Future of conservatism

[grimm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/17/ar...ONS.final.html


Young Right Tries to Define Post-Buckley Future
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Published: July 17, 2004


n 1954, when he was 28, William F. Buckley Jr. founded National Review to bear the standard of a fledgling conservative movement defined by three commitments: to fight Communism, to diminish the federal government and to uphold traditionalism in social affairs.

That formulation held the movement together for five decades, as Ronald Reagan brought conservatives to power, George H. W. Bush declared victory in the cold war and Bill Clinton pronounced the end of big government.

Advertisement


Now, many conservatives say, the current Bush administration is testing that definition of conservatism as it has never been tested before, from the expansion of federal health and education programs to the campaign to remake Iraq. And as Mr. Buckley prepares for retirement by handing over control of National Review, a new generation of young would-be Buckleys is debating just what conservatism means when their side has taken over Washington, and yet they still do not feel that they have won.

"Conservative is a word that is almost meaningless these days," said Caleb Stegall, 32, a lawyer in Topeka, Kan., and a founder of The New Pantagruel, newpantagruel.com, an irreverent Web site about religion and politics named for the jovial drunkard created by Rabelais. "It tells you almost nothing about where a person stands on a lot of questions," he said, like gay marriage, stem cell research, the environment and Iraq.

The debate among members of the young right is unfolding on Web sites like Mr. Stegall's and Oxblog, oxblog .blogspot.com, set up by three Rhodes Scholars. It is discussed at roundtables and cocktail parties organized by groups like America's Future Foundation in Washington. In journals for young conservatives, they tackle subjects as heterodox as the perils of Wal-Mart and urban sprawl, the dangers of unfettered capitalism to family life, and the feared takeover of their movement by hawkish neoconservatives.

In May the Philadelphia Society, a prestigious club for conservative intellectuals, tapped Sarah Bramwell, a 24-year-old Yale graduate and writer, to address the views of the young right at its 40th-anniversary conference. "Modern American conservatism began in an effort to do two things: defeat Communism and roll back creeping socialism," she began. "The first was obviated by our success, the latter by our failure. So what is left of conservatism?"

Rearing new conservatives has long been a subject of keen interest to their elders. To counter what they considered the liberal dominance of the major universities and news organizations, a handful of conservative foundations has helped build a network of organizations to train young members of the movement, most prominently the 51-year-old Intercollegiate Studies Institute. It publishes journals and books, sponsors fellowships and administers a network of 80 conservative college newspapers.

"I think one of the principal, even signal, features of the conservative movement is its overriding concern for nurturing young people," said Jeff Nelson, 39, the institute's vice president for publications.

Mr. Buckley recently chose Sarah Bramwell's husband, Austin Bramwell, 26, as one of five trustees of National Review. Mr. Bramwell, a clerk for the federal appeals court in Denver and an alumnus of the institute's programs, declined to comment because of his job at the court.

Mr. Nelson said young conservatives' greatest challenge might come from their predecessors' success. "Buckley started the conservative movement athwart history, yelling `stop,' " he said, "but there has been a subtle shift in the conservative movement's view of itself, from history's opponents to destiny's child."

"We have a lot of conservatives who reflect the values of the mainstream culture," he continued. "There are polls that show younger-generation conservatives trust the government much more deeply than their parents did."

The increase in federal domestic spending under President Bush would have been "unimaginable" to conservatives a few years ago, he said, and so would foreign policies like the invasion of Iraq.

[Mike AI]

No doubt the many Republicans are heading left - moving towards more handouts, more gov't programs, more wasteful spending.

All politicans are the same. They derive their power from spending OUR money, in order to get this money they have to confiscate it from those who earn it.

:angry:

[grimm]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jul 18 2004, 04:31 PM
No doubt the many Republicans are heading left - moving towards more handouts, more gov't programs, more wasteful spending.

All politicans are the same. They derive their power from spending OUR money, in order to get this money they have to confiscate it from those who earn it.

:angry:

and at the same time, see my other post.... Tax enforcement budget is the lowest in a long time. so large domestic spending plus taxc enforcement lagging=?

[Almighty Colin]

A sad but true tale. It's an almost law of nature. Government grows.

For all the genius of the system of republicanism with checks-and-balances restraint, spending marches on. I guess you could argue that US government spending has grown commensurate with the economy and it has post World War II. That spending though creates more and more institutions. Ah yes, the combined power of well-meaning politicians, deal-making, vote buying and money.

If anyone needs a reminder of the audacious planning ability of government go down to the DMV. You could read an entire Dan Brown book while waiting in line. Hell, in Miami they have lines to stand in other lines. I'm not kidding. What more do we want to turn over to this system?

There is definitely something that can be labelled conservatism in American politics but it has little to do with the size of government.

[wig]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jul 18 2004, 07:31 PM
No doubt the many Republicans are heading left - moving towards more handouts, more gov't programs, more wasteful spending.

All politicans are the same. They derive their power from spending OUR money, in order to get this money they have to confiscate it from those who earn it.

:angry:

Be careful or you will be on the fence.

[grimm]

Originally posted by wig+Jul 19 2004, 04:11 AM-->