Posts Tagged ‘Russell Kirk’

Reductio Ad Absurdem

May 21st, 2010 by John Feehery

In 1803, emissaries from the American President, including future President James Monroe, signed a treaty, which was then the largest real estate purchase in history.  Thomas Jefferson authorized his ambassadors to sign the Louisiana Purchase Treaty despite some misgiving he had about its constitutionality.  He did it because he thought it was a great deal (it was – 15 million bucks for property which would later make up parts of 14 states), and because he wanted to enhance American security.

He was opposed in his efforts to make the purchase by Federalists, who while they appreciated the expansion of federal power (being Federalists and all), didn’t like so much money going to a sworn enemy of the English, who they liked.  So, the Federalists made a big stink about Jefferson’s lack of philosophical consistency, as they themselves showed that they lacked any philosophical consistency by opposing an expansion of federal power, which philosophically, they supported.

Had Jefferson been a stickler for his philosophy, American history would have taken a dramatically different course.  Instead of a sprawling and vibrant democracy powered by Manifest Destiny in the 19th and 20th centuries, the United States would have been hemmed in by European powers France, Spain and Great Britain, where it would have become at best a second-rate power.

Are Tea-Partiers Really Conservative?

March 5th, 2010 by John Feehery

I hate it when David Brooks writes a column on a subject that I have been researching on and planning to write about for weeks.  And he did it to me this morning, with a great column about “The Wall Mart Hippies” (http://budurl.com/2r5v).

His central thesis is that tea-party crowd is not really conservative at all.  “Both the New Left and the Tea Party movement are radically anticonservative. Conservatism is built on the idea of original sin — on the assumption of human fallibility and uncertainty. To remedy our fallen condition, conservatives believe in civilization — in social structures, permanent institutions and just authorities, which embody the accumulated wisdom of the ages and structure individual longings.  That idea was rejected in the 1960s by people who put their faith in unrestrained passion and zealotry. The New Left then, like the Tea Partiers now, had a legitimate point about the failure of the ruling class. But they ruined it through their own imprudence, self-righteousness and naïve radicalism. The Tea Partiers will not take over the G.O.P., but it seems as though the ’60s political style will always be with us — first on the left, now the right.”