Our Troops Know What’s What

The American Conservative (which actually seems to represent “conservatism” rather than the Thing that Used to be Conservatism) offers the Only Chart That Matters.

A Conservative Blog for Peace offers a nice little summary of how “conservative” Christians became war zealots and why it is, alas, now mysterious to Christians how somebody can think that the main way to support the troops is to not perpetually send them off to be maimed, killed, and their families subjected to intensely destructive stress merely so that our Ruling Class can bring salvation through Leviathan by any means necessary to people who want us off their soil and we can feel good about ourselves as exporters of democracy, whiskey, and abortion to people who want to use their newfound freedom to be harsher with Christians than their previous masters permitted.

Our troops are flesh and blood.  They are being subjected to stresses that nobody can endure forever and they have performed heroically while the traitorous swine in our Ruling Class do this.  And if you think anything will change when Rmoney wins…

Support our Troops.  Bring them home.

 

  • Joe Carter

    (which actually seems to represent “conservatism” rather than the Thing that Used to be Conservatism)

    If The American Conservative represents conservatism then why does the magazine so rarely support conservative principles or politicians? In their recent symposium, over half the contributors supported either Obama or Gary Johnson, two candidates who support abortion. The magazine represents anti-war libertarianism, not conservatism.

    • ivan_the_mad

      If you’ve a problem with any of them deciding to vote for Obama or Johnson, consider a vote cast by Russell Kirk: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/russell-kirks-conundrum-how-does-a-traditionalist-vote/

      “The magazine represents anti-war libertarianism, not conservatism.” Russell Kirk would disagree. Read “The Conservative Mind” for his thoughts on the matter. You’d come to realize that support for a party platform or candidate is far too shallow a litmus test for a conservative.

      • Joe Carter

        Russell Kirk would disagree.

        No, he wouldn’t. Russel Kirk rarely had a kind word to say about libertarians. (see here: http://bit.ly/U7hHHm) The idea that voting for a pro-abortion progressive or pro-abortion libertarian would have disgusted him.

        You’d come to realize that support for a party platform or candidate is far too shallow a litmus test for a conservative.

        Words still mean things. If you call yourself a “conservative” and then support the candidate that aligns most closely with everything conservatism opposes, then—like AmCon— you’re not likely to be taken seriously.

        • ivan_the_mad

          You have successfully missed the point.

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    I guess the first thing I’d want to do is define war zealot or warmonger. Was a time, about 11 years ago, that many Americans felt that a military reaction to the 9/11 attacks was not only justified, but demanded. So was that wrong? Was any military reaction wrong? Were they all wrong who thought that? All I’ve ever heard was that Conservatives/The Right/The GOP were the warmongers. So it must be the Thing That Has Always Been Conservatism. Plus, are we sure about some of the details in the link the article linked to? It seems to paint with some pretty broad brushstrokes.

    For instance, on Baldwin’s list of all the violence Evangelicals were cheering for with unbridled bloodlust, he included the slaughter at Waco, TX. Being in the middle of Evangelical circles when that happened, just about everyone I knew was appalled, if for no other reason, that it happened under Clinton’s watch (though they may well have been appalled at the tragedy as well. In other words, they did blink eyes). So right there makes me hesitate. Not to mention the idea that Evangelicals aren’t concerned about the plight of Christians in the Middle East, since most, you know, are.

    • rachel

      Unfortunately, Evangelicals don’t care about the plight of Christians in the Middle East, especially if they are Palestinian. I grew up in an evangelical home and NO ONE mentioned there were actual Christians living in the Middle East. Instead, it was all about Israel, all the time. The problem is that many Evangelicals do not consider Catholics and Orthodox to be Christians so they dismiss our brothers and sisters in Iraq, Israel/Palestine, etc. The only ones they are concerned about are the evangelical missionaries who wind up there, etc.

      • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

        I would suggest then stating that some Evangelicals don’t care, while others clearly do, because I was also part of the Evangelical world, and many considered Christians around the world who were persecuted. That also includes those persecuted in other areas of the Islamic world that are not in any way connected to our policies in Iraq. But that was the problem with his article, a little too much ‘all of them other types’ to make me comfortable.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X