Conservatism exists; it is not dead. This site and “Turnabout” are two proofs that it lives in America, even if it is only the taste of a remnant today. We need to reclaim the title for true conservatism, which means calling such as Will, Goldberg and others (using only names of “conservative” commentators who are reconciling themselves to the idea of sanctifying homosexual couplings) what they are: liberals who do not fully have the courage of their (liberal) convictions. They, at least as much as declared liberals, are masters of the unprincipled exception.

If we cannot reclaim the conservative title for those who merit it, and conservative goes the way of liberal to become another name for Leftists, then we need another name for ourselves. Traditionalist is the best, but to the minds of people numbed by liberalism the term has scary connotations (we do want to reach those people if we can). What about preservers or preservationists? The term has a benign connotation in architecture and historic preservation; perhaps we could adopt it. It also draws a clean line between we who would preserve what is good in our society and those others, liberal and “conservative,” who seek to destroy. Where preservationist falls short is in not incorporating, as does traditionalist, the idea of returning to earlier, superior ways when possible. HRS

It’s a tough issue. I’m not expecting anything to change immediately on this front, just pointing to the ongoing dilemma created by this confusion of language.

One solution would be to use more precise terms. To say “right-liberal” for most conservatives and “left-liberal” for most liberals would be examples. As soon as I start speaking of Norman Podhoretz or David Horowitz, for example, as a right-liberal instead of as a conservative, I feel an increase of intellectual clarity. Even “cold-war liberal” would be preferable to conservative. We’ve used such terms here occasionally But the problem is that they are not usable in normal public discussion because they are too specialized.

As Eric Voegelin wrote in The New Science of Politics, there are two kinds of political language: the language used by people in a political society to express that society’s self-understanding, and the language of political science which attempts to describe a society as it actually is. Horowitz calling himself a “conservative” is an example of the former; our calling him a “right-liberal” would be an example of the latter. However, even though the language of self-understanding is not exact, it cannot be ignored, because a society’s self-understanding is an intrinsic part of its order.

This is not an overwhelming problem when a society’s self-understanding does not veer too far from what it really is. But when you have leading “conservatives” supporting the essential destruction of a social order through open borders and homosexual marriage, then you’ve got, not just a breakdown of society, but a breakdown of language as well.

How about the “New American Party”. I suggest a flag, divided into thirds (vertically) colored black, white and red, respectively. You see the “New American Party” or NAP has a forward looking and optimistic ring to it. The platform should of course be “traditional” or “paleo” conservatism but maybe with a bit of nationalism worked in. You know, anti-immigration and stuff. Anti immigration, anti-globalism, pro-American sort of thing. The country is ripe for a new party! One that actually represents the people! (the right thinking majority anyway). I’m sure this is asking too much.

I previously told Doyle Wolfgang von Frankenstein II, who now calls himself Doyle, that he could continue posting if he just changed his name. The main problem which I ignored then, but which is evident to me from his last post as well as previous posts, is that he’s frivolous, playing some kind of head game, pretending to hold positions that he doesn’t believe in. Though he’s done nothing grossly offensive, I’m going with my instincts on this and excluding him.

Your loss Chief-

Perhaps I am in earnest about a new party (Actually I am). Should the flag be black, white and red? Well I don’t know but it doesn’t hurt to kick around ideas. I’ll let you get back to chasing your tail while the world (as we knew it) is torn asunder.

Artist formerly known as..

Always seemed to me, even back in the 1970s, that what the crowd at National Review were chiefly interested in conserving was their own wealth and status. Hardly surprising then that they jump on the open-borders and homosexual “marriage” bandwagons with scarcely a qualm, for they must be keenly aware that one will definitely not get invited to the toniest soirées, nor be published in respectable journals, nor receive high-paying sinecures, nor receive lucrate speaking engagements, by advocating repatriation of Mexicans, or the banishment of homosexuals from the altar. In the current pathological condition of high society such things are simply unmentionable, so what is a Goldberg to do? Start sidling leftward with a simpering smile on your face, and don’t forget to remind “The Corner” that you’ll be speaking at Cornell U at eight o’clock on Tuesday….

If ever there were any doubt about the veracity of Matt and Mr. Auster’s “Hegelian Mambo” theory, the last two weeks should remove it for good. My bet is that George W. Bush will cave on this issue along with his neocon soulmates. Perhaps he will delay his formal blessing until after the election, making a feint ot two in the direction of the Christian Coalition, et al. (They do vote for him, after all.) He has shown us were his heart is, though. He talked tough about the injustice of affirmative action about a year ago, as I recall. Look what happened there. It’s only a matter of time. There will be no amendment - gay marriage will be enshrined through court rulings - unless there is a huge backlash amongst the general public. The neocons, like their leftist brethren, have now shown themselves to be the mortal enemies of this culture and its people.

“The neocons, like their leftist brethren, have now shown themselves to be the mortal enemies of this culture and its people.”

If the criterion of being a “mortal enemy” of our culture is that one goes along with homosexual marriage, let’s not rush to say that all neocons are in that category. For example, though I’m no fan of David Frum’s, he did make good arguments today against George Will.

I’ll grant that there may be a few neocon holdouts left, but they’re holding onto unpricipled exceptions to their overall desire to revolutionize what remains of the nation and culture into a form of utopia - though it might differ from the typical leftist utopia in aspects. Their arguments will ultimately be undermined through their own basic liberalism. Mr. Frum may oppose homosexual marriage, but he has no problem with racial preferences, open borders, or the sexual revolution in general.

On the other hand, Horowitz generally opposes racial preferences and even has misgivings about the open borders agenda. He has no problem with the homosexualist agenda as a rule, though. Even though they could be fairly described as mortal enemies of the tradtional culture and people of America, the neocons can be useful allies in attacking the left. They cannot be expected or trusted to uphold the traditional American nation and culture in the long term, though. At the end of the day, they are still liberals.

Mr. Sutherland’s assertion that, “We need to reclaim the title for true conservatism,” sums up my view of this. We can’t let terms be redefined, nor can we allow those who appropriated them, however rightly is seemed in the past, to carry the definitions with them in their leftward march.

Liberals meanwhile are adept at abusing words and phrases, (think ‘pro-choice’ or ‘equality’) but we absolutely cannot allow them to seize and co-opt terminology that formerly stood in opposition to their course.

Messrs. Sutherland and Auster both made good suggestions for alternatives, BUT we must keep in mind that ANY term can eventually be misappropriated, and will certainly be targeted. Even when I hear “Traditionalist” I am plagued by thinking of Bill White’s religious persuasion ‘Radical Traditionalism’ — a ‘faith’ whacky enough to compete with the Nation of Islam or Scientology. (http://www.white2002.com/meetBill/traditionalism.asp) But we shouldn’t abandon this qualifying term either.

Our struggle is as much a battle over the meaning of words as the positions those words _properly_ denote. One battle lost on this front leads to another waiting to be lost. We must defend our language from corruption as a type of our defense of our culture from the same. Those who falsely claim these banners must be shown, as Carl noted, to be liberals at the end of the day.

Traditionalist Conservative — that is a term we can be proud to assert and defend.

“Traditionalist Conservative — that is a term we can be proud to assert and defend.”

Agreed. With that qualifying adjective it would be hard for people to monkey around with it, and if they tried to, well, as Joel said, we’d just have to defend the term and not them hijack it.

If blogs and comments are any indicator of the language gradient then “traditionalist” already means “reprobate racist sexist homophobic reactionary” to a lot of people. The most intriguing linguistic fault line is between those who view traditionalists as anti-Semites and those who view us as zionists (in both cases a form of racist in the liberal/neocon view, of course). It is a strange truism that you’ll often find the Jews in the substrate of (though not necessarily party to) history’s biggest ideological contradictions.

I don’t agree with Mr. LeFevre’s suggestion that liberals are dishonest in their use of the terms “pro-choice” and “equality” though. Liberals are exactly those people who elevate choice and equality above all other things in politics, and tradionalist conservatives properly described are anti-choice and anti-equality (at least inasmuch as the pro’s and anti’s describe things that are believed to be politically paramount).

Matt’s views on this are correct, but in a context that he disavows. I expressed my current understanding of “equality” in the last Lincoln thread the other day.

“Choice” is a very open term. There are examples where personal choice is entirely legitimate, where the state has no business intervening. We must inevitably ask the question: Freedom to choose _what_? and assess the moral and societal implications in determining whether the “what” properly belongs in the realm of the individual’s right to make his or her own decision.

Referring to the pro-fetucide position by the phrase “pro-choice,” does an end-around this, attempting to bypass the matter of what’s actually being chosen. You don’t think this is dishonest? I certainly think it is.

I can only agree with your overall assessment of how ‘equality’ and ‘choice’ are overemphasized in the context of the deliberate ambiguity with which the terms are used. But outside this context, when viewed in the context of the _proper_ use of the term, as defined by ourselves, Matt’s statement breaks from reality.

Liberals are 100% against personal choice when it’s about freedom to choose to whom to sell or serve, or to choose with whom we associate, to choose how we use our personal property, to choose the schooling and upbringing of our children. Are liberals emphasizing the right of the Boy Scouts to “choose”? When it comes to liberties that were considered sacred (and “paramount”) by English-speaking people up until 50 years ago, liberals are as anti-choice as you can get.

Sorry if I missed Mr. LeFever’s context on equality. I do try to read VFR every day, including most of the comments, but sometimes I fall short of that goal.

Bypassing the matter of what’s actually chosen is indeed an honest consequence of making choice a primary principle in itself, it seems to me. The liberal is doing just what he says he is doing: making equal choice-qua-choice primary in politics, independent of oppressive traditional discriminatory particulars.

Liberals do attempt to make equal choice-qua-equal-choice primary, and the “choose what particular” is a question they deny precisely because it is choice-qua-choice that is to be upheld. To do otherwise would be dishonest. The restrictions on choice Mr. LeFevre talks about are unprincipled exceptions for the liberal: the liberal would _like_ to allow the property owner to do whatever he wants with the things he claims are his property, but not if that requires sacrificing the equal freedom of others to do what they want.

In short, I think that liberals and leftists are being more consistent - more intellectually honest if you will - in the use of the words equality and choice than conservatives who would also like to preservbe those words as politically primary (though I stipulate, as always, that in the end all uses of such words as justifications for politics are incoherent).