I sense intellectual deterioration of the once-vital conservative movement in the United States. As I shall explain, this may be a testament to its success.
Until the late 1960s (when I was in my late twenties), I was barely conscious of the existence of a conservative movement. It was obscure and marginal, symbolized by figures like Barry Goldwater (slaughtered by Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 presidential election), Ayn Rand, Russell Kirk, and William Buckley–figures who had no appeal for me. More powerful conservative thinkers, such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, and other distinguished conservative economists, such as George Stigler, were on the scene, but were not well known outside the economics profession.
The domestic disorder of the late 1960s, the excesses of Johnson’s “Great Society,” significant advances in the economics of antitrust and regulation, the “stagflation” of the 1970s, and the belief (which turned out to be mistaken) that the Soviet Union was winning the Cold War–all these developments stimulated the growth of a varied and vibrant conservative movement, which finally achieved electoral success with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1981. The movement included the free-market economics associated with the “Chicago School” (and therefore deregulation, privatization, monetarism, low taxes, and a rejection of Keynesian macroeconomics), “neoconservatism” in the sense of a strong military and a rejection of liberal internationalism, and cultural conservatism, involving respect for traditional values, resistance to feminism and affirmative action, and a tough line on crime.
The end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the surge of prosperity worldwide that marked the global triumph of capitalism, the essentially conservative policies, especially in economics, of the Clinton administration, and finally the election and early years of the Bush Administration, marked the apogee of the conservative movement. But there were signs that it had not only already peaked, but was beginning to decline. Leading conservative intellectual figures grew old and died (Friedman, Hayek, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Buckley, etc.) and others as they aged became silent or less active (such as Robert Bork, Irving Kristol, and Gertrude Himmelfarb), and their successors lacked equivalent public prominence, as conservatism grew strident and populist.
By the end of the Clinton administration, I was content to celebrate the triumph of conservatism as I understood it, and had no desire for other than incremental changes in the economic and social structure of the United States. I saw no need for the estate tax to be abolished, marginal personal-income tax rates further reduced, the government shrunk, pragmatism in constitutional law jettisoned in favor of “originalism,” the rights of gun owners enlarged, our military posture strengthened, the rise of homosexual rights resisted, or the role of religion in the public sphere expanded. All these became causes embraced by the new conservatism that crested with the reelection of Bush in 2004.
My theme is the intellectual decline of conservatism, and it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising. The major blows to conservatism, culminating in the election and programs of Obama, have been fourfold: the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation.
By the fall of 2008, the face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Conservative intellectuals had no party.
And then came the financial crash last September and the ensuing depression. These unanticipated and shocking events have exposed significant analytical weaknesses in core beliefs of conservative economists concerning the business cycle and the macroeconomy generally. Friedmanite monetarism and the efficient-market theory of finance have taken some sharp hits, and there is renewed respect for the macroeconomic thought of John Maynard Keynes, a conservatives’ bête noire.
There are signs and portents of liberal excess in the policies and plans of the new administration. There will thus be plenty of targets for informed conservative critique. At this writing, however, the conservative movement is at its lowest ebb since 1964. But with this cardinal difference: the movement has so far succeeded in shifting the center of American politics and social thought that it can rest, for at least a little while, on its laurels.
Reproduced from the Becker-Posner blog.
29 responses so far
1 sinz54 // May 17, 2009 at 9:15 am
I mostly agree with this analysis.
But I would partly disagree with the notion that last year’s economic crash showed weaknesses in free-market theory. Many of the seeds of that economic crash didn’t come from free-market theory, but from *corporatism*–the Government picking winners and losers rather than letting the marketplace do it.
First, you had the many attempts by both political parties to encourage homeownership, even by those who had never demonstrated that they could afford it. These homeowners took out mortgages that they could never afford, with little money down. And when housing prices declined as they inevitably must, these homeowners went bankrupt.
Second, you had the spectacle of lobbyists for the energy and banking industries writing pieces of legislation that Congress would pass to give special favors to those industries. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 specifically exempted commodity futures and Credit Default Swaps from SEC oversight. The former led to Enron’s rise and fall; the latter led to the collapse last year of AIG. and in turn contributed greatly to the U.S. economic decline.
Such special favors to lobbyists were never a part of Friedmanite free-market capitalism; quite the contrary. But too often, conservatives rushed to defend these types of legislation as “supply-side” or some other bogus justification.
2 sinz54 // May 17, 2009 at 9:34 am
I urge folks here to read the comments on Posner’s piece on his Becker-Posner blog. Posner tried to write a reasonable critique of modern conservatism. And he got slammed by all the usual suspects: “abortion steals an innocent human life,” global warming is an Al Gore hoax, homosexuality leads to the decline of the nation, on and on.
They’re poster children for everything Posner said.
3 Dr. Tesla // May 17, 2009 at 11:40 am
It’s said that this guy can only generate two posts (prior to mine) and they are by the same sinz guy that accounts for about 80% of the posts on this website.
Is sinz54 David Frum?
My little conspiracy theory of the day.
The money question is this, if you have so many problems with basic tenets of conservatism, such as free markets, tax cuts, opposition to abortion and gay marriage, why don’t you go vote for another party? It seems rather silly to try to change a party that doesn’t hold the majority of your ideals.
This guy is a liberal…why doesn’t he vote Democrat and try to get them to moderate on the one or two issues on which he disagrees with them? That would make sense.
4 ottovbvs // May 17, 2009 at 11:41 am
I read the good Judge’s comments on his blog. He is of course largely correct……a pity he’s not on the supreme court instead of that lightweight Thomas but there it is. His comments about the failure of unregulated free market capitalism is particularly acute coming as it does from someone who has long been an advocate for the Friedmanite, Chicago School of economic philosophy. He’s essentially admitting that it’s a god that failed or least got out of control.
5 ottovbvs // May 17, 2009 at 11:45 am
Dr. Tesla
wrote 2 minutes ago
“This guy is a liberal…why doesn’t he vote Democrat”
…..That Dr Kudzu believes Judge Posner to be a liberal explains the conservative movement’s problem in a nutshell.
6 Dr. Tesla // May 17, 2009 at 11:48 am
If a callow ignorant leftwinger like this otto guy is endorsing this old man Judge Posner, I think it’s safe to say the old judge is no conservative.
Since when has the free market been unregulated? Certainly not in the last 100 years. Liberals always assert false premises, such as the free market is underregulated or that taxpayers are undertaxed that are completely false.
7 ottovbvs // May 17, 2009 at 11:51 am
Dr. Tesla
”
wrote 1 minutes ago
“If a callow ignorant leftwinger like this otto guy is endorsing this old man Judge Posner, I think it’s safe to say the old judge is no conservative.
…..Dr Kudzu….Yes I’d say it was fair to say Judge Posner and I are pretty much on the same page….I can see we’d have problems passing your purity test.
8 balconesfault // May 17, 2009 at 12:15 pm
“That Dr Kudzu believes Judge Posner to be a liberal explains the conservative movement’s problem in a nutshell.”
Yep – and a key to that problem is that a large percentage of the Republicans “ground troops” for any election consists of Dr. Tesla’s. Who were already signaling last summer that they were ready to sit out 2008, until McCain chose Palin as VP candidate – which left him very undermanned when the meltdown caused the election to swing heavily towards economic issues. There was simply noone with the economic chops on the ticket to make a coherent defense of conservative economic principles – talking as if eliminating “earmarks” was the key to managing the Federal budget just came off lame.
9 jjv // May 17, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I posted on Judge Posner’s site and though I disagree with him on most social issues I htink he is absolutely right here. But it should be noted liberalism had declined as well. Its not like they have a bunch of Deweys and FDRs running around.
10 kroner // May 17, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Well I think that’s sort of the point of the piece. The battle lines have shifted drastically in the last 50 years. A lot of the main pieces of the conservative movement from the 60s, especially the economic principles, have made their way into the center and are now part of the political mainstream, even among Democrats. These days an electable liberal still has to espouse the virtues of the free market, the limits of the usefulness of welfare programs, moderation on a lot of social issue. The “new” conservative movement seems to have run aground but that may be because the old one was so successful in converting the nation that the only things left to fight for on the right are fringe issues. What used to be “conservative” is now “centrist.” Or at least that was the reading I got from it. I could be totally off base.
11 balconesfault // May 17, 2009 at 2:22 pm
“What used to be “conservative” is now “centrist.” Or at least that was the reading I got from it.”
I think that was exactly Posner’s point. There’s a reason why many have called Clinton the most successful Republican President in recent years. He reduced the deficit, he reduced the size of government, and he presided over a big economic boom that wasn’t largely based on a real estate bubble.
The country was in a very good place for Conservatives in 2001.
12 // May 17, 2009 at 3:50 pm
jjv: “But it should be noted liberalism had declined as well.”
You’re absolutely right. As a consequence, the country shifted right over the course of time. That is precisely why most people rightly argue that what is left of the Republican Party represents a relative extreme element of the country.
13 Mheer // May 17, 2009 at 6:38 pm
So much of this discussion depends on what is a conservative or a liberal, what is left, what is right. What do words mean.
Posner would rather have legal relativism (“pragmatism”) than inalterable standards. In high school I was taught that conservative is someone who does not want change, while a liberal is someone who prefers change. That would make Posner a liberal. Or maybe a liberal conservative, depending on how pragmatism is defined in real life. Words are labels for ideas, and these two words have been so hammered upon that it is hard to discern just what ideas each refers to. In fact, some here consider Posner a liberal, while others consider him a conservative.
It has been a consistent trait of those I would consider liberals to intentionally obfuscate these terms. The reason for that, and their success at it, is that those who are conservative, now argue among themselves in an attempt to nail down a definition. Conservatives need a definable limit, a standard of moralilty to adhere to in order to be conservative. Liberals will call themselves progressives, independants, or whatever; they dont care.
14 Mheer // May 17, 2009 at 6:40 pm
New at this, The first part is actually posted just below.
cont’d
Liberals need no standards. Gays want gay rights, gay marriage and don’t care about much else. Most gays don’t interest themselves much with kids, so if others would set up state financed and state run child care centers, but will vote for gay rights, they are on that bus. If others want to use those state run centers to teach the evils of religion, patriotism, and morality in general, that’s okay also. Just get me mine and I will help you get yours.
A workable definition is to say that a liberal is someone who believes the ends justifies the means, while a conservative is someone who wants the means justified by measuring them to a standard.
Liberals can reflect every desire of every constituency from every area, group, or state. Corruption and favortism is quite all right for a liberal because they just need to bring home the bacon to their group, other groups don’t care what they do as long as they support their efforts to bring home their bacon and will circle the wagons to defend them. Conservatives who fall even a little short are blasted by liberals for doing what the liberals themselves do, while fellow conservatives cannot and will not defend them. Both parties have corrupt members, but liberals are defended and protected while conservatives are hung out to dry as they have failed the standards test. This allows the liberals to set the debate terms to greedy, dishonest conservatives vs. caring, helpful liberals.
Conservatives get all tied up in knots over words because they allow liberals to set the definitions and to arbitrarily define political debate.
Conservatives are not against the rule of law, ask any conservative if counterfeiting, fraud, theft, selling tainted food, or any of a host of other actions ought not to be punished by the government. Liberals paint conservatives as supporting all of these activities because they oppose (over) regulation.
The recent case of tainted vegtables making people sick across the country is a case in point. Liberals went off on their lies about lack of regulation, deregulation, greedy businessmen, George Bush in person advocating every kind of evil macination. The truth is it is already against the law to sell tainted food, there are boatloads of regulations, that no regulation short of hiring a biochemist to follow every tomatoe from seed to your eating it could do away with every uncertainty — and not even then. The truth is any new regulation passed will just make someone the winner and someone the loser. And once again the liberals set the terms of disucssion, evil-conservative-poison-the-people-for-profit vs. careing-liberals-trying-to-set-minimal-standards-to-save-humanity.
The liberals control the terms of debate. Partly by newspeak, but even more so because conservatives have accepted the terms of newspeak themselves and tacitly conceded to the liberals definitions of terms and of the debate.
We need a new Ronald Reagan to just say, There you go again.
15 Dr. Tesla // May 17, 2009 at 7:24 pm
I’d like to see this old man prove his belief in man-made global warming. He just asserts it’s true, despite the fact thousands of scientists say it’s not true.
The fact, the earth has seen a cooling trend the last 10 years, and the last 2 have seen recold cold temperatures.
Leftwingers like this guy are dogmatic in their support of global warming, and the question is why? Why would you want to believe that we are all going to die because of CO2 emissions? Why dont’ more people have a healthy skepticism of such a far fetched alarmist position put forth by complete buffoons like Al Gore?
16 kroner // May 17, 2009 at 8:40 pm
To sum up Mheer, the defining difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives are good and righteous and kind and liberals are unprincipled and selfish and evil. It’s not really a matter of ideological differences, except in so far as killing puppies can be considered an ideology.
17 mpolito // May 17, 2009 at 9:05 pm
The notion that abortion cannot be opposed intellectually is such rubbish; it involves a major concession to the left. Do we consider William F. Buckley a conservative intellectual? He, of course, was pro-life. As to the larger point, I’m afraid that politics does not neccesarily go along with intellectualism. A person who can deliver a big speech and rally a crowd will do better than a genius. It’s just the nature of things.
18 Mheer // May 17, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Kroner, not at all what I said. Not even close. Liberals are principled, their principles differ from conservative principles. Not really a very shocking idea. Liberals are good by their definition of good, while conservatives are good by their definition of good. Evil is pretty much the same. It is a matter of ideology differences, ideology:
“2 a: a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b: a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c: the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program” Mirriam-Webster.
You speak newspeak very well.
19 balconesfault // May 17, 2009 at 11:01 pm
“Corruption and favortism is quite all right for a liberal”
“Liberals are principled”
Can anyone explain how someone can believe both of those ideas at the same time?
20 danbmil99 // May 17, 2009 at 11:48 pm
“the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence…”
Very well put. But all the ditto-heads hear is someone slamming their “core principles”, which are the talking points they’ve been told to ditto. Ergo, you must be a secret liberal sympathizer.
If you don’t like our party of knee-jerk religious reactionaries, why don’t you just vote for Obama?
Newsflash: WE JUST DID.
But that doesn’t make us liberals. It makes us the swing vote, and you better get your game on to bring us back. Telling us to vote dem because we fail your litmus tests is — it’s retarded. I can’t think of another word that expresses how stupid this attitude is.
21 ChristianMiller // May 18, 2009 at 6:38 am
danbmil99,
You vote for Obama vs. Mc Cain and call yourself a “swing” voter? Aren’t you on record saying you have never voted for a Republican? Previous votes being for Nader (twice, once out of spite at your leftist friends) wasn’t that you? Along with Perot and someone from the Communist Party? You are actually quite a swinger in that you seem to have no orientation.
It is a question because I could have you confused with another commenter.
If so,
you aren’t a swing voter you are a spite voter and you are not representative of a very large group of people.
22 barker13 // May 18, 2009 at 7:25 am
“I sense intellectual deterioration of the once-vital conservative movement in the United States.”
OK. (*SHRUG*)
Do you sense the same (or less… or more…) “intellectual deterioration” on the Left? How’bout with regard to the nation as a whole? Heck… how’bout “The Academy?” By and large do you believe the faculties of our universities are of the intellectual caliber of days gone by?
“Until the late 1960s (when I was in my late twenties), I was barely conscious of the existence of a conservative movement.”
Wow. OK. Surprising… but if you say so…
(*SHRUG*)
“I saw no need for the estate tax to be abolished…”
OK. (Understood.)
[I saw no need for marginal personal-income tax rates {to be]further reduced…”
Again… ok… I understand.
“[I saw no need for the government [to be] shrunk….”
Now we’re definitely on different sides. (*SHRUG*)
“[I saw no need for pragmatism in constitutional law [to be] jettisoned in favor of “originalism”…”
WHOA! You wanna be a “pragmatist” Judge… run for office – legislative or executive.
“…the financial crash last September and the ensuing depression. These unanticipated and shocking events…”
“Unanticipated” and “shocking” to you, perhaps, but not to me and not to others.
Hey… perhaps me and a bunch of other folks who you’ve never heard of are the true “intellectuals” here, because we saw this sh… er… stuff… coming down the pike.
People like me saw the dot-com boom inevitably leading to the dot-com bust; folks like me saw the deindustrialization of America and “finance” as fetist to be the evils they were. We understood that “Man doth not live upon debt alone.” (*SNORT*)
As to your shot at Sarah Palin…
No. She’s not the most “intellectual” governor out there, but I sure as hell wish she were my state’s governor.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
23 sinz54 // May 18, 2009 at 7:46 am
Mheer sez: “Posner would rather have legal relativism (“pragmatism”) than inalterable standards.”
Let’s examine some of the policies that were enthusiastically supported by conservatives, and see what “inalterable standards” they deal with.
The U.S. launched a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, on the grounds that Saddam “might” give some of his WMD to terrorists. How much WMD? Our intelligence was based on extrapolation, not hard data.
What “inalterable standard” is involved here? That the U.S. will attack any nation that may possibly pose a threat to it in the future? Is that a traditional conservative position?
Conservatives seek a Constitutional Amendment to make marriage between a man and a woman. This would override the Vermont state legislature, the representatives of the people of Vermont, who voted to allow gay marriage. Is that consistent with the traditional conservative principle of federalism? Or the traditional conservative principle of a limited Federal government?
24 sinz54 // May 18, 2009 at 7:55 am
mpolito sez: “The notion that abortion cannot be opposed intellectually is such rubbish; it involves a major concession to the left….William F. Buckley was pro-life.”
William F. Buckley wanted to *persuade* the nation that the pro-life position was intellectually correct. That’s a far different thing from using Government power to ban abortion even for pro-choice Americans, which is what the Religious Right has been doing.
Let’s just take all those calls for Constitutional Amendments out of the GOP Platform, for starters. Leave in all the words about the rightness of the pro-life position. Just take the hammers and clubs out of it.
25 Dustin Ferrell // May 18, 2009 at 8:41 am
Yes, yes, we’ve heard this many times before, Judge. Enough.
Republicans should just act as libertarians and remove the religious underpinnings. We must be run by atheist or at least secular University of Chicago economics professors. (I am curious how many deeply religious people would consider this “expansion in the public square” a load of nonsense)
People who don’t like the anti-Palin hysteria do, by definition, consider her an intellectual lead for the Party, and were not merely offended by some of the nastiness directed her way. And, naturally, they all want her for President in 2012. I see why Mr. Frum posted you here.
Your sneer at “religioin and emotion” hardly deserves a response, but you hit your intended target. People who disagree with you cannot have “firm intellectual groundings.”
Frum and Posner. There is your intellectual decline. And that is a real shame.
26 balconesfault // May 18, 2009 at 12:53 pm
barker wrote: “As to your shot at Sarah Palin…
“No. She’s not the most “intellectual” governor out there, but I sure as hell wish she were my state’s governor.”
Hey – I’ll swap Rick Perry for her! I do believe that Sarah is smarter than Rick.
27 Mheer // May 18, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Barker13, I agree with your points. No doubt that Sarah Palin is not an intellectual, but she is a better governor than Schwartzenegger ever could be. Other states could also use practical conservatism over intellectuals taxing the substance out of the economies of their states.
There is little doubt that, even though she is not a good choice for president, she would have been better than anyone else who was on the two tickets. These were really lackluster contenders. The only panel that could possibly be worse would be Carter x4.
28 Mheer // May 18, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Sinz54, sorry, those things you mention are not conservative values.
The invasion of Iraq was based on our membership in the UN requiring our enforcement of the UN treaty ending the Gulf War. When the UN refused to do anything themselves we should have pulled all our forces out of that part of the world and left the UN. “No entangling alliances.” The UN has been a force for oppression and turmoil, never world peace. Not being a member would be a conservative value.
The invasion was not pre-emptive. Bush in his incompetency yammered on about weapons of mass destruction, but that should not have even been brought up. Iraq was in violation of the peace treaty, and subject to resumption of hostilities because they were targeting US aircraft patrolling in the no fly zone, they were not documenting the destruction of their WMD, and they were not cooperating with the inspectors. Bush could not even state the proper reasons of their violation of the peace treaty and instead stated his conclusions from those reasons. Huge political blunder. Bush had all the grace of a duck in the desert.
By the way, Bush is not a conservative, he is a liberal by my definition, so you get him. Spend, spend, spend. Bush meant well, as all liberals do, but his policies, like all liberal policies, lead to ruin.
29 sinz54 // May 19, 2009 at 7:01 am
Mheer: Everybody knew that Saddam had violated the treaty. But prior to 9-11, Bush NEVER suggested that America should go to war against Saddam on that basis.
No Republicans were saying, prior to 9-11, that America should go to war against Saddam just to enforce the treaty.
Therefore, that “reason” is bogus.
You must log in to post a comment.