Comments on: Conserving 18th Century Liberalism Isn’t Good Enough

By: David Grant

David Grant — Thu, 31 Jul 2014 17:30:54 +0000

I have to confess that I am also a bit unsure of the precise differences between reaction and neoreaction. Is neoreaction simply a species of reaction or a completely different animal? My own view is that this is because neoreaction is not sufficiently well-defined at this point. At the risk of heresy, I’d say that neoreaction is a conversation rather than an ideology. The goal of the conversation is to produce an ideology, but it’s not there yet. The difference between reaction and neoreaction thus seems to me not worth worrying about at this point.

By: Chris Graham

Chris Graham — Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:41:39 +0000

I’ve wanted to hear the difference between reaction and neoreaction, and I had some hope in reading this–like a tease–but I’m not sure you pointed out the differences between the two. How you describe neoreaction sounds like reaction to me. Any chance of clarification? Or a link you can suggest?

By: Mark Citadel

Mark Citadel — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 19:42:15 +0000

That depends on who you’re talking about. Some conservatives would actually like to see a federal government the size of the one that existed back at the Founding. Of course, these people are often discredited by the progressives, “you want a return to slavery!” “what about women’s right to vote!”

By: Hadley Bennett

Hadley Bennett — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 17:50:30 +0000

Right, but most Conservative pundits or intellectuals will forever pine for the 18th century. Politicians are an entirely different animal.

By: Nick B. Steves

Nick B. Steves — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 17:37:34 +0000

18th century liberalism?!! Today’s conservatives are trying to conserve 1990’s liberalism.

By: Conserving 18th Century Liberalism Isn’t Good Enough | Reaction Times

Conserving 18th Century Liberalism Isn’t Good Enough | Reaction Times — Sun, 06 Jul 2014 17:01:29 +0000

[…] Source: Social Matter […]