Rick Moran goes to battle in "Movement Conservatives vs. The Pragmatists: The Battle is Joined!"
Moran's argument is summed up in this one paragraph:
When Tanenhaus points to the very un-Burkean beliefs of many movement-cons, he is questioning how these revanchists can square their conservatism with the more traditional school of thought represented by Buckley, Hayek, Kirk, Arnold, and others who believed that preserving society’s institutions was the right’s highest calling. A reverence for our past has morphed into a psuedo-reformist mantra that seeks to destroy rather than build upon, tear down instead of conserve. Hence, liberals should not be defeated, they must be annihilated, along with the Great Society, the New Deal, and other “socialist” ideas. Supporting anything less calls into question one’s “true conservative” credentials.
It seems Rick Moran has put too much emphasis on Tanenhaus (a progressive), for his philosophical thoughts. By doing so, he makes a number of mistakes. One example is his misapplication of Burke, Hayek and Arnold. I'm not discounting anything these great thinkers said, but it's important to note that they were British conservatives, not American.
One of the great misunderstandings of Hayek's "Why I Am Not a Conservative," is that it was not American conservatism to which he was referring, but to the conservatism of the British Tories. Again, these men offer valuable insights into our own conservative movement, but the two should not be confused.
It's beyond the purposes of this post to explain the differences, but suffice it to say: America is not Britain. There are significant cultural and political difference between the United States and the United Kingdom.
UPDATED:
I think the answer is pretty simple: They’re scared to death they are going to lose their influence to the wave of Tea Party, Blogger, and Other Barbarians trying to remake the GOP, and conservatism, in their own image.
The truth is, these guys are terribly uncomfortable with the technologically-driven self-empowerment of the masses at large, and the paladins who wield real power in it. (Both Henke and Ruffini are experts in political technology - but I don’t think they’re thrilled with the Great Unwashed making use of their tools for its own purposes). They find the idea that a Rick Santelli or a Joe the Plumber can set off entire movements over which they, themselves, have no control appalling ...
The Tanenhaus Republicans and the Architecture of Intellectual Prestige:
What astonishes me is that these Young Turks, who conceive of themselves as infinitely superior to their elders in terms of intellectual sophistication, fail to recognize that they are being played as suckers in a very familiar sort of hustle.
Conservatism is a philosophy of opposition. Excuse me for repeating myself, but some of our Young Turks do not seem to be paying attention to the lessons.
They invite chastisement, lest they become still more impudent (if such a thing were possible). I call them "Young Turks," but they rather remind me of certain Young Hegelians of yore, unwisely eager to hasten the historical synthesis. Their conceited trust in their own superiority is dangerous, perhaps more to them than to the hoary elders of the "movement" whom they seek to supplant ...
No point in reading The Next Right anymore, perhaps. I can just wait to catch the latest young conservative wisdom on MSNBC. It looks so much more in place. Didn't see the research credit, though. Same old MSM on that score. I can hardly wait until Keif picks it up. Anyone looking for some publicity for themselves might consider emailing the show. Just a thought, anyways.
Maybe it's time to reconsider a purge of some sort, after all. We rubes in the grassroots might get confused if we don't know whose side someone is on.
Back to your regularly scheduled program ...
Edmund Burke isn't the best source to defend what he calls "pragmatists," against what he refers to as "revanchists" either. In Burke's "Reflections on the French Revolution," he said:
"... that we have made no discoveries, and we think that no discoveries are to be made, in morality; not many in the great principles of government, nor in the ideas of liberty, which were understood long before we were born, altogether as well as they will be after the grave has heaped its mould upon our presumption, and the silent tomb shall have imposed its law on our pert loquacity."
What Burke was getting at here, is that the status quo in Britain has been held because nothing better had come along. It is better to rely on countless generations of wise and experienced thinkers, than it is to try and radically change society. Yet, that is what "the Great Society, the New Deal, and other 'socialist' ideas," did. They radically changed society (for the worse)!
In "Vindication of Natural Society," pointing to the fact that governments do things "for reasons of state," Burke says:
To prove that these sorts of political societies are a violation offered to nature, and a constraint upon the human mind, it needs only to look upon the sanguinary measures, and instruments of violence, which are everywhere used to support them. Let us take a review of the dungeons, whips, chains, racks, gibbets, with which every society is abundantly stored . . . . I acknowledge, indeed, the necessity of such a proceeding in such institutions; but I must have a very mean opinion of institutions where such proceedings are necessary.
Methinks Rick has much to learn about Burke. But let's go to the comments to his post for some excellent points.
markamerica:
Is it 'open-minded and thoughtful' to reject what one knows in favor of what somebody else claims? This is the proposition you lay before me. You submit that it is better to accept the premise of a person who is openly opposed to me in order to consider his opposition.
What makes you think I haven't considered his premise, or yours, already?
This tripe, this nonsensical view, that to hold firm to an idea or ideal is 'close-minded' or 'dogmatic' must be defeated ... You are dogmatically opposed to strict adherence to principle as any closeminded (sic) leftist is to conservatism ... The firm commitment to remain uncommited (sic).
markamerica:
Obama and all statists, whether they know it or not, do wish to become dictators, though they'd never admit it, even to themselves. What else can be the meaning of regulating every facet of American life and the market(s)?
Here's the problem, at its ugly-most root: You, who allow Obama to continue to pretend his arguments are not those of a dictator, effectively give him cover, and dis-arm your fellow citizens against him.
One of the other problems with so-called 'pragmatists' is the increasingly apparent unwillingness to touch any tough issues. It is made obvious when one hears a senior shout "No Government healthcare! Leave my medicare alone!"
Conservatives are willing to take the time to explain to that senior citizen why BOTH are bad. The pragmatists instead will happily take these seniors and fold them into the flock in the name of short-run victory. In the end, they're still left with a bunch of people who believe government ought to provide them healthcare, by one mechanism or another.
Rick Moran:
I'm sorry, but believing Obama wants to be a dictator - even though he's never said so and would never "admit it" to himself is kinda, well crazy. What insight has the Lord granted you to peer into the guy's soul and decree that he wants to throw out the constitution and set up a dictatorship?
markamerica:
You ignore what I have said, in order to besmirch its significance. I did not get some sort of mystical revelation that told me Obama wants to be a dictator. I did not need to conduct a longterm pyschological (sic) profile of him to know it, and I didn't claim to have done so.
I asked you directly: "What else could be the meaning of...?"
mike from nc:
Gee, Rick, you got him there! Why didn't I think of that? Obama has never said he wants to be a dictator, so that settles it!
Come on - there's nothing "crazy" about watching what Obama and his team are doing, and what they say they want to do, and coming to the conclusion that it is dictatorial in nature. Of course they will never say it, because the American people would reject it. That's why liberals have to lie about what they want and what they believe ... Where, prey tell, does the Constitutional authority come from that allows the state to buy banks, insurance companies, auto manufacturers, etc? For that matter, under what article is the "right" to health care found?
Rick Moran:
The commerce clause gives Congress the right to do just about anything where money changes hands. I oppose government run health care not because it is unconstitutional - some of it may be but that would be up to the Supreme Court to decide and not three guys arguing on a blog - but because it would cause the quality of care to decline, and would lead to rationing. Why just make stuff up about Obama wanting to be a dictator? Aren't those reasons strong enough without imagining that the president wants to throw out the constitution and rule by fiat?
That's quite a perversion of the commerce clause there, Rick. But it serves your purpose of ignoring the realities of the direction of our corrupt federal government, and it's "pragmatic" expansion of socialism.
In the late 1800's, progressivism took root and started to attack free markets (as in freedom). These attacks intensified with the New Deal, about which Judge Andrew Napolitano has correctly noted:
"... codified socialism, evaded the Constitution, disregarded the Natural Law, and put individualism on the path to extinction."
As we can see ... Rick Moran is far from being a Burkean pragmatist, instead (perhaps unintentionally) he's defending progressivism's radical change!
[...] where credit is due. The content of this post was inspired by the Classical Liberal’s post: Rick Moran, Not the Sharpest Tool in the Shed . CL graciously gathered all of the links which I plagiarized for my own use and he wrote a very [...]