Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has demonstrated that he is blind to the difference between a civilized country and the forces that wish to see it destroyed – at least where it concerns Jews.
The last week of 2006 was occupied by the death of former President Gerald Ford, the execution of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and the passing of the “Godfather of Soul” James Brown. So it should come as little surprise that some events that would have normally attracted more public attention and scrutiny glided well beneath the radar. This was certainly the case with the car bombing at the Madrid Barajas International Airport on December 30th. The blast injured 26 people and has thus far resulted in the death of one man from Ecuador. Another Ecuadorian national is missing and presumed dead.
Shortly after the bombing took place, the Basque terrorist group ETA claimed responsibility for the attack. This effectively ended the “permanent” ceasefire it had initiated in March 2006 between itself and the Spanish government led by Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.
Americans will most likely remember that Zapatero came to power in Spain in March 2004, only three days after the al Qaeda terrorist attacks on the Madrid trains that resulted in the deaths of 191 people and causing injury to more than 1,700. Zapatero immediately withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq thus placating Islamic terrorists and their tactics. Now in office for nearly three years, Zapatero has been strongly critical of the Bush Administration while embracing the likes of Fidel Castro, Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales, the newly elected President of Bolivia who models himself after Chavez. Zapatero went as far as to attempt to sell Spanish military aircraft and ships to Venezuela in 2005 though the sale was blocked by the U.S. Department of Defense in early 2006. Zapatero also initiated the UN-backed Alliance of Civilizations, a purported dialogue between the West and Islam which is little more than a forum for apologists of Islamic terrorism including former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, a supporter of Hezbollah.
In the wake of the attack on the Madrid Airport, Zapatero put all talks with ETA on hold though he stopped short of declaring the ceasefire over. Zapatero stated that the attack was “absolutely incompatible with the permanent ceasefire that ETA declared nine months ago.” Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba, Spain’s Minister of the Interior, has declared that all peace talks with ETA have broken off.
What is curious about all this is that while Zapatero is quick to condemn terrorism inside his borders he is happy to embrace Palestinian terrorism and criticize Israel for defending itself.
In July 2006, while Israel was defending itself against attacks from Hezbollah in Lebanon and from Hamas in Gaza, Zapatero addressed a rally of the Socialist Party’s youth wing, Juventudes Socialistas de Espana, while wearing a Palestinian keffiyeh. During his address, Zapatero blasted Israel for using “abusive force” against Hamas and Hezbollah. Never mind that Hamas and Hezbollah had each kidnapped Israeli soldiers from Israeli territory and had fired rockets into Israeli territory deliberately targeting civilians. Zapatero was down with the jihadists. Indeed, his Foreign Minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos Cuyaube, defended Zapatero’s words and deeds, stating that Israel’s actions had “given wings to Hamas and Hezbollah” and that his wearing of the keffiyeh was “merely a friendly gesture.” Curiously, Cuyaube has just begun his term as Chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) for 2007.
Could you imagine the international outcry if Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert were to criticize Zapatero’s efforts to clip the wings of ETA? Could you imagine the indignation if Olmert were to address Kadima’s youth wing by donning the snake and the axe – ETA’s symbols? Could you imagine the outrage of Zapatero and company if Israel’s Foreign Affairs Minister Tzipi Livni were to declare that Olmert’s actions were but friendly gestures and added that Spain was better off under General Franco?
It is easy for Prime Minister Zapatero and members of his government to criticize Israel and it is a shame because it has consequences for them. While it could be argued that ETA is not in the same league as al Qaeda in terms of their organizational, fundraising and recruitment methods it is nonetheless indisputable that they wish to achieve Basque independence through violent means and have no qualms about killing innocent Spanish civilians. Zapatero, of all Prime Ministers, should be able to identify with Israel’s struggle with Islamic terrorism – Palestinian and otherwise. The fact that Zapatero is both unable and unwilling to see Israel’s struggle with Islamic terrorism in the same manner that he views Spain’s struggle with Basque terrorism demonstrates his shortcomings as a political leader. It also demonstrates that he is also blind to the difference between a civilized country and the forces that wish to see it destroyed – at least where it concerns Jews. Whatever the eventual response of the Spanish government to the ETA car bombing of the Madrid Airport, Prime Minister Zapatero has shown himself to be Just Spain Stupid.
aargold24@hotmail.com
http://www.poetsforthewar.org
Read more articles by Aaron Goldstein
Of course I do not endorse terrorism as a tactic, but an often overlooked way to deal with the problem of Basque terrorism in Spain would be to … I don’t know … perhaps … maybe … GRANT THEM THEIR INDEPENDENCE. The Basque are clearly a distinct people group. They are by no means Spanish. They speak a non Indo-European language for crying out loud. This is a clear indication that they are a unique culture with a very ancient tradition and should be allowed to govern themselves as such.
Many independence movements are on the surface leftist. That makes sense since they are challenging the powers-that-be. But in a more fundamental way they are inherently conservative as long as they represent legitimate organic communities and the aspiration of them. They are an attempt to establish self-rule by an organic community instead of rule by others. Political decentralization should be an article of faith for American conservatives. Therefore conservatives should generally support independence movements such as Welsh, Scottish, Flemish, Basque, etc.
To side with the Spanish is to side with a statist, modernist, post-French Revolution concept of the nation state. How some conservatives think that serves their interests baffles me.
IMO the Basques should not resort to terrorism. They should encourage their legitimate representatives to declare independence. If Spain then takes military action to bring them back into a government they do not want to be a part of, then it is Spain who is being the aggressor. Anyone who would support Spanish suppression of Basque independence is placing the interests of maintaining the integrity of the modern nation state over the interests of liberty, decentralization, small government, and legitimate organic government. I think the reason that the Basque resort to terrorism is because they know that if they did declare independence then Spain would invade them, and unfortunately there are a lot of statist orient “conservatives” in America who would support the Spanish government
This gets at the issue that has come up here at IC recently about the “proposition nation.” Does being Spanish mean being ruled by the Spanish government, or did the Spanish people precede the government and the government is an out-growth of them? Are people defined primarily by their government or their society, culture, religion, language, ethnicity, etc.? Are Basques properly Spanish? Do they speak Spanish? Are they part of the Spanish people? Or did they just have the misfortune of being conquered and later have lines on a map drawn around them that are now somehow cast in stone from Mount Sinai?
Comment by Dan Phillips | January 5, 2007
While I was deeply troubled by Phil Jackson's attacks on Russell Kirk and the classical Greek philosophers in his Paleo-Bilge article, a comment like the one above by Dan Phillips makes it exceedingly difficult to disagree with his conclusions about "Paleos" in general.
Mr. Phillips argues that the ETA terrorists should be granted independence because they are a "distinct people group" and an "organic community." This nonsense is typical of those who are myopically obsessed with race.
Does he also feel Hawaii should gain independence from the U.S. because of its "distinct (polynesian) people group?" Or how about the Black Panthers and other radical leftist seperatist groups from the 60's? Should we have meekly carved out a section of the U.S. and ceded it to those criminals too? And what if Mexican nationals in this country illegally decide to take up arms against the U.S. and demand the state of Arizona for a new "organic community"? Should we give in to them.
And what is conservative about armed revolution? Anyone who has studied Russell Kirk would know that "real" conservatives detest such radical and abrupt change. It is why many "Paleos" opposed the Iraq war. This is pure anarchy; the absense of order and the rule of law. What is conservative about that?
And what is Mr. Phillips alternative to the nation-state? One world government? Pure tribalism? Something in between?
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | January 5, 2007
"This nonsense is typical of those who are myopically obsessed with race."
That's funny Mr. Osonitsch, I don't recall saying anything about race. But of course it is I (and other paleos) who are “obsessed” with race. Go figure. Are the Basques of a different race? I'm sure that would surprise them, as they conceive of themselves (rightly or wrongly) as the primordial Europeans. I specifically used the generic term people group so some thought cop like you wouldn’t bring it up. I guess I underestimated the vigilance of the thought police. Do you get to wear a badge with that job? Do you get issued a uniform and a side arm? Who deputizes you for that role? Does the SPLC have police power these days?
“Does he also feel Hawaii should gain independence from the U.S. because of its “distinct (Polynesian) people group?””
If the sovereign State of Hawaii voted for their independence, then of course they should get it. (There is a Hawaiian independence movement by the way.) It is this little thing we call self- determination.
“And what if Mexican nationals in this country illegally decide to take up arms against the U.S. and demand the state of Arizona for a new “organic community”? Should we give in to them?”
The paleos have been crying in the wilderness for years about closing the borders and controlling immigration (legal and illegal), a position that the rest of the conservative movement is just now catching up to. Had we been listened to that wouldn’t be a problem now, would it? Paleos recognize that mass immigration brings about Balkanization. It is the scenario above that we are trying to avoid.
“And what is conservative about armed revolution? Anyone who has studied Russell Kirk would know that “real” conservatives detest such radical and abrupt change.”
Do you read what you write? I suggested the Basque peacefully declare independence. If Spain attacks them for it then it is Spain who is being the aggressor and Spain who would be guilty of armed revolution to maintain an order that is not natural. Your mindset and your presuppositions are so thoroughly modern statist that you can’t seem to think otherwise. Why on earth would you want to force a group of people to remain in a government that they did not want to be in, and they didn’t feel legitimately represented them? If we are going to invoke Kirk, recall he was sympathetic to the South during the WBTS.
“It is why many “Paleos” opposed the Iraq war.”
Amen. Preach on.
“This is pure anarchy; the absence of order and the rule of law.”
So a free and independent Basque would necessarily be a tyranny? Why? You are not arguing for order, you are arguing the virtue of imposed order. I and paleos in general argue for natural and spontaneous order.
“What is conservative about that?”
Many have observed that in our modern society that is so overwhelmingly liberal, that it is the real conservatives who are going to seem the most radical or revolutionary (reactionary is probably the most accurate description). But we are not revolutionaries because we are trying to salvage the old order, not usher in a new one. If you want to split terminological hairs, it is probably more accurate to describe me as right wing instead of conservative. I have absolutely no objection to that designation.
“And what is Mr. Phillips alternative to the nation-state? One world government? Pure tribalism? Something in between?”
Mr. Osonitsch, you know good and well that I don’t support one world government, so to bring that up is purely argumentative and a purely dishonest debate tactic. It is entirely clear that your conception more readily leads to one world government than does mine. I never said I oppose a state. I oppose the modern, post French Revolution nation state. So the alternative would be to return to the type of polity that existed before the French Revolution. Human history does extend beyond the last 200 years you know. I was VERY happy with the Article of Confederation. Divided sovereignty, not a unified sovereign, is the key.
Comment by Dan Phillips | January 6, 2007
Zapatero has been the worst thing that has happened to us (Spaniards) since we have started our new democratic period (1978). He's a radical cultural marxist, and we (Spanish conservatives) don't know how to handle it. Spain has become a kind of nightmare, no-fault divorce, affirmative action, homosexual marriage, radical laicism… If you want to observe how mad our world can become, you just need to take a look into Spain. We need all possible help to stop this "enlightened" guy and his new socialism as represented by the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party).
Comment by MosheValdes | January 6, 2007
What makes Basques Spanish is what makes Basques Basque. I mean we'd have total anarchy in the world if every group that considered themselves "different" had the right to be autonomous.
As though every country's minority should be separate, so they can be their own majority. How sad that some people have to be part of a minority and can't have the joy of being top-dog. Get real!
Comment by Foofie | January 6, 2007
Dan, You can use all the euphemisms you want but a "distinct people group" is a term that speaks for itself, so I'm not going to waste time arguing the point.
On a practical level, what you suggest is that any "organic community" that doen't like its government should just declare its independance. The inevitable result of this is an armed confrontation. The Spanish government would have no choice but to defend its sovereignty. This is, by definition, an armed revolution whether or not you choose to call it such. It is not remotely conservative, it is radical to the extreme.
Spain is a democracy, it is not ruled by an oligach, despot, or tyrant. If the Basque's have an issue with the Spanish government, they can vote - they still have a voice.
I never said a free and independent Basque polity would be a tyranny; what I meant was the process of "people groups" arbitrarily defying their sovereign government and declaring independence was anarchy.
You cannot be in favor of armed insurrection against a democratically elected government and still support the concept of the nation-state as we've known it since Westphalia - before or after the French revolution. I might add that Burke (considered by Kirk to be the father of the conservative movement) was a fierce critic of the French revolution for the same reasons he (and Kirk) would oppose a Basque revolution. A nation-state's first order of business is to defend its sovereignty. Our own oath of office taken by public officials states it clearly: "I do solemnly swear to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | January 7, 2007
“Dan, you can use all the euphemisms you want but a “distinct people group” is a term that speaks for itself, so I’m not going to waste time arguing the point.”
I’m sorry Officer Osontisch, I must have missed that bulletin from Tolerance.org. I thought race meant … well I don’t know … race perhaps. Actually I thought the correct new think was that race didn’t really exist. But now it means any different ethnicity, culture, linguistic group, etc.? I guess I need to check back with tolerance.org more often, since I don’t get daily briefings from Morris Dees as you apparently do. What is the penalty for my obvious thought crime?
“The inevitable result of this is an armed confrontation. The Spanish government would have no choice but to defend its sovereignty.”
That is absolutely false and is a clear indication of your modernist conception of the nation state. Why must sovereignty and territory be necessarily indivisible? A loss of territory (not by conquest) would certainly not be an attack on sovereignty. Most “conservatives” today, not self-identified as paleo or something else, are Hobbesean Statist whether they realize it or not. Speaking of the ubiquitous adoption of the Hobbesean model Prof. Donald Livingston said this:
“But there is a further consequence. Sovereignty is said to be internal to territory. As sovereignty is indivisible, so is territory. And from this it follows that the secession of a people from a modern state is logically impossible, for secession would require the territorial dismemberment of a state, and that would be to deny that sovereignty is indivisible. It is for this reason that the great modern philosophers and those who follow in their steps today never so much as raise the question of whether secession is morally justified. Their main task has been to theorize and legitimate the modern state.”
Also, many recent secession and dissolution movements have been entirely peaceful. The Czech Republic and Slovakia, Slovenia from Yugoslavia. The rest of the former Yugoslavia was more of a problem because the ethnic lines were not as clear. And they were partially not as clear because Tito had intentionally moved people so as to dilute ethnic solidarity. You think Tito might have recognized that ethnic solidarity represents a threat to tyrannical government? Hmmm….
“I never said a free and independent Basque polity would be a tyranny; what I meant was the process of “people groups” arbitrarily defying their sovereign government and declaring independence was anarchy.”
I think you misunderstood me. I didn’t suggest that a free Basque would be tyrannical. I suggested that preventing a free Basque is tyrannical. Anarchy is the absence of law and order. So a free Basque would only bring about anarchy if a free Basque would have no law and order. But on what basis would you suggest that? Do you believe that a free and independent Basque would not have laws against murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc. just like Spain does? What you are suggesting is that challenging the modern concept of the nation state is de facto anarchist. Well Mr. Hobbes … err … I mean Mr. Osontisch, the modern concept of the nation state that you are so adamantly defending is the problem and needs to be philosophically debunked, not defended.
“I might add that Burke (considered by Kirk to be the father of the conservative movement) was a fierce critic of the French revolution for the same reasons he (and Kirk) would oppose a Basque revolution.”
I am not suggesting a Basque revolution. I am suggesting a Basque secession. If Spain resists then they are the ones carrying out a revolution. Burke supported the secession of the 13 American colonies from England, (don’t you believe England should have peacefully let us go instead of resisting?), and if you are going to keep invoking Kirk, I will remind you again that he supported the South in the WBTS which is the analogous situation here. (For the record, toward the end of the Paleo Bildge thread I stated that I think drawing the American conservative line back to Burke is problematic and will be the subject of a future column.) But you have it entirely philosophically backwards. I am attacking the French Revolutionary concept and you are defending it. Historically speaking, you are defending a radical revolutionary idea, and I am a counter-revolutionary.
Comment by Dan Phillips | January 8, 2007
BTW, I write these responses in Word and then paste them here but that seems to be leaving out my spacing. Will work?
Comment by Dan Phillips | January 8, 2007
What?!
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | January 8, 2007
Will HTML markers work? I put one in post #8 to demonstrate but it got erased. That suggests to me they probably will work.
Is you "What?" in #9 in response to my #7 or # 8?
Comment by Dan Phillips | January 8, 2007
O.K. Dan, let's review:
You support the concept of an independent Basque polity on the grounds that they are a "distinct people group" (You cite no other reason) Merriam-Webster dictionary defines race thus: a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock. But you said nothing about race, right (note: sarcasm).
You do not support this revolution because they are a once independant colony of an oppressive monarch; or because they are subject to political repression by a tyrannical regime stripping them of their God-given Natural Rights; or because they are subject to political prosecutions and summary executions carried out by the secret police; or any other form of repression or outrage.
They are, in fact, individual citizens of a liberal democracy subject to the same laws and priviliges as every other Spanish citizen. In spite of this, not only do you support this armed revolutionary movement engaged in terrorist attacks on innocent civilian targets (you cannot put the genie back in the bottle), but you contend that your support for such barbarism is the true conservative position while I'm the wild-eyed radical.
You further contend that you are attacking the French revolutionary concept while I am defending it? I'll remind you that Napolean was a megalomaniac leading an imperial army in a quest for world domination (and I've repeatedly criticized the French revolution in my articles). How does this relate to Basque terrorists attacking the innocent in a peaceful liberal democracy?
And when are you going to grow up and stop the name calling - you sound like an ill-tempered 8 year old.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | January 9, 2007
Now we are actually getting somewhere, and elucidating differences. At the risk of sounding self-referential, I suggest you read my article on paleos and abortion. There I explain that "natural rights" are a clearly liberal post-Enlightenment idea. The concept of natural rights (not rights) is extremely problematic from a traditional or classical conservative viewpoint. Since I am not a Hobbesean or a Lockean I reject the idea that governments are supposed to be primarily in the business of securing “natural rights.”
Second, I am a conservative. Why then am I supposed to support “liberal democracy?” Traditional conservatives have always distrusted democracy. The Founders distrusted democracy. Some measure of popular consent is a good part of a system of checks and balances, but remember when America was founded the only federal representatives directly elected by the people was the House. (The Electoral College never really worked as intended to put a layer between the people and the President.) So America as originally founded was an illiberal democracy at best.
So our cards are on the table. The above clearly indicates that you are a liberal. You may be a conservative liberal, but you are, historically speaking, a liberal. I am not. As an American conservative it is probably fair to call me a liberal conservative, historically speaking. There is an excellent article by Mark C. Henrie on Traditional Conservatism (you can Google it) that makes this point very well. Problem is that the difference is not just a short distance on the political spectrum. It is a cavernous philosophical divide.
In today’s liberal climate, someone like me who does not accept certain liberal presumptions sounds like a clanging gong, but your above post clarified what we are arguing about very succinctly. If you support the Enlightenment idea of natural rights and are a big fan of liberal democracy then fine. These days most everyone is. But I believe language matters, so call yourself what you are, a liberal. A conservative liberal perhaps, but a liberal. And it is fine with me if you then set in your position relatively close to the center and finger wag at liberals who are farther to your left and say “well at least I am not one of those types of liberals.” But don’t claim the mantel of conservatism and then set firmly ensconced, historically speaking, on the left and finger wag at paleos “well at least I’m not one of those types of conservatives.” That is entirely clear; you can’t be one of “those types of conservatives” because you are not a conservative at all? Phil, are you listening?
Your reference to Napoleon makes my point. Napoleon was able to gain power and be the first modern autocrat precisely because the Old Order, the Ancient Regime, had been overturned by a bunch of know-it-all, smarty pants philosophers out to spread the gospel of natural rights at the expense of thousands of years of accumulated wisdom and experience. In these arguments I nearly always reference the French Revolution because modern conservatives are extremely myopic and seem to think conservatism started in 1980 with the election of Reagan. The wiser ones go back as far as the founding of National Review perhaps. But the last 50 years is a blip on the radar of human history. We must always remember that.
Comment by Dan Phillips | January 9, 2007
"To be a conservative (sic) in this country means to hold a deep and implacable attachment to the regime insofar as it is run by the Republican Party… I think there are intellectual reasons for this. A crude form of Hobbesianism has corrupted every conservative thinker in this country. They sincerely believe that it is not liberty that gave rise to civilization but state-generated law, without which society would crumble. So when push comes to shove, they defend the state, no matter how bloody it becomes." Lew Rockwell, from The American Conservative
Comment by Dan Phillips | January 9, 2007
Tsk, tsk, Dan, there you go with the name calling again. And I noticed you ignored all of the holes I poked in your argument with my last post. I'll take that as a concession.
When I referred to a "liberal democracy" it was meant as a juxtaposition against an authoritarian regime - perhaps you did not catch the nuance. And you must know that the term democracy has become a catch-all meaning self-government, not a pure direct democracy or mob-rule.
Every conservative in history from Plato to Cicero, Burke, Jefferson, C.S. Lewis, Kirk, Reagan, and Limbaugh and everyone in between has beleived in the concept of Natural Rights granted by God to mankind and that since humankind is a naturally flawed and selfish species, governments are instituted among men to protect these God-given rights. In fact our own Declaration of Independence states this in no uncertain terms.
Do you have any idea what a conservative is or beleives, Dan?
And I still dont follow your French revolution references. You were against that armed revolution against the established order but you're for the one taking place today in Spain? Does that make any sense to you?
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | January 9, 2007
Mr. Osonitsch,
I am not trying to be cryptic. If someone in France wants to restore the Monarchy and the Church to the position they had before the Revolution, that would be radical. It would be perhaps revolutionary, or counter-revolutionary is a more accurate term. It would certainly be right wing. Would it be conservative? That depends on what you mean. In a very technical sense of wanting to maintain or defend the status quo, it certainly would not be. But is conservative a value free purely technical term? Would not the more extreme conservatives in France long for the days of the Monarchy and restoring the role of the Church? Is the person who wants to maintain the current socialist status quo more genuinely conservative than the Monarchist?
In America more dogmatic or “purist” conservatives want the federal government to spend money only on those programs directly authorized by the Constitution. That would mean abolishing probably 80% to 90% of the current government. Is that radical? Yes. Is it revolutionary/counter-revolutionary? It at least borders on that, particularly if you made it happen overnight. Is it right-wing? Absolutely? But is it conservative? I believe it is if conservative means something other than the mere technical maintenance of the status quo or a go slow approach.
So if the modern state is among other things, a unified, indivisible sovereign, that is allegedly there to secure rights equally for everyone, (paleos suggest that is an ahistorical and fanciful way of looking at things) and the Basques assert that they want an independent, ethnically defined (not entirely but largely) state which would be a return to a pre-modern polity, then from the French Revolutionary standpoint they are clearly on the anti-modern side of right. I really don’t see what is hard to grasp about that. Like I said, you are having a hard time thinking outside the modernist philosophical box you have been spoon-fed. Shamefully, often spoon-fed by “conservatives.”
That is why, in my opinion, American Conservatives and Rightists should generally support secession and devolution movements whether Basque, Quebec, Welsh, Scottish, Flemish, etc. Because they challenge the modern Hobbesian concept of the unified, indivisible sovereign that has wreaked so much chaos in the last 200 + years.
Re. Jefferson, the Declaration, etc. Whether God-given inalienable rights are an entirely equivalent concept to natural rights is a very important question and the subject of considerable debate. Natural rights are said to derive from man’s reason. The problem with the concept is that they can not logically be limited. Is there a right to housing, transportation, a “living wage”, etc. Anchoring our inalienable rights in God and not man’s reason is an important philosophical distinction in my mind, but the problem with limiting the rights still comes up. If you anchor the rights in God it seems to me harder to then legitimately argue for a right to gay marriage for example, but that certainly hasn’t stopped people from arguing that. I would say that ‘God given” rights are not a Biblical concept. Paul speaks of his rights as a Roman citizen for example, but the Bible does not invoke the concept of God-given rights. We would have been well served, much like Paul, to invoke our rights as Englishmen which would them give them a historically defining and limiting context. As I argued in my abortion article, it is better to invoke a negative proscription against killing, than it is to invoke a positive right to life.
But classical conservatives have long argued and still do the problematic nature of the concept of natural rights. I think your problem is that the historic context of your conservatism is too limited.And I wasn’t being sly or argumentative re. “liberal democracy.” When the term is invoked it generally means something in addition to just not autocratic. It implies some of the modernist Hobbesean assumptions I spoke of for example.
Comment by Dan Phillips | January 10, 2007