Political Traditionalism and Its Adversary, "Conservatism"

[Baldrick]

This may or may not be relevant here, but the ease with which the 'neo-con' Republicans switched to supporting HRC is perhaps indicative of how little conservatism is in neo-conservatism. A conservative politician is typically traditionalist to a notable degree, supportive of religion and family, and as concepts independent of state control. Distinguishing conservatism and traditionalism is reasonable, but putting them in manichaeist opposition is simply an error. HRC likes war, neo-cons like war, and they are mostly indifferent to social issues unless it somehow clashes with their authoritarian, militarised, internationalism.

Political traditionalists have been saying this for decades. The "right-wing" of American politics is simply a different variety of liberalism. Those most educated on the "right" will fully admit to being classical liberals who espouse classical liberalism.

You're conflating two different historical meanings wrt liberalism, Louis.  The word "liberal" originally meant to be relatively free from the shackles of the overgrown State; in the early 20th century, though, Statists of various flavors managed to re-engineer the word so that it meant the exact opposite: that the state would "free" a person from the vicissitudes of economic life. 

[LouisIX]

This may or may not be relevant here, but the ease with which the 'neo-con' Republicans switched to supporting HRC is perhaps indicative of how little conservatism is in neo-conservatism. A conservative politician is typically traditionalist to a notable degree, supportive of religion and family, and as concepts independent of state control. Distinguishing conservatism and traditionalism is reasonable, but putting them in manichaeist opposition is simply an error. HRC likes war, neo-cons like war, and they are mostly indifferent to social issues unless it somehow clashes with their authoritarian, militarised, internationalism.

Political traditionalists have been saying this for decades. The "right-wing" of American politics is simply a different variety of liberalism. Those most educated on the "right" will fully admit to being classical liberals who espouse classical liberalism.

You're conflating two different historical meanings wrt liberalism, Louis.  The word "liberal" originally meant to be relatively free from the shackles of the overgrown State; in the early 20th century, though, Statists of various flavors managed to re-engineer the word so that it meant the exact opposite: that the state would "free" a person from the vicissitudes of economic life.

No, I'm not conflating them. I know very well the difference between the two, which is part of the reason that I have stated on this forum that modern liberals are perhaps more fertile ground for conversion than the stauncher libertarians on the American "right." The former has much more in common with political traditionalism (by way of principles) than classical liberalism.

This idea that the State is the boogey man which arbitrarily imposes itself upon individuals is the thought of Enlightenment figures like Rousseau or Hobbes. It is the complete opposite view of the ancients and the Church for whom human nature is itself political, with the State arising out of the family. Rather than privatizing political society or attempting to do away with it all together, it embraces the proper place of the State within the mission of the Church.

One of the points that I've been trying to make on this thread is that political traditionalism and American conservatism are enemies. They share nearly no common principles and are really historically rooted in negating the other. The response of some has been to tell me that I don't really understand the historical-political landscape. While it is quite true that I have much room for continued education in the area, people are assuming that my disagreement on this issue is based in ignorance. In fact, I'm simply trying to stress a juxtaposition between truly conservative politics and what I believe to be an Enlightenment impostor.

[Jacob]

This is leading back to the old argument Brent Bozell had with Meyer in National Review in the sixties when Meyer and his fellows were arguing in favor of Fusionism in order to bring together the Old Right with various strains of the New Right (mostly economic conservatism).

Bozell argued back then as LouisIX is now that ultimately the two liberalisms lead back to each other: on the left it strengthens the state while destroying communal institutions such as family and church that protect the individual from the state and on the right it atomizes society as it works to build individual rights at the expense of communal institutions such as family and church.

[LouisIX]

This is leading back to the old argument Brent Bozell had with Meyer in National Review in the sixties when Meyer and his fellows were arguing in favor of Fusionism in order to bring together the Old Right with various strains of the New Right (mostly economic conservatism).

Bozell argued back then as LouisIX is now that ultimately the two liberalisms lead back to each other: on the left it strengthens the state while destroying communal institutions such as family and church that protect the individual from the state and on the right it atomizes society as it works to build individual rights at the expense of communal institutions such as family and church.

Bingo. That is it precisely.

As I've mentioned on this forum previously, I adhere to the general view of the editors and writers of the old Triumph magazine. This was a traditional response to the American right. Whereas others on this forum appeal to various political institutions as far-reaching as The National Review or even Fox News, I am proposing Triumph as an alternative, one which is loyal to the political traditions of Christendom proper, not just the supposed "right wing" of Americanism.

This often results in being labelled a leftist because it is presumed (often subconsciously, I think) that anything which is not "the right" is leftist. In a political landscape that attacks traditional politics from all angles, left and right, not aligning oneself with either side draws the ire of both. I am a leftist, socialist, utopian on this site. Among other groups I am labelled a fascist. This is due to the fact that political traditionalism does not fit into the categories of modern political discourse, since all modern political parties are in some way a rebellion and overthrowing of political traditionalism. One of the important principles of traditionalism is the heuristic harmony of family, state, and Church into a single human unity under Christ. Modernity has done nothing but to choose one of these pieces to the exclusion of the others.

[John Lamb]

Don't worry Louis, those that champion individual liberty above all things are liberals in the proper sense of the word. Those that we call liberals today are actually socialists, and those that we call conservatives are actually liberals.

[John Lamb]

No, I'm not conflating them. I know very well the difference between the two, which is part of the reason that I have stated on this forum that modern liberals are perhaps more fertile ground for conversion than the stauncher libertarians on the American "right." The former has much more in common with political traditionalism (by way of principles) than classical liberalism.

This is true. A lot of the young Marxists and Feminists who campaign against racism, sexism, exploitation of the poor, etc., have good intentions, even though their shepherds are misleading them. Marxism can be seen as a corruption of Christian doctrine in that it acknowledges evil in mankind, proposes a kind of redemption, and looks forward to a more just society. I think a lot of people become Marxists because they see the economic situation as unjust, and Marxists are the first they hear complaining about injustice. Marxism is like Christianity except the State takes the place of God the Father, and deliverance of men from material evils completely replaces spiritual liberation. The Liberalism or Liberterianism which says, "I'll do what I want, mind your own business; I don't answer to nobody other than myself", a kind of "every man for himself" attitude, is absolutely divorced from Christianity, or at least Catholicism, in every respect. Perhaps you can say that Socialism is atheistic Catholicism, and Liberalism is atheistic Protestantism.

[mikemac]

I'm just catching up on this thread.  After 7 pages have we finally got back to the topic, Political Traditionalism?  Personally I wouldn't mind learning more about what Wilhelmsen, Bozell, Popowski and others have to say.  Plus some of the contributing writers of Triumph like Solange Hertz, Dietrich von Hildebrand and Marcel Lefebvre.  I mean it's got to beat listening to an arm chair economist flog his upcoming Amazon release. 

Recently there has been interest in this forum on book discussions.  Maybe we could do the same with Mark D. Popowski's 'The Rise and Fall of Triumph: The History of a Radical Roman Catholic Magazine, 1966-1976'.  If the book is too expensive for most then maybe the discussion could be on Popowski's 'Roman Catholic Crusading In Ten Years Of Triumph, 1966-1976: A History Of A Lay-Directed, Radical Catholic Journal', which is a free pdf below.  You never know, if this gets spread around maybe US Catholics will be better prepared for the next election in four years.

Google Books has it online but there may be some pages omitted.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=c5-TewmRvzsC&pg=PP2&lpg=PP2&dq=The+Rise+and+Fall+of+Triumph:+The+History+of+a+Radical+Roman+Catholic+Magazine&source=bl&ots=l0qf1H5TOc&sig=cAdsfMEXrGLVAaeg-Bq25Et6zqo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjA58ronvjLAhXikoMKHWhKC3QQ6AEIJjAD#v=onepage&q=The%20Rise%20and%20Fall%20of%20Triumph%3A%20The%20History%20of%20a%20Radical%20Roman%20Catholic%20Magazine&f=false

This pdf is not exactly the same but some of the chapters are titled the same.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CRUSADING IN TEN YEARS OF TRIUMPH, 1966-1976:
A HISTORY OF A LAY-DIRECTED, RADICAL CATHOLIC JOURNAL
By MARK DAVID POPOWSKI
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/etd/Popowski_okstate_0664D_10014.pdf

Or you can get a hard copy of The Best of Triumph for $20
http://www.amazon.com/The-Best-Triumph-Christendom-Press/dp/0931888727

[Jacob]

I would be interested in discussing the PDF, yes.

[mikemac]

I would be interested in discussing the PDF, yes.

Good.  Is anyone else interested?

[LouisIX]

I am, though how much real time I could devote to the discussion will vary.

[mikemac]

Good.  Who wants to start?

[Jacob]

Wilhelmsen definitely called it all the way back in 1970:

There is a judgment passed on the nations by the Lord of time. . .  And when America faces its God on that awesome day and when He asks America ‘What did you do for these the least of My little ones?’  America will answer ‘Lord, we killed them while they were indeed the least of Thy little ones so that they could not be a nuisance to us.’  And then the Lord God, our Incarnate King, Christ, will answer: ‘Go you, America, into outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.  I and all my angels vomit you out because you have done this to Me and to My Mother, your Queen.’  America, you have become a nuisance to God.

Obviously these guys saw things going downhill fast.  Read through pages one through the top of seven.  Thoughts?

[Michael Wilson]

    The main error, the capital crime of this century is the pretension of withdrawing public society from the government and the law of God... The principle laid at the basis of the whole modern social structure is atheism of the law and of the institutions. Let it be disguised under the names of abstention, neutrality, incompetence or even equal protection, let us even go to the length of denying it by some legislative dispositions for details or by accidental and secondary acts: the principle of the emancipation of the human society from the religious order remains at the bottom of things; it is the essence of what is called the new era. (Cardinal Pie, Pastoral Works, vol. VII, pp. 3, 100)

    The time has not come for Jesus Christ to reign? Well, then the time has not come for governments to last. (Cardinal Pie, meeting with Emperor Napoleon III)

[mikemac]

Yeah Jacob, Wilhelmsen said that in 1970 (before Roe v. Wade) at one of the first pro-life demonstrations.  When the five men who had infiltrated the clinic were arrested and led to a police wagon the Los Hijos de Tormenta (the Sons of Thunder) roared “Viva Cristo Rey”.

"Indeed, they believed that secular-liberal America was on the verge of collapse.  On its rubble, they hoped to construct a sacral society—an order in which all things were rendered unto Jesus Christ; all things, that is, were conformed to His truth, as expressed through His Church, the Roman Catholic faith.  They sought, then, the enthronement of Christ—to reinstitute His Kingship over all things."

"We will make America Catholic as the conquistadores made half the world Catholic."
—Frederick D. Wilhelmsen

The other day I was looking at the Wikipedia page for L. Brent Bozell.  William F. Buckley Jr. was Bozell's brother-in-law.  Buckley summarized Bozell's new position as follows: "[Bozell's] thesis now is that the republic of the Founding Fathers was doomed because of their failure to adequately enthrall the city of man to the City of God."

They were definitely ahead of their time.

P.S. Walty I didn't realize you were so militant.  I like it. 

[LouisIX]

By the way, you were not aware that the term "social justice" is a recent invention?  I would have guessed that you had studied Justice.

I would have thought that, you know, with all of your high training on these issues that you might be familiar with the term's Catholic history and papal origin. I would have guessed that someone offering to educate us would not make such simple mistakes.

To each, therefore, must be given his own share of goods, and the distribution of created goods, which, as every discerning person knows, is laboring today under the gravest evils due to the huge disparity between the few exceedingly rich and the unnumbered propertyless, must be effectively called back to and brought into conformity with the norms of the common good, that is, social justice.

In fact, "social justice" (socialis iustitiae) appears no less than nine times in Pius XI's encyclical.