They seem to be a group [just starting up] that wants to take society back from those "rabid dog" liberals. They're appealing to Conservatives, particularly Cultural Conservatives, and one particular type of Libertarian. I can't remember now whether that type was Operational or Ontological.

This is a very long article on the goals, methods, etc. It seemed to be written much like a handbook.

New Traditionalists

Do you see this movement "blossoming", or see them as "kooks", or have no particular opinion?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 10, 2001

Answers

I scanned the essay Anita but did not read it because of length. My first impression is that "New Traditionalist" is a stupid name--it will never catch on. They need something short and punchy that still conveys a direction. I have no suggestions.

Secondly, there were no individual persons named but I wonder who is behind this? Paul Weyrich was referenced. Clicking on his link brought up a 1999 paper with the same letterhead and address as this "New Traditionalists" paper. But in neither group was the word "religion" used, so if this is an attempt to resurrect the Moral Majority, they are careful to avoid a trigger word like "religion".

The idea of "study groups"? I don't know, it leaves me unenthused. Likewise the notion of appealing to "elites". I know what he is saying, but I think "bottom-up" is better than "top-down". And ultimately more successful.

Personally, I would like to see a non-demagogic populism that acknowledges non-denominationally recognized moral universals, emphasizes personal responsibility, emphasizes "community" in the sense of communalism not communism/socialism, free-market economics, limited government by popular election (but not "no government"), patriotism and the paradox that peace is best achieved by military readiness and the willingness to use it.

I think that such a state is most likely to arise organically from a Conservative origin. IMO, we don't need another new ideology and political party.

-- (lars@indy.net), December 10, 2001.

Lars, here's one clue why the tract is so long:

"The conservative movement is defensive, defeatist, depressed, and apologetic. It lacks self-confidence, virility, energy, intensity, vigor, aggressiveness, vitality, and a firm belief in the rightness of its cause."

Obviously, it was written by a lawyer!

I'll read some more and comment further, as time permits.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), December 10, 2001.

"Personally, I would like to see a non-demagogic populism that acknowledges non-denominationally recognized moral universals, emphasizes personal responsibility, emphasizes "community" in the sense of communalism not communism/socialism, free-market economics, limited government by popular election (but not "no government"), patriotism and the paradox that peace is best achieved by military readiness and the willingness to use it."

Actually, Lars, you have your wish. It's called "the majority." Most Americans reject extremism, conservative, liberal or libertarian. "New Traditionalist?" Old wine in new bottles. The extreme liberals and conservatives constantly want to sell ideology through new packaging, not new thinking.

The conservatives hate that most Americans are pragmatic about abortion, i.e., if you outlaw it, it just goes underground and gets messay. The liberals hate that most Americans support the death penalty. The libertarians hate that most Americans do not agree with Ayn Rand. (chuckle)

Like him or hate him, former President Clinton's most successful policy initiatives were coopted from the conservatives... free trade, welfare reform, fiscal moderation, etc. The "New Democrat" passed the torch to the "Compassionate Conservative." It's centrism, Lars, however you slice it.

After years of "Great Programs" and "Wars" on this or that, most Americans have begun to realize the limitations of government action. In light of recent events, Americans appreciate having a capable defense. The free market has won the battle against collectivism. As long as the extremists are frustrated, Lars, we can have hope.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 10, 2001.

Anita, if this essay represents the vanguard thinking of this movement, the only success they could possibly achieve is as an obscure cult, with negligible impact on anyone but their immediate members, whose lives will be slavishly devoted to The Cause, but whose major occupation will be to explain away their failures, redefine them as victories, rekindle each other's enthusiasm and keep each other in line.

The only ideology I could identify anywhere in the essay could be summed up as 'conservatism is good, liberalism is evil' - yes, the author does use the word "evil". The author very conveniently omits any definition of "conservatism" or "liberalism". The reader is expected to supply these from their own fund of definitions.

In tone and in content, it is surprisingly like a Trotskyite pamphlet. For Trotsky, you could probably substitute our ex-drug czar and full-time public moralizer: William Bennet. For "study groups" one could substitute the term "cells" and the resemblance would be truly uncanny.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), December 10, 2001.

LN: That's kindof the way *I* saw the piece. I DID wonder, however, how our conservative brethren would see it.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 10, 2001.

I resent being compared to the reactionary William Bennett

-- (Leon Trotsky @ Auld Lang.Syne), December 10, 2001.

Nip's on Leon's off and Anita just keeps finding good stuff about silly little people thinking silly little thoughts that won't amount to silly little shit.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), December 11, 2001.

"if this essay represents the vanguard thinking of this movement, the only success they could possibly achieve is as an obscure cult, with negligible impact on anyone but their immediate members, whose lives will be slavishly devoted to The Cause, but whose major occupation will be to explain away their failures, redefine them as victories, rekindle each other's enthusiasm and keep each other in line."

Funny, Nipper, I was thinking exactly the same thing about the Greens. (chuckle)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 11, 2001.

Ken, you surprise me. You don't seem like the type to have personal knowledge of how greens act when they're at home. Have you been stepping out with greens on the sly?

I am curious whether you followed Anita's link and read any part of the New Traditionalist screed and, if so, what you thought of it. It seemed, in parts, calculated to appeal to a man of your ilk. Did it?

Heck, I even read your lofty observations about Clinton and Bush and centrism and I couldn't decide if you admired Clinton and Bush and centrism or not. Do you?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), December 11, 2001.

ilk again

-- helen (milk@ilk.s), December 11, 2001.

I have an ilk.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), December 11, 2001.

Is an ilk a terrible thing to waste?

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), December 11, 2001.

Stop that! This is ilk-hunting season and my permit is in order.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), December 11, 2001.

Sometimes I lie awake worrying that I'm not classy enough to have an ilk.

-- helen (will@work.for.ilk), December 11, 2001.

I made a silk ilk from a sow's ear.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), December 11, 2001.

I am puzzled, Nipper. How can one twist the quote I borrowed into how the Greens behave at home? In general, the Greens are slavishly devoted to the cause, etc. One can observe this outside the home... looking at Earth First! members chained to equipment or staying atop trees. "Anti-fur," "anti-nuclear" and "anti-industry" demonstrations are invariably public, as are elections. You should know by now, Nipper, that I have little interest in how anyone behaves at home, and hope others share the same lack of interest towards me.

I followed the link, but was quickly bored. Nothing makes me snooze faster than dogma. What appeals to a man of my "ilk" is logic, data and sound arguments.

My rejection of modern liberalism is based not on reading some polemic, but on a careful examination of information. I have concluded, Nipper, that the good intentions of your "ilk" (if I may) rarely create the anticipated outcome. This is demonstrably true. I have seen that the free market is a far more productive economic structure than collectivism. I have learned and relearned the one great adage of economics; people respond to incentives. Present new data, Nipper, and I will be delighted to reconsider my conclusions... but it would be a waste of my time (and yours) to refer me to the liberal version of the "New Traditionalist" screed.

As for centrism, my comments are meant less as admiration and more as simple recognition. Most Americans distrust extremists, and rightfully so. Personally, I was delighted Clinton supported welfare reform and free trade... ignoring the liberal alarmists. It so happens he was right on both issues. Unlike Cherri (who I hope is recovering well), I readily concede that every president has both good and bad ideas. Centrism helps protect the American people from really bad ideas... and occasionally limits them from taking advantage of really good ideas. I sleep better at night knowing that centrism protects us from the paternalistic impulses of conservatives and the beneficent impulses of liberals.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 11, 2001.

LOL. Let me see if I've got this straight: *I*'m a liberal, and *I* posted this, so it's [by default] the "liberal version" of this screed.

but it would be a waste of my time (and yours) to refer me to the liberal version of the "New Traditionalist" screed.

Point me to another version, Ken.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 11, 2001.

First, Anita, my response was clearly intended for Nipper. Second, you badly mistunderstood my point. The "New Traditionalist" nonsense is clearly an attempt to "market" conservative ideology. If you read my reponses carefully, you'll see that I reject Nipper's insinuation that this nonsense appeals to someone of my "ilk." Clearly, Nipper was suggesting that as an alleged conservative, "NT" was aimed at folks like me. Nipper asked if it had any appeal. As noted, it did not.

Furthermore, I tell to Nipper that since I dislike dogma, the liberal version of the screed would be an equal waste of time. In short, I generally reject "prepackaged" political ideologies and do quite well thinking on my own.

Believe it or not, Anita, some of my posts have absolutely nothing to do with you.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 11, 2001.

Furthermore, I tell to Nipper that since I dislike dogma, the liberal version of the screed would be an equal waste of time. In short, I generally reject "prepackaged" political ideologies and do quite well thinking on my own.

I STILL miss your point, Ken. Is there a "liberal" version and a "conservative" version of which I should be aware? If there's only ONE version, WHY did you mention a "liberal" version? WARNING: Don't expect me to keep this discussion up for days, Ken. It's just NOT that important to me.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 11, 2001.

You heard Ken, Anita. Keep your grubby mitts off MY answer. Ken gave it to me and you can't have any. That answer was mine! ALL MINE, I tell you!

[Nipper snatches his answer out of Anita's hand and runs away, chortling with fiendish glee.]

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), December 11, 2001.

Anita:

What don't you understand? It seems pretty clear that Ken dislikes dogma, has even more dislike for extreme dogma (meaning further from the center), yet this should not be taken as admiration for the non- dogmatic center either!

What's left is non-dogmatic good ideas based on Ken's observation and ideology. In other words, he values his own opinions, and prefers that his opinions be informed indirectly, rather than by frontal assault, so that he can take more credit for them.

Now, you or Nipper might feel the same as Ken; i.e. that you form your own opinions and don't crater to prepackaged dogma. But this is only your opinion, so it doesn't count unless it's correct, see?

I hope it's all clearer to everyone now.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 11, 2001.

Well...it's not clearer to "everyone", but thank you for trying.

-- helen (group@hug.anyone?), December 11, 2001.

The last shall go first, Helen. There are many different political philosophies. Most have a "manifesto" or a "platform" or some written set of ideas. People gather around these political ideas. The problem is that people often treat these ideas as absolute truth. The whole "New Traditionalist" song-and-dance isn't about exploring whether the ideas of conservatism are "right." It's a political game plan to advance a cause.

One of the biggest challenges for humans is thinking, "Maybe everything I know is wrong." The next biggest challenge is finding matching socks. It's easy to fall into the trap of believing a political dogma. My point to Anita is simple. I dislike any set political philosophy. I can find flaws in conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, etc. I'm also willing to reconsider my opinions, particularly if someone presents excellent evidence or makes a compelling argument. Of course, I have high standards for what makes evidence excellent or an argument compelling. As Anita has learned, a handful of anecdotes doesn't cut the mustard... at least for me.

What I dislike most about dogma (and I think Flint shares this), is that dogma keeps people from thinking. I know democrats who think "unions are good" and are unable or unwilling to consider alternative views on unions. Hey, I used to think brussel sprouts were horrid. I had some a couple of years ago and found them pretty tasty.

What Flint is saying is that I only think I'm thinking. He really thinks I was hard-wired at birth and all of the questioning is just an intellectual dog-and-pony show. Flint doesn't think I have original ideas, but just assemble other people's thoughts and arrange them like flowers to suit my fancy. Of course, Flint and I disagree on this point... but if he's right, then neither one of us are really thinking. We're just running around our pre-set habit trails in slightly different patterns. (laughter)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 11, 2001.

I live in a culture that is struggling to remain identifiable, to survive, if you will. Fights among ourselves have and will weaken us further. Most of us avoid open confrontation whenever possible. That means being quiet even if someone is saying something we don't agree with. To openly disagree is to engage in conflict. We compromise as much as possible. It seems like a prudent way to live. I've noticed that unrelated strangers caught in a common crisis will behave this way too. Separation and fights only happen when a group has the resources to waste on it. It always seems dangerously wrong for a people to insist on their way being the only way. Like doing that will get us all killed.

-- helen (they@call.us.savages?), December 12, 2001.

Ken, Brussel sprouts are horrid. Only if you cook them in all the ingredients that are bad for you, they become edible.

BTW I thought Flint was trying to be funny with those remarks. There is disagreement between you two?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 12, 2001.

Ken, Brussel sprouts are horrid.

I haven't been keeping track, Maria, but we agree on something AGAIN. I used to slip brussel sprouts to the dog and even HE spit them out.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 12, 2001.

Tolerance, Helen, is an undervalued virtue. Note my comment to Nipper. I don't care about the private lives of other people... insofar as the innocent are not victimized. This has always been a major bone of contention with the social conservatives. Personally, I want to keep government out of the bedroom... and every other room of the house. Ironically, I have a similar issue with liberals. The leftists cannot stop meddling with my rights outside the bedroom.

And Maria, one man's trash is another man's treasure. And I agree that Flint was poking fun is his own unique idiom (to borrow from Monty Python). I have great respect for Flint's intellect and often agree. This said, we do have points of disagreement from time to time. So it goes.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 12, 2001.

And Anita, I will take a brussel sprout over a green bean any day. Viva la difference.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 12, 2001.

I have always held you in high esteem, Ken. This sad revelation of your antipathy toward green beans shakes my faith in you. Brussel sprouts are merely punishments without scars for bad table manners.

-- helen GROWS grean beans (yummy@with.ham.n.potatoes), December 12, 2001.

I ran over your dogma with my karma...

Dodgin' the big ass sedan...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), December 12, 2001.

Like anyone else, I have my own set of firm beliefs. I believe there is an objective universe which does not contradict itself. I believe there is a human nature, within definable limits, and that any organization works best that recognizes this and works with (and not against) it, I believe nobody is out to get you because you just aren't worth the effort, and I believe the entire cabbage family is a giant conspiracy foisted on us by the sadistic.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 12, 2001.

lol @ The Dog... that was funny!

I'm with Helen, Maria and Anita on this one. Brussel sprouts are disgusting! Helen, ham and potatoes sound good. : ) Try this: fry a little bacon till it's almost crisp, then add chopped onions. Saute the onions for a few minutes, then add green beans. (Use the water already in the can, or add water if they're fresh.) Cover and let simmer for about an hour. YUMMY!

-- Pammy (pamela_sue57@hotmail.com), December 12, 2001.

CANNED green beans? ACK!

I can't wait for Christmas to have green bean bake. mmm

-- (cin@cin.cin), December 12, 2001.

I beg to differ about brussels sprouts. When steamed they are somewhat acceptable. When braised, they rise to above themselves and acquire true merit.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), December 12, 2001.

Flint, "I believe nobody is out to get you because you just aren't worth the effort"

This isn't a universal truth; it's true in most cases but not all. Just ask Ken. Someone was 'out to get' him and forced him off the other forum. One thing I've learned about the world from these boards: there are lots of nut jobs out there (who I happen to avoid in real life) who are out to get anyone just because.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 13, 2001.

Well said, Maria. For some people, that is their life.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), December 13, 2001.

As for Flint's comments... I'm not sure we know enough as a species to draw many conclusions about the "universe." We occupy one small rock in a near infinite cosmos. It strikes me as hubris to make any sweeping claims about a universe so vast and unexplored.

As for "human nature," we are clearly a complex biological organism, influenced by nature and nurture. I agree that organizationsand societies work best by recognizing the power of incentives (and disincentives).

I am not paranoid, but I do not underestimate the staying power of hatred (or mental illness). Someone thought MLK was "worth the effort." Clearly, the average citizen (or netizen) is at far less risk than a civil rights leader. Still, I recall the chilling statistic that most murders are committed by family members, friends, etc. What is the adage? We only hurt the ones we love.

As for the cabbage, I sense some cultural bias. The common cabbage is incorporated in many cuisines... Russian, Korean, etc.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 13, 2001.

Excuse me while I take this thread even more off-topic for a moment. Cin: How do you bake your green beans? I bake the split ones [frozen] with mushroom soup and onion rings all the time. Does your recipe require so much time or have a tradition that only makes it possible to bake it during the Holidays?

You may now return to the previous arguments on either New Traditionalists or the cabbage family and discrimination.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 13, 2001.

Returning this thread to topic, the first movie I ever saw was entitled "Mrs. Wiggs and the Cabbage Patch."

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), December 13, 2001.

Common cabbage, cooked correctly, is a wonderful "haute cuisine". Brussels sprouts however, really have no place in my kitchen... (too bitter... EWW...)

Diggin' a hole for them little grren balls...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), December 13, 2001.

Hey, guys -- c'mon -- you're giving cabbage a bad rap. Actually I think a cabbage would've made a more interesting dinner companion than at least a couple of guys that come to mind...

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), December 13, 2001.

LOL Eve!

Anita that is precisely the green bean bake I was referring to. It just seems like holiday fare to me, what with all that fat and those calories. I swear that Holiday cooking to me means ADDING BUTTER, real butter and lots of it to everything. So anyway, this dish is, for us, reserved for Christmas dinner.

As for the brussel sprouts, yknow they pretty tasty with BUTTER and vinegar (heh). Or...try soy sauce and vinegar or lime. yumm

-- (cin@cin.cin), December 13, 2001.

Cabbage Patch... what a memory that brings back! Any other parents here who lived through the 'Cabbage Patch Doll' craze?

Eve, that was funny!

I like coleslaw... does that count? ; )

-- Pammy (pamela_sue57@hotmail.com), December 13, 2001.

OK, Uncle! Y'll all have my humor pinned to the dirt, and you're breaking its arm!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 13, 2001.