One For The Record Book

Regarding the AmConwhateveritis v Levin kerfuffle, it occurs to me that much of the issue has to do with their general immaturity - not as individuals, so much, but simply because of their age. If anything really bothers me about it, it's their apparent desire to tear down some of those who came before them, as opposed to standing upon their shoulders. Hopefully that might change as they mature, though I doubt they'll enjoy hearing it and might disagree.

Heck, I was nearly a stone cold liberal at 19.

To constantly harp on some humorous aspects of a Levin, or even a Limbaugh radio personality they don't particularly like (keyword radio), while giving short shrift to both of their significant contributions to the conservative movement over many years, may be a folly of youth. Nevertheless, folly it is and I don't mind pointing it out, however I choose to do so. I like to retain a certain amount of immaturity myself. It's good for the soul.

In an all too wordy and self-indulgent response to me, this Nathan Origer linked my post linking to his Facebook page. It now has a bad photo of me from, I believe, a CNN appearance. Good heavens, I didn't alter anything as regards Nathan, I simply linked his own Facebook page. That's hardly the type of juvenile game Nathan felt compelled to play. Yet, he's happy to drone on and on telling us how mature and intellectual he is. zzzzz What a bore.

At their age I was writing editorials for a college newspaper that mostly no one read. And I'm not suggesting some of them haven't had similar experiences, as well. But new media does seem to be giving many young folks the potential for a broader voice before they are actually ready to use it. Conor is another example of that. But that is what it is.

The choice for me, and I assume Mark, is to either engage them, giving them broader exposure - or ignore them completely. I think poking them with a sharp stick once in a while is actually the more kind and generous response.

At best, it may become part of their on going maturity and education. And at worst, it's just harmless fun. They might want to consider not taking themselves so seriously, a lesson as valuable for the old, as it is the young. But I expect that, like many things, is a lesson always to be mostly lost on the young. After all, it's just a part of what being young is.

As a group, they simply aren't that wise, yet. Hopefully over time that will change.

Comments

[syn]

Soon the youth group will come to recognize, the moment they discover their cake is going to be made out of dirty card manufactured in China-the world's lone military superpower, that neither Rush or Levin were the people who looted, pillaged, and violated their future.

[DrummingAncient]

Dan:
The young are very serious. It has to do with the (variously attributed and phrased) maxim, "A 20-year-old who is not liberal has no heart; a 40-year-old who is not conservative has no head."

It's OK. They need the time. Thanks for poking them from time-to-time. It's a tough job. Somebody's got to do it.

Best,
DA

[syn]

correction 'made out of dirty cardboard'

That said; I never subscribed to such things as facebook myself as I have no interest in making myself readily available for public consumption; if you want to maintain privacy may I suggest you not sign onto the publicity machine.

[Nathan P. Origer]

If anything really bothers me about it, it's their apparent desire to tear down some of those who came before them, as opposed to standing upon their shoulders. Hopefully that might change as they mature, though I doubt they'll enjoy hearing it and might disagree.

I speak for no one but myself here, but I can say that I'm not looking out to "tear down some of those who came before" me. I'm ignoring those who seem to have forgotten conservatism pre-Reagan. Hawkish foreign policy and dubiously justified restrictions on civil liberties — or the defense thereof, in the case of Mr Levin, who is not a policy-maker — strike me as anathema to the heroes of the Old Right, who opposed the pernicious liberalism of FDR.

their significant contributions to the conservative movement over many years

I don't give them short shrift; rather, I don't view them to be positive contributions, and have little interest in what "the conservative movement" has become — foreign entanglements, exceeding Constitutional powers, and so on.

[Nathan P. Origer]

In an all too wordy and self-indulgent response to me, this Nathan Origer linked my post linking to his Facebook page. It now has a bad photo of me from, I believe, a CNN appearance. Good heavens, I didn't alter anything as regards Nathan, I simply linked his own Facebook page. That's hardly the type of juvenile game Nathan felt compelled to play. Yet, he's happy to drone on and on telling us how mature and intellectual he is. zzzzz What a bore.

I thought you said immaturity is good for the soul? Yes, I enjoy drowning, but I'm pretty sure I made no claims to being intellectual or mature; if anything, I indicated that I doubt I'm either.

[Dan Riehl]

Well, Nathan - it seems to me you are conflating Republican politics with the conservative movement. And that seems to be a bad habit of AmCon's associates. Perhaps if you understood what you were talking about, the conversation would go better. I'm not even a Republican.

[Dan Riehl]

Well, yes, Nathan - your writing is wordy and self-indulgent - as was mine when I was younger. SOmetimes perhaps still, who knows? And changing your FB image and such? Sorry, very immature. Don't be upset with me for pointing it out.

[Nathan P. Origer]

No, I'm not. I'm well aware that the two are distinct, but overlapping elements. I've not accused you of being a member of the Republican Party, which I, strangely enough am.

However, as commenters critical of me back at Post Right have noted, the Republican Party is the only successful electoral vehicle for the movement. I am sincerely curious, though, to know which points I have made that mistakenly attribute something to the conservative movement.

[Nathan P. Origer]

Mr Riehl, you misunderstand me! I'm not at all upset with your pointing out. One good turn deserves another, does it not? I merely meant to indicate that I was being immature, but that it may be good for my soul.

[Dan Riehl]

Then we agree.

[Nathan P. Origer]

A first for everything, no?!

(I'm sure that we agree on plenty of the "social issues", too. I'm obviously, just not in agreement with much of the movement on foreign policy, civil liberties, and economic policy.)

[Dan Riehl]

Well, Nathan, I think you would be very surprised. The movement is not nearly as monolithic as you and some others might suspect. And for me, therein lies the problem and potential real damage some do.

Frankly, what I see is a group of youner adults so intent on setting themselves apart somehow, they fail to see the many different positions of the people who see themselves as within the movement. It makes it a caricature hen it is not.

Frankly, if some spent more time criticizing liberals when they disagree, and less time moaning about allegedly not being loved by the movement, they'd see that they fit right in.

Just my thoughts.

[Ronald]

Amconmag is Pat Buchanan's magazine, for Chrissake. It's a *paleocon* magazine. Are you saying paleocons are callow because they are younger? If anything, their kind of conservatism is far older than yours, going back to Mencken and Chodorov and perhaps even the Jeffersons (Thomas Jefferson as well as Jefferson Davis).

Here's some of the paleocon agenda (you can check out Chronicles magazine):

- Reduce immigration, deport the aliens, keep America European and Christian
- Get out of international rackets like the UN and WTO
- Realize that Israel's security is none of our business. In general, look inward, not outward
- Buy American, protect American jobs
- Roll back feminism

Which of these items do you disagree with?

[Ronald]

Oh also, states' rights. Roll back affirmative action and other types of anti-white discrmination. Recognize freedom of association and the reality of tribe, blood, and soil.

[Jake]

Well, there's not a whole lot to fight about, Ronald, other than to note that it was not only Perot in '92 but an earlier third party, the Bullmoose, that gave us Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era that so offends thee & me. So, I guess, if the law of unintended consequences is to be obeyed, we're going to have to get the GOP behind the Blood , Iron, & Soil theme - that is if we're ever going to reclaim our lost Lebensraum.

[Dan Riehl]

I agree with very little of it. Not only is it politically unworkable, it's short-sighted and appears to be based more on denial and ignorance, than anything else - particularly as expressed by you, Ronald. Other then being unspportive of the UN and WTO, to some extent, we don't agree on much.

[syn]

"- Reduce immigration, deport the aliens, keep America European and Christian
- Get out of international rackets like the UN and WTO
- Realize that Israel's security is none of our business. In general, look inward, not outward
- Buy American, protect American jobs
- Roll back feminism"

Here's my response:

A) Europe is no longer a Christian continent so why would American want to be like that,
B) I agree the UN stinks as much as WTO,
C) In a world full of enemies, defending scares allies is always a good idea; further, isolationism is no a longer viable alternative when there exists things called airplanes and long-range missiles,
D) Buying American does not nor has it ever protected American jobs; in fact, restricting world-wide trade causes Americans to lose jobs,
E) I am not fond of the Marxist feminist movement as I believe such movement has caused more harm upon the female than good however I would prefer the leadership of a Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin, Liz Cheney than all the males who ran for office in the last election.

One further point, 'paleos' are as fanatic as 'progressives' both operate from the fanatical premise 'by every means necessary' which merely encourages mob mentality'; in other words, RONPAULS!! operated in a mob-like fashion on the level seen by Obamarama.

[Ronald]

The fact of the matter is, Dan, that the American conservative movement is primarily a movement of white middle-class Christians. It would be nice if this were not so, but this has always been the ground reality in this great nation of ours. Given that, and given the massive number of illegal as well as legal non-white third-worlders who are flooding into our country everyday, it seems unlikely that conservatism has any sort of a long-term future without some sort of serious rethinking. As Peter Brimelow has said numerous times, demography is destiny in American politics. Do you deny that? Do you seriously think conservatism has any sort of future in a majority-nonwhite-America, scheduled to be here as early as 2042? If not, what do you propose that we do about it?

[Dan Riehl]

Actualy, Ronald, I do believe it could have an excellent future, especially given that Hispanics are a growing portion of our population. There are both strong religious values and work ethics among many within said community. I do see two serious threats to that, though. One is our failing educational institutions. How can we expect any immigrant to understand and accept more traditional American values when our ed. system mostly disparagesthem, to the point they are addressed at all.

Second, I'm not an open borders type. I'd have no problem with deporting every illegal who has broken the law in any additional way tomorrow. And we must control our border. The only area in which I likely differ from Paleocons is on genuinely hardworking, otherwise honest illegals who have been contributing to the American economy for years in some ways, not all of them good, as they have been off the radar.

But from food service, farming, manufacturing to lawn maintence and other areas, Americans have reaped the perceived benefits of that participation for years and years. Most never complained about cheaper lettuce, or goods and services due to their presence.

So, I see us as complicit in the crime of illegal immigration to a good degree. And because of that, I feel the honest thing to do is to help such people move forward to citizenship. But I would also do away with the anchor baby laws.

Call mine a "nuanced" position, but that's what it is. And if we can rest control of some of our instituions, especially education, from liberals by returning more to local control, I believe the Hispanic community has the potential to be a solid part of a conservative movement going forward.

A lot of big "if's" for sure, but they are what they are, as I see it.

[E.D. Kain]

Dan - you make some excellent points about a tendency amongst dissident conservatives to draw caricatures of the conservative movement, creating a monolithic image of what is in fact a diverse group. One problem I've had with some of the pundits on the Right is that they contribute to this sense among independents that there really is a lack of diversity of opinion etc. on the Right and that is unattractive to the broad, conservative-leaning but largely independent center. So I think we need more great communicators, more smart, practical conservatives who can speak to people on more levels than a lot of what we're getting on Fox News these days. We need more people like Reihan Salam and his new blog at NRO The Agenda.