The future of conservatism

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | Sunday, June 19, 2005 | Colin McNickle

[Willie Green]

A brief and steamy walk on the streets of Pittsburgh with the chairman of the Republican National Committee succinctly affirmed what affliction has stricken many of today's conservatives:

They don't know what conservatism is.

It was on the evening of June 9 that a behind-schedule but very gracious Ken Mehlman and I took a brisk stroll from one political fundraiser to another. "What's the future of conservatism?" I asked.

[Vision]

This is conservatism

http://www.misterpolitics.com/videos.asp

[marty60]

Conservatism is "a vision of the nation and the world as it should be, not a compromise with the world as it" is.

GREAT sentence. And as before the Conserv Repubs are going to have to stop the filthy slavery of illegal aliens.

[TWohlford]

"There are many newbie conservatives, apparently unfamiliar with the guiding principals of the philosophy in the Freep and elsewhere."

So I've noted. Some might remember that I have, from time to time, sought to educate Freepers on what it means to be a conservative.

[atlanta67]

""When all is said and done the author is claiming that todays conservatism is a shell of what it once was (Goldwater days).""

you mean when it lost an election 60-40 and carried 5 states? Goldwater got fewer electoral votes than Wallace did 4 years later.


"He says conservatives should give up their "lite" version and return to the Goldwater brand.""

I recall Goldwater voted AGAINST the 1964 tax cut. He also ended his career as a rabid pro-choicer

[M. Dodge Thomas]

the belief in the free enterprise system ... and that community values ought to be set by the communities themselves, not by D.C. and not by the courts."

Well, there’s sort of an inherent contradiction here.

“The Free Enterprise System” wants to be inclusive, not exclusive – it wants to sell you a 50” plasma TV just as badly if you plan to watch XXX movies as if you want of watch the Disney Channel, and a DVD player just as baldly if you are pro-choice as if you are pro-life - it wants to define “community” in an economic, not a “social” sense.

For example it asks consumers:

“Which community are your most a member of? A local “community” of 50,000 people in which perhaps 40,000 want to ban pornography, or a national “community” of 40 million people who want the right to watch pornography beamed into their homes from satellites or rented at the strip-mall and spun up on their DVD players?”

To this end players in market driven systems want uniform national standards, and they want the interests of national economic players to dominate over “community values”, for example to overrule homeowners associations that attempt to ban “unsightly” DirecTV dishes, or municipalities that want to ban cell-phone towers, or local bodies that want to regualte the content they can carry. That’s just the way "free markets" work.

And IMO this contradition is at the heart of the struggle from the soul of the “modern conservative movement”.

[atlanta67]

Some facts on spending.

Bush did indeed increase spending at a very alarming rate in his first term.

So far in his second his proposed spending is less tha nthe forecast rate of inflation. This includes the military

[x]

Forty-five years ago, Barry Goldwater was convinced "that most Americans now want to reverse this trend." After all, the federal government had become, as the Chicago Tribune offered at the time, the "biggest land owner, property manager, renter, mover and hauler, medical clinician, lender, insurer, mortgage broker, employer, debtor, taxer and spender in all history."

But Goldwater lost, and by a landslide. What changed people's minds was the great failures of government in the 1960s and 1970s. Now we've come around full circle to the attitude of the late fifties or early sixties. There's less popular discontent and desire to reduce the size of government. People are mostly satisfied with the country and put up with a lot in the name of patriotism and security.

There's plenty of public revulsion now with social and cultural liberalism, but it's low level. It's based in the memory of what came earlier, and the remnants of 60s attitudes. In an uncertain world cultural conservatism doesn't quite translate into a desire for "less state and more freedom."

What made the Reagan-era sentiment so strong is that people had believed in government and been disappointed, so they looked to real change to set things right. Some of the Reagan-era attitudes carry over into the present, but there's not that force of disillusionment to provide the political energy for a change.

Today, conservatism is considered more a part of the status quo. When the next great wave for change comes it may take us in another direction. It's to be hoped that that won't be the case, but I don't see Bush or his successor getting the kind of momentum for real change that FDR or LBJ or RWR benefitted from.

[atlanta67]

"'Conservatives haven't led, they've acquiesced. Witness the deal-cutting on filibusters""

hmmm.. i didnt know conservative deal the filibuster deal.

""Conservatives haven't defended free speech, they've restricted it through campaign finance "reform""

most conservative rightly oppossed it.


""Conservatives haven't enforced the rule of law to crack down on illegal aliens, they've aided and abetted illegals by proposing amnesty.""

again most House conservative oppose it.


The author is confused by what he sees as conservative caving with the fact that there arent enough conservatives in congress. Conservatives did none of what he accuses them of doing unless McCain, Collins, Snowe are conservatives.

[atlanta67]

I agree with your post.

I dont however think the public is a pro-govt as it was in the early 1960s, but not as anti as it was in the late 1970s and early 1980s

[x]

True enough, and I'd have to agree with you. It would take a lot of forgetting for people to be as much in favor of more government programs as they were forty years ago. What I guess I meant was more that the idea of a "revolution" against big government is less popular now than it was in the Reagan or Gingrich years.

[Eagles Talon IV]

I don't think the war is a social issue, do you?

[Willie Green]

To this end players in market driven systems want uniform national standards, and they want the interests of national economic players to dominate over “community values”, for example to overrule homeowners associations that attempt to ban “unsightly” DirecTV dishes, or municipalities that want to ban cell-phone towers, or local bodies that want to regualte the content they can carry. That’s just the way "free markets" work.

In a global marketplace, that works on multiple levels.

To this end players in market driven systems want uniform international standards, and they want the interests of international economic players to dominate over “national interests”, for example to overrule sovereign governments that attempt to represent the best interests of their own citizenry. That’s just the way "free markets" work.

And IMO this contradition is at the heart of the struggle from the soul of the “modern conservative movement”.

I agree.

[Eagles Talon IV]

I agree. I was merely giving my interpretation of what the author said.

[nathanbedford]

The Pittsburgh paper is a true organ of conservatism. It is lamenting what it shrinks from saying: This administration's legacy will be the end of any lip service to conventional conservatism. That is, the end of resisting programs on the federal level just because they are federal and not local. Indeed, with the passage of the education bill and the prescription drug act, conservatives will now compete with liberals for fresh entitlements. It will be impossible now to oppose the next giveaway when some claimants contrive to meld themselves into a voting block. Republicans will now drop all pretenses and join the most shameless Democrats in shopping the nation, bit by bit, in exchange for a few percentage points in the polls.

Whether George Bush was motivated to go down this path out of a realistic understanding of modern American electoral realities or by personal conviction, I cannot say. But I can say with conviction that this part of his legacy has already been written.

[atlanta67]

""Indeed, with the passage of the education bill and the prescription drug act, conservatives will now compete with liberals for fresh entitlements.""


This is an untrue statement. Conservatives arent the beneficiaries of the welfare state as liberals are. Thus there is no reason to think they will be competeting for resources from the federal govt. If they do they will no longer be conservatives but will become liberals.


Think back to 1990-92. GHW Bush raised taxes and increased spedning faster than any PResident since LBJ (sound familiar)and Clinton won. How dark was it for conservatives then? All that is needed some one to come along and rearticulate conservatism. Conservatism is far from dead.

The problem conservatism is facing is its own success. People foreget federal spending in the 1970s was rising at an annual 10-12% rate. This year it will rise less than inflation. Federal spending as a % of GDP is still lower now than it was in 1992, though higher than in the late 1990s. But from the 1960s through 1980 the FED govts share of GDP rose every year. Since 1980 it has fluctuated between 20-22%.

[Credo_in_unum_deum]

“The Free Enterprise System” wants to be inclusive, not exclusive...it wants to define “community” in an economic, not a “social” sense.

You are mistaken. 'Free enterprise' does not equal 'consumerism,' much less mercantilism.

To this end players in market driven systems want uniform national standards, and they want the interests of national economic players to dominate over “community values”, for example to overrule homeowners associations that attempt to ban “unsightly” DirecTV dishes, or municipalities that want to ban cell-phone towers, or local bodies that want to regualte the content they can carry. That’s just the way "free markets" work.

That isn't at all the way "free" markets work. That is the way mercantilist markets run by robber barons and their pet whore politicians work.

"Uniform national standards" cannot be imposed in a free market. They can only be imposed under the "government assisted" market.

The interests of national economic "players" only "dominate" through bribery and corruption of the political class. To use your own examples, a homeowners association is a sovereign local association entered into by property owners, and agreed to by anyone who wants to buy into that property. They can only be overruled if the whining billionaires at the multinational corporations go crying to the government to destroy the authority of the local association by force.

And IMO this contradition is at the heart of the struggle from the soul of the “modern conservative movement”.

True. But the struggle is not based upon a "contradiction," it is based upon a lie. The lie that government is supposed to be "pro-business" rather than simply do justice. Thou shalt not do that which is unjust, nor judge unjustly. Respect not the person of the poor, nor honour the countenance of the mighty. But judge thy neighbour according to justice (Leviticus 19:15)

Long live Christ the King!

[nathanbedford]

{""Indeed, with the passage of the education bill and the prescription drug act, conservatives will now compete with liberals for fresh entitlements."" }

This is an untrue statement.

It was a

prediction

[bayourod]

This guy doesn't even have a clue as to what conservatism is. There are five immutable pillars of conservative philosophy:

1. Opposition to admission of Red China to the U.N.
2. Opposition to giving away the Panama canal.
3. Return to the gold standard.
4. Support for the death penalty, and
5. Opposition to forced busing.

[Eagles Talon IV]

It's all a matter of relativity in a changing world. It is not always possible to have it all your own way. It really doesn't make much sense to give up the WH and the Congress by being totally inflexible. This is what the left has done and look where they are today.

I agree to some of your points but looking at the total picture and considering GWB's foreign policy, tax cuts, attempt to save SS, energy policy, faith based initiatives and school vouchers, I would hardly consider the man lefty.

[nathanbedford]

I agree totally, George Bush is no lefty, but neither is he a Goldwater conservative.

I believe now as I posted a long time ago, George Bush must be understood first in terms of his conversion experience. He is truly a believing Christian and judges political activity from that perspective, not the other way around. I think this is where his "compassion" finds its source and energy. But when that compassion moves his Christian heart, he does not stay his hand because his remedy conflicts with earthly conservative values. If those values can be accommodated fine, if not, too bad.

Next, Bush is a family man, vertically as well as horizontally. He honors his father and mother and cherishes his wife. He sees the world from this safe haven.

He is committed to loyalty, up and down. He gives it and expects it. This makes him shrink from pulling the trigger on liabilities like the director of the CIA. More, there is a certain noblesse oblige character to this which makes him susceptible to other members of the exclusive club, read, Clinton. All of these noble commitments leave little scope for party or for partianship. So he does not comprehend the damage he does to the party and to the nation's legacy when he undermines the heartfelt objection of his party's faithful to the crimes and peccadillo's of Clinton by embracing him and his wife. Bush judges his own actions in publicly embracing Clinton according to Christian doctrines of forgiveness.

So it is with his whole approach to governance.