SOBRAN'S --
The Real News of the Month
November 2006
Volume 13, Number 11
Editor: Joe Sobran
Publisher: Fran Griffin (Griffin Communications)
Subscription Rates.
Print version: $44.95 per year. For special discounted
subscription offers and e-mail subscriptions see
www.sobran.com, or call the publisher's office.
Address: SOBRAN'S, P.O. Box 1383, Vienna, VA 22183-1383
Fax: 703-281-6617 Website: www.sobran.com
Publisher's Office: 703-255-2211 or www.griffnews.com
Foreign Subscriptions (print version only): Add $1.25 per
issue for Canada and Mexico; all other foreign
countries, add $1.75 per issue.
Credit Card Orders: Call 1-800-513-5053. Allow
4-6 weeks for delivery of your first issue.
CONTENTS
Features
-> Editor's Note: Banned in Milwaukee
-> Hijacking the Conservative Movement
-> Publisher's Note
Sobran's Forum
-> Chilton Williamson on Books
Nuggets
Cartoons (Baloo)
"Reactionary Utopian" Columns Reprinted in This Issue
FEATURES
Editor's Note: Banned in Milwaukee
(page 1)
The following speech was to have been delivered in
Milwaukee on September 28 to the Wisconsin Forum, a group
of conservative business professionals. But hours before
I was scheduled to give it, my invitation was suddenly
canceled. This was the result of a charge by a WTMJ-AM
(Milwaukee) local talk-radio host named Charlie Sykes
that I was "anti-Semitic" -- an accusation which he
didn't define (or attempt to prove), and which I was
given no chance to answer -- and which he buttressed with
only a single additional lie: that I had been "fired for
anti-Semitism" at NATIONAL REVIEW. (Sykes gave no
details.) Sykes, I gather, is the sort of bogus
"conservative" my speech was to discuss. He has
apparently written several books, probably (if his prose
is any indication) more than he has read. It's probably
futile to try to refute a baseless falsehood, but this
one has its amusing side.
I was fired in 1993, as I fully expected to be, for
writing a column making fun of Bill Buckley. It was
nearly the opposite of Sykes's lie: I didn't accuse Bill
of anti-Semitism, which would have been grossly unfair to
him, but I noted that he was "jumpy about Jews," among
other things. My editor, John O'Sullivan, phoned me to
say he had no choice but to fire me. That was true. I'd
really given him no choice. But John, always a good
friend, saw the absurdity of the situation, and we both
wound up laughing, and have remained friends ever since.
It must have been the jolliest firing in the history of
journalism. There were no hard feelings between John and
me.
How Charlie Sykes, knowing nothing of this,
nevertheless managed to twist it into my being "fired for
anti-Semitism," I have no idea. I can say only that he is
an ass, an assertion for which I, unlike him, at least
have palpable evidence.
While the Wisconsin Forum initially ignored Sykes's
charges, word apparently reached the Bradley Foundation
that I was coming. (The foundation was formed out of the
Allen-Bradley Corporation, which used to fund many
conservative causes, ranging from NATIONAL REVIEW to
AMERICAN OPINION. Alas, it appears to be a "politically
correct" organization now.) According to Jim Smith, one
of the Wisconsin Forum board members who supported me,
the Bradley Foundation threatened to withdraw funding to
the Forum if I appeared. This unverified threat caused
several members of the Forum to cave in, particularly the
chairman, who said he would resign if I came. An
emergency Wisconsin Forum board of directors meeting was
held a few hours before my flight. They voted 5-4 to
withdraw the invitation.
In acting on the unsupported word of such a rogue,
it is perhaps needless to point out, both the Wisconsin
Forum and the Bradley Foundation -- if the claims about
it are true -- have behaved dishonorably. But
nevertheless, I thought you would like to read the speech
that was banned in Milwaukee.
Hijacking the Conservative Movement
(pages 1, 3-4, 7)
Nowadays, in startling contrast to my youth, it's
very fashionable to claim to be a conservative. Back in
the Sixties, conservatism was still rather a fugitive
thing, and the fashion was liberalism or even radicalism.
By the late Eighties, "liberal" had become "the L-word,"
and liberals were looking for a less alarming euphemism,
such as "progressive." As I say, the change is startling.
But have things really changed that much? Or is the
change really superficial? I'm afraid the latter is the
case. The airwaves are clogged with the clamorous voices
of talk radio, or "squawk radio," as I like to call it --
people claiming to be conservative, though they don't
sound much like the great conservatives I grew up
admiring: Bill Buckley, Frank Meyer, James Burnham,
Russell Kirk, Willmoore Kendall, and Barry Goldwater, to
name a few.
In fact many of today's so-called conservatives seem
to me to be liberals without knowing it, no matter how
much they say they detest liberalism. Rush Limbaugh, to
name only the most audible of them, seems to have no real
philosophy, no awareness of conservative literature
outside journalism. His premises are hard to distinguish
from liberalism's. Apparently he equates favoring war
with conservatism. He likes big government just fine, as
long as it's shooting something. He says the Republican
Party will save Social Security and Medicare, huge
liberal programs which a real conservative thinks
shouldn't have existed in the first place. Sometimes,
after listening to him for a half hour, I want to beg
him, "Rush, how about equal time for =real=
conservatism?"
Well, just what is "real" conservatism? This is an
old question, much debated. Dictionaries define it in
such terms as "preference for tradition" and "resistance
to change," but these are too general to take us very
far. After all, nearly everyone wants to preserve some
tradition and opposes some kinds of change, and people we
call conservatives often want to do away with certain
traditions and bring about important changes.
And all of life is in flux at all times. You can
never conserve everything. We are forced to face the
question of which things we should conserve, which we
should discard or even destroy, and which we should let
pass away. When a house catches fire, we may have to
decide very quickly what we can rescue from the flames
and abandon all the rest.
And conservatism isn't just passivity. It's active
maintenance. An old house needs repair and painting, a
garden needs weeding, trees and shrubs need pruning. To
conserve is to renew. Conservatism can't mean neglect.
And conservatism varies from place to place, from
people to people. The great Russian novelist Alexander
Solzhenitsyn, even under the Soviet regime, wanted to
preserve tsarism and the Russian Orthodox Church. Islam
is in many ways deeply conservative, but we have also
seen it take radical and revolutionary forms. Mormonism
was once seen as radical, but today it seems a very
conservative religion. The same might be said of
Christianity in various forms. And as G.K. Chesterton
says, "It is futile to discuss reform without reference
to form."
The word "conservatism" came into general use after
the French Revolution of 1789, its first and most
eloquent spokesman being Edmund Burke in his REFLECTIONS
ON THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE. Burke argued for the
traditional liberties of the English against the
"abstract" Rights of Man advocated by the
revolutionaries, predicting correctly that such abstract
rights, with no force of custom behind them, would perish
in a reign of terror. The revolutionaries, he said, were
so obsessed with man's =rights= that they had forgotten
man's =nature.=
History has vindicated Burke's warning, but many
have doubted that his kind of conservatism fully applies
to America. We don't have the sort of history England and
France had, a feudal ancien regime with a social
hierarchy and inherited status. It is even argued that
our only tradition is a liberal one, of legal equality
for everyone. After all, we are not divided into peasants
versus noblemen, or anything of the sort. We even take
pride in our social fluidity and more or less equal
opportunity.
This brings us to a paradox. The most eloquent of
our own Founding Fathers was Thomas Jefferson, who
welcomed the French Revolution and had no use for Burke.
Yet most American conservatives look to Jefferson as
their intellectual patriarch, he who wrote the
Declaration of Independence and proclaimed that "all men
are created equal."
Today "conservatism" has become a confusing term. It
can refer to a Jeffersonian vision of limited government
and strict construction of the U.S. Constitution, or it
can be equated with President Bush's militarism and what
has been called his "big-government conservatism." And of
course the title is also claimed by "neoconservatives"
who share Bush's enthusiasm for war and are, when it
comes to social policy, more like liberals than
Jeffersonian conservatives.
Both Bush and the "neocons" favor an undefined war
and speak of a "global democratic revolution." But what
is conservative about war and revolution? It has often
been pointed out that this sort of talk is more akin to
Leon Trotsky than to Edmund Burke. Bush even speaks of
eliminating tyranny from the face of the Earth -- a neat
trick, if you can do it.
Here I think we should keep in mind Burke's
distinction between "the abstract rights of man" and
man's actual nature. Conservatives tend to believe in
Original Sin, or something like it, that will forever
prevent man from achieving perfection. This attitude
produces a disposition that tends to be both skeptical
and tolerant, deeply dubious about overhauling society.
Societies and traditions can't be built from scratch; as
Burke said, we must build out of existing materials --
that is, real human beings and their habits, rooted in
history.
Liberals, on the other hand, speak freely of
"ideals," imagined perfections that we can achieve if
only we have the will. "I have a dream," as Martin Luther
King said. Hence liberals typically talk of abolishing
evils -- "eliminating poverty," "eradicating racism,"
"doing away with prejudice," "ending exploitation," and
so forth. This usually means strenuous government action,
massive coercion and bureaucracy, because these things
don't just evaporate of themselves.
Conservatives don't speak much of "ideals." They
think, more modestly, in terms of norms, which are never
perfectly realized, but only approximated by sinful man.
Consider homosexuality. Whereas the liberal wants to
impose "gay rights," by law and coercion, the
conservative sees homosexuality as a defect, which to
some extent can and must be tolerated, because it can't
be "eradicated," but it can't rationally be exalted to
the plane of normality; and he knows that all talk of
"same-sex marriage" is nonsense, like trying to breed
calves from a pair of bulls. But to the liberal, the only
issue is equal rights; human nature and normality have
nothing to say to him. What the conservative sees as
life's mysteries, the liberal sees as mere irrationality.
One word is notably absent from the liberal
vocabulary: "enough." For the liberal, there is hardly
such a thing as "too much" government. There is no point
at which liberals say, "Well, we've done it. We've
realized our dreams. We have all the government we need,
and we should stop now." No, they always want =more=
government. There is no such thing as =enough=
government.
Again, Chesterton sums up liberalism in a phrase:
"the modern and morbid habit of always sacrificing the
normal to the abnormal." We see this again in the grisly
business of abortion. To the typical conservative it is
an ugly thing, something that may not be entirely
"eliminated" but must be contained, condemned, and above
all must never be accepted as normal. But to the typical
liberal it is a =right= -- even "a fundamental human and
constitutional right"!
Consider Abraham Lincoln, claimed by both liberals
and conservatives. Most Americans consider him our
greatest president -- a view I emphatically reject. But
both sides have a point in claiming him. In some respects
he was rather conservative -- for example, in his
willingness to compromise on slavery before the Civil
War. He doubted that he had the constitutional authority
to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, which he finally
justified only as a wartime measure, applying only to the
seceding states.
But he finally became an all-out abolitionist, and
he had a radical dream of colonizing all free blacks
outside the United States; in his 1862 State of the Union
message, he called for a constitutional amendment
authorizing such colonization! In addition, Lincoln was a
high-handed centralizer of power, who suspended habeas
corpus and crushed freedom of speech and press throughout
the North. Like most liberals, he talked of freedom -- "a
new birth of freedom," in fact -- but the reality was
power. Under the Constitution, he insisted, no state
could withdraw from the Union for any reason. This was a
view Jefferson did not share. The United States had begun
in secession. Lincoln himself had once called secession
"a most sacred right, which we believe is to liberate
mankind."
A more recent conservative, Willmoore Kendall, who
died in 1967, argued that American conservatism is rooted
in its own constitutional tradition, best understood in
the light of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, where the limits of
the Federal Government are clearly set forth. As far as I
can tell, Lincoln was entirely ignorant of THE FEDERALIST
PAPERS, as well as of the Articles of Confederation -- a
point I'll return to.
An even more recent conservative, Michael Oakeshott,
who died in 1990, was English rather than American, but
he had much to teach us. Oakeshott, like Burke, decried
"rationalism in politics" -- by which he chiefly meant
what we call liberalism. He observed that some people
(liberals) see government as "a vast reservoir of power,"
to be mobilized for whatever purposes they imagine would
benefit mankind. By contrast, Oakeshott argued, the
conservative sees governing as "a specific and limited
activity," chiefly concerned with civility and the rule
of law, not with "dreams" and "projects." I consider
Oakeshott the most eloquent expositor of conservatism and
the conservative temperament since Burke.
I have already said that Lincoln was poorly
acquainted with the Founding Fathers. By contrast,
Jefferson Davis was thoroughly familiar with them, and in
his history of the Confederacy (too little read nowadays)
he makes a powerful, I would say irrefutable, case that
every state has a constitutional right to withdraw -- to
secede -- from the Union.
In the North, secession is still seen as a regional
"Southern" issue, inseparable from, and therefore
discredited by, slavery. But this is not so at all. At
various times, Northern states had threatened to secede
for various reasons. On one occasion, Thomas Jefferson
said they should be allowed to "go in peace." After all,
the whole point of the Declaration of Independence was
that these "are, and of Right ought to be, Free and
Independent States." Not, as Lincoln later said, a single
"new nation," but (to quote Willmoore Kendall) "a baker's
dozen of new sovereignties."
And the Articles of Confederation reinforced the
point right at the beginning: "Each state retains its
sovereignty, freedom, and independence." And at the end
of the Revolutionary War, the British specifically
recognized the sovereignty of all 13 states! This is
flatly contrary to Lincoln's claim that the states had
never been sovereign.
But didn't the Constitution transfer sovereignty
from the states to the Federal Government, outlawing
secession? Not at all. The Constitution says nothing of
the kind. And as Davis wrote, sovereignty cannot be
surrendered by mere implication. In fact, several states
ratified the Constitution on the express condition that
they reserved the right to "resume" the powers they were
"delegating" -- that is, secede. And if one state could
secede, so could the others. A "state" was not a mere
province or subdivision of a larger entity; it was
sovereign by definition.
Claiming sovereignty for the Federal Government,
Lincoln felt justified in violating the Constitution in
order to "save the Union" -- by which he meant "saving"
Federal sovereignty. One of the best-kept secrets of
American history is that many if not most Northerners
thought the Southern states had the right to secede. This
is why Lincoln shut down hundreds of newspapers and
arrested thousands of critics of his war. He had to wage
a propaganda war against the North itself.
Were you told this in your history classes? Neither
was I. We are still being told that Lincoln's cause was
the cause of liberty; just as we are told that he was the
friend of the black man, though he wanted the freed
slaves to be sent abroad, leaving an all-white America.
Lincoln had a dream too, but it wasn't Martin Luther
King's.
Lincoln achieved what the Princeton historian James
MacPherson calls "the Second American Revolution," giving
the Federal Government virtually full authority over the
internal affairs of the states. Columbia's George
Fletcher credits him with creating "a new Constitution."
A third historian, Garry Wills of Northwestern
University, says he "changed America," transforming our
understanding of the Constitution.
Mind you, these are not Lincoln's critics -- they
are his champions! Do they listen to themselves? They are
saying exactly what Jefferson Davis said: that Lincoln
was abandoning the original Constitution! But they think
this is a high compliment. Lincoln himself claimed he was
"saving" the old Constitution. His admirers, without
realizing it, are telling us a very different story.
Peaceful secession was a state's ultimate
constitutional defense against Federal tyranny. Without
it, the Federal Government has been able to claim new
powers for itself while stripping the states of their
powers. Lincoln neither foresaw nor intended this when he
crushed secession. But today the states are helpless
when, for example, the Federal Courts suddenly declare
that no state may constitutionally protect unborn
children from violent death in the womb. If even one
state had been able to secede, the U.S. Supreme Court
would never have dared provoke it to do so by issuing
such an outrageous ruling, with no support in the
Constitution.
But Lincoln has been deified as surely as any Roman
emperor. Today he is widely ranked as one of our
"greatest presidents," along with another bold usurper of
power, Franklin Roosevelt. And as I say, even
conservatives, so called, join in his praise. President
Bush and his supporters invoke both Lincoln and Roosevelt
to justify the war in Iraq and any powers he chooses to
claim in its prosecution. In the old days, Americans told
the government what our rights were; now it tells us. And
we meekly obey.
If Bush and his right-wing supporters are
conservatives, what on earth would a liberal be like? In
these last six years, the Federal Government has vastly
increased in power, with a corresponding diminution of
our freedoms. Every American child is now born $150,000
in debt -- his estimated share of the national debt,
which he had no say in incurring. And of course the
figure will be much higher when he is old enough to vote.
Meanwhile, he will go to a school, where he will be
taught that he enjoys "self-government," thanks to great
men like Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Bush.
What passes for "conservatism" now is a very far cry
indeed from even the limited-government conservatism of
Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan just a generation ago.
It is merely a variant of the liberalism it pretends to
oppose.
How do these pseudoconservatives differ from
liberals? Chiefly, for some reason, in their reflexive
enthusiasm for war. Ponder that. War is the most
destructive and =least= conservative of all human
activities. It is big government par excellence; it
breeds tyranny and, often, revolution. Yet most Americans
now identify it with conservatism!
I am very much afraid that the next generation will
have forgotten what real conservatism means: moral
stability, piety, private property, and of course the
rule of law (as distinct from the mad multiplication of
regulations).
But genuine conservatism will reassert itself, even
if it has to find another name and new spokesmen. If the
Bushes and Limbaughs have usurped and discredited the
word "conservatism" for the time being, we must try to
take it back. If we can't, we'll just have to find a
label they can't steal.
PUBLISHER'S NOTE
Dear Loyal Subscriber,
As you can see from our Editor's Note, Joe has once
again suffered from the charge of "anti-Semitism." The
Milwaukee talk show host (who I have been told is a
neo-conservative who was enraged by the title of Joe's
speech, "The Hijacking of the Conservative Movement")
provided no references and no proof for his false
accusations. It is the view of many Milwaukeeans I've
heard from that he sought to get Joe canceled because of
the speech's content, using the "anti-Semitism" canard as
an excuse. Hope you enjoy the "banned" undelivered
speech.
You may or may not be reading this before our annual
benefactors' event on December 9. If you are seeing this
before December 5, there is still time to join us, but
please get in touch right away if you have not already
RSVPed. Enclosed is Joe's invitation from our last
newsletter. We hope to reprint Joe's speech, "Hate: An
Introduction," in an upcoming issue, and some of Tom
Fleming's remarks as well. Tom is a scholar, historian,
and editor of CHRONICLES magazine.
In this issue, our Sobran Forum piece is a review of
a fascinating book by Chilton Williamson, the former book
editor of NATIONAL REVIEW, who now is literary editor of
CHRONICLES. Peter Gemma, editor of the just-released
SHOTS FIRED: SAM FRANCIS ON AMERICA'S CULTURE WAR,
discusses Chilton's book THE CONSERVATIVE BOOKSHELF. The
book critiques "essential works that impact today's
conservative thinkers," including Joe Sobran's SINGLE
ISSUES: ESSAYS ON THE CRUCIAL SOCIAL QUESTIONS. See
page 5.
I hear from readers every day praising Joe and
lamenting that he isn't better known. You can do
something to help this situation: give a gift
subscription to a friend, relative, pastor, talk-show
host, or newspaper editor. Encourage a couple of friends
to subscribe. And give a donation to SOBRAN'S so we can
get the word out about Joe and SOBRAN'S.
Christmas is approaching. Wouldn't a gift
subscription to SOBRAN'S make a nice gift for at least
two persons on your shopping list? And a gift
subscription to SOBRAN'S is really three gifts: the
monthly newsletter, a copy of Joe's audiotaped speech
"How Tyranny Came to America," and a copy of the booklet
REGIME CHANGE.
We'll send the audiotape, booklet and a handsome
gift subscription certificate to the persons you sign up.
But let us hear from you by December 15 so we can get the
package to them before Christmas.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
P.S. The FGF Books collection of Sam Francis's finest
articles -- many published for the first time -- is now
available for purchase (see enclosed flyer). Joe's
Afterword and Pat Buchanan's Foreword to SHOTS FIRED: SAM
FRANCIS ON AMERICA'S CULTURE WAR testify to the esteem in
which conservative thinkers continue to hold Sam's ideas.
Join them in savoring SHOTS FIRED -- more relevant than
ever after the recent Republican debacle -- for only $21
postpaid. SHOTS FIRED's concluding section in defense of
Christmas will make this an especially welcome find under
someone's Christmas tree -- maybe even your own. For more
info see www.shotsfired.us.
P.P.S. While SOBRAN'S is not a charity or a
non-profit organization, I hope you still will consider a
monetary Christmas gift to us to help keep us going.
Whether or not you can contribute, prayers for Joe's
success and that of the newsletter cost you nothing but a
few moments of your time, and can truly be felt by us.
SOBRAN'S FORUM
{{ EMPHASIS IS INDICATED BY THE PRESENCE OF "EQUALS"
SIGNS AROUND THE EMPHASIZED WORDS. }}
Chilton Williamson on Books
by Peter B. Gemma
(pages 5-6)
The Conservative Bookshelf: Essential
Works That Impact Today's Conservative
Thinkers, by Chilton Williamson Jr.;
Citadel Press, 2005; 344 pages.
If you're like me, burdened with the good intention
of re-reading or discovering the classics and maybe some
recent thought-provoking volumes too, it's an opportune
time to revisit THE CONSERVATIVE BOOKSHELF: ESSENTIAL
WORKS THAT IMPACT TODAY'S CONSERVATIVE THINKERS, and
touch base with its author, Chilton Williamson.
Williamson is a prolific wordsmith who writes with
passion, insight, and wit. A former history editor for
St. Martin's Press and book editor for NATIONAL REVIEW,
he is now a columnist and senior editor for CHRONICLES.
He has penned eight novels and five works of non-fiction
during a lifetime that has encompassed both training as
an opera singer and work as an oil rigger. He has also
earned a reputation as an outstanding historian of the
American West along the way. THE CONSERVATIVE BOOKSHELF
is a tour of 50 good books, covering practical politics
to philosophy, and a peek into the way Williamson's mind
works. He lays out the recommended volumes, in categories
and by rank, beginning with theology and ending with
contemporary affairs. The first book is the Bible; book
number 50 is TREASON: LIBERAL TREACHERY FROM THE COLD WAR
TO THE WAR ON TERRORISM, by Ann Coulter. (I would have
stopped at 49.)
The American Library Association's BOOKLIST magazine
had this to say about THE CONSERVATIVE BOOKSHELF when it
was first published in 2004: "One doesn't have to read
much of this excellent book to wonder whether its
subtitle is wishful thinking. Many of the works discussed
are demanding, the likes of Augustine's CITY OF GOD,
Edmund Burke's REFLECTIONS ON THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE,
and Richard M. Weaver's IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES -- hardly
books that Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or David Brock
might curl up with." The 2005 paperbound edition is new
and improved, as they say.
How did THE CONSERVATIVE BOOKSHELF come together?
The author explains, "Unlike Marxism or even liberalism,
conservatism is both a way of life and of thinking about
life, what the American novelist and story writer
Flannery O'Connor called a 'habit of being' -- not a
plan, program, or even a programmatic way of thought. For
this reason, and because conservatism is finally a
cultural phenomenon and all culture is by definition
conservative, I did not hesitate to include fiction,
narrative nonfiction, and poetry in my version of the
conservative canon."
Williamson's fascinating introduction to his essays
begins with a simple question: ="What is conservatism?"=
His answer includes this line: "Conservatism, rightly
understood, is man's willingness to discern for himself,
and to accept from God, a fundamental, practical, just,
human, and unchangeable plan for man -- =and to stick
with it."= Emphasis is indeed in the original. Addressing
this writer's hot button, he adds to that definition the
observation "high-powered, high-pressured modern society
has largely succeeded in reducing conservatism from a
broadly informed religious, intellectual, moral, and
aesthetic tradition to a narrow and shallow party
politics that often amounts to nothing more than a party
line." I think the man is a recovering Republican. Of
course when you get into the mind of Chilton Williamson,
you discover far more depth to his description of
conservatism than quoted here, and he mines richly from
the books he has chosen to comment on.
Williamson's list is personal and anecdotal to his
thesis, and his picks are perhaps controversial -- his
exclusion of some works may make readers think twice. But
good books, like THE CONSERVATIVE BOOKSHELF itself,
should make you think. I asked the author if there were
any titles he had trouble leaving out. "Aristotle's
POLITICS. The thought of discussing Aristotle in 2,500 --
or even 5,000 -- words defeated me. Two others, John C.
Calhoun's DISQUISITION and James Fitzjames Stephen's
LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY found chapters in the new,
expanded paperback edition published last year."
Some of the classics he reviews include the familiar
and the difficult: THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, Hilaire
Belloc's SERVILE STATE, alongside CONSIDERATIONS ON
FRANCE, by Joseph de Maistre, and the MEDITATIONS of
Marcus Aurelius. Williamson provides good summaries of
these books, explaining their content and putting them
into context. Let me emphasize here this is not CLIFFS
NOTES for conservatives, but serious cogitation about the
values and vision that make a difference in defining
ourselves and our movement (if there is one).
Among the classics he considers are such recent
titles as Thomas Fleming's MORALITY OF EVERYDAY LIFE, and
Pat Buchanan's DEATH OF THE WEST: HOW DYING POPULATIONS
AND IMMIGRANT INVASIONS IMPERIL OUR COUNTRY AND
CIVILIZATION (although Williamson says he might be
tempted to replace it with Pat's newest, STATE OF
EMERGENCY: THE THIRD WORLD INVASION AND CONQUEST OF
AMERICA, if he wrote BOOKSHELF today). Williamson's
BOOKSHELF, like its author, is not predictable. His list
of 50 thoughtful books for thinking conservatives
includes novels and even poetry.
The books on Williamson's bookshelf embody the ideas
and issues of the modern conservative movement and the
ideals it was built on. "Neo-conservative" advocates have
been essentially omitted because, according to the
author, neo-cons "have relentlessly promoted the
secularization of government and of society to an extent
that is wholly at odds with the explicitly Christian
character of the Western tradition."
The late pundit Sam Francis wrote of THE
CONSERVATIVE BOOKSHELF, "The great dilemma that
conservatives who are 'Rightists' are coming to face is
how they can retain loyalty to what prevails in this
country today and remain wedded to their vision of
eternal principles.... Many of the thinkers whom
Mr. Williamson discusses in his book faced it also in
their own times. Reading his account of how they resolved
it just might help real conservatives today deal with the
same problem."
His commentary, such as the essay on Jean Raspail's
CAMP OF THE SAINTS, can be as deep and moving as the book
he reviews:
The modern West's paramount enemy is Hate in
its social, ethnic, metaphysical, and
theological forms: hatred of quality, hatred
of racial differences, hatred of
intelligence, hatred of Truth. Because all
conflict is at bottom theological, this hate
must be understood as satanic in its nature
and origin. Its totem and figurehead is the
turd eater's monster child from the Ganges, a
deformed counter to the Christ Child in Whose
name Western civilization assumed its form
and development. And so it is not (Jean
Raspail tells us) the West itself, but rather
this same Child Who represents, finally, the
object of attack from within and without what
used to be called Christendom.
Who =is= this guy Williamson? In an interview a few
years ago he made some succinct political observations on
neo-con jingoism: "The Middle East can never be
democratic, because democracy is not compatible with the
local culture and religion. Bush may just be naive enough
to believe otherwise. One way or the other, however, the
Iraq War was engineered by ... neoconservatives, eager to
have the U.S. [make] the Middle East safe for Israel." On
conservatism itself, "Properly understood, [it] has a
theological foundation. Liberalism (and not just
contemporary liberalism) is essentially another example
of man's rebellion against metaphysical reality."
As a writer and a reader, Chilton Williamson has
noted that some of the books "nearest my heart are
probably Waugh's A HANDFUL OF DUST, O'Connor's THE HABIT
OF BEING, Hemingway's THE SUN ALSO RISES, Faulkner's THE
BEAR, and Abbey's DESERT SOLITAIRE" (discussions of all
are included in THE CONSERVATIVE BOOKSHELF). He told me,
"Last winter I reread all seven volumes of the Narnia
series, and I try to read HUCKLEBERRY FINN every couple
of years."
Williamson is currently pitching publishers for his
first children's book, THE GREATEST LION. I asked him if
there were books in his childhood that made a life-long
impact. "TREASURE ISLAND, all of Mencken, BORN FREE,
Albert Payson Terhune's LAD: A DOG, and all of Laura
Ingalls Wilder."
THE CONSERVATIVE BOOKSHELF can be a standard
reference book for thinkers and doers on the Right -- the
author's premise makes the book compelling and universal:
With this book, I have attempted to present a
vision of conservatism having little or
nothing to do with the caricature version
signified by fat men in top hats and generals
with swords that has seemed indelibly stamped
on the popular mind since 1789. The
conservative tradition has never been an
apology for ignorance, superstition,
despotism, war, power, wealth, or privilege:
Rather it has been their scourge, their
mortal enemy. Nor is the conservative
tradition a narrow and restricted one;
instead, it is as broad and varied as life,
having all of life and of human experience in
it though rooted in a specific culture, that
is Western culture.
For combatants in America's culture war, Chilton
Williamson's CONSERVATIVE BOOKSHELF: ESSENTIAL WORKS THAT
IMPACT TODAY'S CONSERVATIVE THINKERS makes good company
while one is (briefly) at rest in a foxhole.
[Peter B. Gemma, a columnist for MIDDLE AMERICAN NEWS,
has written for USA TODAY, MILITARY HISTORY, THE NEW
AMERICAN, HUMAN EVENTS, and many other publications. He
has just published SHOTS FIRED: SAM FRANCIS ON AMERICA'S
CULTURE WAR (www.shotsfired.us) and is currently writing
a biography of former Louisiana judge and congressman,
John R. Rarick.]
NUGGETS
A COUNTRY is in real trouble when even its conservatives
have forgotten the past. (page 9)
-- REGIME CHANGE BEGINS AT HOME by Joe
Sobran; $5 postpaid or free with a renewal of
your subscriptions to SOBRAN'S.
IN AN AGE abounding in official "enlightened" nonsense,
humor is the revenge of the normal on the official.
(page 11)
-- REGIME CHANGE BEGINS AT HOME by Joe
Sobran; $5 postpaid or free with a renewal of
your subscriptions to SOBRAN'S.
CARTOONS (Baloo)
http://www.sobran.com/articles/leads/2006-11-
cartoons.shtml
REPRINTED COLUMNS ("The Reactionary Utopian")
(pages 8-12)
* A Republican Recovery? (October 26, 2006)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/061026.shtml
* The Executive Empire (October 24, 2006)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/061024.shtml
* Getting Up There (October 19, 2006)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/061019.shtml
* Bush's Learning Problem (October 12, 2006)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/061012.shtml
* News from All Over the Place (October 10, 2006)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/061010.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All articles are written by Joe Sobran, except where
noted.
You may forward this newsletter if you include the
following subscription and copyright information:
Subscribe to the Sobran E-Package.
See http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml
or http://www.griffnews.com for details and samples
or call 800-513-5053.
Copyright (c) 2006 by The Vere Company -- www.sobran.com.
All rights reserved.
Distributed by the Griffin Internet Syndicate
www.griffnews.com with permission.
[ENDS]