The University Bookman has posted a number of
intelligent responses to Sam Tanenhaus' "end of conservatism"
essay. The New Republic itself has also continued
the discussion, most interestingly in my view with Andrew
Bacevich's
contribution (though I obviously have a more positive take on
Ronald Reagan than Bacevich). All this reminds me that I promised
to return to the subject and talk about some areas where I think
Tanenhaus has a point.
1. The popularization of conservatism as a mass movement
has a downside as well as an upside. The upside for
conservatives is obvious, so I won't bother to restate it here.
The downside is the oversimplification of conservatism: the
reduction of conservative principles to slogans that can fit on a
bumper sticker, the fact that conservative thinkers have harder
time gaining an audience than conservative entertainers, and the
emergence of conservatives as a marketing niche. Something
valuable was lost in the transition from Russell Kirk and Robert
Nisbet to Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity.
The bumper-sticker problem wouldn't be serious if it merely
applied to the conservative rank-and-file, people of conservative
inclination who are too busy with real life to think
systematically about politics. Pat Buchanan spoke about
"conservatives of the heart" who "don't read Adam Smith or Edmund
Burke" but "share our beliefs and convictions." The trouble is
that some of the oversimplified conservatives are opinion leaders
and Republican elected officials. The similiarities between
Reagan and George W. Bush that Tanenhaus brings up are
superficial, but I have no doubt that Bush thought he was
following the Reagan model as closely as Tanenhaus did.
2. The emergence of conservative identity
politics. As Republican politicians have done
progressively less for various conservative groups, like social
conservatives, they've gotten louder in their insistences that
they are people just like them red state folks. As 2004
turned to 2008, it became the worst of all possible worlds:
conservatives weren't getting anything in terms of government
policy but this attitudinal conservatism helped mobilize the
other side (and offend some moderate fellow travelers of the
right). I like Sarah Palin, but the Republican establishment
marketed her in a way that was intended to manipulate
conservatives, not heed them.
3. There are ideological conservatives who don't
have a conservative temperament. This is a development
that would have horrified Kirk, who believed in a conservative
cast of mind but also considered conservatism the "negation of
ideology." Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, and John McCain are
just three Republican leaders who might have been better served
by having the conservative temperament and not just broad
agreements with certain conservative think-tank white papers.
Perhaps the term "conservative" has such a broad definition that
one cannot put one's arms around it. Unlike Europe we didn't have
an aristocracy or Church to rally around. An Orthodox Catholic in
the US has a much different perspective than say a Wall St
supply-sider. Try getting an Evangelical and PJ O'Rourke together
for drinks and dinner.
Intellectuals of the conservative bent usually specialize in
certan areas. The late Fr Neuhaus was mainly concerned with civic
virture; while Antonin Scalia is concerned with Federalism.
Others are national security specialists, specialists on crime,
education, and economics. Many "conservatives" are quite liberal
outside thier areas of specialization (aka Colin Powel, Bill
Gates, Milton Friedman, Rudi Guliani).
Conservatives of the popularist bent seems to be only thing to
work at the polls, but as has been pointed out, these
conservatives are so shallow intellectually that over time they
become Big Goverment Conservatives, Country Club Republicans and
finally RHINOS.
I'm not sure what the answer is. On the one hand, there are the
intellectual purists; on the other hand stands the populist
politician. I think what works over time is conservative
libertarianism. It is too bad that this strain has fallen out of
popularity.
It would be hard to find someone with a less conservative
temperament than Newt Gingrich. He has always been about the
future and grand ideas/plans. Why conservatives ever fell for his
act is beyond me.
Paul E. More| 2.11.09 @ 5:54PM
Gingrich got ahead because he was willing to come on as if he was
fighting the left liberal establishment of the 1980s and 1990s.
But Red is correct that Newt isn’t a conservative, something even
Bob Novak noted, blaming it less on Newt’s ideological and
futurist bent than on his having been a Rockefeller Republican.
Part of the problem James is noting is due to the welcome that
Bill Buckley gave to fanatical “progressive conservative” types
who love “creative destruction.” One should note that the
creative destruction program is always better at the destruction
part than the creative part. One insight of Kirk’s conservatism
is that real creativity usually requires immersion in a living
tradition rather than a break with the past. The “destruction”
part of the creative-destruction ideology in effect renders real
creativity unlikely at best.
ts| 2.12.09 @ 4:05PM
President Bush in his own right was a trailblazer when many today
wouldn't except it.He is more akin to TR and Jefferson who gave
this country a broad vision to follow for their century.Those
that stray from it put our country in peril;those that hold to it
are wise.
JP| 2.11.09 @ 1:26PM
Perhaps the term "conservative" has such a broad definition that one cannot put one's arms around it. Unlike Europe we didn't have an aristocracy or Church to rally around. An Orthodox Catholic in the US has a much different perspective than say a Wall St supply-sider. Try getting an Evangelical and PJ O'Rourke together for drinks and dinner.
Intellectuals of the conservative bent usually specialize in certan areas. The late Fr Neuhaus was mainly concerned with civic virture; while Antonin Scalia is concerned with Federalism. Others are national security specialists, specialists on crime, education, and economics. Many "conservatives" are quite liberal outside thier areas of specialization (aka Colin Powel, Bill Gates, Milton Friedman, Rudi Guliani).
Conservatives of the popularist bent seems to be only thing to work at the polls, but as has been pointed out, these conservatives are so shallow intellectually that over time they become Big Goverment Conservatives, Country Club Republicans and finally RHINOS.
I'm not sure what the answer is. On the one hand, there are the intellectual purists; on the other hand stands the populist politician. I think what works over time is conservative libertarianism. It is too bad that this strain has fallen out of popularity.
Red Phillips| 2.11.09 @ 2:14PM
It would be hard to find someone with a less conservative temperament than Newt Gingrich. He has always been about the future and grand ideas/plans. Why conservatives ever fell for his act is beyond me.
Paul E. More| 2.11.09 @ 5:54PM
Gingrich got ahead because he was willing to come on as if he was fighting the left liberal establishment of the 1980s and 1990s. But Red is correct that Newt isn’t a conservative, something even Bob Novak noted, blaming it less on Newt’s ideological and futurist bent than on his having been a Rockefeller Republican.
Part of the problem James is noting is due to the welcome that Bill Buckley gave to fanatical “progressive conservative” types who love “creative destruction.” One should note that the creative destruction program is always better at the destruction part than the creative part. One insight of Kirk’s conservatism is that real creativity usually requires immersion in a living tradition rather than a break with the past. The “destruction” part of the creative-destruction ideology in effect renders real creativity unlikely at best.
ts| 2.12.09 @ 4:05PM
President Bush in his own right was a trailblazer when many today wouldn't except it.He is more akin to TR and Jefferson who gave this country a broad vision to follow for their century.Those that stray from it put our country in peril;those that hold to it are wise.