The Death of Conservatism?

Meacham: So how bad is it, really? Your title doesn't quite declare conservatism dead.
Tanenhaus: Quite bad if you prize a mature, responsible conservatism that honors America's institutions, both governmental and societal. The first great 20th-century Republican president, Theo- dore Roosevelt, supported a strong central government that emphasized the shared values and ideals of the nation's millions of citizens. He denounced the harm done by "the trusts"—big corporations. He made it his mission to conserve vast tracts of wilderness and forest. The last successful one, Ronald Reagan, liked to remind people (especially the press) he was a lifelong New Dealer who voted four times for Franklin D. Roosevelt. The consensus forged by Buckley in the 1960s gained strength through two decisive acts: first, Buckley denounced right-wing extremists, such as the members of the John Birch Society, and made sure when he did it to secure the support of conservative Republicans like Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and Sen. John Tower. This pulled the movement toward the center. Second: Buckley saw that the civil disturbances of the late 1960s (in particular urban riots and increasingly militant anti-Vietnam protests) posed a challenge to social harmonies preferred by genuine conservatives and genuine liberals alike. When the Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan called on liberals to join with conservatives in upholding "the politics of stability," Buckley replied that he was ready to help. He placed the values of "civil society" (in Burke's term) above those of his own movement or the GOP.

Today we see very little evidence of this. In his classic The Future of American Politics (1952), the political journalist Samuel Lubell said that our two-party system in fact consists of periods of alternating one-party rule—there is a majority "sun" party and a minority "moon" party. "It is within the majority party that the issues of any particular period are fought out," Lubell wrote. Thus, in the 1980s, Republicans grasped (and Democrats did not) that new entrepreneurial energies had been unleashed, and also that the Cold War could be brought to a conclusion through strong foreign policy. This was the Republicans' "sun" period. The reverse is happening today. The Democrats now dominate our heliocentric system—first on the economic stimulus, which is already proving to be at least a limited success, and now on the issue of health-care reform. These are both entirely Democratic initiatives. The Republicans, so intent on thwarting Obama, have vacated the field, and left it up to the sun party to accept the full burden of legislating us into the future. If the Democrats succeed, Republicans will be tagged as the party that declined even to help repair a broken system and extend fundamental protections—logical extensions of Social Security and Medicare—to some 46 million people who now don't have them. This could marginalize the right for a generation, if not longer. Rush Limbaugh's stated hope that Obama will fail seems to have become GOP doctrine. This is the attitude not of conservatives, but of radicals, who deplore the very possibility of a virtuous government.

Is there an analogous historical moment? Conservatives argue that this is 1965 and that a renaissance is at hand.

I disagree. Today, conservatives seem in a position closer to the one they occupied during the New Deal. The epithets so many on the right now hurl at Obama—"socialist," "fascist"—precisely echo the accusations Herbert Hoover and "Old Right" made against FDR in 1936. And the spectacle of citizens appearing at town-hall meetings with guns recalls nothing so much as the vigilante Minutemen whom Buckley evicted from the conservative movement in the 1960s. A serious conservative like David Frum knows this, and has spoken up. It is remarkable how few others have. The moon party is being yanked ever farther onto its marginal orbit.

Click to expand...

Colonel Hogan said:

Pinhead Academic Writes Book

Pseudo-intellectual continues
trend of predicting long-term
future based on short-term
events

Media interviews scheduled
followed by obscurity

Click to expand...

Colonel Hogan said:

Pinhead Academic Writes Book

Pseudo-intellectual continues
trend of predicting long-term
future based on short-term
events

Media interviews scheduled
followed by obscurity

Click to expand...

One criticism of your book will no doubt be that you are an egghead sellout from The New York Times and aren't a true conservative anyway.

Egghead? I wish. I'm a working journalist, plus biographer and self-taught historian. I claim no expertise as a political thinker, and even less in the realm of policy. As for my having sold out to the Times, anyone masochistic enough to review my writings over the years will see my point of view has changed very little. Nothing I say in my new book conflicts with anything I wrote in my biography of Chambers. I'm not registered with either party and never have been. I'm interested in politics as a theater of ideas and as a place where intellectuals now and again exert some visible influence. It is this confluence of ideas and action that I like to write about.

Click to expand...

atmas said:

The conservative movement marginalized by radical elements? But the current president appoints an admitted communist and "truther," but isn't radical. Sits in a pew for decades absorbing a barking madman's "sermons" but isn't radical. Has a long history with a domestic terrorist and his terrorist-wife, but isn't radical. Brings about significant government control of finance and the auto industry, but isn't radical. Seeks government intrusion in one shot into 1/6 the economy, but isn't radical.
Got it.

Click to expand...

brw02 said:

The pseudo-leaders of what is sometimes called conservatism today lack the intellectual capacity of Barry Goldwater or Richard Nixon.

Click to expand...

miles said:

Oreo, isn't this the second thread you've started on this subject?

Click to expand...

miles said:

Oreo, isn't this the second thread you've started on this subject?

Click to expand...

KingOrfeo said:

I would not disparage Nixon's intellect, but "Barry Goldwater" and "intellectual capacity" do not belong in the same sentence.

Click to expand...

KingOrfeo said:

That's addressed, actually . . .

Click to expand...

rosco rathbone said:

It may be 1965, but the parties are switched in that case, me thinks.

Click to expand...

KindaKinky said:

A good start would be to line up all the right wing pundits against the wall, open fire and start over. The right whingers are probably making Novak and Buckley spin in their graves.

Click to expand...

brw02 said:

We may be seeing the death of conservatism as I have known it. The pseudo-leaders of what is sometimes called conservatism today lack the intellectual capacity of Barry Goldwater or Richard Nixon. And they lack the ability to reassure that Ronald Reagan exhibited during the steep recession of his first term. The last conservative that I respected was Bob Dole. He was a strong advocate for conservative causes, but he also knew how to get the job done. These latter day conservatives are mainly obstructionists. They show nothing to indicate that they could govern.

Click to expand...

Colonel Hogan said:

Nice find.

But for someone who claims no expertise as a political thinker he certainly isn't shy about offering some far-reaching conclusions based on his status as an amateur.

Click to expand...

Colonel Hogan said:

Nice find.

But for someone who claims no expertise as a political thinker he certainly isn't shy about offering some far-reaching conclusions based on his status as an amateur.

Click to expand...

vetteman said:

There isn't much intellectualism in you either, associating Richard Nixon with conservatives.

Click to expand...