The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Re: Moving Forward

Text Size

Re: Moving Forward

By Robert Stacy McCain on 1.2.09 @ 8:19PM

J.P., while you were pondering Buckley, coincidentally so was I -- reading his final book, The Reagan I Knew.

It occurs to me that Buckley enjoyed the great advantage of beginning a movement ex nihilo. Yes, there were others at mid-century discontented with liberal hegemony at home and Soviet aggression abroad. But conservatism in the 1950s had very little in the way of an institutional base -- the think tanks and advocacy groups and policy journals and so forth. Buckley burst upon the scene in 1951, four years later launched National Review and from that point forward held an unrivaled preeminence in the public mind as a conservative intellectual.

Now I am sure that, had you asked the embattled Buckley in 1955 if he thought his isolated position to be an advantage, he would have rather had the help of many more allied forces than he then had. Yet at least he did not have to deal with the problem of we now have of a conservative Babel, where one can find people calling themselves "conservative" who advocate anything and everything, including many things quite the opposite of conservatism.

Al Regnery has pointed out how the success of conservatism has attracted hordes of opportunists, so that people who dream of Cabinet posts and congressional seats have an incentive to attach themselves to the banner, motivated mkore by personal ambition than by philosophical agreement. And as Mr. Regnery says, there were few opportunists in 1951 because there were few opportunities. We've seen a few rats (e.g., Ken Adelman) jumping off what they perceive to be a sinking ship, and one good reason to permit pessimism about a conservative revival -- WE'RE DOOMED BEYOND ALL HOPE! -- is to encourage more rats to jump ship.

Sanchez makes many good points, but to describe support for Sarah Palin as a "death spiral" strategy is to completely misunderstand the causes of Republican woe. Sanchez has a very good point here:

Washington is absolutely crawling with snake-oil salesmen who've discovered that you can make a tidy living extracting cash from credulous politicos who didn't learn anything from the last dot-com bubble, provided you're able to sling Web 2.0 jargon passably.

This is true, and as John Hawkins pointed out, the current wave of Republican technophilia is based on a profound misinterpretation of the Obama phenomenon. The high-tech stuff didn't drive the enthusiasm, the enthusiasm drove the high-tech stuff. And, uh, who has a growing online army of more than 60,000 enthusiastic supporters? The same person who is odds-on favorite for the nomination in 2012? It seems to me that a fairly obvious plan of action is at hand, if only the damned snobs would stop whining about it.

View all comments (18) | Leave a comment

Bob| 1.3.09 @ 7:59AM

RSM, what has gotten into you? You write a great and thoughtful piece on gay marriage and then another insightful blog here. Kudos.

As you probably know, I think Sarah Palin is a disaster for the party. The comparison between Palin and Obama is flawed, however. In a divided country like ours, the only way to win the presidency is to have crossover appeal. Obama not only attracted crossovers in the black, Hispanic, and young voters, but also in a block of moderate Republican voters just as Reagan brought in conservative Democrats. None of the polling information indicates Palin is capable of bringing in any crossover votes. She was considered unqualified by almost 60% of the population. Obama was considered qualified by the same 60%. Certainly she excites the base more than any Republican in recent history, but that is not enough, by far, to win a national election.

Martin| 1.3.09 @ 8:29AM

Buckley's claim to have invented Conservatism has always been infuriating. What the hell was Calvin Coolidge? Buckley merely took a temporarily weak Conservative movement, and added a number of features which had not previously been present and weren't properly speaking Conservative. Coolidge, if President in 2001-08, would neither have invaded Iraq nor invented the TARP program. We will almost certainly suffer badly from his absence.

Conservatism, to be pedantic, was forst defined in the Quarterly Review of January 1830 and means preserving the policies and beliefs of the great 1783-1830 Tory administrations. Coolidge was quite close to being a Conservative; Buckley and Reagan less so, Bush and Bill Kristol not at all.

Thomas| 1.3.09 @ 10:34AM

Once again we fight over the meaning of "conservatism". So allow me to throw my two cents in.

Who cares what a conservative is? People are who they are and they believe what they believe. The important thing to remember is that those people who form the bedrock of the so-called "conservative base", do not call themselves conservatives. They think of themselves as people. That a great many of them share similar philosophical views with regard to social and governmental issues is what causes them to support each other and move in a single direction. They do not wear uniforms or have secret handshakes to identify each other. They do not spend very much time agonizing over party affiliation, as they could care less what party a candidate belong to as long as he, or she, personifies their philosophical beliefs. And they do not spend very much time trying to define themselves. They know who they are.

So, if a political party wishes to garner the support of these people, it will adopt their philosophical ideals. If not, then the party can appeal to the rest of the electorate on the basis of pop culture. The Republican Party is free to do as it wishes and the rest of us will continue to support the candidate of our choice.

America; what a wonderful country.

Paleo Pat| 1.3.09 @ 2:27PM

Buckley was nothing more than a damned Neo-Con, Globalist Shill. Funded by well heeled Zionists to further their agenda. Anyone who tried to stand in his way or criticize him was labeled a racist or worse.

Many of Buckley's principles were applied to the Bush doctrine which ruined the G.O.P.

Take the rose colored classes off Boys, it's time t get real.

-Pat

vincep1974| 1.3.09 @ 3:12PM

What do you mean by Bush Doctrine?

Mike Showalter| 1.3.09 @ 4:40PM

Good one, vince. Hmm, paleo, I seem to remember Buckley was AGAINST the decision to go into Iraq, which was made more certain with the bombing of the Al-Askari Mosque, eh? But, then again, you never can trust those damned "well-heeled Zionists".

Edward G. Tripp| 1.3.09 @ 5:51PM

Let us go b ack a few decades. I worked hard to get the Conservative Party on the ballot in New York -- over the aggressive opposition of the Republican Party.
It was most disappointing to realize that many of the workers were Richard Riches, looking for positions rather than working for principle.

vincep1974| 1.3.09 @ 6:21PM

Mike: :) I was serious though. I dont know what he means by Bush Doctrine.

vincep1974| 1.3.09 @ 6:22PM

Isn't Daniel Pipes one of those neocons too? He was against the war.

Ran| 1.3.09 @ 8:21PM

"Buckley's claim to have invented Conservatism has always been infuriating. What the hell was Calvin Coolidge?"

Martin...
I'm with you on most of that. Buckley's echewing of groups such as the John Birch Society and the Randian libertarians, for example, probably hurt the movement. Precisely because he best and most illuminating arguments seem to flare up between Conservatives and Libertarians - whatever those terms mean.

Does it matter as long as the goal is to enhance and preserve the Liberty recognized in the Constitution and to combat the forces of collectivism and tyrannical authority?

To the idea of moving forward: I've very much taken to heart Peter Ferrara's column What Conservatives Must Now Do.

Damn the trolls; there's work to be done.

Mike Showalter| 1.3.09 @ 9:08PM

vince, the Bush Doctrine, I believe, is really a debate over the doctrine of "Pre-emtive War" and/or "preventive war - military action against emerging threats ", etc., used to justify attacking another country (Iraq) which has not, purportedly, attacked us (yet), which they see as a violation of "international law", hence all the fuss over Al Qaeda not being in Iraq, that Iraq wasn't behind 9/11, there was no WMD, etc., etc. Thus, the war was/is illegal and Bush (who wasn't really elected in 2000 anyway) should be impeached, hounded out of office, perp-walked, etc., along with Cheney and all the other "neo-con" war criminals.

This is really a dispute over the validity of the UN Charter which has failed to keep up with the times, but to which, in its current use, the left is obsequiously compliant. Instead of using international law to try and stop future Hitlers (terrorist states, Saddam, Ahmadinejad) which was the basis for the United Nations alliance after WWII, international law is now used to subordinate the US Constitution. Hope that helps.

vincep1974| 1.3.09 @ 10:01PM

Mike: Thanks. So which of Buckley's ideas contributed to it?

Mike Showalter| 1.3.09 @ 10:58PM

vince, can't help you there, exactly. I should qualify my original statement about Buckley's support for the war. Like nearly everyone at the time, Buckley supported the decision to go into Iraq. There was national consensus, or seemed to be, Saddam had to go. And there seemed to be ample justification for the action in the spirit of the original mandate of the UN. However, this was Iraq, Islam, not another Germany, and as the war continued (I purposely did not choose to use "progressed"), his support waned, especially after the Al-Askari Mosque bombing. I believe the transition of our mission from deposing Saddam, to our assuming responsibility for rebuilding its government is where he parted company with the liberals' favorite whipping boy, the 'neo-cons'. Westernizing Iraq, I believe, he considered a bridge too far. We shall yet see. George W. Bush has put his presidency on the line in the belief it could be done.

So, coming back to your question, perhaps it was a Buckley idea, though mind you, it certainly was not exclusively his, that contributed to the 'Bush Doctrine' as understood and/or promoted by the MSM, et.al., was merely that Hitler should've been stopped, likewise Saddam, as was intended by the UN in its infancy. That's the best I can do.

Mike Showalter| 1.3.09 @ 11:24PM

One last comment. Buckley's life was a painting, illustrating for us the alternative to the liberals' obsessive rationalism. Either we're enlightened creatures, or we're created by lightening. That is what we need to remember, and in the end, we win!

Eric Dondero| 1.4.09 @ 9:17AM

Bob again, has his proverbial head up his anus. He discounts Libertarians. Doesn't view Libertarians as Independents. Only "Moderate Centrists" count on the Independent line.

Yoh Bob, Sarah Palin was responsible for bringin a HUGE AMOUNT of Libertarians to the McCain ticket in 2008.

Fact:

Bob Barr, Libertarian for President was polling as high as 6% in Zogby in mid-Summer, even an astounding 11% in New Hampshire and 10% in Nevada. He was well on his way to being 2008's Ross Perot. Hell, he even had Perot's Campaign Manager Russ Varney.

Then he immediately tanked when Palin was picked.

Palin had a long history of working closely with the Libertarian Party of Alaska. They endorsed her in her 2006 Governor's bid.

The reason why Sarah Palin would be the most brillant of picks for the GOP in 2012, is PRECISELY because she can attract the often wayward Libertarian swing voters.

How many elections did the GOP lose this year due to the Libertarian Party.

The GOP came within a hair of losing that Georgia Senate seat cause the LP got 3.4% in that race.

Sorry Bob, but once again you've got your facts all out of whack.

Bob| 1.4.09 @ 9:42AM

Eric, you need to do your homework. This is a summary of Bob Barr polls by month:

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/candidates/Bob-Barr.html

If you actually go by state and look at the specific poll dates, you'd see that Barr dropped off BEFORE Palin was chosen as VP. Let me repeat, THE BOB BARR FALLOFF OCCURRED BEFORE PALIN WAS CHOSEN AND WAS NOT DUE TO HER.

Like I have said, you guys need to learn how to do analysis. While there is no data to determine why they switched back to McCain (again, it was not because of Palin), my guess (and it is only a guess), is that there were a number of Libertarians/independents who were disillusioned with McCain who decided to come back into the fold in the same way as Hillary voters came back to Obama.

ruth| 1.4.09 @ 10:40PM

Bob, you're a lonely voice in the wilderness. You're going to need tranquilizers when you realize the support 'your party' has for Sarah Palin. Hope you're not hyper-tensive.

Bob| 1.5.09 @ 7:08AM

Ruth, I hope that Palin is the chosen candidate for 2012. First, the chances that anyone can beat Obama in 2012 is small and secondly, it will prove once and for all that moving to the hard right is a party killer. She would lose by a larger margin than McCain. If she does, will you admit that you are wrong?