Matt Yglesias on the Obamacons

March 25, 2008

Raimondo’s favorite liberal and the one person who ever made The American Prospect an interesting read says:

To Bacevich, opposition to the hubris of empire is part of what makes a cosnervative.  And in a purely abstract sense, he may have a point.  But actually existing American conservatism seems so committed to a project of militarism and coercive domination that Bacevich’s case seems a bit precious.

On the whole, I sadly have to agree.   But I’d like to take this opportunity to indulge my own definition of terms and therefore why I am a conservative.

I am a conservative because I subscribe to the philosophy of Russell Kirk, particularly to his concept of the negation of ideology.  As such I am most decidedly not a man of the right, which is what Yglesias means by “actually existing American conservative”.  I subscribe to the definition of the left-right spectrum provided by a very batty leftist professor I once had (he was furious when I used his definition as a basis for my identification with Edmund Burke):  With liberalism defined as the center, the right is the enemy of the left, in other words, the forces which hate the left more than they love liberty.

In addition to neatly explaining why so much of the right, from the fascists to the neocons, came out of the left, there can be no better description of “actually existing American conservatism”.  Which brings us back to the Obamacons, and the point which Yglesias seems to miss.  It is precisely because actually existing American conservatism is what it is that the natural position of the principled conservative is to support Obama.  Indeed, one could hardly think of a more positively Burkean answer to the specter of revolution that was on offer from Ron Paul.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Matt Yglesias on the Obamacons”


  1. […] an earlier post, there was a line that was worth reading: With liberalism defined as the center, the right is the […]


  2. […] What I meant by a “Burkean answer to the specter of revolution on offer from Ron Paul” was merely the case for Obama that I articulated in, among other places, indeed, my writings on Ron Paul!  I would gladly invite an argument on the merits of this, but my feeling, as I have stated throughout, Obama is who will be most amenable to reality of what is facing this country hands down, and so much of what he says in the way of “views diametrically opposed to the paleos on almost every issue?” must be taken with a grain of salt. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: