Recently in Conservatism Category

Sarah Palin's book has a lot of political score-settling, which is not surprising, and a fair amount of grievance-peddling against those she believes wronged her. Frankly, I wouldn't blame her for wanting to waterboard Andrew Sullivan over the disgraceful Trig Truther garbage he peddled. I don't begrudge her a fair number of grudges, but the thing one notices about all this is how Sarah is almost never wrong, but almost always wronged. Thomas Frank writes in the Wall Street Journal:

The opinion-page equivalent of the Palinesque style is easy enough to imagine: I would use this space to recite the indignities the world forced on me over the course of the week--an effete-looking young person ignored me the other day--plus glimpses of heartland authenticity--I sure do like pot roast--before concluding, darkly, that the reason I suffer is because I am such a sterling American.

That's funny, because that's a pretty good approximation of what the Palin book is like. She's clearly spent a lot more intellectual energy dwelling on this stuff than on ideas. Frank picks up on something I noted in my review:

But amid all this score-settling, Ms. Palin wanders into some predictable traps. When explaining her political philosophy, for example, she tells readers that "conservatism is a respect for history and tradition"; on the very next page she instructs readers to accept the creative-destructive whirl of the market, which affects society the way "wildfires in Alaska burn away deadfall to make way for new growth."

Insofar as this book reveals Palin's political philosophy, it's incoherent (the philosophy, I mean). Like most Republicans, she pays lip service to history and tradition, but really believes in the unfettered free market over everything else ... except when it suits her political interests to support protectionism. It's a shame -- and I mean that literally -- because the Republicans could use someone who champions the values and the way of life of Main Street, versus Wall Street (by which I mean big business and finance). How much better this past year would have been spent had Palin used it to read and study (and, by the way, had Mike Huckabee done the same thing instead of hosting his Fox chat show). It's this unreflective quality that puts me off Palin, and you really do see that come out in her book. Again, she got roughed up in the national campaign, and I don't blame her for being raw over that. But Katie Couric, for pity's sake, did not manhandle her. She blew that interview herself, something she barely acknowledges in the book:

Needless to say, I have had better interviews. Out of the many, many hours of tape, I had bad moments just like everyone else. I choked on a couple of responses, and in the harried pace of the campaign, I mistakenly let myself become annoyed and frustrated with many of her repetitive, biased questions. What I didn't know was that those few moments would come to define the interviews; they were repeated and mocked so often that everything else has seemingly been forgotten. And that is unfortunate. ("Going Rogue," p. 271)

Got that? Palin made a couple of mistakes, like anybody else, and was tired from the campaign, and was blindsided by a journalist who asked biased questions (e.g., the brutal "What do you read?"). The only thing wrong with her performance, really, is that she put herself in a position to be taken advantage of by the media.

One of the things that drew me to conservatism so many years ago was the inability of my side, the liberal one, to acknowledge how the things we believed in and advocated for had failed, and would fail if people lived by them. We acted as if we ought to be judged by our intentions, not the results of our principles put into action. Conservatives, on the other hand, as a general rule believed in taking responsibility for oneself and one's failures. But it turns out it's not true. We're just as prone to blaming everybody and everything else for our failures as anybody else. I don't suppose I can expect Palin to have written a mea culpa for her own shortcomings, but I think it would have been something that made at least some people who had written her off reconsider her. As it is, she's written a screed that will only serve to reinforce some of the worst tendencies of her base to consider all criticism a form of unjust persecution. That's not something limited to the right, of course, but it's a shame to see this mentality having settled in just as strongly on our side as on the left. It has broader implications for a movement whose self-examination and self-recrimination consists only of "the only thing wrong with us is we didn't do what Reagan would have done." Clark Stooksbury notes:

One lesson from the last few years is that movement conservatives are never responsible--they are always victims circumstance, the Liberal Media, or of nefarious "moderates" and "RINOs" that nobody previously noticed being in charge in the GOP.

As has often been noted, in this way of thinking, conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed. Or betrayed. Same with conservatives.

Writing in TAC, Sean Scallon describes the difference between Republican Party regulars and what he smartly describes as "Conservative, Inc.". -- i.e., the conservative interest groups, talk radio and media. He says both sides are full of Potemkin villagers:

As many writers have stated at TAC or various other websites and publications have written and stated for the past decade, Conservative INC. has run out of fresh ideas. It has ceased being "conservative" because has become what it should be opposing and that is an ideology instead of a state of mind. When its politicians are now trying to re-package issues like term limits and school vouchers as fresh, new ideas to campaign on; When they prattle on about cutting taxes without offering serious critiques or plans to reducing government; When they mindlessly support the war out of nationalist fervor that most people now oppose, even those within the institutional establishment (Brooks, Frum, Parker, et.al) have said their time is up. The bottom line is Hoffman still lost and Virginia and New Jersey elected governors aligned to the institutional wing of the party. And even among their own candidates there are heresies they wish not to talk about or hide. Hoffman and Rubio are big unlimited immigration supporters. Perry wanted to tear-up all of central Texas to build a massive highway to Kansas City (Remember the NAFTA Superhighway Slick Rick?) and charge a toll. Rubio is Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, hardly a political outsider. And besides, if a 9-11 Truther is a conspiracy theorist in 2008, then why is a Birther any different in 2009? Is it because of who is in the White House?

But the institutional establishment has no answers either because they refuse to admit the war that they binded both sides into supporting, led by their own set of ideologues, has failed and their answers for the economy or other pressing issues like health care are either incoherent or solutions that could easily be adopted by the Obama Administration or by Right-wing Democrats. It was they who were the noisy defenders of the Wall St. bailout. These are not exactly positions that a rally a great deal of popular support. If all the activist energy seems to be with Conservative INC. it is largely by default. Indeed, it shows how weak the establishment right now is when its own politicians were willing to support a non-major party candidate in order to enhance their "street cred" with the base and Conservative INC. The upcoming primaries have also made such pragmatists like Crist and Kirk look foolish with their "Romneyesque" positioning to make themselves more rightist in the eyes of the base.

Where do we who are conservatives, but have no interest in either the GOP establishment or Conservative Inc. supposed to go? To the Front Porch, I reckon. But after we get tired of sitting and drinking and complaining, what do we do?

Libertarian writer Shikha Dalmia says Ayn Rand was right about so much, but fatally wrong about an essential aspect of human nature: the impulse to selflessness and compassion. This explains why she's a cult figure for younger people, but eventually is outgrown. Excerpt:

Most people read Rand when they are young and are deeply moved by her, only to outgrow her by mid-life. Her adherents like to blame this on the moral pusillanimity and irrationality of the readers. But the real problem is perhaps with Rand herself: Her ideology of self-actualization speaks much more to the concerns of the young than the mature--again, because she ignores the "other-interested" side of human nature.

More:

For example, under Rand's schema would a person who abandons some passion in order to look after an elderly parent have a higher or lower moral standing than someone who doesn't (assuming that the parents are equally worthy)? Will the former be happier? More at peace? Rand gives us no real reason to believe so. In fact, the distinct impression one gets from her work is that an individual's first duty is to cultivating his own passions rather than nurturing his interest in the flourishing of those around him (with the possible exception of one's romantic partner). No surprise then that the virtue of generosity or benevolence, though it has pride of place in the work of Aristotle--the only philosopher to whom Rand acknowledges any intellectual debt--occupies a second-class status in her own work.

The fact is that Rand gets harder to take as one grows older and concerns about those around us become more important than our own personal project of self development. The relentless, single-minded dedication to one's passions that Rand seems to favor requires a coldness of the soul, a narrowing of one's humanity--the natural interest in the fortune of others that Smith alludes to--that most people find is not exactly conducive to their happiness.

This has profound and unfortunate political consequences. On the practical level, it makes it difficult to build a strong and growing anti-government movement based solely on Rand's philosophy, because the older cohort of her followers is falling off on a regular basis. On the theoretical level, Rand's ideas offer no real possibility of developing robust civil society responses to address the needs of those down on their luck. It is difficult to imagine a Randian qua Randian, say, volunteering in a soup kitchen to feed the hungry, or even founding the Fraternal Order of Fellow Randians to provide free health coverage and housing to jobless and homeless Randians. Since misfortune and distress are a normal part of the human condition, a philosophy that offers no positive, private solutions to deal with them will just have a harder time making the case against government intervention stick.

The former House speaker can't believe conservative knotheads are trying to override the local GOP's choice of candidate in a New York Congressional district. Excerpt:

Recall, the 1994 victory was in part because Republicans swept the 1993 elections. Three of the four Republican winners that year were moderates - significantly to the left of the conservative Republican base: Riordan was elected mayor of Los Angeles, Whitman as governor of New Jersey, and Giuliani as mayor of New York. George Allen, a conservative, was elected as governor of Virginia.

Furthermore, many of the Republicans elected in the 1994 landslide were moderates, including Nancy Johnson, Tom Campbell, Jim Leach, Chris Shays, Jan Myer, and Jennifer Dunn. They all signed the Contract with America and this coalition of Republicans passed Welfare reform, sealed the fate of HillaryCare, supported NAFTA, passed the first tax cut in 16 years, an increase in defense and intelligence spending, and (despite a Clinton veto that shut down the government) a four-year balanced budget.

In other words, support from moderate Republican elected officials enabled conservative governance, it did not prevent it. This is a lesson conservatives should keep in mind to counter the impulse to force out from the Republican Party anyone who is to the left of us on some issues.

Meanwhile, here in Texas, the state GOP just elected a hard-right social conservative as party leader. When last heard from, Cathie Adams e-mailed her associates to warn them that Obama's speech to schoolchildren made her think of Hitler. The Dallas County party chairman, who has been unfairly dogged by social conservatives for wanting to include Log Cabin Republicans in the conversation, and who has been trying to make party regulars understand that young city-dwellers who are Republican-friendly are increasingly turned off by the hardcore stuff, says picking a RINO hunter to run the state party sets the Texas GOP back five years. Excerpt:

Dallas County GOP chair Jonathan Neerman says the party needs "serious leaders with serious ideas," and Adams apparently doesn't fit that description. "She has been part of an issue group that has gone after Republicans, and I don't know how she can shift gears and go from being an issue-group leader going after Republican candidates and elected officials to now being one where she has to try and grow the party."

Neerman says there's "a crisis of confidence" in the state party, claiming elected officials don't feel like the party has been there for them or has been working for them to win elections. "You've seen the state party take positions on issues where there's no uniform agreement amongst Republican elected officials. So what they've done instead of trying to grow the party is formed a circular firing squad to go after Republicans."

I am given to understand that The New York Times is planning to give Ross Douthat a blog. What the heck is the hold-up? The guy is one of the best bloggers going, and the loss of his voice in the blogosphere has been keenly felt. I'm with Conor here:

Damn you, The New York Times, give Ross Douthat a blog! Don't you understand that delay makes no sense? You'll get exceptional content for the same outlay in salary, better print columns, and ideas that more fully penetrate the national conversation. What's your downside?

My interest in the matter is selfish. Due to Mr. Douthat's extended absence, Rod Dreher and I have been talking past the folks at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen in a sprawling, muddled debate about the state of the right, the role dissident conservatives should play, and the wisdom of attacking talk radio hosts, among other issues. If only there were a deliberate writer who would ponder our entries, clarify the issues at stake in a concise, hyper-linked summary of our views, and proceed to offer a fair-minded assessment of their strengths and weaknesses, finally adding a bit of insightful analysis that moves the whole conversation forward.

There have been lots of thoughtful, if frustrating, posts on the League and on Conor's blog about the proper role of dissident conservatives. I keep planning to sit down and join the fray once again, but this is going to be a busy afternoon here at the paper. I commend to you Conor's essay (follow the link above), which is full of links back to the various comments posted on the League's excellent blog. I think we're still talking past each other. I understand, or I think I do, what the League critics are getting at when they accuse Conor, me and others of taking potshots at easy movement-conservative targets, but not doing things to engage the base. My objection remains the same: I don't see that it's my role to reform the conservative movement and make it fit to govern again. I'm only a conservative writer with opinions. I used to feel more invested in the fate of political conservatism, but that's not my thing anymore. Don't get me wrong, I certainly hope to see the GOP reform, and a more responsible conservative government return to power in this country. But I don't craft my opinions around that strategic goal. I don't deliberately set out to alienate allies on the left or the right, but at this political moment, most on the politically active right are incapable of hearing dissent. Anyway, I'm not sure why it's wrong for conservatives who are interested in politics but not politically engaged in the same way that, say, the National Review folks are, to write what they think and not worry overmuch about how the base is going to hear them. True, if you wish to be persuasive you have to think about your audience, but when you are delivering a message that many in your audience resolutely do not wish to hear, there's not enough honey in the world to make that pill palatable. E.D. Kain dissents:

Nor am I advocating that conservative dissidents should be duplicitous, or that they should abandon their philosophy texts for charts and wonkery exclusively, or even that they should join the Republican Party. I certainly haven't. But what I am saying is that simply advocating the "conservative disposition" is not enough. It just sounds good on paper. It takes no account of where that disposition might actually lead us as a society. And that's why this project Conor is engaged in - of being aloof and distant from the actual political trenches - strikes me as not only futile, but as the easy way out.

Here's Conor, on the difference between conservative dissidents and conservative wonks:

These are sometimes overlapping categories. Reihan Salam and Ross Douthat arguably fit into both camps, as does Ramesh Ponnuru. David Frum isn't a wonk exactly, though he sure is knowledgeable about policy, and dissents from mainstream "movement conservatism." Of course, there are wonks who aren't dissidents -- see the Heritage Foundation -- and dissidents who aren't wonks: Rod Dreher, Daniel Larison, and myself, to cite three dissidents who possibly have more policy preferences in common with the folks we're dissenting against than with one another! What draws us together, by my lights, is that we identify with the political philosophy of conservatism -- albeit different threads of that philosophy -- rather than the political coalition of "movement conservatism," so we can appreciate aspects of one another's oeuvre, especially when we're writing against the most absurd orthodoxies of thought within the political/ideological coalition.

My sense is that among us, Daniel Larison is most interested in politics, though he understands he is so far outside the mainstream that he has little chance of influencing it in the short term, whereas Rod Dreher and I are less interested in electoral politics, and more interested in our own related but distinct projects: aspects of American culture, in Rod Dreher's case, and the intersection of public discourse and American journalism, in my case.

That isn't to say that we're entirely uninterested in politics, anymore than it is to say that Ross Douthat isn't at all interested in journalism, or that Rich Lowry is uninterested in culture. It's just to say that every writer has his own primary interests, obsessions, and areas where he thinks he can make the biggest difference.

This helps explain, I think, why Rod Dreher is confused by what is written at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen. It's as though he is saying, "So I subscribe to the political philosophy of conservatism -- what do you mean I should take responsibility for bringing a sane, right-leaning political coalition back to power in this country? That isn't my project, and even if it were the base wouldn't listen to me anyway."

Put another way, tweaking Rod Dreher for his failure to fully invest himself in reforming "the conservative movement" with wonky solutions acceptable to the base makes about as much sense as criticizing Reihan Salam for failing to abandon his cosmopolitan tendencies long enough to convince culturally conservative Texans to raise backyard chickens in the name of spiritual fulfillment and environmental sustainability.

And the eggs! Anyway, I once again rise to associate myself with the Rt. Hon. Friedersdorf, and to thank the League for a robust argument -- though one that by now seems exhausted, if inconclusive. I think we can all agree, though, that humanity would be better served if the damn NYTimes would un-gag Ross, and let him return part-time to his natural habitat, the blogosphere. As someone who both writes a newspaper column and a blog, I can tell you that it's far more interesting to me to work on the blog, because I'm not confined to the 800 word length, nor do my blog entries seem as -- what's the word? -- significant as the newspaper column.