I am interested in your views on how the Claremont Institute and The Heritage Foundation can still claim to support the Founding and also support the largest expansion of presidential power in America history. I am ashamed to say that I worked for a time for both in the 80s and 90s when they supported the Constitution.
I appreciate this articulation of conservatism. When I read Mr. Nordlinger's comment that conservatism was perhaps not so much an ideology as a cast of mind I was put in mind of Jonathan Haidt's book, "The Righteous Mind," which characterizes both liberalism and conservatism in similar terms (and great detail), his analysis suggesting both the strengths of each outlook and the intrinsic tendencies that can lead to dangerously illiberal distortions.
I'm a liberal -- I often say I'm a vanilla liberal -- and I became aware of politics in the last days of Joe McCarthy's brief reign, which horrified my liberal family. As a child I viewed conservatism in that light, defined by its illiberal distortions. Later, although I was (and remain) highly partisan, I came to view American mainstream liberalism and conservatism as complementary forms of classical liberalism, each outlook acting as a check on the intrinsic tendencies to distortion of the other. (I could write many paragraphs on the details because I'm longwinded by nature, but I'm exercising uncustomary restraint: the main point is made.) I appreciate that Mr. Nordlinger's conservatism seems to accommodate a similar appreciation of the limits of ideological righteousness.
Late edit (but only minutes later): Just after writing this I turned to the op-ed Damon Linker published in yesterday's New York Times, which deals interestingly with similar themes concerning the changing shape of political "conservativism" (not Mr. Nordlinger's). I'm in sympathy with the portrait drawn by Mr. Linker (a disaffected Republican conservative, like Mr. Nordlinger), but recognize that others might portray a similar dynamic on the Left, where I belong. I wouldn't dispute that such a portrait could be drawn (but not that such a portrait drawn by the MAGA right would have more than a token resemblance to reality), but I do feel the scale of illiberalism and degree of threat between the two is different by an order of magnitude. Of course, I'm a liberal.
"Very well put!" one of my favorite sitcom characters would acclaim - but more to the point:
When I was a High School freshman, I asked my Dad if we were Republicans or Democrats.
He responded: "We are Al Smith Democrats, which is why we vote Republican much of the time."
The next day, he gave me a copy of "God and Man at Yale," and urged me to study its principles.
Thus, I find it difficult to accept my co-religionists' insistence that "America is a Christian nation," or that "It's a sin to vote for candidates who support a right to (you name it; there is a long list)."
It is the essence of Conservatism to take a liberal attitude towards the individual freedom of others, because the basis of my freedom is none other than the basis of their's. If those freedoms are to be restricted in anyway, we as a nation can turn to our amendable Constitution.
An interesting follow on to this article would be to analyze where the New Right wants to go, because it's a bit puzzling, if not an outright contradiction.
Surely folks like Buchanan realize where Orbanism and the like will almost certainly end up. If there's one thing (pseudo) intellectuals on the right pride themselves on, it's history.
So...what's the plan? What is the Good Place that our nat-pops want to take us to?
Were it possible to like this piece multiple times I would do so.
I am interested in your views on how the Claremont Institute and The Heritage Foundation can still claim to support the Founding and also support the largest expansion of presidential power in America history. I am ashamed to say that I worked for a time for both in the 80s and 90s when they supported the Constitution.
I appreciate this articulation of conservatism. When I read Mr. Nordlinger's comment that conservatism was perhaps not so much an ideology as a cast of mind I was put in mind of Jonathan Haidt's book, "The Righteous Mind," which characterizes both liberalism and conservatism in similar terms (and great detail), his analysis suggesting both the strengths of each outlook and the intrinsic tendencies that can lead to dangerously illiberal distortions.
I'm a liberal -- I often say I'm a vanilla liberal -- and I became aware of politics in the last days of Joe McCarthy's brief reign, which horrified my liberal family. As a child I viewed conservatism in that light, defined by its illiberal distortions. Later, although I was (and remain) highly partisan, I came to view American mainstream liberalism and conservatism as complementary forms of classical liberalism, each outlook acting as a check on the intrinsic tendencies to distortion of the other. (I could write many paragraphs on the details because I'm longwinded by nature, but I'm exercising uncustomary restraint: the main point is made.) I appreciate that Mr. Nordlinger's conservatism seems to accommodate a similar appreciation of the limits of ideological righteousness.
Late edit (but only minutes later): Just after writing this I turned to the op-ed Damon Linker published in yesterday's New York Times, which deals interestingly with similar themes concerning the changing shape of political "conservativism" (not Mr. Nordlinger's). I'm in sympathy with the portrait drawn by Mr. Linker (a disaffected Republican conservative, like Mr. Nordlinger), but recognize that others might portray a similar dynamic on the Left, where I belong. I wouldn't dispute that such a portrait could be drawn (but not that such a portrait drawn by the MAGA right would have more than a token resemblance to reality), but I do feel the scale of illiberalism and degree of threat between the two is different by an order of magnitude. Of course, I'm a liberal.
"Very well put!" one of my favorite sitcom characters would acclaim - but more to the point:
When I was a High School freshman, I asked my Dad if we were Republicans or Democrats.
He responded: "We are Al Smith Democrats, which is why we vote Republican much of the time."
The next day, he gave me a copy of "God and Man at Yale," and urged me to study its principles.
Thus, I find it difficult to accept my co-religionists' insistence that "America is a Christian nation," or that "It's a sin to vote for candidates who support a right to (you name it; there is a long list)."
It is the essence of Conservatism to take a liberal attitude towards the individual freedom of others, because the basis of my freedom is none other than the basis of their's. If those freedoms are to be restricted in anyway, we as a nation can turn to our amendable Constitution.
An interesting follow on to this article would be to analyze where the New Right wants to go, because it's a bit puzzling, if not an outright contradiction.
Surely folks like Buchanan realize where Orbanism and the like will almost certainly end up. If there's one thing (pseudo) intellectuals on the right pride themselves on, it's history.
So...what's the plan? What is the Good Place that our nat-pops want to take us to?
I need to learn more. Liberal/conservative or liberal/illiberal. And where does democracy/authoritarian and capitalist/socialist fit in? Thx.
Beautifully stated. I could read this all day.
https://substack.com/@sergemil/note/p-178138133?r=3znpi3&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action