The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Yesterday's Conservatism

Text Size

Yesterday's Conservatism

By W. James Antle, III on 12.8.08 @ 11:46AM

David Frum's post on George Packer's latest provides a valuable insight as to what motivates some, though by no means all, self-styled reformist conservatives: "While political conservatism is founded upon deep and enduring truths, political conservatism itself is a political movement that arose in response to certain conditions and that must fade with those conditions."

Modern American conservatism, therefore, was a movement that rose up in reaction to the social turmoil of the 1960s, the economic problems of the 1970s, and the United States' deteriorating strategic position in the Cold War during that period. It contains some valuable insights that can be applied to today's problems and there needs to be some political movement that is more friendly to markets, skeptical of domestic government intervention, and willing to project American military power than the coalition or movement that elected Barack Obama. But Buckley-Reagan conservatism's moment has passed into history along with Abbie Hoffman, stagflation, and the Soviet Union. Reformist conservatism is about replacing it with something else.

It refreshing to see this argument stated expressly rather than merely implied, and it is a challenging point of view. It is also an indication as to why reformist conservatives have had such trouble gaining traction on the right -- that's not close to how most American conservatives see conservatism.

View all comments (8) | Leave a comment

Mary| 12.8.08 @ 2:52PM

Mr. Antle, does this really pass a syllogism test?

While political conservatism is founded upon deep and enduring truths, political conservatism itself is a political movement that arose in response to certain conditions and that must fade with those conditions.

How about this from O'Rourke?

In how many ways did we fail conservatism? And who can count that high? Take just one example of our unconserved tendency to poke our noses into other people's business: abortion. Democracy--be it howsoever conservative--is a manifestation of the will of the people. We may argue with the people as a man may argue with his wife, but in the end we must submit to the fact of being married. Get a pro-life friend drunk to the truth-telling stage and ask him what happens if his 14-year-old gets knocked up. What if it's rape? Some people truly have the courage of their convictions. I don't know if I'm one of them. I might kill the baby. I will kill the boy.

[...]

If the citizenry insists that abortion remain legal--and, in a passive and conflicted way, the citizenry seems to be doing so--then give the issue a rest. Meanwhile we can, with the public's blessing, refuse to spend taxpayers' money on killing, circumscribe the timing and method of taking a human life, make sure parental consent is obtained when underage girls are involved, and tar and feather teenage boys and run them out of town on a rail.

Can we really refuse to be absorbed in all of this? Can we refuse to hand over taxpayer dollars? Can we really circumscribe "the timing and method of taking a human life" when the same citizenry will likely be just as "conflicted and passive" on these attendant issues because they break hard against a federal mandate on hair-trigger alert? As much as I like and respect O'Rourke, some of what he writes in this piece if not psychobabble, is very much on the verge.

I point this out not because I'm a single issue voter. I'm not. I would have voted for Giuliani or whoever the nominee was. Nixon gave us Harry Blackmun. Giuliani might have given us another Scalia or Roberts.

But, Mr. Antle, in the end what Frum and his fraternity ask of us is to jettison our beliefs.

It may be that the world has become so complex, and that America's global relationships are so complex that the Government must master, with ever increasing muscle and dexterity, the lives of all of her citizens. Moreover, this inescapable paternalism must only be advanced using matriarchal manners.

I have no desire to trade enduring truth for whatever it is that Frum, and those of his philosophy offer in its place.

No one will read Frum 50 years from now, Augustine and Burke and some of the Divines will never die. Theodore (what a perfect name) Dalrymple -an oh-so eirenic unbeliver- quotes an old Divine name Hall with a spirit that is hard to find among Christians.

I've never been open to voting for a 3rd party until recently. I'm also open to not voting at all. I don't believe it is either cowardly or immoral not to vote.

I will continue to pay my taxes. As a property-less (by choice) person, I'm not spotted a single exemption. If I knew that my tax dollars were being spent wisely, and that they were used attempting to inculcate enduring truths, and producing truly good fruit, I would care even less than I already do, and that's a negligible sum.

In the long run, Democrats might even prove better and wiser than Republicans in administering big government because they believe in it and they love it. It's their god, and they're likely to learn from mistakes and successfully hold on to their power.

I'm going for the Road less traveled, Mr. Antle, because I think it's the best of choice of all the divergent (and not so divergent) paths before me.

Bob| 12.8.08 @ 4:21PM

Frum is absolutely right in his analysis of conservatism in the Republican party today. Just as economic theories come and go, Reagan conservatism has come and gone. As the Republican party becomes less relevant, we are losing people to both Democrat and Independent marques. Voter analysis is showing that the Republican party is shrinking. The problem is that instead of being a coalition as in the past, it is increasingly becoming the intolerant party of so-cons as they become a greater percentage of registered Republicans. This portends a downward spiral of the party until it is reformed along the lines that Pawlenty and Jindal have recommended and so-cons are not the dominant factor in the party, or at least no longer have veto power over the choice of candidates.

Ran Hay| 12.8.08 @ 6:39PM

Mr. Antlle: "It refreshing to see this argument stated expressly rather than merely implied, and it is a challenging point of view."

The challenge in such an argument falls to one's patience. The very same principles of Liberty and individual responsibility that founded the nation were the principles adopted by Reagan.

Fading conditions? Those "conditions" have not indeed faded: Frum merely conflates the effects with the causes. Socialism and the mindset of passed responsibility have nay effects. The present economic crisis is yet another, as was the USSR now behind us. New ones will yet emerge because the Statist-Socialist urge will be ever mutate.

The point of Buckley-Reagan - The point of the emergence of political conservatism was that it was an application of timeless principles of Liberty, rugged individualism, personal responsibility and Faith. These too can be applied in ever new means to defeat mutations of the Statist-Socialist cancer.

What drives me nuts about Frum and his ilk is the assumption that we can lead Conservatism by adopting the false premises of the Left - such as environmental hysteria. 'Tis mediocrity, not big-shouldered leadership. Real leadership would ask that we begin by actively undoing much of the social damage caused by faulty premises... I'd personally start by canning the Departments of Education and the EPA on Day One in office.

It is Frum and Brooks who are fading. This notion that "Reagan Conservatism" was something unique is too, fading. Liberty, Faith and rugged individualism are timeless.

[Why, hello Bob! Impressive! Why, are you the very same genius who boasted that, at a mere ten years of age, translated the Pentateuch from the "original" Aramaic? All this time I had been reading the darned thing in Hebrew! No wonder it's been so difficult. Did you perchance translate the Iliad from the original Latin as well? Um... the 'Life of Brian' from the original Welsh, perhaps?]

Bob| 12.8.08 @ 7:02PM

Ran, as I stated before, part of the Torah was written in biblical Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew. If you don't know the difference, then you have a problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Aramaic

By the way, Reagan conservatism is, indeed dead. He never FORCED faith on the party as the so-cons want to do. Furthermore, the supply side economics of the Reagan era no longer produce positive results.

Canning the departments of education and the EPA will do little to make the government small. Getting rid of Medicare and Social security will. Perhaps we can convince people to live shorter lives. Cutting government at the fringes will make little difference.

By the way, how much did Reagan cut the size of government???? That was the point Frum was making.

Bob| 12.8.08 @ 7:13PM

One more point.. If you look up the number of federal workers per thousand population and rank Presidents on their success to make government smaller, you get this data:

JFK/LBJ +2.02%
Nixon/Ford -1.77%
Carter -1.77%
Reagan +.10%
GHW -1.43%
Clinton -2.80%
GW -1.09%

So Reagan's conservatism was just hot air that people like you bought like a pet rock. As RSM has said, you can have your own opinions, but you cannot have your own facts.

(By the way, I bought it too when I voted for him. I no longer drink that KoolAid.)

Ran Hay| 12.8.08 @ 8:22PM

Not so fast, Bob. "Ran, as I stated before, part of the Torah was written in biblical Aramaic, the rest in Hebrew. If you don't know the difference, then you have a problem."

You stated clearly and unambiguously that you had translated the Five Books of Moses from the "original Aramaic." The problem I have is that no part of those volumes was ever originally in Aramaic. As an Orthodox Jew who has read his history (and the Pentateuch three times a week) I can point to facts and to your errors.

Parts of the Talmud portions of the Torah are in Aramaic (and other languages) yes, but that does nothing to salvage the damage to your credibility. The Talmud is not contained in the Pentateuch. They are separate entities written over very separate times; Each comprise portions of the Torah. (The Five being far older than the Talmud.) Aramaic is a more modern variation of the Semitic root languages. The Hebrew used in the Five is ancient. I repeat for the record: No part of the Five Books of Moses - the Pentateuch - was ever originally in Aramaic, let alone all five volumes.

Dude, I know the difference... I live it every day of my life. Every day I recite prayers in both languages and nope, I have no problem with it.

Go read the Wiki a bit more closely. If that has you confused, any Orthodox or Conservative Rabbi will clear it up for you.

So, as to our own facts... Care to revise anything else you've offered?

Right. Where were we? As for cutting government... Symbolic EPA heads rolling would be a good start, yes? I'm with you on non-Constitutional entitlements. I'd see your Medicare cuts and raise you a Flat Tax and another Samuel Alito.

As for Reagan's Conservatism being hot air, well, something had to float the balloon... Frum's is a lot of Green CO2 and CH4, and, er, it's not going anywhere.

John Lofton| 12.8.08 @ 11:05PM

Forget "conservatism," please. It has been Godless and thus irrelevant. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It .is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com