Click the cover to buy a copy.

Click the cover to buy a copy.

A Thoughtful Take on the Travails of Modern Conservatism, by Kevin R. Kosar, October 29, 2009

A cacophony of voices have taken up the topic of “what’s wrong with the right?”  Sam Tanenhaus, editor of the New York Times Book Review, has written an engaging book on the subject.

Tanenhaus’s stated interest is in conservatism as an intellectual movement, a melange of ideas of the nature of man, government, the American constitutional order, etc.

He argues that within post-New Deal conservatism there has been a tension between the spiritual descendents of Edmund Burke (“Burkeans”) and the more recent vintage ideological “movement conservatives.” Burkean conservatives, says Tanenhaus,  appreciate complexity and the organic nature of communities, and they want to conserve positive influences thereon. For example, Burkeans can make peace with Social Security as they recognize that the public likes it and because it is an effective anti-poverty program.

Movement conservatives, meanwhile, are less interested in the preservation of what is than in destroying that which does not fit their rigid conceptions of the proper role of government.  The war against FDR’s welfare state continues, as does the attempt to rollback LBJ’s Great Society. The movement conservative spirit is vengeful—these revanchist conservatives want to get back at those who have led America astray. Particularly odious is these conservatives’ mean habit of attacking others as un-patriotic and, in echoes of Joseph McCarthy, un-American.

Obviously, Tanenhaus’ sympathies lie with the Burkeans, and he pins the current sorry state of conservatism on the ascendancy of the revanchists. He sees their embodiment in the presidency of George W. Bush and the vice presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin. Conservatism is dying, Tanenhaus argues, because the ascendant revanchists can offer nothing but ideological boilerplate.  Collapsing economy?  It is the fault of government.  We need more deregulation. Rising health care costs?  Government meddling is the problem.  We should fully privatize the health sector of the economy. Ad nauseum.

At barely 120 pages, The Death of Conservatism provides an easy reading, bird’s eye  introduction to conservative thought in America.  Additionally, Tanenhaus should be lauded for reminding the world that there is more to conservatism than barkers like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. There have been thoughtful conservatives, and they often have come to very different conclusions about man and government (e.g., Willmoore Kendall vs. Russell Kirk).

However, Tanenahaus’ brief coverage does have its problems.  As Garry Wills has pointed out, who should be categorized as Burkean and who should be labeled revanchist is no easy matter.  Tanenhaus calls Bill Clinton a Burkean.  Would a Burkean have tried to integrate gays into the military and remake health care right after he entered office?  Indeed, this label “Burkean” is so loose that it seems synonymous with the term “moderate.”  It would have been helpful is Tanenhaus had differentiated the one from the other.

Tanenhaus also runs into trouble when he tries to relate Burkean conservatism to  governance.  No president has governed as a true movement conservative.  All of them have grown federal spending and federal programs, and none of them have rolled back any New Deal or Great Society programs.

More fundamentally, though, the use of just two categories is too much of an oversimplification.  Where do libertarians fit?  And what about neo-nativists, neo-isolationists, and neoconservatives?  And how about those who might be described as constitutional originalists?  These folks tend to view the Constitution reverentially and voice diverse concerns about the government doing things that go beyond the plain language of the Constitution, e.g., rising executive branch power, government surveillance activities, the erosion of federalism, and the activities of the Federal Reserve.  In order to get a full view of conservatism and to assess its successes in elections and governance, the full variety of conservatism needs to be considered.

Tanenhaus is correct that a significant portion of the conservative movement has become unthinking, anti-intellectual, and rigidly ideological.  This is regrettable; but it is not the sole reason that conservatism finds itself in a funk.

As I see it, conservatism also suffers from a problem of credibility.  Beyond trashing their brand, they have too often come off as hypocrites. Witness:

Conservative Beliefs/Positions:

  1. We believe in marriage and the family and upright behavior.
  2. We are more trustworthy than liberals on national defense.
  3. We believe in a small federal government and sound fiscal management.
  4. We believe that “we people rule.”
  5. We think government should keep its nose out of citizens’ lives.
  6. We believe in federalism and local control.

Actions:

  1. Sex scandals aplenty, the K Street Project, and public officials going to prison for corruption.
  2. Getting hit on 9-11, yellowcake, and Iraq.
  3. Skyrocketing federal spending, ballooning federal deficits, and lots of earmarks.
  4. The unitary executive trumps the people’s representatives in Congress.
  5. The Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping.
  6. The No Child Left Behind Act.

One could go on, but the point is clear—the words the public hears from conservatives frequently do not match the actions of those who proclaim themselves conservatives.

With optics like these, conservatives face a monumental task in regaining credibility. Thoughtful conservatives also will have to make their way onto the airwaves, to replace the current hard right revanchists.  Additionally, conservatives will need to devise thoughtful policies that not only fit with the conservative disposition, but also address the public’s needs.

Whether conservatives will do these things, though, is another question entirely.  Many on the right appear to remain in denial.