NRO editorial reflects 'chameleon brand of conservatism'
RenewAmerica staff
On Mar. 1, the editors of National Review, the flagship of the modern conservative movement, ran an editorial that all professing conservatives would do well to reflect on.
The piece – titled "CPAC's Empty Chairs" – sounds more like equivocation than conservatism.
If conservatism is a rational political philosophy based in Judeo-Christian values, as well as the divinely-inspired premises of our founding Declaration and Constitution, then the recent NRO piece cannot be considered reasoned conservatism, but irrational corruption of that ideal.
The editorial argues that CPAC organizers erred in not inviting the homosexual political lobby GOProud to "participate" (we assume help sponsor or have an active hand) in next week's Conservative Political Action Conference. We find that "official" view of NRO a stunning disappointment.
In 2010, you may recall, GOProud was one of the event's co-sponsors, and as a result, the event was boycotted by the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, and other moral conservative organizations that felt giving the homosexual group such prominence was an affront to genuine conservatism.
We agree. Let GOProud members attend, of course – but giving them a prominent role suggests traditional conservatism accepts values that contradict the essence of conservatism itself.
True conservatives would never agree to such acquiescence to one of the most pernicious, and clever, evils of our time, no matter how "conservative" the proponents of such evil might be on "non-social" issues.
Conservatism is about preserving what is worth standing up for. Why are the editors of National Review willing to lie down and play dead in the far-reaching "culture war" that promises, more than any other thing, to determine our nation's future?
How could they seriously argue – as they do – that "compromising or modifying conservative principles" is vital to "securing public appeal."
There's a word for such thinking. It's rationalization. And here we thought "political correctness" was for liberals.
March 4, 2013
On Mar. 1, the editors of National Review, the flagship of the modern conservative movement, ran an editorial that all professing conservatives would do well to reflect on.The piece – titled "CPAC's Empty Chairs" – sounds more like equivocation than conservatism.
If conservatism is a rational political philosophy based in Judeo-Christian values, as well as the divinely-inspired premises of our founding Declaration and Constitution, then the recent NRO piece cannot be considered reasoned conservatism, but irrational corruption of that ideal.
The editorial argues that CPAC organizers erred in not inviting the homosexual political lobby GOProud to "participate" (we assume help sponsor or have an active hand) in next week's Conservative Political Action Conference. We find that "official" view of NRO a stunning disappointment.
In 2010, you may recall, GOProud was one of the event's co-sponsors, and as a result, the event was boycotted by the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, and other moral conservative organizations that felt giving the homosexual group such prominence was an affront to genuine conservatism.
We agree. Let GOProud members attend, of course – but giving them a prominent role suggests traditional conservatism accepts values that contradict the essence of conservatism itself.
True conservatives would never agree to such acquiescence to one of the most pernicious, and clever, evils of our time, no matter how "conservative" the proponents of such evil might be on "non-social" issues.
Conservatism is about preserving what is worth standing up for. Why are the editors of National Review willing to lie down and play dead in the far-reaching "culture war" that promises, more than any other thing, to determine our nation's future?
How could they seriously argue – as they do – that "compromising or modifying conservative principles" is vital to "securing public appeal."
There's a word for such thinking. It's rationalization. And here we thought "political correctness" was for liberals.