Nation-Building

I am a liberal, but I am quite enthusiastic about the idea of The Next Right, because liberalism and conservatism are both essential strains within the American body politic. I remember when RedState was launched many years ago and I was equally enthusiastic, though at the time there was far less consensus that there was something wrong on the Right. Since then RedState has come to epitomize all that is wrong with the Right and I think that The Next Right, in particular because of the people who are behind it, might be the right thing at the right time.

I interpret conservatism, broadly speaking, as the struggle to liberate men from the tyranny of the state. liberalism might then be interpreted as an extension of conservatism, the struggle to liberate men from the tyranny of economics. Where both sides go wrong is in forgetting that the pther is also necessary - we must be free of the State's interference from our lives, but we also cannot countenance on a moral level the attitude that when it comes to human lives, we can permit some to rise and some to fall solely as the function of a vast and soulless capitalistic enterprise. ALL must rise, and be provided food, water, a roof, and education, so that ALL may contribute to the society at large.

A unified political theory can be articulated that draws elements from both traditions. However, it requires room for dissenting views - in other words, a "big tent" which can accomodate the full spectrum of thought and opinion so necessary to keep the two traditions seeded with ideas and energy. Where they meet is where red and blue merge into purple and where the future will be shaped, just as the tree of liberty stands at the boundary between soil and sunlight, the product of both.

Success to you, NextRight. Don't get caught up only in the mechanics of building a political organization. Roll up your intellectual sleeves as well, and formulate the foundation so you can also build a political movement as well. You may well find liberals walking alongside you.

Labels: conservatism, liberal

Continue reading/discuss The Next Right: a big tent? ...

WFB Jr. has passed away at the age of 82.

Mr. Buckley’s greatest achievement was making conservatism — not just electoral Republicanism, but conservatism as a system of ideas — respectable in liberal post-World War II America. He mobilized the young enthusiasts who helped nominate Barry Goldwater in 1964, and saw his dreams fulfilled when Reagan and the Bushes captured the Oval Office.

To Mr. Buckley’s enormous delight, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., the historian, termed him “the scourge of liberalism.”

In remarks at National Review’s 30th anniversary in 1985, President Reagan joked that he picked up his first issue of the magazine in a plain brown wrapper and still anxiously awaited his biweekly edition — “without the wrapper.”

“You didn’t just part the Red Sea — you rolled it back, dried it up and left exposed, for all the world to see, the naked desert that is statism,” Mr. Reagan said.

“And then, as if that weren’t enough,” the president continued, “you gave the world something different, something in its weariness it desperately needed, the sound of laughter and the sight of the rich, green uplands of freedom.”

I think that Buckley was almost single-handedly responsible for marshaling the threads of nascent conservatism into a true movement. That the movement has faltered, and supplanted by an increasingly authoritarian Republican party that rejected the small-government, fiscal discipline, and foreign policy pragmatism foundations of conservatis thought, is almost surely because the GOP drifted away from Buckley's anchor. Of his generation, only Derbyshire remains at The National Review.

Labels: conservatism

Continue reading/discuss William F. Buckley Jr. ...

now they're calling Obama a commie jew bastard. Or more specifically, a "half black/half Jewish, red diaper baby"

and yet, all of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics. No, not the young Republicans. Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics. (During the Clinton Administration we were all introduced to then U. of Pennsylvania Professor Lani Guinier -- also a half black/half Jewish, red diaper baby.)

Freeperland? nutpicking from the fevered swamps of RedState? Nope. The Corner at National Review Online, flagship publication of conservatism in America.

glad to see the level of political discourse rise to a higher plane of muck its better than the lower plane of muck, anyway.

They've even got the pseudo-McCarthyism angle ready:

Time for some investigative journalism about the Obama family's background, now that his chances of being president have increased so much.

Oh, but Michelle Obama said something vacuous, so it's all fair game.

Labels: 2008, conservatism, Obama

Continue reading/discuss the muslim smear was so last month ...

I was forwarded this by a reliably leftist progressive acquaintance.

Do you think that Barack Obama is going to fight for the common man, or will he - like every other candidate in the race - be beholden to corporate interests? Well, guess who is the number one recipient of campaign funds from the following industries: computer and Internet companies, commercial banks, health professionals, health services and HMOs, hospitals and nursing homes, lawyers and law firms, miscellaneous health care interests, pharmaceutical and health product producers, securities and investment interests (groups with serious cash), and television, movie, and music companies?

If you guessed Hillary Clinton, you're right! Guess who's in second place? A man by the name of Barack Obama.

If you think that BO is going to work for the common good of the common man, you may be a moron.

I assume the text above is excerpted from the counterpunch link appended, though I've no stomach to really click over.

I think that a lot of self-styled progressives in the mainstream left are really ordinary liberals. The attitude on display above, however, is representative of what the actual progressives today are on about. Given a choice between a term for my political philosophy like liberal, which has a century of honest and storied tradition and heritage, and an ever-moving target like "progressive" which is alwys pegged to the leading edge of the leftwarde wave, I choose liberal. The conservatives did their best to malign the term, but we can reclaim it.

I take the critique seriously that progressives at the turn of the century were who brought us so much liberal reform. But the progressives of that era have a tenuous connection at best to the Counterpunch types of today. We mainstream liberals are those original Progressives true intellectual heirs. Interestingly, Progressivism as a movement may actually have this in common with conservatism, which also is a victim of its own success, as Fareed Zakaria explains:

Conservatism grew powerful in the 1970s and 1980s because it proposed solutions appropriate to the problems of the age—a time when socialism was still a serious economic idea, when marginal tax rates reached 70 percent, and when the government regulated the price of oil and natural gas, interest rates on checking accounts and the number of television channels. The culture seemed under attack by a radical fringe. It was an age of stagflation and crime at home, as well as defeat and retreat abroad. Into this landscape came Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, bearing a set of ideas about how to fix the world. Over the next three decades, most of their policies were tried. Many worked. Others didn't, but in any event, time passed and the world changed profoundly. Today, as Frum writes, "after three decades of tax cutting, most Americans no longer pay very much income tax." Inflation has been tamed, the economy does not seem overregulated to most, and crime is not at the forefront of people's consciousness. The culture has proved robust, and has in fact been enriched and broadened by its diversity. Abroad, the cold war is won and America sits atop an increasingly capitalist world. Whatever our problems, an even bigger military and more unilateralism are not seen as the solution.

Today's world has a different set of problems. A robust economy has not lifted the median wages of Americans by much. Most workers are insecure about health care, and most corporations are unnerved by its rising costs. Globalization is seen as a threat, bringing fierce competition from dozens of countries. The danger of Islamic militancy remains real and lasting, but few Americans believe they understand the phenomenon or know how best to combat it. They see our addiction to oil and the degradation of the environment as real dangers to a stable and successful future. Most crucially, Americans' views of the state are shifting. They don't want bigger government—a poll last year found that a majority (57 percent) still believe that government makes it harder for people to get ahead in life—but they do want a smarter government, one that can help them be safe, secure and well prepared for political and economic challenges. In this context, conservative slogans sound weirdly anachronistic, like watching an old TV show from ... well, from the 1970s.

I have the same anachronistic sense listening to the Counterpunch types, who seem forever stuck in the 60s. There's an inherent cynicism and pessimism prevalent among the Progressive mindset which strikes me as at odds with wanting to move things forward.

Fundamentally, a liberal must be an optimist about the power of government to effect change for the common good, and believe that a man can make a difference. Modern progressives believe that no one is good enough, ever, and that no matter how far we have come, it still fails miserably and falls short. Like conservatism, progressivism is cynical and pessimistic, a relic of an earlier time. The future belongs to us.

Labels: conservatism, liberal, progressives

Continue reading/discuss progressives are conservatives ...

I usually don't pay much attention to my Starbucks TWISIs (though I do occasionally document the ones I receive on my twitter). Today's triple venti latte, though, had quite an interesting TWISI on it, which I found highly relevant to the political drama of the times. The author? George F. Will, "Pulitzer-Prize winning author and columnist" (the cup reminds us helpfully). The topic? "true" conservatives. (and, of course, liberals, because how else do they define themselves?).

Here's what TWISI #258 says:

Because true conservatives are pessimists, they are happier than liberals, for three reasons. First, pessimists are rarely surprised. Second, when they are wrong they are delighted to be so. Third, pessimists do not put their faith in princes - in government. They understand that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. Happiness is an activity; it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.

Deep thoughts indeed. I am fascinated by the compulsion that conservatives have to define "true" conservatism. It's impossible to deny that (at least for the present) liberals have a bigger "tent" than conservatives do; our tent spans the range from deep-blue to purple - and if Obama wins the nomination, might even creep towards a tinge of red. Meanwhile, conservatives are factionalized, with the warring clans of theocons, fiscons, and neocons all succeeding in taking each others' princes out via attrition, leaving only one candidate, whose only claim to concensus is that everyone hates him about equally.

But more to the point, does Will's definition have any relevance to today's politics? Consider the points in turn. First, are conservatives (sorry, true conservatives, or TCs for short) really pessimists? Even if we grant them this, arguing that they are happier than liberals is pretty obviously nonsense. Being an unhappy sourpuss is practically the definitive mark of modern conservatism, because for them everything sucks and it's the liberals' fault (I note that Will didn't list taking responsibility for one's own actions as a fundamental TC tenet).

Second, are conservatives delighted to be wrong? This requires that conservatives ever admit to being wrong. George Will comes close to admitting being wrong in his (to his credit) numerous critiques of the Bush Administration, but these are lukewarm ("the rhetoric of unreality"?). Will was effusively pro-Bush at the outset (I assume, without citation, though I invite fact-checking and will indeed be delighted to be proven wrong) and yet has to state how wrong he was. Is he delighted at how wrong he and the rest of the conservative class was about Bush? Is he delighted about how, in his own words, "all three components of the 'axis of evil' -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- [are] more dangerous than they were when that phrase was coined in 2002." ? It seems to me that conservatives are wrong quite often, with far greater negative impact (usually because a war is involved). Presumably, then, conservatives should be delighted all the time?

As for faith in princes, well I have three letters in rebuttal: F. D. T. 'nuff said.

Though I can't let rest unchallenged Will's implication that liberals (and false conservatives) put their faith in government. Two words in rebuttal: Hurricane Katrina. Again, 'nuff said.

Incidentally, I am quite glad that conservatives like Will and Jonah Goldberg (TWISI #22) are participating in the Coffee Cup Debate. For one thing, transparency of their ideas is the best route to delegitimization.

One final (unintended) irony, Goldberg's TWISI includes this comment:

Clichés begin arguments, they don’t settle them.

True indeed. We may safely relegate any comment a conservative has about a liberal to this category.

Labels: conservatism, liberal

Continue reading/discuss Starbucks TWISI #258: George F. Will ...

The Obama-Clinton horserace on the left seems headed towards fabled "brokered convention" status which has long been the holy grail of preesidential punditry (though in practice, is hardly worth cheering for its anti-democratic nature). But in many ways the dynamic on the right is more important, since the very future of the Republican Party itself is at stake.

The main issue is whether "conservatives" are truly a movement or just another faction within the GOP coalition. Prior to Romney's dropping out of the race, the view among the party elite was that McCain's ascendancy represented raw political expediency over genuinely conservative ideals - witness this roundtable between contributors at RedState.com where despite a few voices to the contrary, the mainstream answers affirmatively he question, "did the primary process fail conservatives?". However, Josh Trevino's comments after Romney's withdrawal strikes rather deeply at the pretension implicit in the very question. Josh writes,

Beyond the breaking of trust between the social conservatives and the right-wing media — which is now, unfortunately, exposed as the largely coastal, largely urban, largely fiscally-oriented complex it is — there is the simple matter of judgment. The average Republican voter never could quite figure why we should take Romney at his word, and the average Republican voter was quite right: and so it was mystifying, for example, to see Hugh Hewitt proclaim “Romney Rising” dozens of times unto the end; and it was baffling as to just why National Review believed “he is now on our side — and we trust him to stay there.” The common sense that informs ordinary personal judgments was wholly absent in these things — why believe a man who has ignored you all his life, but is now asking you for $100 and proclaims his heartfelt friendship? Rightly or not, the impression thus generated is of a conservative media establishment that is too easily duped or bought by a wealthy candidate with sufficient charm.

The Editors at RedState - itself a wholly-owned subsidiary of that same right-wing media to which Josh refers - have been second to none in their utter disdain for McCain (they do quote a portion of Josh's essay approvingly, but tellingly, not the part I quoted above). And yet, within hours of Romney's withdrawal, the troops are exhorted to fall in line:

John McCain is the nominee and he sounded both Presidential and conservative.

Conservatives may not have gotten the whole loaf of bread they wanted, but they know where McCain stands, and he's willing to fight on grounds the Democrats would abdicate to the socialists within and terrorists without.

I find this turnaround really quite extraordinary, though other bloggers have used more colorful terms. The irony here is that McCain is indeed an authentic conservative, with a conservative voting record not all that divergent from (by way of example) that of Fred Thompson. And yet it was the latter - christened FDT in an attempt to heighten his gravitas to Roosevelt/Kennedy statesmen levels - who was hailed as the second coming of Reagan.

So if a conservative establishment Republican cannot satisfy the conservative base, then what does that say about the base, rather than the candidate? An insightful diary at RedState provides the answer:

Conservatism isn't going deeper into the abyss of Hell while McCain makes kissy face with the Democrats. In fact, if he does HALF of what he promised at CPAC, he'll only help buy we purists some time to resist the relentless reshaping of what Conservatism means over the next 4 years. If a Democrat is in the White House, that whole conversation becomes a joke...yawned at and ignored by the media who already THINK Conservatism is dead.

Conservatism is therefore not a core set of ideals, but an ongoing war, one in which self-professed purists seek to mold to their liking (and accept that other factions seek to mold to theirs). In all of this, there is no single accepted definition of what being a conservative actually means, apart from the simple argument that conservatives are everything that liberals are not (this requires a definition of liberalism, which is the only thing more elusive than a definition of conservatism, as far as the conservative purist is concerned).

Whither conservatism after 2008? Is there even a conservatism left worth fighting for?

Labels: 2008, conservatism, McCain, Republicans

Continue reading/discuss The McCain Mutiny ...