Political parties are like living life forms; if they do not adapt, evolve, and change with the times, they will die out.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods28.html

Particularly satisfying, at least to this reader, is Norton’s discussion, quite contrary to the misleading conventional wisdom, of the lack of conservatism among today’s Straussians:

“Appeals to history and memory, the fear of losing old virtues, of failing to keep faith with the principles of an honored ancestry, came to seem curious and antiquated. In their place were the very appeals to universal, abstract principles, the very utopian projects that conservatives once disdained. Conservatives had once called for limits and restraint; now there were calls to daring and adventurism. Conservatives had once stood steadfastly for the Constitution and community, for loyalties born of experience and strengthened in a common life. Now there were global projects, and crusades (p. 174).”

Norton could have pursued this line of argument a bit more vigorously. She correctly notes that with the passage of time Straussian academics have been drifting further and further away from positions that have traditionally defined American conservatism, but she leaves unexplored the issue of just how conservative they really were in the first place. Norton speaks at great length about the fundamental conservatism of the Straussianism of the 1980s, but a substantial literature exists within the conservative movement that argues otherwise.

Most famous, perhaps, was the celebrated debate in Modern Age between Straussian Harry Jaffa and traditional conservative M.E. Bradford over the legacy of Abraham Lincoln. Bradford argued that Lincolnian rhetoric, particularly the Great Emancipator’s teleological language (e.g., his description of the United States as a nation “dedicated to a proposition”) was a recipe for ongoing revolution that a genuine conservative could not embrace. The idea of the federal government as an engine of equality enforcement rather than as the modest, purely nomocratic agent of a confederation of sovereign states, endowed with strictly limited powers, amounted in Bradford’s judgment to a revolutionary overthrow of the original constitutional order.

In Lincoln’s day the principle of equality may have referred to equality before the law, but tomorrow it could be forced busing and the destruction of neighborhoods; and once the Pandora’s Box of ideological crusading by the federal government had been opened there would be no way to keep it under control. Jaffa, on the other hand, positively embraced the revolutionary implications of the Lincolnian idiom, thereby lending further support to Norton’s description of the Straussians as revolutionaries rather than conservatives (p. 177) but revealing that this tendency among Straussians extended much further into the past than Norton’s narrative allows.

If I had lived 140 years ago I would have fought Lincoln, too. My family was also from Georgia. Why now? He’s been dead a long, long time. As far as Strauss—I guess I’m stupid—please explain—to me that sound like he likes to Waltz. I take it this Strauss guy was an interventionist, huh. Well, I hope they hung him!

Trent,
“The real old-school types prefer protectionism”...You think you’re real funny don’t you!

I think most in the CP feel similarly. The real old-school types prefer protectionism, the younger or more classically educated folks prefer low revenue tarriffs.

I am a CP member. I’ve never supported protectionist tariffs, though I don’t mind a small revenue tariff on the order proposed by Frederich Bastiat … ranging from 5% for necessities to 15% for luxuries.

I know a number of CP members who agree that protectionist policies divide domestic manufacturers of exports against domestic producers of raw materials …. and are therefore opposed to them.

JR

March 24th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Andy, all constitutionalist conservatives should oppose sovereignty sacrificing trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT. The Constitution is very clear that the power to regulate trade is vested in the Congress and they can not cede that. The same way they can not cede the decision to go to war to the President with an authorization to use force.

That does not mean all CP members are ‘protectionists.’ Some are. Some are not. Personally, I don’t have a problem with a revenue tariff to partially cover the small cost of running a constitutional sized government. Since obviously there would be no income tax. But I do not support protectionist tariffs. Don’t mistake principled constitutional opposition to NAFTA and GATT with protectionism.”

Believe me, I KNOW the difference between real free trade and NAFTA, GATT, WTO, CAFTA, etc… I’m not for those agreements either because they are a sham. However, this does not mean that I favor jacking tarriffs up really high.

You and Trent are the only people that I’ve ever heard from the Constitution Party who are not for protectionist tarriffs. Every other person from the Constitution Party that I’ve ever heard speak on the subject favors jacking tarriffs up higher, which puts them right in line with Abarham Lincoln.

I don’t like any taxes period but if there are going to be some taxes a low tarriff is something that I can deal with better than say an income tax or a national sales tax, however, tarriffs are still a tax and still get passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Higher tarriffs just mean higher prices for consumers and more money for the government, neither of which I desire.

That does not mean all CP members are “protectionists.” Some are. Some are not. Personally, I don’t have a problem with a revenue tariff to partially cover the small cost of running a constitutional sized government. Since obviously there would be no income tax. But I do not support protectionist tariffs. Don’t mistake principled constitutional opposition to NAFTA and GATT with protectionism

But not when it comes to right-to-govern, War, and war-crimes.

The Constitution Party is on the same page as Abraham Lincoln when it comes to protectionist tarriffs.

Lincoln and Strauss are intellectual positions that recquire alot of nuance and they’ll take time for Keyes to educate himself on, if indeed he is interested in re-educating himself on those issues.
Lets put the War front and center.

Bill founded the Party, NOT Wallace.

He’s not at all forgotten by a lot of us! Those of you who never saw George Wallace speak at a rally really missed something. (Actually, if you didn’t live in the 60’s you missed out on almost everything interesting) I was in more than one high school gym where I thought the walls were actually shaking from the crowd noise—thunderous crowd noise during his speech. OK…I’ll tell you what it was like…check out Youtube..the Beatles at Shea Stadium. It was like that only not as big, of course. Yep, like a red neck version of a Beatles Concert.

By the way, Wallace was the first standard bearer, but William K. Shearer founded the party.

And finally, Red, people do change on foreign policy. In ‘68 Wallace was “win the war and bring the troops home.” In ‘72 he was “bring the troops home.”