<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What Is &#8216;Conservatism&#8217;?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/paul-gottfried/what-is-conservatism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/paul-gottfried/what-is-conservatism/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=what-is-conservatism</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 03:08:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: oldoddjobs</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/paul-gottfried/what-is-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-5260415</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[oldoddjobs]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2013 08:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=182191#comment-5260415</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bravo]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bravo</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TruthTeller</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/paul-gottfried/what-is-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-4405062</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[TruthTeller]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Mar 2013 02:37:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=182191#comment-4405062</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Forget, please, &quot;conservatism.&quot; It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and thus irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God they are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson&#039;s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:   
 
&#8221;[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. 
 
   &#8220;American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.&quot; 
 
In any event, &#8220;politics&#8221; will not save us. Our country is turning into Hell because the church in America has forgotten God (Psalm 9:17) and refuses to kiss His Son (Psalm 2.) See, please, 2 Chronicles 7:14ff for the way to get our land healed.  
 
John Lofton, Recovering Republican 
Editor, JohnLofton.com 
Also: Archive.TheAmericanView.com 
Active Facebook Wall 
JLof@aol.com 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Forget, please, &quot;conservatism.&quot; It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and thus irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God they are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson&#039;s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:   </p>
<p>&rdquo;[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. </p>
<p>   &ldquo;American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.&quot; </p>
<p>In any event, &ldquo;politics&rdquo; will not save us. Our country is turning into Hell because the church in America has forgotten God (Psalm 9:17) and refuses to kiss His Son (Psalm 2.) See, please, 2 Chronicles 7:14ff for the way to get our land healed.  </p>
<p>John Lofton, Recovering Republican<br />
Editor, JohnLofton.com<br />
Also: Archive.TheAmericanView.com<br />
Active Facebook Wall<br />
<a href="mailto:JLof@aol.com">JLof@aol.com</a> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris_Shugart</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/paul-gottfried/what-is-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-4400439</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris_Shugart]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:35:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=182191#comment-4400439</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sometimes I think we need to re-boot a few political terms, Left / Right, Liberal / Conservative are terms I&#039;m reconsidering. All govt. systems fall somewhere on a spectrum where one end represents totalitarianism and the other anarchy--total government versus complete lack of it. I think the wise legislator finds an optimum balance between the two. But the argument remains: How much government is the right amount?   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sometimes I think we need to re-boot a few political terms, Left / Right, Liberal / Conservative are terms I&#039;m reconsidering. All govt. systems fall somewhere on a spectrum where one end represents totalitarianism and the other anarchy&#8211;total government versus complete lack of it. I think the wise legislator finds an optimum balance between the two. But the argument remains: How much government is the right amount?   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: @theoprinse</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/paul-gottfried/what-is-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-4400043</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[@theoprinse]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:25:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=182191#comment-4400043</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I came across mr. Buckley before and I saw Buckley with Gore Vidal, Reagan and Alinsky. Buckley is more of a social romanticus. Catholic and CIA agent Buckley &#8211; and to a far lesser extend and more conspirative Gore Vidal &#8211; developed a mythical but cultural American conservatism. Conservatism in my view is the demand to have private property protected in the Law and republicanism is the imperative demand as a society to be rules by man made laws. Cultural conservatism is the ongoing excursive debate with its re-distributive critics in their denial of the necessity of private property as the means of production like buildings, machines and raw materials where machines and buildings were raw materials in a previous stage. 
As far as Buckley&#8217;s cultural conservatism did help Reagan.. Bucleys cultural conservatism is bound to disappear in regression Pope Benedict would argue. It is therefor perhaps to Buckley that today the republicans &#8211; as we saw at CPAC &#8211; now are somewhat confused into their own determination. My advise would be to end making ideological distinctions within the republican party divisively political while on C-SPAN. 
Several speakers at CPAC showed that while distinguishing in some type of conservatism at the same time excelled in pragmatic commercial driven one liners 
I have not yet read Buckley on the philosophy of Pragmatism (except with Hefner) as opposed to logical positivism (Auguste Comte, inductive statistics). 
My second advise is to recognize the state of fascism America has allowed itself into with Hussein Obama and to allow the idea that Obama is a victim and slave of Alinsky&#8217;s F.M. Davis etc anarchistic doctrines and secret compulsions where Davis is concerned. .It will take Americans a revision of some pragmatic philosophy to overcome Obama&#8217;s mental disease and the positions he now holds over long standing US economic and geo-policies.  
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I came across mr. Buckley before and I saw Buckley with Gore Vidal, Reagan and Alinsky. Buckley is more of a social romanticus. Catholic and CIA agent Buckley &ndash; and to a far lesser extend and more conspirative Gore Vidal &ndash; developed a mythical but cultural American conservatism. Conservatism in my view is the demand to have private property protected in the Law and republicanism is the imperative demand as a society to be rules by man made laws. Cultural conservatism is the ongoing excursive debate with its re-distributive critics in their denial of the necessity of private property as the means of production like buildings, machines and raw materials where machines and buildings were raw materials in a previous stage.<br />
As far as Buckley&rsquo;s cultural conservatism did help Reagan.. Bucleys cultural conservatism is bound to disappear in regression Pope Benedict would argue. It is therefor perhaps to Buckley that today the republicans &ndash; as we saw at CPAC &ndash; now are somewhat confused into their own determination. My advise would be to end making ideological distinctions within the republican party divisively political while on C-SPAN.<br />
Several speakers at CPAC showed that while distinguishing in some type of conservatism at the same time excelled in pragmatic commercial driven one liners<br />
I have not yet read Buckley on the philosophy of Pragmatism (except with Hefner) as opposed to logical positivism (Auguste Comte, inductive statistics).<br />
My second advise is to recognize the state of fascism America has allowed itself into with Hussein Obama and to allow the idea that Obama is a victim and slave of Alinsky&rsquo;s F.M. Davis etc anarchistic doctrines and secret compulsions where Davis is concerned. .It will take Americans a revision of some pragmatic philosophy to overcome Obama&rsquo;s mental disease and the positions he now holds over long standing US economic and geo-policies.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rostislav</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/paul-gottfried/what-is-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-4399852</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rostislav]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:21:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=182191#comment-4399852</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With all the due respect to the article&#039;s author, I&#039;d still cling to a very down-to-earth definition of conservatism from the &quot;Radical Son&quot; by Mr. David Horowitz: it is an attitude about the lessons of an actual past and an attitude of caution based on a sense of human limits and what politics could accomplish. I like this definition very much &#8211; and I think it doesn&#039;t contradict Mr. Gottfried&#039;s ideas at all. Rostislav, Saint-Petersburg, Russia. 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With all the due respect to the article&#039;s author, I&#039;d still cling to a very down-to-earth definition of conservatism from the &quot;Radical Son&quot; by Mr. David Horowitz: it is an attitude about the lessons of an actual past and an attitude of caution based on a sense of human limits and what politics could accomplish. I like this definition very much &ndash; and I think it doesn&#039;t contradict Mr. Gottfried&#039;s ideas at all. Rostislav, Saint-Petersburg, Russia. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Atikva</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/paul-gottfried/what-is-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-4399616</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Atikva]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:53:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=182191#comment-4399616</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What&#039;s conservatism?  Refusing to throw out the baby with the bath water. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What&#039;s conservatism?  Refusing to throw out the baby with the bath water. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: john butala</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/paul-gottfried/what-is-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-4399268</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[john butala]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:30:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=182191#comment-4399268</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The problems many people have with identifying something as conservative or liberal is because virtually all people are combinations of both.  Few people are completely liberal or conservative on every issue or the way they conduct their private lives. Certainly you can identify people as conservative or liberal on their stands on issues or the way they conduct their lives, but that does not necessarily make them conservative or liberal in the strict sense of the terms.  
In fact, it would be very difficult to distinguish the great majority of non-&quot;intellectual&quot; Americans as being liberal or conservative based on the way they conduct their lives. Conservatives are supposed to be  greedy, money-grubbing types who burn $100 dollar bills for fun. That would more fit the definition of Hollyweird libs who certainly live more exclusive, luxury-centered lives than most conservatives. And the majority of conservatives (who are supposed to be religious and moral zealots)  like the earthly pleasures just as much as the most decadent libertine.  
So while we can separate people as conservative or liberal by their choice of party and stands on particular issues, few people are completely one or the other. The majority of people are a mix.  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problems many people have with identifying something as conservative or liberal is because virtually all people are combinations of both.  Few people are completely liberal or conservative on every issue or the way they conduct their private lives. Certainly you can identify people as conservative or liberal on their stands on issues or the way they conduct their lives, but that does not necessarily make them conservative or liberal in the strict sense of the terms.<br />
In fact, it would be very difficult to distinguish the great majority of non-&quot;intellectual&quot; Americans as being liberal or conservative based on the way they conduct their lives. Conservatives are supposed to be  greedy, money-grubbing types who burn $100 dollar bills for fun. That would more fit the definition of Hollyweird libs who certainly live more exclusive, luxury-centered lives than most conservatives. And the majority of conservatives (who are supposed to be religious and moral zealots)  like the earthly pleasures just as much as the most decadent libertine.<br />
So while we can separate people as conservative or liberal by their choice of party and stands on particular issues, few people are completely one or the other. The majority of people are a mix.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chezwick</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/paul-gottfried/what-is-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-4398797</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chezwick]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 07:02:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=182191#comment-4398797</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The core of the identity crises is the social conservatives vs the libertarians. I&#039;ll be perfectly hones folks, I honestly don&#039;t know which way to lean. My natural inclination is libertarianism, but I can&#039;t help but wonder if our fiscal problems aren&#039;t rooted in the degeneration of the culture? ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The core of the identity crises is the social conservatives vs the libertarians. I&#039;ll be perfectly hones folks, I honestly don&#039;t know which way to lean. My natural inclination is libertarianism, but I can&#039;t help but wonder if our fiscal problems aren&#039;t rooted in the degeneration of the culture? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rianna Richards</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/paul-gottfried/what-is-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-4398693</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rianna Richards]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 06:17:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=182191#comment-4398693</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Oh dear God, please don&#039;t turn our great American country into another Socialist Europe!  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh dear God, please don&#039;t turn our great American country into another Socialist Europe!  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rianna Richards</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/paul-gottfried/what-is-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-4398657</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rianna Richards]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 06:02:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=182191#comment-4398657</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hmm...... very interesting article.  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm&#8230;&#8230; very interesting article.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Viet Vet</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/paul-gottfried/what-is-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-4398633</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Viet Vet]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:53:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=182191#comment-4398633</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gottfried may deny it (or may not realize it), but he is a flaming Libertarian (big L) and very nuanced too.   Talk about over-analyzing contemporary American Conservatism, whew.  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gottfried may deny it (or may not realize it), but he is a flaming Libertarian (big L) and very nuanced too.   Talk about over-analyzing contemporary American Conservatism, whew.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/paul-gottfried/what-is-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-4398573</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 05:31:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=182191#comment-4398573</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Favoring civil unions for gays but not quite marriage for them, or Medicare but not Obamacare, simply won&#8217;t do it.&quot; 
 
 
That&#039;s the right wing of the Republican Party according to some. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Favoring civil unions for gays but not quite marriage for them, or Medicare but not Obamacare, simply won&rsquo;t do it.&quot; </p>
<p>That&#039;s the right wing of the Republican Party according to some. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 527/535 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-29 22:08:58 by W3 Total Cache -->