home

The Conservative Soul

In my earlier post on Andrew Sullivan, I argued that regarding the philosophy of federal government, there are no conservatives. I argued that FDR routed the conservative movement during the New Deal and that the idea of a philosphy of conservatism as generally understood simply does not play a role in our mainstream political discussion.

I think this reply to Sullivan from Ramesh Ponnuru makes my point. There is no overarching discussion or debate on the role of government, but rather whether supporting a particular position on an issue is "conservative" or not, without reference to what a conservative philosophy might favor.

Sullivan takes a stab at distinguishing among political movements. The good ones make moral appeals, sometimes with religious overtones, in order to make America live up to its constitutional ideals; the bad ones offend the Constitution's values. It is a meaningless taxonomy, since whether he thinks a movement falls on the right side of the Constitution's ideals depends on whether he approves it or not. For example: Is a movement to amend the Constitution to allow states to protect unborn human beings an attempt to live up to America's ideals of equality, or a dangerous theocratic imposition? No doubt Sullivan's answer to that question with vary with the fortnight, but in no case will a simple appeal to "constitutional ideals" do any analytical work in reaching that answer.

I think Ponnoru is right but I think the exact charge can be levelled against his own positions. His views are "conservative" because he, or in a larger sense, the Republican Party holds them. There is no analytical work of applying conservative philosophy to an issue to decide what the "conservative" position is.

Consider stem cell research. Under no rubrik, other than an absolute antipathy to government funding of scientific research (which has never been forwarded as an argument), can the Republcian position be seen as conservative. Republican opposition is completely tied to its political links to the Religious Right, which sees stem cell research as somehow encouraging abortions.

Or the Terri Schiavo affair. If anything, application of conservative principles would lead to a condemnation of Republican actions in that regard, as the federal government not only stepped into a local matter, it did so by disrespecting the local courts.

Or the Iraq War. The idea of preventive or preemptive wars appears to run utterly counter to conservative principles. Indeed. I feel confident that every single Republican who stood in support of the Iraq War would have opposed it if it had been a war proposed by a Democratic Administration. "Conservatism" the philosophy informs nothing done by the Republican Party or supported by Republican pundits like Ponnoru.

There is no conservatism. FDR killed it.

< Richard Milhous Lieberman | Lakoff and Negative Branding >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Nice theory (none / 0) (#1)
    by jarober on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 06:25:42 PM EST
    I could just as well say that Reagan killed liberalism, and with every bit as much evidence.  The current status quo on various social welfare programs will last until the tax rate needed to support it becomes too onerous - at which point, we'll either go the Euro stagnation route, or slim down the programs.  Demographics make it certain that we'll hit that breaking point.

    You could say it (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 06:32:08 PM EST
    But you'd be wrong.

    You yourself refer to the "status quo." Sort of my point.

    Parent

    xxxx (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 06:28:42 AM EST
    jarober makes a valid point. We're getting too many seasoned citizens and not enough youngsters.

    Outside of slipping inoperative birth control pills in to the market, what is your solution? Open borders?

    And if you want to see what problems that brings, see France, Holland, etc...

    Parent

    Status Quo... (none / 0) (#3)
    by jarober on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 07:03:04 PM EST
    It may be your point, but the status quo is not tenable - within the next 2 decades, financing things like social security and medicare are going to get more and more difficult,  It's a simple matter of mathematics based on current demographics.

    The longer we pretend that it won't be a problem, the harder it will be to fix.  So sure - keep resisting any and all changes to those programs.  You'll be amongst the people who are utterly stunned 2 decades from now when the choices are difficult.

    But no Republicns (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 09:30:35 AM EST
    are arguing it.

    That you arefue does not put it in the mainstream.

    Parent

    Not my point (none / 0) (#5)
    by jarober on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 09:47:50 AM EST
    Stupid policies can be very popular.  Just look at the social welfare nets in Germany and France - neither nation can afford them (Demographics again).  They both have high structural unemployment rates as a result.  Politically speaking, reform is nearly impossible in either place, because there are now too many recipients who vote to keep the checks coming.  

    Ultimately, that will lead to nasty results that no one will like much.  I'd prefer to have an honest debate before we reach that point here in the US; the demagoguing by Democrats on this issue - "Republicans want to cast Grandma into a snowbank!" - is not helpful.

    In the short term, it keeps a popular program running.  In the long run, it pushes a large problem off for a later fix, at which point said fix will be a lot harder.  Thanks so much for helping to make this an ongoing problem.  

    Well (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 11:48:06 AM EST
    Your point seems tangential to mine.

    And I think you seem to accept my point now.

    Parent

    Not denying your point... (none / 0) (#7)
    by jarober on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 01:37:51 PM EST
    I'm pointing out that your point is busily doing active harm to the country.  

    If conservatives are dead; who's alive? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 04:22:28 PM EST
    Wow great discussion but what does it have to do with the original point?

    The real issue is our country is broken up into five beleif systems...

    Progressives, liberals, moderates, conservatives and liberterians.    

    Exactly why a moderate party would solve a lot of our problems.   With both parties trying to keep their ideolouges at bay these beliefs are only given lip service and the true believers are left to pick the party of worse evil.  For lefties democrats and for "conservatives" republicans.

    Take Hillary.  If the lefties on this site had their way would Hillary really be your gal across the board?   Of course not.   But hey she's better then Bush right?

    Same goes for "conservatives"; we swallow medicare reform and education reform because hey, he's better then Hillary.