Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览约瑟夫·索伯伦(Joseph Sobran)档案
乌托邦保守派
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
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

The capital is still buzzing about President Bush’s inaugural address. Liberals tend to deem it empty, overreaching, extravagant in its promise to end tyranny all over the world. Conservatives have found it inspiring, “intellectually rich,” even “revolutionary.”

从什么时候开始 革命的 a conservative compliment? Modern conservatism is usually dated from Edmund Burke’s 关于法国革命的思考 (1791), a profoundly anti-revolutionary book that warned against an imprudent disdain for tradition. Burke presciently argued that France’s hot pursuit of “the abstract rights of man” could lead only to violence and, finally, tyranny, probably under some strongman. He wrote this years before the world had heard of Napoleon Bonaparte.

France had just undergone a self-inflicted regime change, and after a year of observation from across the English Channel Burke found himself “alarmed into reflection” on the bloody events in Paris. He set down his thoughts in some of the most beautiful English prose ever written, a model for all future conservatives.

Burke stressed such principles as prudence, tradition, and a sense of limits, as opposed to utopian hopes for perfect political arrangements on earth. Political wisdom begins with the realization that man is a fallen creature whose passions need to be checked, not inflamed. Until recently, nearly all professed conservatives would have agreed.

But today the new conservative consensus seems to be that Burke’s principles are applicable when Democrats are in power but may be set aside when Republicans rule. Conservatives, in just a few years, have been transformed into utopians.

Many pundits have noted that Bush’s speech sounds very much like John Kennedy’s inaugural address. No doubt this was intentional. It sounded so elevated in 1961: America would pay any price, bear any burden, in the world struggle for freedom.

Bush was straining for the same effect. America’s freedom depends on freedom everywhere. We will eliminate tyranny, everywhere, forever and ever! And just how do we do that? By expanding the War on Terror into a War on Tyranny? And once we uproot it, is there any chance it will someday grow back?

Jumpy White House officials rushed to clarify the speech’s meaning; the rhetoric had gotten alarmingly out of control. Did this mean that allies of the United States will henceforth have to be democratic? Or else?

Don’t take it too seriously, these officials cautioned. This carefully honed message, in preparation for weeks, composed by professional speechwriters, scrutinized by dozens, including the president, didn’t speak for itself. It needed a gloss. Sure, it meant universal liberty. But not all at once.

What happened? Did someone in the White House suddenly remember his Burke, maybe from his college days? We may never know. What we do know is that a mild panic seized the White House as it sank in that people were taking the president at his word. This possibility apparently hadn’t occurred to the people around the president.

That is understandable. An inauguration is a time for festivities. The inaugural address itself is just one of the rituals: The president is supposed to make idealistic JFK-type declarations about freedom and resolve that nobody takes very literally.

But in Bush’s case, you never know. He may mean every word of it, to judge by his policies. A global crusade for democracy is not out of the question.

Or maybe he was just looking for a quick bump in the polls, as when, a couple of years ago, he came up with the idea of sending a man to Mars. That didn’t seize the public imagination as hoped, so we’ve heard no more of it.

What is clear, though, is that Bush is pretty nearly the diametric opposite of a Burkean conservative. Modern conservatives like Robert Taft, Russell Kirk, and Michael Oakeshott wouldn’t recognize him as one of their own. His zeal for utopian language and utopian projects marks him as an alien to the breed. He shares the Napoleonic ambition to impose a new international order.

And other self-described conservatives are following him in this, as if conservatism were a mere appendage of the Republican Party, rather than a body of standards by which all parties must be judged. And what principles will they be living by next year? That seems to be up to Bush.

(从重新发布 索伯兰的 经作者或代表的许可)
 
• 类别: 思想 •标签: 保守运动 
当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
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
在翻译模式下禁用评论
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