Conservatism: the rebuilding years
Monday October 20, 2008
Categories: Conservatism
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...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
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.
Why not you? Seriously, go for it.
I think Buckley is right. Somewhere along the way, the Conservative movement which found a home in the Republican party, became confused with economic commercialism. Additionally, we have had ourselves painted into a corner by media and Hollywood into being a bunch of intolerant Bible thumping Evangelicals despite the fact that most Evangelicals are more apt to be like Rick Warren as oppossed to John Hagee or even Jerry Falwell. Tolerant of the sinner and working for a better world. I think we need a WTF conference becauseI no longer recognize the Republican Party and the conservatism that it advocates. There is room for the elites and the non elites and there is room for us Crunchy types from the South that went to state universities.
We all have to talk and come to the realization that there is more to Conservatism than the right to shop for whatever you want at the cheapest price and oh yeah, by all means keep the gays from getting married. If that is all we are reduced to, then we should pack it in now.
"Conservatism, WTF conference"
Now that is funny, but I think even Mr. Buckley is underestimating the scope of the problem. The original fusionism (Cold War hawks, economic libertarians, cultural traditionalists) that WFB initiated back in the 1950's had the advantage of an over-arching threat of the USSR to tamp down friction amongst the factions: there is nothing similar today. What keeps the Larry Kudlows and the Mike Huckabees and the Bill Kristols in the same party anymore, other than sheer force of habit and inertia? 2032 sounds about right.
Here's a suggestion. How about "Pragmatic Conservatism"?
- Limited government, but not incompetent government.
- Small government, but not ineffective or passive government.
- Low taxes, but a balanced budget that pays for all expenditures.
- Non-involvement in the concerns of foreign countries, but a willingness to intervene when our interests are directly at stake.
- Social conservatism pursued at the cultural rather than legislative level.
- Inclusive and restorative rather than exclusive and divisive.
May we have a definition of "conservativism" now? I've asked before.
treebeard, vague to the point of incomprehensibilty.
Ok, I'm confused. Read this line... And then answer my question... Or ponder it yourself...
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."
Since when was the party the standard-bearer for conservatism?
The political party ( GOP ) is NOT. The only reason that liberalism is advancing, is that the Democrat party is taken over by the ideologues and has a measure of party unity ( let's not get bogged down, we all understand the rank and file of the party don't necessarily reflect the party in all things..sometimes not in many things...) and thus uses the ebb and flow of PARTY politics to advance an ideology.
this is simply mass confusion on display. The GOP's actions of late can hardly be considered "conservative", nor many of it's candidates to office. Some are, but some are not. The mistake being made here is to confuse party with conservatism itself.
There is great angst among the readers here about how conservatism must change to become relevant.
This is true, but these people are talking about a rapid leftward jump in ideological position.
That's not what needs to happen. Yes, conservatives need to act, but the way to act is TAKE OVER THE DAMN PARTY. Duhh. Stop bitching and moaning that not everyone is pure enough to belong to the club. Or that our beliefs have failed us. Hell, what little they've been tried, has been a spectacular success.
I read in utter shock, that someone here USED to vote republican, but stopped because of the rabid intolerance in the party - ie, James Dobson.
The ONLY way this could happen, is if conseravtives are UTTERLY uncommunicative and simply sit idly by and let the opposition define our beliefs, our actions, and even WHO WE ARE.
There's NOTHING wrong with our conservatism. Stop trying to shred every ally you could have. Small, unobtrusive government (stop whining, government is ALWAYS incompetent, sheesh, that's why you want less of it, DUHHH!!!!), laws based on sensible notions, decency and obvious common good - heck, these things WILL SELL because they're right, good, and sensible.
And for pity's sakes, stop letting the other side define and control you. And stop ... STOP... being their spokesman by tearing down your own side with their criticisms. I hate to compare it to war, but BEFORE you have a war, you argue for the best things for fighting it. After it commences, stop doing your best to defeat your side so that you're justified in your criticism.
And by all that, I mean EVERY "purist" and "anti commoner" out there. You ARE the problem. Not your thoughts, education, ideas, or even ideology... but the attitude that this is about YOU and that YOU deserve to be considered above anyone else even the most common of Joe Plumbers or Soccer Moms or even us computer geeks like me.
A few thoughts--perhaps one of the biggest problems of conservatives is to react to unnecessary extremes given the happening of X event.
-War--yes, there is a war on terror and a problem culturally in western Europe (and to some extent the U.S.). But I almost think sometimes that the support for the Iraq War came from the fact that: well, the left in Berkeley, CA decided to ban firemen from hanging flags on their trucks. Therefore, how dare you oppose the Iraq War.
-Economics--No, huge bloated government does not work, but what is so conservative about imposing a flat tax, or cutting taxes across the board when it'll put us into debt? No--the flat tax is not feasible and, in my opinion, not desirable. Supply side economics is a means to an end, not one in and of itself. It's not a dogma. It works best in situations with too high marginal tax rates. Also, crack down on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
-Abortion/Social issues--It may be that the real issues up and coming have to do with religious freedom--individual and institutional. Harp on that. Use the libertarian impulse when the alternative is sheer absurdity. Perhaps the time has come to be open to moderate pro-choicers who do not want government funding of abortion and at least respect the other side enough that they will respect issues of conscience (and may not think much of Roe). Take the money out of it, you put a real dent in it. Anybody remember Arlen Specter during the Alito and Roberts confirmation hearings? Specter is pro-choice, but he was more effective than any Republican chairman I've ever seen.
-Practical stuff - I've really noticed that many conservative politicians don't know how to "do politics." They don't fight or have any concept of strategy. A case in point is when Sen. Grassley gave a speech during some of the early appellate confirmations that was so hotly contested. He gave a very measured and milquetoast speech about how when the time came, Republicans may be apt to vote down Democratic nominees (yeah--fat chance!!). And then--he, wanting to be all noble, explicitly turned the floor over to Patrick Leahy to respond. What a dork!
Well then, I guess we'll just have to exclude you.
Old Susan--same could be said of "liberalism." Classical or modern? That whole thing really seems to become meshed into a huge quagmire.
I wonder if we might not see something new emerge in American politics. A multi-party sytem forcing compromise and coalition government. If the Republicans fall apart, and we disagree too much to keep holding together, it appears, then, lacking the threat of the republican bogeyman, the democrats will also likely fall apart (barring strong arm tactics and the complete destruction of the constitution). I think it would be a good thing, but, nah, its not likely. The power elite will do what they have to in order to proserve their status quo. Dang, even a year ago I wasn't this cynical.
Speaking of the power elite, anyone care to examine the possibility that 'rebuilding the party' might be nothing more than changing the public faces while the real power elite keep on doing what they do?
Or to put it more succinctly, are Huckabee and Jindhal likely to be invited to the Bohemian Grove festivities even if they are elected to higher offices?
I don't know where the conservative movement is headed. The more moderate wing, probably out of the Republican Party. Possibly to join the "Blue Dog Democrats" in some type of evolutionary new moderate party. Possibly. The creation of a third party is extremely difficult. But there is an immediate concern to the more militant element of the conservative movement. Assuming Democrats win the White House, and have super-majorities in the House and Senate (as predicted), a codification of the old FCC "Fairness Doctrine" is going to be implemented against conservative talk radio. And, assuming Obama is President, there won't be a veto threat as in 1987 and 1991. Admittedly, there will be constitutional challenges, but Fox News and other conservative media outlets will be under pressure to reconstitute their programming. Sorry for the bad news, but it is undoubtedly coming if large Democratic majorities are obtained.
The Republican Party--too big to fail? There's an amusing thought.
I'm curious about to know what Colin Powell considered too far a movement to the right in the GOP for him to feel disaffected enough to endorse Obama. Is that just code language for disagreeing with religious social conservatives on abortion, gay marriage and related life issues?
I can imagine a split in the Republican party among these lines if enough social conservatives were willing to all jump ship at the same time. Especially if Obama is elected, there may be a perception that at least they have four to eight years to experiment with something else.
I agree though, that absent an immdediate external threat of some kind, the Republican party is going to further disintegrate into various movements.
Is that just code language for disagreeing with religious social conservatives on abortion, gay marriage and related life issues?
If you remember the frenzy around Latino immigration in 2006, race remains a sharp divider between the moderate wing and the reactionary wing.
I think it would be great fun to invite Huckabee and Jindhal to the Bohemian Grove party. Huckabee would curl into a ball and wimper and Jindhal would run around trying to cast demons out of people. It would hilarious.
Jillian wrote: If you remember the frenzy around Latino immigration in 2006, race remains a sharp divider between the moderate wing and the reactionary wing.
Which means what? African Americans don't identify with "reactionary wing" ideas? What exactly is the reactionary wing? Is that another code word for religious social conservatives?
Most African Americans are certainly part of the "reactionary wing" of American culture -- at least as defined by Jillian's lights -- in that they are *socially* the most conservative group of the American public, especially black women over 30. One challenge that the coming Democratic majority will have is in managing the friction that will surely result between blacks and Latinos as the two groups battle over spoils. Another, and perhaps an even greater one, will be to split the distance between going far enough left on social issues to satisfy upper-class whites, but not so far left as to alienate the African-American and also the Latino communities. Given a decade or so of Democratic excesses and possibly ... hopefully ... given the demise of the Republican party and its replacement of some new opposition party on the right, something more like an American version of the Christian Democrats in Europe and Latin America, the opportunity will come for some new political entity to poach off African-American and Latino votes from the Democrats, thought that may not come until some Democrats begin to take openly atheist and specifically anti-Christian stances. The next logical step for the left to push for after the imposition of a post-heterosexual, post-monogamous, post-family-centered moral order with regard to sexuality will be the imposition of mandatory atheism and anti-Christianity for those on the left ... a move which will prove to be too rich for the blood of most blacks and Latinos.
True, we don't want conservatism narrowly defined as Dittoheads and Cornerites.
BUT let's not get carried away. The few Obamacons aren't going to be accepted by conservatives as one of their own, especially if conservatives are reacting against a radical Obama Administration. I'm not necessarily saying that's right, but it's reality. Those who support Obama will no more have a place at the conservative table than Bill Bennett, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Irving Kristol did at the Liberal table 20 years ago.
And come on -- There aren't half a dozen conservatives on earth who recognize Andrew Sullivan as any kind of a kindred spirit. Any Conservatism WTF conference that includes the likes of him will be small and without impact beyond the room.
Charles, I think Huckabee might really enjoy putting on a little lip gloss and some pumps and dancing next to Poppy in the chorus line at the Bohemian Grove.
Meanwhile, next door, Rufus will need a very small tent for his seminar, attended by those black women over 30 who consider him their BFF and tell him how they really feel about everything.
Old Susan
October 20, 2008 5:13 PM
May we have a definition of "conservativism" now? I've asked before.
See "The Essence of Conservatism" by Russell Kirk, here:
http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/essence-1957.html
"Jindhal [sic] would run around trying to cast demons out of people."
We've yet to learn everything there is to know about Bobby Jindal or what he could become. But I have to say I'm getting really, really, really sick of these "exorcism" cracks, likely 95% of which are by people wno have never even read his original essay, and most of whom apparently regard any religious devotion which exceeds a quaint 1-2 hour social custom on weekends as bizarre and dangerous.
Hello Treebeard,
I like your list.
But one qualification: I think most social conservatives will be unwilling to give up any legislative efforts on abortion. Gay marriage? Perhaps. But abortion presents a special evil, not just in nature but in scale.
But I would agree that more vigorous efforts are needed at a cultural level (changing hearts and minds). Approx. 1.2 million abortions happen every year. Someone is having them.
The theme should be how to restore a constitutional, federal, republican government. The power of the federal courts over political issues--their usurpation of politics--should unite all those who favor popular and state sovereignty over judicial tyranny. In addition, this usurpation has brought the abortion license and gay marriage to be enforced on the people, and this provides the cultural and political strength to resist.
An examination needs to be made into how the national security state contributes to federal government power and centralization. After the cold war, and the disastrous incursion into Iraq, do we need to return to a more or less isolationist foreign policy?
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.
I don't claim any authoritative knowledge of black women over 30, though I dare say I know quite a few more of them than you do and much better than you, having grown up and still spending time in a town in which six in ten people are black.
There has never been any social science research done that shows anything other than that African-Americans in general and African-American women specifically are socially the most conservative part of the American public.
Not that you've ever let anything like social science research get in the way of how you would prefer to see the world, as opposed to how it actually is.
In any event, what makes you think that I'm not African-American?
Have you never heard of the man from whom I take my tag?
I think we need to say, Steady on here, folks! Conservatism can't be equated with Republicanism (though it would, at least now, be extraordinarily difficult to equate it to Democrat-ism; where have you gone, Moynihan?), but Chris Buckley has forgotten about Nixon's near-win in 1960 (maybe even win, if uncontested fraud is factored in), and Nixon's win in 1968 and 1972. Now, Nixon had his problems, but I think he can claim the title "conservative" as much as the deficit-running Reagan.
In my opinion, McCain would be winning now if it weren't for the Wall Street Crisis. In this atmosphere, people are just flipping out; they're not open to reason; that don't want to discuss the facts; they're just angry; they're vulnerable to the hypnotic Obama voice. They forget the Bush administration raising the alarm about mortgages in 2001, and McCain's attempt to rein in Freddie and Fannie in 2006 (against fanatic Democratic opposition).
Remember, Carter was elected four years before Reagan. This election is probably more similar to the election of 1976 than any other in recent times.
I've already voted for McCain, and I'm proud of it. My guess is that Obama will win, though, and when he does, I will pray for his success because (outside of Christian) my primary identity is American, not Republican. I don't think he will be successful, though. I think we're heading towards a combination of Hoover/Roosevelt economically (tariffs and taxes, along with wild social spending), Carter internationally, and Hillary Clinton on steroids when it comes to abortion.
Matt: sincere and deep thanks for posting that link to Russell Kirk's essay on conservatism. Although I had seen it referenced nearly my entire adult life, I had never stopped to read it.
"...(5) Power is full of danger; therefore the good state is one in which power is checked and balanced, restricted by sound constitutions and customs. So far as possible, political power ought to be kept in the hands of private persons and local institutions. Centralization is ordinarily a sign of social decadence.
There is so much more than that snippet in Mr. Kirk's essay. If one was to look for a lodestar to guide us into this coming dark night, Kirk would serve us well.
I urge everyone who hasn't read the essay to follow Matt's link. And for everyone who has read it, to read it again.
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.