- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
AmSpecBlog
Saving Reformist Conservatism from the Reformist Conservatives
It seems to me that the self-styled reformist conservatives have made some tactical errors that make it less likely that their project will succeed. The first and most obvious is allowing their least conservative members to serve as their most prominent spokesman, though I suppose Uval Levin or Ross Douthat can't help the fact that the New York Times op-ed page is still a bigger platform than even National Review or a blog hosted by the Atlantic. Relatedly, they have allowed reformist conservatism to be set in opposition to most actual conservatives, which may well doom its prospects for gaining any adherents on the right. Condescension seldom wins converts.
The biggest blunder in this area, in my view, was suggesting that reformist conservatism was an improvement over Reaganism. If it is actually conservatism and not a revived Rockefeller Republicanism or David Cameron-style Toryism (or David Brooksism), then Reaganism ought to be the best example of what these reformists are trying to accomplish: taking conservatism away from the realm of abstraction or Goldwaterite exhortations to eat your vegetables and applying it to the pressing concerns of the electorate. Reagan wasn't as pure a small-government man as Goldwater, but neither did he completely abandon limited government while trying to serve middle-class economic interests. Instead, he won policy victories on behalf of limited government in certain areas by tying those principles to the real needs of the American people.
That is, if the reformist conservatives want to succeed they need to formulate a Reaganism for our times. I say this not because I'm sympathetic to the big-government conservatism of many reformists. But I do believe that conservative principles have to be applied to issues like health care or economic anxieties in intelligent ways if the country is to stop electing Obamas. The key is to come up with policies that are both solutions and conservative in some meaningful sense.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Are you in a mob?
The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?
Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Thomas| 11.12.08 @ 9:33AM
Still don't get it, do you. Just like all of the other people out there who are not really conservative, you fail to understand the simple truths of Conservatism.
First, reduce the size and scope of government.
If you want to truly serve middle-class economic interests, get out of the way. Let the economy take care of itself. The current financial crisis was caused by direct intervention in a segment of the economy that the Government has no business being involved in. Health care costs have been growing a multiples of the rate of inflation for forty years. Simply because of the third party payer system, which was originally the nearly exclusive domain of the government [medicare, medicaid, etc.]. This made it necessary for the middle class to procure a private third party payer, private health insurance, to meet the increasing cost of medical treatment.
And stop lying to the American people.
That is all that is necessary. Do not spend a lot of time trying to formulate cheap advertising gimmicks. Simple truth, honor and the American way will suffice.
People will take anything that they think is free. But there is no free lunch. Everything has a price. We are entering an orgy of public spending that will be unprecedented in the history of this country. And we will all have to pay the bill. Even as I write this the Democrats in Congress are spending huge sums of money to patch the crumbling walls of a financial house whose foundation they were instrumental in undermining for their own short term political gain.
Oh and one more thing to remember. Conservatives do not need the Republican Party. The Republican Party needs Conservatives. If a good conservative third party candidate comes along, Conservatives will vote for him.
Captain America| 11.12.08 @ 9:55AM
I suppose that after every defeat there are going to be navel gazers. It happened to the Democrats with their search for "value voters" not that long ago. You do remember "value voters" don't you?
But the reformists are selling snake oil. This election loss was not about fundamental shifts in the electorate and a need for reform. It was about a referendum on President Bush and his administration. When considering the mismanagement of the Iraq War between the invasion and the surge, when you consider the daily drumbeat of the finance crisis, voters were running away from the Republican ticket and towards "change," change to what is unfortunately what we will soon find out.
Robert Stacy McCain| 11.12.08 @ 10:03AM
First of all, Thomas, it's wrong to say that Antle is "not really conservative."
Second, Jim, your point about Brooks's platform at the NY Times -- size matters, eh? -- is very important to what's going on here. Brooks and George Will at the Washington Post are able to push their anti-populist arguments into the mainstream, confusing many people as to what's actually gone wrong. I am reminded of those Republicans wh0 to this day continue to insist that Proposition 187 is the root of all GOP woes, when nine out of 10 U.S. voters never even heard of Prop 187.
Third, on Reagan: He always advocated the conservative side of any policy dispute, and accepted compromise when politically necessary. This is very different than what the Brookses of the world counsel. Their argument is for pre-emptive compromise, urging Republicans to endorse policies that represent a middle way between two (theoretical) extremes. If you don't understand why that approach is flawed, you've got no business in politics. Reagan was always willing to settle for 75 percent of what he wanted, but you can't forge that kind of compromise if you don't begin by asking for 100 percent.
Bob| 11.12.08 @ 10:13AM
Captain America - still drinking that KoolAid? The electorate is changing -- more young voters, more Hispanic voters, more black voters and less old white voters. Republicans are losing in all of the growing demographic groups by a 2 to 1 margin and are "whiter" than ever before. The Republican base is dying off. Did Bush contribute to the problem? Yes, but Republicans still would have lost.
Neither your position as a reactionary or becoming more Democrat, i.e., reform, is the answer. The party needs a NEW set of principles that targets growing demographic groups and reduces the importance of social conservatives who are preventing progress. If you didn't notice, Democrats are moving away from litmus tests in regard to abortion while Republicans are clinging closer. One of Emanuel's successful state strategies was to recruit more conservative Democrats and they won seats from Republicans. The Democrats under Obama and Emanuel are pretty smart. The Republicans are dumb about building a governing coalition.
Look forward, not back...
James Shewmaker| 11.12.08 @ 11:29AM
Thomas,
You are apparently illiterate. Jim Attle's article is written in opposition to big government RINOs.
JHS
Defeat The Bluebloods; Support The Goldwaters.
Thomas| 11.12.08 @ 12:14PM
Robert,
Why is it wrong to say that Mr. Antle is not really conservative? Expound please?
Ran Hay| 11.12.08 @ 8:16PM
RSM: Well said about Reagan.! I'd [respectfully] add that Reagan didn't win with his majorities because he started off in agreement with the mob... Rather he won converts to his way of seeing things with the inherent optimism of his viewpoint. "The pie will be bigger" said he and damn if it didn't grow.
Reagan didn't "target" demographic groups because groupthink is a marxist concept. He targeted INDIVIDUALS... individuals with dreams.
Gotta love that toss-off about "the party needs a NEW set of principles that targets growing demographic groups and reduces the importance of social conservatives who are preventing progress." Now that's comedy!
Bob| 11.13.08 @ 5:11AM
So Ran, you liked my "toss-off"? Listen to the Republican governors. NONE of them talked about social conservatives and they all reiterated my point. Pawlenty said almost precisely the same thing. The governors all applauded when he said the party must provide a more intelligent response than "Drill, Baby, Drill" and talk about wind, solar, etc., just like I have done. (In case you don't understand, this was a real dig at the know nothing Palin). What most of you reactionaries don't understand is that the Republicans that are winning right now are the ones that realize the GOP has become the OWP -- the "Old White Party".
Again, social conservatives are the new RINO's. Get used to it. It will be the governors who give Republicans a chance -- not reactionary Reaganites and intolerant social conservatives.