Via Andrew Sullivan comes John Heilemann's report on the current and coming conservative civil war. Excerpt:
But history suggests that the rebuilding of the party, whether that means a rejuvenation of conservatism or its root-and-branch reformation, will take much longer than a single election cycle. Frum points out that it took the Democrats twelve years after the epochal 1980 election to make a substantial break with the party's past. "And I think there were probably more people in the Democratic Party in 1980 who were willing to rethink the New Deal than there are Republicans in 2008 who are ready to rethink our party's first principles," he says. "So I think it's going to be a very long, very difficult conversation."Few people understand better than Buckley just what that might mean. "My dad kicked off conservatism in 1955, Goldwater ran in 1964, and then Reagan was elected sixteen years after that," he notes. "So the Republicans could be looking pretty good around, oh, 2032!"
You might think that Buckley is kidding here, but you would be wrong. Conservatism, he thinks, is facing nothing less than an existential crisis. The events of recent days may have given him less of a stake in the outcome than before, but still he offers a friendly word of advice for those who care to listen. "The smart ones in the movement should get together right after the election at the Greenbrier or the Homestead, you know, where they typically have these kinds of get-togethers, and have a long dark night of the soul," he says. "And I'll tell you what the conference should be called: Conservatism--What the F-ck?"
That's a funny line, but seriously, who would be invited to this putative conference? If "the smart ones in the movement" = "conservatives who think like me," then it'll be perpetuating the cocoon. If it includes intelligent people from the various schools of conservatism, then we might get somewhere. It's the easiest thing in the world to say, "Conservatism would have succeeded if not for those damn [evangelicals/neocons/Wall Streeters/hawks/whatever]." The truth is, Chris Buckley is onto something. This is an existential crisis among conservatives, one that's been building since the fall of the Soviet Union. Without opposition to communism to unify its disparate strands, and now with its market-worship having been discredited by human nature, and with social liberalism increasingly the norm -- what's the raison d'etre for the conservative movement?
I have my own ideas on the matter, which have less to do with politics than most people's, I suspect. Still, once everybody on the Right puts away their knives after the post-election bloodletting, those who are still talking to each other need to ... talk to each other, and to do so openly, in a constructive spirit. I'm not sure how possible that's going to be, at least not for a long time. But somebody needs to hold a Conservatism, WTF conference, and to do it for the purpose of accomplishing something, not just giving the architects of conservatism's defeat an opportunity to scrub their reputations.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Uhh - yeah, that's the ticket Chris. Hold this conference at a 5 star resort that most Americans who aren't rich could never afford in two lifetimes. Not exactly a sign that he and his fellow bandwagon jumpers are serious about anyone but Rockefeller Republicans taking over.
Dan, didn't you know that us commoners are poisoning both Conservatism and the GOP?
Really, if you dont' sail a yacht, have a degree from a liberal eastern institution, and spend your day engrossed in classical music and perfecting your university level debating skills, you can't possibly have any relevant thoughts and your knee-jerk reactionism to world and economic events is bound to be... well.. just poison.
We've learned this, you know.
Frankly, it appears if there were an 'elite' party and a 'commoner' party, the commoners would definitely produce better results... and would definitely not display the arrogance and prejudices the other would.
Frankly, I'm sick of this trashing of the commoner. I'm not particularly "common" as my IQ is well above average, as was my academic record. I did, however, grow up the son of a first generation American who managed no higher than a 5th grade education. I can definitely hold my own in a debate with almost any self-proclaimed elites... but when the attitude amounts to an attack on where I came from, all bets are off. You don't look down on where I came from without consequence.
If I were interviewed by Katie Couric, I would definitely be tagged by Rod and co as "intellectually incurious". They're wrong. I have a raveneous curiousity and appetite for both knowledge and experience. And I look forward to the last 1/3 of my life when I have the means of fulfilling both.
Frankly, I don't care if Buckley feels ashamed at having a less than 'elite' candidate on the ballot and feels it necessary to jump ship to stay on the right party invite list, or at least maintain his "elite" status in the minds of whomever he wants to keep it in.
Frankly, he has no such status with me. Nor do ANY of the named folks like Parker, etc. Few do. The closest anyone I can think of comes to that designation is Thomas Sowell. Now THERE is a mind worth admiring.
My heroes have been, for the most part, simple people. I say that becuase their status has been for simple reasons... They did extraordinary things.
Desmond Doss
Washington
Jefferson
John Quincy Adams - for his stand against slavery
A nameless Iraqi
I must tell this last story... I read this a couple years back. A doped-up suicide bomber, laden with explosive vest and shrapnel was spotted by a commoner Iraqi man. The US soldiers were too far away, and his destination was a half block away, a city street filled with children and women who had gathered to wait for the Americans to arrive. Having no weapon, he screamed for the bomber to stop, but having no effect, he ran down the man and sacked him like a quarterback. The suicide bomber detonated his explosives, turning both into nothing but charred shreds, but it spared the mass of children just around the street corner.
Now there's a man who knew right and wrong, could make a decision, and was wholly committed to the love of others and the defense of life. I don't know his religion, and I don't care. That's the kind of man I want to meet in Heaven and I would be honored just to make his aquaintance there.
In my life, I have been bankrupt.. at different times emotionally and financially. I have been minutes from succumbing to hypothermia just a few steps from my own warm house. I have had to witness the death of my parents. And I have witnessed the birth of my children.
And somehow, these minor aspects of my life, along with a vast array of others, has altered my thinking in ways I could never have predicted. I am not intimidated, nor impressed, with the "elite", nor the famous or even the 'powerful'. I am impressed with strong beliefs, and careful thought, and sober wisdom. Maybe because I owe my life to those things being taught to me - and being implemented by others.
I have seen how these kinds of experiences change me and ahve changed others I know.
And those are the people I would trust.
Not Buckley, or Parker, or even Noonan (though I admire her writing skill immensely).
Which is why I prefer Palin and McCain to Obama and Biden... even though my ideological leanings are far away from all of them. Their lives have earned a level of trust that the other two can never have, and do not even understand.
Rufus Thomas
October 20, 2008 10:22 PM
sigaliris,
The fact that you would even joke about me going to Bohemian Grove shows just how little you know about me as opposed to the straw man in your mind to which you affix my name.
Point of order - sig's scenario placed you next door to the Bohemian Grove. Since females are not invited to the festivities, you could not be giving a seminar for Black women over 30.
Your anti-Bohemian-Grove-creds are not threatened.
Athelstane
October 20, 2008 9:19 PM
... and most of whom apparently regard any religious devotion which exceeds a quaint 1-2 hour social custom on weekends as bizarre and dangerous.
Much religious devotion that exceeds that of social custom is bizarre and dangerous.
"Much religious devotion that exceeds that of social custom is bizarre and dangerous."
We used to have laws that limited church attendance to certain days and times, and that mandated the length of services.
Oh wait, that was the USSR. Sorry.
My, Rufus, you do take yourself VERY seriously, don't you? I guess I should have taken that into consideration before making a joke anywhere in your vicinity . . . even if the joke was not actually targeted at you. Rest easy. I'm just mocking the conservative rank and file generally, by pointing out in an oblique fashion that their party is dominated by people who have so much wealth and power they wouldn't even associate with the earnest homespun philosophes who congregate here. Have all the policy discussions you want. The pawns may talk among themselves while waiting to be advanced and sacrificed in the latest gambit of their betters.
You complain that I don't know you. Er, no . . . in fact, I don't. You are an anonymous commenter on a blog. You are, in fact, a man who has named himself after the composer of "Do the Funky Chicken." (A fact I've been too tactful to mention, but since you bring it up . . . . ) What I know about you is exactly what you have chosen to reveal of yourself, so I politely refer any perceived obstacles to my deep and soulful appreciation of you to their originator.
I suspect that if you really were black, you wouldn't play the "I know more black people than you, or at least I could if I wanted to, na nanny boo boo" game with me. But it's not impossible that you have wide experience in the black community, and if so, you would indeed be a valuable resource for conservatives. So, if you do have access to personal knowledge--or even those old devil statistics--please enlighten. I love social science research. Yay surveys! Bring me some! Nom nom nom . . . .
You're going to have to define "social conservative" better, though. Yes, a superficial examination of teachings at many black churches would show a bias against homosexuality and abortion. What does examination of actual behavior among the congregants show? What are the private views that older women who are loyal churchgoers express? More importantly, how do they vote? And why? Is there evidence that older black women would vote to abolish food stamps, medical assistance, and government subsidies for housing and child care? Do you think they want social security privatized? Do tell us, if you know.
And in closing, now you've got me curious. Are you black? Don't be coy, now. If you're going to play that card, you have to actually play it, not just flash the corner and hint that it might be an ace. It never would have occurred to me to care, but now that you've hung that gun on the wall, I think you owe it to your audience to see that it gets fired before the end of the episode. ; )
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.