Right From the Beginning
Paul’s announcement of the death of the paleoconservatism—an article which we discussed at length and which I very much wanted him to write—has prompted me to reconsider something that Paul left out of his discussion, the Right’s trajectory throughout the 1990s. This period of time is also known as my childhood.
I, too, was “Right from the Beginning,” and even came out strong for Buchanan in ’92—just ask my 7th-grade history teacher who indulged me in much right-wing flamethrowing during “current events.” It’s difficult to put into words exactly what about Buchanan appealed to me at this young age, but looking back, I’d describe it as a kind of healthy, instinctive individualism, with a few reactionary and nationalistic sentiments thrown in. “Look, bureaucracies are slow and stupid—we need less government!” “The U.S. Constitution is good enough for me, damn it!” “Hey, you can’t just sneak into our country and demand citizenship, geez!” I couldn’t summon the dramatic language of Rothbard—“breaking the clock of social democracy,” “repealing the 20th century”—but I would have raised a glass at the Randolph Club if I’d been there (or been old enough to drink).
I had not yet experienced the cultural Left—being rather sheltered and not yet having attended college. My main enemies at this time were liberals—who, I imagined, were all a bunch of boring Sunday school teachers or Beltway E.J. Dionne types. The other enemies were the high-minded conservative who tried to spoil all the fun.
Was my adolescent conservatism immature? Sure. But looking back on it now, I still find it a completely healthy way of looking at the world. More importantly, I agree with Sam Francis in seeing this kind of rugged, reactionary individualism as in the hearts (or rather guts) of most of the rank and file conservative activists and avid GOP voters. They are the Men From MARs—Middle American Radicals.
(Although, to be sure, there’s a large contingent who identify with the Religious Right and who probably came to conservatism and the GOP for very different reasons.)
There might not have been a direct connection between Buchanan’s (and Perot’s) insurgent campaigns of ’92, and the “Republican Revolution” of ’94, but they certainly shared a common spirit. In retrospect, what Gingrich ultimately accomplished was to make sure that the Revolution never really overturned much—NAFTA was signed before the class of ’94 entered Congress, the growth of government was never close to being arrested—and that the rebellious energies were properly aligned with the quasi-liberal GOP establishment—hence “Dole in ’96.” Gingrich’s current identity as the über-technocratic wonk—a laptop for every 4 year old!—is testament to a Revolution that never could have been.
The only thing of real significance that the Right accomplished in the 90s was the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Even if old Bill deserved it, this was a puny achievement in light of the real challenges of seriously reevaluating the role of government and American foreign policy after the Cold War. It also lent credence to the notion that Republicans are ultimately a bunch of self-righteous blowhards who are more interested in moralizing than policy making. (The GOP played to type again during their campaign to “save Terry Shaivo,” another “futile and stupid gesture” by Republicans at a moment when they were at the height of their power.)
In 2000 we got Dubya, who distanced himself both from the Clinton impeachment and the failed ’94 Revolution, and kindled some kind of vague “compassion.” I promptly dropped out, tuned out of conservative politics, stopped calling myself a conservative, began studying German, political philosophy, and 19th-century Central European music, and prepared for life as an “unpolitical man.” There was nothing about Bush or the conservative movement that interested me in the least.
This didn’t last very long, as 2001 and the Iraq War drew me back into American politics. I reenlisted, but this time in the dissident, oppositional fraction of the Right. I became a dedicated reader of The American Conservative and felt that I had come full circle—Buchanan was my hero again.
Things were, of course, very different for those who stayed loyal to the movement. Looking back on it now, 2003 seems like a bizarro bastardization of the spirit of ’92 and ’94. I’ll give credit to my friend Marcus Epstein for the formulation: The Middle Americans revolted—and they did it while eating “freedom fries.” The instinct to “support the troops” is usually something good; however, I wish the MARs would have recognized that it wasn’t just the “far Left” who opposed the invasion of Iraq, and it wasn’t exactly rock-ribbed conservatives who were planning it, either. Whatever the case, the needless, disastrous invasion of Iraq brought the conservative movement and the GOP into closer unison than they had ever been before. The GOP gained much; MARs gained absolutely nothing.
Paul is thus on the mark when he writes:
[T]his new generation sees itself not as the latest phase of the post-World War II conservative movement but as a throwback to the interwar anti-New Deal Right. It has become contemptuous of the conservatism that arose in the 1950s under the auspices of National Review, because all it knows of this movement is the iron control of the neoconservative ruling class. Unlike the older generation, these younger rightists nurture no fond memories about the way things were before the 1980s or possibly before the 1970s.”
Studying the glory days of NR and the movement is often edifying and inspiring, but I’ve always approached this as an intellectual historian—now that the unifying menace of World Communism is long gone, what, if anything, is there to be salvaged from the political philosophy developed at the old NR? It’s equally enlightening to examine the golden days to try to discover why exactly the movement was so vulnerable, so easily transformed by neoconservatives on the one hand and the midnless hacks of FOX News on the other.
The Right needs a new beginning, and here I agree with Paul that in moving beyond the movement, we shouldn’t take a fantastical flight into the Never-Never-Land of Medieval Catholicism (or, in alternate versions, the Confederacy or some pre-industrial communal past). This has always stuck me as more resembling a game of Dungeons and Dragons than any serious appreciation of history.
More importantly, it is around things like opposition to “comprehensive immigration reform” that the Right can still become unified as a “third force”—and when I sense the stirring of the rebellious spirit of ’92. The same can’t be said of a campaign to retroactively oppose the Glorious Revolution.
May you live in interesting times—the slow erosion of neoconservative credibility (if not their funding) is undeniable; the GOP is set for a long decline; the expense of the Iraq War and system of entitlements is leading the country into a major financial crisis. Moreover, the lukewarm reception of John McCain amongst the talk-radio and Coulter set proves that the war doesn’t quite trump everything else.
All of this represents a major opportunity, and it is not as self-described paleoconservatives that we will be best prepared to seize it.
Comments
@Richard:
Interesting biographical comments; I am curious how many others who read this list have somewhat similar backgrounds.
I would agree with you and Paul on the need for reformulation, and perhaps more importantly,
re-examination, of our postulates. The one thing I would not be so quick to appear to junk, if you will,
is appeals to “fantastical” Medieval Catholicism or “the Confederacy or some pre-industrial communal past.” Those who usually make such appeals--and I may be a good example--are usually quite aware that the past, as past, cannot be re-created. But the lessons, the knowledge, and in some (perhaps many) cases, the structures and outlook of the past can oftimes be utilized and restored. While I’m sure that John Zmirak and I would dearly love to see the Habsburgs rule again from Vienna (and Budapest and Zagreb), I am equally certain that we both are realists about the chances of such a restoration any time soon, certainly given the political climate in the EU. Still, restoration of the Habssburgs in itself, considered as such, is not a bad IDEA at all, given the history and culture produced under Habsburg rule.
And the teachings of the Church are “above” history, as such. The Church’s teachings on political theory, the relation of the sovereign to the people, the duties of kings (or rulers) to subjects, the absolute necesssity of all nations and peoples to (freely) acknowledge the Kingship of Our Lord and implement His teachings in society, these teachings have not changed in nearly 2000 years. While no one suggests we attempt to “re-create” the Middle ages, we certainly can learn from them, and from the teachings of the Church which stretch back way beyond the High Meideval period.
So, while my efforts are directed to more mundane affairs, and issues like illegal immigration, or preserving our Constitution, there is nothing wrong--indeed, there is everything “right"--with a defense of the Habsburgs and their approach to governance and nationality, for instance, or an adherence to the immemorial teachings of the Church on the duties of the state in society. And who knows what the future may bring?
Likewise, and even more close to home, as an active member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, I fully recognize that the South (and North Carolina) that I was raised in has radically changed. But there is still a southern heritage worth defending, and many traditions, customs, and mores that NEED to be preserved. As to those who still work for Southern independence, well, again, who knows what the future may hold in this litically-correct, wretched nation we now call home? Who knows if in 10 or 20 years the US of A will not break up into a “nuevo Mexico” writ large in the Southwest, a “New Confederacy” in the Old South, and other regionalist incarnations?
It is easy right now to cast off such ideas as “fantastical” or the wasting of good effort.
But are they really? And how then do we decide? History is full of upturned apple carts, to paraphrase Bernard Shaw.
Oh, and by the way, you say that you studied 19th century Central European music. I did as well, mostly Bruckner, and a few others. I continue to be a member of The Wilhelm Furtwangler Society and a Brucknerian. Just curious about your studies....
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr. Cathy,
Thanks for the thoughtful comments.
A few thoughts of my own: I, too, like to indulge in nostalgia, and I certainly like reading and studying the canon; however, I always sense that with many paleos there’s something more—and effort to retreat. I’d point out that there have always been fascinating historical actors--Konrad Adenauer comes to mind because I writing on him at the moment— who were filled with a great longing for the past—in his case, Christendom, the “West”—but who were able to remain realists and advance modern policy that built on tradition (in Adenauer’s case, his reorientation of German policy toward Western Europe.) In some of the counterreformation rants, I sense that some Catholics want to re-open wounds that, one would have thought, heeled over long ago.
As for music; I must confess that I’ve really never much liked Bruckner ... but I am a card-carrying Wagnerian. Furtwängler was a fascinating conductor, even if his wartime recording are a bit tainted. I also like Carlos Kleiber’s and Otto Klemperer’s readings of this repertory. Who’s unbearable, yet so respected, is Knappertsbusch—his recordings of Wagner give new meaning to the word lugubrious.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
For me 9/11 and the Iraq buildup and war left me no choice, but to ditch my National Review,Rush Limbaugh consevatism.Konrad Adenaur is one of my all time greats, a real thinking Catholic, and a real conservative, who thought of all the people not just the rich.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Richard,
I, too, am something of a Wagnerian, and was privileged to see a Ring Cycle in Europe when I was a student there. I’ve been collecting Wagner since I was in high school. I am not much of a fan of Klemperer--he reminds me of impenetrable granite too often! Actually,I do like Kna’ in some things---his Bayreuth PARSIFALs are legendary, in particular the first one from “Neue Bayreuth after the war, then the 1962 and the ‘64, with Jon Vickers as Parsifal. Also, his 1956 Bayreuth Ring, available on both Orfeo and Music & Arts (and I think Melodram),is worth listening to. Kna’ was not good at all in the studio--inattentive and bored (and boring), but live he could be fascinating and inspirational. I also enjoy Rudolf Kempe, Joseph Keilberth, Karl Bohm, and Clemens Krauss in Wagner---I suppose you’ve seen (and/or heard)the 1955 stereo Ring Cycle under Keiberth, recorded by Decca, and just released by Testament? Astrid Varnay (Brunnhilde) is not Flagstad, but she is wonderful, as is her Siegfried, the much-lamented Wolfgang Windgassen, who qualifies as a worthy successor to Melchior. [I must admit that I have two dozen complete Ring cycles on disc, not to mention dozens of LOHENGRINS, TRISTANS, etc.]
As to Furtwangler, I always jump to his defense when the subject of him staying in Germany during the 1930s-40s comes us. His staunchest defender was Yehudi Menuhin who harshly criticized those who took pot-shots a WF from their comfortable perchs on this side of the Atlantic. Indeed, WF saved the lives and livelihoods of dozens of musicians and artists trapped in the Third Reich, including Szymon Goldberg and Issay Debrowen. There have been several excellent and in-depth studies of Furtwangler which I can recommend. He stuck his neck out on numerous occasions (to Goering, Goebbels, and Culture Minister Bernard Rust), and accomplished more than a dozen artists in exile could ever do…
As to Bruckner, I was exposed to him in high school, and at first he seemed like a bottomless pit of sound. Since then, I’ve come to consider him the greatest symphonist since Beethoven. His profound spiriutality and his familiarity with the organ deeply influence his music. I’ve got film/video of Eugen Jochum, Sergiu Celibidache, Gunter Wand, and others conducting his music...mesmerizing.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Richard thanks for the honest thoughts. So much of what you have noticed is true. Nostalgia is still a good word,however, although much abused in our time as something sentimental and sweet like the old cartoons we watched or read as kids. And by the way,silly Catholics are very similar to silly protestants and jews, but one should not mistake the messengers for the message. The problem for every age is so understand the problems in light of the ever present solutions. Modern vs medieval are not helpful categories today, unless the idea of progress has simply overwhelmed one to the point of despair. Perhaps the recovery of truth vs empty, falsehoods—in this age and the next—would be a helpful first step.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Boyd,
Yes, I’m very well aware of the personal history of Furtwängler, and I, as I mentioned, I’m a big fan. But no, you won’t convince that Knappertsbusch is any good, although perhaps I’d change my mind if I heard him during the “New Bayreuth” days and Wieland Wagner’s brilliant productions.
I also must say, Boulez’s conducting of the 1976 Ring, which I’ve seen on video, is obviously obsessively modernistic, but then sometimes the really fast, hard-driving pace can make things exciting. I generally can’t stand Boulez’s own compositions, but then his weird, “wrong” readings of Wagner were just crazy enough to work.
How did we start talking about conductors again? I guess we need to stay on topic or I’ll have to start censuring these comments…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Richard,
It’s probably my fault for raising the question about music and Bruckner in the last paragraph of a message that was, initially on topic! Alas! Please pardon! [PS: I agree with you about Boulez in the Ring. I still like Jimmy Levine’s Met performances on DVD---but there are some fascinating, historical clips of Flagstad, Melchior and others out there...and I WILL stop now!!]
And back to topic…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Richard, if by “building on the past” you mean accepting the changes to our Constitution that occurred in the wake of the Civil War, then I totally disagree with you. The 14th Amendment, as an example, is a horribly formulated law which has allowed liberal interpreters to fundamentally alter the character of this country. It is one of the main causes of the disfigured and distorted America we see today. Moreover, its legal standing is, to say the least, suspect, since it was never Constitutionally ratified. There are other examples one could give, but the point is that most of us wish for a return, not to 1860 per se, but to the authentic U.S. Constitution that existed in 1860, while you seem to be saying that we should just concede all that lost ground to our enemies and start again from there.
Well, the fact is, there is no starting again from there. Paleos have no future whatsoever in this country under the laws as they currently exist. For all intents and purposes, paleo-ism is illegal. In order to bring about the kind of country and society we want, the repeal of several existing Constitutional amendments (at the least) is demanded.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Great article! It is also very unfortunate that many people that have true conservative ideals, do not have an outlet to express those ideals. Talk radio was entertaining for a while in the 1990’s, but, it’s now mostly pointless drivel. It would be very refreshing if a true paleoconservative could start a radio program.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The conversation between Richard and Boyd could never take place in the New Criterion
or in any other neocon publication devoted (quite propagandistically
understood) to Kulchur. Furtwangler, Wagner, and Bruckner would all be assigned there
to a rogue’s gallery of Nazi precursors or Mitmacher of the Third Reich. Boyd’s
predilection for the Ring der Nibelungen combined with his neomedieval Catholicism
would be cited as incontrovertible evidence of his sympathy for the Third Reich, while
Richard’s study of the German language and his talk about “Central European music”
would elicit the scowls of Ramesh Ponnuru and Michael Ledeen. By the way, Richard’s
account of what moved him toward the American Right proves my case about the
post-paleos knowing or caring beans about Russell Kirk, Bill Buckley, James Burnham,
and other golden oldies of the paleo movement.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I wish that Messrs. fatman and batman weren’t quite so rude, even though Mr. Spencer’s prose and pose would try the patience of a saint (a fortiori that of ordinary sinners). Q.: What will a man so bloody sure of everything at not quite 30 be like at 50? A.: George Will. And isn’t one of that breed enough? To give the devil his due, even Will doesn’t pretend that a mere five years’ acquaintance with a broom closet’s worth of the mansion that is Western music qualifies him to bandy words with Dr. Cathey. I don’t think that Thomas Aquinas was ever as certain about anything as Mr. Spencer appears to be about everything.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
And what about Christian Thielemann, reputed to be the mystically-anointed successor to von Karajan?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I can remember at the time that even people who cared and had a definite opinion on the Schiavo case could sympathize with or at least understand the position of the other side. As such, I can’t really believe that it cost the republicans much. I suspect the average person would now struggle to remember who Terry Schiavo was, much less what position the various politicians took during that ordeal. I am about the same age as you and remember having a more similar reaction to the Clinton impeachment, but I also remember that most of the men in my family took an unholy joy in watching the guy roast. There were and are a lot of white men who just completely despise Clinton. When you take that into consideration, it is possible to look at the situation as one of the rare times when the GOP actually served it’s base.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Woody, Yes, I’ve heard Thielemann twice, once conducting Strauss, the second time Verdi, and I found him quite interesting, very intense. And, yes, he’s a throw back to the generation of conductors that preceded him. He seems completely unaffected by most contemporary practices.
@pclaudel, wow, I really got a kick out of your humiliating dressing down of the author in question --until I realized the target was yours truly! Please continue to comment.
@James, concede nothing! There are perfectly good means to amend the Constitution. I think you might be overestimating the degree to which the 14th amendment ruined culture.
I could talk more about this but I’m getting sleepy.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
If paleoconservatism is dead, how come more paleo content is generated now that ever before? If anything, the situation today is better. Paleo ideas on everything from foreign policy to immigration to free trade are slipping into the mainstream. Every educated American knows there is something unusual about neocons. First Ron Paul then Bob Barr run for president on paleo-friendly platforms. The paleo writing circle is much bigger today than ever before.
Isn’t there cause for optimism? While paleos never managed to salvage the conservative movement, they have done well.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Richard, Woody, Paul, and James:
Despite certain rude interruptions, this is an interesting thread, raising all sorts of questions about the nature of the American founding and about the future not only of what is commonly denominated “conservartism” but also of this nation, as well. For the longest time, during my “Republican” years, I believed that we should all be rallying around the “old” Constitution, defending individual liberty (that I felt was guaranteed to us), and defeating Communism. But, slowely, over the years, I’ve come to the conclusion--a conclusion that I am still not that comfortable with--that there really is not that much left of the “Old Republic” worth salvaging. As a Southerner and a regionalist, and an active member of The Sons of Confederate Veterans, I see this even more acutely when I consider my own native Southland (which in many ways means more to me culturally and historically than the so-called “American” nation).
And as a native born traditional Catholic, educated partially in what was (and still may be) the most Catholic of universities, the University of Navarra (Spain), I have come to believe that the very founding of this nation was beset with inherently fatal flaws, that is, that there were “time bombs” even in the original Constitution (and Federal union itself) that led to its real demise in 1865-67. My ancestors who fought with the old Southern Confederacy, who fought for the old Constitution , perhaps didn’t see those flaws clearly enough, but they were, I think, there, and the American “Imperial” nation was the result, a result that I think was implicit from the beginning.
What is it that defines an “American”? I no longer know, and in some ways, the question no longer is that important for me. A common history? Or a common language? A faith in “democracy”? A common culture? A religious and racial identity? None of these things holds much sway in 2008 America. We ask about the future of “paleo-conservatism,” and yet for me the term “conservatism” has become and is more meaningless every day. What do we plan to conserve? A consumerist-driven, sharply divided, paganized society, where two jealous oligarchies called political parties trade favors and terms of office back and forth, where votes and opinions are bought and sold like slaves of years ago? Where American armies enforce “the American Way” imperially on societies we decide need American enterprize and commercial influence?
Paul and Richard talk a of “new” or “post” paleo type of conservatism. That may be, but basing it on the same old trotted out suppositions that were employed in 1787 will, in my view, no longer work. I am reminded of something the late Fritz Wilhelmsen wrote about 1968, when all the student upheavals were going on, I believe in a little pamphlet titled THE KINGSHIP OF CHRIST OR CHAOS (maybe Woody will remember it!): “We must learn to love the country enough to turn away from it, so to build it up again. We must become radical traditionalist counter-revolutionaries.” (I am paraphrasing) And what my late dear friend meant was this: we do not need more “conservatism,” but rather counter-revolution, a radical re-examination of the postulates that once ungirded this nation, to discard those suppositions that have been deleterious, perhaps to the point that we come to a conclusion that it is not worth salvaging.
I realize that Richard (and Paul) caution against attacking Calvinism and Protestantism, but the heritage this nation received from those streams of thought, supposedly of liberty and freedom and the right to property, free speech, and individual endeavour, have not been successful and have led us to this parlous state that we now find ourselves in.
In the 1840s some leaders of the old pre-War Between the States Democratic Party worked to establish an alliance between Southern regionalists/states’ righters and Northern Catholics (mostly ethnics). Today, the only real traditionalists left in the US are the few pockets of Southern (and some western)regionalists who still have traditions to defend, and various pockets of traditional Catholics (mostly ethnics)in the North and
other regions. Again, in 2008, perhaps we should be searching for that kind of “union” of interests, of those willing to to take a hard look at basics, and, God willing, to re-examine the foundations and become truly radical traditionalists, to the point of discarding what is unworkable and “importing” that which may....
Lastly, Richard, Thielemann’s TRISTAN is certainly worth listening to. Bohm (and Furtwangler) are still my first choices, however. Flagstad cannot be bettered in the music [there are several live performances of here as Isolde from the 1930s which are beyond great.]
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I also greatly admired Pat Buchanan. I can think of no public figure who more courageously and articulately opposed the Iraq war. However, his 2004 endorsement of Mr. Bush demonstrated a staggering degree of hypocrisy and irresponsibility. How in the world can you argue that the Iraq war was one of this nation’s greatest strategic blunders in its history and then support the man most responsible?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Dr. Boyd D. Cathey,
My suggestion is that we pick any of America’s bombed out deserted cities and all agree to move there and each of us rehabilitate one of the old houses there. My city of Albany comes to mind, but any would do. Then we take over the government, the county, and eventually declare our independence.
On another note the paleo movement is making great strides. Friends of mine who have been enthralled by the two headed monster that is our current political system are now finally waking up to reality. One friend of mine, a staunch neo-con defender now senses the need for a return to isolationist conservatism. It took him some time and a lot of looking but he finally came to the right conclusion.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I wonder if such paleos came to the movement the way I did. Despite living only 30 miles away, I had no idea the Rockford, Ill. Institute even existed, let alone know of the existence of Chronicles magazine while growing up in Beloit, Wisconsin. The first time I heard either mentioned at all was in the hit piece done on them by David Frum in his book Dead Right which came out in 1993. It wasn’t until 1997 that I picked up my first edition of Chronicles at the newsstand section of my local bookstore in Shawano, Wisconsin where I was working at the time. The reason I so identified with the paleo movement after reading Chronicles was the fact that while I considered myself nominally a conservative, those who were the dominant conservatives in the 1990s as pundits, political leaders and talk show hosts were repugnant to me. Maybe it was my Midwestern humility, but I never was able to identify with a right so filled with smart asses and arrogant jerks. They were simply mirrors of their leftist counterparts.
When I found out that the writers and editors of Chronicles felt the same way, I knew I had found a home for my then still formulating beliefs. I also realized that what I was reading was far different than any other opinion magazine I had read up until then. It gave a context to conservative thought that was more important than writing about the next election or the latest up and coming politician. Other magazines dealt with politics and policy, Chronicles dealt with what makes politics and policy and that is culture. I will also add the fact I lived and worked in small farming towns since graduating from college also added to Chronicles’ appeal because it is written from the point of view of such communities rather than the point of view of the coasts.
What are we creating for future generations? Chilton Williamson Jr. nailed it during a column in a recent issue of Chronicles. What are we, as young paleocons, writing or creating that is relevant, new or long lasting? If all we are doing is just blogging or writing internet columns, heck that’s what Jonah Goldberg does too everyday. What does it say when National Review Online is more relevant to so-called conservatives than National Review the magazine?
Austin Bramwell also put it well in his recent American Conservative article:
“Whatever its past accomplishments, the conservative movement no longer kindles any “ironic points of light.” It has produced fewer outstanding books even as it has taken over more of the intellectual and political landscape. This trend will only continue. Worse, no reckoning will be made: they hope in vain who expect conservatives to take responsibility for the actual consequences of their actions. Conservatives have no use for the ethic of responsibility; they seek only to “see to it that the flame of pure intention is not quelched.” The movement remains a fine place to make a career, but for wisdom one must look elsewhere.”
I recently went to a Borders book store to buy a DVD for my father’s birthday and was just amazed at the number of books in the politics section. The problem was, for all the quantity of books out there, the quality is just utter crap. Most are either ghost-written screeds from talk-show hosts or pundits, self-serving biographies or short-term political party strategy books.
There is a movement out there. I read a story in a newspaper recently about a small town in rural Virginia that’s trying to use what has to sell itself as a place live rather than sell out to the god of progress and try to lure some big industry to town with basket full of tax breaks or build big box stores over cornfields. That’s important because it shows that resistence to globalization isn’t just confined to leftist college towns. One can find it all across the country in the rural areas of the Midwest, West, South and New England or what remains of cohesive neighborhoods in large cities.
Rod Dreher hit upon this with his book Crunchy Cons. Now I think Dreher should be sued for plagerism because much of what he’s written about comes right out the pages of Chronicles itself but I’m sure TRI is content to know its work has not been done in isolation. What thiis shows is that there is a large pool of tradition-minded, local-minded, patroon-like people out there caught in between the squeeze of multiculturalism, globalism, the mammon worshippers and the neoconservatives. This is why we’ve rejected the conservative movement, because it wasn’t about conserving anything anymore and because we couldn’t figure out which side of the “fusionist” coalation its victories were due to. Not to mention the fact its promoters are some of the most repulsive, annoying and stupid people on earth.
A Georgia farmer can call himself a conservative like his neighbors do, but if he willingly takes his peanut-subsidy from Feds, what good is his conservatism? For many its simply a standard of tribal loyalty they’ve really give little thought to other than they know who they are and who the “other” isn’t as Bramwell also points out:
“Conservatism is entertaining. Understanding the world, though rewarding, provides nothing like the pleasures of a “Two Minute Hate,” a focused, ritualized denunciation of enemies. To induce its own Two Minute Hates, conservatism, like Ingsoc in 1984, manufactures bogeymen such as “judicial activists,” “so-called realists,” or “moral relativists” that become symbolic representations of detested outsiders. Meanwhile, like the Inner Party in 1984, conservative leaders tolerate the more vulgar, angry purveyors of ideology—think talk-show hosts or authors of bestselling political books. The most vicious attacks, meanwhile, are reserved for turncoats, like Goldstein in 1984. (Of course, as many paleoconservatives could attest, the hatred is usually mutual.) Rooting for conservative ideology is as engrossing to its partisans as rooting for the local football team is to its fans.
The roots of ideology lie deep in our cognitive limitations and instinct for group loyalty. One could make similar observations of any ideology. The most distinguishing feature of conservatism is its misleading name. Lexically, “conservatism” denotes caution, prudence, and resistance to change. Conservatism the ideology, however, has if anything tended towards recklessness. “Nuke ‘em!” has always been a popular conservative sentiment, never more so than today with respect to the Muslim world. For frantic boast and foolish word / Thy mercy on thy people Lord!
No movement can exist without ideas, likeminded people and a place where they all come together. Certainly the original conservative movement could not have existed without a book like Witness and a place like Southern California. With TRI and other institutions we can create the ideas, with magazines like Chronicles and the American Conservative and a book like The Politics of Human Nature along with a few leaders we can find and bring together the likeminded people and with decentralization we can create the places where it all comes together.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr Boyd D Cathey you wrote:
“While I’m sure that John Zmirak and I would dearly love to see the Habsburgs rule again from Vienna (and Budapest and Zagreb), I am equally certain that we both are realists about the chances of such a restoration any time soon, certainly given the political climate in the EU.”
Even the Jews were given the choice between Jesus or Barabbas. They therefore being gathered together, Pilate said: Whom will you that I release to you, Barabbas, or Jesus that is called Christ? Modern man has not been given the choice to choose between the New World Order represented by the UN, EU, etc. or the Old World Order-the Westphalian order represented by the Sacred institution The Holy Roman Empire.
Dante has called The Imperial Electors-the pro-claimers of Divine Providence. These 7 or 8 eight Imperial Electors are the Divine instrument given to men to help determine what man the Blessed Trinity desires for governing the rest of us. The Emperors laws are the laws given to men by the Blessed Trinity. Justice is served and the world is best governed by the laws of the Justinian Codex. This Codex is the basis for good laws.
Instead of focusing on the restoration of Habsburg rule, the focus should center on bringing these 7 or 8 eight Imperial Electors together to ask the Blessed Trinity for a verdict on the New World Order government by restoring to us this office of the Holy Roman Emperor. If these electors are successfully brought together soon all else will follow.
It is too difficult to attempt a restoration of a temporal monarchy such as the Habsburg House, too many worldly obstacles will be set in place against such a restoration. There is less effort in bringing 7 or 8 men together, less obstacles to face. Once the votes are cast by the Imperial Electors and 1 man is elected, then the restoration of all things in Christ can begin. Very simple.
Dante:
O divine Virtue, if thou dost so far lend thyself to me,
that I make manifest the shadow of the blessed realm
imprinted on my brain,
thou shalt see me come to thy chosen tree and crown me,
then, with the leaves of which the matter and thou shalt
make me worthy.
So few times, Father, is there gathered of it, for triumph
or of Caesar or of poet,-fault and shame of human wills,
that the Peneian frond should bring forth gladness in
the joyous Delphic deity, when it sets any athirst for itself.
A mighty flame followeth a tiny spark; perchance, after
me, shall prayer with better voices be so offered that
Cirha may respond.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“One can’t judge Wagner’s opera Lohengrin after a first hearing—and I certainly don’t intend to hear it a second time.” Gioacchino Rossini
“Mr. Wagner has beautiful moments but some dreadful quarters of an hour.” Gioacchino Rossini
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ Michael Warning:
“Dante has called The Imperial Electors-the pro-claimers of Divine Providence. These 7 or 8 eight Imperial Electors are the Divine instrument given to men to help determine what man the Blessed Trinity desires for governing the rest of us. The Emperors laws are the laws given to men by the Blessed Trinity. Justice is served and the world is best governed by the laws of the Justinian Codex. This Codex is the basis for good laws.”
May I assume that you’re taking the next flight to the Holy Land,
otherwise known as Europe? And may I express my fervent wish that you never serve
in the U.S. Armed Forces or attain to any elective or appointive office that
requires an oath of loyalty to the U.S. Constitution?
I’m weirded out by all this talk of sacred monarchism, gentles. “We have no king but Jesus,”
that’s my stand ... or if we absolutely must acknowledge a crowned sovereign, I’ll
go with Elizabeth II, thank you very much ...
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr.Alessio1947
Far more sensible plan than voting for a Ron Paul. I certainly have no problem with loyalty to the US constitution, or for that matter saying the pledge of allegiance, or signing the national anthem with my hand over my heart.
I as an Imperialist who knows what’s what. Know that the USA does not claim any more for itself than it should. The world is now governed by force of arms and the USA is the strongest in military and economic might and is the world leader based on might. Therefore the USA is no threat to the Imperial aims of a Holy Roman Emperor. The Governments that are based on democratic principle rules by force, not by reason or Divine right. The authority of the Holy Roman Emperor is of Divine Origin. The Blessed Trinity is the creator of the Holy Roman Empire, not men. The USA is just another man made form of government and claims nothing more than that. That it is man made and of no Divine Origin. The USA knows its place and therefore is of no threat.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“The authority of the Holy Roman Emperor is of Divine Origin. The Blessed Trinity is the creator of the Holy Roman Empire, not men.”
The Roman Empire, Western half: Out of business. Closed c AD 410.
The Roman Empire, Eastern Half:
Out of business. Closed AD 1453.
The Holy Roman Empire:
Out of business. Closed vestige by vestige until closed for good, AD 1918.
If what you say is correct, them how do you explain these facts?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Medieval Catholicism? Couldn´t you find a better straw man to show us your high wisdom?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.