Yes, the conservative movement is still trying to find itself. So let's take a look at a few recent observations made about what's going on.
Please read the entire series here: What is Conservatism?
Challenges Ahead for Conservatives
Readers know I'm no super-duper philosopher. I go with my gut instincts on things, and I apply the real political science expertise I've developed in my training and teaching. As for my orientation, my initial entry at this blog lays out my transition over the last few years. See, "Welcome to American Power." Also, I don't reflexively hate any and all government, obviously so in the case of foreign policy. See, "Constitutional Conservatism," where I cite Peter Berkowitz, who argues that that those on the right need to reconcile with public-goods structures of the American state. That is, a wholesale roll-back of government is impractical, but a limitation of the expansion of the state is an imperative. Those more in favor of a state-centered federalism -- one way of advocating small-g conservatism -- obviously won't have much truck with the Berkowitz thesis. That said, "constitutional conservatism" is pragmatic and firmly based in classic conservative thought.
Is Conservatism Becoming More Muscular?
[M]e, I’m not seeing it. Sure, people who call themselves conservatives are more angry right now, but they also seem a lot less thoughtful and well-informed than the conservatism I remember from 10, 20 years ago. A movement once full of stellar intellectual thinkers is now dominated by the likes of Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. And while this may increase the movement’s strength in some areas, it diminishes it enormously in others. When the answer to every question, before you even ask it, is either “the market” or “the Bible,” how coherent can your agenda really be once you take power? If the only thesis of your movement is that our own government is always and everywhere our enemy, what exactly is that movement going to accomplish?
Should I just ignore it in the hope that it goes away?
My biggest problem right now is that I can't stand Obama, but that has not translated into loving conservatism.
Now, while that equation might not seem terribly problematic in itself, and it might even constitute remarking the obvious, there's an added dimension.
While I may be wrong about this, it seems to me that conservatism is changing. Each day, it seems to be trying to become more, um, assertive. More muscular, if you will. That may be good and it may be bad, but for those of us who don't like conservatism, the more muscular it becomes, the harder it is to ignore.
Has conservatism changed? Is it the kind of change that "change" produced?
I don't have to go along with Obama's form of change, I don't see any reason why I should have to go along with conservatism's form of change. If I don't like left wing Alinskyism, why should I like right wing Alinskyism?
I am old enough to remember Ronald Reagan quite well, not only as President, but as Governor of California ... what drove the left absolutely bonkers about Reagan was the fact that he was a disarmingly nice, affable, avuncular guy ... I think the fact that he won two elections plus the Cold War proves that not only is there nothing wimpy about civility, but that it might be an effective tactic, even worth emulating.
"Brain-dead Conservatives:" More free-market scholars today than ever before
“The heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism,” Ronald Reagan said on many occasions, including a speech at Vanderbilt University when I was an undergraduate.
I’m not so sure. But at least the conservatism of Sen. Robert Taft, Sen. Barry Goldwater, and Reagan stood for a limited constitutional government in opposition to the federal aggrandizement of the New Deal and the Great Society. Back in the FDR-JFK-LBJ years, conservatives even stood for congressional government and against the imperial presidency.
But what does conservatism stand for today, other than opposition to President Obama? President Bush expanded entitlements, increased federal spending by more than a trillion dollars, federalized education, launched “nation-building” projects in two far-flung regions, and accumulated more power in the White House than any previous president.
Steven F. Hayward suggests in today's edition of The Washinton Post that one reason for conservatism’s having gotten off track, one that I’ve heard from other, mostly older, conservatives: A movement once led by William F. Buckley Jr., Russell Kirk, and Milton Friedman now gets its intellectual direction from talk show hosts and bloggers. Where are the tomes of yesteryear?
Well, it’s a fast-paced, market-driven world. If celebrities and rabble-rousing are what sell, then we’d better hope for some smart ideas on the airwaves. And it’s not like conservatives are alone in this trend.
The trick for 21st-century American conservatives, conservatives in a country founded in libertarian revolution, is to decide which traditions are worth holding on to. I would suggest as a good first rule that we allow the natural evolution of society and market, while limiting coercive intervention into those processes.
Conservatism should make its peace with natural social change, before it loses the entire younger generation, while reaffirming its commitment to freedom and limited government.
My personal observations on each of these in the next post: Are Conservatives Brain-Dead or Muscular?
