Revival of Conservativism?

[Michael]

The problems with contemporary conservativism have been discussed endlessly. Apparently everyone (except conservatives) is aware of the fact that when it comes to elections, 'true conservatives' can probably hold a convention in a telephone booth with room to spare.

Pseudo-conservatives however are extremely common. These are the 'conservatives' that praise small government and low taxes and then demand big government spending (which requires high taxes and/or big deficits).

Either way, neither type of conservative is very popular these days. The policies that they've been pushing have either been rejected by the electorate (true conservativism) or have been found to be complete policy failures (Reagan-Bush style pseudo-conservativism).

Now while some might consider this a cause for celebration - when political conservatives are electorially unpopular, that means that liberalism or progressivism are able to dominate the political agenda - I don't like one-sided debates.

I certainly don't trust the present wave of 'progressives' on either foreign policy or on economic theory and believe that politics is best served by a vigorous debate between alternative visions. One-sided debates with unarmed opponents does not make for good public policy.

To this end, this thread is devoted to the principle of how conservativism can gets its mojo back and make a viable contribution to public debate, not just screaming "but, I don't like it" over and over. That gets tiresome and boring and risks the conservative message migrating outside the pale of reasonable debate (it seems to be going there right now - which is what this thread is meant to avoid).

So where can conservatives look to pickup some good ideas about how to make conservativism relevant to the 21st century? Lets just say that adopting Twitter is not going to cut it. Indeed, nothing has captured the idea of just how completely irrelevant and out-of-touch mainstream conservativism has become than the advice to 'adopt Twitter'. They look silly offering that advice and they look even sillier when they praise that advice or take it up. The results have been mostly comical.

Note to GOP: the only people who follow the twitter feeds of Republicans are the same people who follow them on other media. Preaching to the choir isn't going to change anything - indeed, that seems to be conservativism's biggest challenge - how to address a debate that they aren't even being invited to.

In an attempt to help conservatives recover some intellectual coherence and dignity, I respectfully offer 18th century Anglo-Irish politician Edmund Burke as the solution to the problem.

Here's a nice article by someone else who seems to see the same need for Burke's measured conservativism as much as I do.

Article-American Conservative (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/may/18/00011/)

Of course I'm not saying that Burke ought to be treated like some conservative god - because he isn't. But Burke represents one thing that has been curiously missing from American conservativism over the last few decades and that I think is very important - that is pragmatism about one's ideology. Burke rightly understood that 'true conservativism' would have us still living under feudalism and that ideologies need to be pragmatic in order to be functional.

Liberty is an important goal to strive for. But Burke understood that liberty is a much larger concept than just free markets for capital. The sooner that modern conservatives can learn this, the sooner that conservativism will be invited back to the discussion about where society ought to go.

If conservativism's only reply to the question is "cut taxes" and "liberty for capital" then they will continued to be ignored by the majority of the electorate. Now I don't think that's a good thing, but it is up to conservatives to change it. They don't have to change if they don't want to, but they have no right to complain about being ignored or marginalized in the process - or being represented by Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly as the public face of 'conservativism'.

So does anyone have any ideas about how conservativism can return to the field of intellectual respectability? Are there any other potential conservative 'role-models' that have been as roundly ignored by US conservatives as Burke?

This is basically an open thread for discussing the possible recovery of political conservativism.

[drgoodtrips]

As a quick drive by, I had the idea some time back that conservatives ought to change the goalposts of the debate by out-greening the Democrats. In other words, adopt environmental preservation/conservation as a plank of conservatism.

That would redraw some of the current political lines, and the GOP doesn't exactly have a lot to lose at the moment.

[Michael]

As a quick drive by, I had the idea some time back that conservatives ought to change the goalposts of the debate by out-greening the Democrats. In other words, adopt environmental preservation/conservation as a plank of conservatism.

That would redraw some of the current political lines, and the GOP doesn't exactly have a lot to lose at the moment.

Yes, that's exactly the kind of thing I'm getting at here. Environmental conservation is "conservative" by definition and the 'conservatives' ought to own this issue. I think the hunting/fishing set already understands this with their many (successful) joint-efforts with environmental groups.

And btw, this is exactly the kind of conservativism that one would expect from Edmund Burke if he were alive today.

Indeed, I've never quite understood how and why the 'conservative' movement got so tied up with worshipping corporate capitalism given that corporate capitalism has over the centuries done more harm to families, religion and the US constitution than all the godless liberals added together. Supposedly a traditional defense of the family, religion and the constitution are core values of conservativism, but they are all tossed under the bus (with some impressive cognitive dissonance) of corporate capitalism without even a second thought.

And that is exactly what I'm getting at by accusing conservatives of 'intellectual incoherence'. Their policies just don't make sense in terms of their alleged ideology. Seems like some serious conflicts between the two - and since deeds trump actions, one has to conclude that conservatives favor raping and pillaging the environment and destroying families - viewpoints that are at odds with their alleged ideology.

Conservative support for the massive US military-industrial complex is another issue that is incongruous to conservative ideology. There is NOTHING small government or low-taxes about the M-I-C. And there's nothing 'conservative' about bombing foreign nations back to the stone age either.

When I hear alleged 'conservatives' making arguments that totally favor corporate capitalism and/or endless wars, I really have to ask, where are the real conservatives? :shrug:

[partofme]

William F. Buckley said: A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'

This quote seems sort of odd considering capitalism is one of the biggest drivers of progress at least as far as technological progress and in many social social change and is the mantra of modern conservatives. I never thought these two ideas matched up quite right.

[Evangeline]

As a quick drive by, I had the idea some time back that conservatives ought to change the goalposts of the debate by out-greening the Democrats. In other words, adopt environmental preservation/conservation as a plank of conservatism.

That would redraw some of the current political lines, and the GOP doesn't exactly have a lot to lose at the moment.

I always wondered why conservatives aren't really into conserving anything.

And it's not going to happen. Conservatives are more into making money for corporations. And one way to do that is to let them drill in national parks and use federal land for business dealings. Remember James Watt? He was Reagan's Interior guy. The WORST ever.

We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand. (http://www.quotiki.com/quotes/2004)
(http://www.quotiki.com/quotes/2004)


“My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/my_responsibility_is_to_follow_the_scriptures/160111.html)”

[dilettante]

"What is Conservatism? Is it not preference for the old and tried over the new and untried?"
-Abraham LincolnWhat an intriguing topic.

I'd say that today's "conservatism" is obsessed with capitalism largely because it hasn't gotten over Cold War fears of proletarian revolution. There was a time at which it made since for a group to try and "conserve" the free, capitalist market in the face of an communist regime avowedly intent on fostering global revolution. That time has passed and now so-called conservatives aren't really sure what it is they're conserving.

It seems to me that many who take on the moniker "conservative" are advocating a sort of laissez fair economic vision that goes beyond anything the US has had in decades (if ever). They aren't trying to conserve anything; they're either aiming to return to some time long past or else achieve something unprecedented. That would make them either reactionaries or radicals, respectively, but not conservatives.

I agree with Michael that "progressivism" unhindered by any competition from conservatism is apt to come to no good. In some senses, however, the problem should be self-addressing. If you're a progressive struggling to bring about a change from Y to X and you succeed, you're likely to instantly become a conservative (at least with regard to X) and end up resisting the new "progressives" who want to change X to Q.

The greatest danger, I think, is that the very idea of "conservatism" could be discredited, that people could come to think that anything new is, ipso facto, superior to things as they are now and infinitely superior to the way things used to be, that we would come to think of all change as "progress" without actually caring what we were progressing toward.

With that in mind, I think we need a revival of conservativism, not in the sense of a group that wants to keep things the way they are just for the sake of keeping things the way they are, but in the sense of a group that actually finds some aspect of the present valuable and wonderful and wants to defend it against the ravages of progress. I agree that the environmental movement comes close to fitting this catagory; curiously, so does the opposition to gay marriage (though I don't see those two movements coinciding anytime soon).

[Michael]

It seems to me that many who take on the moniker "conservative" are advocating a sort of laissez fair economic vision that goes beyond anything the US has had in decades (if ever). They aren't trying to conserve anything; they're either aiming to return to some time long past or else achieve something unprecedented. That would make them either reactionaries or radicals, respectively, but not conservatives.
Yes, this is one of the things that annoys me about the issue of conservatives - they tend to be 'radicals on a dogmatic mission' and that's anything but 'conservative'. I've always thought that conservativism ought to represent 'prudence', 'caution' and 'careful consideration' based on things with a proven track record. :ummm:

Experimentation with radical new policies like "preemptive strikes" or "flat taxes" are the very opposite of conservativism.

Conservativism doesn't have to dwell in the past, but it most certainly is not conservativism to be on the cutting edge of experimental policies.

I agree with Michael that "progressivism" unhindered by any competition from conservatism is apt to come to no good. In some senses, however, the problem should be self-addressing. If you're a progressive struggling to bring about a change from Y to X and you succeed, you're likely to instantly become a conservative (at least with regard to X) and end up resisting the new "progressives" who want to change X to Q.
Yes, over the last decade, liberals have been on the defensive, seeking to preserve what little remains of the US social safety net in the fact of determined 'conservative' attacks (in this case, as reactionaries).

The greatest danger, I think, is that the very idea of "conservatism" could be discredited, that people could come to think that anything new is, ipso facto, superior to things as they are now and infinitely superior to the way things used to be, that we would come to think of all change as "progress" without actually caring what we were progressing toward.
I agree that discrediting the idea of conservativism is bad, but I 'conservatives' are already doing that by using the term for radicalism which is anything but conservative.

Not every new idea or new policy proposal is a good one.

However, not every new idea or policy proposal is a bad one either.

Personally, I think that new ideas and new policies ought to be considered on their merits, but I guess I'm just a bit of a radical that way. ;)

With that in mind, I think we need a revival of conservativism, not in the sense of a group that wants to keep things the way they are just for the sake of keeping things the way they are, but in the sense of a group that actually finds some aspect of the present valuable and wonderful and wants to defend it against the ravages of progress. I agree that the environmental movement comes close to fitting this catagory; curiously, so does the opposition to gay marriage (though I don't see those two movements coinciding anytime soon).

I think the malaise of conservativism is much deeper than this. Free-market laissez-faire principles took a big hit on the chin with this financial crisis. One can say many things about it, but one thing one can't deny is that the accumulative deregulations of US financial-banking markets between 1987-2004 had a LOT to do with making the crisis.

Likewise with conservativism's passion for a 'muscular' foreign policy - Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that one up as a rather hollow goal that will only bog down the US military and political elites in policy quagmires.

Deregulation of private markets and a muscular foreign policy have been the central pillars of US conservativism for the last 30 years. Both of these policies are been highly questionable failures in practice.

This suggests a failure at the root ideological level of conservativism that no amount of 'green' posturing can bridge.

[Daktoria]

Eh from what I've read here, I still don't see why free markets are the venom of society, why progressivism is inherently benevolent, or why Burke's historical interpretation of conservatism is preferential to deontological or axiomatic interpretations of conservatism (i.e. Kant, Popper, Weber, Hayek, etc.). Law and order might exist absolutely (if they exist relatively, justice can't exist at all), but our limited subjective perceptions of them require that we constantly refine said perspectives instead of reminiscing in the wisdom of ancients.

The matter of conservatism appreciating free markets is that America has been the leader of conservative schools of thought since the end of World War Two. Prior of the war, American conservatism adopted free market principles as a matter of synthesizing law and order with rugged pioneer individualism (such that progressive conservative leaders such as Teddy Roosevelt bore little success unless they helped business leaders appear politically correct and socially responsible). Oddly enough, it appears that technological growth is what lead to the expansion of progressivism after the Great Depression since bank panics and economic failures occurred plentifully throughout the 19th century, technology which was pursued by free market enterprises. Such allowed politicians to advance reforms on behalf of workers and consumers while dismissing the Old Right and Bourbon Democrats as selfish pigs who only wanted to stay on top of the cosmopolitan hierarchy. Without technology, workers and consumers wouldn't have held the decentralized political capital available to be mopped up by the politically ambitious (consider the failure of the American populist movement lead by William Jennings Bryan for example). :ummm:

The problem with conservatism today is that it doesn't teach its followers underlying principles. Instead, it just pushes forward unintellectual tradition while expecting the masses to follow blindly out of faith and peer pressure for the sake of institutional maintenance. Dismissal of rationalism is accepted through wise guy empirical and consequential proofs which prioritize welfare over intentions, so long term prosperity and development are shortchanged for short term satisfaction and societal niches (especially now when everyone's scrambling for job security and will do whatever it takes, including sacrificing principle, to not be excluded from the labor market).

Strategically, you guys are right. The only way conservatism is going to survive is if it absorbs environmental and family-centric holistic positions into its platform, but over the long term, this is guaranteed to fail since it will inevitably disparage entrepreneurs for selfish ambition, a misinterpretation of entrepreneurial incentive that result from looking at induced growing exceptions to the norm, the norm being that entrepreneurs discover and explore in order to support preferential lifestyles (even when they're immature enough to only acknowledge this through specialized pursuit of wealth). After all, if entrepreneurs didn't have preferential lifestyles (no matter how altruistic or hedonistic such lifestyles might be), why would they bother pursuing wealth in the first place?

Technology will keep society's and conservatism's fires building with more and more efficient fuel, but political manipulation will smother them from the oxygen they need to breathe due to mob rat races of cramming in to surround them in order to get the most amount of heat possible. For society, this cramming will take place for the sake of garnishing nourishment and welfare as hypercompetition becomes more and more intense due to a cliquey insistence upon personal performance that emphasizes who you know more than what you know. For conservatism, this cramming will take place for the sake of garnishing societal niches such that "who you know" networking is practiced by preaching heuristic virtues that nobody genuinely understands but coincidentally appreciates due to the entertainment and comfort such virtues provide.

The answer? There is no macroscopic answer. No system is inherently foolproof, but there are plenty of systems which can work. The only way any of them will work though is if individuality remains preserved and appreciated. Without it, responsibility will always be passed onto the next guy out of fear of social awkwardness as well as laziness to perform. Furthermore and ultimately, when responsibility is dismissed in such a fashion, there is no guarantee that future survival will take place when it is dependent upon past investment, investment which is neglected out of excessive, gluttonous, and vain demand for entertainment and comfort.

[Lily]

There is no doubt the conservatives need a strong voice, but I couldn't tell who owns that voice at the moment. It certainly isn't Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, Bill O'Reilly or any of the other screeching and/or insipid talking heads the GOP has thrown up on the public stage lately. It seems the conservative movement these days is stuck between "conservative lite" and "conservative body slam."

It seems the public arena of debate has boiled down to this: We hate Pres. Obama and will attack him on any and all fronts, no matter how trivial or ridiculous. To be fair, the debate on the other side seems to be that our president is the greatest thing since sliced bread so don't question. I have some serious questions about his fiscal policies and I voted for the man.

Where are the voices of reason?

I do believe there is a consensus among liberals and conservatives that this country must address some serious problems -- the defict, our involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, et. al., healthcare, education, immigration, energy, just to name a few. There is no consensus, however, on how to fix these problems among the conservatives. Pres. Obama is running the table, and I don't believe that is healthy for our country. America needs a strong challenger on these issues. The conservatives need a platform and a voice to articulate that platform.

As the fictional president Josiah Bartlett once said, "We need to raise the level of debate in this country." Indeed.