Absolutey fantastic essay tracing the development of modern conservatism to the present day, and why it’s in such tatters right now.
What passes for conservatism today would have been incomprehensible to its originator, Edmund Burke, who, in the late eighteenth century, set forth the principles by which governments might nurture the “organic” unity that bound a people together even in times of revolutionary upheaval. Burke’s conservatism was based not on a particular set of ideological principles but rather on distrust of all ideologies. In his most celebrated writings, his denunciation of the French Revolution and its English champions, Burke did not seek to justify the ancien regime and its many inequities. Nor did he propose a counter-ideology. Instead he warned against the destabilizing perils of revolutionary politics, beginning with its totalizing nostrums. Robespierre and Danton, the movement ideologues of their day, were inflamed with the Enlightenment vision of the ideal civilization and sacrificed to its abstractions the established traditions and institutions of what Burke called “civil society.” They placed an idea of the perfect society over and above the need to improve society as it really existed.
At the same time, Burke recognized that governments were obligated to use their powers to meliorate intolerable conditions. He had, for example, supported the American Revolution because its architects, unlike the French rebels, had not sought to destroy the English government; on the contrary, they petitioned for just representation within it. Had King George III complied, he would have strengthened, not weakened, the Crown and Parliament. Instead, he had inflexibly clung to the hard line and so shared responsibility for the Americans’ revolt. “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation,” Burke warned. The task of the statesman was to maintain equilibrium between “[t]he two principles of conservation and correction.” Governance was a perpetual act of compromise–“sometimes between good and evil, and sometimes between evil and evil.” In such a scheme there is no useful place for the either/or of ideological purism.
The story of postwar American conservatism is best understood as a continual replay of a single long-standing debate. On one side are those who have upheld the Burkean ideal of replenishing civil society by adjusting to changing conditions. On the other are those committed to a revanchist counterrevolution, the restoration of America’s pre-welfare state ancien regime. And, time and again, the counterrevolutionaries have won. The result is that modern American conservatism has dedicated itself not to fortifying and replenishing civil society but rather to weakening it through a politics of civil warfare.
How did this happen? One reason is that the most intellectually sophisticated founders of postwar conservatism were in many instances ex-Marxists, who moved from left to right but remained persuaded that they were living in revolutionary times and so retained their absolutist fervor. In place of the Marxist dialectic they formulated a Manichaean politics of good and evil, still with us today, and their strategy was to build a movement based on organizing cultural antagonisms. Many have observed that movement politics most clearly defines itself not by what it yearns to conserve but by what it longs to destroy–“statist” social programs; “socialized medicine”; “big labor”; “activist” Supreme Court justices, the “media elite”; “tenured radicals” on university faculties; “experts” in and out of government.
With a bonus appearance by Whittaker Chambers and a damn good explanation of why conservatism worked in the 1970s and 1980s and isn’t now. Can’t recommend this enough. By way of Ta-Nehisi Coates.
I don’t know if this is intentional intellectual dishonesty or if the author is so blinded by his own partisanship that he can’t see the hypocrisy. Liberals have given up ideology a generation ago? Is that why Obamania is explicitly parroting the “New Politics” of the early 1960’s or the stimulus bill has every sacred cow anointed with gobs of money?
Rhino, have you looked at the stuff that got passed for the Great Society? If you think the current stimulus package is ideological you’d die of a heart attack looking at LBJ’s bills.
I think you’re taking an overbroad view of definitions of ideology, and I can see why the article would inspire that reaction. One of the consistent criticisms leveled at the Democratic Party in recent years is that they don’t “stand” for anything, other than not being Republicans, or that they lack a real platform besides having a leftward trend on the major litmus test issues. I don’t think that has changed a great deal with Obama: if there was a core message to his campaign in addition to all of the change stuff that mobilized his base is that he would be a non-threatening, re-centering stabilizer devoted to effective compromise. He has certain beliefs, of course, and presumably they are guided by a somewhat consistent philosophy.
But in comparison with what I will refer to as the right’s ideological rigor since Reagan, it’s not even playing the same sport. You can chalk it up to spinelessness and a lack of an ethos at one extreme or take the extremely charitable view of it being an entirely purposeful approach to politics that Jason’s article does, but I don’t think it would be a controversial point with you if you separate it a bit from the positive value judgment that the article attached.
Also, with respect to the article, I think there’s a lot to be said for his view that the ideological core of modern conservatism is the translation of Marxist historical perspectives to cultural and religious “values” based arguments, particularly when it comes to foreign policy and the economy.
There, conservatives have offered little apart from self-justifications mixed with harsh appraisals of the Bush years. Some argue that the administration wasn’t conservative at all, at least not in the “small government” sense. This is true, but then no president in modern times has seriously attempted to reduce the size of government, and for good reason: Voters don’t want it reduced. What they want is government that’s “big” for them–whether it’s Democrats who call for job-training programs and universal health care or Republicans eager to see billions funneled into “much-needed and underfunded defense procurement,” as William Kristol recommended shortly after Obama’s victory.
Exactly. I tell the same thing to my students. We have to stop thinking of either party as the big government party and start asking which PARTS of government they want to increase. They are both big government. They are both pro freedom, too, but they want different kinds of freedom. And both parties are pro government control, but again, they want to control different things. The difference is in focus, not in scope or overall goal.
Truth, every word, and why I don’t like either party but especially dislike the current incarnation of the Republicans (because they pretend to be in favor of something they aren’t, a small government). I can have an honest discussion and disagreement with Democrats. With most current “conservatives”, that’s impossible, since what they say and what they do are completely out of sync.
The most consistent theme of the analysis of both sides was a respect and support for a centrist malaise that continues to demand a slow increase in progressivism, with a dollop of tribalism that Robert mentions. Both sides failed when they reached too far.
It’s interesting (and sad and humorous) that the author places the left in the role of progressive ideals and the right as merely a helpful contributor in reforming existing government and society (realism) to keep the left from going too far. There is no question about whether this slow movement is a correct one, and indeed there cannot be since asking it would make the GOP irrelevant ideologues. The compromise is always between good and evil or evil and evil, and the compromise must be maintained to continue to enjoy power and relevance in politics.
So instead of the death of conservatism, he should have called for the death of small government – which has long been dead, but is now openly acknowledged as inevitable. The concept has been killed by loud and lousy and wrong ideologues from Buchanan to Buckley to Bush. The question is no longer where the nation is going and whether it is good for individuals, but how we get to the inevitable end that the lazy and weak public demands.
You almost wonder why the GOP should bother anymore – are the occasional reforms even that important? Is it just about feeling respected on talk shows and in the Beltway? Is it all about the tax cuts, yo? Being part of the winning team even if they really aren’t helping with dialogue in America about important issues?
I don’t think we should overlook the role of Christians in the GOP. Legions of them feel connected to the conservatives through a perceived shared morality. Remember that many voters are “one issue” types that vote for Republicans based solely on abortion, or gay marriage, ect… That aspect is very powerful (and scary!), and is something that could keep the GOP afloat longer than it would otherwise.
This wasn’t always true. The conservative Republicans elected in the 1994 election did come to Washington to shrink government. When they were completely outfoxed by a hyper-demagoguing Clinton in the 1995-1996 budget battle, they slowly gave up on shrinking government. They adopted a slower-growth-than-the-other-guy approach with different priorities. Without someone who can and will make the case ideologically and bring the party into line, the movement has somewhat gotten into the weeds over the last 8 years. Love him or hate him, one thing is that Bush has been the counter-Clinton, insomuch as he stopped even trying to lead politically after getting beat on Social Security in 2005.
You always see these kinds of articles about the party/ideology out of power. The liberals and/or Democrats were dead in print in 1990, 1995, and 2003. The wheel will turn again.
And ideological conservatism is an oxymoron shurely? Conservatism = “the stupid party” (not in a bad way, but in the sense of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, a focus on pragmatically holding on to power, and a distrust of big ideas & zealots, preferring gradualism & evolution to revolution)
I.e. opposite of conservative is radical, not liberal. One can be a radical right winger, but then, one is not conservative.
To grossly oversimplify the myriad of issues, it’s just as oxymoronic as liberalism being the term for the ideology of the party which finds that the answer to all questions being more centralized government power.
Have you considered the possibility - just as a passing thought - that the reason the GOP gave up on smaller government is that they lose elections when they try it? Are they just supposed to pass unpopular legislation and got voted out of office on principle?
So the question remains: why bother? If the horse is out of the barn and democracy means inevitable big government, do they just keep trying to get elected so they can continue to look cool at cocktail parties and for a handful of bloggers? They used to be decent reforming skeptics decades ago but now it seems like they only exist to react against liberals reaching too far. Perhaps that’s why Bush failed so utterly – Clinton and the Republican Congress weren’t that bad in the 90s, so the public wasn’t ready for him.
You’re still assuming that they really want to shrink the size of government. Based on their actions, they don’t; they just want to take it away from people they don’t like, give it to people they do, and make it so rich people pay for none of it.
The easiest explanation is they were all hot to do that, came to Washington, lost, then decided to settle in and do whatever they could do. Turns out “what they could do” was invade Iraq, pass deficit-financed tax cuts, and be corrupt as hell.
