What Mr. Terrell really means is that if “conservatism” as he views it stops being a movement, and he and his friends would be out of business.

And you know the sad thing, actual movements, like the Minutemen or the Ron Paul campaign, are sometimes scorned by people like Terrell and Conservative INC., because they can’t control them.

Movement: How do we get it?

Clearly the second question has utterly obscured the first. Hence the first is de facto answered in conservative circles — power.

What I find tiresome is the presumptious term “we” which gets thrown around in conversations & discussions. “We need to re-think our approach toward supporting democracy in the Middle East,” or “It’s clear we need to reach out to moderates in order to win this upcoming election.”

Who’s this “we”?

Oh, I’m sorry. That’s a daydreamy-intellectual, egg-headed loser sort of question, exactly the sort of question which could cause “us” to lose the next presidential race, if “we” think about it too hard.

While right reason certainly plays a major role in determining how to govern human affairs, so does the recognition that all reason is by necessity limited. This is one of the primary distinguishers, I think, between the conservative and liberal dispositions: the liberal disposition says that all things are understandable, and that we need only strive harder in the realm of science in order to understand those things that we do not currently understand. The conservative disposition, as I understand it, suggests that there are two categories of things that we do not currently understand: (1) things that we can someday understand but do not and (2) things that we, as humans, cannot ever fully understand because they are not genuinely explicable in human terms. The existence of the latter category (which most religious people would refer to as mystery) ought to give us a certain humility in front of any larger policy proposals we make, as we are necessarily always, working out of a certain degree of ignorance.

Political action guided by ‘Right Reason’is essential; especially at this time.

A retention of a republican form of goverement as originally conceived and the moral and social values that under gird it should be the central and prime requirement of American conservatism. A general need that must not be surrendered to ongoing circumstance.

This is, and has always been, the paradox of conservatism in a liberal age. To respond to the advances of liberalism, its opponent has had to adopt the tactics and political machinations of liberalism. It has increasingly looked to the political sphere as the realm where the battle must be joined and waged. But this tact forces a conservative disposition into a different way of inhabiting the world altogether opposite to its “ethos,” finally undermining the preeminence of “ethos” in favor of “movement.” It can hardly be wondered that the contemporary apogee of “conservatism” was the ideological Presidency of GWB. A “movement” comes to crave power, losing sight of its “ethos.”

Last night the words “conservative” and “Republican” were used interchangeably; a moment’s reflection on the past eight – if not thirty – years would have given some pause.

A difficult task – one with which we struggle over often on FPR – is whether it’s possible to advance an “ethos” through politics and a political movement. One has to think carefully and prudently on this score. Good work has begun; much remains to be done.

If we have been reduced to a parade and a ‘boo’ whose fault is that?

Or is this just the state of affairs written into the DNA of Representative Govermint in a state of decline?

This is, of course, as opposed to a lot of talk about an ethos.

Movements love a parade.

Can’t believe no one got to that already…

Having said that, in the realm of political action where ‘right reason’ is so important, especially in a mass democracy, we must distinguish between the carriers of ‘right reason’ and those capable of carrying it. That is something we seem to have extinguished from our critical faculties in recent years in the realm of conservative ideas and actions.

The more I think about this comment, the more I am convinced that the statement you label as the converse is true. Political movements tend to devolve quickly into ideologies, and to be a member, one need not be of a certain disposition or have a particular general outlook on the world. In other words, when an ethos becomes a movement, the defining characteristic of members ceases to be a shared disposition towards the world and instead becomes agreement on a set of ideas, or, more like, policy proposals. Eventually, the ethos or disposition that once defined your ranks becomes, at most, a sideshow.

Conservatism in particular is ill-suited for movement status since its starting point is (or should be) what Wendell Berry calls “The Way of Ignorance.” That is, it should begin with an acknowledgement that there are certain things in the world that are just beyond the realm of human comprehension. That acknowledgement should create a degree of humility and willingness to be proved wrong, in addition to a deep trust of the things handed down through the centuries by those who might have possessed a deeper understanding. That openness to being proved wrong, that humility in the face of propositions one thinks to be true makes it difficult to propose concrete policies on a national or global scale with any degree of confidence, beyond policies that make it easier for local communities to solve their problems the best that they can.