Frum's futile quest for a new conservatism

American Thinker ^ | September 13, 2009 | J. R. Dunn

[neverdem]

Canadians are not Americans. That’s not to say there aren’t similarities. With a majority of the population deriving from Northern Europe, a British cultural matrix, and Anglo-Saxon systems of law and government (excepting Quebec, Canada’s wild card in all things), it couldn’t be otherwise. Like the U.S., Canada was settled through mass immigration over an extended period, with a national character formed by the impact of the frontier. Canada is second only to the U.S. as a technological culture, rivaling us in scientific research and application. It could be said without much exaggeration that the U.S./Canada form a unique double culture.

But there are many differences as well. Canadians are subjects and not citizens, with a divergent view of the government-individual relationship. They have exhibited greater loyalty to the mother country than we ever did, actively fighting for British interests on several occasions beginning with the War of Independence. The Canadian character is cooler than ours. More patient and understanding on the one hand, more obedient and submissive on the other. A close friend who lived for many years in the UK told me that Britons tend to look on Americans as a nation of working-class louts, aggressive, loud-mouthed, and uncontrollable. In this formulation, Canadians would comprise a passive, polite, respectable lower-middle class.

The result of these subtle but undeniable differences is a constant tension rising from the mutual incomprehension of peoples who are almost, but not quite alike. It’s similar, though nowhere near as vicious, to the lack of understanding between the Irish and the English. We see this tension expressed from the Canadian side as a touching and sometimes almost creepy willingness to please, side by side with a sullen and too-easily unleashed contempt for all things American. (When researching particularly virulent expressions of anti-Americanism, the sociologist Paul Hollander needed to look no further than our northern border.) It’s also expressed in a sense of inferiority displayed by many Canadians, a tendency to defend the country when it doesn’t need defending, and an accompanying and seemingly contradictory sense of moral refinement in relation to Americans, as if Canadians were civilized Greeks out to educate the brutish Romans to the south. None of this has ever boiled over into open hostility, and it is unlikely to do so. But it can lead to mutual irritation, embarrassment, and amusement.

David Frum is a Canadian. He gained his status in the front ranks of this country’s conservative movement as a speechwriter for George W. Bush, a president whose greatest flaw was an inability to express himself clearly to the American public. Frum’s most notable contribution was the phrase “axis of evil”. No other phrase among many mocked and disparaged phrases spoken by W was mocked and disparaged as much as that one. Following his service with Bush, Frum worked for several years with conservatism’s flagship journal, the National Review. Having left NR, Frum has set out to remake American conservatism through a me-wife-and-dog organization called “New Majority”. At latest report, he’s not accomplishing much.

He’s not accomplishing much because he is Canadian attempting to steer the most American of all political movements. Frum is trying to operate across a cultural divide that he is scarcely aware exists. He does not truly understand America or Americans, while acting under the assumption that there’s nothing to understand, that the Yanks are simply a louder and more rash version of anybody you’d find above the 49^th. 

Frum’s Canadianess is more than apparent. Take his famous phrase “Axis of Evil”. It’s Churchillian, with the sweep and majesty of any number of phrases that Churchill coined -- “blood, sweat, toil, and tears”, “never in the field of human conflict have so many owed so much to so few”. We recognize them immediately, because nobody else in the 20^th century talked that way. Churchill was the last of the Augustans, the ornate, studied, and very British oratorical tradition of the 18^th century, the tradition of Pitt, Burke, and Fox. It was long obsolete even in Churchill’s time. He brought it off because he was a natural showman. Few others could have done so.

But Americans do not do Churchillian. Americans best express themselves in such fraught situations as 9/11 in tones simple and laconic. Grant’s remark to Sherman at Shiloh, “Whip ‘em tomorrow, though,” is one example. “Sighted sub, sank same,” is another. “Make my day,” is the movie version. That’s the tradition that Bush was adhering to with, “I hear you. And soon the whole world will hear you.”

We can assume that “Axis of Evil” might well have worked in a Canada still steeped in the culture of the Mother Country (Canadian young people still gravitate toward London when seeking careers in the media or arts. Steyn -- who has now reached the point where he’s best known by a single name, like Dylan or Bowie… uh, sorry; Astaire or Sinatra -- made his way across the ocean to Fleet Street before meandering to New Hampshire). But Frum’s phrase didn’t work here. It sounded self-conscious, as if Bush was reaching, trying unsuccessfully to match the historical moment. It was a mistake that would never have occurred to a native writer, a mistake that multiplied Bush’s woes and made the necessary and difficult campaign against terror that much harder to put across.

We could easily add “You betcha” to that list of Americanisms. Sarah Palin is quintessentially American and nothing else. She could have appeared in no other country on the planet. Every American, right or left or indifferent, recognizes her for what she is. She is an archetype, an example of what women came to the United States to become. That’s why conservatives follow her, and why the left attacks her so viciously and relentlessly.

It’s also why Frum fails to understand her (Brooks, Parker, and Brookhiser have no such excuse). Though in truth, “fail to understand” is a pretty weak formulation here. “Actively loathe” is a better choice.

To Frum, Palin is a “pathological” element, representing a “psychotic episode” in recent politics, her newfound influence an error of historic proportions. You could search closely to find similar references to other politicians in Frum’s work, even regarding the liberal opposition, and you would fail. This level of sheer venom appears to be reserved for Palin alone. She can accomplish nothing good or substantial -- it’s likely that her recent gutting of Obama’s health plan, accomplished with what amounted to a flick of her finger, went utterly unnoticed on Frum’s part.

Frum truly does not understand why Palin has attracted the attention and support she has. This is an awfully strange blind spot for a political writer, and one demanding some kind of explanation, which we’re unlikely to get at this point. But it must be said that anyone so lacking insight into Palin’s appeal and potential has very little to say to the voters of this country, conservative or otherwise.

We move on to Frum’s prescription for conservatives. To paraphrase, it amounts to a call for conservatives to become more moderate, more self-controlled, less confrontational, more selective in choosing their battles and more refined in how they conduct them. In other words, conservatives should become Canadians.

If you wanted to choose terms to define the Canadian character in light of politics (or anything else, for that matter) you couldn’t do better. That’s it in a nutshell. What it has to say to Americans is something else altogether. What we see here is a reflection of the basic Canadian complaint re us -- our rudeness, aggressiveness, and inability to resist a challenge. There’s a common conviction up north that most American problems would be solved if only we’d become more like them. That, and no less, is what Frum is giving expression to here.

The problem is, it’s been tried, and found wanting. The record shows that this type of aloof, over-refined, I’d brawl too but I’m wearing my best pants attitude is in fact the default of conservatism, the place where conservatives retreat when they’re tired. It was this style of conservatism that remained marginalized from the New Deal through the 60s, the doctrine that convinced working America that conservatives were nerveless, bloodless, neurotic twits best left to themselves. It wasn’t until the advent of the brawny, confrontational conservatism of Buckley, Goldwater (another American original, and -- no surprise -- another Frum bête noire), and Reagan that conservatism captured the imagination, support, and the votes of Americans at large.

In a greater sense, it would be a violation of our character. Americans are not Canadians. We enjoy getting loud about politics, the same as we do everything else. Jumping in with both feet is what Americans do. This occasionally leads to error, but it has also given rise to some of our finest moments. It led to the town halls this summer, which have put much of Obama’s policy on the rocks, and just last week helped propel Van Jones to a bright future in the private sector, where he will no longer be burdened with writing government policy in secret. (Was anybody else aware that this left-wing crank was involved with handing out stimulus spending? I certainly wasn’t.) It’s difficult to see any such results rising from the Canadian method.

A man who needs this explained to him, who fails to understand it from the start, is never going to lead American conservatism. The new Buckley will have to be found elsewhere -- if we need one, which may well not be the case. This doesn’t mean that there’s no place for David Frum. He means well, and there’s always a place for such people. A wise choice might involve establishing an organization to mediate between his home country and the United States. Not a lot of glamour there, but it’s a job that ought to be done. And it’s one that would perfectly suit the talents and character of a Canadian.

J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker.

[neverdem]

Canadians are subjects and not citizens...

That's a pretty good place to start.

[Blind Eye Jones]

He’s a John McCain of the North.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

It would be; if it were true — it hasn’t been so, since 1947.

[roses of sharon]

‘Pussyfoot-conservatism’ [Mark Steyn]

Whenever the centre-right wins an election, the centre-left allows that its opponents have the office, but denies they have the mandate. They can govern for a term, yes, but only by consensus, not according to their own lights... The amazing thing isn’t that the centre-left makes this declaration — why shouldn’t it? — but that the centre-right often believes it, or acts as if it did. Majority or minority, Tories tend to govern apologetically, as if they were caretaker governments, probationary constables, relief politicians holding the fort until the real politicians catch their breath and return for the next spell of legitimate centre-left governance.

Some centre-right leaders in the United Kingdom and the United States haven’t been as vulnerable to the syndrome of pussyfoot-conservatism as Canada’s centre-right leaders. But even the least wobbly, Margaret Thatcher, say, and Ronald Reagan, weren’t entirely impervious to it. With all their self-confidence and charisma, Thatcher and Reagan never radiated that cocksure, hubristic aura of self-righteous intellectual and moral conceit that’s the hallmark of centre-left leaders from Pierre Elliott Trudeau to Barack Obama.

Simply put, the centre-left feels entitled to govern; the centre-right doesn’t. It was instructive, and scary, to watch America’s President open a new chapter of regulatory statism in his Wall Street ululation this week. Obama was cooking, laying down the law with entitlement oozing from every pore, in a dazzling, born-to-govern performance.

Pussyfoot-conservatism is a Tory malady, much as gout was a royal disease.

There’s a lot of it about.

09/17 02:19 PMShare

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Right on target!

[neverdem]

It would be; if it were true — it hasn’t been so, since 1947.

Does that mean Ottawa or the English Crown said you were citizens? What rights were recognized? No offense is intended. I'm just curious. It just strikes me that some folks misread the American politics badly.

Bush 43: Conservative movement is inconsequential

[wardaddy]

Frum

Thou doth suck.

[Carry_Okie]

Actually, anybody who's witnessed Canadian Parliament knows that their politics is considerably more raucous than either of our legislative institutions.

Frum is simply a pompous idiot, who believes substance derives from form, despite its vacuous origin. Socialism lite doesn't work any better because it is polite.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

An Act of Parliament was passed in 1946 & came into effect in 1947. Before that, Canadians were “British Subjects, living in Canada”. My father fought in WWII as a British Subject & I just missed being born a Subject.

Canada never had a revolution — more of an evolution. The “patriation” of the Canadian Constitution, in 1982, was another important milestone.

The powers of the monarchy went through a similar, lengthy, evolution. Canada is officially a “Constitutional Monarchy”. We share a Queen with Britain — and the Governor General represents the Queen, in her absence from Canada.

The Monarchy is now largely symbolic and ceremonial — but, there are some important residual powers. Last December, a coalition of Liberals, Socialists, and Separatists nearly brought down Conservative PM Harper's minority government. (They could have done that by a non-confidence motion.) Harper asked the GG to prorogue (suspend) Parliament instead & the coalition evaporated before it resumed. If the GG hadn't granted the prorogation, the non-confidence vote would have proceeded. The GG would then have had the power to turn government over to the coalition; or to force another election.

I largely agree with the rest of the article. I think I've learned a lot about American politics from FR — & I think that Frum isn't on quite the right wave length.

[Once-Ler]

We move on to Frum’s prescription for conservatives. To paraphrase, it amounts to a call for conservatives to become more moderate, more self-controlled, less confrontational, more selective in choosing their battles and more refined in how they conduct them.

Bush, McCain and the GOP Congress reached out to the rats often. The power sharing agreement in the Senate in 2001, McCain/Feingold, Kennedy's education reform come to mind. The GOP does NOT need to moderate. They need to hit the rats on corruption, national defense, and taxes.

We do need to be more self controlled, more selective in choosing our battles, and more refined in how we conduct them. Rep Wilson's outburst, while justified and understandable, cost us votes while diverting a ton of money to Wilson and Udall. It also diverted criticism of 0's whoppers to Wilson's lack of self control. Anybody who is watching what is going on, and interested in the GOP position, already knows we think 0 is a snake oil salesman. Leno, Stewart, and the drive-bys effectively further cemented the sad misperception that the GOP is a racist party in the minds of some moderate voters we will need to elect Palin/Issa in 2012.

[PogySailor]

Shorthand version:
“Bipartisanship” = Republicans doing what Democrats want them to.

[greedo]

     ...Frum's Failin'

[paulycy]

Having left NR, Frum has set out to remake American conservatism through a me-wife-and-dog organization called “New Majority”. At latest report, he’s not accomplishing much.

[Diogenesis]

The McCain/Palin ticket was up ++8 pts. days prior to September 18th, 2008.
So the RomneyTeam attacked Gov. Palin and her children to throw Election2008.

"Frum was indeed a critic of Palin, calling her nomination a "huge mistake" during an October 13 Early Show appearance."

---

David Frum: "Two of our most plausible candidates for president in 2012 are leading Mormons: Mitt Romney and Utah governor Jon Huntsman."

---

David Frum: "I have a lot of regard for Mitt Romney as a man and politician.
Let me say for the record: If Romney emerges as the Republican nominee, I will support him without qualm."

---

Late in October, The American Spectator's The Prowler revealed:
"Former Mitt Romney presidential campaign staffers, some of whom are currently working for Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin's bid for the White House,
have been involved in spreading anti-Palin spin to reporters, seeking to diminish her standing after the election.
'Sarah Palin is a lightweight, she won't be the first, not even the third, person people will think of when it comes to 2012,'
says one former Romney aide, now working for McCain-Palin.
'The only serious candidate ready to challenge to lead the Republican Party is Mitt Romney.
He's in charge on November 5th.'"
The Prowler added: "Some former Romney aides were behind the recent leaks to media, including CNN, that Governor Sarah Palin was a 'diva' and was going off message intentionally."
The Romney supporters in the McCain campaign had access to internal polling which indicated well in advance of the November 4 election that McCain had no chance to win.
So they began working to position their man Mitt for a run in 2012. Just two days after the election,The Palmetto Scoop reported:
"One of the first stories to hit the national airwaves was the claim of a major internal strife between close McCain aides and the folks handling his running mate Sarah Palin."
"I’m told by very good sources that this was indeed the case and that a rift had developed, but it was between Palin’s people and the staffers brought on from the failed presidential campaign of former Gov. Mitt Romney, not McCain aides."
"The sources said nearly 80 percent of Romney’s former staff was absorbed by McCain and these individuals were responsible for what amounts to a premeditated, last-minute sabotage of Palin."
These aides loyal to Romney inside the McCain campaign, said The Scoop, reportedly saw that Palin would be a serious contender for the Republican nomination in 2012 or 2016, which made her a threat to another presidential quest by Romney.
Erick Erickson, who organized Operation Leper, said:
"Here’s what I think: I think there are some staffers on the McCain campaign who seriously screwed up the roll out of Sarah Palin, to which Governor Palin herself objected.
These staffers are now out trying to finish her off thinking, as typical D.C. types do, that if they don’t do it to her, she’ll do it to them. They just never understood who Palin is or what she is about."
"Likewise, I do think there are some staffers and others who expect Mitt Romney to run again in 2012,
they decided McCain could not win, and decided to undermine Sarah Palin and her chances hoping it would ingratiate themselves with Mitt Romney."

---

"Who's the Palin Leaker from the McCain Campaign? (Mark Wallace, Romney pimp)
National Review Online The publication of a Vanity Fair profile of Sarah Palin
appears to have opened old wounds in the McCain campaign.
... the source of the “Diva” leak was Nicolle Wallace’s husband."

---

Who benefits most from Sanford meltdown? Californian (that's right) Mitt Romney

---

"Peeking Out From the McCain Wreckage: Mitt Romney"

"Someone's got to say it: IS MITT ROMNEY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBAMA'S VICTORY?"

"Vanity: Team Romney Sabotaged Palin and Continuing to Do So?"

"Romney Supporters Trashing Palin"

"Romney advisors sniping at Palin?"

---

[fanfan]

Thanks for the ping, Neverdem.

[Snowyman]

Before that, Canadians were “British Subjects, living in Canada”. My father fought in WWII as a British Subject & I just missed being born a Subject. Canada never had a revolution

I once had occasion to be standing about 6 feet away from the Queen as she passed in her limo. She looked at me and I winked at her . She looked at me for maybe 2 seconds , got this little smile and then turned away . If I'm subject to what she says, does or thinks , ask me if I care.

Dad has a small maple leaf affixed to the bar his WW2 medals are attached to . It's very small. Of his six medals , he says the Leaf is the only one that matters. It means he volunteered . I have six Uncles who wore the same small leaf . If that means they are subjects and you asked them , what do you think they'd tell you ? Two words, maybe three.

J. R. Dunn , even to mention subject or citizen , doesn't quite get it.

[sergeantdave]

If you get out of the liberal Canadian cities, hinterland canucks can drink, brawl and crack jokes with the same passion and fight as any American.

We once got stuck overnight in a train station somewhere between Wawa and Sioux Lookout. The train station attendant - a Scot - invited us to sleep in the station til morning. He managed to find a bottle of fine Canadian hootch, rounded up some grub and proceeded to treat us to one hell of an overnight party, complete with hilarious stories about Americans and Canadians. Still don’t know how we managed to get on the train next morning, and a train going in the right direction, besides.

Scotty probably could’ve drank a squad of Marines under the table. Whew!

[MNJohnnie]

Probably because Frum’s “new Conservatism” is indistinguishable from standard GOP Country Club “Democrat Lite” dogma

[MNJohnnie]

Wilson's outburst, while justified and understandable, cost us votes while diverting a ton of money

Typical GOP Country club dogma that is wholly divorced from fact. Read the current polls. Your opinion here could not be more wrong.

The GOP Leadership does not need to "be more selective in choosing it's battles" it needs to finally get off it butt and actually engage IN the battle instead of desperately spending all it time trying to be Democrat Lite.

[Once-Ler]

Typical GOP Country club dogma that is wholly divorced from fact. Read the current polls.

If you don't like my opinion refute it, but don't dismiss me as an irrelevant artifact. That is intellectually dishonest and lazy. You know nothing about me. I'm a working class middle aged father of 5, who is fearful about the world my future grandchildren will grow up in. I've been a Republican since 1990 and I've seen what works and what doesn't.

My heart soared during the great rat stomp of 94. In 95 I shook the the hand of Dr Keyes and Limbaugh fill-in B1 Bob Dornan at my state convention, but bewildered despondency gripped my soul in 96 when Clinton was re-elected.

In 92 I cheered my congressman Scott Klug as he led the charge in the House banking scandal, signed a term limit pledge and actually retired. I am now represented by a rug munching commie named Tammy Baldwin.

I stuffed envelopes and made calls for conservative Mark Neumann to run against her. I raised donations, including my own, for Mark and my state GOP. Mark lost twice to Tammy and is trying for the 3rd time in 2010. He is far to conservative for this district.

I'm no country club RINO. IMO, no matter how corrupt or incompetent the GOP Prez, member of Congress, Gov, or state rep...98% of the time, if he was replaced with a rat...the rat sucked worse. I'm a Republican in name and everything else.

When I found FR in the late 90s the humor and great analysis by posters kept me coming back, but the conspiracy theories were a guilty pleasure. I wanted to believe them all. What else could explain the Clinton impeachment? I was right...I was far right.

The conspiracy theories gave way to an understanding that public servants do what the voters want, and lots of voters don't give a damn about the Constitution, many because it is not taught in schools and parents don't know the Constitution. Why it happened is less important than understanding the rules of winning elections.

Clinton survived scandal after scandal by polling the public and doing the bare minimum to survive. Things he didn't want to do, like welfare reform and tax cuts. With the aid of the MSM the POTUS bucked the trend and added seats in 98.

Bush had to capitulate on prescription drugs, CFR, and education reform because he was now President of the independents and liberals too. He took out 2 rogue nations, passed taxcuts, and put 2 strong prolife voices on the SCOTUS, and for that I'm proud to have voted for him twice.

Independents want to know 2 questions "what are you gonna give me?" and "what is the other guy gonna do to me if he wins." That is why we need to be selective in our attacks. Constitutional arguments glaze over the eyes of moderates just a fast as explaining abortion is murder. I'm not saying we need to abandon our platform. I'm saying we need to understand those issues don't win moderate votes.

Conservative issues rarely win state wide elections because they don't appeal to independents. This is proved by a lack of statewide positions held by conservatives. That is why we have few conservatives of national stature. Palin is the best we got and she may not even run again.

Taxes, National Defense, and Corruption are the winning issues in 2010. I'll make plans to implement other changes, after we win.

My read of the current polls indicate a disgust with Congress of epic proportion for both GOP and rats. They show a growing number of independents and a large depression of rats, not a surge for the GOP.

Gallup says only 21% approve of Wilsons outburst. I don't accept Gallup at face, but hopefully we could agree that both parties have a base of about 30-35% the rest being indy. The base rarely switch sides, so a winner must get most of his base and a majority of the middle, or all the middle and some of the base. In the day of the new media anybody who wants to understand the conservative POV can find it on TV, radio, and internet. Independent have heard the conservative message and they are still independents. To win we must persuade the indys.

I'm sorry this is long, but I need to leave soon and I can't seem to edit more concisely without losing something important.

I've read many of your posts. In 04 few Freeper's spent more time going over the polling, or criticized Kerry. In 2006 fewer still defended Bush and the party as effectively...I really liked that list of accomplishment you had. I have a great deal of admiration for your intelligence and opinion. Just because we disagree doesn't mean I don't like the cut of your jib, harrumph harrumph.