I apologize for this relatively short diary, but I believe Mickey Edwards comments are well worth a read. As a regular listener of NPR, I've come to appreciate his candor and ability to communicate a position that I may not necessarily agree with in a way I could understand. So it was no surprise when I stumbled upon his somewhat sobering commentary below. The whole thing is well worth a read:
I was asked yesterday whether I would be going to CPAC, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, which is currently being held a half-hour's walk from my office in D.C. It was a logical question, not only since the meetings are so close at hand but also because for five years I chaired CPAC.
CPAC brings together conservative activists from every corner of America. As national chairman of the American Conservative Union, a founding trustee of the Heritage Foundation, and director of the policy task forces for Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign, speaking at CPAC and shaping the program were high priorities on my personal agenda every year, even while serving in Congress.
But the answer to yesterday's question was "no." No, I'm not going to CPAC. And, truth be told, most of the folks there wouldn't want me there. They wouldn't think I'm a conservative; many wouldn't think Barry Goldwater was a conservative; many, had this been three decades ago, might have been seeking a "true" conservative to run against Ronald Reagan. I don't begrudge these activists their views and they are entitled to use the term "conservative" to describe themselves if they so choose. But the views many of them profess have little in common with the distinctly American kind of conservatism that gave birth to CPAC and the modern American conservative movement. Instead, what many of today's self-proclaimed "conservatives" proclaim is an ideology borrowed from what Donald Rumsfeld famously dismissed as "old Europe." Winston Churchill, one of Europe's better-known conservatives, was half-American and his incredible strength of character helped Great Britain survive World War II, but when asked to define conservatism, Churchill responded that conservatism was about reverence for king and church. But America has no king and has no national church. That distinction is crucial and one in which today's so-called conservatives have switched sides; crossed the ocean, if you will.
I'd read the whole thing, it's short. I'd also read the comments at the end, particularly this one:
Mr. Edwards,
Fantastic piece. Although my political leanings more often fall to the left side of the spectrum, I too lament the marginalization of classical American conservatives. The need for earnest debate over how best to address the problems we face is greater today than at any time I can recall. I don't believe that a democratic majority on it's own can successfully address these challenges. The left needs intellectual contributions from people like you just as much as the right needs leadership in crafting responses and challenges that rise above the base reactionary drivel they've been spewing forth in recent years. Classical American conservatism does have something positive to contribute in this debate. We are all the poorer without it.
As an interesting aside, I believe the proper term for today's "Conservatives" is outlined by the definition below:
"Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system."
Ring a bell?