"If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign," William F. Buckley said about George W. Bush to CBS News. "There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush. I don't believe his successor would re-enunciate the words he used in his second inaugural address because they were too ambitious.... his legacy is indecipherable." That's polite, English-boarding-school talk for Bush is horrible.

As I said with Friedman, it would be nice if Buckley would have said this 3 years ago, instead of actively colluding with Frum and co. to print "unpatriotic conservatives"

better late than never i suppose.

Buckley doesn't get it.

"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology — with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress," Buckley says. "And in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge."

There was a conservative ideology at work, it just didn't work and wasn't very conservative.

That is a great interview. He did speak of a conservative "ideology" which will make Ben-T take notice, but he probably is using it more to indicate guiding principles/convictions than ideology the way Dan defines it.

Marcus is right although I would go back much further and say that Buckley should have never catered to the neocons in the first place to the extent that he allowed movement conservatism to become identical w/ neoconservatism. He also gutted his magazine of all its talented righters for the neocons and has left it in questionable hands. I think he is being genuine though and he is still the most recognizable conservative so it is good of him to speak out.

"That is a great interview. He did speak of a conservative "ideology" which will make Ben-T take notice, but he probably is using it more to indicate guiding principles/convictions than ideology the way Dan defines it." -Brian

How does Dan deny it? I would say it fits the definition:

i·de·ol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-l-j, d-)
n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

How does Dan Define it*

Hi Ben. According to the OED, its political meaning seems to derive from Bonaparte himself (have I ever told you how much you remind me of him?). Originally a French philosophe invention (1790s) to refer to anti-metaphysical theories of knowledge, 'idedology' seems to have been used by Bonaparte to refer to the systematic political idea-schemes governing the revolutists and other "hot-brained boys and crazed enthusiasts." Anyway, here are the OED's politically relevant definitions:

"2. Ideal or abstract speculation; in a depreciatory sense, unpractical or visionary theorizing or speculation.

4. A systematic scheme of ideas, usu. relating to politics or society, or to the conduct of a class or group, and regarded as justifying actions, esp. one that is held implicitly or adopted as a whole and maintained regardless of the course of events."

There is no entry for the "set of ideas" or "worldview" meaning that you are insisting upon. I suspect that _that_ meaning comes from social scientists and other ideologists who think that everyone is governed, as they themselves are, by ideologies.

Similarly, m-w's first entry is "visionary theorizing," though they have a sub-entry under entry (2) that gets your meaning more or less. You get your definition from the inferior (to both the OED and mw) New American Heritage Dictionary. I think yours is a common, but misleading and ideologicaally charged usage given the word's primary meaning and its history.

Ah, okay. Using that definition then yes, I would say that conservatism is not an ideology.

But I would note that while ideology run amok is certainly dangerous, traditionalism run amok is equally so.

As for me, I continue to identify as a Liberal, in the classical sense.

P.S:

Strangely enough, a classical liberal who is often more sympathetic to the conservatives of the classical era. I certainly share Burke's dim view of the French Revolution, in any event.

P.S.S: And, as Litchman could tell you, if he still posted here, I hate the Enlightenment.

"But I would note that while ideology run amok is certainly dangerous, traditionalism run amok is equally so." -Ben

I guess you are speaking of a pure and extreme "traditionalist"/"status-quo" conservative. OK. Then you are right. But you are comparing apples and oranges, or really real apples and imaginary apples. Ideologists run amok are very common, but traditionalists run amok simply don't exist in our culture. So you should use a different mood: 'would be', not 'is'.

Also let me point out that conservatives and traditionalists don't define themselves according to preserving the status quo, even if poli sci textbooks written by liberals do.

"traditionalists run amok simply don't exist in our culture."-Sherlock

What? How about pretty much any white supremacist group? Traditions can't just be "the traditions we like to talk about."

You think white supremacists want to preserve the status quo? Odd. I thought that they were very unhappy about the status quo. I count them, rather, as ideologists-- ideology can be race-based you know.

Wanna try again?

Thanks for proving my point for me, that literally everybody and nobody could be fairly called a conservative.

And I did that how? I'm very confused about what you think you've proved. Until now our conversation has been entirely me correcting you and then you admitting I was right.

Well since you obviously aren't quite bright enough to put two and two together for yourself, I will have to explain.

Everybody wants to defend SOME status quo. Generally, someone considered a "conservative" doesn't want to defend the status quo of July 27th, 2006. In fact, they would most likely be called a liberal, as they would be in favor of social security, medicare, a welfare state, affirmative action, etc, etc, etc. When one talks about conservatives, one is not talking about, usually anyways, someone who is satisfied with the situation TODAY, and doesn't want to change it, even though, under the clunky and less than useful definition conservatives use for themselves, one could fairly say that this is the case.

Any fair minded being of at least four years of age and having an I.Q. at least equal to the monkey from the TANG commercials though, would agree that conservatives are generally concerned with the traditions and status quos of the PAST, not the present.

So yes, white supremacists are conservatives.

Next week, we'll go over coloring.

So you have "proven" your point by redefining two terms. To be 'conservative' now means wanting to maintain the status quo. 'Status quo' now means any situation in any time past or present or future (note this makes the use of 'maintain' in the previous sentence a little odd). And then to complete your reasoning you add the final premise that everyone wants to preserve some status quo-- i.e., some situation in the past or present or future. Therefore, everyone is a conservative.

I favor reviving the cult of Bacchus. I am a conservative!

I favor moving the entire human race to Mars. I'm a conservative!

Absolutely baffling. The syllogism is valid, indeed, einstein. The problem is with the premises.

Now, tell me, why should anyone accept your redefinitions? The key here is "status quo." You admit that your definition of conservative is false unless we redefine status quo, and your final premise is true only given the redefinition of status quo as any situation, past, present, or future. Notice also that it makes your argument incredibly trivial. Your conclusin "that everyone is a conservative" and that 'conservatism' is meaningless, really amounts to the claim that everyone advocates something. Really, really sophistic argument, Ben.

"So you have "proven" your point by redefining two terms. To be 'conservative' now means wanting to maintain the status quo. 'Status quo' now means any situation in any time past or present or future (note this makes the use of 'maintain' in the previous sentence a little odd). And then to complete your reasoning you add the final premise that everyone wants to preserve some status quo-- i.e., some situation in the past or present or future. Therefore, everyone is a conservative." -Sherlock

Yours, actually. We were discussing tradition. You brought up the fact that white supremacists wanted to change the status quo in your lame attempt to suggest they weren't conservatives.

Your willingness to simply out and out lie is staggering.

"Yours, actually." My what? Sentences require verbs. Otherwise they are like the 'language' that prarie dogs and chimps use. And "lie"...? Pardon me? What sentence of mine is a lie? You are being rather rude, actually. But I shouldn't expect anymore from some sophomore who, having never learned Socrates' lesson and refusing to recognise when he's talking to someone better than himself at argument, speaks to everyone as he speaks to younger children he's taken upon himself to tutor in whatever it was he was taught yesterday in school.

Anyway, you, not me, have operated with this false and silly definition of conservatism as someone who defends the status quo. (See your comment on July 20, under 'A Conservative Foreign Policy?') Why are you imputing it to me? My point was that even if we accept your redefinition of conservative, we must also redefine status quo for your conclusion to follow.

It seems to me that you have a short term memory problem. You have been arguing an incredibly lame point that I suspect you picked up from some prof or textbook who took you aside: "Well everyone is a conservative, Ben; the question is what do you want to conserve." You at the same time wanted a definition of ideology that fit everyone, and you did THAT through redefinition, too.

Very cute on both counts. But you can't just defend a conclusion by redefining the key terms. That is sophistry. Now, we've lost our focus. Let's start from the beginning so we can see if there really is something to your claim. You want to show that everyone is a conservative and that everyone is an ideologue. Can you give reasons for these beliefs that don't rely on ignoring definitions?

"You think white supremacists want to preserve the status quo? Odd. I thought that they were very unhappy about the status quo." -Sherlock

You change the definition to whatever is more convenient at the time. I already acquiesced that conservatism is more about tradition than status quo, until you seemingly argued against that notion. Race equality in America is not a longstanding tradition. It has existed only since the late 1960s.

Pick an argument and stick with it.

P.S: Which makes social security, the minimum wage, etc, all more entrenched American traditions than equality between the races.

I change the definition of what to suit my purposes? I haven't offered any definitions; I've only argued against yours. (And you HAVE changed the definitions you've advocated! Look up: projection.) Can you quote where I have advocated a definition of conservatism here? Therefore, your accusation is false.

Conservatism is neither about all tradition, nor about just any tradition nor about maintaining the status quo. You seem to want to define the term just based on the root "conserve." Very foolish. Parallel argument to the sophistic one you are making: everyone is a liberal because everyone favors some liberty: for example, North Korea is a liberal country because all citizens have the liberty to do what that chain smoking communist dwarf tells them to do. Foolish. See? Now, liberalism has something to do with liberty, and conservatism has something to do with conserving, and traditionalism has something to do with traditions, but these roots don't exhaust their meanings.

Give up yet, or are you ready to accuse me of still another error that you have committed?

So I am reading George Nash's history of the conservative movement and he relates the liberal (as he was clearly known to be in the fifties) Samuel Huntington's redefinition of conservatism to suit his purposes. He "argued that conservatism was a *situational* ideology 'arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions.' According to Huntington, it was the liberals who 'must be the conservatives in America today'; it was the liberals whose mission it was to defend 'liberal, popular, and democratic' American institutions."

Huntington speaks to a small grain of truth here I think, at least in that he is correct that conservatism defends established institutions, but I would submit that in every other point he is wrong, misleading, presumptuous, or sneaky. He is wrong that conservatism is "situational"; rather, I think it is "situated" in a particular culture/civilization, nation, people. This relates to the fact that I think Ben-T is correct in the simple recognition that there can be "conservatives" in Pakistan, just as well as in the U.S. despite no agreement on most specific opinions between these two groups.

Huntington is misleading because he thinks conservatives only exist as reactionaries to "fundamental challenges." He is presumptous in claiming that the "liberal, popular, and democratic" institutions of America, by which he prominently had in mind the New Deal welfare state are all "established traditions" (he was writing in only the mid-fifties after all). And he is at bottom being sneaky in trying to appropriate and redefine a term that simply does not belong to him.

I think Ben is operating under a similar error of taking conservatism to be a "situationalist ideology."

"I change the definition of what to suit my purposes? I haven't offered any definitions; I've only argued against yours. (And you HAVE changed the definitions you've advocated! Look up: projection.) Can you quote where I have advocated a definition of conservatism here? Therefore, your accusation is false."

I argued that a conservative just wanted to pursue the status quo. Brian and Dan argued otherwise, and I acquiesced. You then stated white supremacists are not conservatives because they want to change the status quo. Do keep up.

"Conservatism is neither about all tradition, nor about just any tradition nor about maintaining the status quo. You seem to want to define the term just based on the root "conserve." Very foolish. Parallel argument to the sophistic one you are making: everyone is a liberal because everyone favors some liberty: for example, North Korea is a liberal country because all citizens have the liberty to do what that chain smoking communist dwarf tells them to do. Foolish. See? Now, liberalism has something to do with liberty, and conservatism has something to do with conserving, and traditionalism has something to do with traditions, but these roots don't exhaust their meanings."

Since the debate in the first place has been over A.) The definition of "conservative" and B.) Whether Conservative can be a useful label (I maintain that it isn't very useful).

So far, you are only proving my argument for me. Conservatism isn't this and it isn't that but it's not this either and it certainly is not that. Only plays into my view that the whole label is not useful.

"I think Ben is operating under a similar error of taking conservatism to be a "situationalist ideology." -Brian

I don't have much of an opinion on the ideology. I am arguing that the term conservative is not a useful one.

ideology, or lack thereof*

"I argued that a conservative just wanted to pursue the status quo. Brian and Dan argued otherwise, and I acquiesced. You then stated white supremacists are not conservatives because they want to change the status quo. Do keep up."

Ben, you have your history wrong, and it's right before your eyes. These posts happened consecutively:

"But I would note that while ideology run amok is certainly dangerous, traditionalism run amok is equally so." -Ben

"I guess [by "traditionalism run amok"] you are speaking of a pure and extreme "traditionalist"/"status-quo" conservati[sm]. ... traditionalists run amok simply don't exist in our culture.... Also let me point out that conservatives and traditionalists don't define themselves according to preserving the status quo." -Sherlock

"What? How about pretty much any white supremacist group?" -Ben T.

"You think white supremacists want to preserve the status quo? Odd. I thought that they were very unhappy about the status quo." -Sherlock

Notice that niether Dan nor Brian are involved in this back and forth (I'm not calling you a liar, but..). Notice also that I never say whether I think white supremacists are conservatives. IF we are concerned with status-quo-preserving conservatism, you say that they are, and I say that they aren't.

Not only do I not define conservatism here as defending the status quo, I say the very opposite. Really, Ben, is this an honesty prblem or a reading comprehension problem?

Nicely said, Brian -- though I think only in a loose sense could one be a conservative in Pakistan, because so little of what conservatives defend in our traditions is found in theirs. That is, I think the word 'conservative' refers to range of approaches to issues with a family resemblance (no definition proper, I think, no essence). There is, I think, both a procedural and a substantial side.

Procedural: mine one's traditions, one's culture's past and present, for ways of doing things that serve the human good and cultivate these ways of doing things (This culture is the soil in which whatever policies we adopt must take root.). This is instead of looking to simply invent wholecloth ways of doing things (as though policies would apply the same in different cultural situations-- they can't).

Substantial: Preserve traditional liberties and obligations to honor them such as private property, the family, Christianity, rights of Englishmen as we've appropriated them, respect for human life, and ways of thinking like natural science, philosophy in the Greek tradition, etc.

Now, one can be a conservative in Pakistan regarding the procedural aspects, but the substantial aspects are harder for them. Why? First, the concrete manifestations of liberty etc., are different there. Second, liberty does not have as much of a root there. Their traditions aren't as good.

Ben's mistake is to want a purely procedural definition (and a rather retarded procedural definition, too).