Comments on: The End of Right Patriotism?

By: N. P. West

N. P. West — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:46:34 +0000

I don’t know if looking to the Anti-Federalists as a source of influence for traditionalist conservatives considering that Russell Kirk emphasized the Burkean conservatism of the Federalist Party. Just because the neocons have co-opted the Federalists for their own purposes (i.e. “national greatness conservatism”), Kirkian traditionalists need to remember that it wasn’t that far to go before the Anti-Federalists turned into Jeffersonian Republicans and backed the radicalism of the French Revolution. Re-read “The Conservative Mind” to get an understanding of the Burkean influences on the Federalists.

By: “Localism, community and limits” « A Priori Concepts

“Localism, community and limits” « A Priori Concepts — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:10:06 +0000

[...] “Localism, community and limits” 2009 February 21 tags: conservatism, liberal faith, Patrick Deneen by jhs Deneen: [...]

By: TomB

TomB — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:50:31 +0000

I think the decline of “Right” patriotism (as defined here) can be a very healthy thing within reason. After all to a considerable and even possibly total extent appealing to alleged “patriotism” to do something is almost an admission that it lacks any other merits you can argue it on, such as smartness.

Think of the biggest uses of Right patriotism in the last 50 or 60 years: Instead of declaring it—with much justice—as a foolish liberal/Democratic fantasy, Nixon continuing the Vietnam War, and then we had the Shrub’s pretty naked appeal to the 9/11 flag to invade Iraq.

No doubt it worked: the Dems financed Vietnam almost as long as Republicans wanted, and they caved on Iraq too. But was it smart in the long run? Not for the country, which matters, nor for the Republican Party, which doesn’t.

Look too at how the opponents of Pat Buchanan’s thesis in his recent book on whether WWII was avoidable have used the naked appeal to patriotism to try to stifle really thinking about the merits of that idea: “How dare he dishonor the sacrifices of the Greatest Generation!” and etc.

E.g., people of the Right are now feeling the sting of being on the end of the same kind of patriotism they dished out for so long now. “How un-American it is of you to oppose multi-culturalism!” (Or “diversity,” or amnesty for illegal aliens, or whatever.)

“Emotion has taught us to think,” someone once said. But not always or enough, apparently.

Cheers,

By: Thomas O. Meehan

Thomas O. Meehan — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:48:06 +0000

I detect in the above a tension between a nation and a people. As we become less and less one people, we have to argue more and more of what our nation is. Liberals created their own saga of struggle that they graft onto our history to make it seem their own. That saga is now the official History of our country taught in our schools. Our republic is an ever expanding zone of liberation of blacks, women, immigrants, religious minorities, etc.

The Conservative History is one of a people who settle the better part of a continent, who have a unique culture and who strive to live up to the generation of The Founders under the gaze of our Creator. That is the History that is no longer taught in our schools.

So we have two peoples sharing the same nation, each feeling patriotic when their side controls the government, each feeling deep alienation when the values of the other prevail. Personally, after they twice electing Clinton and Bush, I’ve begun to wonder who my fellow citizens are and if I can respect and care about them as I once did.

Reagan’s optimism may have come from his belief that given the fundamentally sound principles of hard work, delayed gratification, faith and imagination, the American people he grew up with, could always improve their lot. Whether we would be justified in seeing our situation in like terms today is another matter.