NM Symposium: Sam Tanenhaus’ latest book, The Death of Conservatism, argues that conservatism must decide whether it is a movement of cultural revenge or a governing philosophy. NewMajority has asked conservatives to weigh in. First up: Austin Bramwell, a former National Review trustee, and Geoffrey Kabaservice, our resident GOP historian who at one time contributed research to Tanenhaus.
Sam Tanenhaus is one of the rare political writers who actually listens to the other side. Not even many movement conservatives can read and apply the insights of Willmoore Kendall or James Burnham. He has written carefully and astutely about Bill Buckley’s Yale career and his run for mayor of New York and delivered an outstanding life of Whitaker Chambers.
The Death of Conservatism likewise has many gems of sympathetic insight, such as when Tanenhaus describes the John Birch Society as a legitimate, grassroots organization, distinguishable from the ridiculous views of its founder, Robert Welch. This short history corrects some of the weaknesses of an earlier essay for The New Republic, “Conservatism is Dead.” For one thing, he no longer proclaims that movement conservatism is actually “dead.” Tanenhaus now concedes, “there is no sign that movement stalwarts are ready to give any of this [i.e., movement doctrine and politics] up.” In other words, the conservative movement is not “dead.” Tanenhaus merely finds its doctrines false and its influence harmful.
In The Death of Conservatism, he sets out to explain why. He writes harshly, accusing the movement of “revanchism,” “blind faith” in its doctrines, and radical “antinomianism and anti-institutionalism.” And yet the greatest flaw of his book may be that he is not harsh enough.
Tanenhaus wants to reach the sensational but conventional verdict that the movement has become alarmingly radical. Yet the actual picture he draws is of a movement stuck helplessly in a rut.
According to Tanenhaus, American conservatism vacillates between its ideology and its mission. The mission, he says, is Burkean: the conservation of existing institutions. The ideology is radical: it calls for dismantling the welfare state, aggressively confronting foreign enemies, and waging culture war against permissive elites at home.
Tanenhaus is hardly the first to notice the contradiction between conservatism’s conservationist rhetoric and its demolitionist program. That the movement became known as “conservative” at all is an historical accident, no less than that the peoples Christopher Columbus encountered in North America became known as “Indians.” Early movement texts such as God and Man at Yale dubbed their ideology not “conservatism” but “individualism.” Only after Russell Kirk, who called himself a conservative but was never much troubled by inconsistency, chose to position himself as a movement godfather did “conservative” become the epithet of choice. Despite its name, the movement has never had any necessary connection to the political philosophy of Edmund Burke.
Movements by definition have programs for change, which they pursue whether or not those programs undermine the existing order. The conservative movement, for example, has attacked the legitimacy of everything from New Deal agencies and the policy of containment to modern Supreme Court Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence and the leadership of the academy. Hardly any long-established institution in America has escaped movement conservative wrath. Burkean conservatism, by contrast, compels all movements to subordinate their goals to the greater goal of social tranquility — that is to say, to betray their very reasons for existing. One should no more expect actual conservatism of the conservative movement than, say, the feminist movement.
Not surprisingly, The Death of Conservatism uncovers no evidence of a movement tendency towards Burkeanism. In Tanenhaus’s telling, a genuinely conservative politics emerged only in 1965-75 in response to the tumult of the late 1960s. Awkwardly, however, the politician Tanenhaus cites as a paragon of a conservative leader is Richard Nixon, a man whom movement conservatives never trusted and who in office routinely defied them.
The men whom conservatives did trust of course defied them even more, most spectacularly, George W. Bush. Yet even so, Tanenhaus charges the movement with dogmatism. Something does not compute here.
None of this means that, by compromising its ideology, the movement has rediscovered its mission of conserving. To that, the movement remains as indifferent as ever. Movement conservatives still incant what Tanenhaus calls the “stale phrases of movement politics” — the warnings against Obama’s “socialism,” the calls to “take back the culture,” the attack on liberal “elites.” Tanenhaus finds these slogans bewildering, if not, as he calls them “meaningless.” What sense does it make, for example, to accuse Obama in particular of “socialism,” for example, when most of the late growth in government began under Bush?
And here is where we have to convict Tanenhaus of too much generosity to the movement he has so closely studied. Tanenhaus misses that movements can become both unprincipled and tediously ideological at the same time. Nobody would accuse late Soviet commissars, for example, of a faithful commitment to socialist dogma. At the same time, the more their practices strayed from their principles, the more they clung to their creeds outworn. Similarly, the very emptiness of movement slogans is a sign not of fervent belief but the lack of it. Perhaps all movements end in some combination of hypocrisy and intellectual torpor. As Tanenhaus observes, creative and original writers are abandoning the movement. Those left behind are just going through the motions.
The conservative movement isn’t dangerous or “revanchist;” it’s just boring. Right-wing intellectuals should eschew the movement and reintegrate into the mainstream, not because the movement threatens the Republic, but because freedom of thought can only be found outside of it.
21 responses so far
1 From Buckley to Beck: Where Did We Go Wrong? // Sep 5, 2009 at 4:14 am
[...] Bramwell, Conservatism Isn’t Dead, It’s Just Intellectually Boring Tanenhaus wants to reach the sensational but conventional verdict that the movement has become [...]
2 Chekote // Sep 5, 2009 at 7:20 am
Excellent idea this symposium. This is exactly what I hoped New Majority would be about. Thank you Mr. Frum.
3 EscapeVelocity // Sep 5, 2009 at 11:37 am
The demolition of un-Constitutional institutions is very conservative. The preservation of Americans primary institution.
The premise seems to be that…to take just one example.
The Assault Weapons Ban is passed by the Left. Then that becomes the Law of the Land and should now be preserved and protected by Conservatives.
Which is utterly ridiculous.
That type of Conservatism doesnt stand for anything…..its just a Conservatism that follows the Left into Socialist Utopia, and pulls up the ramparts behind them. A program of continuously moving Left. The Center moves left, the New Majority Moves Center, Conservatives become Radical Rightwingnuts, who are destroying the party.
4 EscapeVelocity // Sep 5, 2009 at 11:44 am
What sense does it make, for example, to accuse Obama in particular of “socialism,” for example, when most of the late growth in government began under Bush? — Austin Bramwell
This is just a Leftwing talking point. That Bush and the Republican Party erred toward Socialist Programs and increased government and spending (this really pissed a lot of Conservatives off BTW), has no relation to whether or not Obama has Socialist leanings and foundational beliefs.
Whatabouttery doesnt address the direct issue at hand, it sidesteps it.
Conservativism can be boring and it can be energizing. However the New Lefts Utopian Vision of Radical Transformation of the World into a Dystopia is certainly more exciting to the youth than Conservatism’s tired old Enlightenment Classically Liberal Radicalism with regard to liberty and libertarianism.
5 EscapeVelocity // Sep 5, 2009 at 11:50 am
Lets take another example…
Roe v. Wade
Is the Conservative position on Roe v. Wade supposed to change because the Left ran an end around the legislatures and got Leftwing judges to rule in their favor.
Should Gay Marriage become a Conservative position because a Judge in Massachusetts supported it, so now that is an institution that should be defended and cherished.
You see just how silly your assertion is.
6 The Divine Conspiracy Blog » Blog Archive » The Death of Conservatism // Sep 5, 2009 at 2:25 pm
[...] New Majority offers two reviews of The Death of Conservatism, one by Austin Bramwell here and the second by Geoffrey Kabaservice here. Posted in Politics | No Comments » Leave a [...]
7 joedee1969 // Sep 5, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I just read C. Rich’s new book. ” The Conservative Reconstruction Project” and it was right on point with the conservative movement. I sent him an e-mail telling him about this site. He checked it out and wrote me back and said he loved it. He even put it on his blogroll and that guy never puts a whole lot on his link list. He must have love it. Anyway check out this link:
http://americaspeaksink.com/the-conservative-reconstructon-project/
8 ltoro1 // Sep 5, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I’ve honestly come to find most conversations about what is and what is not conservative boring and abstract. As far as a governing philosophy I think we should look at three key points.
1. What does the government have the authority to do?
2. Out of the things the government has the authority to do, what should it be doing? In other words, what are its core competencies?
3. Out of 2 and 3 what can we afford to do? This would should be driven by what is in the bank account and the amount of revenues collected, not some abstract idea that begins with the phrase “but we can’t afford not to.”
9 sinz54 // Sep 5, 2009 at 8:41 pm
escapevelocity:
It has changed. For the worse.
Social conservatives are no longer content with wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the abortion issue to the states. That used to be their position 20 years ago, but no more.
The GOP Platform calls for the passage of a Constitutional Amendment to give Fourteenth Amendment protections to embryos and fetuses.
That means that even in the most liberal parts of the Union, like Vermont and San Francisco, a woman who has an abortion, even in the first trimester, would be automatically guilty of violating the U.S. Constitution. That’s a serious charge indeed. A conservative Congress could pass legislation sending her to a Federal penitentiary for 20 years, just like the KKK was put in prison for violating the Bill of Rights of blacks.
And it would make any physician discarding unneeded embryos from an In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) procedure equally guilty of violating the Constitution.
Social conservatives can no longer claim to be fighting against an all-powerful regime in Washington. They want to take over control of that regime and use it to ram THEIR agenda down the throats of LIBERAL women, atheist women, any woman whose own personal moral code doesn’t see abortion or IVF as murder.
10 ltoro1 // Sep 5, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Sinz54, I can’t speak for the GOP platform, but I am not sure that most social conservatives would want to do anything about IVF. I say this as someone who lives in the Bible belt and know of at least one very socialy conservative family that has used IVF.
Now as far as fetuses go, sure, many social conservatives think that unborn children should not have their right to life taken away without due process of law, but most have thought that all along. This is really nothing new.
I would also disagree that social conservatives want to take over any regime and ram anything down anyones throat. Most social conservatives I know, feel that if you assume an unborn child is a human life, then one does not have the right to take that life. The question of whether an unborn child is alive or human is not neccesarily a religious question, but one that we should be able to determine by objective means.
11 greg_barton // Sep 6, 2009 at 12:46 am
That might be so, ev, but it’s also the truth. You say “Bush and the Republican Party erred toward Socialist Programs” but was it really an error? I don’t think so.
The cool thing is, reality is a left wing talking point.
12 sinz54 // Sep 6, 2009 at 10:20 am
ltoro1:
When IVF became a reality in the 1970s, Phyllis Schlafly fought it tooth and nail–but lost. (She continues to call embryos “embryo children.”
Giving Fourteenth Amendment rights to embryos, as a Human Life Amendment would do, would end the practice of IVF.
13 sinz54 // Sep 6, 2009 at 10:23 am
greg_barton:
In the 1970s and 1980s, reality used to be a conservative talking point.
Back then, all the starry-eyed idealists, totally out of touch with the reality of how the U.S. economy really works and how international relations really work, were liberals. It was conservatives who kept coming up with arguments based in history, philosophy, ethics, economic theory, military history. That’s why conservatism dominated U.S. politics for some 30 years.
Times change.
And they’ll change again.
But not yet.
14 EscapeVelocity // Sep 6, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Social conservatives can no longer claim to be fighting against an all-powerful regime in Washington. They want to take over control of that regime and use it to ram THEIR agenda down the throats of LIBERAL women, atheist women, any woman whose own personal moral code doesn’t see abortion or IVF as murder. —sinz
This is exactly what the North did with regards to slavery in the South, as the final resolution of the US Civil War.
Now my politics are to err on the side of caution when it comes to human life. I would allow the morning after pill but basically can aborition altogether with perhaps a few exceptions, like rape, incest, life of the mother. Perhaps as a practical matter an 8 week window.
I dont agree necessarily with the Constitutional Amendment strategy, because to me the Constitution already applies.
But this could have all been avoided if the Left hadnt tried (and they have done this as a tactical strategy, which is now standard operating procedure on the Left) to bypass the State Legislatures via Activist Judges. The Left brought the Constitution into play, and thus made it a crime to limit abortions…as many state laws have been struck down limiting abortion. Its the Left that is to blame for the reaction, they are in the driving seat. Not Conservatives.
You can blast Conservatives for these things, but these positions and circumstances would never have come about if the Left hadnt played dirty. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
15 EscapeVelocity // Sep 6, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Sinz said:
In the 1970s and 1980s, reality used to be a conservative talking point.
Back then, all the starry-eyed idealists, totally out of touch with the reality of how the U.S. economy really works and how international relations really work, were liberals. It was conservatives who kept coming up with arguments based in history, philosophy, ethics, economic theory, military history. That’s why conservatism dominated U.S. politics for some 30 years.
—-
Reality is still owned by the conservatives, look at Cap & Trade (Artifical Energy Scarcity) leading us out of a bad recession. There is no reality there. Look at Deficits need to be reduced especially from Bush’s and the GOPs irresponsible spending, then goes on to pass the Trillion Dollar Porkulus Bill and tops it off with the Multi Trillion Dollar Health Care Socialization, and they actually think that the taxes that they have to raise, because lets face it the Chinese arent gonna pony up, is going to combine with Cap & Trade and produce the revenues that will pay for all this.
We are talking about an economic calamity, far worse than the Financial Crisis and Real Estate Bubble.
No, its the Conservatives that keep hittin all the right notes, but sometimes have strayed from those notes.
One has to ask themselves, do you support the guy that at least is advocating the better policies based on reality, but not always following it, or do you support the fellow that is actually advocating insanity.
16 greg_barton // Sep 6, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Indeed. They owned it until they drove the economy into the ground. Then Rush started calling it the “Omaba recession” a day after he was ELECTED.
17 ltoro1 // Sep 6, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Well, to be fair greg_barton, they called the 2001 recession the “Bush recession” even though it began before his inaugeration.
18 ltoro1 // Sep 6, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Sinz54, I am sure your facts vis a vis Phyllis Schlafly are correct. I wonder how many (as a percentage) social conservatives even know who Phyllis Schlafly is. My guess, is that it would be less than 30%. If you pressed me and I was drinking I would bet good money the number is less than 20%.
19 sagedil // Sep 8, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Sinz54,
Your comments about abortion are exactly right. I am a Democrat now. In a different time, I would be a Rockefeller Republican, and proud of it. I have mixed emotions about abortion. But in the end, feel it is a decision best left between a woman and her doctor.
But I have always thought Roe was just wrong, even if I possibly supported the intended results. But as legal reasoning, it just bothers me. More importantly, I think we were wrong to take that route. Leave it to the States. Just like gay marriage, it should be fought in each state. Several states had already legalized some abortion before Roe. He**, my own adopted State, North Carolina legalized abortion for pregnancies caused by rape, or the woman’s life was in danger in 1970. North Carolina!!! If we can win this fight in North Carolina in 1970, we could win it *most* places.
Or maybe we wouldn’t. Maybe the anti-abortion folks could marshal their arguments, show how horrible it really is, and win. But either way, the only right way to do it
So I think Roe was both stupid, and ultimately damaging to everyone.
In 1984, I had no problems voting for Reagan, or the Republican party platform. I largely agreed with much of it. But eventually, all that changed. And changed badly. The Social Conservatives took over everything, and now rammed down a version that give THEM control. Suddenly, it is not about letting the sates decide. They might decide they might decide “wrong”. Just like we can’t let California experiment with medical marijuana, we know it is wrong.
They want to do the polar opposite of what the worst of Democrats want to do. Their way, only their way, and they will tell the country what is right and wrong. There is nothing “conservative” about that
Honestly, if I have to risk one side gaining total control now, the Democrats scare me less than the Social Conservatives
20 Mario Piperni dot Com » Blog Archive » Conservatives On Conservatism // Sep 8, 2009 at 9:59 pm
[...] Austin Bramwell weighs in on Sam Tanenhaus’ book, The Death of Conservatism with his own take on the movement’s [...]
21 Martyb // Sep 10, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Itoro1 @ 10:44 on Sept 6 -
NBER dating for the 2001 recession puts it as starting in March 2001 (still hardly time for Bush to take all the credit for tanking the economy in a mere 2 months).
It was a relatively partisan CEA, headed by Greg Mankiw that decided that it should be back-dated. To be sure, he had a model to support this decision, but a more even-handed analysis seems to put it back at the beginning of Q22001: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/08/the_2001_recess.html
You must log in to post a comment.