Outlawing slavery protects the people who would be enslaved.

Taxing the wealthy reduces their power and so protects the non-wealthy from power exerted by the wealthy by virtue of their wealth.

Preventing corporations from polluting the environment protects the poor who have to live in the environment the corporations would otherwise pollute.

Preventing financial scams prevents the financial scammers from exploiting the victims of scams.

Put up or shut the fuck up. Seriously, your blather is fucking annoying. All you have done thus far is make an argument from authority – and badly even at that.

If you think that Wood’s analysis actually implies what you think it does, then explain it and how. Explain how the elites of the time managed a bottom up process. Or conversely, explain how Jefferson, Madison, Jay, Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, Samuel Adams, or any of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence can arguably be considered anything but elites. An argument can be made that Thomas Paine wasn’t an elite, but that can only be based on economic status – there is no question whatever that he was certainly an intellectual elite. And ultimately, it is due to shit luck that he wasn’t also rather wealthier than he was.

As for the birth of the modern American Conservative movement, it occurred through the efforts of young (and a few older, established) intellectuals like William F. Buckley who were reacting against the decades-long domination of the Republican Party from a well-entrenched Liberal and Moderate East Coast establishment.

Which first of all, doesn’t make it a bottom up movement. The notion that Buckley was at the bottom of anything is absurd. Second of all, what Buckley began bears little resemblance to the modern conservative movement. Neither does anything that Goldwater ever did. The modern conservative movement is more concerned with xenophobia, fear of anything not Christian, public programs they don’t like and fighting a war against Islam, than they are in fiscal conservancy.

The modern conservative movement has far more in common with McCarthyism and anti-intellectualism, than it does with Goldwater Republicanism or Buckley’s conservative intellectual movement. And the modern Republican party is wholly owned by the anti-intellectual religious right at this point.

Your claims about my intellect and understanding of U.S. American history is rather ironic, given your complete and utter inability to form a coherent argument for yourself.

Your reading as to why conservatives dislike Obama is incorrect. Actually Obama wants more top – down government control, and both long-time conservatives (like yours truly) and the Tea Party Movement are strongly opposed. He is acting contrary to the wishes of those of us who want less government and less taxes. But, more importantly, we’ve tried his substantial government expansion, and frankly, it isn’t working in the sense of improving the economy and getting hundreds of thousands of people back to full-time employment.

What Obama wants is what we have seen in Western Europe for decades, and ironically it is at the very time when many in Western Europe are rethinking the long-term social democratic policies of their governments (Maybe a classic case in point is German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s interest in reducing her country’s deficit, decreasing government spending and informing Obama that these are goals which his government ought to pursue too here in the United States.).

I might add that what Buckley saw with regards to Yale also influenced his thinking with respect to the current state of American conservativism back in the 1950s. He wanted to see a unified political movement and created the National Review as a means of providing a journalistic “organ” for such a movement. Might also add too that “God and Man at Yale” was the work which made other conservatives take notice of Buckley; had that not occurred, it’s highly doubtful that he would have gotten sufficient financial support to launch National Review.

I recommend reading Gordon Wood’s work, especially since that work informed Ken Miller’s thinking in writing about American anti-intellecualism in Ken’s “Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul”. Wood was the first historian who recognized how radical the American Revolution was, as a transformative event which greatly altered not just the political, but also, social fabric of the thirteen colonies, led by those who primarily from lower classes, not a wealthy elite.

I’m not disputing that top-down hierarchies have been an important part of human history, and that we can cite numerous examples from the Achamenid (my apologies for misspelling) Persian Empire of Cyrus, Darius and Xerxes, through the Roman (and later, Byzantine) Empire, Mongol Empire, Ming Chinese Empire, Ottoman Turkish Empire. But before applying it to American history, you need to read that history, and clearly, what Wood has demonstrated with respect to the American Revolution doesn’t fall into your preconceived notion. Wood’s work has influenced several generations of historians, and has informed the writings of popular writers like, for example, David McCullough.

As for the birth of the modern American Conservative movement, it occurred through the efforts of young (and a few older, established) intellectuals like William F. Buckley who were reacting against the decades-long domination of the Republican Party from a well-entrenched Liberal and Moderate East Coast establishment. I wouldn’t mention Senator Joseph McCarthy in the same breath, since he wasn’t at all associated – except maybe tangentially (and that’s really a stretch IMHO) – with the movement that was being led by Buckley and others.

Sincerely,

John

Who was at the bottom of the social hierarchy at the time of the American revolution? It wasn’t Washington or Jefferson, it was black female slaves, then black male slaves, then Native Americans, then poor white women, then rich white women, then poor white men, then rich white men. Washington and Jefferson were rich white men. They owned slaves. Jefferson had sex with the black female slave that he had educated to be a playmate for his daughter. Why did he have sex with her? Because he owned her. She was his property. How many black female slaves were key leaders and instigators of the American Revolution? None. The American Revolution would have succeeded with zero input from black female slaves.

The Abrahamic religions are all top-down. At the top is God, then God’s Prophets, then God’s priests, then God’s followers, then God’s believers. At the bottom are the non-believers. All the Christian BS about â??love thy neighborâ? always comes after â??obey Godâ?. If God says to kill someone, that trumps â??love thy neighborâ?. The way that God sends the message to kill someone is through His top-down power hierarchy. First He tells His Prophets, they tell His Priests and the priests tell the followers who to kill. Invariably it happens to be those at the bottom of the hierarchy.

Every type of power hierarchy where there is a â??leaderâ? and people who follow the â??leaderâ? is a top-down power hierarchy. Even if the â??leaderâ? starts at the bottom and works his/her way up, the power structure remains a top-down power hierarchy.

An academic institution where the faculty are independent and don’t have to obey the â??leaderâ? of the school is not a top-down power hierarchy. The situation at Yale was that of a non-top-down power hierarchy, and that so offended Buckley that he wrote â??God and Man at Yaleâ?. Buckley wanted to re-impose the top-down power hierarchy of religion on academics at Yale. Buckley wasn’t upset with â??political correctnessâ?, he was upset that his pet beliefs didn’t have the privileged authority that he thought they should have. Buckley wanted a top-down power hierarchy, with Buckley at the top. He wanted everyone to follow his â??conservative correctnessâ?, the correct conservative ideology as he saw it. Pure top-down, just with him at the top.

Conservative worship the top-down power hierarchy. That is why the GOP had no issues with Bush, Bush was at the top, and he was one of them. Bush could do no wrong. To a conservative, the person at the top can do no wrong simply because he/she is at the top. By definition, so long as he perpetuates the top-down power hierarchy.

Conservatives don’t like Obama for one reason and for one reason only, because Obama is not perpetuating the top-down power hierarchy as much and in a way as the conservatives would like, and in ways that the conservatives can move up it. That is why the conservatives are moving to a different power hierarchy, the hierarchy of money. Now the conservatives worship the wealthy, and the wealthy can do no wrong. That is why they apologize to BP for that meanie Obama forcing BP to be accountable. That is why they are blocking financial reforms. They are trying to increase the wealth of the wealthy at the expense of the poor, so that as the poor move down, the conservatives move up.

I would suggest you reread my comment and explain exactly how it conflicts with Dr. Wood’s perspective. I am not claiming that I know more than Dr. Wood about the Revolutionary War – I am only claiming the very narrow comment I made about the fostering of the U.S. American Revolution. Specifically, I am claiming that yes, it was a top down movement. It was also a very radical movement – I never argued that it wasn’t. Indeed I gave an example of just how radical it was.

I read The Creation of the American Republic when I was thirteen, btw.

Do you really think I care whom I do know?

It is more than a little obvious that you do, given how often you compulsively drop names.

Can’t you tell when I am pulling your leg…

Now you’re just lying. And I don’t use that word lightly, but it is exactly what you are doing here.

I consider myself fortunate that I know some well-known people and count them as friends, not as some crazy creepy stalker type.

Err…I am not all that sure you know them as anything but a creepy stalker. Though I suppose if you’re not talking about women, it might be true. You have struck me as the sort of coward who would only stalk women. You should be aware though, that some women are armed and/or strong enough to kick your ass.

You’ve just proved my point about you being a backwoods hick. I suggest you read the writings of a retired Brown University historian who is regarded by most historians as our leading authority on the American Revolution and the drafting of the United States Constitution. What makes you think you know more than he does about this subject, especially when he has devoted his entire academic career to it?

Do you really think I care whom I do know? Can’t you tell when I am pulling your leg, just to see more breathtaking inanity from you and your fellow intellectually-challenged, quite delusional, fanatical Fundamentalist New Atheists (You and your “friends” are doing a great job in promoting Atheism; so much so that I had to read carefully what several prominent – and moderate – atheist philosophers have written on behalf of Atheism as a better alternative to organized reliigon.)?

I consider myself fortunate that I know some well-known people and count them as friends, not as some crazy creepy stalker type (Though I’m going to plead the fifth on my cousin James Yee – the former United States Army chaplin who was falsely accused of treason for helping some Muslim detainees at Camp Gitmo more than five years ago – since he doesn’t represent or speak on behalf of me and the rest of our extended family.).

Too bad I can’t expect a reasonable online conversation with you. But what more can I expect from a backwoods hick who thinks he has acquired some quantity – if not quality – of higher education?

Thanks for demonstrating that you are merely a backwoods hick who claims to be educated enough to take a college course on the history of global security.

Believe me when I say that I am not the least bit impressed with your perceived understanding of U.S. American history. Nor am I impressed with the people you claim to know. And I am especially not impressed by your assessment of me. I have been judged by far better people than you and garnered their respect. I have also been judged on my merit in school and not been found wanting – in spite of an eighteen year gap between dropping out of high school and entering college.

You are a pathetic fucking putz, who is particularly keen on exposing his abysmal ignorance of virtually everything he touches – with the exception of evolutionary theory. You are a despised, nasty fucking excuse for a man, who gets his jollies by making sexually charged comments about women he doesn’t approve of. And you are a rude fucking bastard who hides behind “polite” language, so as to appear the pathetic victim.

I don’t need to defend myself from your attacks on my intellect and rhetoric, my writing speaks for itself. Unfortunately for you, so does yours.

More so than William F. Buckley, it was Barry Goldwater who was appalled by the modern Conservative movement’s embrace of Fundamentalist Xian zealots and gave a notable address back in 1981 rebuking his fellow Republicans. But it wasn’t Goldwater who founded the modern Conservative moment. Instead, it was Buckley, as the founder and publisher of the National Review, who gave the Conservative movement a an important means to disseminate its views to the general public and become a more unified political movement.