博客浏览约瑟夫·索伯伦(Joseph Sobran)档案



书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

Conservatives are feeling gloomy these days. In this country the latest Republican “revolution” has been thwarted by Bill Clinton. In Britain Tony Blair’s Labor Party has routed the Tories. In France the story is the same: a pragmatic, post-Marxist Left has stymied what recently appeared to be a rightward trend.

“Is there a worldwide conservative crackup?” asks 每周标准。 Twenty-eight more-or-less conservative writers (mostly less) offer their answers in one of those marathon symposia so typical of the conservative intellectual press.

“Worldwide,” seems a trifle grand for a political pattern confined to three countries. Moreover, the pattern has been misread. Conservatives in America and Britain never won as much as their press releases claimed. Yes, Ronald Reagan and George Bush won the White House with three straight landslides. But the federal government continued to grow during their administrations, a twelve-year span in which federal spending nearly doubled.

Most of that increased spending was for programs nowhere authorized by the Constitution. Yet these “conservative” presidents never raised the constitutional issues posed by the explosion of federal spending and national debt. They talked limited government while making no effort to restore historic limits.

So conservatives have reason to be discouraged. The Republican Party has let them down time and again. The candidacy of Bob Dole was a disappointment, yes, but what is more discouraging is the growing realization that, rhetoric aside, Reagan himself was never very different from Dole. Dole was widely ridiculed for offering, once, “to be another Reagan”; but Reagan was already another Dole. He left the federal government far bigger than he found it.

Of the 28 contributors to 每周标准’s symposium, none even mentions the Constitution. Not one. Several, in fact, deplore what they call the “anti- government” and “libertarian” mind-set of many conservatives. One laments “mindless opposition to the state.”

In fact, most of these “conservatives” are actually neoconservatives: They want big government without too many social programs. They don’t want constitutional government; they don’t argue for principled limitations of any sort. Just the opposite. Above all, they want an interventionist foreign policy, especially in the Middle East.

For instance, Eliot A. Cohen writes, “The Founders did not envision or desire a feeble government, and they did not shrink from endorsing its essential functions.” Yes, but they defined those “essential” functions carefully and narrowly. They were more anxious about “usurpation” than about any other domestic danger. And they believed that “foreign corruption” and “entangling alliances” with the Old World posed special threats to the American Republic.

That classical American conservatism is strictly taboo at 每周标准。 Its symposium includes a few token “social” conservatives, but nobody who espouses the constitutional and foreign policy views of the Founders. It finds room for a liberal Democrat, an Englishman, and an Israeli, but not for a Pat Buchanan, a Howard Phillips, a Samuel Francis, or a Charlie Reese.

By excluding such perspectives, 每周标准 is trying to pass off the neoconservative party line as the conservative consensus. It’s trying to stifle the vigorous and necessary debate over first principles that is actually raging among conservatives. In fact, the lesson of its current issue may be that the best way to avoid debate is to hold a symposium.

Like the Republican Party, 每周标准 only pretends to oppose a political establishment whose principles it accepts. That’s why, despite the talents of some of its writers, the magazine is essentially boring.

If the neoconservatives got everything they want in the way of public policy, nothing much would be changed. The legacy of the liberal era would remain. Yet most conservatives still think the neoconservatives are their allies. If a neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality, conservatives have yet to realize they’ve been mugged — by the neoconservatives.

Over the last two generations, liberals have staged a revolution in American government while pretending only to modify the system. By contrast, conservatives have managed only modifications in the liberal system while claiming to have effected revolution. At the moment, it’s still the liberals’ country. Conservatives are just renting.

(从重新发布 索伯兰的 经作者或代表的许可)
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
  1. It might just be time to move “beyond” conservatism…

    See Sam Francis’ writing on the question, circa 2000:




 记得 我的信息为什么?
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有约瑟夫·索伯伦评论