,
14 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
That's an easy one, Julie. My old neo-con friends have had the ear of the donors and the run of the best-funded conservative institutions in DC since the mid-1990s--25 years. Our nationalconservatism.org conference is dramatic proof that all this is now changing.
There were already signs of change, most obviously the closing of @BillKristol's Weekly Standard. But the National Conservatism Conference is something entirely new: It presents a positive, constructive vision of what a nationalist conservative discourse could look like.
We have 46 speakers at the conference, a broad tent embracing many perspectives. People who'll disagree, debate each other. But we're all (or almost all!) national conservatives: We're united in rejecting a dogmatic, universal liberal empire as the aim and end of "conservatism."
Bill and his friends and allies spent 25 years on that project of trying to make universal liberal empire the goal of conservatism. I know him well, and I don't impugn his motives as some others do. He was and is true believer in this cause.
But this liberal imperialism was never able to conserve anything. It's a utopian ideology that rigidly, proudly, seeks to bring the one true idea--liberal revolution--to every country on the face of the globe, at whatever cost.
This rigidity and pride blinds its adherents to empirical reality: It blinds them to the fact that other nations don't necessarily want American liberalism for their countries, and will fight and die rather than having it imposed upon them.
It blinds them to the fact that this liberalism has failed the U.S.: By building up China, by sending America into endless fruitless wars, by ruining the US industrial base, by dissolving America's borders, by flooding the country with porn and drugs, by smashing family.
Liberal imperalism has indeed brought prosperity to many. But it has also done so much harm--to America and many other countries--that anyone with some common sense and a little willingness to learn would pull back and rethink. Perhaps changes are needed?
At the National Conservatism Conference we've gathered together people who are convinced that "conservatism" must learn and adapt itself to reality. That "conservatism" must learn how to conserve things again. People who understand that everything depends on this.
So what's the surprise here? We're being maligned and ridiculed by people who think "conservatism" was right these past 25 years. They don't want to see new donors, research institutes, educational institutions, and publications springing up to explore national conservatism.
They want everything to stay as it was. And since they've little new to offer, they spit venom at those who have something new to say: "Malignant!" they cry. "Excusing atrocities!" "A direct threat to the republic!" Defeat them "mercilessly.. as if Sept 1, 1939 were approaching!"
No, they aren't just defending their jobs. This really is about principles--that, and an intense desire not to admit that their principles were in any way wrong. It's embarrassing to tell your friends that you were wrong. It's even more embarrassing to admit it to yourself.
But why all the name-calling? These gents have spent their careers talking about decency. I'm an old friend to many of them. They've known my national conservatism for 35 years. Why not talk about me and my colleagues decently, with civility and class?
Can it be that they've run out of gas? Too tired for polite discussion? Too embarrassed to carry themselves with civility and class? So now they're going to call us names?
