- Elton John blasts Russia’s anti-gay laws during Moscow concert
- U.N.: Afghanistan slow to enforce law protecting women
- Heart cancels SeaWorld concert after ‘Blackfish’ documentary
- South Carolina sheriff refuses to lower American flag for Nelson Mandela
- South Africans hold day of prayer for Nelson Mandela
- Mandela not on life support in final hours, friend says
- Ukraine protesters topple, decapitate Lenin statue in Kiev
- Kim Jong-un’s uncle removed from North Korean state documentary
- Thailand crisis deepens as opposition quits Parliament
- Campbell Soup apologizes for SpaghettiOs’ Pearl Harbor tweet
By Brahma Chellaney
Beijing's creeping aggression signals a challenge to U.S. presence in the Asian Pacific
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Topic - Russell Kirk
You have to be my age — 121 or so — to remember Frank Meyer in his National Review prime: firm jaw; light-saber intellect; working the phones at 3 a.m. as he pieced together and sorted out the varied stripes and gradations of conservatism.
As John Pafford, friend and biographer of Russell Kirk, suggests in his title, with the exception of certain libertarian historians at academic centers such as Lew Rockwell's highly respected Ludwig von Mises Institute, Grover Cleveland is largely forgotten — and if not forgotten, then remembered primarily for a series of unusual firsts and seconds.
Political wise guys would have you believe that conservatives these days have but two options: either assisted living in a senior community or a bed in a hospice. We are headed for the ash heap of history, where we will be buried without honors — a footnote, at best, to 20th-century politics.
A man of the left renowned for the piercing honesty of his thought and writings, particularly in his novels "Animal Farm" (1945) and "Nineteen Eighty-Four" (1949), English novelist and journalist George Orwell (1903-1950) has earned the admiration of millions of readers across the political spectrum. One admirer, conservative champion Russell Kirk, went so far as to claim that no 20th-century novelist exerted a stronger influence upon political opinion in Britain and America than did Orwell.
In his autobiography, English man of letters G.K. Chesterton not only recounted the story of his own life, he also assessed the lives of his many friends and acquaintances in Edwardian-era London. At one point Chesterton, a champion of Christian orthodoxy, described his dear friend H.G. Wells, a lifelong skeptic, as a man who "was so often nearly right, that his movements irritated me like the sight of somebody's hat being perpetually washed up by the sea and never touching the shore."
Give the late William F. Buckley credit: The witty conservative writer, editor, talk-show host, debater and bon vivant was unafraid to allow liberal biographers extensive access to his life and private papers. In 1988, socialist true-believer John B. Judis published his wide-ranging, well-researched "William F. Buckley Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives."
President Obama recently compared the Tea Party to the Occupy Wall Street protests, telling ABC News' Jake Tapper, "in some ways they're not that different." We beg to differ. The Tea Party and the protesters are almost exact opposites.
Is America in its twilight years? Patrick J. Buchanan argues it is. Americans, especially conservatives, should heed his warnings. The very future of our republic is at stake. Mr. Buchanan has written the political book of the year - and maybe of our time.
Political leaders do love books that tell them what a very good job they're doing. George W Bush, for example, was often seen clutching a copy of Andrew Roberts' excellent "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900" because it reassured him that his war on terrorism belonged to a fine historical tradition and was right and noble and good.
As a longtime conservative, I believe in building coalitions. We can't agree on everything, and it doesn't help the cause to concentrate on areas of disagreement.
UPSTREAM: THE ASCENDANCE OF AMERICAN CONSERVATISM
Kirk explained, "Orwell's was that radicalism which is angry with society because society has failed to provide men with the ancient norms of simple life -- family, decency, and continuity; the sort of radicalism which does not mean to disintegrate the world, but to restore it."
In doing battle with liberals in the mid-20th century, Kirk noted that conservatives "uphold the principle of social continuity. ... Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long and painful social experience, the results of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice."