Political News - Conservative Views -Join the Discussions
How the Neocons Destroyed Southern Conservatism
By Boyd Cathey on May 2, 2018
No discussion of Southern conservatism, its history and its relationship to what is termed broadly the “American conservative movement” would be complete without an examination of events that have transpired over the past fifty years and the pivotal role of the powerful intellectual current known as Neoconservatism.
From the 1950s into the 1980s Southerners who defended the traditions of the South, and even more so, of the Confederacy, were welcomed as allies and confreres by their Northern and Western counterparts. William F. Buckley Jr.’s National Review and Dr. Russell Kirk’s Modern Age, perhaps the two leading conservative journals of the period, welcomed Southerners into the “movement” and onto the pages of those organs of conservative thought. Kirk dedicated an entire issue of Modern Age to the South and its traditions, and explicitly supported its historic defense of the originalist constitutionalism of the Framers. And throughout the critical period that saw the enactment of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, Buckley’s magazine defended the “Southern position,” arguing forcefully on constitutional grounds that the proposed legislation would undercut not just the guaranteed rights of the states but the protected rights of citizens.
Southern authors like Mel Bradford, Richard Weaver, Clyde Wilson and James J. Kilpatrick lent their intelligence, skill as writers, and arguments to a defense of the South. Yet by the late 1980s, that “Southern voice” had pretty much been exiled—expelled—from major establishment conservative journals. Indeed, friendly writers from outside the South, but who were identified with what became known as the Old Right, that is, the non-Neoconservative “right,” were also soon purged from the mastheads of the conservative “mainstream” organs of opinion: noted authors such as Bradford (from National Review), Sam Francis (from The Washington Times), Paul Gottfried (from Modern Age) and others were soon shown the door.
What had happened? How had the movement that began with such promise in the 1950s, essentially with the publication of Kirk’s seminal volume, The Conservative Mind (1953), descended into internecine purges, excommunications, and the sometimes brutal triumph of those—the Neoconservatives—who only a few years earlier had militated in the cadres of the Marxist Left?
To address this question we need to examine the history of the non-Stalinist Left in the United States after World War II. And we need to indicate and pinpoint significant differences between those—the so-called Neocons—who made the pilgrimage from the Left into the conservative movement, and those more traditional conservatives, whose basic beliefs and philosophy were at odds with the newcomers.
In this traversal I utilize the insights of a long list of writers and historians, including the late Richard Weaver, Russell Kirk and Mel Bradford, and more recently, Paul Gottfried and Gary Dorrien—plus my own experiences in witnessing what I term “the great brain robbery of the American conservative movement.” That is, what can only be described as a subversion and, ultimately, radical transformation of an older American “conservatism” and pattern of thinking by those who, for lack of better words, must be called “leftist refugees” from the more globalist Trotskyite form of Marxism. Continue reading at ...
sounds reasonable - if media is to take credit for all change whether positive or negative.
I tend to think it's more natural than that - that 85% of us living in urban conditions has made socialism acceptable or even preferred. (Apologies to whoever here it is that I respect but has objected to that opinion.) btw - I came to that opinion myself while living in uber-progressive hell Austin Texas. The article below just happens to make all the very same points of why/how it happens that I had concluded myself, while still living it. It's almost impossible for conservative opinion to survive when 85% of us are living in socialism and consider and readily label conservative thought and the remaining 15% inferior country bumpkins, buck toothed, uneducated hicks.
According to United Nation's Percentage of Population Residing in Urban Areas by Major Area, Region and Country, 1950-2050, Urban population for USA in 2010 is 82.29%. In comparison, it is 88.62 in Australia/NZ, 83.98% in South America, 72.78% in Europe, 42.17% in Asia and 39.98% in Africa. You can download raw data from
By Ron Ewart November 2, 2016 NewsWithViews.com
At the start of this great country, around 1776, there might have been 3 million inhabitants of the Continental United States, mostly concentrated along the East Coast in the original thirteen colonies, not including the native population. Now at 320,000,000, we are more than 100 times that 3,000,000.
The space between inhabitants in the late 1700's was fairly significant. News was printed and sometimes took days, weeks, or even months to reach the far outreaches of the Republic. The country was mostly agrarian, as the industrial revolution and the corresponding rush to big cities had not yet begun. After the revolution secured America's freedom, Americans took up the task of living as free individuals with the freedom of space to insulate them from the vagaries of abnormal human behavior. Americans were spread out, productive, creative, industrious, generous and mostly civil, the Hatfield and McCoys not withstanding. There was no government assistance available and yet they survived.
But agrarian living was sometimes sparse and did not provide predictable income. Weather, pestilence and erratic markets added to that unpredictability. Soon, new sources of power, like the steam engine, brought us the industrial revolution. As industries started sprouting up around big cities that provided the labor to keep those industries thriving and alive, people started moving off of the farms and headed for the big cities, where jobs were available and eking out a living was not quite as problematic. But for all actions, there are usually unintended consequences and such it was as city populations grew.
Sometimes the jobs would dry up as the industrial revolution evolved and technology, markets and fortunes ebbed and flowed. Sometimes large segments of the city populations would be out of work when a large manufacturer closed down. The Great Depression came along in the late 1920's and large percentages of city populations could not find a job. City folk had no way to produce the food, clothing and shelter they needed to survive. In contrast, their country cousins could grow what they needed, had a roof over their heads and could live off of the land, no matter how primitive it might be. If they had a little extra, they would help out their neighbors, who by circumstances may have been a little less well off. Civility and mutual respect was the rural landowner's creed and still is for the most part today.
Not so in big cities. The fact is, a hungry belly has nothing to lose by petitioning (or protesting) their government for a handout and civility is the last thing on their minds. If people are hungry enough, they have nothing to lose by resorting to violence. They either turn to crime or the government. The government was all-too-willing to provide that assistance in return for votes and thus socialism was born and socialism is where we are today. Way too many people live in big cities and are incapable of helping themselves when times get tough. Hurricane Katrina at New Orleans showed us that in spades. Government thrives and grows on big-city dependency.
President Franklin Roosevelt's (FDR) popularity came from his willingness to violate the constitution in order to "feed" the helpless in big cities. In one of his fireside chats in 1944, not much before he died, he told the American people:
"This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness. We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all…"
"Among these new rights are the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries, or shops or farms or mines of the Nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education.”
FDR was not a good student of, or chose to ignore, our Constitution and the enumerated rights of the people it promised. In fact, FDR was a socialist. He further chose to ignore the limitations placed on government. FDR decided to expand the people's "rights" well beyond the Constitution and government (the taxpayer) would provide the funds for those expanded rights. FDR was more a dictator than a President. Many presidents since FDR have followed in his dictatorial footsteps, to the detriment of freedom and the ultimate rise of socialism.
But the behavior of individuals living tightly in big cities produces its own share of problems. High crime rates and noise, air, water and human waste pollution are just a few of the consequences. Big cities require large police forces to enforce laws and civility. Big cities dump their concentrated pollution on the environment but then demand that everyone else comply with environmental regulations.
Big cities are also dangerous places to be in times of war and natural disasters. Earthquakes, fires, floods and rapidly spreading diseases find ready victims in big cities resulting in large losses of life. Most of the deaths occurring from the Black Plague, during the era of the Dark Ages, occurred in the cities where the concentrated garbage and human waste attracted the rats that carried the fleas that carried the disease.
During war, opposing enemies don't bomb the countryside, they bomb big cities where the manufacturing plants build the machines and weapons of war and where large populations of men, women and children can be killed to bring the enemy to its knees, ala Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Man's need to congregate can sometimes work to his detriment.
But the other consequence of high-dense urban living is the steady lowering of the bar of civility, respect and trust. Human behavior changes under the conditions of living closer together. It does so because of a basic human fact. No matter what the government, socialists, psychologists, or the environmentalists will tell you, people like and need "their" space and the space does not come in a 1,000 sq. ft. apartment in a 25-story building, surrounded by concrete on all sides, in a big city. Suburbs became a partial answer to the human need for space. But then the suburbs began to increase in density as governments got into the act of "planning" where we live and work. Environmentalists came along and lobbied the government planners to stop suburban expansion because it took up too much land that animals needed to survive.
We attended a conference of real estate folks several years ago in which a bunch of big city, over-educated planners were extolling the virtues of their profession; planned, high-dense big cities. At the end of their speeches we asked them if they were aware of the study of rats versus density and what happens to the rats as density is increased. We knew that the studies showed that higher densities produce hostile behavior, infanticide, suicide and cannibalism in the rats. This abnormal behavior increased as the density of the rat population increased. One of the planners responded that he was aware of the studies but he said the studies were flawed. We asked him why and he responded with, "because they didn't give the rats parks". His answer was not to be flippant. He was dead serious.
History has shown us that people don't behave well when crammed together in big cities. Big cities are bastions of socialism, dependency and government control. Big cities, with their majorities, control the legislative process and give us legislators that support socialism, more laws and environmental extremism. The people who inhabit big cities are more apt to believe whatever the government tells them and act like mindless lemmings. The current propaganda and mass hysteria of man-caused global warming is a prime example. Yes, big cities are large markets of consumers and bring us commerce that helps to fund the country. But we wonder if the price is worth it.
There is now a determined social justice and environmental protection agenda by American policy makers to cram more people into large cities. Liberal, over-educated, government-paid planners spend all of their time drafting acts, laws, rules, restrictions, regulations and ordinances to direct the movement of populations ever tighter into big cities. Draconian environmental protection laws are purposely designed to drive more people out of the rural areas and force them into big cities. The rural areas are to be protected from humans at all costs, without regard to constitutional protections or the rights of rural landowners.
This purposeful design was first created in a 1992 United Nations policy paper entitled, Agenda 21. It was then codified into American law by presidential executive orders, without a treaty being ratified. This socialist policy now permeates every level of government and is taught in our K-12 public schools and our very liberal colleges. Government sanctifies this policy with soft sounding names like "Social Equity", "Smart Growth", "Sustainable Development", "Endangered Species", "Conservation", "Biospheres", "Wildlife Corridors" and "Wilderness Protection". One of the motives for all of this propaganda is to drive more people into big cities, where government can more easily control large, dense populations.
Big government loves big cities, as they feed off of the occupants' dependency and big-city voters continue to re-elect the handout providers. But big government doesn't give one whit about civility. If the population gets more uncivil, government just adds police to bring the people into compliance and increases taxes to pay for it all. In the case of the black ghettos on the south side of Chicago, the authorities mostly just let the inhabitants kill each other.
Big cities encourage the growth of corruption. As a result, government gets bigger, more corrupt and more powerful every day. The institutionalized corruption of big cities produce people like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Anthony Weiner, John Edwards, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and a whole host of Congressmen and Senators. In the end civility, respect, trust, honor, integrity, honesty and freedom lose and corruption and avarice takes their place.
Unfortunately, this socialist mindset that exists in big cities controls the voting and electoral processes. The "Blue" states are "Blue" because of that "Blue" big city socialist mindset. Most of the big cities are concentrated east of the Mississippi River and that is why the presidential candidates concentrate their campaigning in the Eastern States. The Western States might just as well not exist, except maybe socialist California with its 55 Electoral Votes. (See: "The Makings of an American West Rebellion")
Big cities are why Hillary Clinton will probably be elected president, unless the recent FBI or Wikileaks revelations finally take her down.
The truth is that big cities are hazardous to your health as well as freedom, but the Democrats don't care. They maintain their perpetual power from the socialist, government-dependent big-city vote. As big cities become ever more dense, the political power of conservatives will be eroded into extinction, if it hasn't been already.
looking over the percentage living urban stats and seeing that U.S. has a higher percentage than Europe reminds me of a founders quote;
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe. Thomas Jefferson
I still see a way out without war but it becomes less feasible with passing time. That is to quit expecting solutions from politicians... it ain't never gonna happen that way. Put politics in it's rightful place, secondary in importance at best, the very last choice for solutions imo. Make it all as inconsequential to everyday life as is possible. It's not just today's politicians or politics that sucks, this is what they naturally are and always have been.
I thought the peak of feasibility in recent times was when Tea Party was touting it's non-partisanship and had all the 'you are not alone' people excited to participate in restoring this country. But Tea Party decided to become the mere crazy uncle hidden in the R party attic and that peak of feasibility diminished fast. Granted, it'll be even more difficult to get those people excited again, and I don't have any suggestions for how to do it. I suppose it will have to be a miracle at this point, and those come from God's realm - so I guess it will probably need to be through the clergy to happen again. Did Trump ever rescind the Johnson rule? that'd be a good start.
yeah, most people read my opinion as disengaging and letting the 'other side' take us to hell at light speed. It's not really what I'm saying though by saying don't look to politics or politicians for ANY solutions, they just won't provide any - ever. Solutions isn't their game/interest, getting votes is.
I think it's probably important to note that I'm mostly speaking in a general sense. Some people, like Patricia as far as I can tell, are doing exactly what they should be imo by being fully engaged. The general idea to my point is politics as it is now is expected to be the solution to damn near if not entirely EVERYTHING... and that's way too much dependence on 'our' part and infinitely too much clout for politics to have. Making it all the last choice to expect solutions from puts it in it's rightful place as far as clout to intrude in every aspect of living. Let the private sector find the solutions, just as it's supposed to be. The private sector is actually capable and interested in solutions, unlike politics or politicians.
yaknow that truth I sometimes post - ultimately authority is yours and mine to give, not others to take?? it's a natural fact, you must give authority over you for someone to have it, even if they can and will punish you for not giving it you still must give it for them to have it.
the reason I bring it up here is to give an example - during obie's era fed/gov tried to make farmers/ranchers include nearly every detail of their livestock on ear tags. What they were fed, where the feed came from, the genetic lineage, etc..., under the guise of protecting consumers. The farmers/ranchers just said 'no' en masse and refused to cooperate. Almost nobody cooperated, and they rescinded that nonsense for the stated reason that nobody would do it. It was fed/gov attempting to take another authority, and the farmers/ranchers not giving it.
I think that's a fine example of how to penetrate fed/gov's efforts to rob of us our liberties.. without depending on inept politicians to achieve it.