<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tanenhaus&#8217;s Postmortem Is Wrong</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/09/09/tanenhauss-postmortem-is-wrong/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/09/09/tanenhauss-postmortem-is-wrong/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=tanenhauss-postmortem-is-wrong</link>
	<description>@TAC</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:36:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: norman ravitch</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/09/09/tanenhauss-postmortem-is-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-9661</link>
		<dc:creator>norman ravitch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:15:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2139#comment-9661</guid>
		<description>Read Conor Cruise O&#039;Brien&#039;s THE GREAT MELODY, where you will find an Edmund Burke so conflicted by the demands of his heritage, his ambition, and the stiflingly aristocratic society in which he tried to operate that you will stop using him as the conservative standard for all time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read Conor Cruise O&#8217;Brien&#8217;s THE GREAT MELODY, where you will find an Edmund Burke so conflicted by the demands of his heritage, his ambition, and the stiflingly aristocratic society in which he tried to operate that you will stop using him as the conservative standard for all time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AL</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/09/09/tanenhauss-postmortem-is-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-9611</link>
		<dc:creator>AL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:34:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2139#comment-9611</guid>
		<description>Good post.  But I&#039;m not quite sure about the &quot;Beaconsfield position&quot; of &quot;giving the public whatever policies they demand.&quot;  It sounds like what you mean is making concessions to liberal demands -- doing what the opposition wants, only more slowly.  However things were in Victorian England, there wasn&#039;t always strong public support for liberal programs in late 20th century America.

The last paragraph is also a little troubling.  There&#039;s the red state, red meat conservative movement -- the people who are passionate about economic or social conservatism or just political combat -- and there are the Manhattan or Washington conservative sophisticates who recoil at their positions.  In between there are a lot of us who don&#039;t have much liking for the red meat crew, but who aren&#039;t ready to start selling off existing conservative positions.  

I&#039;m not attacking you, but it looks as though you share  the purist view of the pro-life or original intent. I mean there&#039;s a sense of stark, mutually exclusive alternatives.  They believe in it and you reject it.  But not everyone understands the committment to life or to limited government in the same way as the purists do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good post.  But I&#8217;m not quite sure about the &#8220;Beaconsfield position&#8221; of &#8220;giving the public whatever policies they demand.&#8221;  It sounds like what you mean is making concessions to liberal demands &#8212; doing what the opposition wants, only more slowly.  However things were in Victorian England, there wasn&#8217;t always strong public support for liberal programs in late 20th century America.</p>
<p>The last paragraph is also a little troubling.  There&#8217;s the red state, red meat conservative movement &#8212; the people who are passionate about economic or social conservatism or just political combat &#8212; and there are the Manhattan or Washington conservative sophisticates who recoil at their positions.  In between there are a lot of us who don&#8217;t have much liking for the red meat crew, but who aren&#8217;t ready to start selling off existing conservative positions.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m not attacking you, but it looks as though you share  the purist view of the pro-life or original intent. I mean there&#8217;s a sense of stark, mutually exclusive alternatives.  They believe in it and you reject it.  But not everyone understands the committment to life or to limited government in the same way as the purists do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: S.L. Toddard</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/09/09/tanenhauss-postmortem-is-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-9539</link>
		<dc:creator>S.L. Toddard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 23:23:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2139#comment-9539</guid>
		<description>If not original intent, then what?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If not original intent, then what?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Phillips</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2009/09/09/tanenhauss-postmortem-is-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-9529</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Phillips</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:37:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/?p=2139#comment-9529</guid>
		<description>Moderate conservatives and liberals have alike misused Burke (and his champion Kirk) to argue that conservatism is really indistinguishable from pragmatic moderation. And firmly held conservatism is really an anti-conservative dogma. It is such a convenient theory if one happens to be a moderate or a liberal who wants a tame conservatism. But it also inconveniently happens to be oxymoronic and nonsensical. By this definition conservatism can never be anything other than go slow liberalism. All else is radicalism. Who does Tanenhaus think he is fooling anyway? He&#039;s a lib and everyone knows he&#039;s a lib.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Moderate conservatives and liberals have alike misused Burke (and his champion Kirk) to argue that conservatism is really indistinguishable from pragmatic moderation. And firmly held conservatism is really an anti-conservative dogma. It is such a convenient theory if one happens to be a moderate or a liberal who wants a tame conservatism. But it also inconveniently happens to be oxymoronic and nonsensical. By this definition conservatism can never be anything other than go slow liberalism. All else is radicalism. Who does Tanenhaus think he is fooling anyway? He&#8217;s a lib and everyone knows he&#8217;s a lib.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

