President Eisenhower privately referred to them as mossback conservatives.
Conservative iconoclast Peter Viereck coined a more elegant term: ottantotists – the Italian term for 88’ers, referring to those old French monarchists and counterrevolutionaries who doggedly maintained that following the collapse of the ’89 revolution the clock really could be turned back to 1788.
Viereck had no use for those kinds of conservative ideologues in his day who, for example, had deluded themselves into believing that with electoral victory would follow the halcyon days of the past, whether those of the pre-Civil War or the pre-New Deal American republic.
I share Viereck’s frustration.
There really are those among us who believe passionately that clocks can magically be turned back in time, that all that has been lost over the past 30, 40, 50, even 150 years can somehow be painstakingly restored.
Add to that people who resist constructive change even if it means eventual dispossession, if not outright extinction.
I’ve have been reminded of this over the last couple of years reading about the firestorm of words that has ignited among alumni over a proposed name change at Mississippi University for Women.
Never mind the fact that MUW has been admitting men since 1982 or that other formerly women-only schools, notably Florida State University, have achieved resounding success following name changes.
Some of the names advanced included Reneau University and Waverly University.
Many “W girls,” as alumni are commonly known, aren’t buying it, despite the institution’s courageous president staking her presidency on the change and painting a bleak picture of the school’s future barring such a change.
This name change would have offered MUW with an opportunity for a fresh start, including enhanced prospects for increased male enrollment.
After years of study, which included focus groups and committees of local Columbus citizens and alumni, there seems to be no prospect for a name change. Facing a 25 percent state budget cut, school’s prospects look exceedingly bleak.
The same sort of rigid, uncompromising thinking is reflected time and again in ideological conservative ranks.
People ask me why I employ such a strange term as red tory instead of conservative. This is why.
The term really doesn’t translate well into the American context, and, frankly, that is why I chose it.
Historically speaking, red toryism, perhaps best reflected in the principles of one-nation conservative Benjamin Disraeli, has reflected a willingness to face up to reality.
I use it to underscore how conservatism must evolve into a post-modern form that takes firmly into account what has transpired since the end of WWII. We conservatives have to come to terms with the fact that the post-modernist tide isn’t going to be turned back. We must remain in active dialogue with post-modernism with the aim of refining it and humanizing it to the fullest degree possible.
In a candid letter to his rigidly ideological brother, Edgar, President Eisenhower outlined the fate awaiting any political movement that refused active enagement with the present.
Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this — in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything–even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
That letter was written in 1954, but Ike’s progressive conservative views are just as valid and relevant today.
Musings of an American Red Tory 