a good Christian by believing in an overbearing state.
As a self professed Christian, YOU should know in your heart that Government Programs are WRONG! Give me a single MORAL or CHRISTIAN justification to forcibly seize MY EARNINGS to do good for anyone. Just because these programs exist, doesn’t make them morally acceptable. And that TRUTH holds true no matter how many people vote on it, and no matter how large the majority. It is simply WRONG. Rand understands this. Christians understand this. YOU should understand this.
October 2nd, 2009 | 10:26 pm
“I’d argue that you cannot be a good Christian while NOT believing in the same basic precepts that Rand teaches.”
You mean like atheism?
October 2nd, 2009 | 10:44 pm
Look, on this business of needing a “Christian justification” for every way in which we choose (democratically one hopes) to govern ourselves – BOLLOCKS.
If there has been one historical figure you would never in a million years want running your modern secular democratic state, it’s Jesus of Nazareth. A close second would be ANY OTHER DEITY JUST PASSING THROUGH ON HIS WAY TO SHANGRI-LA.
(Why do you think Rand was a atheist?)
If it’s a Christian society with truly Christian principles you’re wanting, you need to either a) go find an undiscovered island and start your commune or b) wait around for the afterlife.
Meanwhile, the rest of us can argue how best to govern vast disparate societies fraught with structural inequality and rampant injustice.
BTW, guess what happens when you decree nothing can be taken by force for the common good? (Hint: it bears little resemblance to “common good.”)
October 2nd, 2009 | 11:08 pm
Sorry, just one more thing:
“Give me a single MORAL or CHRISTIAN justification to forcibly seize MY EARNINGS to do good for anyone.”
For one thing, since you’re framing it in moral terms, this blithely presumes that “YOUR EARNINGS” constitute an amount you’re automatically, MORALLY entitled to make, no matter what it might be. Which, you will perhaps know, is a figure determined by forces with no particular concern for morality (i.e. whatever “the market” decides is the going rate for your job is) and the fair allocation of money. (But of course, in Jesus-land there would BE no money.)
It’s bizarre, this. Because it’s wrong to redistribute wealth for a common benefit, we should INSIST, on principle, that wealth be allowed to freely and unfairly distribute itself, for the benefit of a chosen few. But all that aside, I think you’ll agree that “If the market says I should earn this much, then that is what I must in fact DESERVE” is a pretty bizarre way of looking at things, for a Christian.
For another thing, it’s just a comically selfish and self-serving thing to say, obviously.
October 3rd, 2009 | 12:53 am
“As a self professed Christian, YOU should know in your heart that Government Programs are WRONG! Give me a single MORAL or CHRISTIAN justification to forcibly seize MY EARNINGS to do good for anyone. Just because these programs exist, doesn’t make them morally acceptable. And that TRUTH holds true no matter how many people vote on it, and no matter how large the majority. It is simply WRONG. Rand understands this. Christians understand this. YOU should understand this.”
Mr. Golings,
Out of curiosity, I must ask the name of the Bible from which you obtained this information. I mean, I’ve read the King James Bible from cover to cover and I cannot remember Jesus Christ, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and/or any of the apostles delivering his point in a sentence or sentences that featured some words in all capital letters and others in basic print.
I mean, I’ve seen Bibles in which certain phrases and verses have been printed in various colors, such as red, or italicized to emphasize the point.
But I cannot remember ever reading a Bible that employed all capital letters to get the Word of God across to the reader.
Please provide this information. Thank you for your time.
October 3rd, 2009 | 8:32 am
Re: “needing a ‘Christian justification’ for every way in which we choose to govern ourselves”: Pope Benedict wrote some time ago about “The Mass as Genesis of Mission”. In this article he makes the point that worship and sacrament instruct the soul so that, while carrying on the properly secular affairs of life, “acting persons” make decisions which are integrated with, formed by, the Judeo-Christian virtues. This “freedom for excellence” has a natural quality, having been arduously sought and “written on one’s heart”. It requires no doctrinal or Biblical quotations per se, although these could be deduced from a record of the life’s work of a true believer.
October 3rd, 2009 | 10:45 am
I always considered myself as a small “r” republican, but very far from a conservative populist or liberal populist and Mr. Goling’s statements are a big reason why I find it difficult to support many modern day Republican Party candidates as I see many making his type of argument.
It’s strange he lambasts a “vote of the majority” that would presume to tax him for government programs. Yet I’m quite certian Mr. Goling is in favor of the referendum, especially when votes on issues such as Prop 8 in California took place and was passed. It’s called “libertarian populism” here, but I’ve been using the term conservative populism to explain why I’m finding it difficult to agree with my conservative friends and family on many political issues today.
Conservative politicians and conservatives in general, in my opinion, are using a worldview that is seriously warped. To me, populism represents the tyranny of the majority. However, conservatives will support this when the odds are in their favor. Republicans should never do this.
The Republican Party has gone from a party that supported the notion of a “Nation of Laws” to a “Nation of Our Values” and anti-government, anti-tax vitriol. I mean, look at Mr. Goling right here. Taxing his wages is a moral issue now? It’s bizarre to me and seems conservatism is now a movement built on the philosophy that the dismantlement of government is more worthwhile than engaging to enrich and firmly define the “common good”. Mr. Goling is a perfect reason why government has to forcibly tax people (Articles of Confederation anyone?). I’m sure he volunteers a lot in his community and believes that’s all that is needed of his time and resources to satisfy the common good. But anyone who has read or even heard of Tocqueville knows that’s not possible in today’s world where women are working as much as men. (One of Tocqueville’s conclusions was democracy was successful in America because a large contingent of middle class women volunteered in their communities) We need a third party to provide services that middle class women no longer have the time to provide.
Populism is a diseased monster in which there are few defenses when it gets out of control. The conservative movement seems to be moving in that direction. I won’t be a party to that.
October 3rd, 2009 | 10:55 am
“You are no more allowed to question the right’s preferred cult of personality—CoulterHannityBeckLimbaughPaulLevinRandPalinWhoever—than liberals can challenge Obama”
Many “liberals” do challenge Obama. One of the main problems with “conservatives” is that they refuse to own up to their mistakes (very successful mistakes in some cases) in walking in lockstep behind false ideologies designed basically to keep them in power with no actual vision for the future, while consistently setting up these false equivalencies. If “liberals” didn’t challenge Obama we’d have a far easier time of it, frankly, one of the big problems of the Democratic party has always been that a big tent allows for a lot of controversy underneath it, something that the Republicans have avoided by making their tent smaller and smaller.
October 3rd, 2009 | 1:10 pm
Joe, I’ve got to break my vow to avoid posting here again, to say that I think you’re walking *exactly* the right line here. Bravo.
American conservatism is not a position; it’s an unstable Congeries of Positions (to be fair, one could say the same about American progressivism as well), most of which sit very uneasily with each other (or actually threaten contradiction with each other).
(For example, fervent worship of unconstrained market forces that clearly threaten the lives of families in an ever accelerating way, to name just one extreme tension — how many times is the average person supposed to “change careers” in a lifetime? Now maybe twice or three times. (I’ve actually changed careers once, and the market didn’t do me any favors when I did. I’ve also participated in failed entrepreneurial attempts; again the market did precisely nothing to help me out of my “failure”.) In a decade or two, maybe five or six times. After that, who knows? What can the notion of a profession or craft or secular vocation mean under current turbocharged capitalism?)
October 3rd, 2009 | 1:26 pm
Many straw men have been created and then vigorously defeated in these posts. Huge assertions are made although very few specific arguments to support them are offered. We are not helping our situation when extreme points of view are seen as characteristic of “all Democrats” or “all Republicans”. The post by “Curt” alleging that ” ‘conservatives’ … refuse to own up to their mistakes … in walking lockstep behind false ideologies” is mistaken in its scope. Many persons in power, who were elected as Republicans or Democrats, have “made mistakes”, “refused to own up to them” or held “false” ideas. This human failing is certainly not limited to conservatives.
October 3rd, 2009 | 2:24 pm
Joe Carter, you make some fair points, especially on the Rand-Christianity chimera.
But I’ve noticed that many critics of leading conservative personalities are lazy. Dreher’s attempt to link Beck with Skousen’s extremism, for instance, struck me as less damning than some thought. These failings give openings to those who would dismiss the critics as envy-driven and status-seeking.
Indeed, conservative personalities have an audience of millions. That can be a force for good. Their critics often seem interested in lessening their more successful compatriots’ influence, not in bettering it through constructive criticism.
The conservative movement has a nasty habit of purges attempted in the interests of becoming less “ineffective, insular and irrational.” But this itself has only resulted in a narrowing of the accepted range of political debate in a leftward direction.
Further, many conservatives & pundits who initially moaned about McCain winning the GOP nomination then jumped on the bandwagon in the interests of effectiveness, the Big Tent, and the rationality of opposing Obama. If they were as unpragmatically principled as you say, why would that have happened?
“Isn’t it possible that we could create a movement where people read books—real books?”
Has such a books-based movement existed since the 19th century? Radio, TV, and now the Internet militate against a literate culture. The literati are hopelessly left-wing. In competition with bloggers, what kind of fool would write without a paying market for his work?
October 3rd, 2009 | 3:36 pm
To shore up my own assertion with examples: On the conservative side: early, unregulated capitalism; On the liberal side: unregulated entitlements. Both ideas had serious, negative, unintended consequences. Both had to be moderated by people of good will who inhabit the political center.
October 3rd, 2009 | 4:16 pm
[...] modern conservatism become a cult? Joe Carter asks a good question. I’ve been saying for a while that we need to be very careful not to allow ideologies to [...]
October 3rd, 2009 | 4:42 pm
[quote]Pope Benedict wrote some time ago about “The Mass as Genesis of Mission”. In this article he makes the point that worship and sacrament instruct the soul so that, while carrying on the properly secular affairs of life, “acting persons” make decisions which are integrated with, formed by, the Judeo-Christian virtues. This “freedom for excellence” has a natural quality, having been arduously sought and “written on one’s heart”. It requires no doctrinal or Biblical quotations per se, although these could be deduced from a record of the life’s work of a true believer.[/quote]
Well apart from it sounding like mumbo jumbo (“worship” and “sacrament” “instructing the soul” and “written on the heart” is just vague mysticism posing as wisdom if you ask me) it at least gets right that the responsibility, such as there is, for upholding Christian morality rests with the individual and not our laws and government (not to mention economy).
October 3rd, 2009 | 5:50 pm
By “worship” is meant “an act of expressing reverence for God”. A “sacrament” is defined in Webster’s dictionary as “a Christian rite that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign of a spiritual reality. “Instructing the soul” means to teach something that is received by the inner person as in “May [the Father] strengthen you inwardly through the workings of his Spirit.” Eph. 3:l6. “Written on the heart” refers to the ancient teaching of Jeremiah: “I will place my law within them and write it upon their hearts” – a poetic way of expressing the thought that this law can be known as part of the heritage of all human beings. If our laws or government policies do not uphold fundamental Christian moral teaching, for instance the inviolability of the right to life (not doctrine or dogma), the individual will be powerless to resist in any publically effective way. That is why it is so important that Christians take part in the formation of laws and government policy. Certainly this does not imply that religious practice or doctrine would become part of political life, absolutely not, but that Christian principles such as respect for human life, freedom of conscience especially as it applies to the medical professions, respect for marriage and family, and other issues, will be supported by Christian elected officials.
October 3rd, 2009 | 11:46 pm
I am amazed at the misunderstanding of the populist conservative movement. I consider myself part of it, and unless I am terribly naive about my own philosophy, modern thinkers still don’t seem to grasp it. First, government in general is not the enemy. We need it. It is necessary to delegate to government what is too large a scope for individuals and private entities to manage themselves. The government and the people are mutually dependent and need to cooperate in good faith with eachother. There are, however, things the government has no right to do. I cannot fathom where government entities get the authority to do things private individuals wouldn’t have the authority to do if there weren’t government in the first place. Without government, did private individuals have the right to steal property from their neighbors and compassionately give it to somone in need? If not, where did government, formed by and for the people, get that authority?
I don’t mean to say we don’t need to be compassionate and help the less fortunate. Far from it. However, I truly believe the greatest means to those ends is in works done privately and freely. By any metric, Americans have been far more generous privately than the good citizens of other, more socialized, nations. How much more effective could they be when given even more power to make those personal choices?
That said, I sound the call to conservatives everywhere – we have to do our part and be compassionate in our private lives. Liberty presupposes personal charity. We can’t tout the “invisible hand” and just leave it at that. That’s heartless, destructive to society, and in my opinion would forfeit the right to a capitalistic society based in liberty.
October 4th, 2009 | 9:51 am
Ars Artium,
Your contention that government should be an arbiter of moral values is what I find misguided and I think has become the face of populism. When government enforces the morals, values and laws of one religion over another, freedom is lost, in my opinion. I know it’s idealistic to look at the US as a republic and a federalist system nowadays, seeing that the Federal government has gained so much authority, but populism would further degrade that and that’s unacceptable to me.
LT, when I said populism becomes a monster without a defense it was not meant to say conservative populists are evil people. Quite the contrary. I believe most conservative populists hold morals, values and a religion similar to my own. The difference is I don’t belive the government should be involved aside from protecting my right to espouse and live those morals and values. And I don’t believe even though a majority of like minded individuals exist in society, they have a right to enforce any edict they decide upon in a vote. This is the indefensible monster I see in conservative populism. A strong republic would defend against this.
The discussion of what activities should the government be involved in is the right discussion to me (as you brought up, LT) and is what I’m arguing, albeit not very well it seems. Ars Artium’s concern is Christian values need representation in policy and it seems you don’t really believe that…perhaps my view of conservative populism is different?
I would see you more of a small “r” republican too, LT, not a populist. Are my definitions completely off base here? Someone help me out.
October 4th, 2009 | 1:18 pm
The post by “LT” is thought provoking. It rightly establishes that government and citizens are not enemies but rather are “mutually dependent”. If however “the right to steal property and give it to their neighbors and… give it to someone in need” is intended to apply to collection of taxes for entitlement programs (welfare, SSDI, food stamps, etc.), another point of view is available. Conservatives who inhabit the political center have offered a plan that could moderate the worst tendencies of both sides of the political spectrum, that of “means-tested” programs which would help “the small number of citizens who [for reasons as many and diverse as there are citizens] are legitimately and chronically unable to fend for themselves and a larger number of citizens who are occasionally and transitionally unable to do so [job loss because of recession, etc.]. Conservatives could then welcome programs like “Health Savings Accounts, Individual Retirement Accounts, etc”. The scholar, William Voegeli, writes in The Claremont Review of Books: “Liberals sell the welfare state one brick at a time, deflecting inquires about the size and the cost of the palace they’re building. Citizens are encouraged to regard the government as a rich uncle who needs constant hectoring to become ever more generous. … Conservatives need to … insist that limited government is inseparable from self-government. To govern is to choose. To deliberate about the legitimate and desirable extent of the welfare state presupposes that we the people should choose the size and the nature of government programs, rather than have them be chosen for us by entitlements misconstrued as inviolable rights.”
October 4th, 2009 | 3:52 pm
Re the post by “Scott”: A nation with no basic moral values held in common is an impossibility. Prohibitions against stealing, killing, perjuring, and slander are moral prohibitions. Your own idea, that a free people should be free from religious law is a moral idea. We tend to confuse religious doctrine and teaching from basic moral standards that have been part of the fabric of our culture and are the basis of what we consider legitimate law. My position has nothing at all to do with government enforcing “the morals, values, and laws of one religion over another” but rather with one that enforces secular materialism over all other points of view. I do not support a government of practical atheists and anti-theists who propose their own, very particular set of moral values while excluding the moral (not religious laws) of believers. Tyranny has many faces.
October 4th, 2009 | 7:08 pm
I find the “prooftexting” or “quote mining” here pretty funny…
The author of this piece is either not familiar with the work of Hayek or is purposefully misleading his readers.
I also enjoyed the McCarthy-like tactic of ascribing all the evils of one person to another person. Brilliant logic!
October 4th, 2009 | 7:09 pm
>But the truth is the vast majority of the right subscribes to a form of libertarian populism inflected with social conservative attachments—an unholy hybrid of Ayn Rand, William Jennings Bryan, and Morton Downey, Jr.
This is simply made-up BS. We subscribe to the FOunding Fathers vision of a limited Federal (not Central) Govt with powers and soverignity retained by the States.
>This lack of reflection about how foundational views mesh is one of the most significant failings of the modern right. During the Cold War-era people who held incompatible views—such as libertarianism and social conservatism—embraced a limited form of “fusionism” in order to provide a united front against a common enemy—communism.
Again.. more BS. The right is constantly talking about the Constitution and how things are now compared to its original designs.
I NEVER see Leftists discuss this, maybe other than used imagined Constitutional outrages as a weapon against who want to disingeniously use it against.
Where is the Left and their discussion about the Constitutionality of coercing people to submit to the Federal Govt every aspect of thier interaction with a doctor.
I thought we were protected from search and seizure?
>The result is that the conservative movement is becoming increasingly ineffective, insular, and irrational—in other words, we’re becoming the mirror image of the political left.
This is funny. What is this.. a call for the Moderate GOP to come out and play?
This country has one Democrat party.. two is excessive.
>This reliance on personalities rather than ideas is particularly worrisome. Conservatism has never exactly been a bookish movement. And since the rise of talk radio during the Clinton-era, we’ve become accustomed to having ideas and issues presented to us in the form of pre-digested talking points.
The only people who are relying on personalities are the people who are obsesseing over those personalities to shut them up and shut them down.
The White House was relying on Rush Limbaugh’s existance in order to use some bizarre tactic of claiming him as the head of the GOP…. as if people are stupid and don’t know that he’s not a politician… he’s a radio talk show host.
Now the Democrats are doing it again.. with Glenn Beck. Trying to say Glenn Beck represents a political party.
Glennn Beck is not in the leadership of any party, nor is he a politician. He’s a talk show host.
I can’t figure you critics out…. for months we had to hear “OMG THE REPUBLICANS DON’T HAVE A LEADER… WHO IS THIER LEADER”
[BTW: I am not a Republcan. I'm an American Conservative]
So the GOP is attacked for not having a personality to attack
Then the critics invent personalities and give them a significance and office they do not have (Limbaugh, Beck)…. and then claim the GOP is a cult to them
I’m sorry this all so incoherent and utterly stupid.
Millions of people listen to Limbaugh and watch Beck because they find some value in that. More people watch Beck than the combined number of people watching all of his competitors in the same time slot.
And why is that? Because the rest of the MSM is utterly corrupt and utterly in the bag of being stenographers for the Government.
They are going to where they could hear things the MSM wont report. That’s a failure of the MSM… not a failure of those who are forced to concentrate their viewing to a handful of programs.
October 4th, 2009 | 7:23 pm
quote from article: Shouldn’t we hold our pundits and politicians to the same standard of behavior—no screaming, lying, talking gibberish, or fake crying on national television.
*****
Is not that the strategy for the last 40+yrs?, and conservatism has gotten its doors blown off by the left using Alsinsky’s rules,
So now in its fight for politcal life…the conservatives finally learn to use Alsinsky and Sun Tsu….
…..and you want to label them a cult…?
We should go quietly into the night? Sounds alot like Mccain campaign blueblood Rino’ism
October 4th, 2009 | 10:25 pm
I don’t know, Ars Arnium, I would view laws against murder, pergury, stealing, and slander more as protections against taking of one’s liberty, not dedicated to upholding morals of any kind beyond the common moral that freedom and liberty are not to be impeded. And that isn’t really secular materialism, in my opinion, that’s classical liberalism. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to believe there are those who are imposing “morals” of their own within government while excluding those of Christians. Am I right on this? I’m not an atheist nor an anti-theist, so I’m not sure where that’s coming from. I really don’t see an attempt to make atheism predoiminant in the government, just secular.
If our government actually functioned more like the republic it was meant to be, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation. As it is, though, there seems to be those who believe there is a competition among different sets of moral values to inundate the government and its laws. And maybe there is.
My own view is government isn’t a moral vessel that needs to be filled. It’s a set of laws meant to protect individuals from the majority. Only if you believe the government should indeed take on more responsibilities to shape society would you feel the need to push your accepted morals and values into the public arena. Correct? Populists feel that need. Which tells me they would like the government to have more power if it would follow their morals and values in instituting programs.
So this is my argument: There shouldn’t be the need for the argument. If the republic is functioning properly, and if the government is doing what it’s supposed to be doing and nothing more, there would be no need to ensure the proper morals are present at the helm.
October 4th, 2009 | 11:05 pm
[...] This Joe Carter column has been getting a lot of positive responses. Is modern conservatism really a syncretic cult of libertarian populism? [...]
October 5th, 2009 | 12:22 am
Our founding fathers stated the the system of Liberty under the Constitution would only work for a moral people.
I think this notion of a Christian-based-people with a secular-government sometimes gets the line drawn a bit fuzzy.. especially if the people involved in a discussion have different levels of understanding the Founding’s view of religion on how it interacts with the citizenry and the government
October 5th, 2009 | 12:57 am
It doesn’t appear that anyone attempted to answer your headline question: is conservatism now a cult? Your use of the term cult is used, I guess, to mean self-marginalized and powerless. Here are the results of the last Presidential election:
Tax and Spend Party
52.8%
Borrow and Spend Party
45.8%
Stop Reckless Spending Parties
0.6%
(Source: John Derbyshire, We are Doomed, 2009).
I would surmise that Ron Paul, Ann Rand, Hayek and others which you characterize as “conservatism” would be aligned with the “stop reckless spending” parties (above) which, at least numerically, are self-marginalized and numerically powerless. Thus, the term “cult” would seem to apply to this group.
However, the other 45.8% of the voters categorized as the “borrow and spend party” may be out of power in Congress and the Presidency but are hardly out of power or self-marginalized in other levels of government in the U.S. Thus, the term “cult” would not apply to mainline conservatism.
Your undisclosed syllogism in your article is fallacious (“if conservatives are not opposed to socialized health care financing such as Medicare, then they must not be true to conservatism). As indicated by the percentages of voters who voted Republican above, conservatives are not opposed to socialized medical financing (but probably are opposed to socialized health CARING).
It would behoove the discussion if you had asked or framed the question better. Garbage in , garbage out.
October 5th, 2009 | 8:10 am
The post by “Scott” asks serious questions and deserves learned answers. Another better qualified person (Prof. Reno, Father Schall, or Father Oakes, just to name a few) could untangle this discussion, evacuate the matters of substance, offer the historical background, enlighten our minds, and provide understanding. That said, I will offer a few comments for whatever they are worth: The first is that a “set of laws” does not only regulate; it teaches. For instance Roe vs. Wade provided legal justification for abortion. For many, many people of good will, that ruling taught and established that abortion is a positive good. In later decisions some justices argued that Roe vs. Wade is settled law and therefore must stand even though the original ruling may have been in error. (We can be very grateful that this sort of thinking did not prevail regarding the “Dred Scott” decision.) So, the law acquires a teaching function and therefore great cultural power. It is much more than prohibitions against stealing, etc., which are moral laws based on understandings of the concept of justice. We cannot avoid making moral decisions such as these. The alternative is a moral jungle or at least a wilderness. This might all be well and good if actions did not have very serious consequences, some of which cannot be made up for, and if life provided endless days in which to separate, by trial and error, the good from the bad. Unfortunately it does not. We are still the beneficiaries of our ancestors’ struggles to construct a culture of ordered freedom; a struggle needless to say, marked by some great successes and some very serious failures. Still until now we had held some very important moral values in common (not of course religious doctrine). They are now being disassembled. Your idea that if “the government is doing what it is supposed to do and nothing more, there would be no need to ensure that the proper moral values are present at the helm” would perhaps be effective in a nation that still possessed some commonwealth of fundamental moral ideas. We are not in that situation. The point I am so laboriously trying to make is that we cannot avoid applying a moral framework to law-making. Some point of view will prevail. The point of view of, for example, Marxism – atheistic materialism – has a moral structure carefully reasoned out by certain thinkers. It has consequences for everyone because a culture must be formed and shaped by people and their ideas in turn will form and shape the thinking of the country’s children. We cannot avoid taking part in this process, retreating to some “free” zone of private life with the government attending to roads, health care, defense, etc. Already some freedoms have been lost. This is inevitable unless we participate in the discussion. Again, to close, someone’s rules will prevail. We will either participate in government or be governed by those who do.
October 5th, 2009 | 9:03 am
[...] a post last week I made an off-the-cuff remark about liberals being unable to challenge Obama. Several people [...]
October 5th, 2009 | 2:38 pm
[...] silly cult of ayn rand 5 10 2009 This is a follow up to yesterday’s post. From First Things, a Catholic publication, a gentleman named Joe Carter uses the Hayek quote to articulate why [...]
October 6th, 2009 | 5:57 pm
[...] to be. They were too much in the world, seeing with only worldly eyes, and so they missed Him. Some conservative Christians are too much in the world; they give the world too much credence, and respond to the world in worldly, rather than [...]
October 7th, 2009 | 1:11 pm
***
Isn’t it possible that we could create a movement where people read books—real books, not insta-books ghostwritten for a former Morning Zoo DJs or brick-sized political novels about narcissistic atheist industrialists?
***
Even if that movement attracted 80% of people who think and pay attention, that’s not going to win many elections.
October 7th, 2009 | 11:46 pm
[...] Joe Carter and Mark Thompson opine on how American conservatism has become a personality cult. And they also a provide a view of F.A. Hayek that might make a few modern conservatives think the old Austrian was a closet socialist. A must read. [...]
October 9th, 2009 | 10:36 am
this ‘fusionism’ is just the slow-road to socialism..we’ve tried that for decades..and its just a slippery slope to socialism. No, Jesus would not want the state to ‘help’ us with our healthcare…He wants the church to do that. If you actually read the bible, you would find out the Lord was not for a king at all…He was the only King…
we’ve tried it YOUR way…utter failure. lets try FREEDOM for a change…and personal responsibility…what a shock.
October 9th, 2009 | 10:45 am
Nah, Joe, conservatism has become a religion.
And Glenn Beck is its prophet.
Hayek? Burke?
Try Cleon Skousen.
The current instantiation of the GOP which is about 75% evangelical christian.
It is wholly a religious party and the leadership is bound in babylonian captivity to a party platform of evangelical doctrine.
Like creationism.
October 9th, 2009 | 10:54 am
The State is not the Federal Government. Each state can and should be able to **choose** to help those in need of healthcare – or not.
Again, the State is not the Fed. Something most people need to learn. Each state should be entirely unique.
October 9th, 2009 | 12:52 pm
Folks, I’ve never commented here before, but, as a “tea bagger” and a (rather tepid) fan of Hannity, Rush, et al, and a somewhat more enthusiastic fan of Mark Levin, I thought I’d just chime in. . . .
This isn’t complicated, so listen carefully.
Stop spending so much money.
Stop it, Please.
The country is going bankrupt. Pretty soon nobody will want to buy our debt. If you want a decent country, you need moderate taxes, limited spending and fair and unburdensome regulations. Obama doesn’t seem to understand this. Small business is now on capital strike because they don’t know what the h*ll is going on – and we’re d*mn sick of Obama apologizing for us to a bunch of worthless dictators. We can’t afford to insure everybody – especially if we won’t enforce our own borders (btw, that’s why California is paying it’s policemen with IOU’s). We haven’t all joined a “cult,” we just know how this story ends and we’d rather not go there – for the good of the republic.
Sorry.
Your friendly, neighborhood Teabagger
October 9th, 2009 | 2:29 pm
The author is kind of on to the nature of the conservative movement in the US. US conservatives are a reactionary movement. This explains the diversity of views found within that movement.
The left by its nature is revolutionary, intent on overturning social institutions it sees as standing in the way of achieving the Brotherhood of Man. These institutions in turn have disparate defenders, each attached to a different institution. When they are attacked by Liberalism, they are roused into defending whatever institution they feel attached to, or have a direct interest in defending.
Christians are appalled by free abortion and the forcible removal of religion from the public square.
Libertarians (most are not Randians, but rather more conventional constitutionalist types) are attached to limiting the state and preserving individual liberty.
Nationalists are intent on preserving the nation state and the historical people of America in the face of internationalism and immigration.
Many of these attachments can of course coexist inside a single individual. Sometimes they conflict. But the reason for US conservatism is the existance of revolutionary liberalism.
As for the charge of “cultishness”, any effective movement must take on certain characteristics of a cult. The trick is not taking cohesiveness (I.e. “cultish tendencies” in neutral language) too far.
October 10th, 2009 | 4:11 am
[...] by Russ on October 2, 2009 Joe Carter’s “Has Modern Conservatism Become a Cult?” at the First Things Blog is worth reading. It’s quite a move going from F. A. Hayek to Ayn [...]
October 14th, 2009 | 12:48 pm
Yes, yes, Hayek was not consistent. Yes, yes, Rand was a filthy atheist.
The right direction is to advance from Hayek to Rothbard. The effectiveness of Ron Paul’s movement (which neoconservatives are trying to duplicate, impossibly) shows that “radical” libertarianism is where the common sense solutions are.
October 16th, 2009 | 8:45 am
You said in your comment that since “the Church” doesn’t or won’t get to know it’s neighbors to find out which can’t or won’t work (in reference to the prior comment on Paul’s teachiings) I ask you this: Who is this “Church” you are painting with such a broad brush? Which church? All churches? the one in YOUR neighborhood? The one down the road? You don’t KNOW all churches, Christian, Judaic, Catholic, or otherwise.
Secondly I would like to ask what “LOVE” is in a government, 3000 miles away from someone in Vacaville, for instance, that will fill that person’s need better than those in that person’s own town? All that LOVE in ‘DC. I can feel the love. “Fill out these 40 forms in triplicate, make sure you can prove you don’t earn this or that much money, and at the end of the month we will decide if you can get money to assist you with your living expenses.” I have sat in on these “Loving” moments with state agencies, run by Federal rules and regs– all that LOVE just oozes out of the coldfish eyes of the state employees who can’t wait for their smoke-break, their lunch break, looking at their watches while they are talking to you, heavy martyred sighs, don’t ask questions… yep I just feel all that love from DC.
Please. Wake up Albert. The only LOVE in the beltway is a love of getting more of us taxpayer’s money to exercise more power OVER us. Greed, avarice and spiritual wickedness in high places. Yeah, whole lotta love in Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters and Barney’s Frank.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact