GISMS

~ A commentary for the free-thinking classical liberal ~

(vol. 3, issue 1)

Happy New Year! It is a beginning of a new year, and much to our chagrin, a year that is already in high gear. Cant we just have a year where time slows down and we can get ahead of the game? The proverbial red wagon wheel is turning, and it is turning fast. Being that this is a small monthly (sometimes bi-monthly) commentary by yours truly Sean G, and that we (the collective audience) have picked up a dozen new readers over the past few months, I will comment for the New Year about our stated goals and views for claritys sake. This is done for the benefit of the newer audience, and for the benefit of those interested in becoming a new member in active conservative thought. By conservative, I mean liberal, in its original sense. The term liberal, in its Greek context, refers to a free man, as opposed to a slave. Liberals were originally the partisans of liberty. The American founders, for instance, were committed to three types of freedom: 1. economic freedom; 2. political freedom; 3. and freedom of speech and religion.

In the classical view of liberalism, freedom meant limiting the power of government, thus increasing the scope for individual and private action. The spirit of this philosophy is clearly conveyed in the formulations of the Bill of Rights: Congress shall make no law This liberalism went through some changes in the 1930s (the FDR revolution), and in the 1960s (the Jean-Jacques Rousseau revolution). Because of the two movements just mentioned and their claim to being liberal, the term conservative is now the preferred catchword for those of us who are classical liberals. Now, what is, or isnt, conservatism? Conservatism in this country is both modern and it is American. Much like when religions come to this country, they morph into a more relaxed for lack of a better word version of their founding philosophy. Quickly, Catholics during WWII here in America rejected the edicts coming from the Vatican concerning their stance on war and their stance or perceived neutrality when dealing with Nazi Germany for the most part. And because of this Americanization of Roman Catholicism, unlike South / Central America, or Europe, the American Catholics are now the ones

challenging the Vatican on dealing with pedophiles who actively search out positions that offer privacy with, and power over, children.1 I pity the Roman Catholic Church if it werent for the moral clarity that seems to pervade American Catholics. And mind you, it is the American Catholic that will press this issue to its fruition. That example aside, back to the issue at hand, conservatism. Modern American conservatism is very different from European conservatism, or from conservatism as traditionally under-stood. In Europe, conservatives have been very reactionary throughout their history. In America, conservatism means conserving the principles of the American Revolution. (One of the most conservative groups in America calls itself the Daughters of the American Revolution.) Paradoxically, American conservatism seeks to conserve a certain type or kind of liberalism. It means fighting to uphold the classical liberalism of the founding
1

from assault by liberalism of a different sort.2, 3 A good comparison of the two views is that of equality. Both sides speak of equality, although we mean different things by the same term. Conservatives emphasize the equality of rights, and they are quite willing to endure inequalities that are the product of differential capacity of merit. Liberals emphasize the equality of outcomes, and they tend to attribute inequality to the unequal opportunities that have been provided by society. At root, conservatives and liberals see the world so differently because they have two different conceptions of human nature. Liberals tend to believe in Rousseau's proposition that human nature is intrinsically good. Therefore they believe that people who fail or do bad things are not acting out of laziness or wickedness; rather, society put them in this unfortunate position. This recognition of and focus on the sinful nature of man causes many to view conservatism (and
2

A good book that discusses how this could of happened within the Church is a entitled Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church, by Michael S. Rose. The main thesis of the book is a history, or expose of the movement from the sixties that tried to normalize a radical view of sexuality. This view allowed many progressive/liberal priests and professors in seminaries to take control of many positions of power. Thus, the seminaries became a place where conservative theology and admittance was disallowed. And it is the moral proclivity that conservative theology holds that would have cut down on what type of people would have entered the seminary. And most of the sexual attacks we are hearing about happened in the 60s.

(New readers should note that I often recommend books and other resources that may be of interest to the reader if she or he wishes to follow through further on a particular subject.) 3 I mention two for those who are religious and those who are not. The first being the choice for the religious person it is out of print, so an online outof-print book search engine would be where one could track it down. The Assault: Liberalisms Attack on Religion, Freedom, and Democracy, by Dale A. Berryhill. The other non-religious book is The Betrayal of Liberalism: How the Disciples of Freedom and Equality Helped Foster the Illiberal Politics of Coercion and Control, editors Hilton Kramer and Roger Kimball.

religion) as overtly negative. Yet the greatest flaw in contemporary liberalism is its failure to take this into account. The progressive4 vision requires, I repeat, requires a belief in the inherent goodness of man. This flawed vision leaves the liberal perplexed over the continuing rebirth of racism, corruption (whether domestic or corporate), and other human ills. The progressive vision sees racism and other evils as stages to move beyond; they are national problems to be solved, not human problems to be guarded against and punished. In fact, and this is important, these evils are often made possible by the odd progressive belief that man will stop being bad if he is no longer restricted from being bad. Newsweeks Joe Klein, who had done all he could in getting Bill Clinton elected to office in 1992, began to see the problem with the liberal approach to world affairs: There is a fatal, effect highmindedness in the Democrats method. It is a two-step prescription for paralysis, perfected by Jimmy Carter. First, a principle is formulated: America should act to expand democracy, to stand up for human rights, to root out thugs. But step two, the all-purpose
4

application of empathy, inevitably negates step one: we must try to understand evil rather than condemn it. There are root causes. Society produces a Cedras5 (just as it produces our street thugs). Redemption is always possible. Thugs can evolve.6 Conservatives know better. Conserva-tives recognize that there are two principles in human nature good and evil and these are in constant conflict. So when Reagan or Bush (43) calls a country evil, we hear a tirade of discontent from the left. And it is the misdealings, using the perverted progressive view, with the Axis of Evil that has put us in a place where those of us who realize that no amount of bribing will change the nature of the tyrants in charge of these countries.
5

Random House Websters (1999) Unabridged CD-ROM Dictionary: making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.

A little history / poli-sci (101) dealing with international affairs and the progressive view put forward by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. In 1994, Carter went to North Korea on behalf of Clinton to talk the government into complying with U. N. sanctions against nuclear program. Carter quickly announced that an accord had been reached. Months later, carter went to Haiti and succeeded in talking military dictator Raoul Cedras into turning the country back over to the man he had deposed. Returning to America, carter actually said that, sometimes, murderous tyrants just need someone to listen. Perhaps Carter had forgotten that his deal with North Korea was purchased at the price of a free oil supply for eight to ten years, the construction of two nuclear reactors, and the restoration of diplomatic ties with America. (within months, North Korea began hedging on its promises.) Haitis Cedras agreed to depart only after an American invasion force was in the air, and only after Carter agreed that America would rent him a mansion and give him access to millions of dollars of frozen assets in American banks. This is what Joe Klein is commenting on. 6 Joe Klein, Empathy for the Devil, Newsweek (3 October, 1994), p. 39.

This difference causing constant friction between the two camps that we have placed D. C. see the world vastly differently. However, only one fits with human experience and human history. One doesnt have to be a rocket scientist to see that as mankind progresses, he (mankind that is) produces more and more evil. And the only political worldview that can actively constrain this evil that all the wars of the twentieth century have produced is that of conservatism. For it alone calls a spade-a-spade.