- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
AmSpecBlog
The Dead Right
I've been prodded to read and comment on this Sam Tanenhaus essay pronouncing conservatism dead. Tanenhaus is a smart guy who knows quite a bit about the conservative movement, much more than most liberal writers. But I'm not terribly impressed by his eulogy for the right. Uncharacteristically, Tanenhaus makes little effort to understand conservatives on their own terms. Instead we get embarrassingly tendentious liberal cliches like this:
Today, the situation is much bleaker. After George W. Bush's two terms, conservatives must reckon with the consequences of a presidency that failed, in large part, because of its fervent commitment to movement ideology: the aggressively unilateralist foreign policy; the blind faith in a deregulated, Wall Street-centric market; the harshly punitive "culture war" waged against liberal "elites."
This completely airbrushes out the "responsible" center-left's initial support for the Iraq war, the fact that the biggest "deregulation" relevant to banking was signed into law by Bill Clinton, the left's own role in the "harshly punitive 'culture war'" (which side imposed their will on the electorate via the courts?), and of course any distinctions between Bush's crony capitalism meets Sarbanes-Oxley meets bailouts and the laissez faire wild west of Tanenhaus' fevered imagination.
Then there's this:
There is instead almost universal agreement--reinforced by the penitential testimony of Alan Greenspan and, more recently, by grudgingly conciliatory Republicans--that the most plausible economic rescue will involve massive government intervention, quite possibly on the scale of the New Deal/Fair Deal of the 1930s and '40s and perhaps even the New Frontier/Great Society of the 1960s. All this suggests that movement doctrine has not only been defeated but discredited.
But the reason the wingnuts of the conservative movement gained power in the first place was because the mangerial liberalism of the New Frontier/Great Society ultimately did not solve problems that confronted millions of Americans at the time: stagflation, social unrest, family breakdown, crime, concern about the United States' power. I'm obviously not arguing that Bush proved equal to the challenges of his time either, but it is telling that liberals don't have anything more to offer than warmed-over versions of the programs that helped throw them out of power in the first place. Is liberalism dead too?
Of course, Tanenhaus doesn't even acknowledge the problems liberalism failed to solve. The "culture war" is presented as if it reflected nothing more than resentments of the "liberal elite." Clinton's work on welfare reform is just "collaborating" with the Republicans. The closest we get to an acknowledgment of liberal failure is a lament that "liberals unwittingly squeezed themselves into the stereotypes conservatives had invented." For an essay recommending a less ideological conservatism, a pragmatic application of Disraeli and Burke, Tanenhaus has more to say about ideological politics than he does about right or wrong, good policy and bad policy, and problems or solutions.
I'll post more later on some areas where I think Tanenhaus is closer to the mark.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Real American| 2.4.09 @ 3:47PM
It is simply amazing that Republicans always get blamed for the "Culture Wars" when it is the lefties who are constantly challenging the status quo, usually through coercion and the courts (as you stated.) And yet, they act as if the burden is on the conservatives to show why the status quo should remain rather than on them to show why it should be changed.
Plus, the culture war is nearly always presented as fair-minded progressives advancing through history establishing wonderful rights for everybody and those mean ol' conservatives are trying to desperately maintain their Christian, racist, sexist, homophobic stranglehold on oppressive power. What a joke!
Alan Brooks| 2.4.09 @ 4:07PM
"crime, family breakdown"... drugs, porn, gangs, prostitution... and on and on and on and on... quote the Raven, forevermore
Ran| 2.4.09 @ 4:34PM
Reminds one of Senator Harry 'the Undertaker' Reid's sad attempt at self-fulfilling prophesy: "The war is lost." Heh. Reagan is Dead. [Long Live Reagan!]
Brian B | 2.4.09 @ 4:35PM
When was the last time a political essay that started out "The Death of....(fill in the blank)" was worth reading? The premise is false so why waste the time?
Individualsim v statism, expanded government v limited government, socialism v capitalism are ideas which have existed in one form or another since the dawn of man as a political being and they always will.
Red Phillips| 2.4.09 @ 4:45PM
The failure of mainstream movement "conservatism" has actually open things up on the right for an alternative, one that is actually conservative.
Alan Brooks| 2.4.09 @ 5:05PM
an alternative without libertarians?
you will find libertarian morality is in total not quite family fare-- not at all, despite what they may say.
people lie even more than you think.
Alan Brooks| 2.4.09 @ 5:52PM
if libertarians were conservative, they would call themselves conservatives.
i believe you will find a right-coalition harder to coalesce than you think.
Thomas| 2.4.09 @ 6:01PM
Alan is correct. Libertarians are not conservatives. That is why conservatives don't bother to court them. In fact conservatives don't court any one. Conservatives are not a movement. Conservatives are a bunch of individuals that share certain philosophical beliefs and simply do not abandon those beliefs. In fact, the average conservative is not really political. They simply vote for those that represent their beliefs. They do not build coalitions.
Red Phillips| 2.4.09 @ 6:20PM
Libertarianism is fundamentally a leftist philosophy. It is one endpoint of Enlightenment individualism. But in reality it is more complicated than that. Paleolibertarians and authentic (paleo)conservatives share a lot of common ground on policy if not underlying philosophy. The paleolibertarianism and constitutionalism of Ron Paul, for example, is almost entirely conservative in effect.
I agree that conservatives will always have a hard time forming a coalition with God hating and all authority snubbing modal (leftist) libertarians.
ruth| 2.4.09 @ 6:33PM
No wonder I have so much trouble with libertarian bloggers.
Paul E. More| 2.4.09 @ 8:44PM
Another reason that Libertarianism in practice as well as in a philosophical sense doesn’t fit in well with real conservatism is that Libertarians want to reduce things to the State vs. the Individual. What they don’t realize is that the Individual alone can’t win versus the State. The Individual (to the extent conservatives think he exists in reality as opposed to the concept being a mere abstraction) needs community, family, tradition and roots to protect himself from centralized power such as a national modern government bureaucracy.
The bottom line is that Libertarian ideas frequently end up enabling those who would create an all powerful government by attacking the intermediate voluntary institutions that exist or used to exist between the “individual” and the “state” (i.e., big government).
These days one of the institutions that can protect both the individual and the natural community he depends on for full civilized existence is a State that reduces the dangers of the new “globalism”, such as mass immigration and the so-called “global economy.”
Libertarians of course attack the State while more or less ignoring the “government” or at least they conflate the two things as one. Sometimes the State is necessary to protect the individual and the community the individual is part of and without which he wouldn’t exist.
Basil Plumley| 2.4.09 @ 9:01PM
Libertarianism is actually broken in two wings. The first wing is the Ayn Rand wing which puts a heavy premium on Freedom, Liberty, and the Defense of America.
The other wing is the Murray Rothbard wing. Rothbard editorized in the 1970's that "The Soviet Union is the greatest force for peace in the world today.".
Rothbard, for all intents and purposes was a "black flag" anarchist and anti-Semitic. He is the driving influence behind much Libertarian thought today. It is decidedly left-wing.
Yes, I have had more than my share of debates with Libertarians. The Ayn Rand folks tend to be much more logical that the Rothbard folks.
I hope this helps.
Paul E. More| 2.4.09 @ 9:25PM
The Ayn Rand wing seems like a modified version of Neoconism, minus the Big Government stuff. One point on which traditional conservatives agree with Rothbard was that an interventionist foreign policy (such as that endorsed by the Randians and the Neocons) will leave a Big Government in place at home.
Rothbard of course was a Jew and not an “anti-semite.” He was however very anti-Neocon and late in life abandoned the nutty culturally left anti-American version of Libertarianism. Since his death his version of Libertarianism is moving back to the somewhat nutty anti-American left version of Libertarianism, but with a cult like emphasis on “Austrian” economics.
Traditional conservatives believe in defending the American Republic, not in spreading democracy or engaging in “preemptive wars” of choice.
ruth| 2.4.09 @ 10:10PM
A lot of the Ron Paul libertarians I've encountered seem very angry, enraged actually. I understand country first, in fact I agree with it, but I think a lot of them were just anti-semitic bigots hiding behind their America first mantra.
Paul E. More| 2.4.09 @ 11:54PM
Ruth:
Ronald Reagan pledged when he was President that the USA would never start a war. Reagan stated that Americans were only interested in self defense and planned no aggression toward nor conquest of foreign lands.
That should remain our policy today. The Neocon policy of preemptive war violates Reagan’s pledge and goes against all of America’s foreign policy tradition.
The late great Russell Kirk was against the first Iraq war and one can find his speech touching on this issue that he gave to the Heritage Foundation somewhere online.
Basil Plumley| 2.5.09 @ 12:25AM
@Paul E. More
Rothbard had a Platonic ideal of what America ought to be. However, since the actual real-world America did not live up to its founding ideals, he came to hate America and its government to the point of taking the side of every enemy America had in the world. Hence, the quote concerning the Soviet Union.
As for the anti-Semitic charge; I am pretty sure that Rothbard would find any and all aid and protection to/for the State of Israel disdainful. I find it ironic that many critics of our policy to Israel find intellectual cover in the theories of Rothbard.
I think it would not be out of the realm of logic that there could be Jews/Israelis who hate Israel in as much as there are American Libertarians/Leftists who hate America. The former could be described as anti-Semitic, could they not?
Oh, and yes, they love von Mises.
@Ruth
I think Paul's candidacy has attracted some of the worst of the Left and the Right: the Hate-America MoveOn.org Moonbats cheering for American failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and conservatives infected with anti-Semitism - the folks who use the term "neo-con" as a code-word for "right-wing Jew," who advocate isolationism because they can't stand America's support for Israel.
Ron Paul's economic ideas actually have some merit but his foreign policy was wholly unrealistic. Ideally, Ron Paul would have been the right candidate in 1908.
Basil Plumley| 2.5.09 @ 12:40AM
@Paul E. More
Re: Reagan
What was Grenada?
At what point do you defend American interests with force?
Don't get me wrong. I am not in favor of the nation-building quagmire that has occured for the last 5+ years. We can debate foreign policy til the cows come home but you have to realize two issues with regard to American foreign policy:
1) there is a need to show/use power to those who disrespect America and its people.
2) there is a need for America to live up to its words of promise to our friends. When we fail to do so, no one will trust us. It also diminishes the effectiveness of #1.
I call it the winning hearts and minds mantra.
Isolation is idealistic but it is also sticking one's head in the sand in light of the realities of today.
ruth| 2.5.09 @ 3:03AM
Paul, I've already said that I'm an American first and I don't think I should have to repeat it. Also, I don't like labels; Neo or Paleo con. And, please, give me a little credit, Reagan was not God, I do/did not worship at his altar. Geez. I probably agree with Basil; nation building is inadvisable, but I do think we should keep our promises; just as I do in my personal life. Perhaps Ron Paul was a great candidate--but after crossing paths with many of his followers, I'm decidedly turned off on everything about the man. Actually, I was very pissed off at many of them, and I'll say it again; many were bigots hiding behind the principled followers. At times I couldn't tell them apart.
Crusader| 2.5.09 @ 8:36AM
Thomas is correct. The mistake some folks make, and especially "leaders" on the right, is to equate the right's base with the left's. People leaning left have a natural inclination to groups. They "need" to belong to "something bigger" than the individual. Once a member of that group, there can be no dissent.
Talk to any liberty-loving rightie, and for the most part you'll find folks who just want to be left alone. Probably the only "group" they loosely belong to is Church. We are suspicious of groups because they tend to degenerate into groupthink and mob rule. Also, IMHO most righties (not all, as evidenced by the posts on this site alone sometimes) tend to respect other folks' opinions without resorting to ad hominem attacks and name-calling. Kinda "live and let live" mentality.
In conclusion, my experience is lefties are "conform or die" and righties are "conform or don't, just leave me alone."
clashseeker| 2.5.09 @ 9:53AM
The dilemma for so called righties is that there is strength in numbers. FDR, a lefty and Churchill a conservative, both understood that and thus formed coalitions that saved the world. You movement conservatives must realize the forces of evil will not leave you alone. Gonna fight back with your guns? The future military, the black, latino, glbt, military will have bigger guns. You are gonna have to shuck your defiance, and learn to join up with rinos,and even some common sense liberals, or else die.Party of many big tents, only answer.
C Bowen| 2.5.09 @ 10:15AM
"Winning Hearts and Mind", is Leftist agitprop.
When oh when, will these phony Menshevicks go back to the New Republic?
Crusader| 2.5.09 @ 11:42AM
Clash, I hear you. Another problem that affects folks on the right is they assume everyone who wears a uniform is a hero. Cop, military, etc are assumed to be a "patriot" just because he wears a fancy uniform. You can have a healthy respect for the military and at the same time a healthy distrust. Many folks on teh right think the US military is the defender of freedom and liberty. Guess what, each and every free American is the defender of his own freedom and liberty.
C Bowen, I've asked that hearts and minds question a lot and can never get a good answer. Again the mistake we make here in America is assuming everyone else in the world wants to be just like us.
clashseeker| 2.5.09 @ 1:07PM
Crusader, As a VietNam vet I believe we can go both ways by giving troops too much glory, or by painting them as evil ala hollywood. This current military has my confidence, and it is the left that has unfairly characterized them. Look at the NYTimes and that Ahbu Ghrab, or Gitmo coverage. People in my state have served at Gitmo via the Nat Guard. I live in a lefty area and challenge people here who make blanket statements about Gitmo, and all the bad we do there. I call them traitorous slanderers of their fellow citizens.I have had violent encounters, but won't back down. In the end, they say it's just a few CIA types, even then I challenge for facts. " SPECIFICS YOU SLANDERING TRAITOR" I DEMAND. It is time to get down and dirty with these people.
Crusader| 2.5.09 @ 1:35PM
Clash, again you are preaching tot he choir. The point I try to make to my fellow righties sometimes is that as a member of the uniformed services I see what's going on from the inside out. The kids joining the military today have been schooled ( for the most part) in the lefty public schools and are good little sheeple with no real knowledge of history, politics, foreign affairs, current affairs, etc (except what they see on MTV). Being good little sheeple is one thing--being good little sheeple with automatic weapons, tanks, grenades, etc is another. That "black, latino, glbt" military you reference is what frightens me. There is no "brotherhood of arms" mentality in the military anymore. We are just as fractured along racial and cultural lines as the civilian population.
C Bowen| 2.5.09 @ 2:44PM
Crusader;
I am all for Bringing the Boys back home, leveling the Pentagon, and criminal prosecutions for war crimes--that said, I still know a thing or two about how not to run an empire and how to run a military.
A functioning military would have given Lyndie England et al the firing squad, and promptly, for a host of tactical reasons, narrow and geo-strategic. It didn't because its not functioning--and worse, "righties" and "nationalists" start defending criminal activity that gets people killed.
We still don't know who John Israel was--if you have to ask...and lets not get started on the Pat Tillman material or putting women on the frontlines--"conservatives" came out as being just another garden variety Left-Nationalist.
The Left has been running the Empire for so long, they have raised multiple generations into believing a) the DC regime does not manage an empire, and b) winning hearts and minds is an actual policy with a chance of success in colonization--the 19th Century Empire builders of Europe, Left and Right, would be laughing at such a stupid theory.
Obviously, a function government would have sacked Bush, Rummy, maybe hang a few folks after trials, and get back to business--if just for showing that the regime is capable of self-policing. Could have done as much with Clinton or Bush I's wars (as Russell Kirk suggested about Bush I's war), but they won theirs--doesn't make it right or anything, but such is the logic of empire.
Our government is simply not functioning and the best anyone can do, is keep their head down, and if you are in the military, take care of the guy next to you and cease and desist any pretense about doing good--see Hearts and Minds.
What's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
ruth| 2.5.09 @ 3:39PM
Clash, if big tent means sacrificing the principles I hold most dear--I would rather die. Many fellow conservatives feel this way. We are a stubborn lot--it's just who we are. Don't tread on me. (I am a huge supporter of our military, but if push comes to shove here at home, I wouldn't necessarily trust them--I remember Waco and Ruby Ridge.)
clasheeker| 2.5.09 @ 4:32PM
You keep your principles Ruth and I keep mine, and together we fight a common enemy. I won't tread on you for being what ? Conservative ? A Conservative has never, ever bothered or hurt me. So, why can't we fight side by side , against the left ? Not one big tent, but many. You will allow me to not put it all on the line for one or two issues. I am more pragmatic than you. Is that a disqualification ? Crusader, is this current military under current leadership going to shoot the citizens who supported them through thick and thin ? The people who supported the commander in chief they also voted for. I know at least 25 of these guys and gals. The people they are angry at are MSM who they tell me have distorted all their honorable service and achievements. They may be schooled as Lefties, but would a real Lefty join in the first place, I mean in large numbers ? Does not the military force you to grow up ? Teach how to both follow and give orders ? Understand the concept of authority and order as a positve thing ? Is the military teaching mad dog nihilist how to use guns against the folks back home ? Really ? And Ruth, at the end of the day who helped the folks in New Orleans after Katrina ? Did you see our troops, weapons at sling arms handing out water and food ? Their smiles and body language putting folks on edge and brainwashed all their lives against the military at ease, you see the faces of the victims, for the first time they it was gonna be ok. I'd run this film over and over again if I had a tv station. You do not trust them Ruth ? It is the military after 40 years of leftwing rule you must fear. Even then I wonder if the citizen soldier creed of America might not seep through just enough.
ruth| 2.5.09 @ 11:20PM
Clash, I'm an individualist, pure and simple, I'm also a realist. Trust but verify, remember? Do you remember Waco? And please, I love our military guys and gals, I do a lot of volunteer work for them, but loyalty is a funny thing. Who knows what/whom some people will be loyal to? Listen to Crusader; he's in the service now. I'm certainly down with helping you fight our adversaries, don't know as yet about the violent clashes. I guess I'll have to start pumping iron again:) You're among friends here, details just need to be ironed out. My older brother was spat on when he returned from Vietnam. I was very young at the time, but I knew then if I had been there, I would have jumped all over those a-holes. I haven't changed.