Posted on 05/14/2009 4:47:42 PM PDT by Conservativism
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 Kenyes, 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.
?
Everything I've been feeling since the Autumn of 2008 expressed in a single sentence. Brilliant.
The guy was probably never a conservative to begin with.
Never heard of posner either.
So I guess he’s an intellectual elitist. I bet he likes Olympia Snowe and that ilk
Bye bye Posner...Hope I don’t hear from you for some time...
He's not worth listening to, and his line about Conservatism's face showed up in Obama bin Laden's speech regarding people who "cling to their religion and guns".
Smart Conservative Intellectuals reject Commies and their little stories.
In his mind, the golden age of conservatism was the Clinton Administration.
The writer of this peice is no Conservative IMHO.
Mixing half truthes with liberal babble does not fool me.
BTW: Isn't it odd that Barry O didn't follow with a speech about the bitter, angry folks in the ghetto clinging to their Ravens and Religion?
Generally, I’m in agreement. Conservatism and personal responsibility are a hard sell when people are feeling vulnerable. That touchy-feely, warm-fuzzy message of the Democrats is heady wine for malleable morons. We’ve turned the corner in this country. We are clearly in decline; morally, culturally, spiritually, economically, and politically. A clear majority of the idiots who now vote are immersed in a herd like mentality. It was a great ride, but it’s basically over. When a totally manufactured nonentity like Obama can be elected President of this former Republic it’s over, believe me. And he has a wife who wears $400.00 Lanvin tennis shoes! The irony. Imagine, the Vanguard of the Proletariat wearing $400.00 shoes.
It’s true that he lectures at the University of Chicago, but I think you’re giving him too little credit. He is a free market hero and is one of the leaders in the Chicago school of thought on economics. He may be the most respected judge not sitting on SCOTUS.
A true classical liberal would recognize that the First Amendment carves out religion for the same special place we put speech, the press, and the right of the people to peaceably assemble.
He's just another narrow-minded partisan busybody.
How refreshing....NOT!
It is faltering. We don’t have conservatives running the party like real leaders. We have these flaccid country clubbers who don’t want to dirty their delicate hands and start taking charge. There’s no zeal or real passion to make a better country.
Before the sixties we had Eisenhower, Lincoln, really decisive men who understood the concept of win or lose. McCain is too old and we have to open ranks more, stop treating the party like a union or cocktail party.
We need to run it like a business, you either contribute, meet certain standards, and prove yourself, get votes and pound pavement.
The Democrats run their party according to their temperments, they’re out to win and we’re not.
If conservatives ran their personal businesses like they do the party, they wouldn’t be successful. We are zealous when it comes to our personal lives, but not in public.
Admittedly both parties were more civilized and didn’t resort to blackmail or personal attacks and the presidential candidates were usually better credentialed and did come from hardworking backgrounds that did connect them with the common man.
But it isn’t like that anymore unfortunately and the Republicans have got to open the door more. The Democrats win because they take anyone who can contribute anything.
We don’t try new things or take bold steps. We don’t strategize. Democrats more likely than not started cruising and vetting potential candidates after ‘04 and realized that Kerry failed because he was too freakin’ effete. Obama is easily identifiable with someone who went from little to big, no matter how much AA he enjoyed.
McCain did the same, but he didn’t take initiative when Obama inadvertantly handed him chance after chance after chance. Then the stupid Republicans started getting divided while the Democrats closed in and no matter what, did all they could to get Obama through.
What we have to do is start small, state by state by actively implementing tax reduction policies and make damn sure the public knows about it. Zero is handing us disaffected voters by the dozen and we better not blow this chance.
We expected McCain’s credentials to carry him through, they would have too in normal circumstances, but these weren’t normal circumstances.
We need to be ruthless politically like we are in the business world.
It's really beyond the limits of this one thread to get into his belief that "denial of global warming" is some sort of sign of intellectual decline. It's not like there's a settled science with comprehensive data and perfect models. Just yesterday we found out that the GW standard model regarding the conveyor belt that transports warm water North in the Atlantic and ships cool water South is seriously flawed ~ and not only flawed, it doesn't even begin to match the theory. Seems the Atlantic is rather complex.
Postner's past his time when it comes to GW. Certainly he must have noticed the enormous and continual rains at the 40th parallel that are signs of an impending "little Ice Age" ~ like all he has to do is go outside and discover that this year's Cool Dry Spring (which makes lots of rain in some places and stops it in others) is not at all predicted by any of the GW models.
An old guy unable to step out his door and ask "why" probably is not in touch with Conservative intellectualism.
Concerning using "religious criteria" to select public officials ~ since we still aren't doing that I have no idea what he's talking about. What that expression almost always means is "I don't want hotdampt holyrollers around here" ~ so it's more an expression of religious bigotry on Posner's part than anything else. Again, that's hardly the sort of thinking we expect of Conservative intellectuals.
What an idiot. Hillary's attempt to communize health care, an orgy of affirmative action in Clinton's administration (so it would "look like America"), and appointment of an ACLU hack to the Supreme Court were "conservative policies"?
I’m just getting warmed up!
Fortunately, his analysis has more holes in it than a cheese grater.
Is he really a friend of Obama’s or are you merely extrapolating that from the fact that he works for the UoC?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.