i thought "this man needs to read his edmund burke."dmund burke gave us the phrase "civil society." now, people can be confused about that. it doesn't mean we have to be nice to each other all the time. bill buckley was not nice to his political opponents. what it means is one has to recognize that we're all part of what should be our harmonious culture, and that we respect the political institutions that bind it together. edmund burke, a very interesting passage in his great book, the "reflections on the revolution in france," uses the words "government" and "society" almost interchangeably. he sees each reinforcing the other. it is our institutional patrimony. when someone in the floor of congress dishonors, disrespects, the office of the president, he's actually striking-- however briefly, however slightingly-- a blow against the institutions that our society is founded on. and i think edmund burke might have some trouble with that. >> moyers: there's long been a fundamental contradiction at the heart of this coalition that we call "

he said his two great intellectual guides were hegel and edmund burke. so when sam recommends that erican conservatives should be more burkean. i say we shoullook at the way woodrow wilson falkenberg, no source a all. birk proved to be no work against ever-expanding liberalism. i think the second sign might be the idea that david brooks advanced in which they briefly refers to in his book which is that behold, barac obama has some affinity for burke. or so david brooks rorted. it easy to accuse hegel andfound berg, i'm loong for to a future memoir from obama what he gives a burkean to tunes and union views. well, the sort of stiff foremothers of history of progress have receded into literally anymore what was thought of 100 years ago but the sentimental ridue i argue lingers on. and the underlying attitude of history as an intelligible process has become so embedded in the furnishing of the liberal mind that its pedigree is no longer be called. it explains why liberalism presumes the illegitimacy of conservative orthodoxy without having to argue the matt

wilson said the two intellectual guys were hagel and edmund burke, so when sam recommends american conservate should be more burkean i always say we should look the way woodrow wilson found bur no source said all four sweeping awayhe exting foundations of american political fraud. burke woulde noble. i think the second difficulty on this point might be the idea that david burke in which sam refe to in his book which is that the whole bark obama has some affinity for burke corso david brooks reported and just ask woodrow wilson have found easy woodrow wilson found it easy to use hagelnd burke in the memoir from obama where he gets the burr key and the near to sol alinsky's new litigants. the sort of staff formal terese of history or progress that seem to be missed ando one really believes that liberally the way it was thought 100 years ago but this sentimental residue i argue linkers on and the underlying attitude of history as unintelligible process has become so embedded in the furnishings of the liberal mind that its pedigree is no longer recall the and it explains why liberalism presents t

over the past 25 years but conservatism the way ihas been defined over the past two centuries by edmund burke, by russell kurd, by bill buckley. there's a great line for a quote buckley in 2005 when news of the but george w. bush. he says, george w. bush is no conservative. he said conseatives, whether we like it or not, we conservatives are chained to reality, which that is out on on edmund burke. if you want to boil that message down, it ishat we are part of our time. we are chain to reality. we came to inaugural addresses-- you risbeck reality. you don't as buckley said of bush you don't go into iraq and say we are going to bring democracy to these people and they are going to throw flowers that us and everything is being going to be okay. you don't give inaugural addresses were you say we are going into tyranny on the globe, the president's words. that is utopianism. that is wilsonian. so, the last best hope. >> host: it certainly is aggressivelso. aggressive. >> guest: as you said the mission ineiationlso but here is the dl. one of the reasons republicans are having such a hard time righ

remember a leader who perverted a religion to justify his actions and i'm reminded of the famous edmund burke who once said the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, which is exactly what too many christian leaders did in that day, nothing. this erie similarity exists today, not with the leader who quotes the bible, but with one who quotes the koran. his comments echos those of hitler's. his stated goal is the same. so what is necessary for peace? i would contend that there will be no peace until leaders around the world, regardless of faith denounce this, until leaders within the muslim community reject this rhetoric and leaders of the islamic state sean such hate speech. whether someone builds a second home within a defined community does not withstand between war and peace. a community of citizens who prefer religion to justify hate and murder stand in the way of peace. this is what we should all fear. it was radical islamic terrorists who attacked the united states on september 11, who blew up subways in the u.k. this ideology is the true barrier to p

edmund burke, reflectionr on the revolution of french. i don't like to put this book on their list, but i hope all of you have read it, aorb it. if you haven't i encourage y to do so because the first time i came to washington and started interacting with my fellow conservatives, i thought you must not have read this book to require remember going to a party that was thrown by someone who was quite famous right now, and he said was throwing a celebration the french revolution party. i thought you got to be kidding me? i thought that was crazy then. i still think it's crazy now, but a lot of the principles that berkeley that would seem to be vital and crucial and true are things that i think rob a lotf people been in a knee-jerk way the wrong way. that they misled the age of chivalry is gone. how many conseatives today actually have no problem with that? how many of us today would say th back the other great thing about burke, every paragraph is quotable. i found this in my detriment as i was flipping through the book again and wanted to q

leadershipeople hav forgotten rhaps just to define what we mean by conservatives it's the tradition of edmund burke and russell kirk preserving and building upon successful traditions of civilization, limited government, maintaining values and maintaing fiscal prudence, attacks on government structure which allows freedom and economic prosperity, decent respect for the opinions of mankind. this is what i think we would all agree. what we got with republicans was something quite different. >> john, do you think that the consensus as it seems here at the panel is conservatism isn't dead, the gallup poll showed and kelly conaway's poll buthe gallup poll showed by a ftor of 2-1 americans conservative over liberal. and it seems like that bush during the bush years scott labeled conservative, but he wasn't a conservative. he was up until obama the largest social spender in history. he engaged the united states of foreign adventurism that i don't think had great support within the party itself. and i want to throw out the question to be think that the republican party is no longer the vehicle for conserva