Again. Lots of good stuff to think about, as usual when he writes on conservatism. One thing, and it's a biggie, does anyone else ever get the feeling that he is all around the target on conservatism, but never quite nails it? Is it unnailable? Do I sound like Michael Reghi? Is the point that conservatism is unnailable?
If it is, I think I disagree, but I'm still working on it. For all the good work out there on conservatives, I just don't think we've quite explained American conservatism yet. I think the answer is in the presidency and Federalist/National Republican/Whig/Republican candidates--Washignton, Adams, JQA, Clay, Taylor, Lincoln, Grant, McKinley, TR, Taft, Hughes, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Landon, Willkie, Dewey, Eisenhower, Nixon, Goldwater, Reagan, Dole, and the Georges Bush--but again, I'm still working on it.
Just read Goldberg for now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I just taught a course on Liberalism and Conservatism last semester and I tackled the problem of defining both terms by working backwards. We started by looking for politicians who identified with one term or the other, then studied the thinkers who influenced them. You come up with a list pretty close to Tom's.
Post a Comment