[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Activism See other Activism Articles Title: REVOLUTION FROM WITHIN
FROM WHENCE A NEW CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT REVOLUTION FROM WITHIN FROM WHENCE A NEW CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT By: Red Phillips In the April 25 issue of The American Conservative, there is an excellent article by Marcus Epstein on the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). In it he details the sorry state of modern conservatism, at least to the degree that CPAC accurately represents it. I am not convinced that the true-believing spear carriers at CPAC are identical to the average grassroots, conservative, Red State, voter, but they certainly are the visible public face of conservatism. When I lived near Washington DC, I attended the CPAC two years in a row. I attended partially because I am a glutton for punishment, and partially because I enjoy being a fly in the ointment, but mainly because I am a political junkie like everyone else at the Conference. Mr. Epstein’s observations seem generally consistent with what I observed, especially with regards to the line up of speakers. There was very little deviation from the mainstream conservative party line represented by the invited speakers. It is very sad to see how the young "conservative" minds who attend CPAC are being taught that this stuff is "conservative." However, when mingling with the attendees, my observations may differ slightly from Mr. Epstein’s. I observed that in groups people did not necessarily feel they could speak their minds. (One of the meetings I attended was post 9/11.) However, one to one, once they figured out I was sympathetic, people were more likely to express some discontent. But very few were able to divorce themselves from the current Democratic vs. Republican mainstream paradigm, even though it was so obviously not serving them well. I know there are many Ether Zone readers and others on the real right who feel the modern "conservative" movement is unsalvageable. Perhaps they are correct. But I believe it is a mistake for more genuine conservatives to totally abandon the current movement. Here is why. Let’s concede that the conservative movement is worthless when it comes to actually making progress (actually regress would be a more accurate term) towards conservative ends, as opposed to perhaps some success at slowing the rate of the liberal onslaught and mere partisan head counting. Therefore, it is clear that what we need is an effective real conservative alternative to the current phony conservative movement. Well, from whence is this new authentic conservative alternative likely to come? There are several credible theories among genuine conservatives about how to remake the conservative movement. One theory, popularized by the late Sam Francis among others, is that the new movement is likely to come from the middle. He expounded this theory in his appropriately titled book Revolution from the Middle. In brief, this theory purports that the main political distinction is between rich, urban, bi-costal elites and the poor and minorities that they have enlisted vs. Middle American, middle class, mostly white folks (MCWF). In this theory, issues that really energize the masses such as immigration and affirmative action, which are often different from what energizes the CPAC types, are going to form the basis for the rebellion and presumably some other conservative issues will be able to gravy train along for the ride. One criticism of this theory, which Hoppe has pointed out, is that it seems to concede that certain social programs which are popular with the MCWF such as Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and Medicare are going to be the price of enlisting them for popular conservative causes. Another theory, of which Devvy Kidd might be a good representative proponent, is that the new movement is going to be made up of the disaffected slumbering masses when they are awakened to the gravity of the current situation. Often closely associated with this theory is the corollary idea that the masses are being distracted while the real forces are about the business of running the Country. A criticism of this theory is that the slumbering masses are slumbering for a reason, because they are generally non-ideological and disinterested. And there is no guarantee that this uprising would naturally lead to conservative reform. If the movement is based on the belief that the current Regime is out of touch with the populace, then it seems as likely that it will be anti-business, anti-market and pro-social programs as it is pro-freedom and conservative. Another theory, popular with the Lew Rockwellites, is that the current movement is the logical outcome of conservatism, because conservatism as a philosophy is not uniformly anti-statist. So that genuine reform toward minimal (or nonexistent) government is only going to happen when the right discards conservatism and embraces libertarianism as their principle guiding philosophy. I believe neither element is large enough presently to form a viable mass movement on its own. Clearly, despite great underlying philosophical differences, the two movements agree on much when it comes to policy if you judge real conservatism and not the current brand of pseudoconservatism. In service of their objective of replacing conservatism with libertarianism, I have noted an almost gleeful denunciation of all things conservative among the Rockwell types. But criticizing conservatism based on the current movement is akin to criticizing Christianity based on the actions of Unitarian Universalist. (My point here is not to pick a fight with the Rockwellites who I see as a clear part of any new rightist movement. I believe real conservatives can comfortably make common cause with Theistic, tradition respecting, right libertarians. Whether they can comfortably coexist with moral relativist, progressive, leftist libertarians is another question. I would just restate that it is unfair to criticize real conservatives based on the modern GOP/Limbaugh/Fox aberration.) Another theory, one which is near and dear to my heart, is that the most fertile field for real conservative reform is historic regional distinctions. The League of the South (LOS) would be a good representative of this theory. But similar movements in the Mid-Western Heartland and the Mountain West are certainly conceivable and all would be more conservative than the present Regime due to being separated from the liberal Northeast, West Coast, D.C. axis. I have a lot of sympathy for this theory because it is the one which most closely coincides with how most "revolutions" (the use of that word does not imply violence) occur. Revolutions based on ideology, such as the Russian and French Revolutions, are comparatively rare. Most independence movements are based on historic ethnic and regional distinctions. For example, Welsh devolution, Basque separatism, and Quebec independence are based on independence for a historically distinct people, not ideology. A Southern Nationalist movement, due to the historic conservative character of the South, would certainly bring about more conservative governance for the Southern people even if its mass appeal was not exclusively based on ideology. However, the leadership of the LOS concedes that independence is a long term strategy. Such talk currently ruffles many conservative feathers due to how the modern conservative movement has incorrectly associated Nationalism, and the closely associated concept of American Exceptionalism, with conservatism. We know better, but many possibly well meaning conservatives do not. For short term reform, at least, I believe it is much more likely that a new authentic conservative movement will come from within the current movement, than it is to arise de novo. Converts who come to realize that the current movement is not really conservative at all. Converts who realize the current movement is really losing ground despite its rhetoric. Converts who are either educated or shamed into rejecting the current movement in favor of a genuine conservatism. Think about it. Isn’t it intuitively obvious that it will be easier to convert people who already (wrongly) consider themselves conservative to an admittedly radical by current standards real conservatism. Abolishing cherished and entrenched social programs, for example, will be a hard sell to anyone. But it will almost certainly be easier to sell to people who already consider themselves conservative than it would be to populist MCWF or the disinterested slumbering masses. And it in no way hinders the Southern and other regional independence movements, because talk of secession would find much more fertile ground in a new radicalized conservative movement than it ever will among the hopelessly mainstream CPACers. I admit that this new movement from within theory sounds naive and Pollyannaish, but I don’t think it is any more so than any of the other alternatives. And it is surely leagues better than just throwing up our hands in despair or no plan at all. If anyone has any better ideas I would be happy to entertain them. So, what has this long digression to do with CPAC? I think it is a mistake for paleoconservatives, Confederates, right libertarians, and the other hodge podge of elements that make up the far right resistance to mainstream GOP style pseudoconservatism to run fleeing to the tall grass or just poke fun from afar instead of attending events like CPAC. We need to show some presence at these sorts of gatherings. If for no other reason than showing the young conservatives, the future of any movement, that other conservative alternatives exist. How else do we expect to spread our message? By surfing the internet to websites that, while great, largely just preach to the choir? I do not know if the organizers of CPAC would welcome our attendance. They might well reject an application for a booth by any organization with a reputation for not toeing the Party line. But there is nothing stopping us rank and file from showing up and making our presence felt. Conservative missionaries, if you will. Beats just talking to ourselves on the internet. Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||