Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"The Death of Conservatism": A Premature Burial
Townhall.com ^ | November 21, 2009 | Rich Tucker

Posted on 11/21/2009 5:19:01 AM PST by Kaslin

It must be difficult to work at The New York Times, surrounded every day by true believers in conservative ideals. Luckily for the rest of us Sam Tanenhaus, editor of the paper’s “Book Review” and “Week in Review” sections, has emerged from that hothouse to write for us, the little people, a small book titled “The Death of Conservatism.”

More in sorrow than in anger, Tanenhaus begins by claiming that, in the realm of ideas and argument, “conservatism is most glaringly disconnected from the realities now besetting America.” Oh? “Conservatives remain strangely apart, trapped in the irrelevant causes of another day, deaf to the actual conversations unfolding across the land, in its cities and towns, in red and blue states, in the sanctuaries of the privileged and tented ‘Bushvilles,’” he writes.

Indeed, I drove my 1930 Chrysler Imperial through a “Bushville” just the other day. It was filled with lean hobos heating tins of lima beans over open fires. Very sad. Most of them used to be Chrysler stockholders, apparently, until they lost their fortunes when the Obama administration raced that company through an extra-legal bankruptcy and turned 55 percent ownership of it over to the UAW.

But speaking of tins, Tanenhaus seems to have a tin ear. It’s liberals, after all, who are disconnected from the conversations going on around the country.

For example, media elites assure us that the economic worst is behind us. “Some companies came through the recently ended recession with flying colors,” opened a story on Slate magazine on Nov. 7. Break out the bubbly; the recession is over! Except -- it doesn’t feel over. Unemployment is 10.2 percent. Americans aren’t living in “Bushvilles,” but most worry about jobs.

How have liberals in Congress reacted? They’ve passed bills that destroyed valuable assets (cash for clunkers), would implement new taxes in an effort to stop phantom global warming (cap and trade legislation) and would impose expensive new burdens on employers and workers (through mandatory health insurance).

Not to worry, though. Once they’ve dealt with health care and saved the planet, they’ll tackle employment. “During the Senate Democrats’ lunch Tuesday (Nov. 17),” The Hill newspaper reported, “Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) announced that an initiative focusing on jobs would soon be a priority.” No hurry, apparently.

Conservatives, of course, have opposed most liberal measures. They voted in lockstep against the 1,900-plus page House health care bill, for example. While this should please ordinary Americans (polls show a majority of us oppose Obamacare), it irks Tanenhaus.

“Conservative opponents of Barack Obama have applied the epithet ‘socialism’ to his ambitious plans to exert greater federal control over health care and energy policy, even though the Bush administration, the most conservative in modern history, itself orchestrated a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street,” he writes.

It’s worth noting that Bush, despite accomplishing some conservative goals, was no patron saint for conservatism. His administration rammed through Medicare Part D, the first new entitlement program in a decade, and jacked up federal spending year after year.

Still, Tanenhaus isn’t arguing honestly if he says conservatives should support Obama’s big tax-and-spend programs because of Bush’s TARP, since many (if not most) of us opposed TARP, too.

Tanenhaus urges conservatives to bow to “the politics of consensus.” Yet later in his book he explains exactly why we need to try to block bad legislation now: Once a big federal program is in place, it’s almost impossible to repeal it.

“Not even the most ardent hater of government was about to scale back a federal civilian workforce that had quadrupled (from 630,000 to 2.5 million) since the GOP had last been in power or slash a budget that had multiplied by twenty-two,” he writes.

He’s explaining why Dwight Eisenhower’s victory in 1952 solidified the policies of the New Deal. But that also serves as a prediction that, if (for example) the government takes over health care this year, it’ll be impossible for a conservative congress to ever roll back the clock, just as Republicans of the 1950s weren’t able to reverse the mistakes of the New Deal.

“The movement conservatives of our time seem the heirs of the French rather than of the American revolution,” Tanenhaus claims. “They routinely demonize government institutions, which they depict as the enemy of the people’s best interests.”

Really? How many heads have tea partiers lopped off?

In reality, conservatives are the most polite protesters in memory. And as far as revolutions go, the American Revolution was explicitly about escaping an out-of-touch, overbearing government that wanted to tax Americans without listening to them.

Just watch. Far from being dead, conservatism will eventually lead our country back to the ideals laid out by the ultimate conservatives -- our Founding Fathers.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: conservatismisdead; deathofconservatism; samtanenhaus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last
To: conservatism_IS_compassion

“Are you running in 2012?”

No, I won’t be old enough. But watch out in 2020!


21 posted on 11/23/2009 7:06:38 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: supercat

“to what extent does he put forth the theories attributed to him in such a fashion as to suggest they will produce a society beneficial to anyone, and to what extent does he suggest that such theories may be useful to produce a society which is beneficial to an ‘elite’?”

His big thing was that the next stage of history would be a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, resulting from a revolt against the current bourgeois. I don’t think Marx specified what would happen after the workers expropriated the means of production, other than that it would be better. It was left to others to say of what a proletarian state would consist. Since the proletariat is too big to rule as a block, one can assume there would be an elite within them, hence Lenin’s revolutionary vanguard.

Eventually—we don’t know when or how but are assured it is inevitable—the proletarian state will whither away. What remains is the classless society. And for all it does to justify Marxist morality, Marx spends almost no time describing the socialist paradise.

Most of his time was spent criticizing the existing order, and relatively little to justifying the next phase of historical development. Even less discussing whether the next stage will produce a ruling minority, just like this one did. The implication is things will be better, in every way imaginable, and eventually, infitely better.


22 posted on 11/23/2009 7:24:06 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion; Tublecane; Kaslin; All

Thanks for the ping, c_I_c. Great post, Tublecane. Thanks for starting this thread, Kaslin. Fascinating FR commentary. What article?

Thread BUMP!


23 posted on 11/23/2009 7:28:15 PM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

BTTT


24 posted on 11/24/2009 2:58:11 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: supercat
I hate Marx and Communism so much that I could never bring myself to read any of his work, but I've seen explanations of the theories over and over again. Marx believed that the proletariat (working class) would eventually tire of being exploited, rise up and seize the means of production, and institute a worker's paradise where all were equal and all were provided for. He thought that workers should be entitled to the fruit of what they produced, not the capitalist / owner of the machines they used to product the goods.

He believed that each person should contribute to, and benefit from, society as much as they could. The quote that best expressed this is "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need". Of course, man has unlimited needs and wants, and limited abilities, so while that piece of poetry sounds wonderful, in practice it is doomed to fail.

The descriptions I've read of him personally were that (like a lot of Marxists) he never had a real job, and free loaded off of friends and family. Given that description, and the state of education and communications in the day, I'm sure he never heard of the experiment you mention.

25 posted on 11/24/2009 4:01:14 AM PST by Hardastarboard (Maureen Dowd is right. I DON'T like our President's color. He's a Red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard

Same with Lenin. His mother sent him money throughout his life so he could spend his days reading. Again, another worthless intellectual who caused nothing but violence and human waste.


26 posted on 11/24/2009 4:03:18 AM PST by riri (http://rationaljingo.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard
I would also point out to Mr. Tanenhaus that the government and all of its taxes, fines and regulations, is the reason that so many industries have gone overseas. It isn't because of greedy corporations. I might as well tell that to the squirrels that play in my yard, I know. Actually, I do, and they look at me with just as much comprehension.

Grin. Don't forget to include labor unions in the mix but be careful about telling the squirrels. It might give them ideas. Few things are as bad as a squirrel picket line circling the house.

27 posted on 11/24/2009 7:59:32 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
*PING*

It is crystal clear how deeply in denial the Left is regarding Conservatism. It is far from dead.

28 posted on 11/24/2009 5:37:06 PM PST by T Lady (The MSM: Pravda West)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson