<>*This post was written by the Campaign Coordinator for the College Republicans, Ian Hermann.*
On the morning of February 27th 2008 the modern conservative movement lost the man who made it what it is today. William F. Buckley Jr. was found dead in his study at his home in Stamford Connecticut; he was 82. Buckley was an accomplished writer and television personality who saw and facilitated many changes in American politics throughout his lifetime.
In 1955, when 29-year-old William F. Buckley Jr. published the first issue of the now well-known magazine National Review, the world, as well as the U.S. was an entirely different place. Communism was rapidly spreading worldwide and the rumblings of civil unrest were beginning here at home. The word “conservative” in American politics was associated with isolationist views and the Republican Party was relegated mainly to the North East.
Through National Review, the show Firing Line, his brilliant ideas, wit and vocabulary Mr. Buckley united constitutionalists, anti-communists, economic libertarians and social traditionalists into one single movement. This new conservative movement pushed for fewer government entitlements, less government regulation, free markets, traditional values and a more aggressive foreign policy. The movement led to conservative Republican Barry Goldwater’s nomination for the 1964 election and culminated with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Today the United States is the leader of the free world, the Soviet Union has fallen, and conservatives are spread across the country with significantly more Americans calling themselves conservative than liberal. Mr. Buckley’s hand in all of this certainly cannot be ignored.
While Mr. Buckley has passed away, his movement is alive and well. It is important for conservatives to take our principles we were founded upon and apply them to issues today. All one needs to do is Google Willam F. Buckley to find an extensive list of some of his witty and clever quotes. I think one, however, which Mr. Buckley wrote in his first issue of National Review, is one of the most inspiring and relevant for present-day conservatives saying “we offer, besides ourselves, a position that has not grown old under the weight of a gigantic, parasitic bureaucracy, a position untempered by the doctoral dissertations of a generation of Ph.D’s in social architecture, unattenuated by a thousand vulgar promises to a thousand different pressure groups, uncorroded by a cynical contempt for human freedom. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaves us just about the hottest thing in town.”
I don’t think anyone could have said it better.
*This is the mission statement for the National Review, a conservative publication founded by William F. Buckley, who passed away today. He is considered the founder of the modern conservative movement, and will be sorely missed.*
There is, we like to think, solid reason for rejoicing. Prodigious efforts, by many people, are responsible for NATIONAL REVIEW. But since it will be the policy of this magazine to reject the hypodermic approach to world affairs, we may as well start out at once, and admit that the joy is not unconfined.
Let’s face it: Unlike Vienna, it seems altogether possible that did NATIONAL REVIEW not exist, no one would have invented it. The launching of a conservative weekly journal of opinion in a country widely assumed to be a bastion of conservatism at first glance looks like a work of supererogation, rather like publishing a royalist weekly within the walls of Buckingham Palace. It is not that, of course; if NATIONAL REVIEW is superfluous, it is so for very different reasons: It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.
NATIONAL REVIEW is out of place, in the sense that the United Nations and the League of Women Voters and the New York Times and Henry Steele Commager are in place. It is out of place because, in its maturity, literate America rejected conservatism in favor of radical social experimentation. Instead of covetously consolidating its premises, the United States seems tormented by its tradition of fixed postulates having to do with the meaning of existence, with the relationship of the state to the individual, of the individual to his neighbor, so clearly enunciated in the enabling documents of our Republic.
“I happen to prefer champagne to ditchwater,” said the benign old wrecker of the ordered society, Oliver Wendell Holmes, “but there is no reason to suppose that the cosmos does.” We have come around to Mr. Holmes’ view, so much so that we feel gentlemanly doubts when asserting the superiority of capitalism to socialism, of republicanism to centralism, of champagne to ditchwater — of anything to anything. (How curious that one of the doubts one is not permitted is whether, at the margin, Mr. Holmes was a useful citizen!) The inroads that relativism has made on the American soul are not so easily evident. One must recently have lived on or close to a college campus to have a vivid intimation of what has happened. It is there that we see how a number of energetic social innovators, plugging their grand designs, succeeded over the years in capturing the liberal intellectual imagination. And since ideas rule the world, the ideologues, having won over the intellectual class, simply walked in and started to run things.
Run just about everything. There never was an age of conformity quite like this one, or a camaraderie quite like the Liberals’. Drop a little itching powder in Jimmy Wechsler’s bath and before he has scratched himself for the third time, Arthur Schlesinger will have denounced you in a dozen books and speeches, Archibald MacLeish will have written ten heroic cantos about our age of terror, Harper’s will have published them, and everyone in sight will have been nominated for a Freedom Award. Conservatives in this country — at least those who have not made their peace with the New Deal, and there is serious question whether there are others — are non-licensed nonconformists; and this is dangerous business in a Liberal world, as every editor of this magazine can readily show by pointing to his scars. Radical conservatives in this country have an interesting time of it, for when they are not being suppressed or mutilated by the Liberals, they are being ignored or humiliated by a great many of those of the well-fed Right, whose ignorance and amorality have never been exaggerated for the same reason that one cannot exaggerate infinity.
There are, thank Heaven, the exceptions. There are those of generous impulse and a sincere desire to encourage a responsible dissent from the Liberal orthodoxy. And there are those who recognize that when all is said and done, the market place depends for a license to operate freely on the men who issue licenses — on the politicians. They recognize, therefore, that efficient getting and spending is itself impossible except in an atmosphere that encourages efficient getting and spending. And back of all political institutions there are moral and philosophical concepts, implicit or defined. Our political economy and our high-energy industry run on large, general principles, on ideas — not by day-to-day guess work, expedients and improvisations. Ideas have to go into exchange to become or remain operative; and the medium of such exchange is the printed word. A vigorous and incorruptible journal of conservative opinion is — dare we say it? — as necessary to better living as Chemistry.
We begin publishing, then, with a considerable stock of experience with the irresponsible Right, and a despair of the intransigence of the Liberals, who run this country; and all this in a world dominated by the jubilant single-mindedness of the practicing Communist, with his inside track to History. All this would not appear to augur well for NATIONAL REVIEW. Yet we start with a considerable — and considered — optimism.
After all, we crashed through. More than one hundred and twenty investors made this magazine possible, and over fifty men and women of small means, invested less than one thousand dollars apiece in it. Two men and one woman, all three with overwhelming personal and public commitments, worked round the clock to make publication possible. A score of professional writers pledged their devoted attention to its needs, and hundreds of thoughtful men and women gave evidence that the appearance of such a journal as we have in mind would profoundly affect their lives.
Our own views, as expressed in a memorandum drafted a year ago, and directed to our investors, are set forth in an adjacent column. We have nothing to offer but the best that is in us. That, a thousand Liberals who read this sentiment will say with relief, is clearly not enough! It isn’t enough. But it is at this point that we steal the march. For we offer, besides ourselves, a position that has not grown old under the weight of a gigantic, parasitic bureaucracy, a position untempered by the doctoral dissertations of a generation of Ph.D’s in social architecture, unattenuated by a thousand vulgar promises to a thousand different pressure groups, uncorroded by a cynical contempt for human freedom. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaves us just about the hottest thing in town.
The Magazine’s Credenda
Among our convictions:
*This post was written by the campaign coordinator for the College Republicans, Ian Hermann.*
“Obama For Change” stickers are a common sight on campus especially after his visit to St. Louis right before the Missouri Primary. Barack Obama has been successful in motivating many voters on college campuses across the country. When asked why they support him, one might commonly hear responses as “He represents the kind of change this country needs” or “He’s so inspiring.”
What rarely shows up in these answers is any mention of Barack Obama’s record or his proposed policies. One particular area of policy that should be important to voters this election is the economy. With the market not doing so hot, even after rate cuts by the Federal Reserve, talk of recession is in the air.
The last time the word “recession” was going around was in the very early years of the 2000’s. These were the times that ended the tech boom of the 90s. Few would argue that the Bush tax cuts didn’t help the market recover from this recession, as mild as it was. This was not some new phenomenon the Bush administration discovered, that cutting taxes helped the economy recover. Historically less government regulation and taxes are always good for profits, for without capital, there can’t be capitalism.
Obama supporters might want to read up on his proposed economic policies. Obama has proposed a $150 billion green energy plan, an infrastructure investment bank costing $60 billion, and health insurance totaling $65 billion. These are just a few of his ideas. In total Obama’s spending would total somewhere around $800 billion. All of this would come with hikes in income taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, and dividends taxes. This does not sound like a policy of less government intervention in the economy. Obama supporters may have change in their hearts, but if he is elected they may not have much in their pockets.
This is an article about the 6 detainees at Guantanamo who are headed for trials in military tribunals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/washington/12assess.html?_r=2&ref=washington&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Will the Democrats object to the use of military tribunals instead of U.S. courts? If the New York Times tells them to, you betcha.
Another interesting article- this one presents a striking example of Islamic extremism.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/12/denmark.cartoon/
*This post was written by Kyle Brockman, the Webmaster for the College Republicans.*
The two party system in this country means, for better or for worse, almost every major election has not only a winner but also a loser. The winner gets the spotlight, and the loser gets… well, that’s a good question.
In other competition, the losing side either sits nearby clapping or simply puts their heads down and heads to the locker room. Politics is a bit more intricate: in this media dance, the losing party has to plan an “exit” with a careful method at a precise time. Depending on the situation, this ranges from tricky to impossible.
Then what happens? Legislators have it easy, they can just slouch back to their old seats. Depending on the way things went in the campaign and the method of their exit, they may be vastly better or worse off for the experience. McCain and Edwards come to mind as high-profile candidates whose defeat only served to promote their long-term reputation. Others like Kerry are doomed to be considered washed-up has-beens, to be forever overshadowed by the party’s older and newer faces alike.
Other individuals of prominence usually have private sector plans to fall back on; there are organizations to run, boards to sit on, autobiographies to write. A graceful departure from the public eye offers a chance to regroup their life plans along a different path. Some return to politics, some do not, and others sit on the fence and make movies about meteorology.
Romney left the race by attempting to take the moral high ground, and it seems he succeeded; his departure from the madhouse was explained as not just “what is best for America”, or even best for the Republican party, but also best for each of the issues he campaigned on. After spending so much of his money and life on this campaign and having had no hesitation to make several enemies along the way, he emerged looking much better than I thought he would be able to. Huckabee seems to be only still be in the race because bowing out now would look redundant and foolish. An awkward situation: even if he had a chance, it wouldn’t matter since the media has already decided the GOP nomination.
An Obama defeat would be nothing other than news. He would come through it with his head held high, smelling like roses. He’ll be back in 4 years, and 4 years after that, for the next quarter-century; Until the media gets tired of him, which is unlikely any time soon, he is immortal. Mrs. Clinton on the other hand…
…wow, now THAT’S interesting to consider.
Peggy Noonan has an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal that ponders the situation in a far more interesting manner than I could. I’ll leave the rest of the subject to her:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
The bottom line is, well, red. At the end of the day, the nation will have spent a ton of resources in deciding not only its future, but also the futures of several major individuals. Let’s just hope this bunch is less inclined to get into film making.
*This post was written by the Vice President of the College Republicans, Ryan Winograd.*
Since the moment Alberto Gonzales’ plans to speak on campus were announced, there has been a great deal of unrest amongst many left-leaning organizations on campus. They complain that he “represents almost all of the things that have gone wrong with our country during Bush’s presidency.”[1] That’s quite a broad statement, so I’ll focus on the more specific complaints being mentioned.
Many students are quick to associate the former Attorney General with torture. Gonzales wrote documents clarifying how the Geneva Conventions,[2] the UN Convention against Torture,[3] and US law[4] define torture during his time as White House Counsel. Various governmental organizations applied Gonzales’ and others’ definitions in constructing interrogation techniques that would supposedly not constitute torture.
In 2005, ABC News aired a story entitled “CIA’s Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described,”[5] in which six “harsh” interrogation techniques are listed. These techniques, which were revealed by former and current CIA officials, include the following:
The most controversial technique to appear on this list is waterboarding, the permittence of which is often attributed to Alberto Gonzales. This is actually a misconception, as permission to waterboard, which has been given only three times, must originate from the President’s office.[6] Nonetheless, there are strong arguments on both sides of this issue. As a result, resolving whether or not the US should waterboard terrorists would appear to be a difficult undertaking. The truth is, however, that in order to prevent the use of waterboarding, Congress must simply pass a bill forbidding its use. Congress has failed to do so even with a Democratic majority.
Another extremely controversial issue is that of warrantless wiretapping. Congress is close to reauthorizing this program for the second time. The first authorization occurred six months ago—under a Democratic Congress. Now that it is set to expire, the Senate will soon be considering the RESTORE Act[7], which was recently passed by the House 227 – 189. A lot of Democrats must think that listening in on the conversations of terrorists is a good idea. They’re right.
Now that I have shown that Congress, controlled by Democrats, has either sided with the President or chosen not to take action against him, let’s focus on the biggest controversy surrounding Judge Gonzales—the firing of U.S. Attorneys. Before we do so, a short history lesson may be useful. President Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys during his first term. And he was able to do so because U.S. Attorneys serve at the President’s whim. In other words, there was absolutely nothing illegal about Alberto Gonzales’ actions. To date, he has not been indicted.
Other claims against Alberto Gonzales are laughable. The fact that Gonzales once received money from Enron never affected legal proceedings against Enron and its executives. Claims that Gonzales is to blame for the Patriot Act are also absurd. The Patriot Act was passed by Congress, and its provisions can always be modified or removed by Congress. In addition, most of the provisions of the Patriot Act are not considered controversial at all. Only a handful of the Act’s over 100 sections are controversial.[8] Overall, the Patriot Act is a good piece of legislation. Even so, it isn’t perfect. But that is why our government has checks and balances. The Supreme Court ruled the National Security Letters provision unconstitutional, evidence that our democratic system still works.
I have thus far provided strong arguments showing that Gonzales has not partaken in any wrongdoing with respect to the issues of torture, wiretapping, and the U.S. Attorney controversy. There are certainly other claims against Alberto Gonzales, and I’ll be happy to provide a defense for every single last one of them. And I can do so because they simply don’t hold water—the former Attorney General has done nothing wrong.
If what I say is true—that Gonzales has done nothing wrong—then why is there so much controversy surrounding his name? I have a theory about that.
The Democrats took control of Congress as a result of the 2006 midterm elections, and they ran on campaigns of change and fighting the administration. That’s exactly what they did. But instead of working to pass meaningful legislation, which is what they should have done (and should be doing now), they set out to increase partisanship and damage the image of the Bush Administration, thereby deteriorating its legitimacy. One of the tools the Democrats used to accomplish this end was its oversight powers.
The nonpartisan National Journal (not the National Review, a conservative publication) recently published an article supporting my theory:
To be sure, the new [oversight] committee chairmen on Capitol Hill banged their gavels in 2007. And banged them. And banged them again. And it isn’t just ousted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his decapitated Justice Department feeling the echo. A wide array of executive branch chiefs and corporate leaders [. . .] are dealing with, or bracing for, the effects of congressional Democrats’ aggressive oversight.[9]
As the committee attacked the former Attorney General with question after question, the media followed suit, leading to a deterioration of Alberto Gonzales’ image. The amount of public scrutiny, largely based on misleading statements and logical fallacies forced Alberto Gonzales to resign; the Justice Department could no longer function efficiently.
This brings us to where we are today. Why is the former Attorney General so disliked? Is it based on fact or fiction? Did he actually do anything wrong?
My answer to these questions is quite clear, but what’s yours? And avoid that gut reaction. Look deeper into the facts. Do your own research. Find a primary source—come listen to him speak on February 19th.
[3]
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm
[4] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340—-000-.html
[5] http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866
[6] http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-grill-mukasey-2008-01-30.html
[7] http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.03773:
[8] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:3:./temp/~c107BD3pB0::
[9] “Raise Your Right Hand.” National Journal. 19 January 2008. p24.
There is a new book out right now by Jonah Goldberg called “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.” I’m sure all you liberals out there are hyperventilating due to anger at the implication of this title, and you probably want to stop reading so as not to encounter anything that could challenge your myopic worldview- but bear with me. For decades the American left has associated conservatives with fascism, and we see this frequently today: “George W. Bush is a fascist dictator and has turned America into Nazi Germany,” so the accusation goes. Unfortunately for today’s liberals, however, the roots of their own movement lie in fascist principles.
There is much confusion over the true meaning of fascism, but as Goldberg notes, it is really a type of revolutionary socialism based government management and control of private ownership. Additionally, fascism is not inherently racist; this aspect of Nazi fascism should therefore be understood as unique to Germany. Mussolini’s Italian fascism is a better model, but it is important to note that both of these examples are far more extreme than American fascism. Goldberg is not implying that today’s liberals are murderous dictators like Hitler or Mussolini; rather, he is demonstrating the parallels between the ideologies. As Goldberg points out, the Nazi-party platform “demanded guaranteed jobs, the ‘abolition of incomes unearned by work,’ the nationalization of all large corporations and trusts, profit-sharing in all major industries, expanded old-age insurance, a government takeover of big department stores (think Wal-Mart), the prohibition of child labor, and countless other ‘progressive’ reforms.” Sound familiar?
The Progressive Era, the New Deal and the 1960s are Goldberg’s main instances of fascist episodes in America. Take the youth movement of the 1960s, for example. It was defined by, among other things, a “hatred of conventional morality and traditional authority, the adoration of the ‘the street’ and ‘people power,’ the justification of crime as political rebellion, and the denigration of the rule of law as a form of oppression.” These features also happen to be some of the hallmarks of fascism. Or look at the New Deal: Waldo Frank, who at one point was the contributing editor of The New Republic said in 1934 that Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration “is the beginning of American Fascism.” The Nazis even expressed admiration for Roosevelt’s program.
It is important to reemphasize that Goldberg is not accusing today’s liberals of trying to form a totalitarian state with a secret police and concentration camps. They are not evil, like Mussolini and Hitler, but they are committed to an “ever-expanding” state. If this little summary of the book does not have you convinced, a much better and more thorough summary written by Goldberg himself can be found in the January 28th issue of the National Review. Or, you could just buy the book. Either way, I encourage you to think twice the next time you are tempted to accuse George W. Bush, or any other conservative for that matter, of being a fascist. In the words of Steven F. Hayward, “look who’s fascist now?”
Having just entered the year of our next presidential election, this blog could not have been unveiled at a better time. The challenges facing our nation today are unlike those seen at any other time in history. While terrorism threatens our existence from across the world, economic uncertainty, illegal immigration, rising health care and energy costs, the liberalization of our courts, and the impending bankruptcy of Social Security pose very significant problems on the home front. Now more than ever, we must elect a president who will solve these issues decisively and wisely, as the consequences of inaction will be felt for generations to come. As one of the lonely conservative voices on this campus, the College Republicans welcome the opportunity to educate the WashU community through this blog about conservative solutions to these challenges. We are confident in the Republican Party’s philosophy, and we look forward to supporting our party’s nominee to lead us into the future.
StudLife is now at your fingertips 24/7 - Political news, commentary from Wash. U.’s own pundits and more
| Artist: | The Cure |
| Track: | Close to Me |
| Album: | Head on the Door |
RSS 2.0
