Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
That other kind of conservatism
Fans of Russell Kirk and Ron Paul may appreciate this book review of Ain’t My America: The Long, Noble History of Anti-War Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism by Bill Kauffman.
Kauffman writes prose-history, novels, journalism-but he is a poet and a prophet. His task in Ain’t My America is to remind us of who we are: a Republic, not an empire, a nation of families and towns, not barracks and bases. Kauffman writes to restore conservatives to their senses. No more war, please. Remember your ancestors. Remember Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, Russell Kirk and Robert Nisbet. What has passed for the Right since the Cold War isn’t right in any sense, and Kauffman sets out to prove it.
I’d urge all of us to read it. At least the review.
back to top30 Comments to “That other kind of conservatism”
Oh, I’ll read it, you betchum!
Right after I finish Dr. Paul’s The Revolution: A Manifesto …
Report comment to moderator
So, young America didn’t fight the War of 1812? You bet they did.
Report comment to moderator
Yowchers …
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer (2): So, young America didn’t fight the War of 1812? You bet they did.
Frank: Would you mind elaborating a bit? I just finished reading the AmConMag review, and don’t have a clue as to what you mean.
Report comment to moderator
From the review: A great quote: Gross “railed against the space program, foreign aid, congressional junkets abroad, and every post office and bridge he could find,” says Kauffman.
And, an idiotic one: Taxes, divorce, juvenile delinquency, anomie, and rootlessness are just a few of the wages of war. “No agency of the government has done as much to destroy the traditional American family as has the Department of Defense,” Kauffman concludes.
Report comment to moderator
Frank: I believe what NJ Lawyer means is that a young nation, 20 years after Yorktown and liberty from tyranny, had to fight in 1812 to remain free and independent, and not be the subject of a “reconquista” by the British.
Report comment to moderator
Ah yes, those evil Americans who fought the Revolutionary, Civil, World, and assorted other wars in defense of American ideals and interests.
While the pacifists and isolationists always find sorry excuses not to fight, America has a rich history of shoving them aside and battling rather just wars, the most recent being against Serbia, the Taliban, and Iraq. We usually make major mistakes along the way but end up winning. We are winning in Iraq, much to the disgust of the Bush hating rabble.
Just now the anti-war zealots in Europe, mainly out of weakness and envy, are complaining about the very American military might that saved their bacon in World Wars I, II, and the Cold War.
American pacifists and isolationists ought to read Donald Kagan’s volume On the Origins of War and The Preservation of Peace in which he argues that only credible threats and actions of war against serious enemies in the long run preserve the peace.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Ivan.
It was the words “No more war, please. Remember your ancestors.” As Ivan said, I was thinking they defended the country. Sometimes it’s necessary to survive.
And no, I’m not in favor of an imperial America. If you can guarantee me that the rest of the planet will leave us alone, I’m prepared for 100% isolation because I think we can do anything and everything here. We’ll stay on our side of the line, and they can stay on theirs. What say you?
Report comment to moderator
“No more war, please.”
Could this be Barack Obama negotiating with Amidinijad? Would this have worked with Usama bin Laden or the terrorists we are fighting today? It’s wishful thinking, but not rational.
Two more words are required for complete the quote above:
“…or else!”
“To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” Georege Washington, Jan. 8, 1790.
Report comment to moderator
The communists in the 60s made a mindless mantra out of blaming the USA for being allegedly “imperialists.”
It’s Marxist nonsense, no matter what label or leaning the author claims.
Report comment to moderator
“Fewer Bases, More Baseball” is the title of the review.
I love baseball, but it will not protect us from terrorist attacks. Baseball will not prevent vicious thugs around the world from exploiting us and others at will. It will not help prevent jihadist terrorists from getting nukes.
U.S. army bases, however, can and do.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt (7): Ah yes, those evil Americans who fought the Revolutionary, Civil, World, and assorted other wars in defense of American ideals and interests.
Frank: Amazing, isn’t it, how with one, broad, sweeping generalization you can simply assert that every war we’ve ever prosecuted was just?
America: Still batting 1.000 after 231 years!
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt (7): We usually make major mistakes along the way but end up winning.
Frank: A mind like a steel paper clip, you’ve got there, Peter.
(See “Korean Conflict” and “Vietnam War”)
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer (8): And no, I’m not in favor of an imperial America. If you can guarantee me that the rest of the planet will leave us alone, I’m prepared for 100% isolation
Frank: So I guess the unspoken corollary is, “But if you can’t guarantee me that the rest of the planet will leave us alone, let’s kick some global A$$”?
NJLawyer (8): We’ll stay on our side of the line, and they can stay on theirs.
Frank: Damndest thing how that “line” as all the way over on the other side of the world, ain’t it?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark (9): “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” Georege Washington, Jan. 8, 1790.
Frank: Amen.
To which I would add, however, the following:
Joel Mark (11): U.S. army bases, however, can and do.
Frank: Yup. Just like our military personnel stationed in Saudi Arabia prevented 19 Saudis from attacking us on 11 September 2001, huh?
Would you like a little Southern Comfort in that Kool Aid?
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
Our presence in Saudi Arabia was legit and it did us and the Middle East a lot of good when we liberated Kuait in the Gulf War. But some murderous butchering terrorists didn’t like it. Are you with them, Frank? Are you saying we shoulda bent to the will of the likes of the 19 terrorists?
Those same butchers want to exterminate all Jews too and will continue to seek to terrorise until that happens. Is that our fault too?
Report comment to moderator
Frank: “Would you like a little Southern Comfort in that Kool Aid?”
You are not a serious thinker, Frank, or a good conversationalist either.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, scratch #18 please. I felt some needless disrespect from Frank’s comment about the koolaid, but I should not have returned it.
Report comment to moderator
From an other prespective on the War of 1812 as taught in Cdn textbooks. America upset with Britain over impressment and support of Ohio valley natives invaded Canada. Canada was seen as an easy prize as Britain was busy with Napoleon. The first expression of the Manifest Destiny sought to toss the Brtis completely out of North America. According to the rhetoric of the time, the US army was to be greeted as liberators.
Report comment to moderator
“The US army was to be greeted as liberators.”
Every case must be judged on its own merits, but this has often been exactly how the US army has been greeted, and rightly so. The USA has a long and proud military tradition, all told, and the world is a better and more peaceful place as a result.
Memorial Day is coming us soon and I am grateful for the sacrifices and work that have given freedom and liberation to many, includig us.
Report comment to moderator
To Joel Mark
I read your comments with absolute amazement.
We didn’t “liberate” Kuwait. Iraq War I was making sure Hussein didn’t get his hands on more Middle East oil. The U.S. couldn’t care less about Kuwait.
Our presence in Saudi Arabia was legit? Are you crazy? This is Islam holiest’s country. The thought of a military from a predominately Christian country and the blind supporter of Israel on their sacred soil must have riled them up beyond measure.
We are you so worried about Iran? Have they invaded another country? Have they threatened the U.S.?
As for Iran having WMDs’ in the future who is the U.S. to say that Israel can have WMDs’ but Iran cannot?
Report comment to moderator
Nick H. Peters (22): [Why] are you so worried about Iran? Have they invaded another country? Have they threatened the U.S.?
Frank: Your remark calls to mind something I’ve heard on several occasions that points out our nation’s absolute hypocrisy in Middle Eastern affairs, to wit:
One of the rationales offered for the necessity of invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein was the fact that he invaded Iran in 1980.
These warmongering apologists for the Empire say this with an absolutely straight face — as if there were no historical record of America’s support for Hussein.
I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: Saddam was a bastard, but he was our bastard. You cannot take a villain like him under your wing when you think it suits your purposes, and then disown and attack him, citing the very actions in which you were complicit as evidence against him.
Report comment to moderator
To Frank
You are so right.
Hussein did business with Cheney’s company Halliburton.
There is a nice picture on the Internet of Hussein shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld.
Hussein had been in power in Iraq since 1976, never once threatening the U.S., and all of a sudden he is a mortal danger to the U.S.?
Bush attacked Iraq not because they were strong but because they were weak.
Report comment to moderator
Nick H. Peters (24): There is a nice picture on the Internet of Hussein shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld …
Frank: That’s what I linked to at (23)!
Report comment to moderator
By all means, listen to what Bush says. But conclude the opposite is true:
Note that when Obama says he’d talk with those regimes with whom we’re not on good terms, he’s decried as an appeaser.
But when Bush says it, it’s “resolving concerns through peaceful diplomatic means” …
If this is true, then God bless Condi. Maybe she’s found Colin Powell’s cajones in some dusty corner of the White House, and is putting them to use.
(Read the entire piece here.)
Report comment to moderator
Meanwhile, back to the topic of “That other kind of conservatism.”
Right after Harrison posted this thread about Kauffman’s book Ain’t My America, I caught the tail end of Mickey Edwards on the Diane Rehm show discussing his new book, Reclaiming Conservatism: How a Great American Political Movement Got Lost — And How It Can Find Its Way Back:
As with Kauffman, I’d never heard of Edwards, either. I learned that he was one of the founders of the Heritage Foundation and once served as national chairman of the American Conservative Union — no socialist think tanks, agreed?
I would ask my fellow conservatives with whom I frequently disagree to give the show a listen (RA and WM formats). It might give you a better idea of the genuine concerns of conservatives such as myself.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark (19): Okay, scratch #18 please. I felt some needless disrespect from Frank’s comment about the koolaid, but I should not have returned it.
Frank: I do appreciate your concern, but no harm, no foul. I think we’re both big boys, and understand that we each might push the boundaries of rhetoric a bit.
Rest assured, my “disrespect” is for your ideas (at least some of them, as expressed in this thread) — not for you personally.
Report comment to moderator
Frank: I believe what NJ Lawyer means is that a young nation, 20 years after Yorktown and liberty from tyranny, had to fight in 1812 to remain free and independent, and not be the subject of a “reconquista” by the British.
Reconquista? Come again? You are aware that we started the War of 1812, and that Britain considered us no more than a nuisance on the side; the main show was in Europe, and the main foe was Napoleon (who duped us into attacking Britain for him). By 1812, Britain was over the dream of American colonies. Their attacks on the American mainland were to defeat us in war, not to reconquer us.
Report comment to moderator
(See “Korean Conflict” and “Vietnam War”)
The Chinese still can’t understand why we left Korea unfinished… and in truth we fulfilled our first objective (preservation of S. Korea).
Vietnam we gave up on – betrayed by our civilians and by our leaders lack of fortitude.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!