Twenty-First Century Conservatism
Go populist without going populist: I’ve spent some time warning against the dangers of populism in regards to the AIG scandal and generally, but the fact of the matter is that there is smoldering populist sentiment out there that is not completely off-base in terms of its raison d’etre. People rightly believe that their government has gotten away from them and increasingly has little to do with their everyday lives and addressing the issues present in those lives in a positive fashion and a movement/party that can present a believable narrative about how they care about the challenges facing Americans and are interested in focusing on those issues in a collaborative fashion stands a decent chance of capturing a sizable proportion of the national imagination.
Look, John McCain and Sarah Palin were on to something with their decision to go hyper-local in how they addressed supporters and finished in what was a respectable place given that this election was the Democrats’ to lose and they did very little to actually lose it. The problem is that Palin and McCain practiced actual, base-line populism that appealed to people’s lowest common denominator inclinations. Such traditional populism generally winds up looking pretty ugly as a result and will get you a certain segment of support, but doesn’t offer the means for developing a broad base of support. But if conservatives can find a way of walking the walk of populism without necessarily talking the talk of populism, they might have a recipe for success sooner than we all tend to think. Walking the walk but not talking the talk to me means eschewing notions of appealing to peoples’ lowest common denominators and meeting people where they are but challenging them to bring the angels of their better nature to the game. Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam’s arguments around Sam’s Club Republicans come to mind in this regard, as does the kind of localism/regionalism/integrity of living articulated by the likes of Daniel Larison, John Schwenkler, and particularly Rod Dreher (though Rod runs in to his troubles in other areas).
Give up on small government, focus on limited government: I’m going to get hammered on this issue from some quarters, but I think it’s time for conservatives to face up to the music when it comes to small government. For all intents and purposes, government has been growing for the past number of decades regardless of the leadership in power at any given time. The fact of the matter is that with a country the size of the US, you need to have a fairly large government structure and the kind of spending that goes along with that structure. The bottom line is that Americans expect too much of their government for it to every truly be small. So by sticking to the “smaller government, fewer taxes” motto religiously (pun very much intended), conservatives have an easy to understand and winning message, but remain permanently unable to deliver on fifty percent of that message and end up getting criticised for it.
On the other hand, the less easy to convey notion of a limited government, whose role and scope in the lives of everyday Americans is an area that is still wide open for debate and in which consider reforms can be managed — especially given how George W. Bush trounced this notion over the past eight years. This, to my mind, is prime redemption ground for American conservatives and they would do well to take the ball and run with. You’re not going to get any kind of rhetoric from the Obama administration that can’t be refuted because of their commitment to broad based spending (regardless of what Obama himself may think about limited government, and I’m inclined to believe he is sincere), so conservatives have the opportunity to take the ball and run it more than a few yards here. Beyond just winning elections, though, I think this is robust area for debate for years to come and think that conservatives would be well advised to take the lead on that debate.
Take the libertarian route when it comes to culture: I would suggest that more than economics or role of government, conservatives are on the business end of the demographics shotgun because of cultural issues. The debate on whether spending should be vigorous or tempered swings back and forth depending on prevailing circumstances in America, and that debate winds up affecting the dynamics of the debate on the role of government, as well. But there is a steady procession of resolve on certain cultural issues, perhaps currently typified by the same-sex marriage issue, that marches to beat of different and less erratic forces. Understanding that there are reasons why conservatives may not be able to find sufficient reason to come out in exuberant support of these issues (and it would be great if they could, because that would strengthen their case even further), the obvious way forward here is to address these social issues from the movement/party’s libertarian perspective.
The basic line goes something like, “Look, I might not condone homosexuality, but it isn’t my place — and it certainly isn’t the states’s place — to determine who can and can’t get married. That is a decision that two rational and competent adults should make, so I’ll leave it to them.”
To my mind, that is essentially the tact that Obama is taking on some of the more contentious social issues and as far as I can tell it is both working like a charm and has the bonus of being a thoroughly intellectually defensible position. It’s not going to convince progressives, but it could be very appealing to some moderates, places conservatives on the right side of history, and picks up that contingent youth that wound up adoring Ron Paul in the election.
Give up on neoconservatism: I know I’ve defended it, but for the time being ’nuff said.
Re-embrace intellectualism: now opinions are going to vary depending on who you talk to about whether or not the conservative movement actually ceased embracing intellectualism, but regardless I think the broad perception is out there and impressively pervasive. You can’t go about escaping that perception when the face of your movement is George W. Bush for eight years, rightly or wrongly. The worst part about this perception is that the conservative movement has an incredible cadre of extremely intelligent and talented young intellectuals at its disposal who are to some degree or another on the outside looking in (many of them have managed to slip in through the sliding glass door leading to the patio, but they shouldn’t have to sneak about). Whether you’re looking at people like James Poulos, Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Conor Friedersdorf, David Frum, Daniel Larison, Rod Dreher, Patrick Deneen, Ramesh Ponnuru or (gasp) Andrew Sullivan (and that’s my own relatively myopic list of favourites), it’s hard to deny that there is a metric tonne of talent that isn’t being a thoroughly utilized as it could be. Finding channels for bringing these folks further into the party and letting them stretch their intellectual and conceptual legs for your movement’s benefit isn’t just optically wise, it’s actually going to strengthen your movement.
The challenge, of course, is that these folks aren’t died in the wool movement conservatives, as is the case with most of the young intellectuals that conservatism could avail itself. So by engaging them you have correspondingly understand that they are fairly comfortable moving some of the building blocks around, and in some cases, removing them altogether. Time to give up some sacred cows people, trust me it’s all part of the ideological process. The kind of openness and intellectual honesty that these thinkers bring to the table has been able to draw out the respect of even staunch liberal minds, so believe me the increase in the price of your stock combined with the ultimate strength that the restructuring will provide a movement bereft of many exhilarating ideas is more than worth it.
If restructuring is good enough for the Big Three, it’s good enough for the GOP. I see a bumper sticker in my future.
Critically embrace tradition: a conservatism of the twenty-first century doesn’t need to cut is umbilical cord to tradition altogether, by my lights. In fact, conservatism’s connection to tradition is potentially one it’s strong points in a world increasingly loosened from any moorings. But conservatives need to find ways of embracing those traditions with a critical eye and be prepared to let go of traditions that no longer make any sense. This post by Will Wilson that keep going back to on engaging self-reflective traditions is the key here and I keep waiting for Will to pick that line of thought back up on move it forward a couple more yards, but it’s somewhere to start. This links in to some degree with my comments around culture and is, in many sense, a more full-bodied approach to reform in this regard, but I think there is a whole separate project and element to the ideology at work here that speaks to one of the core planks in conservative identity, so I’m loathe to mash the two together.
For another good example of what I’m talking about, specifically in regards to dropping certain traditional mores when they no longer make sense, see Conor Friedersdorf on same-sex marriage.
Find meaningful ways of talking about religious pluralism: a big hang up for a lot of people around conservatism is the degree to which it seems yoked to religion, specifically Chistianity. I think there are powerful reasons why it is the case that even a twenty-first century conservatism is going to continue to have a strong relationship to religion, but there are also ways of presenting that relationship in a palatable way. Alan Wolf had an impressive article that I’ve referred back to on a couple of different occasions about the “market place of religion”, that demonstrated in what I took to be a fairly impressive manner that the direction of religion is away from absolutism and towards a plurality. To my mind, this is the migrating pattern that conservatives need to follow.
Again, this is the piece of rhetorical jujitsu that Obama has so adeptly employed to great effect. As well, in that article, Wold points to some of the more socially responsible tendencies that arising within the specifically evangelical strains of faith, finding ways to focus attention on those elements, rather than proclamations of non-blievers burning in hell would be mightily helpful.
So that’s my list. For obvious reasons it’s not exhaustive, but I’m up over 1,900 words at this point, so it should give a clearer picture of what I’m referring to, at least in my own mind.
Related posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- I'd recommend checking ou...
- Dave,As someone who makes...
- Well, it puts me back in ...
- Mike,To me, as someone wh...
- What a freaking game.
- The Bowman essay is prett...
- *sigh* As much as it abso...
- Good lord, do you imagine...
- everything has unintended...
- Thanks for this; you have...
-
20 comments
I’ll add something.
Tell the truth.
There is no “reform” conservatism at this point because MOST of the young intelligentsia of conservatism (for example James Poulos, Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Conor Friedersdorf, Daniel Larison, Jim Manzi, Rod Dreher, Patrick Deneen, Ramesh Ponnuru , Heather MacDonald and Razib Khan, even the once unimpeachable Steve Sailer) are still indulging in intellectual pandering to the low information base.
Reformation requires truthsay on everything from the profound lack of qualifications of Sarah Palin, the harm that the oogedy-boogedies do to the party, and the real science of everything from stem cells to AGW to IDT.
There can be no reform without truth.
And the reason you have to tell the truth now is that we are in the age of the flattening of information.
Anyone can be a sage.
One critical moment for me was when the TAS bloggers were finally forced to acknowledge the dogwhistle race-baiting that was a large part of the McCain-Palin campaign.
Yet they still said nothing.
Manzi said, “the gift that keeps on giving” is all.
Reformers are heretics– they strike against the orthodoxy.
There are no conservative reformers.
Because anyone that makes an honest try is excommunicated as a RINO.
Thanks Scott, you seem to have embraced the question, so thanks for your efforts.
I’m going to re-read the post and comment more later but for starters this, “Re-embrace intellectualism.”
So true. How has it come to pass that conservatism, Republicans, have embraced anti-intellectualism? I guess the easy and truthful answer is religion, but counter arguments are welcome. (When the Pope blames condoms for spreading HIV we have passed “through the looking glass.”)
Not only does the conservative movement have young, or youngish, thinkers worthy of consideration but it has a rich intellectual tradition to draw upon. So much of that seems to have been cast aside for the oogedy-boogedy of Robertson, Falwell, Dreher and to a somewhat lesser, but still troubling, extant Douthat and Sullivan.
In a nutshell, it just seem self-destructive to embrace an obviously divisive meme like religion for political purposes. And in adopting that meme, and it’s necessary anti-intellectual component, current conservatism has chosen a shrinking voter base.
well i guess somebody will say it eventually so I’ll go first. this list is a great idea and would be workable if it wouldn’t require alienating all the religious conservatives, the club for growth loons, and the hostile to anybody not WASP section of the party.
this is basically 50-75% of the repub party. so good luck with that.
The R’s have trained their base to respond to base, viscous attacks ( calling people fascist , traitor, etc) and simplistic, dumb arguments ( saying the national budget should be run like a household budget, just tighten your belt). I’d be more interested in how you start changing the R’s.
Quick note: the author of the post on traditionalism you link to is Will Wilson, not Will Wilkinson.
Ack, I freakin’ knew that too and I just instinctively typed Wilkinson. Thanks for pointing it out William.
I did go for broke, Greg, it’s true. It’s a bit of a laundry list and I don’t think that all of that has to happen all at once. Let me give some thought to your follow up and either post a comment or, if it warrants it, a follow up post.
Out of curiosity, given that list, where would you start?
urr…ummm….uhhhh….well for what it’s worth coming from a wonkish lefty, and just going off your list and ignoring how you change large diverse institutions, i would think the R’s should work towards a meaningful respect of religious pluralism. they , mostly wrongly, are viewed as a more religious party and it plays to their strength. if they could truly respect all beliefs ( or lack of them) they would do a lot to calm the fear of a R planet. that woiuld also lead them to maybe actually listen and learn from others and about how life is lived by many Americans. if R’s could sit and listen and learn from the congregations of African American churches about their faith, the problems they face and how the government was a true force of good at times then there would be hope.
I would also say they should re-embrace intellectualism. that would entail dumping a lot of dogma and getting some open minds. On a side note, of the intell’s you listed Danial Larison is very good. but you also have ramesh ponuru who sadly might actually pass, only in R circles, as an intellectual. part of thinking is being willing to seriously question your own biases and beliefs. the only thing i can remember about ponuru is how completely owned he was by Stephen Colbert.
Anyway R’s could go a long way with serious thinking about how to solve problems first and their values/dogmas less. a little, or a lot, of pragmatism would help.
I don’t understand how someone can look at the AIG bonus reaction and think that’s a function of frustration with government. Is there no conservative basis from which to address the excesses and failures of enormous moneyed interests? Does conservativism even recognize that our businesses and corporations have fundamentally failed us?
I would also say they should re-embrace intellectualism.
But they cannot do that while they are liars.
And…..there is only one kind of truth.
Like there is only one kind of intelligence.
GO POPULIST….
“But if conservatives can find a way of walking the walk of populism without necessarily talking the talk of populism, they might have a recipe for success sooner than we all tend to think.”
I’m confused by the above. The phrase you are refereeing to goes something along these lines, “you can talk the talk but can you walk the walk?” or variations of that. In other words, words are cheap, “talk,” while actions, “walk” may be difficult. Certainly more difficult than mouthing a few platitudes. So why would conservatives “walk” populism but not “talk” populism? If populism has worthy goals, “walk,” why eschew the “talk” (vocabulary) of populism?
On another level you seem to be describing both history and the present. The GOP has long talked a certain brand of populism, silent majority, moral majority, center right electorate but have failed to deliver the goods to these voters – overturning Roe v Wade, prayer amendment, gay marriage amendment, smaller government, balanced budgets, etc. And conseratives, religious and secular, have, on occasion, called the GOP on their lack of follow through. In short, GOP lots of talk, little walk.
Last, I do not share your, but more so E.D.’s, distaste of populism. I can easily envision a populism of the right that I would absolutely despise but my reading of American history tells me that this country is not prone to radicalism of either right or left. Even during the darkest days of the Depression Americans rejected radical, left, politics. Americans also rejected reactionary, right, politics.
I think this might be your weakest argument or suggestion, but your small v limited government ranks near the top.
More?
GIVE UP ON SMALL GOVERNMENT….LIMITED GOVERNMENT
First, let me define “small” from my dictionary, Webster’s New Word Dictionary, “1. little in size especially when compared with others of the same kind; not large or big; limited in size.” “Limited in size.” So on the very conservative view, words have meanings, I reject any distinction of small v limited government. One can call for smaller government, one can call for a more limited government but only the phrasing differ. The goal is the same. I know there is discussion on the web, Will Wilkinson and others, trying to re-define and draw a distinction between small and limited government but I am not buying it. “Six of one, half dozen of the other.” I’m going to remain firm on this pending a strong rebut.
But historically I very much reject the notion of small/limited government. You write, “For all intents and purposes, government has been growing for the past number of decades regardless of the leadership in power at any given time.” Correct, but only partiality. It is more correct to say that the purpose of government has expanded since the Constitution was ratified, and even before it was ratified. The weak central government under the Articles of Confederation saw fit to decree where slavery could be prohibited. The Northwest Ordinance, 1787, prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory, a clear restriction of slave holders rights. With the adoption of the Constitution the battle over the scope of government continued. Just mentioning Jefferson’s disputes with Hamilton, Federalist versus Anti-Federalist, is enough to remind you that the argument over small/limited government is a hardy perennial. And for me the conclusion is very much inescapable, growth of government. Small government is a myth. I don’t think an argument can be made for smaller government existing in any period of American history.
All the above does not negate the possibility of some sort of rollback in the scope of government. I accept it as a discussion worth having. I applaud libertarians and the ACLU fighting governmental expansion into many areas. Government should be restricted, government should be limited.
One last point, one that should not be necessary to make. Conseratives are not alone in calling of small government. The areas where government should shrink is what is most often in dispute.
I can’t see the future, but I will tell you this, if such retrenchment of powers takes place it will correctly be called a smaller government or a limited government.
I reject any distinction of small v limited government. One can call for smaller government, one can call for a more limited government but only the phrasing differ. The goal is the same.
Nonsense. Actually government can be quite large and still limited. For instance a government could have a massive welfare apparatus and still limit itself in terms of regulating business or spying on its citizenry. It might not be a small government but it limits its scope in some sense. Similarly, I think there’s room for a big federal government which still allows the states and local governments a great deal of autonomy – a form of limits.
So I would agree with you that the course of events in the past and probably in the future is the growth of government, but that doesn’t mean that at the same time we can’t determine better limits for it.
“Nonsense. Actually government can be quite large and still limited.”
I see your “nonsense” and raise you a nonsense.
Nonsense. Actually government can be quite small and still be limited.
My argument had nothing to do with limits except my last statements applauding and acknowledging the need for limits.
My argument was directed to the fact that the words small and limited are interchangeable. I stand by that.
I think we agree more than you are willing to say. I know it’s tacky but to quote myself, “Government should be restricted, government should be limited.” Neither you or I want unlimited government. If we disagree it’s over where to draw the boundaries, and I bet our differances would not be great.
Bob, I owe you responses. As always, they will be forthcoming with your requisite patience.
Cheers.
I would second and extend greginak’s remarks:
‘Go populist without going populist’: that’s what the GOP has been doing – ‘God, guns and gays’, anti-intellectualism, and coded appeals to the Confederacy and racist whites. This has hit limitations – nonwhite voters are gaining significant shares of the vote in more and more states, cultural populism is alienating a lot of people, and the economic policies are coming home to roost.
“Give up on small government, focus on limited government”- the last small *or* limite government GOP President was Hoover; even his zombie corpse has fallen apart. Bush put the nails in the coffin with his gleeful Deciderer imperial presidency.
“Take the libertarian route when it comes to culture” – the GOP has been waging culture war since at least Nixon. It’s rather hard to give up a fifty-year policy. In addition, many factions of the GOP (neocons, religious right, business elites) are flat out happy with a powerful, interventionalist government. They just dislike it when it does particular things they oppose.
“Give up on neoconservatism” – again, a fifty year old policy, taking a low-ball estimate. You’re basically asking the GOP to give up militarism, Empire and fat DoD contracts.
“Re-embrace intellectualism” – giving up on populism. And in a party which has gleefully benn driving out college grads for a few decades, a major reversal.
“Critically embrace tradition” – the right is split behind mindless worship of outdated traditions, and gleeful trashing of any traditions which get in the way of money and power. You’re asking for a 180 degree turn.
“Find meaningful ways of talking about religious pluralism” – the religious right’s only embraceable religious pluralism is what right-wing church does one belong to (and they’re split on whether or not the Catholic Church should be included or persecuted). You’ll have to break the back of the religious right to do this.
And the biggie that you haven’t mentioned – stop being the party of the economic elites. The GOP has spent several decades devoted to the idea of redistributing wealth upwards. The American people are now bottomed out.
This leads to the others – given economic elitism, cultural populism is necessary to get votes. Unthinking cultural populism, because thinking cultural populists might notice the economic elitism. Religious fervor is needed, for the same reason. Racial hatred is needed, so that p*ss-poor whites will identify with the Party of the Rich. Anti-intellectualism is needed, because social science is an enemy. And so on.