Rick Moran has some useful thoughts on the conservative movement, many of which have played out in the Second Amendment community for quite some time:
What we should take away from that extraordinary exchange of ideas between two brilliant men is that it was done amicably, with great respect for each other, and the debate was carried out with the recognition that both were working toward a common goal.
I don’t see that being possible today. With the absolute refusal of the ideologues to abandon their purge of who they consider less than ideologically pure conservatives, and with the pragmatists fighting what amounts to a rear guard action to marginalize the crazies who are, if not embraced then certainly tolerated by the revanchists, there is no “common purpose†that could lead to any amicability or respect.
Indeed, the revanchists look with askance upon most attempts to criticize conservatism at all, believing that “intellectual elites†are simply playing into the hands of the enemy by taking fellow conservatives to task for their idiocy, or paranoia. Relatedly, any criticism of conservatism coming from the left is automatically dismissed – usually without even reading it – because that would be allowing your enemy to define you.
Read the whole thing. Â I’m not sure I buy into the whole “Burkean” vs. “revanchist” dichotomy spoken about here. Â I probably exist somewhere between the two, in that I favor dismantling a large part of the New Deal, but don’t think such a thing is likely to be achieved in a revolutionary manner, short of a total collapse of the people’s faith government (which is not out of the realm of possibility). Â Conservatives can’t just stand for conserving societal structures, and institutions. Â But nor can they stand for laying waste to them either, without offering a constructive vision of what they want America to be. Â Whether we want like it or not, the New Deal institutions are part of our society, and unlikely to be swept away in one fell swoop. Â Some of them we may never get rid of.
Conservatism has to stand for something, not just against the left, if it wants to attract enough adherents to be able to govern for long enough and effectively enough to make a difference. Â You see that played out in the Second Amendment debate too, time and time again. Â How often does NRA take heat for offering a solution to the anti-gun challenge of “locking up violent criminals who use guns” or “use the laws already on the books to go after criminals.” Â That stuff gets pooh poohed, but by offering the public an alternative to more gun control, we’ve managed to stop it long enough to make real advances, and after Heller, we’ve managed to destroy a lot of the most draconian existing laws.
