Conversation with a Conservative Comanche Indian
FLORIDA, June 30, 2012 — In contemporary politics, the views of Native Americans are rarely considered. While watching an opinion program, for instance, chances are that every ancestral demographic will have been represented within a week’s time; except for the one that was here before the pilgrims arrived.
Fortunately, Dr. David A. Yeagley is doing something to change this.The greatgreatgrandson
of Comanche dignitary Bad Eagle, he has been called “an American Indian Leonardo
DiVinci”. Bringing his work as “an author, scholar, classical composer, concert musician, (and) portrait artist” into the equation, this should come as no surprise. Nonetheless, Yeagley’s political perspectives have surely attracted the most attention.
A member of the right, he takes outspoken positions on issues such as illegal immigration and the spread of militant Islamism. There is far more to his philosophy, however, than the stuff of headline news.
Joseph F. Cotto: Support for centerright politics in Native American cultures is not, generally speaking, thought of as being widespread. How does your ancient heritage tie in with your contemporary political views?
Dr. David Yeagley: The preference of preservation is the pith of conservatism. To conserve, to reserve, to hold on to a tradition, an identity, a way of life—this is essential conservatism. No people in America are more focused on their traditions, however unrelated to present necessity, than are American Indians. American Indians represent the most conservative people in the country, if even by intuition and unarticulated ideology. Indians are simply conservative, albeit without political rhetoric. Indians live conservatism, rather than campaign for it. It is the way of all real Indians.
I personally consider this obvious. I recognize in America the White Anglo Saxon Protestant as the foundation of the country and the society. All else is historical addendum. I believe the WASP has the obligation to make every effort to preserve the American identity, both socially and governmentally. It isn’t a matter of having the right to. That is a given. It is a matter of grave responsibility. As I honor the American Indian conservative instinct of preserving Indian nations (or wistful facsimiles
thereof), I honor the WASP America, first and foremost. All else must be considered addition, not foundation.
Yes, there are a number of other significant European peoples (nationalities) which had major roles in the building and shaping of modern America; however, they are simply not the foundation, and they must never be thought of as equal to that foundation, or as important. No one would expect a Nigerian to become Chief of the Cheyenne, or a Lithuanian to become Chief of the Apache. And no one would consider an Indian tribe racist for being exclusive, intolerant, or nonegalitarian. Nor do I expect the WASP to turn over America to aliens, foreigners, or nonwhite leadership. This is catastrophic, obviously. Even the classical Greeks knew multiculturalism doesn’t work. Aristotle said the foreign element would never feel equal to the bluebloods, no matter what concessions given them, or status they achieved. They are forever a source is discontent, and actually inimical to a democracy.
Cotto: In American politics, labels have been overused to the extent that terms such as “conservative” and “liberal” are now essentially meaningless. Why do you suppose that this happened?
Dr. Yeagley: I don’t consider the terms meaningless at all. Conservative means wanting to hold on to historical values and culturally established morals and mores. Liberal means to undo all that has come before. I consider liberals to be Freudian—in that they manifest the Oedipal complex. They wish to destroy the father, or all that which the father has left for them. They hate the father. It is a deep seated craving to uproot his roots. Such instinct, politicized as ideology, is quite marketable, however, especially to the youth, who are naturally impatient of restraintand authority. They are quite willing to shout against the “status quo.”
Historically, the etymology of liberalism goes like this: Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Leftism, Liberalism, and Progressivism. Each term was meant to be more socially acceptable or more marketable. It’s all based on an appeal to envy the envy of the poor for the rich. “You owe me” is the mantra taught to anyone without a Cadillac—to protest anyone who has one. This is positively juvenile, denigrating, and essentially racist.
Liberals are indeed the racists, for the white have, and the darks have not. Therefore, the darks have been wronged by the whites. Liberalism is a godless social evaluation based on materialism, exclusively. It is pure Marxism. “I’ve been wronged” is the watchword. As a moral imperative, a moral advantage, it works best where there are Judeo-Christian sentiments in the society. But it is also very effective in impoverished nations whose internet and TV outlets let them know of the great glitter possessed by other (Western) societies.
Indeed, the free market is perhaps the deepest liability of capitalism or America’s republican form of democracy. All is a sell. As long as the immature can buy, and worse, vote, the situation is volatile. Liberalism can be pawned off as superior righteousness, when it is but convenient greed.
The breakdown of the family enhances social and psychological aberrancy. It is the distinct articulation of liberalism that the family is to be redefined—that is, destroyed. Thus, the American traditions cannot be effectively communicated to the next generation. So, if you ask how your thesis of terminology obfuscation evolved, I could actually say the market place itself had a lot to do with the obfuscation of the meaning of “conservative” and “liberal,” politics being the national bazaar of ideas.
Cotto: Libertarianism, specifically the Ron Paul variety, is often hailed as being the centerright’s
future. Do you think that this is the case? If it indeed is, would this be a positive development, in your opinion?
Dr. Yeagley: Libertarian-ism is not really conservatism. It is a skewed, imbalanced take on certain aspects of individualism. Individual freedom shouldn’t be idolized. No man is an island. What you do does affect others. Now, I think Ron Paul’s Constitutionalism was by far the truest. However, if I may use the medical doctor metaphor, if you call for amputation as the only solution, the only way to save the life, then I want some serious coaching on what it’s going to be like to live without an arm. Talk to me about it. Paul never really did. He just was very sure that amputation is the only thing that will save the country. I felt he needed to be a little more considerate of the nation as patient.
I don’t see libertarian-ism as a solution. It is too solipsistic, too selfish. It is moral responsibility turned amoral. That opens too many doors to deviant behavior.