Al Regnery Talks Real Conservatism
By Ericka Andersen Posted in 2008 — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I’m intrigued speaking with those who’ve been in the Washington conservative movement for decades and I wasn’t any less so upon meeting Al Regnery today at a blogger’s meeting at the Heritage Foundation. Regnery’s new book, “Upstream: The Ascendance of American Conservatism” is making its debut. Regnery, currently the publisher of the American Spectator, said he has been a part of the conservative movement since he was a child but until he wrote this book, he didn’t fully understand it.
Before taking questions, he immediately commented on the conservative conflict with presumptive 2008 presidential nominee John McCain. “The same fight has been going on since Eisenhower was nominated over Taft in ’52,” he said.
He said this clash occurs between conservatives within the Republican Party every four years. The fight, he said, is about principles, ideas and the long-term effects. When influential conservatives like Rush Limbaugh refuse to support the nominee, it is the “ultimate statement of principle,” Regnery said, adding that for conservatives, ideas are more important than politics.
Regnery wasn’t keen on McCain himself but noted that in 2009, five of the Supreme Court judges will over 70 years old. Do you want Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain nominating? He asked the crowd rhetorically.
Interestingly, Regnery compared Obama’s candidacy to that of Barry Goldwater in 1964. Goldwater, a conservative icon, conjured a “passion that hadn’t existed in politics for years,” said Regnery. “People would faint.” (Last week, reports of such an incident were reported at an Obama rally).
Regnery said with Goldwater, people that had never been involved with politics before came forth. The same is true for the Obama campaign. But the differences are stark as well: “Goldwater was extremely principled…with Obama, it’s all about Obama,” Regnery said.
Regnery first came to DC as a college director of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), and said the conservative movement “almost always had young people at the heart of it.”
I saw that he had a chapter about Neoconservatives in his book and asked about that branch of the movement. He told me there are two versions of neo-cons – old and new. The old school neo-cons were academics who added a lot to the movement while the current neo-cons (ala Weekly Standard I would guess), are largely not academics but in think tanks and are “for the most part, not conservatives.” He quoted Bob Novak, who said they are “more neo than con.”
He said conservatives running for office generally gravitate toward philosophers, while Democrats lean towards strategists.
“The conservative movement is a very interesting coalition between intellectuals, philosophers and practical politicians,” he said, noting that last time Indiana Congressman Mike Pence ran, he handed out books on conservative philosophy to those in the campaign.
When asked about potential rising stars in coming years, Regnery mentioned Mark Sanford, Mike Pence, Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn and Tome Cole, among other “fine people” in the Republican Study Committee.
"A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." - Irving Kristol. I don't think there is much difference between old and new neocons. They've just been empowered by 9/11 and Iraq to push their aggressive and liberal foreign policy agenda.