S y d n e y T r a d s

Weblog of the Sydney Traditionalist Forum

Quote of the Week: Sam Francis, “Beautiful Losers”

‘Neoconservatism’ today is usually called simply ‘conservatism’, though it is sometimes known under other labeled as well: Fred Barnes’s ‘Big Government conservatism’; HUD Secretary Jack Kemp’s ‘progressive conservatism’; Representative Newt Gingrich’s ‘opportunity conservatism’; Paul Weyrich’s ‘cultural conservatism’; or, most recently ‘The New Paradigm’, in the phrase coined by White House aid James Pinkerton. Despite the variations among those formulas, all of them envision a far larger and more active central state than the Old Republicanism embraced by most conservatives prior to the 1970s, a state that makes it its business to envision a particular arrangement of institutions and beliefs and to design governmental machinery to create them. In the case of ‘neoconservatism’, the principal goal is the enhancement of economic opportunity through one kind or another of social engineering (enterprise zones, for example) and the establishment of an ethic that regards equality (usually disguised as ‘equality of opportunity’), economic mobility, affluence, and material gratification as the central meaning of what their exponents often call ‘the American experiment’.

Such goals are not conceptually distinct from those of the progressivism and the liberalism athwart which the American Right at one time promised to stand, though the tactics and procedures by which they are to be achieved are somewhat (but not very) different. Indeed, much of what neoconservatives are concerned with is merely process – strategy, tactics, how to win elections, how to broaden the base of the GOP, how to make the government run more efficiently, how to achieve ‘credibility’ and exert an ‘impact’ – and not with the ultimate goals themselves, about which there is little debate with those parts of the Left that also lie within the permissible range of ‘pluralistic’ dialogue. Given the persistent cultural dominance of the Left, a conservatism that limits itself merely to procedural problems tacitly concedes the goals of public action to its enemies and quietly comes to share the premises on which the goals of the Left rest. Eventually, having silently and unconsciously accepted the premises and goals, it will also come to accept even the means by with the left has secured its dominance, and the very distinction between Right and Left will disappear.

▪ Sam T Francis, “Beautiful Losers” in Beautiful Losers – The Failures of American Conservatism (University of Missouri Press, 1993) extract from pages 223 to 224.

SydneyTrads is the internet portal and communication page of the Sydney Traditionalist Forum, an association of individuals who form part of the Australian paleoconservative, “traditionalist conservative” and “independent right”.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

Recommended book:

Frank Salter, "The Aboriginal Question" (2018)

RSS Gornahoor

Recommended book:

Frank Salter, “The War on Human Nature in Australia’s Political Culture” (2017)

RSS Social Matter

Recommended book:

Paul Gottfried, "Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt - Toward a Secular Theocracy" (2004)

RSS OzConservative

Recommended book:

Paul Gottfried, “After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State” (1999)

RSS The American Sun

RSS Kakistocracy

%d bloggers like this: