Daniel Larison and the Antiwar Conservatives

When push comes to shove, I'm a liberal. Which means I can tolerate the abuses and inanities of liberals more than the abuses and inanities of conservatives. I call this the aversion theory of allegiance. Nevertheless, I enjoy reading thoughtful "conservative" analysis, which is another way of saying that I like the kind of conservatives that conservatives don't like, who have little favor in the Republican Party as currently constituted. RINOs, I guess.

One such conservative is Daniel Larison, who writes and blogs for the American Conservative magazine and website. I found him by following links from the blog of Andrew Sullivan, himself another heretical conservative (although gay marriage, which he has forcefully championed for 25 years, is now gaining traction in right of center circles).

A few weeks ago, on February 27, Larison outlined the conservative objections to reflexive militarism. Antiwar conservatives, he said,

have been arguing for over ten years against aggressive foreign policy, preventive war, and military overreach on explicitly conservative grounds. We make arguments against the wastefulness and fiscal irresponsibility of unnecessary wars. We highlight the harm that war causes to military families, we make direct appeals to pro-life conservatives about the evils of unnecessary war and condemn the disdain for human life and dignity that go with it. We point to the strains that perpetual war puts on the military and on the men and women serving in it. We call attention to the damage that the warfare and security state does to our national security and to our constitutional liberties, and we rail against the growth in state power that perpetual war causes. I believe that there are many conservatives and Republicans still open to these arguments, provided that they are able to hear and read them on a regular basis.

The other day I told a friend that I don't want to engage in too much politics at this site, unless it was implicit in a philosophical argument. I think my ongoing thread about the folly of war and revenge fits into this framework. But maybe what I also meant was avoiding partisanship. When I read this post from Larison, I added a comment that these are the same arguments that I as a liberal also make. Larison responded that he agreed that these aren't necessarily conservative arguments but rather arguments that conservatives should find convincing.

That got me thinking: What are the arguments that a liberal might make in addition to those above, arguments a conservative might not accept? Let's think on that! More to come.

Peace out.