Looking for a Fall reading list? You could do worse than a few of the titles from the Five Books symposium on conservatism.
Will
Will writes from Washington, D.C. (well, Arlington, Virginia). You can reach him at willblogcorrespondence at gmail dot com.
Thanks to your generosity, we were able to upgrade our service plan. Hopefully this will help us address some of our performance issues.
on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death PenaltyDavidTC: For example, if they’re doing ethnic cleanings. Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced r…
on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death PenaltyOr have developed nuclear weapons without signing on to the non-profliferation treaty. That's a cons… on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death PenaltySo what the anti-death penalty want is not something that Biden is capable of doing. Biden, or Biden… on Open Mic for the week of 12/23/2024Sure, but if someone thinks that some poor post-doc wiped his nose after touching a sample and says…
on Open Mic for the week of 12/23/2024The problem is that some people say "lab leak" and mean loss of containment of a weaponized virus fr…
on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death PenaltyWe have literally dozens of reasons to not supply arms to a country besides 'genocide'. For example,… on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death PenaltyFor what it’s worth, I do think that Biden’s act is representative of a large swath of the anti-deat… on Open Mic for the week of 12/23/2024Wall Street Journal has an article about the whole intelligence gathering related to the lab leak th… on Saturday Morning Gaming: Clive Barker’s UndyingSnagglepuss, I believe. Either Snagglepuss or Ed Wynn.
on Saturday Morning Gaming: Clive Barker’s UndyingIn that SungWon Cho video you linked in the Control review, what's that silly voice he's doing? I've…
Alone at Last or The Curse of a Sleepy Eye
December 26, 2024
December 25, 2024
A Christmas Eve Two-Pack of The Days of Real Sport
December 24, 2024
Even on Christmas Somebody is Always Taking the Joy Out of Life
December 23, 2024
on Saturday Morning Gaming: Clive Barker’s Undying on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty on Weekend Plans Post: The Ghost Town on Open Mic for the week of 12/23/2024 on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty
on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty on Open Mic for the week of 12/23/2024 on Open Mic for the week of 12/23/2024
on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty on Joe Biden Agrees that Some People *DO* Deserve the Death Penalty
What strikes me is that that’s an overwhelmingly libertarian or classically liberal collection of books. Even Michael Oakeshott doesn’t get a look in, although Leo Strauss does. There are only two distinctively conservative books in the top 10, and one of those only counts because its a rant about how horrible liberals are.Report
@Simon K, Sorry – that should be “an opportunity to rant about how horrible liberals are”.Report
These guys aren’t ‘conservatives’ they’re neocons. No Voegelin? This list is nonsense.Report
@Robert Cheeks, These guys aren’t ‘conservatives’ they’re neocons.
We need to make this into a macro.
God knows, I think this very thought 80% of the time whenever someone says that so-and-so is a “Conservative”.Report
@Jaybird, yes, JB, we need a little more righteous analysis around here! They split hair on the librul but lump all conservatives into one basket and shout, “See how smart I am!”Report
@Robert Cheeks, I suppose I oversimplify with my sixish/sevenish categories of Conservative.
Perhaps we ought to come up with a Field Guide and/or Taxonomy…
Social Conservative. Quote: “The culture’s going to hell in a handbasket.”
Related to:
Theocon.
Paleocon.
Fiscal Hawks. Quote: “We could easily cut spending in, at least, the Department of Agriculture, Labor, Energy, Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Homeland Security. Also the CFTC, FCC, FMC, FTC, GSA, NASA, NARA, NLRB, OPM, SSA…”
Related to:
Libertarians.
Defense Hawks. Quote: “We need to ensure the safety of our Country, our Families, and our Way of Life from foreign threats.”
Related to:
Neocons
We could probably do better and get more granular (also: accurate) and come up with better (funnier) quotes.Report
@Jaybird, Dude, you’re like a master of definative political terminology!Report
@Robert Cheeks, I am certain that I left out at least two types of Conservatives (and probably five).
I imagine that each major leg of the stool has enough cousins for us to name at least one more for the Hawks and the Fiscons.Report
@Jaybird, I’d be intrigued to read a more complete list. One interesting difference from the different types of liberals and libertarians that get discussed is that these are differences in policy areas of emphasis, and don’t necessarily compete (you can be a social conservative and a fiscal conservative without much trouble) whereas we tend to break libera-thingummies up by philosophical orientation instead – you can’t be both a libertarian and social democrat.
So are there differences in philosophical orientation between conservatives? I think there are, but since I find conservatism quite hard to understand I’m not the best qualified person to comment.Report
@Simon K, Neocons/Theocons and Libertarians are, more or less, diametrically opposed. Defense Hawks and Paleos aren’t exactly buddies (given the isolationist, er, “non-interventionist” bent of the Paleos).
I suppose that the biggest question and area of dispute between conservatives is: How many spheres of influence ought the government have?
Do you think that the government ought to “Protect Traditional Marriage”?
Well, this is a different idea than people who think that “Marriage should be left up to the States”.
(Where would “Strict Constitutionalists” go? Paleos?)
People who are for the War On Drugs vs. people who are anti-Prohibitionist would be another area of dispute.
Sodomy laws would be another.
How many spheres of influence ought the government have?
I think it’s safe to say that the mainstream left is most likely to have “more than the conservatives” as their answer (with the poor “liberaltarians” not mentioned because they’re still saying “guys? guys?” in the darkened room where they were left after Obama’s election).
Anyway, that’s where I see the hugest difference in orientation. Where ought the government stick its nose?
Perhaps a followup distinction might be: How powerful ought the government be where it does have the authority to do nose-sticking?Report
@Simon K, Seems like a very minarchist assessment. I somehow doubt that the social conservatives or hawks would express the key point of difference the same way. If they did I’d feel a lot more comfortable with them. I became pretty clear under the Bush administration that not just the neo-cons, but many of the other hawkish types and even the soc-cons didn’t particularly care where the government stuck its nose provided it paid lip service at least to their pet issues.Report
@Simon K, Seems like a very minarchist assessment.
AND I WOULD HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT IF IT WEREN’T FOR YOU MEDDLING KIDS
I somehow doubt that the social conservatives or hawks would express the key point of difference the same way.
I’d love to read their taxonomies.Report
The eight previous years of neoconservative rule masquerading as “conservative” has, unfortunately, poisoned the well for years to come.
Having spent my young adult years (17-25) growing up under the Bush Administration, the word “conservative” to me is now irredeemably associated with foreign wars of aggression, fiscal incontinence, rampant civil liberties violations and hostility to gay rights.
Why would I ever, ever trust those people with the government again?Report
@Travis, Why…Barack Obama and the Democrats! However, all you have to do is join the TPers, through out the RINOS and Neos and you’ve got your ‘conservative’ party probably with cohones.
Quit whining and do it, or shut up!Report
@Robert Cheeks, why on Earth would I want a “Tea Party” in power whose platform and mantra are so ludicrously incoherent as to approach Dadaism?
Get government out of Medicare! Cut taxes but spend more on the military! Privatize Social Security! (yeah, because we didn’t just experience a massive stock market crash or anything) Keep those scary gays from marrying or being in the military! Stop the scarier Muslims from building a victory mosque on Ground Zero! Don’t say anything about the PATRIOT Act!Report
And before you say “but the Tea Party isn’t against gay marriage,” I’d suggest you look at the positions of the candidates the Tea Partiers are endorsing. Uniformly anti-gay-marriage.Report
@Travis, When did I say I was ‘for’ homosexual ‘marriage?’
I dunno, you were whining about the neocons under Bush acting like a bunch of democrats. I don’t support ‘foreign entanglements,’ and I’d bring the troops home, shutdown the foreign bases, close the borders, no death panels, no Obamacare, social security/medicare only for those that have contributed, tax incentives for building/starting manufacturing facilities, etc., etc…less gummint all the way around. Hell, I’d even compromise with you to get you to come over to our side of the river.
What’d you gonna do dude, vote Democrat? Have at it.Report
@Robert Cheeks, seriously, you’re going to claim that the neocons act like Democrats?
If nothing else, there’s one key difference: Democrats tax and spend while Republicans borrow and spend.
Given that it’s a proven fact nobody is actually going to reduce spending, I’m far more comfortable with raising the necessary funds by taxation rather than through endless borrowing from China.Report
@Robert Cheeks & Travis, This conversation was a classic and pretty funny example of sustained misunderstanding fueled by opposed world views being mistaken for a common political orientation due to the essential meaninglessness of the term ‘conservatism.’Report
@Robert Cheeks, Though to be fair to Bob, after tonight his contention that the Tea Party is legitimately in a position to substantially remake the American Right if not the Republican Party is looking quite a bit more plausible, whatever anyone may think of their particular remaking.Report
@Michael Drew/a>, Fortunately I suspect the end result will simply be to concede those seats to the Democrats. Just in case, however, I am ensuring my British passport is up-to-date.Report
@Robert Cheeks, Mike, being an old Mick, the possibility of a rising titilates.Report
@Robert Cheeks, Dude, it’ll be a loss.Report
@Travis, using that standard, you pretty much have to go to the third parties before you find enthusiastic supporters of SSM.Report
(don’t get me wrong! that’s where I am!)Report
@Travis, I’ve recently purchased a “Reagan in ’80” t-shirt.
I only bought that one because they didn’t have any “Eisenhower in ’52” shirts.
Maybe I should do the research and make a Cafepress “Coolidge in ’24” shirt and just start wearing that.Report
@Jaybird,
While you’re at it, I think I would like a Romney ’68 shirt.Report
@JosephFM,
I was quite young at the time and would welcome a correction, but I don’t recall Romney’s religion even being mentioned in ’68. We were, in at least that way, a better country then.Report
@Jaybird, Can you provide a link?Report
@Robert Cheeks, Here you go:
thoseshirts.com/reagan80.html
I cannot and would not condone many of the other shirts on that site and Maribou would shun me if I wore some of them in public and *KILL* me if I wore others under any circumstances (e.g., the “I survived roe v. wade” shirt) but the “Reagan in ’80” shirt strikes me that it would do a good job of communicating dissatisfaction with the current bunch of children running for office while still scandalizing my (her) social circle while skirting, without crossing, “I am not going out with you if you wear that” territory.Report