RSS Feed MenuThis may seem really, really far off the beaten path, but in the new Atlantic I champion the half-forgotten, half-despised Mugwumps of 120 years ago.
Twenty-first-century America abounds in problems that ought to galvanize a modernized conservatism: excess government debt, onerous taxation of savings and investments, a dangerous overinvolvement of government in banking and finance, increasing dependence on energy from unfriendly sources, immigration policies that degrade the average skill and productivity of the American workforce, the strategic challenge from an emerging Chinese superpower. How are we to develop answers to these problems of tomorrow if in our minds it is forever 1969?
The causes that animated the Mugwumps are tinged with sepia. But the demand those reformers articulated should resonate as loudly today as ever it did: it is the demand for a politics based on realities, not phantoms.
joedee1969 // Jan 6, 2010 at 6:49 am
What should galvanize the right is a completely different look at the way and why we are fighting the wrong wars. This is a powerful link that made me stop in my tracts and realize how many people from the right are waking up and seeing we are fighting the wrong war:
http://americaspeaksink.com/2010/01/communist-domino-theory-meet-radical-islam/
sinz54 // Jan 6, 2010 at 9:30 am
In his book “The Making of the President: 1972,” Theodore H. White accurately observed that over time, formerly fresh ideas ossify into dogma–a theology that can’t be questioned, that must be taken literally in all cases and situations.
In his book, Mr. White was talking about the Democrats, and how the successes of FDR and the anti-Vietnam War movement had hardened into a dogma that Democrats deviated from at their own risk. It wasn’t till the mid 1980s–12 years later–that a new crop of Democrats like Paul Tsongas and Bill Clinton began to openly question the old Democratic dogmas. And that’s when the Dem Party began to recapture the public’s trust.
Today, the GOP, particularly its base, is caught in the grip of a dogma that goes back years. They’ve taken Reagan’s famous line from his 1981 Inaugural Address, “In the present crisis, government is not the solution; government is the problem.”. They’ve lopped off the first four words, and embarked on a Randian anti-government crusade in which government is always the problem, and must be dismantled, except for national defense, police and courts.
They’ve taken Laffer’s supply-side economics theory of the 1970s–which was intended to deal with the massive shortages Americans were experiencing in fuel and other goods at that time–and have distorted it into a general anti-tax crusade in which no new taxes can ever be levied, and all taxes can only go down, not up.
What the Dems forgot in the 1970s–and what too many Republicans have forgotten now–is that while principles may be timeless, policies are not. And that if the medicine you’re prescribing for the country’s ills isn’t working, the answer may be not to increase the dose, but change the medicine.
One more point. During the Cold War, liberal hawks like George Meany, Lane Kirkland, and several Democratic presidents proved that you can believe in an activist government that solves social ills without being an apologist for outright socialism.
Over that same period, conservatives like William F. Buckley established modern conservatism as distinct from the radical right–the Randians, the libertarians, the John Birch Society.
Today, that distinction is being lost. Some of the stuff coming from conservatives today sounds indistinguishable from “Atlas Shrugged.” (In fact, in the debates over TARP and Obama’s stimulus package, that book has been waved around on numerous well-known conservative blogs.)
Conservatism has to once again reestablish itself as distinct from libertarianism. Because libertarians, when they actually run for office, rarely get more than a few percent of the vote. Libertarianism is a political non-starter. We conservatives should not go there–and be able to explain how we’re different from that.
Kanzeon // Jan 6, 2010 at 11:16 am
“[E]xcess government debt, onerous taxation of savings and investments, a dangerous overinvolvement of government in banking and finance, increasing dependence on energy from unfriendly sources, immigration policies that degrade the average skill and productivity of the American workforce, the strategic challenge from an emerging Chinese superpower. ”
These are issues what might galvanize some conservatives, but they aren’t high on the voters’ lists of priorities:
http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm
You might also note that the Republicans aren’t trusted anymore to solve national security issues than the Democrats.
Bush dug you guys a deep, deep hole.
Ill-Will // Jan 6, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Sinz54
My compliments on a nice bit of analysis. Your comment that Republicans forgot the four words: “In the present crisis” was particularly insightful.
I don’t believe that in the current climate your brand of conservativism has much of a chance. I base that only on what I read on this and other blogs. I have to say I also don’t believe the push for purity helps much.
We ‘ll see what 2010 and 2012 brings.
COProgressive // Jan 6, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Sinz54,
I agree with Ill-Will regarding your brand of conservativism. While you are correct in your analysis above, the wild rabble who consider themselves conservatives are very far off the mark and are truly unable to discuss issues other than what is feed them on AM radio. It is those “conservatives”, the Tea Party conservatives, the low information, or no information conservatives to whom one of the strong draws to the Tea Party isn’t as much an understanding of conservative principles as it is the wish to be accepted into the mob that is using the Tea Party to vent their outrage at the resident of the White House.
Buckley had it right when he wrote…..
“Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great.” – William F. Buckley
COProgressive // Jan 6, 2010 at 4:41 pm
I did want to add, I support intelligent conservatism, but your brand of conservatism will be trampled under foot by the Tea Party’s brand of vitriol and anger. They will seriously injure the Republican brand.
handworn // Jan 8, 2010 at 2:29 pm
There has been an attempt in recent years to encourage a sense of identity from label or affiliation(whether based on political party or ideology). To some extent this isn’t new. Emerson wrote,
“Well, most men have bound their eyes with one or another handkerchief, and attached themselves to some one of these communities of opinion. … Meantime nature is not slow to equip us in the prison-uniform of the party to which we adhere. We come to wear one cut of face and figure, and acquire by degrees the gentlest asinine expression.”
But it feels increased of late. Which means, I think, that we should be watchful of any instinct within ourselves to cater to our own comfort by choosing a party, if any, based on how little it challenges us. I switched from Republican to Democrat back in the 90s when they impeached Clinton– unConstitutionally, in my opinion. But I was clearly wrong to think the impeachers would give a damn. And if they aren’t reachable that way, then our real enemies are those who treat Republican or Democrat as a brand or a copyright, to be advertised, jumped-up-and-down-on, and otherwise exploited, purportedly for the goals of the party, but really to serve their own degree of control. I may retrace my steps.