tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post1880291242468505441..comments2024-01-01T15:35:12.954-07:00Comments on Simple Utah Mormon Politics: Conservatives Have Never Been WarmongersFrank Stahelihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-45753634868615910562009-06-11T23:06:25.372-06:002009-06-11T23:06:25.372-06:00I'm not just talking about the current politic...I'm not just talking about the current political climate, Frank. I specifically mentioned several conservatives who were around before the rise of the neo-cons. The conservative emphasis on defense and might was around long before the neo-cons. Conservatism has plenty of blood on its hands.derekstaffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06834500613514245522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-60810686672206881422009-06-11T20:21:49.864-06:002009-06-11T20:21:49.864-06:00In the current political climate, you might be rig...In the current political climate, you might be right, but then again it's important to notice that "neo-cons" never really were conservatives.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-83871900792781884732009-06-10T21:16:52.258-06:002009-06-10T21:16:52.258-06:00And Reach, I think you need to look at the Foundin...And Reach, I think you need to look at the Founding era more closely. Washington abhorred the factions that were rising up in the nascent nation, but was far closer to Hamilton's federalists in his executive days than to Madison's Republicans. And it is impossible to judge Madison's relationship to anything "progressive," as there was no equivalent movement in the early era of the US.derekstaffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06834500613514245522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-59820022310518099512009-06-10T21:10:57.579-06:002009-06-10T21:10:57.579-06:00George McGovern was a conservative? Is Zinn or Cho...George McGovern was a <em>conservative</em>? Is Zinn or Chomsky, both vocal opponents of military adventurism? Was MLK? Or Mo Udall? These people who passionately opposed war were <em>conservatives</em>?<br /><br /><br />How you could consider such political pundits as Beck and Lonsberry "progressive" is beyond me. I suppose you would consider Nixon, who aggressively escalated the War in Vietnam until it became completely unfeasible, and whose administration worked hard to create the conditions under which Allende would be deposed, to be a progressive. I suppose you could also describe Ike, whose administration played a key role in violently overturning the democratic elections in Iran and reinstalling the Shah, as a more progressive Republican. But William F. Buckley, who enthusiastically endorsed US adventurism? Was he a progressive? And what of Goldwater, whose criticism of the Vietnam war was not based on a fundamental opposition to the war itself, but was--like many conservatives--based on a belief that LBJ was not prosecuting the war aggressively enough? The eternal poster boy for conservatives, Ronald Reagan, shared Goldwater's view on Vietnam, used federal power to covertly intervened in conflicts such the Iraq-Iran War, the Afghan resistance, and the Contras, and was apparently felt that national security was threatened enough to invade the tiny island nation of Grenada. Was the vaunted Reagan a <em>progressive</em>?<br /><br />Yes, the early progressive movement in particular must bear the cross of colonialism under the banner of such bigoted and self-serving rationalizations as "The White Man's Burden." But there has always been within liberalism a very strong anti-war streak. And since approximately the middle of the century, that voice has grown to become a dominant one in liberalism. Conservatism, on the other hand, has always placed a strong emphasis on defense, which easily and often turns to militarism. Especially during the conservative renaissance of Goldwater, Reagan, and their disciples, this has become the dominant aspect of conservatism, particularly over the last half-century. The anti-war element of conservatism does exist, but has been considerably weaker within the conservative movement than in the liberal. To try to claim that progressivism/liberalism itself is fundamentally militaristic, or that conservatives have not been the equal of liberals in warmongering--let alone <em>never</em> warmongers--is a gross distortion of reality, especially in the current political climate.derekstaffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06834500613514245522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-46844962437906020852009-06-08T20:38:46.631-06:002009-06-08T20:38:46.631-06:00Reach,
Lindbergh admired the efficiency of the Na...Reach,<br /><br />Lindbergh admired the efficiency of the Nazi regime. That was before their efficiency in killing and destruction of liberty became apparent.<br /><br />Koda,<br /><br />With the exception of Ron Paul, not very many...<br /><br />;-(Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-60491130166588747652009-06-08T09:24:25.026-06:002009-06-08T09:24:25.026-06:00Conservatives never have been warmongers... True, ...Conservatives never have been warmongers... True, but perhaps the problem is that many assume the terms Conservative and Republican can be used interchangeably....<br /><br />With the exception of Ron Paul, does the Republican Party even have any actual Conservatives in it?Urban Kodahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01327437055164051853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-64732873733786975752009-06-06T18:19:03.903-06:002009-06-06T18:19:03.903-06:00Good post, Frank. Spot on.Good post, Frank. Spot on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-80081030256905283812009-06-05T10:13:09.112-06:002009-06-05T10:13:09.112-06:00I would again caution you about admiring Charles L...I would again caution you about admiring Charles Lindbergh's isolationist and passivist stances.<br /><br />During his self-imposed exile in the UK, Lindbergh visited Nazi Germany many times. He had nothing but praise for their increasingly militarist regime and culture. He lavished praise on their regimented air flight industry and program. He was publicly awarded the Nazi Iron Cross by Hermann Göring, Hitler's Luftwaffe commander.<br /><br />As Hitler's forces gobbled up neighbors nearly unopposed and war between Germany and the UK became more likely, Lindbergh advised Britons to surrender to Hitler. The German culture, which operated like a machine (and treated individuals as part of the machine) would, he said, roll over the decadent Brits with ease. Of course, Lindbergh then promptly fled the endangered UK and went back to America, which was separated from German aggression by an ocean.<br /><br />Back in America, Lindbergh loudly denounced American support of the UK and had nothing but bad to say about the UK's attempts to defend itself. Despite the fact that his own transatlantic flight had proven that the US was now vulnerable to attack -- and especially given his inside knowledge of German air capabilities -- Lindbergh promoted isolationism. He loudly denounced anything America did that was not in line with passivism, although, he never uttered a single word of criticism against Germany and its aggression. Rather, the Germans, he said, were to be admired.<br /><br />To protest US involvement in WWII, Lindbergh resigned his Army commission and treated his military honors much as John Kerry treated his back in the early 1970s. But Lindbergh kept the Iron Cross prominently on display. When some criticism of this arose, a Lindbergh associate said that the famed pilot didn't get rid of the Iron Cross because he didn't know what to do with it. FDR responded that he knew what <i>he</i> would have done with it.<br /><br />Late in the war, Lindbergh regretted his previous stances and asked to have his military commission reinstated. He had belatedly decided that he wanted to fight for America. But he had burned too many bridges for that to happen. His request was appropriately denied.<br /><br />Having been turned down, Lindbergh became an aviation consultant for military contractors. In this capacity, he eventually flew about 50 combat flights as a civilian consultant in the Pacific theater. He even shot down enemy aircraft. Still, he continued publicly defending Germany. After WWII, however, he personally toured German concentration camps and muted his opinions.<br /><br />It's fine that McGovern admired Lindbergh. But I find Lindbergh's tale a combination of ego, misplaced loyalties, and confusion. He appears to have eventually changed his opinions away from those positions that you seem to support. In the end his writings and speeches came to focus on "balance" and doing only that which improves conditions for people -- an elusive concept at best, since almost any political stance can be made to fit under that heading.<br /><br />This does not mean that I agree with pursuit of empire. I merely want to set the record straight.<br /><br />Theodore Roosevelt was the original progressive Republican. He pushed for and gloried in the Spanish-American War in his pre-presidential days.<br /><br />You have cited a number of progressives that have taken us to war. But what of James Madison, who got us into the War of 1812? He was a staunch Washingtonian. Throughout his political career he stood against more progressive movements. Is he also a progressive?<br /><br />And what of Ronald Reagan who sent our military into Grenada and dropped bombs on Libya? Sure, those were limited actions, but they seem to fall within the definitions you have laid out. Is Reagan a progressive too?<br /><br />I appreciate your historical insights, but they seem to be incomplete. We need a full reading of history to understand its lessons.Scott Hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-22099406286567310182009-06-04T15:56:12.243-06:002009-06-04T15:56:12.243-06:00In the pre-Reagan good old days, Republicans used ...In the pre-Reagan good old days, Republicans used to be against military adventurism. When I was self-identified as GOP, we used to point out that Democrats started wars and Republicans ended them.<br /><br />I guess whatever party is on top for the moment, it's hard for a superpower, drunk on power, to reject the "war of choice" as an option. It's what we used to call a war of aggression. Never a good idea.rmwarnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10948594032787232166noreply@blogger.com