Comments on: Neo-conservatism v. Classical Conservatism

By: Conservative Donnybrook » Blog Archive » What’s the Difference Between Me and You?

Fri, 09 May 2008 23:11:38 +0000

[...] Jack Kerwick posted a poorly reasoned piece on the intellectual conservative web site concerning the difference between, well, him and me. He [...]

By: Conservative Heritage Times » Neo-conservatism v. Classical Conservatism

Conservative Heritage Times » Neo-conservatism v. Classical Conservatism — Mon, 05 May 2008 01:47:59 +0000

[...] Here is a great article from Intellectual Conservative by Dr. Jack Kerwick. He clearly gets it. In conclusion, [...]

By: Dan Phillips

Dan Phillips — Mon, 05 May 2008 01:32:41 +0000

“In conclusion, neo-conservatism really isn’t an expression of conservatism at all. It is a form of Enlightenment liberal rationalism, the sort of liberal rationalism in reaction against which conservatism originally emerged and developed as a distinctive tradition of thought.”

Amen, Dr. Kerwick. Finally someone who gets it. Now if we could just get Dr. Phil to understand this.

By: Mickey G

Mickey G — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:43:42 +0000

Mountain Man, good comments. I am amused by the attempts to make the constitution a “living document” through interpretation. The fact is that the constitution was designed specific to a no need to interpret template. How can I say this? The constitution framers understood that no institution or organization stays static thus they designed a way to deal with needs for change. Were they activist courts? NO! It is called an amendment process but that is too difficult for those wishing to force their views on the overall population.

So how does this tie to the article? Seems to me that the neo-con designation is another way to say demomarxist. Big government forcing social engineering. Conservatives, on the other hand, understand the constitution and many of us carry a copy. In all my readings of it I have been unable to find the famous “seperation of church and state” and “right to vote” clauses that neo-cons and their demomarxist mirrors believe in so strongly as they attempt to drive us to act like Berlin in the 1920s, all of this as we are rapidly moving to 4th world status as the world’s poorest and least educated flock across our borders to suck at the public teat.

It this represents a fracture in the conservative community so be it. Mountain Man said it more eloquently in his determination of the qualities of a conservative.

By: arete5000

arete5000 — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:44:06 +0000

If you do not know about the Natural Law/Prescriptive Law tension that runs through what we commonly term Conservatism
might I suggest any work by Jaffa or Strauss. You seem like a good and honorable gentleman, I will end our conversation with that.

By: Mountain Man

Mountain Man — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 02:37:09 +0000

Arete5000,

A lot of words, but am left wondering what you’re talking about.

I did not suggest that your words would be found in daily kos, I suggested that to make an unsupported citicism without offering specifics was typical for sites like kos.

By the way, who was talking about Kirk?

By: arete5000

arete5000 — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:12:22 +0000

MM
It goes without saying that the conservatives believe in governmental limits and restraints. But the principles of the Declaration and the American Founding are not merely rooted in the American character, the love of the ancient, prescriptive rights or the rights of Englishmen. Whether you side with Harry Jaffa or Russell Kirk is your business, but some principles are transhistorical and are writ large within the human heart. Calling neocons some species of quasi-liberals ill-serves the debate and calls into question the cause we all serve. Kirk’s brand of conservatism granted a faint and opaque apology for slave-owning, state’s rights, and the winking of the eye in the service of bolstering political inequality. Some principles are worth shedding blood for: here and in some God forsaken parched area of the Earth, especially when they bolster American foreign interest in a treacherous and unstable world. My son is a West Point grad and although he is not a Political Philosopher like myself, he instinctively knows this.
It seems conservatives nowadays are amongst the first to knife their wounded. We care for more greater things than preserving our own treasure. The Pat Buchanan school of hysterical isolationism ill-suits our great calling, if our regime perishes in the process, then let it not be said that it was in the cause of self-preservation or moral cowardice. I challenge you, in all respect, to find these words in the Daily Kos.

By: Mountain Man

Mountain Man — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:41:21 +0000

arete5000,

Specifics, please. This is not the Huffington Post or Daily Kos where broad generalizations and unsupported assertions are commonplace. Here at IC, we need thoughtful commentary.

By: arete5000

arete5000 — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:14:37 +0000

Hardly an expository work on the subject. I am afraid that this treatise is perhaps unworthy of this publication and more suited to a survey course in American Political Philosophy. In grasping the elephant, you have revealed only the nature of the trunk.

By: Mountain Man

Mountain Man — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:35:24 +0000

If we hold to the proper view of the Constitution, we will not get into trouble. The Constitution creates our government, it tells it what it can and cannot do. There is nothing in the Constitution that can be construed as granting rights to individuals or restricting or defining what a person can or cannot do.

Almost every judicial and interpretive error regarding the Constitution has its basis in a failure to recognize this basic principle. As I said before, it’s really so simple to understand the plain meaning. Same with the Bible. It isn’t that people don’t understand, it’s that they don’t like what they are reading.

The Constitution doesn’t need a re-do. It is a sound document, the product of fertile minds. What is needed is a revamp of the “industry” that has grown up around it. I doubt that the Constitution is even taught in public schools anymore. People are ignorant of its contents, and as a result the elites of society have been very successful in turning it on its ear.

I am not advocating Levitical law as the yardstick of American society. We are not a Jewish nation. However, the standards of conduct, fair dealing, personal restraint, and right living, as outlined in the Bible, are universal principles of a just and healthy society. I don’t expect a non-believer to live a godly life. But I do expect everyone to conduct themselves according to the moral standard set forth in Scripture as the foundation of western society.