The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Tanenhaus Again

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.

View all comments (4) | Leave a comment

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.

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/02/11/tanenhaus-again

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer | 5.25.12

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick | 5.25.12

A Test of National Honor

Hal G.P. Colebatch | 5.25.12

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker | 5.25.12

The Great Debate

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.24.12

ADVERTISEMENT