Wednesday, November 15, 2006

The New College Republicans - Same As The Old?

Interesting article at the American Conservative about the new "College Republicans. Interesting because we get to hear from that rare species, the anti-war conservative.

He’s distinctly in the minority of a minority, as both a campus conservative and one who’s against the Iraq War.

In the eyes of some of his friends on the Right, that makes Lawrence really a kind of leftist. When he published an editorial for the anniversary of Hiroshima criticizing Harry Truman’s use of nuclear weapons against Japan, one of his colleagues on the campus conservative paper, The Broadside, suggested he was its “token liberal.”

What I continue to find interesting is the increasing political polarization of foreign policy. I'm just not sure I get it- after all, liberal supporters of the war and conservative war protesters are by no means doing an injustice to their philisophical positions. I suppose you had the same sort of polarization during Vietnam, but still ... just don't get it.


Blogger A Fan For All Seasons said...

It's naive to think that every liberal, every conservative, and even every libertarian has the same view points. Heck, the Lonely Libertarian would just be the Libertarian if he did have the same views. Joe Lieberman is in no way a Republican, but Lamont called him one anyways because Liebs supported the war. Lieberman didn't shy away from these remarks, in fact, he used them to his advantage and said he wasn't afraid to reach across party lines.

This article you link to kind of hurts me, because I personally think the right is more closely knit together than the left. The right always seems to have a steady view on issues, and even when someone differs, there isn't a call for action against that member. (Unless that member is touching Pages)

My criticism of the left is that they just seem to go with what's popular, and shoot down whoever doesn't agree. John Kerry obviously wants the war to end now, but no one in the left ever brings up the fact that he voted for war in the first place. I honestly think that if a story were to break tomorrow that proved gays were evil, every Democrat would suddenly come out and say "I have never supported the gays" (I don't think gays are evil, just a hypothetical) and no Democrat would even question the change.

I've gained respect for Lieberman because of his support of the war. Perhaps it's not great politics to ignore what the people are saying, but he sincerly thinks the people are wrong, and he's sticking with his guns (no pun intended). I have respect for this student that is against the war, because it's his own opinion (and he's probably hurt at being called a liberal too.) It's not wrong to have one differing view point, or several for that matter. The key is understanding, and that goes for intra and inter-party relations.

My theory is that when someone like Lieberman comes out and says "I still support the war", it causes other people in the party to think deeper on the subject. It makes them feel insecure. "Could I be wrong? No, I can't be. But how could someone else think this way? Doesn't he know the facts? Oh wait, I know what it is, he's on the other side, that must be it!"
This goes for both sides too. It's like that one friend you have that isn't afraid to make fruity comments, listen to Mariah Carey or doesn't always talk about girls he's banged, so his friends think he must be gay. It's the same thing.

(I'm not sure how coherent this all is. It's late and I'm tired, but I think I get my point across)

12:28 AM  
Blogger QU 3L said...

I appreciate your comments. I guess what disturbs me the most is the way in which thoughtful ideas are disregarded. When liberal Joe Lieberman speaks up for the war, it's probably more worth listening to than those echoing the Republican party line. Similarly, when conservative Pat Buchanan speaks out againast the war, he's providing a unique point of view not provided by the anti-war liberals.

We tend to label people in terms of the positions they end up with, but political philosophies are about certain modes of thinking and certain ways of looking at issues, not getting certain results. We've been talking about the war, but the same logic works for all sorts of social and political issues. For instance, although they may be rare breeds, the pro-life liberal and the pro-choice conservative fit perfectly well into their respective political philosophies mode of thought.

So-called liberal group think has been well documented on college campuses. With an article like this, I wonder whether that same sort of group think is seeping into conservative circles.

11:08 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home