In the tumultuous history of postwar American conservatism, defeats have often contained the seeds of future victory. In 1954, the movement's first national tribune, Senator Joseph McCarthy, was checkmated by the Eisenhower administration and then "condemned" by his Senate colleagues. But the episode, and the passions it aroused, led to the founding of National Review, the movement's first serious political journal. Ten years later, the right's next leader, Barry Goldwater, suffered one of the most lopsided losses in election history. Yet the "draft Goldwater" campaign secured control of the GOP for movement conservatives. In 1976, the insurgent challenge by Goldwater's heir, Ronald Reagan, to incumbent president Gerald Ford was thwarted. But Reagan's crusade positioned him to win the presidency four years later and initiate the conservative "revolution" that remade our politics over the next quarter-century. In each instance, crushing defeat gave the movement new strength and pushed it further along the route to ultimate victory.
Today, the situation is much bleaker. After George W. Bush's two terms, conservatives must reckon with the consequences of a presidency that failed, in large part, because of its fervent commitment to movement ideology: the aggressively unilateralist foreign policy; the blind faith in a deregulated, Wall Street-centric market; the harshly punitive "culture war" waged against liberal "elites." That these precepts should have found their final, hapless defender in John McCain, who had resisted them for most of his long career, only confirms that movement doctrine retains an inflexible and suffocating grip on the GOP.
More telling than Barack Obama's victory is the consensus, steadily building since Election Day, that the nation has sunk--or been plunged--into its darkest economic passage since the Great Depression. And, as Obama pushes boldly ahead, apparently with public support, the right is struggling to reclaim its authority as the voice of opposition. The contrast with 1993, when the last Democratic president took office, is instructive. Like Obama, Bill Clinton was elected in hard economic times and, like him, promised a stimulus program, only to see his modest proposal ($19.5 billion) stripped almost bare by the Senate minority leader, Bob Dole, even though Democrats had handily won the White House and Senate Republicans formed nearly as small a minority as they do today. The difference was that the Republicans--disciplined, committed, self-assured--held the ideological advantage, which Dole leveraged through repeated use of the filibuster. Today, such a stratagem seems unthinkable. There is instead almost universal agreement--reinforced by the penitential testimony of Alan Greenspan and, more recently, by grudgingly conciliatory Republicans--that the most plausible economic rescue will involve massive government intervention, quite possibly on the scale of the New Deal/Fair Deal of the 1930s and '40s and perhaps even the New Frontier/Great Society of the 1960s. All this suggests that movement doctrine has not only been defeated but discredited.
Yet, even as the right begins to regroup, it is not clear that its leaders have absorbed the full implications of their defeat. They readily concede that the Democrats are in charge and, in Obama, have a leader of rare political skills. Many on the right also admit that the specific failures of the outgoing administration were legion. But what of the verdict issued on movement conservatism itself?
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.
Others on the right blame Bush's heterodoxy on interlopers, chief among them Kristol's band of neoconservative warriors at The Weekly Standard, who beguiled the administration into the Iraq war and an ill-starred Wilsonian crusade for global democracy. But here again the facts are complicated: Bush's foreign policy owes no more to the neoconservative vision of exportable democracy than to the hard-right "rollback" philosophy of the cold war years. Bush's preemptive war against jihadists, with its promise to "take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge," echoes Goldwater's assertion, in 1960, that "given the dynamic, revolutionary character of the enemy's challenge, we [must] ... always try to engage the enemy at times and places, and with weapons, of our own choosing." And it was Reagan, the hero of the movement's putative golden age, who, in 1982, called for a worldwide "crusade for freedom that will engage the faith and fortitude of the next generation."
Perhaps, then, the explanation lies not in the Republicans' ideas but in the defective marketing of them. This is the line taken by party strategists who think Karl Rove and his team of operatives grew complacent after their victories in 2002 and 2004 and failed to update "the brand" to suit changing demographics in Sunbelt states like Colorado and Nevada, with their socially liberal white professionals and economically liberal blue-collar Hispanics. But this thesis evades a big question: Does the movement have anything to offer such constituencies apart from a plea for their votes?
What conservatives have yet to do is confront the large but inescapable truth that movement conservatism is exhausted and quite possibly dead. And yet they should, because the death of movement politics can only be a boon to the right, since it has been clear for some time the movement is profoundly and defiantly un-conservative--in its ideas, arguments, strategies, and above all its vision.
Print
COMMENTS (141)
Left to the likes Sam Tanenhaus, no wonder so-called conservatism is dead, in the brains as wellas the ballot box. (E.g: Robert taft was the tribune of post-war conservatism, not Joseph McCarthy; good God!) And didn't Lionel Trilling tell us more than a half-century ago that liberalism remained the sole viable tradition?
Left to the likes Sam Tanenhaus, no wonder so-called conservatism is dead, in the brains as wellas the ballot box. (E.g: Robert taft was the tribune of post-war conservatism, not Joseph McCarthy; good God!) And didn't Lionel Trilling tell us more than a half-century ago that liberalism remained the sole viable tradition?
This is a fine article, filled with insight. To Tanenhaus' argument, I would add another important factor in the death of conservativism as an intellectual force: the dwindling of the natural audience. Demographically, two vast changes shrank Moynihan's befuddled white hardhats to a rump minority. First (widely acknowledged)-- the mass immigration of nonwhite people presaged in the immigration reforms of the sixties. Second (not acknowledged enough)-- the relatively recent credentialist requirement that one have a bachelor's degree in order to obtain middle class employment. In 1980, when the movement reached its zenith of social and cultural reach, the Reaganites could have seen the future ... view full comment
This is a fine article, filled with insight. To Tanenhaus' argument, I would add another important factor in the death of conservativism as an intellectual force: the dwindling of the natural audience. Demographically, two vast changes shrank Moynihan's befuddled white hardhats to a rump minority. First (widely acknowledged)-- the mass immigration of nonwhite people presaged in the immigration reforms of the sixties. Second (not acknowledged enough)-- the relatively recent credentialist requirement that one have a bachelor's degree in order to obtain middle class employment. In 1980, when the movement reached its zenith of social and cultural reach, the Reaganites could have seen the future and sought to stuff the nation's universities with grad students of like mind. Generation X and Y would have been sewn up. Instead they greedily clung to the prejudices of their newfound pets, the Reagan Democrats, and then watched helplessly as these shrank and shrank as a relative demographic force (by the way, will the last person leaving Macomb County, Mich., please turn out the lights). These were the two major forces but they were accompanied by a plethora of minor analogues: the unspoken MILLIONS of white middle-class women who have actually *had* a legal abortion since 1973, the MILLIONS of people who have "come out" to their family and friends as gay. I'm sure other readers can come up with a slew of comparable examples of slow-moving demographic disasters. 1994 was the last fun these people will have for a long, long time.
Surely Bob Dole was the MINORITY leader, yes?
Surely Bob Dole was the MINORITY leader, yes?
A Treasury Secretary that refused to pay his taxes, even after being reminded by his employer and forwarded a bonus for the amount in question. A Commerce Secretary that flauted tax laws.
LOL @ responsibility coming back.
A Treasury Secretary that refused to pay his taxes, even after being reminded by his employer and forwarded a bonus for the amount in question. A Commerce Secretary that flauted tax laws.
LOL @ responsibility coming back.
As a young person who was basically raised a Liberal and has made a decades worth of effort to understand the "opposition" party this has been a much needed education. I always understood that "conserve" was a beautiful political sentiment, I just never understood how one can "conserve" with teeth gnashing, gritted or fanged.
As a young person who was basically raised a Liberal and has made a decades worth of effort to understand the "opposition" party this has been a much needed education. I always understood that "conserve" was a beautiful political sentiment, I just never understood how one can "conserve" with teeth gnashing, gritted or fanged.
Tannenhaus underestimates the power of buyer's remorse.
Conservatism dead? Liberals just don't get it. The patient may be sick, but recovery is assured. The left always overplays its hand. You can't fool all the people all the time. Abraham Lincoln said that. Obama the one term wonder. I said that!
Tannenhaus underestimates the power of buyer's remorse.
Conservatism dead? Liberals just don't get it. The patient may be sick, but recovery is assured. The left always overplays its hand. You can't fool all the people all the time. Abraham Lincoln said that. Obama the one term wonder. I said that!
Yes, please assume that conservatism is dead. It will make our resurgence that much more fun.
Yes, please assume that conservatism is dead. It will make our resurgence that much more fun.
Good article but it misses an important point. True conservatism has not existed in the US since the early 19th century when the nation became dynamic and expansive. In such a dynamic and expansive country traditional conservatism based on traditional local and regional relationships cannnot exist.
Good article but it misses an important point. True conservatism has not existed in the US since the early 19th century when the nation became dynamic and expansive. In such a dynamic and expansive country traditional conservatism based on traditional local and regional relationships cannnot exist.
bah, given that historically liberalism and conservatism were born together (as twin children of the idea of history that became dominant roughly at the time of the French revolution), they can only die together. If I were writing on the New Republic I would be more concerned about the intellectual crisis of the left, not of the right. Who are all these great contemporary liberal thinkers? Al Gore? The new atheists? Reading the liberal press, all I can see is a naive trust in "science," as if that was the apex of intellectual life.
bah, given that historically liberalism and conservatism were born together (as twin children of the idea of history that became dominant roughly at the time of the French revolution), they can only die together. If I were writing on the New Republic I would be more concerned about the intellectual crisis of the left, not of the right. Who are all these great contemporary liberal thinkers? Al Gore? The new atheists? Reading the liberal press, all I can see is a naive trust in "science," as if that was the apex of intellectual life.
Full of useful quotes and historical data. Nice work.
Now, can we all just accept the fact that political parties in the US have been, at least since WWII, a Potemkin sham fronting an essentially single-party state?
Full of useful quotes and historical data. Nice work.
Now, can we all just accept the fact that political parties in the US have been, at least since WWII, a Potemkin sham fronting an essentially single-party state?
Just the usual post election gloating that is filled with distortion after distortion.
If New Deal liberalism was so great how can you explain the Reagan has dominated, no matter how watered down in execution, for the last 30 y or more years?
Really what is apparent is the FDRism has no value left. Our country is largely bankrupt and the fiat currency and the many price distortions inherent in the system are being returned to the keynesians for the final pink slip which will be here sooner than you can imagine.
Liberalism as progressive? Hardly, just a drug pusher always forced to return to sell a harder version of drugs to keep it's victims under control.
Just the usual post election gloating that is filled with distortion after distortion.
If New Deal liberalism was so great how can you explain the Reagan has dominated, no matter how watered down in execution, for the last 30 y or more years?
Really what is apparent is the FDRism has no value left. Our country is largely bankrupt and the fiat currency and the many price distortions inherent in the system are being returned to the keynesians for the final pink slip which will be here sooner than you can imagine.
Liberalism as progressive? Hardly, just a drug pusher always forced to return to sell a harder version of drugs to keep it's victims under control.
...darkest economic passage since the Great Depression.
STOP already. Were you in a catatonic state during the Carter administration? And we're nowhere near that. Conservatism is dead - the same dirge the left has been playing since Bob Taft.
...darkest economic passage since the Great Depression.
STOP already. Were you in a catatonic state during the Carter administration? And we're nowhere near that. Conservatism is dead - the same dirge the left has been playing since Bob Taft.
The "Movement Conservative" monster always gets slain at the end of the current movie, only to be brought back for the inevitable sequel that always comes back to theaters near you. These people, in fact, thrive BEST when they are an embattled minority who feel utterly disrespected and dimissed in articles such as the current one in TNR. So be ready, the moster will return again, and he'll be growling "this time no more Mr Niceguy!"
The "Movement Conservative" monster always gets slain at the end of the current movie, only to be brought back for the inevitable sequel that always comes back to theaters near you. These people, in fact, thrive BEST when they are an embattled minority who feel utterly disrespected and dimissed in articles such as the current one in TNR. So be ready, the moster will return again, and he'll be growling "this time no more Mr Niceguy!"
Huh? I was ripped off! I was told that this article was "Intellectual." This is like Rush Limbaugh writing that liberalism is dead. Keep preaching to the choir, nutjob!
Huh? I was ripped off! I was told that this article was "Intellectual." This is like Rush Limbaugh writing that liberalism is dead. Keep preaching to the choir, nutjob!
Conservatism does indeed appear to be dead. Slowly but surely, over the last few decades, the American Left has succeeded in convincing America of the following:
1. It is the responsibility of professional politicians and the federal bureaucracy to make everything "fair" and "even", to make us all "equal" (well, except for the ruling class, of course), and to make us all "happy". You see, we are too stupid to take care of ourselves.
2. Risk is too, you know, risky, and it is the responsibility of the federal bureaucracy to take risk out of our lives. When our 401K's drop, we are victims, even though we know that's a possibility as we are funding our accounts. Easier to just blame someone e ... view full comment
Conservatism does indeed appear to be dead. Slowly but surely, over the last few decades, the American Left has succeeded in convincing America of the following:
1. It is the responsibility of professional politicians and the federal bureaucracy to make everything "fair" and "even", to make us all "equal" (well, except for the ruling class, of course), and to make us all "happy". You see, we are too stupid to take care of ourselves.
2. Risk is too, you know, risky, and it is the responsibility of the federal bureaucracy to take risk out of our lives. When our 401K's drop, we are victims, even though we know that's a possibility as we are funding our accounts. Easier to just blame someone else.
3. Personal responsibility, hard work, sacrifice and success are "bad". They are simply signs of greed and cannot be tolerated. Anyone who chooses to not display the above qualities are "victims", and their lack of success and/or happiness is someone else's fault.
So, as we continue our move towards a Western European-model socialist democracy, we can delight in the fact that we simply no longer have to try so hard. The government will take care of us. How nice. And congratulations on that, I guess.
...
"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past". America did not reject conservatism in this past election. America rejected a party whose own personal misconduct and lack of connection with the nation as a whole aliented them from the populace. The author seems so overjoyed with the forward movement of a more liberal agenda in our nation that they have blinders on to the real issue at hand. The majorities within both houses of Congress and the Presidency were an act of desperation to move the country closer to a moderate center. Instead, moderates are already appalled at the speed in which our government has attempted to rudder steer to the left. Both liberals ... view full comment
"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past". America did not reject conservatism in this past election. America rejected a party whose own personal misconduct and lack of connection with the nation as a whole aliented them from the populace. The author seems so overjoyed with the forward movement of a more liberal agenda in our nation that they have blinders on to the real issue at hand. The majorities within both houses of Congress and the Presidency were an act of desperation to move the country closer to a moderate center. Instead, moderates are already appalled at the speed in which our government has attempted to rudder steer to the left. Both liberals and conservatives are the minority in America. The majority of American moderates are truly united on one front; that government is not the answer to everything. Everything in history and our nation is cyclical. Soon, middle class Americans will begin to see the same failed policies of previous Democratic administrations and reject those ideals once more. That men and women as educated as the author (who is obviously very intelligent) cannot see that the American people seek balance is sad. Under the banner of small government, conservatism will garner support again. Personally, I will be sure to save these "victory" articles to warn the right when they forget their stance again.
"Conservatism is dead. The Goldwater blowout proves it."
"Conservatism is dead. Nixon killed it."
I'm sorry, which wishful thought are we on, this time?
"Conservatism is dead. The Goldwater blowout proves it."
"Conservatism is dead. Nixon killed it."
I'm sorry, which wishful thought are we on, this time?
Dead? Righttttttt...lol Obama won a beauty contest, the American Idol of all American Idols, nothing more. If any of what the writer says is true Obama would have whipped McCain soundly. As it was he won 53% to 46%. He won with the silence and complicity of the major media, the unabashed adoration of hollywood and the world, youth, charisma and good looks. One hell of a "preacher" and all around kool aid supplier. The "conservative" nominee was a horrific debater and as old as the hills, wishy washy, (did I say old?) The VP choice was a dummy, the economy was tanking, (thanks to pressure from the government (see democrats) to make loans to people who couldn't afford them)and to top it all of ... view full comment
Dead? Righttttttt...lol Obama won a beauty contest, the American Idol of all American Idols, nothing more. If any of what the writer says is true Obama would have whipped McCain soundly. As it was he won 53% to 46%. He won with the silence and complicity of the major media, the unabashed adoration of hollywood and the world, youth, charisma and good looks. One hell of a "preacher" and all around kool aid supplier. The "conservative" nominee was a horrific debater and as old as the hills, wishy washy, (did I say old?) The VP choice was a dummy, the economy was tanking, (thanks to pressure from the government (see democrats) to make loans to people who couldn't afford them)and to top it all off .....Bush was dispised by both sides for the war and his out of control spending. You guys are all the same.......The country is solidly center right, a majority of people , including democrats, would oppose the "stimulus" bill (were they to bother looking at it), most disagree with Pelosi and Reid but quite frankly are too stupid to know it. You and your ilk are surrounded by college aged useful idiots, aged "Animal House" coed chasing hippies and a collection of minorities who through no fault of their own are still unable to find the truth of who and what the "progressive" (lol) movement stands for. Live with it! Whats the matter with Kansas indeed. Signed....The original Zell Miller/ Joe Lieberman democrat.
Dead? Righttttttt...lol Obama won a beauty contest, the American Idol of all American Idols, nothing more. If any of what the writer says is true Obama would have whipped McCain soundly. As it was he won 53% to 46%. He won with the silence and complicity of the major media, the unabashed adoration of hollywood and the world, youth, charisma and good looks. One hell of a "preacher" and all around kool aid supplier. The "conservative" nominee was a horrific debater and as old as the hills, wishy washy, (did I say old?) The VP choice was a dummy, the economy was tanking, (thanks to pressure from the government (see democrats) to make loans to people who couldn't afford them)and to top it all of ... view full comment
Dead? Righttttttt...lol Obama won a beauty contest, the American Idol of all American Idols, nothing more. If any of what the writer says is true Obama would have whipped McCain soundly. As it was he won 53% to 46%. He won with the silence and complicity of the major media, the unabashed adoration of hollywood and the world, youth, charisma and good looks. One hell of a "preacher" and all around kool aid supplier. The "conservative" nominee was a horrific debater and as old as the hills, wishy washy, (did I say old?) The VP choice was a dummy, the economy was tanking, (thanks to pressure from the government (see democrats) to make loans to people who couldn't afford them)and to top it all off .....Bush was dispised by both sides for the war and his out of control spending. You guys are all the same.......The country is solidly center right, a majority of people , including democrats, would oppose the "stimulus" bill (were they to bother looking at it), most disagree with Pelosi and Reid but quite frankly are too stupid to know it. You and your ilk are surrounded by college aged useful idiots, aged "Animal House" coed chasing hippies and a collection of minorities who through no fault of their own are still unable to find the truth of who and what the "progressive" (lol) movement stands for. Live with it! Whats the matter with Kansas indeed. Signed....The original Zell Miller/ Joe Lieberman democrat.
The first six years of George W. Bush and the Republican Congress has the distinction of being the 2nd biggest domestic spending administration, adjusted for inflation, in American history. LBJ with his Great Society programs was #1. Tell me, what's conservative about that? I didn't leave the Republican party, the Republican party left me.
The first six years of George W. Bush and the Republican Congress has the distinction of being the 2nd biggest domestic spending administration, adjusted for inflation, in American history. LBJ with his Great Society programs was #1. Tell me, what's conservative about that? I didn't leave the Republican party, the Republican party left me.
This article is wrong on so many levels I can't name them all. FYI, this is all the same drivel we heard shouted from the rooftops in 1977 and 1993. You guys would do better to stop shoveling in the grave and focus on avoiding yet another massive face-plant in 2-4 years. Just my $.02.
This article is wrong on so many levels I can't name them all. FYI, this is all the same drivel we heard shouted from the rooftops in 1977 and 1993. You guys would do better to stop shoveling in the grave and focus on avoiding yet another massive face-plant in 2-4 years. Just my $.02.
Who titled this article? Certainly not Tanenhaus, for his most salient point is that Obama is the seed for the resurrection of Burkean conservatism, every thinking conservative's idea of real conservatism.
Who titled this article? Certainly not Tanenhaus, for his most salient point is that Obama is the seed for the resurrection of Burkean conservatism, every thinking conservative's idea of real conservatism.
The truth is this is really a return to conservatism. The past years of out of control government spending and programs was never conservatism. So what is happening now, the republicans have lost the people that push this out of control government. Look at the turn over in leadership of the party, gone are the ones that pushed all the spending and expansion of government. Not too long ago they were saying it was the death of liberlism but the fact is no side is ever wiped out because when one or the other gets in charge they always go too far. The dems did it, the republicans returned the favor and so far it looks like the dems are going to return the favor even quicker then republicans did. ... view full comment
The truth is this is really a return to conservatism. The past years of out of control government spending and programs was never conservatism. So what is happening now, the republicans have lost the people that push this out of control government. Look at the turn over in leadership of the party, gone are the ones that pushed all the spending and expansion of government. Not too long ago they were saying it was the death of liberlism but the fact is no side is ever wiped out because when one or the other gets in charge they always go too far. The dems did it, the republicans returned the favor and so far it looks like the dems are going to return the favor even quicker then republicans did. The true battle has never really been ideology but compitence. If the government works not that many people really care who runs it.
Oh yeah? Are the troops home? No. Is Gitmo closed? No. Is the "Stimulus bill" passed. No. Are tax cheats geeting a free pass. No. Conservatism will be dead when America dies, not before.
The first poster is correct. This is a cycle, not a funeral.
Illegal aliens, mimimum wage workers, and elderly are not a permanent demographic force, they are a transient one. Sooner or later, most people earn their way out of poverty and misery, then they see the light of oppressive taxation, the joy of private property ownership, and the pride standing on their own. Then, guess what?
Oh yeah? Are the troops home? No. Is Gitmo closed? No. Is the "Stimulus bill" passed. No. Are tax cheats geeting a free pass. No. Conservatism will be dead when America dies, not before.
The first poster is correct. This is a cycle, not a funeral.
Illegal aliens, mimimum wage workers, and elderly are not a permanent demographic force, they are a transient one. Sooner or later, most people earn their way out of poverty and misery, then they see the light of oppressive taxation, the joy of private property ownership, and the pride standing on their own. Then, guess what?
Hey Libs,
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. You remind me of a sports fan whose team is having great success and looks unbeatable. Politics is no different. Especially when you try to cap and trade businesses, nationalize health care and spend $1 trillion to "fix" the economy. Did Republicans take a hit in the elections? Of course! Does that mean ideology is dead? Of course not! Your Left paper argues that Tom Daschle and his embarassments are good for Obama? Why not throw Barney Frank, Charlie Rangle, Chris Dodd and Geithner in there too? Not embarassing at all.
You and your liberal friends will wake up two years from now and see Congressional races shift. Two ye ... view full comment
Hey Libs,
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. You remind me of a sports fan whose team is having great success and looks unbeatable. Politics is no different. Especially when you try to cap and trade businesses, nationalize health care and spend $1 trillion to "fix" the economy. Did Republicans take a hit in the elections? Of course! Does that mean ideology is dead? Of course not! Your Left paper argues that Tom Daschle and his embarassments are good for Obama? Why not throw Barney Frank, Charlie Rangle, Chris Dodd and Geithner in there too? Not embarassing at all.
You and your liberal friends will wake up two years from now and see Congressional races shift. Two years after that, who knows? But this is for sure, the D's will be challenged and your entire premise will surely be debunked. As most liberals do, you write with emotion and not with reason or intelligence.
The problem with the Bush administration is that it WAS NOT conservative. George Bush sacrificed conservative economic principles and gave the democrats everything they wanted in order to continue to fight the war. It continually shocks me when I hear misinformed idiots rant about the failing of deregulation. The problem was not deregulation, the issue was that the federal government forced banks to go against their market driven judgement and give loans to those that they would ordinarily turn down. If Barney Frank and his friends has left the market alone it would have self-regulated and kept us out of the housing mess that we're in. Conservatism is not dead, it has been slumbering for eig ... view full comment
The problem with the Bush administration is that it WAS NOT conservative. George Bush sacrificed conservative economic principles and gave the democrats everything they wanted in order to continue to fight the war. It continually shocks me when I hear misinformed idiots rant about the failing of deregulation. The problem was not deregulation, the issue was that the federal government forced banks to go against their market driven judgement and give loans to those that they would ordinarily turn down. If Barney Frank and his friends has left the market alone it would have self-regulated and kept us out of the housing mess that we're in. Conservatism is not dead, it has been slumbering for eight years. When Obama's intervention plunges us deeper into debt, produces no jobs, and further burdens the next generation, Conservatism will once again take it's place as the only bastion of rational thought.
AlanK: Yes Dole was minority leader but as Tanenhaus points out party discipline allowed him to use procedural rules to block democratic legislation. Perhaps you missed it.
A superb article tracing the history of the conservative movement since the war and it's present dilemma. Of course if you hold to the view that the Republican party is and always has been a political movement whose principal goal is the protection of the interests of big business and the wealthiest 20% of the country then all this talk about "principles" is largely irrelevant. On the whole I lean to this view so trying to find intellectual consistency in modern Republicanism is a largely futile pursuit. The neocons cheerf ... view full comment
AlanK: Yes Dole was minority leader but as Tanenhaus points out party discipline allowed him to use procedural rules to block democratic legislation. Perhaps you missed it.
A superb article tracing the history of the conservative movement since the war and it's present dilemma. Of course if you hold to the view that the Republican party is and always has been a political movement whose principal goal is the protection of the interests of big business and the wealthiest 20% of the country then all this talk about "principles" is largely irrelevant. On the whole I lean to this view so trying to find intellectual consistency in modern Republicanism is a largely futile pursuit. The neocons cheerfully talked about exporting freedom but quickly dropped the subject when they needed practical assistance from Egypt in the middle east or convenient and invisible torture venues in the minor leftover communist dictatorships of central asia. At the end of the day conservative "principles" tend to be highly flexible. Ultimately that will prove the case with their embrace of neocon and fundamentalist principles of one sort and another but it's going to take a long time.
But Margaret Thatcher's "revanchism" revitalized Great Britain (see David Leonhardt's recent NYTimes piece) and Reagan's "revanchist" foreign policy was the catalyst that hastened the self-destruction of the USSR. That both are maligned by the left despite these liberating achievements and ignored by Tannenhaus suggests that even they know that principled conservatism, rather than repudiated, is confirmed by these historic events.
Principled conservatism as represented by Thatcher and Reagan has been replaced by a raw, politicized capitalism, not some kind of benevolent, non-ideological, "we are one" recrudescence, as this ambitious essay argues. Whereas Whittaker Chambers' Maryland farmer ne ... view full comment
But Margaret Thatcher's "revanchism" revitalized Great Britain (see David Leonhardt's recent NYTimes piece) and Reagan's "revanchist" foreign policy was the catalyst that hastened the self-destruction of the USSR. That both are maligned by the left despite these liberating achievements and ignored by Tannenhaus suggests that even they know that principled conservatism, rather than repudiated, is confirmed by these historic events.
Principled conservatism as represented by Thatcher and Reagan has been replaced by a raw, politicized capitalism, not some kind of benevolent, non-ideological, "we are one" recrudescence, as this ambitious essay argues. Whereas Whittaker Chambers' Maryland farmer neighbors accepted their government subsidies, they viewed them as a form of restitution on what they had already paid in taxes, today they and everyone else are rationally mobilizing to get their piece of the spoils in a not-too-lovely dog-eat-dog world brought on by the anti-conservatives. To paraphrase Nixon's comment about Keynes, "we are all rent-seekers now."
Democracy favors short-term expediency over long-term progress. This is what Burke and America's Founding Fathers tried to address, and did better than anyone before or since. Alas, even their efforts are proving to be insufficient, which is where we are today.
"An intellectual autopsy of the movement?"
What a bunch of crap. Let me get out a thesaurus to respond with eloquence and big words. Obozo has made more mistakes in his first 10 days than Bush made in 8 years. I'm going to save a copy of this leftist garbage to repost in two years.
"An intellectual autopsy of the movement?"
What a bunch of crap. Let me get out a thesaurus to respond with eloquence and big words. Obozo has made more mistakes in his first 10 days than Bush made in 8 years. I'm going to save a copy of this leftist garbage to repost in two years.
Wow, the Dem's win a presidential election with a slight majority (53-47%), reinforce their majorities in Congress, and suddenly "Conservatism is Dead". If the economy hadn't gone off the rails in October, things could have easily been different. What really is dead or nearly so is traditional media with an ideological purpose. Most Americans have a combination of both liberal and conservative views on different issues, in other words they can think independently of a media which spoon-feeds the same worn out arguments from both sides of the political spectrum. The new push by the left to consolidate a permanent power-base through this "stimulus" bill could very well, and probably will, back ... view full comment
Wow, the Dem's win a presidential election with a slight majority (53-47%), reinforce their majorities in Congress, and suddenly "Conservatism is Dead". If the economy hadn't gone off the rails in October, things could have easily been different. What really is dead or nearly so is traditional media with an ideological purpose. Most Americans have a combination of both liberal and conservative views on different issues, in other words they can think independently of a media which spoon-feeds the same worn out arguments from both sides of the political spectrum. The new push by the left to consolidate a permanent power-base through this "stimulus" bill could very well, and probably will, backfire, and hugely. The American people want this economy turned around NOW. The new socialism had better work, and quickly, or liberalism could be the dead ideology, by the end of the year.
The entirety of this article depends on forcing a square ideological peg into a round hole of political theory. By Tanenhaus' logic, only top-down government can ensure bottom-up civil society, and Burke and Disraeli would have endorsed the monstrosity that is the Federal Government today, which has drained states, to say nothing of counties, cities, neighborhoods, and most especially Burke's "little platoons" of shared association and common purpose of responsibility, control which, as it has concentrated at the top, is left more vulnerable to the ambitions of rent-seeking businesses looking to drive their competitors out of business, activist groups seeking a leg up on their perceived enem ... view full comment
The entirety of this article depends on forcing a square ideological peg into a round hole of political theory. By Tanenhaus' logic, only top-down government can ensure bottom-up civil society, and Burke and Disraeli would have endorsed the monstrosity that is the Federal Government today, which has drained states, to say nothing of counties, cities, neighborhoods, and most especially Burke's "little platoons" of shared association and common purpose of responsibility, control which, as it has concentrated at the top, is left more vulnerable to the ambitions of rent-seeking businesses looking to drive their competitors out of business, activist groups seeking a leg up on their perceived enemies, and ambitious politicians looking for re-election. Taxes go up, power flows up, and yet crises keep getting larger because that money and that power is used to support the "particular welfare" (i.e. the health of politically well-connected "little platoons") instead of the "general welfare. I remain unconvinced that either man would have defended this.
Yes, we voters crave government that big for us. In the same vein, heroin addicts crave heroin, and for much the same reason - they are addicted and have grown dependent on it, to their own detriment and to that of their enablers. What we the people want is not always what we the people need, no matter how angrily we demand it. (That is yet another conservative principle ignored by this piece.) The ability of the government to satisfy the public's wants will inevitably outpace the government's ability to pay for it. (California and New York are the leaders of a trend.) The task of conservatism now - at all levels, national, state, local, and community, - is to prepare for that inevitability.
After one election Conservatism is dead -- or movement Conservatism is dead. The article is excellent in its history of the conservative movement -- albeit one sided. The assumption of Whittakers was that we were moving at a certain pace towards incremental government tinkering with society and that could not be stopped. Tanenhaus' then thinks any straying from this continual movement -- whether from the left or right -- is radicalism. I think in a sense he misidentifies conservatism as being polar opposite to radicalism. It does not have to be so. William F. Buckley's standing athwart history yelling "stop" is probably radical. But no more radical than what remained of government inte ... view full comment
After one election Conservatism is dead -- or movement Conservatism is dead. The article is excellent in its history of the conservative movement -- albeit one sided. The assumption of Whittakers was that we were moving at a certain pace towards incremental government tinkering with society and that could not be stopped. Tanenhaus' then thinks any straying from this continual movement -- whether from the left or right -- is radicalism. I think in a sense he misidentifies conservatism as being polar opposite to radicalism. It does not have to be so. William F. Buckley's standing athwart history yelling "stop" is probably radical. But no more radical than what remained of government intervention after the new deal. The programs that were created remained - surely a conservative at the time would have favored bringing society back to previous levels of government intervention -- reversing the radicalism because it was no longer needed. The conservative movement today is indeed radical in some sense but no less conservative for it.
Quite informative...the historical parallels are there if one takes the time and the energy to read and comprehend...indeed, economic history is repeating itself and does not appear to wanna change the cycle...boom...bust....boom....bust....our national psyche craves the risk and the upside but not the downside that inevitably occurs....the capitalism vs managed economy argument never seems to be solved....Do we want smooth, slower, long-term growth or volatility...up til now it has been volatility.
Quite informative...the historical parallels are there if one takes the time and the energy to read and comprehend...indeed, economic history is repeating itself and does not appear to wanna change the cycle...boom...bust....boom....bust....our national psyche craves the risk and the upside but not the downside that inevitably occurs....the capitalism vs managed economy argument never seems to be solved....Do we want smooth, slower, long-term growth or volatility...up til now it has been volatility.
Can't wait for the buckley bio by tanenhaus to come out. When is it due?
Seems as though being steeped in classic literature allows a greater advantage in understanding our political landscape, witness garry wills, chambers, buckley, lippman, etc.
Can't wait for the buckley bio by tanenhaus to come out. When is it due?
Seems as though being steeped in classic literature allows a greater advantage in understanding our political landscape, witness garry wills, chambers, buckley, lippman, etc.
An "intellectual" autopsy, as opposed to what other sort of autopsy? What a pretentious title.
mcorey is actually right to focus on the demographic changes. But in his glee to see the extermination of his villian, the white Christian heterosexual male, he neglects the possibility that this faction will sense a threat from the changes that he champions, and instead of "turning out the lights," will instead see fit to maximize their political power the way every successful factions does: by voting in a bloc. (For instance, Hispanics only really became a decisive force in California politics when they stopped splitting their votes, post-Pete Wilson, and started voting like blacks.) If your ... view full comment
An "intellectual" autopsy, as opposed to what other sort of autopsy? What a pretentious title.
mcorey is actually right to focus on the demographic changes. But in his glee to see the extermination of his villian, the white Christian heterosexual male, he neglects the possibility that this faction will sense a threat from the changes that he champions, and instead of "turning out the lights," will instead see fit to maximize their political power the way every successful factions does: by voting in a bloc. (For instance, Hispanics only really became a decisive force in California politics when they stopped splitting their votes, post-Pete Wilson, and started voting like blacks.) If your shrinking Reagan Democrat demographic in flyover country had voted 90% for McCain, instead of 55% or whatever, Sam Tanenhaus wouldn't have written this article, and mcorey.geo wouldn't be writing comments praising it.
Then again, why WOULD 90% of Reagan Democrats have voted for McCain, a cheerleader for the immigration and trade policies that have put them in the declining position they are in, a cheerleader for turning out the lights in Macomb County?
Conservative? Bush? LOL. True conservatives disliked Bush. Deregulated financial system? Sorry, it was the highly regulated Fannie & Freddie (that promised they would guarantee those so-called loans) that brought down the system.
Bush was so reviled by the left, that he had no choice. He brough in Kennedy for the No Child Left Behind plan. Kennedy basically wrote the whole thing. Who gets all the blame? Bush. So, when you walk across the aisle, your legs are broken. Why walk back again?
As for conservatism being dead, it's not. We've just not seen it since 1994. Bush was NOT a conservative.
I also remember reading that liberalism was dead in 1980.
Conservative? Bush? LOL. True conservatives disliked Bush. Deregulated financial system? Sorry, it was the highly regulated Fannie & Freddie (that promised they would guarantee those so-called loans) that brought down the system.
Bush was so reviled by the left, that he had no choice. He brough in Kennedy for the No Child Left Behind plan. Kennedy basically wrote the whole thing. Who gets all the blame? Bush. So, when you walk across the aisle, your legs are broken. Why walk back again?
As for conservatism being dead, it's not. We've just not seen it since 1994. Bush was NOT a conservative.
I also remember reading that liberalism was dead in 1980.
Didn't Goldwater tell us that the marriage between the Republican Party and the religious right would be the downfall of the party? I think that has happened, but the Republican Party dying isn't the same as conservatism dying. You can't have liberalism with conservatism - there has to be something to compare it to.
Didn't Goldwater tell us that the marriage between the Republican Party and the religious right would be the downfall of the party? I think that has happened, but the Republican Party dying isn't the same as conservatism dying. You can't have liberalism with conservatism - there has to be something to compare it to.
Conservatism is about what is good for the free man. To live free, to achieve his full potential, to be free from the grip of government which far too often does more harm than good. Is the liberalism pervasive in the puublic education system good for the African American child, is an entitlement society good for the child who yearns to reach his full God given potential. Liberalism, at it core, houses an elitist presumption that men are not created equal and that a paternal government must take care of those who are inferior by birth or circumstance. Liberalism is a contradiction to our Founding documents and our Constitution. Imagine if our Founders had used the following logic --
Tho ... view full comment
Conservatism is about what is good for the free man. To live free, to achieve his full potential, to be free from the grip of government which far too often does more harm than good. Is the liberalism pervasive in the puublic education system good for the African American child, is an entitlement society good for the child who yearns to reach his full God given potential. Liberalism, at it core, houses an elitist presumption that men are not created equal and that a paternal government must take care of those who are inferior by birth or circumstance. Liberalism is a contradiction to our Founding documents and our Constitution. Imagine if our Founders had used the following logic --
Those who remain in the world, if they will not surrender on its terms, must maneuver within its terms. That is what conservatives must decide: how much to give in order to survive at all; how much to give in order not to give up the basic principles."
Thank goodness they decided not to give in and instead cast off the chains of England and concluded that death was preferable to enslavement.
Liberty is on one side of the scale and slavery on the other. Today, perhaps more than ever, there is an evil that seeks to enslave men and make them wards of the state. Conservatism will continue to thrive until the last man surrenders his mind to those that would have him beleive that he should not be free.
Can Mr. Tanenhaus explain to me what is "conservative" about the out of control spending of the last 8 years or government's (first, Jimmy Carter, then Franks and Dodd) intervention into mortgage lending practices to mandate ultra-risky loans to "low income" borrowers that have largely created the housing and debt crisis? I must have missed that part of "conservatism" in my polical science classes at university. Those sound like socialist policies to me.
Can Mr. Tanenhaus explain to me what is "conservative" about the out of control spending of the last 8 years or government's (first, Jimmy Carter, then Franks and Dodd) intervention into mortgage lending practices to mandate ultra-risky loans to "low income" borrowers that have largely created the housing and debt crisis? I must have missed that part of "conservatism" in my polical science classes at university. Those sound like socialist policies to me.
A more sober and objective appraisal of the rise of post WWII conservatism would point out the fact that Southern Democrats, a voting bloc with liberal Democrats, joined with 'conservatives' to retain segregation in the South and to keep 'property' as the source of political influence.
That part of conservatism is lying in its own corruption. The attempts to promote 'populist' causes, those that use the private rights of the people, to subvert those liberties so espoused by conservatives, gives the lie to intellectual standards or ideological continuity.
The party of Lincoln, the true unifier, became the party of racism, segregation, religious fanaticism and elitism, certainly not ... view full comment
A more sober and objective appraisal of the rise of post WWII conservatism would point out the fact that Southern Democrats, a voting bloc with liberal Democrats, joined with 'conservatives' to retain segregation in the South and to keep 'property' as the source of political influence.
That part of conservatism is lying in its own corruption. The attempts to promote 'populist' causes, those that use the private rights of the people, to subvert those liberties so espoused by conservatives, gives the lie to intellectual standards or ideological continuity.
The party of Lincoln, the true unifier, became the party of racism, segregation, religious fanaticism and elitism, certainly not the party of individual liberties.
Alright, way to embody each and every point the author was making in his article!
Alright, way to embody each and every point the author was making in his article!
Which will die first, conservatism or The New Republic? The liberal media, after completely discrediting itself by its bum-crawling servitude to Obama and the Democrats, this article being a self-serving example, is currently going extinct from lack of advertising revenue and readers. Maybe your Dem masters will deign to vote a giant subsidy to bail out the failing lib media. But dont worry Tannenhaus your Dem friends just raised Food Stamps and extended unemployment and there will soon surely be a program to ensure that laid-off reporters dont have their houses foreclosed by the government-controlled banks so you'll get by in the new Non-Conservative Age you are gloating about with such end ... view full comment
Which will die first, conservatism or The New Republic? The liberal media, after completely discrediting itself by its bum-crawling servitude to Obama and the Democrats, this article being a self-serving example, is currently going extinct from lack of advertising revenue and readers. Maybe your Dem masters will deign to vote a giant subsidy to bail out the failing lib media. But dont worry Tannenhaus your Dem friends just raised Food Stamps and extended unemployment and there will soon surely be a program to ensure that laid-off reporters dont have their houses foreclosed by the government-controlled banks so you'll get by in the new Non-Conservative Age you are gloating about with such endless prolixity.
If conservatism is dead then America as we know it is dead. The country that gave the greatest living standard the world has ever known,through capitalism and freedom. The freedom to be as successful as you can be. The freedom and system that says take a chnce work hard and you might atain anything in life.Yes you even have the right to fail, but you can try again.
The excitement of this is going to be replaced by what?
A system where everyone is equal and one no longer works for themselves but the collective good of the community. I don't think so. Isn't that why everyone comes here?
If conservatism is dead then America as we know it is dead. The country that gave the greatest living standard the world has ever known,through capitalism and freedom. The freedom to be as successful as you can be. The freedom and system that says take a chnce work hard and you might atain anything in life.Yes you even have the right to fail, but you can try again.
The excitement of this is going to be replaced by what?
A system where everyone is equal and one no longer works for themselves but the collective good of the community. I don't think so. Isn't that why everyone comes here?
In actuality, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were responsible for reducing the size of government, shrinking it to its smallest levels in decades. Al Gore called it "reinventing government." This remarkable accomplishment shows that it's not the size that counts, but how well is done.
In actuality, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were responsible for reducing the size of government, shrinking it to its smallest levels in decades. Al Gore called it "reinventing government." This remarkable accomplishment shows that it's not the size that counts, but how well is done.
Wait till people get the bill for those not pulling their weight. Sure conservatism has been taken out of the mainstream media, but it's still in people's minds. "Liberal" California has rejected homosexual marriage, voted for lower property taxes, often vote down bonds which represent bigger government and supported the three-strikes law which gave life terms to repeat offenders.
Wait till people get the bill for those not pulling their weight. Sure conservatism has been taken out of the mainstream media, but it's still in people's minds. "Liberal" California has rejected homosexual marriage, voted for lower property taxes, often vote down bonds which represent bigger government and supported the three-strikes law which gave life terms to repeat offenders.
You can quarrel with this or that feature of Tanenhaus' intelligent and historically informed analysis (e.g. the omission of Robert Taft). But the level of vitriol in most of the preceding posts is breathtaking and matches anything I can remember from the election frenzy.
To robertpowell, who decries our one-party state (sic): this -- the alleged one-party state -- would come as news to a whole lot of people. Surely we laid that one to rest -- does ANYONE think the past eight years would have been the same had the Supreme Court not intervened in 2000? Granted, there are large convergences between the parties, and it's one of the reasons we've lasted as long as we have. The ideological ... view full comment
You can quarrel with this or that feature of Tanenhaus' intelligent and historically informed analysis (e.g. the omission of Robert Taft). But the level of vitriol in most of the preceding posts is breathtaking and matches anything I can remember from the election frenzy.
To robertpowell, who decries our one-party state (sic): this -- the alleged one-party state -- would come as news to a whole lot of people. Surely we laid that one to rest -- does ANYONE think the past eight years would have been the same had the Supreme Court not intervened in 2000? Granted, there are large convergences between the parties, and it's one of the reasons we've lasted as long as we have. The ideological polarization of the parties over the past generation has done much to destroy the character of the major parties as essentially shambling coalitions. I don't think that has been good for the parties or for the country.
Anyway, what's the alternative? I once voted for John Anderson -- remember him? Lot of good it did. The idiots who voted for Ralph (now THERE's a guy with a messiah complex) in 2000 have a lot to answer for.
Hmm, methinks the man touched a nerve, if the tone of some of the comments is anything to go by. Nice work, specially the quite convincing yoking of Burkean conservatism with true blue American pragmatism, hence the apparent blasphemy, for either left or right wing tips, of Obama as the new apostle of old style conservatism. Tanenhaus' article, though, could have been bolstered by the point, suggested but not insisted upon, that this has been a war of "cultural" classes above all and nearly all along (why, just check out Dave Rice's rant about hippies and college aged idiots. Hilarious!), and that, pace political expediency, either party has increased the size of government for its own, self ... view full comment
Hmm, methinks the man touched a nerve, if the tone of some of the comments is anything to go by. Nice work, specially the quite convincing yoking of Burkean conservatism with true blue American pragmatism, hence the apparent blasphemy, for either left or right wing tips, of Obama as the new apostle of old style conservatism. Tanenhaus' article, though, could have been bolstered by the point, suggested but not insisted upon, that this has been a war of "cultural" classes above all and nearly all along (why, just check out Dave Rice's rant about hippies and college aged idiots. Hilarious!), and that, pace political expediency, either party has increased the size of government for its own, self-serving ends.
Once you clear the ideological claptrap and general brouhaha, what you're left this is this, and it's well worth pondering: what separates conservatives from liberals at bottom is their differing notions of fairness. That will remain for the foreseeable future.
Deep shame on The New Republic for publishing this half-witted screed.
Deep shame on The New Republic for publishing this half-witted screed.
Are you insane all the the things you questioned are in the process and old world conservative beliefs are dead not the party. We need more than two parties but america doesn't want or need a party death.
Are you insane all the the things you questioned are in the process and old world conservative beliefs are dead not the party. We need more than two parties but america doesn't want or need a party death.
Conservatism isn't dead. However, a good portion of the population is brain dead. What we're all observing is typical liberal crap - lies, hypocrisy, double standards, suppression of opposing opinions,monumental arrogance, et al.
Some government officials (and prospective government officials) need to learn how to pay taxes and to obey all of the laws the rest of us have to obey before they start telling others what to do and what's right.
Mr. Obama (and the people who pull his strings)can't be all that sharp if he can only fill government positions with tax dodgers. Some "change". The American population isn't stupid - it's ignorant. It isn't apathetic - been distracted by an "Ame ... view full comment
Conservatism isn't dead. However, a good portion of the population is brain dead. What we're all observing is typical liberal crap - lies, hypocrisy, double standards, suppression of opposing opinions,monumental arrogance, et al.
Some government officials (and prospective government officials) need to learn how to pay taxes and to obey all of the laws the rest of us have to obey before they start telling others what to do and what's right.
Mr. Obama (and the people who pull his strings)can't be all that sharp if he can only fill government positions with tax dodgers. Some "change". The American population isn't stupid - it's ignorant. It isn't apathetic - been distracted by an "American Idol". The blush will soon be off the rose.
Money - or better still - lack of it will take care of that.
When the pendulum swings back it will be razor sharp.