Roughly four months into Barack Obama's presidency, it's possible to make a few observations about the factions forming on the intellectual right as it adjusts to life in the political wilderness.
It's fitting that National Review -- the intellectual incubator of the conservative movement that rose to power with Ronald Reagan -- seems poised to go down with the ship. In the magazine and more recently on its lively website National Review Online (NRO), National Review has always mirrored the mood on the political right: unpredictable and feisty in the 60s and 70s; exuding confidence in the 80s and 90s; overdosing on militaristic American exceptionalism under George W. Bush; and now spiraling down into the dumps with the post-Bush Republican Party. Today NRO's group blog The Corner is angry, sarcastic, cranky, irritable, grossly populist -- miles away from the serene high-mindedness cultivated by founder William F. Buckley, Jr. Contributors compete with one another over who can offer the most obsequious encomium for Rush Limbaugh and turn instantly against anyone who dares utter a criticism of him. Like the vulgar talk-show hosts with whom they've firmly aligned themselves, the editors and writers around National Review occasionally criticize the Bush administration, but they rarely do so in the name of new ideas. Instead, they treat Reagan as the Platonic ideal of the conservative politician, the standard from which all present and future Republicans diverge at their peril. Call it a cocoon or call it a casket -- either way, it's hard to imagine National Review in its current configuration contributing very much to the revival of the right either politically or intellectually.
The Weekly Standard and Commentary -- the two magazines most closely associated with neoconservatism -- overlap quite a lot these days with National Review in both content and contributors. (Jennifer Rubin's endless string of lengthy posts on Commentary's Contentions blog, which mechanically praise nearly every Republican utterance while monotonously denouncing the Democrats for everything they do, would fit in quite well at The Corner.) Yet there is an important difference in emphasis. Whereas National Review promotes Reagan worship, the Weekly Standard and Commentary have chosen to rally around Dick Cheney, proud champion of "enhanced interrogation" and thoroughly unrepentant advocate of the invasion of Iraq. There's something admirable in this position, I suppose, since it can't possibly flow from a belief that an embrace of the wildly unpopular and increasingly grouchy Cheney will improve the political fortunes of the Republican Party, at least in the short term. No, William Kristol and John Podhoretz appear to be standing tall with Cheney out of principle. If you doubt it, take a look at this revealing blog post from Podhoretz, written shortly after Obama's national security speech last Wednesday, in which he bristles at the president's suggestion that the Bush administration sometimes "made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight.” To which Podhoretz responds with a heartfelt defense of conducting foreign policy in a state of acute fear, while also praising the former president's "brilliant efforts to thwart mass killings." Neoconservatism, 2009 reduced to a slogan: "Be Afraid! Be Very Afraid!" It's hard to imagine such a message succeeding politically, at least short of a genuine crisis (as opposed to a spurious one). Count that as one more reason to hope our luck holds out.
And that's about it for the right's flagship opinion journals. Oh sure, there are bright spots at all three magazines/websites: Jim Manzi's libertarian-minded commentary on economics and finance for NRO; Max Boot's historically informed posts on foreign affairs and military issues for Contentions; and best of all, Christopher Caldwell's carefully reported essays on various political and cultural topics for the Weekly Standard. But that's pretty much it for intellectual conservatism these day, at least in the places it used to thrive.
Which isn't to say that interesting things aren't going on in other places, just that those efforts have yet to gel into a coherent alternative to the old wares being peddled by the movement elders. In the pragmatic center, David Frum has brought together a group of journalists and policy intellectuals (many of them with ties to Rudy Giuliani's disastrous presidential campaign) to think their way to a new vision for the Republican Party -- one less beholden to the religious right and more attuned to the economic challenges facing the middle class. Frum's website (NewMajority.com) is fun and often surprising, and his own scrappy posts challenging various GOP pieties are refreshing. What does it add up to? Not much yet. But the hour is early -- stay tuned.
Offering slight variations on Frum's approach are David Brooks and Ross Douthat, both of them New York Times op-ed columnists. Back in the late 1990s, Brooks championed "national greatness conservatism" in the pages of the Weekly Standard. These days his nationalist enthusiasms have mellowed into a defense of what might be called Hamiltonian communitarianism. That is, Brooks believes the federal government has an important role to play in fostering the institutions (families, neighborhoods, churches) on which a liberal society depends for its health and vitality. If this reminds you of the "compassionate conservatism" of George W. Bush's 2000 campaign, it's because that's exactly what it sounds like. Does Brooks really think that doubling back to the start of Bush's disastrous presidency is a sensible strategy for the GOP? We'll no doubt find out as Brooks refines his position over the coming months and years.
Douthat takes a similar approach and faces a similar challenge -- namely, how to differentiate his ideas from the ones that got the GOP into its current mess in the first place -- but he has the added burden of being a pro-lifer firmly committed to the agenda of the religious right. Douthat has written an interesting book (with Reihan Salam) that's filled with innovative policy proposals, many of which would help the Republican Party increase its appeal to middle-class voters. But as long as those proposals are wedded to social policies increasingly viewed as a sop to the culturally alienated religious extremists who form the base of the party, I suspect the GOP will remain stuck in the doldrums. I just can't see "Bush Plus Competence!" inspiring much excitement in either the party or the nation as a whole.
And that leaves a final group of conservative writers--most of them younger and more intellectually interesting and eclectic, and for that reason much less politically consequential, than anyone listed above. I'm thinking of people like Conor Friedersdorf, John Schwenkler, Peter Suderman, Daniel Larison, Patrick Deneen, Jeremy Beer, my friends Russell Arben Fox and Noah Millman, and my old sparring-partner on same-sex marriage, "Crunchy Con" journalist Rod Dreher. Some of these writers (all of them primarily bloggers) can be found at The American Scene, while others contribute essays to Front Porch Republic and blog for the website of the American Conservative. The more moderate ones (Friedersdorf, Schwenkler, Suderman, Millman) are similar in temperament and outlook to Frum, Brooks, and Douthat, though they tend to be more philosophical and less policy-oriented in approach. Meanwhile, the more radical ones (Larison, Deneen) are downright anti-modern in outlook. Delighted by Christopher Lasch's indictment of the free market, enamored of Wendell Berry's poetic agrarianism, romantically drawn toward "localism," titillated by Alasdair MacIntyre's praise of monasticism as an option for those seeking refuge from the moral impurities of modernity, open to radical environmentalism, hostile toward an idealistic foreign policy, disgusted at the overall tone of life in America since sexual revolution--these writers are interesting in the way all reactionaries are interesting: as a provocation to deep thinking, and as a warning about the (political and intellectual) dangers of indeterminate negation.
Will any of these writers contribute to the emergence of a new right to take the place of the one that left such a profound mark on the nation over the past three decades? It's much too soon to know, of course, but reading their essays and blog posts, one at least senses them thinking for its own sake, following their ideas wherever they lead, without regard for whether or not their conclusions will contribute to the short-term advantage of a political party. That, at least, is a step in the right direction, as none other than William F. Buckley realized fifty years ago.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (25)
So, bumptious vulgarian Mark Levin has taken notice of my criticism of him. Check out this excerpt: Rod is a self-deluded kook. He is also thin-skinned, like so many of the kooks with God-complexes and a keyboard. [snip] After Rod...
So, bumptious vulgarian Mark Levin has taken notice of my criticism of him. Check out this excerpt: Rod is a self-deluded kook. He is also thin-skinned, like so many of the kooks with God-complexes and a keyboard. [snip] After Rod...
Never underestimate the rightwing ability to rise from the dead like the horror movie demon and be back again in their hockey masks ravaging the camp site
Never underestimate the rightwing ability to rise from the dead like the horror movie demon and be back again in their hockey masks ravaging the camp site
Intellectual right? Oxymoron.
Intellectual right? Oxymoron.
We know where Douthat is. In today's column in the NYT he considers the recent study that found women are less happy as compared to men. The reason? According to Douthat, it's because they are having all that sex and "contemporary America doesn’t seem willing to accept sexual stigma." Good grief! Is the right so obsessed with sex that they believe we are having so much of it that it is making us unhappy.
We know where Douthat is. In today's column in the NYT he considers the recent study that found women are less happy as compared to men. The reason? According to Douthat, it's because they are having all that sex and "contemporary America doesn’t seem willing to accept sexual stigma." Good grief! Is the right so obsessed with sex that they believe we are having so much of it that it is making us unhappy.
I find it telling that Douthat is hailed as some sort of smart guy on the right. We're supposed to be impressed that someone can dress up Pat Robertson boilerplate in Harvard 20-something-English-101-speak? Why? Patriarchal bullet points describing the standard fear of women's sexuality, first written on cave walls, is impressive? How is this intelligent again? Doesn't intellectual at least infer originality?
He's bascially a tubby young white guy who spends a bizarre amount of time writing prissy, intrusive, judgemental hooey about women, mostly about women's sexuality - something I find hard to believe he knows much, if anything, about. Bottom line, he personally knows &nb ... view full comment
I find it telling that Douthat is hailed as some sort of smart guy on the right. We're supposed to be impressed that someone can dress up Pat Robertson boilerplate in Harvard 20-something-English-101-speak? Why? Patriarchal bullet points describing the standard fear of women's sexuality, first written on cave walls, is impressive? How is this intelligent again? Doesn't intellectual at least infer originality?
He's bascially a tubby young white guy who spends a bizarre amount of time writing prissy, intrusive, judgemental hooey about women, mostly about women's sexuality - something I find hard to believe he knows much, if anything, about. Bottom line, he personally knows that we all just wish it was 1950 forever (then we'd be bestowed with the thrills of his sexual approval). If we just gave up birth control - or owning our own sexuality in any way - then we'd be as wise as he his.
He's simply ridiculous - as condescending, mysoginist and silly a figure on the right as any of them. At least he's a source of great mocking and amusement to my friends and I (40 somethings) and even more so to the many women I know in their 20's. Maybe if he got laid more in high school, he'd have better things to think about. Like his own sexual issues that scream through every piece he writes.
Cheer up Ross, lose that butt, take some vitamins and keep your scolding, know-nothing snoot out of our private lives and maybe someone will look twice at you.
Wand: brilliant, as usual. I took a break from dreary personnel and budget issues - and am now practically rolling on the floor laughing :-) - thanks for making my day. "Lose that butt" - classic!
The problem with conservatism today is the problem with conservatism throughout the ages. I'm tempermentally and by inclination very "conservative" (having been on the wrong side of a revolution does that to you), but I got cured of my political conservatism within a week of arriving in the US (in the midst of the 84 elections) and listening to that oozing mass of primordial pus, Jerry Falwell for the first time. Now, the fact that he sounded just like the ... view full comment
Wand: brilliant, as usual. I took a break from dreary personnel and budget issues - and am now practically rolling on the floor laughing :-) - thanks for making my day. "Lose that butt" - classic!
The problem with conservatism today is the problem with conservatism throughout the ages. I'm tempermentally and by inclination very "conservative" (having been on the wrong side of a revolution does that to you), but I got cured of my political conservatism within a week of arriving in the US (in the midst of the 84 elections) and listening to that oozing mass of primordial pus, Jerry Falwell for the first time. Now, the fact that he sounded just like the religious crazies I had fled from was bad enough; the revolutionary zeal to turn America upside down added to my already high level of discomfort; but the rotten cherry on top was the incessant admonition of doom and gloom.
Now you don't have to be a historian, or even a particularly astute student of history, to get a bit queasy with anyone who professes to look into the future, see imminent social collapse and propose solutions to take us back two hundred years or to halt and arrest social development. (I mean, I had already seen it in Iran and it had not been pretty.) A glance through the pages of the most basic history books shows that these conservative prophets of doom hvae been around since the early days of civilisation - and invariably, they have contributed more to social collapse than the forces they were trying to combat. Any way, as I told a mormon friend of mine who was berating me for my liberal biases, Cato the Elder endlessly warned about the End of Rome unless the radicals were reigned in - fully seven hundred years before Rome finally finished.
Long way of saying that anyone professing any sort of conservatism other than Burkean "conservatism" - change slowly to adapt to changing circumstances, but do not force radical change in the hope of changing Man - is either lunatic or daft.
Why are we slandering Wendell Berry by association with these other idiots? Ecologically sound, energy conserving, aware that the deepest pleasures are those of the body not the mind...we all could do much worse. And he likes mules. All sane men like mules. Just don't read his early poetry. Or his opinions on price-supported agriculture. Meh.
Why are we slandering Wendell Berry by association with these other idiots? Ecologically sound, energy conserving, aware that the deepest pleasures are those of the body not the mind...we all could do much worse. And he likes mules. All sane men like mules. Just don't read his early poetry. Or his opinions on price-supported agriculture. Meh.
So there are conservatives willing to question the old verities and rethink what it means to be a conservative in the 21st century. And those thoughtful conservatives are building new institutions, since the old ones are still dominated by worn-out mossbacks.
I guess I knew that, although Linker names names and adds detail. But I'm unsatisfied. Is a political movement really defined by its pundits?
In the domestic sphere, at least, the core conservative problem is not having any plausible answers to the major crises of the present day: the housing bust, the credit crunch, the deep recession, fragmentary health coverage, climate change, immigration. I'm waiting to hear conservative responses ... view full comment
So there are conservatives willing to question the old verities and rethink what it means to be a conservative in the 21st century. And those thoughtful conservatives are building new institutions, since the old ones are still dominated by worn-out mossbacks.
I guess I knew that, although Linker names names and adds detail. But I'm unsatisfied. Is a political movement really defined by its pundits?
In the domestic sphere, at least, the core conservative problem is not having any plausible answers to the major crises of the present day: the housing bust, the credit crunch, the deep recession, fragmentary health coverage, climate change, immigration. I'm waiting to hear conservative responses to these crises that make sense. Those responses will not emanate from conservative bloggers, no matter how sensible and iconoclastic they may be.
Do the "Newcons" have their own think tank? That would be interesting.
icarusr, I'm with you. I'm temperamentally quite conservative -- most strangers assume I'm a Republican from my haircut and attire alone. But I come from a family whose most famous ancestor fought for the King in the Revolution, and was exiled to Canada by the Connecticut legislature for it, and you don't have to hear that story too often before you realize that conservatives like many of my ancestors have simply been on the wrong side of every really important issue in the history of our republic, all the way back to the question of whether to found the American republic in the first place.
Conservatives were against independence from Britain, against a union of the former colonies, against ... view full comment
icarusr, I'm with you. I'm temperamentally quite conservative -- most strangers assume I'm a Republican from my haircut and attire alone. But I come from a family whose most famous ancestor fought for the King in the Revolution, and was exiled to Canada by the Connecticut legislature for it, and you don't have to hear that story too often before you realize that conservatives like many of my ancestors have simply been on the wrong side of every really important issue in the history of our republic, all the way back to the question of whether to found the American republic in the first place.
Conservatives were against independence from Britain, against a union of the former colonies, against ratifying the Constitution, against the need for a Bill of Rights, against the Louisiana Purchase, against a national currency, against internal improvements like canals, roads, and rail, against limiting the spread of slavery into the territories, against opening the western territories up to settlement by family homesteading rather than syndicate speculation, against preserving the union in the face of Confederate rebellion, against freeing the slaves during the Civil War, against ending slavery after the Civil War, against civil equality for black men, against civil equality for women, against labor unions, against laws protecting worker safety, against the eight-hour day, against banning child labor and sweatshops, against taking action to fight economic depressions, against arming to fight fascism, against actually fighting fascism, against rebuilding Europe to check the spread of communism, against fighting to save South Korea but for fighting to save South Vietnam ... one could go on right up to the Bush era, but with basically a single exception in the entire history of the nation, that of consistently opposing communism, conservatives have always been wrong about what is good for the United States.
So an observant citizen has two basic tasks: (1) Identifying where conservatives stand on an issue, and rejecting it because conservatives are always wrong; and (2) Identifying where liberals stand on an issue, and figuring out whether this is one of the approximate half of the times when they're right.
From Thomas Sowell, an oxymoron, like me.
"One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent."
From Thomas Sowell, an oxymoron, like me.
"One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent."
Go back to England, Rhubarbs, you Tory!
Seriously, though, I always view conservatives and liberals as both serving necessary functions in keeping the country on track. My own example is walking my dog in the park:
When my dog and I go for a walk, he always pulls hard on the leash, but not necessarily in the best direction. It's not that he's stupid, it's just that he gets so excited about progress, any progress, that wherever he is currently facing is the way he most wants to go. He sees all the exciting possibilities of the new path. That's liberals.
Me, on the other hand, I mostly just want to stay on the known trails, plodding along at a steady pace. It's not t ... view full comment
Go back to England, Rhubarbs, you Tory!
Seriously, though, I always view conservatives and liberals as both serving necessary functions in keeping the country on track. My own example is walking my dog in the park:
When my dog and I go for a walk, he always pulls hard on the leash, but not necessarily in the best direction. It's not that he's stupid, it's just that he gets so excited about progress, any progress, that wherever he is currently facing is the way he most wants to go. He sees all the exciting possibilities of the new path. That's liberals.
Me, on the other hand, I mostly just want to stay on the known trails, plodding along at a steady pace. It's not that I'm lazy or fearful, it's just that a new trail might not be as pleasant. When he tugs me in one direction, I'm slow to follow, not really wanting to leave my present course, and figuring that next minute he'll probably pull in another direction. I see all the reasonable advantages of the known path. That's conservatives.
So he pulls me in all sorts of new directions, and I pull back on him toward the beaten track. Without me, he would likely run out into the street and get smacked by a truck. Without him, I might just sit on the porch all evening. Occasionally, he pulls long enough in one direction that I follow him, and in doing so we have found new paths, many of which have become as familiar and beloved to us now as the main trail. That's progress.
Agree with Wandrey, the conservatives do seem to be so obsessed with anything sexual. Does this come from being ignored by their mothers at a tender age?
My advice would be to spend more time worrying about how to get more satisfaction out of your own sex life and much, much less time fretting over those who seem to be enjoying theirs.
Agree with Wandrey, the conservatives do seem to be so obsessed with anything sexual. Does this come from being ignored by their mothers at a tender age?
My advice would be to spend more time worrying about how to get more satisfaction out of your own sex life and much, much less time fretting over those who seem to be enjoying theirs.
r-ennis, that quote is not an oxymoron, rather it is utterly devoid of any meaningful content beyond snark.
Sowell is pushing 80, his mind is evidently degenerating into senility, why would you find the demented ravings of a senile old man to be meaningful?
And I write this above to prove I can write just as idiotic a "putdown" as he did.
r-ennis, that quote is not an oxymoron, rather it is utterly devoid of any meaningful content beyond snark.
Sowell is pushing 80, his mind is evidently degenerating into senility, why would you find the demented ravings of a senile old man to be meaningful?
And I write this above to prove I can write just as idiotic a "putdown" as he did.
The law of small numbers strikes again. Every time conservatives lose an election the left promptly starts writing their obituary. I still recall the death of both the religious right and the pro-life movement after Clinton and the Casey decision. I wish liberal intellectuals, particularly those at more reasonable institutions like TNR, would make an effort to grapple with opposing ideas rather than to simply sneer. But I suppose that isn't human nature.
Nevertheless, the irreducible facts remain that (1) taxes distort incentives, (2) the breakdown of marriage is the primary cause of poverty, (3) abortion can only be defended with a narrow circle of moral consciousness, and (4) defenses of sa ... view full comment
The law of small numbers strikes again. Every time conservatives lose an election the left promptly starts writing their obituary. I still recall the death of both the religious right and the pro-life movement after Clinton and the Casey decision. I wish liberal intellectuals, particularly those at more reasonable institutions like TNR, would make an effort to grapple with opposing ideas rather than to simply sneer. But I suppose that isn't human nature.
Nevertheless, the irreducible facts remain that (1) taxes distort incentives, (2) the breakdown of marriage is the primary cause of poverty, (3) abortion can only be defended with a narrow circle of moral consciousness, and (4) defenses of same-sex marriage lead to logical contradictions because few defenders also want to allow polygamy.
Jibaholic,
Legalization of polygamy (legally consenting adults only) would actually eliminate it in less than ten years. What guy (or gal) would choose to marry more than one partner if those extra partners were afforded the same legally-enforced protections as married spouses,.......could divorce and be eligible for child support, alimony, half the retirement, community property, etc.?
Nobody on earth could afford it. No guy I know would willingly put himself in this predicament. Some of my best friends try to avoid the above at all costs even when they know they're obligated.
The institution of marriage was created in antiquity by humans to protect family wealth, prop ... view full comment
Jibaholic,
Legalization of polygamy (legally consenting adults only) would actually eliminate it in less than ten years. What guy (or gal) would choose to marry more than one partner if those extra partners were afforded the same legally-enforced protections as married spouses,.......could divorce and be eligible for child support, alimony, half the retirement, community property, etc.?
Nobody on earth could afford it. No guy I know would willingly put himself in this predicament. Some of my best friends try to avoid the above at all costs even when they know they're obligated.
The institution of marriage was created in antiquity by humans to protect family wealth, property and to make sure offspring were supported by their actual parents. The church co-opted it during the middle ages to extend its power, authority and because there was no distinction between church and state authority at the time.
jibaholic: Even if your facts are irreducible--and I do not accept them as presented--where are the conservative ideas to address them? Now if eliminating taxes and enacting Catholic dogma as the law of the land are the ideas to solve these problems, then sneering is in order.
jibaholic: Even if your facts are irreducible--and I do not accept them as presented--where are the conservative ideas to address them? Now if eliminating taxes and enacting Catholic dogma as the law of the land are the ideas to solve these problems, then sneering is in order.
<i>Legalization of polygamy (legally consenting adults only) would actually eliminate it in less than ten years. What guy (or gal) would choose to marry more than one partner if those extra partners were afforded the same legally-enforced protections as married spouses,.......could divorce and be eligible for child support, alimony, half the retirement, community property, etc.?</i>
<p>
Logically, with polygamy they would get an equal share, not half. If there are three people in the marriage, then the divorcing partner would get a third. And let's not forget prenups!*
<p>
<i>The institution of marriage was created in antiquity by humans to protect family weal ... view full comment
<i>Legalization of polygamy (legally consenting adults only) would actually eliminate it in less than ten years. What guy (or gal) would choose to marry more than one partner if those extra partners were afforded the same legally-enforced protections as married spouses,.......could divorce and be eligible for child support, alimony, half the retirement, community property, etc.?</i>
<p>
Logically, with polygamy they would get an equal share, not half. If there are three people in the marriage, then the divorcing partner would get a third. And let's not forget prenups!*
<p>
<i>The institution of marriage was created in antiquity by humans to protect family wealth, property and to make sure offspring were supported by their actual parents. The church co-opted it during the middle ages to extend its power, authority and because there was no distinction between church and state authority at the time.</i>
<p>
Marriage has been created by a lot of human societies for a lot of different reasons. In many primitive and sophisticated societies it is to reduce women to property of their husbands. Pace your last point, the Church actually emancipated women from such arrangements by requireing consensual marriage.
<p>
I find it revealing that advocates for same-sex marriage defend the institution on the grounds that is a right for consensual adults, but retreat to some sort of gatekeeping definition of marriage once polygamy is invoked.
<p>
* As a conservatives I disapprove of both prenups and no-fault divorces. But I'm arguing from within the structure of current marriage law.
If there's to be a GOP revival in coming years, it will have to occur far from the GOP's NY-DC media/thinktanker bubble. The east coast and bible belt GOP elites don't get it. The "national greatness" and religious issue fetishes are largely irrelevant to a US middle class that is under more pressure now, and will remain so for much longer than at any time since the 1930s. There is no middle-class economic security any more. That fact has to be issue #1, 2, and 3 for any national political party in this country.
Which is to say that the GOP's problem is NOT their social agenda but their lack of a credible economic agenda. What nearly every GOPper except Frum seems to miss is that, t ... view full comment
If there's to be a GOP revival in coming years, it will have to occur far from the GOP's NY-DC media/thinktanker bubble. The east coast and bible belt GOP elites don't get it. The "national greatness" and religious issue fetishes are largely irrelevant to a US middle class that is under more pressure now, and will remain so for much longer than at any time since the 1930s. There is no middle-class economic security any more. That fact has to be issue #1, 2, and 3 for any national political party in this country.
Which is to say that the GOP's problem is NOT their social agenda but their lack of a credible economic agenda. What nearly every GOPper except Frum seems to miss is that, the only time that social issues rise in importance for independent voters is when the economy's really awful, which is when Democrats clean up. When incomes are high and voters feel secure, the GOP's social agenda isn't compelling to enough independent voters to make a difference to election results.
The key demographic, the one that swings elections every two years, is two-parent households with school-age kids, ie about 30% of those who actually turn out and vote. For them the GOP's inability to address the sharp spike in economic insecurity created by hyper-volatile job, property and capital markets leaves no choice but to vote for a Democratic Party that offers hope on the health insurance front while adding to their anxiety on a host of other fronts, especially the schools and fiscal management.
The two-parent school-age family vote used to cut 2:1 GOP:Dems, it's now more like 50:50, and this shift probably accounts for the Dems' rise in the last several years. If the GOP cannot find in itself a concern for these voters who swing nearly every election, and elevate these voters' economic concerns to the very top of their agenda, then the GOP will never overcome the Dems' structural advantage with hispanics especially and, to a lesser extent, other high-growth demographics such as college grads, agnostics/atheists, childless single women etc.
The logical place for the GOP to start to fashion a comeback program is California, which has been all but ruined by extraordinarily incompetent, corrupt one-party Democratic and public sector union domination. A California-centered, moderate, economics-focused GOP would of course have little in common with the current party headed by Virginia-based beltway bandits, southern religious activists, and NY-DC media mavens.
"Today NRO's group blog The Corner is angry, sarcastic, cranky, irritable, grossly populist -- miles away from the serene high-mindedness cultivated by founder William F. Buckley, Jr."
That "serene high-moindedness" took a while to evolve. Let us not forget that some of the first issues of NR were devoted to defending Joe McCarthy and rationalizing white supremacy. NR became high-minded and serene as its founder mellowed and American conservatiism started feeling less embattled.
"Today NRO's group blog The Corner is angry, sarcastic, cranky, irritable, grossly populist -- miles away from the serene high-mindedness cultivated by founder William F. Buckley, Jr."
That "serene high-moindedness" took a while to evolve. Let us not forget that some of the first issues of NR were devoted to defending Joe McCarthy and rationalizing white supremacy. NR became high-minded and serene as its founder mellowed and American conservatiism started feeling less embattled.
Intellectual wandrey: an oxymoron.
Intellectual wandrey: an oxymoron.
Interesting, tep. It's difficult for the GOP to overcome the advantage Dems have on the economy. Dems just say they'll give you stuff - health care, college tuition. Who doesn't want something for nothing? Of course, the stuff won't cost nothing, and the Dems are a bit disingenuous about that. No matter.
Demographics favor the Dems, and will for a long time unless something bad happens in f-p, which none of us should root for. The "whatever" generation is solidly Dem. I agree that any GOP revival will have to come from statehouses, but CA is a long-shot. Oh, they elect GOP governors, but that's about the only office a Republican can win.
No, ... view full comment
Interesting, tep. It's difficult for the GOP to overcome the advantage Dems have on the economy. Dems just say they'll give you stuff - health care, college tuition. Who doesn't want something for nothing? Of course, the stuff won't cost nothing, and the Dems are a bit disingenuous about that. No matter.
Demographics favor the Dems, and will for a long time unless something bad happens in f-p, which none of us should root for. The "whatever" generation is solidly Dem. I agree that any GOP revival will have to come from statehouses, but CA is a long-shot. Oh, they elect GOP governors, but that's about the only office a Republican can win.
No, it's going to be a long, hard slog.
Jibaholic:
Wouldn't your argument against same-sex marriage also apply equally against opposite sex marriage? Doesn't opposite sex marriage lead us just as inexorably to polygamy? So to save ourselves from the polygamists, which apparently is one of the major goals of jhibaholic conservatism, shouldn't you also advocate abolishing opposite sex marriage?
Jibaholic:
Wouldn't your argument against same-sex marriage also apply equally against opposite sex marriage? Doesn't opposite sex marriage lead us just as inexorably to polygamy? So to save ourselves from the polygamists, which apparently is one of the major goals of jhibaholic conservatism, shouldn't you also advocate abolishing opposite sex marriage?
What ljach said. Today's Cornerites got nothin' on the late great Joseph Sobran, or the National Review writer who authorred "Two Cheers for Rape" in 1981....
What ljach said. Today's Cornerites got nothin' on the late great Joseph Sobran, or the National Review writer who authorred "Two Cheers for Rape" in 1981....
"Long way of saying that anyone professing any sort of conservatism other than Burkean "conservatism" - change slowly to adapt to changing circumstances, but do not force radical change in the hope of changing Man - is either lunatic or daft."
But ic, if we are discussing sex, at least in the terms suggested by Wandreycer, then there's a problem. A conservative might well say that the sexual politics of the last fifty years are, in fact, not simply about changing mores to which a Burkean might adapt or with which a Burkean might even have sympathy, but along with changing mores there has been an underlying debate precisely about the nature of Man (or Humanity if you ... view full comment
"Long way of saying that anyone professing any sort of conservatism other than Burkean "conservatism" - change slowly to adapt to changing circumstances, but do not force radical change in the hope of changing Man - is either lunatic or daft."
But ic, if we are discussing sex, at least in the terms suggested by Wandreycer, then there's a problem. A conservative might well say that the sexual politics of the last fifty years are, in fact, not simply about changing mores to which a Burkean might adapt or with which a Burkean might even have sympathy, but along with changing mores there has been an underlying debate precisely about the nature of Man (or Humanity if you prefer) and proposals to radically change it. The arguments about sexual identity that lie behind the debate over gay marriage--human nature, the meaning and purpose of sexuality, the family, etc.--are just the sort of "forced radical change" to which a Burkean would object. A true Burkean might well, under the present circumstances, wish to speak out in defense of tradition and the accumulated experience of the ages.
"The logical place for the GOP to start to fashion a comeback program is California, which has been all but ruined by extraordinarily incompetent, corrupt one-party Democratic and public sector union domination."
What? Prison guard unions are made up of Democrats? I don't think so. California's problem is that it's citizen-democracy experiment has finally gone haywire. Part-time citizens don't make good lawmakers, especially when they can't remember what ballot measure they voted for a year ago, and end up voting to fund 82 new programs while also voting to limit or cut taxes. The two don't add up. If you want to slag Democrats go right ahead, but at least have the decency to find a ... view full comment
"The logical place for the GOP to start to fashion a comeback program is California, which has been all but ruined by extraordinarily incompetent, corrupt one-party Democratic and public sector union domination."
What? Prison guard unions are made up of Democrats? I don't think so. California's problem is that it's citizen-democracy experiment has finally gone haywire. Part-time citizens don't make good lawmakers, especially when they can't remember what ballot measure they voted for a year ago, and end up voting to fund 82 new programs while also voting to limit or cut taxes. The two don't add up. If you want to slag Democrats go right ahead, but at least have the decency to find a case that fits your attack. Massachusetts, for example.