7/18/2004 08:19:56 AM|||Nathan Moore|||

The New York Times makes a stab at defining young conservatism.  I do object to the technique, however, of painting neoconservatives as intellectual bastard children of Buckley's original conservative movement.  There is a convincing argument that neoconservatism is in fact the rightful heir of Buckley's cause, not an obstacle to it.  To attribute ownership of conservatism to the paleoconservative Buchananites is inaccurate, and likely intentional.
 
In all fairness, I hope the Times takes the, well, time, to address the fractuous nature of pos-hippy liberalism.  It would make for a much more interesting read, and would shed light on a more severely divided side of the political spectrum.  Any ideology that expresses itself through personal hatred is more of a personality cult than a movement, which modern day liberalism and the Democratic party have become. 
 
There is no doubt, though, and the article gets it right, that social conservatives and libertarians are of a different ilk.  But then again, neither side has anywhere to go.  As long as the Libertarian Party remains composed of unelectable kooks, the Republican Party will remain ideologically solvent.  Regardless, the Times has created a decent summary, and it is worth a look.
 
 

|||109015733631383526|||Interesting Article