From The Editor

By William Norman Grigg, Editor

“The age of chivalry is over,” sighed Edmund Burke in what is now the most famous passage of his Reflections on the Revolution in France. “That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded ... and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever.”

In this age of wrap-around rant radio and ubiquitous cable TV, “conservatism” has effectively been reduced to a set of potted slogans and truculent poses. There was a time, not so long ago, when conservatives could plausibly claim to represent the “politics of reality”; in the waning age of Bush the Lesser, the entire conservative movement has come to define itself by unstinting loyalty to a White House clique famously disdainful of those who reside in the “reality-based community.”

Out of tribal loyalty to the cause, conservatives are expected – nay, required – to dismiss the reality that the federal government, under Republican rule, has become larger, more expensive, and more dangerous than ever before, not just to those living within our borders but to the world at large.

It is impossible to imagine a conservative of the Robert Taft variety supporting a “war of choice” like the Iraq misadventure, or urging support for an open-ended, multi-generational “global democratic revolution” -- yet this is what current conservative orthodoxy dictates to its adherents.

Once it was the Soviet Union that waged wars of conquest and subversion in the name of “liberation”; under Bush the Blessed, it is the United States that has taken up that ideological jihad. To wage war, the State reverts to its essential nature – an engine of coercion, regimentation, death, and destruction. It breeds domestic impositions on liberty, both in terms of government internal security measures and informal cultural sanctions intended to silence dissent and enforce unanimity behind the war effort.

This was all understood by most conservatives as late as the Clinton era, when some of the most obstreperous contemporary Warhawks – even the likes of Sean Hannity – condemned Bill Clinton for waging needless foreign wars in Kosovo and elsewhere.

In May 1995, Bill Clinton insisted that it was impossible to “love your country and hate your government.” That same message is regurgitated hourly by GOP-aligned talking heads (“snarling” heads might be a better expression) on Fox News and talk radio.

During the first year of Bill Clinton's lamentable reign, his lounge singer half-brother Roger accused Rush Limbaugh of “treason” for criticizing and lampooning the “Commander-in-Chief.” That refrain has now been taken up by partisans of George W. Bush.

It's entirely likely that the same conservatives would re-discover their skepticism about presidential power and foreign military entanglements should Madame Hillary win the White House in 2008. They are able to make such sudden and complete shifts because they are not burdened with the ballast of principle.

There was a time, not terribly long ago, when conservatives would rather lose over a matter of principle than power through compromise. The only remaining conservative principle – if that word applies – is an appetite to obtain and retain power by any available means.

Please indulge me in a personal reflection at this point. Until quite recently, I worked for a right-wing organization that proudly boasted of its commitment to truth and principle. That working relationship – to me it was much more than a job; it was a crusade – ended after sixteen years in large measure because I didn't share the new management's enthusiasm for “riding the wave” behind the Republican Party.

Nor did I share the new management's view that The New American magazine, for which I had been a senior editor for twelve years, should eschew hard-core investigative journalism and hard-hitting constitutionalist commentary in order to make it “palatable” to the very people supporting our nation's descent into despotism: Bush-worshiping Republicans.

We must give them “milk before meat,” I was told on numerous occasions. So henceforth The New American would become a publication for milk drinkers.

This created a market vacancy for a publication catering to carnivores. That's what we intend Pro Libertate to be: Red-meat journalism devoted to the defense of freedom.

This installment serves as the equivalent of a pilot episode for a new television series. It will establish the themes we will follow and the tone we will take. It's our intention to expand this venture – not just by doing “journalism of first instance,” in the form of investigative reports, but also into multi-media, such as video and audio podcasting.

Whatever the technical means we use, we promise to provide the truth, as we're given the wisdom to understand it, without fear or favor, in the service of liberty.

William Norman Grigg, Editor