George Kennan had an outstanding remark about “that curious law which so often makes Americans, inveterately conservative at home, the partisans for radical change everywhere else.” This is often on display in mainstream conservative rhetoric vis-a-vis Islam or any non-Western society: traditional and customary structures at home are good, admirable and have stood the test of the time, testifying to their importance and meaning, while traditional structures elsewhere must be torn down and those living in those structures must be dragged, kicking and screaming, into enlightened modernity. The cultural radicalism we conservatives presumably deplore at home becomes a gift of liberation for the peoples of the world. There must be some sort of happy middle ground between this combination of domestic social conservatism and radical emancipationism abroad and a D’Souza-like call for American conservatives to discover their abiding common ground with traditional Muslims.
Larison on a curious fact
Tuesday May 15, 2007
Daniel Larison notices something interesting:
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Well, if you think the US founding fathers hit the nail on the head about what a government should be -- which I and a lot of other Americans still think -- then you're going to be inveterately conservative at home and advocate radical change in many places abroad. (Now, I'll footnote that by saying that we've learned the hard way -- I hope we've learned it! -- that such radical change cannot happen overnight.) But in terms of ultimate objectives, this posture reflects a high level of theoretical consistency and shouldn't be "curious" at all. Btw, I'm talking political structures, not culture, so I'm answering only Kennan, and not attempting to answer Larison.
Well, I think it depends on if you're conservative for conservatism's sake---in other words, anything traditional equals good---or if you just have certain values that are basically conservative.
Think of it this way---most of us will agree it's wrong to kill people who are outside our religion, and we also think it's wrong for Muslims to kill people outside their religion. We would say it's wrong to bomb abortion clinics, even if we disagree with abortion; we think it's wrong for Iraqis to bomb American troops, even if they don't like America in their country. It's just what's "conservative" for us isn't the same as what's "conservative" for them. God bless.
What on earth is Larrison talking about?
Before G.W. Bush and the neocons hit the scene, exactly which conservatives were advocating radical social change abroad?
Larrison's quoting Kennan makes it sound like this has been a trademark conservative characteristic for decades. Nonsense.
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.. --John Quincy Adams Not quite a Founder, but sure as hell not one of the Grand End to Evil Planners.
Conversely, why do some folks who are liberal or left-wing here in the U.S. either ignore or passively or actively support Islamic fundamentalists elsewhere?
I just read a really excellent article by Christina Hoff Sommers in the latest issue of "The Weekly Standard" called: "The Subjection of Islamic Women And the fecklessness of American feminism."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/641szkys.asp?pg=1 Rod, I hope you will take the time to read this piece and consider blogging it here.
In addition to her criticisms of a number of American feminists who have failed to address the subjugation of Muslim women and her praise of those American feminists who have not, Sommers offers a thorough survey of the state of Islamic feminism throughout the world.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.