BUCHANAN IS WRONG. CONSERVATISM IS NOT PAST TENSE
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Ralph Z. Hallow interviewed Pat Buchanan for The Washington Times. In short, Pat said that conservatism is past tense.
Well it comes down to how you define "conservatism." According to Pat, his pet issues of the past are past tense and the immigration in present-tense is a real problem. So with that, Pat concludes that conservatism is over and out.
Not so.
Where Pat goes astray is not in outlining his litany of past-tense conservative issues that were here and then disappeared. His history is correct, in the main, that is.
However, what Pat leaves out of his definition is what won George W. Bush the election, that is, in the main. He leaves out the moralists in the United States who want an ethical base to this country that has been wanting in the past.
Pat does not recognize the force of Judeo-Christian and other moratlist advocates very much alive and well in America. He focuses too much on one legislative measure or another that was winning out in past eras but is no longer viable. That may be true in some instances, according to Pat, but that’s not what is alive and moving today in the conservative block.
Morality is what is alive and moving in today’s conservative block. That morality quotient includes evangelicals, fundamentalists, devout Catholics, moralist Jews, and just-plain-clean-living non-religious citizens. It’s a plurality base that is composed of persons of decent living lifestyle.
They don’t like murder. They are against rape. They don’t want cursing spewed across their movie screens and living rooms. They want their children off drugs. They want teachers who instruct from an ethical position and not an immoral relativistic position. They want a happy society with a happy family. They want honesty and right thinking. They want cordiality and peace. They are not on the side of mayhem, madness and meanness.
This is the moral block in America that is conservative.
That makes them quite different from the amoral, immoral, relativistic political and religious liberals who, in the name of Bill and Hillary Clinton, would tear the ethical fabric in shreds.
These conservatives work, pay their bills, mow the lawn, shovel the snow, help their neighbors and contribute to the latest appeal to help somebody in distress. They are not crooks, liars and lustful hounds out to lay the nearest broad. See how unlike Clinton the conservatives are? Just read that sentence over again and find Clinton in there somewhere: crooks, liars and lustful hounds out to lay the nearest broad.
Now Pat does not address this moral block that is very much with us in America. They are there. They are voting. They are making the news. They are making decisions. They are politically sensitive and up front. They are writing letters, sending emails, delivering speeches, formulating forums, attending seminars and demanding an America that they can be proud of.
With that, I ask Pat: What in the name of decency and progress do you want from the term "conservative"?
If you want to hark back to some issues you consider significant but no longer beckon, then conservatives are in a certain dimension past tense. But if you want what today’s conservative has on his plate, then we still have conservatives — very much so.
I think persons who reach Pat’s age and position in the culture sometimes get a bit carried away with nostalgia.
I think they also miss being the chief driver of major causes. Take Jimmy Carter for instance. He’s one of those. He and Pat are no longer center stage but they miss that. The same with Jesse Jackson. These men were once headliners constant. Now they’re being replaced by other voices.
So persons like Pat have to get hold of a reporter and spill out the anguish of a broken heart. Yet to the rest of us conservatives who are very much breathing, we just don’t get into the angst like a Pat and a Jimmy and a Jesse do.
And that’s just as well.
Ralph Z. Hallow interviewed Pat Buchanan for The Washington Times. In short, Pat said that conservatism is past tense.
Well it comes down to how you define "conservatism." According to Pat, his pet issues of the past are past tense and the immigration in present-tense is a real problem. So with that, Pat concludes that conservatism is over and out.
Not so.
Where Pat goes astray is not in outlining his litany of past-tense conservative issues that were here and then disappeared. His history is correct, in the main, that is.
However, what Pat leaves out of his definition is what won George W. Bush the election, that is, in the main. He leaves out the moralists in the United States who want an ethical base to this country that has been wanting in the past.
Pat does not recognize the force of Judeo-Christian and other moratlist advocates very much alive and well in America. He focuses too much on one legislative measure or another that was winning out in past eras but is no longer viable. That may be true in some instances, according to Pat, but that’s not what is alive and moving today in the conservative block.
Morality is what is alive and moving in today’s conservative block. That morality quotient includes evangelicals, fundamentalists, devout Catholics, moralist Jews, and just-plain-clean-living non-religious citizens. It’s a plurality base that is composed of persons of decent living lifestyle.
They don’t like murder. They are against rape. They don’t want cursing spewed across their movie screens and living rooms. They want their children off drugs. They want teachers who instruct from an ethical position and not an immoral relativistic position. They want a happy society with a happy family. They want honesty and right thinking. They want cordiality and peace. They are not on the side of mayhem, madness and meanness.
This is the moral block in America that is conservative.
That makes them quite different from the amoral, immoral, relativistic political and religious liberals who, in the name of Bill and Hillary Clinton, would tear the ethical fabric in shreds.
These conservatives work, pay their bills, mow the lawn, shovel the snow, help their neighbors and contribute to the latest appeal to help somebody in distress. They are not crooks, liars and lustful hounds out to lay the nearest broad. See how unlike Clinton the conservatives are? Just read that sentence over again and find Clinton in there somewhere: crooks, liars and lustful hounds out to lay the nearest broad.
Now Pat does not address this moral block that is very much with us in America. They are there. They are voting. They are making the news. They are making decisions. They are politically sensitive and up front. They are writing letters, sending emails, delivering speeches, formulating forums, attending seminars and demanding an America that they can be proud of.
With that, I ask Pat: What in the name of decency and progress do you want from the term "conservative"?
If you want to hark back to some issues you consider significant but no longer beckon, then conservatives are in a certain dimension past tense. But if you want what today’s conservative has on his plate, then we still have conservatives — very much so.
I think persons who reach Pat’s age and position in the culture sometimes get a bit carried away with nostalgia.
I think they also miss being the chief driver of major causes. Take Jimmy Carter for instance. He’s one of those. He and Pat are no longer center stage but they miss that. The same with Jesse Jackson. These men were once headliners constant. Now they’re being replaced by other voices.
So persons like Pat have to get hold of a reporter and spill out the anguish of a broken heart. Yet to the rest of us conservatives who are very much breathing, we just don’t get into the angst like a Pat and a Jimmy and a Jesse do.
And that’s just as well.
<< Home