The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewSam Francis Archive
Where the Real New Right Is—and Isn't
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Ideas Have Consequences is the title of a 1948 book by conservative thinker Richard Weaver that in recent years has become a kind of slogan for movement conservatives trying to convince themselves and their financial angels that their beliefs have triumphed at last.

The lesson we learn from a recent New York Times article on the “post-Buckley” right is that Professor Weaver was quite wrong: Ideas—his, at least—have no consequences.

That has to be the conclusion of anyone familiar with the ideas Weaver and similar conservative heavies emitted in the years after World War II down through the 1970s. The survival of these thinkers’ and writers’ legacy has been open to doubt ever since the neoconservatives arrived to share the benefits of their wisdom with real conservatives, but today, when even the elder neocons are fading, the situation is bleaker still.

“Conservative is a word that is almost meaningless these days,”one young rightist, Caleb Stegall, interviewed by the Times, announces. He’s entirely correct, but to judge from the article, he and his comrades are helping to keep it that way. Mr. Stegall is part of a new web site called newpantagruel.com, which the Times describes as “conservative but irreverent” (I guess the two don’t usually mix) and “about religion and politics.” Later we learn from Mr. Stegall that “If I could sum up what we stand for in one word, it would be sustainability.” [Young Right Tries to Define Post-Buckley Future,By David D. Kirkpatrick, July 17, 2004]

Huh?

The Times feels the need to clarify that “he meant theologically conservative views on sustaining family life, as well as typically liberal views on sustaining the environment and local communities and helping the poor.”

Noble causes all, no doubt, but exactly why they are conservative is never clear.

Yet another post-Buckleyite pops up at the Weekly Standard, the official voice of Bill Kristol and the neocons. Eric Cohen, at the hoary age of 26, is not only a Standard contributor but, among other achievements, also “director of the biotechnology and American democracy program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington,” an establishment neocon outfit that has been around for years.

Mr. Cohen’s deathless contribution to post-Buckleyism is that “conservatives needed to accept an active role for government in dealing with advancing technology, whether in the form of terrorists’ weapons abroad [we tried that, if you recall] or attempts to change the nature of life at home.”

Mr. Stegall then assured the Times “he shared Mr. Cohen’s support for government social programs, but for religious reasons.”

One idea of real conservatism is that post-New Deal government was far too big and needed to be reduced. That idea seems to have been dropped into File 13 by the post-Buckley geniuses. No consequences there.

The article continues, discovering unsung young post-Buckleyites thither and yon, and virtually nowhere does a single one offer any idea that bears much resemblance to what has been called “conservatism” in this country for the last 50 years.

Only Daniel McCarthy of the American Conservative utters anything like such a brainstorm.

Calling for a return to the “so-called isolationist and noninterventionist right,” Mr. McCarthy affirms forthrightly,“America is a nation state. It is not meant to be a sort of world government in embryo, not meant to be a last provider of justice or security for the entire world.”

As for the war in Iraq, only Mr. McCarthy openly expresses opposition to it. Mr. Cohen, as you might for some reason guess, is all for the war and is among those who “argue that the United States may need to become more active, not less.”

Nor do the post-Buckleyites seem to have much to say about the “culture war,” nor most any other real problem that confronts the real world today and which most pre-Buckley conservatives have traced to liberalism and pseudo-conservatism: cultural collapse, mass immigration, racial revolution, the war on the middle class, the future of the nation state, and the emergence of democratic totalitarianism in our own societies.

The Times of course is delighted to uncover a crowd of “conservatives” who offer no threat whatsoever to the dominant liberalism it regurgitates in its pages every day, but if it wanted to find them, there’s a real post-Buckley—we might even say a post-conservative—right out there.

What the real new right is talking about is not making government bigger or cryptic catchwords like “sustainability” but the problems the Times’ favorite conservatives won’t mention.

You can find them not only in the American Conservative but also at Chronicles, the Occidental Quarterly, American Renaissance, the Citizens Informer, Middle American News, and Vdare.com.

Not all their writers and editors agree with each other, and neither the Times nor the post-Buckley kids it’s pushing would care for them, but the ideas you find there might actually some day have some consequences.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Conservative Movement, Neocons 
Hide One CommentLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Twelve years after this was written, the last two paragraphs proved true.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Sam Francis Comments via RSS