I very much appreciated the creativity and erudition of your newest post in our discussion - “Natural Governing Party: Why does everyone become Liberal when they're in power?”
It’s a great question and you reveal the history of your country’s virtual one party rule well. I had intended to respond leading into talking about the next ideology in my series explaining 15 variants of American Conservatism - the East Coast Corporatist Establishment. Their history mirrors what you describe in your Conservative Party of Canada: “liberal impressions.”
But today is the 14th anniversary of September 11, 2001, a day when a team of Jihadists hijacked four airplanes and murdered almost 3000 human beings. Question to ponder: how many more victims might there have been if the passengers of United 93 hadn’t chosen to end their lives as American heroes?
“Are you ready? Okay. Let’s roll…” - Todd Beamer, noble last words that cannot be forgotten.
So instead I’m going to talk about why what this day represents should define who we are as conservative, classically liberal, political activists committed to defending Western Civilization from its enemies.
“Why does everyone become Liberal when they’re in power?”
Because they can’t think of anything more important to do with their power. Or, more specifically, because they can afford to be “liberals” growing a fat welfare state when they are not concerned with having to win a real war against tyrannical slave states and their terrorist proxies.
The defining event for post-World War II politics in America was the Cold War. What was one’s position on how to handle the Soviets and their ambition to spread and dominate the planet? Normalize relations with the USSR and other Communist slave states (progressives and “liberals” dovish prescription)? Maintain some imaginary Mutually Assured Destruction-driven idea of Cold War balance of powers (corporatist Republicans’ Kissinger-inspired “realist” path)? Or pursue actual VICTORY over the evil empire (William F. Buckley Jr., Senator Barry Goldwater, and ultimately President Ronald Reagan)?
These questions echo today in how we respond to 9/11 and the very real possibility that Jihadists will do much worse in the future as more lethal technologies continue to develop and become more widely available. The Tsarnaev brothers of the future will have many more options at their hands...
Everyone wants to be a “liberal” (a redistributor of wealth) because almost nobody wants to be a warmonger. Few want to stand up and say that slavery and tyranny are worse than war and cannot be ignored for long without having to endure painful consequences.
Josh, I’m really sorry, but most people who seek power want to have it and wield it simply for its own sake. They want to expand their power and secure themselves in it -- very few want to limit power or use it in a risky way toward some more meaningful ends like peace. That’s just the clear-eyed, “conservative” view of human nature. Fear, laziness, and self-interest are normal in our species.
Of the 15 variations of American Conservatism on my initial list, this is the one that defines me the most above all others. I became politically active and remain so because of 9/11, the Iraq war, and the aftermath of the years since as I’ve come to understand the broader series of wars waged by Shariah, Communist, and other rogue states.
The West is under assault by evil barbarians who want to rape our women and sell them into sex slavery. Fourteen years after 9/11 and the ideological heirs of Osama bin Laden now have been allowed by Barack Hussein Obama to get their own evil “Islamic State,” complete with slave markets.
Both America’s current and previous president failed massively to understand 9/11 and as a result more people have died and will suffer. (The “War on Terror” was about as successful as the “War on Drugs” or “War on Poverty.” Wars against abstractions aren’t winnable. As David P. Goldman reminds, wars can only end when those who love death more than life are given what they want. Failure to kill them before they kill us has its consequences.)
Question: How long until some eager DIY Jihadist in Canada comes up with a creative way to top the 9/11 body count? What would happen to Canadian politics if 4000 or 5000 people were snuffed out in the name of a religion?
I know there are counterculture crusader conservatives in Canada who have been psychologically and spiritually scarred by the Jihadists and other agents of tyranny, who understand that the Jihad rages not just against the US, but all of Western Civilization.
Who will join us in making a hawkish national security the issue that unites Conservative coalitions across borders? If preventing mass murder shouldn’t be our primary goal politically then what’s more important?
With respect and appreciation,
David M. Swindle
See the Previous Parts of this series continuing through the fall:
Follow The Megaphone on Twitter.
JOIN TheRebel.media for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.