Ideas and Consequences
I'm sorry for joining the discussion so late - and since I'm jumping in at the end of the week, I'll confine myself to two points.
First, I agree with Greg that some of the ideas that conservatives are associated with today are either impractical, politically unpalatable, or both. I share his view that HSAs are an insufficient response to America's health care problems and may even make them worse, that the anti-tax pledge is a piece of political theater that's outlived its usefulness, that conservative claims that the Social Security system is "in crisis" are overblown, and (of course) that the Iraq War has been a debacle. (I'm less persuaded by his arguments on vouchers, deregulation, and Medicare Part D, among other topics, but I don't want to get too deep into the weeds here.) However, Greg's thesis elides the fact that conservatives are - in part, at least - victims of their own success: They seem out of good ideas at the moment because so many of their ideas are now conventional wisdom. Every political movement needs to renew and reinvent itself periodically, or else risk the irrelevance that the contemporary GOP is courting. I think Greg makes a persuasive case that the Right of the '00s, like the Left of the '70s and '80s, is in need of such a renewal. But I think he takes his case too far.
"Now that they have held the reins of government for a good while, both at the federal and the state levels," Greg writes of conservatives, "it's time to ask why they don't have a single meaningful success to point to." The obvious conservative response is that much of the story of America's recovery from the trough of the 1970s is a story of, well, effective conservative reform, from our victory in the Cold War, to the tax cuts and deregulation that helped spur the current long period of economic expansion, to the shift in policing strategy associated with the 1990s drop in crime, to the success of welfare reform, and so on and so forth. I'm sure Greg would disagree with this interpretation of the last couple decades - that's why he's a liberal and I'm a conservative - but I would submit that Ronald Reagan, Tommy Thompson, Newt Gingrich, John Engler, Rudy Giuliani and others make harder targets for a liberal critic than Michael Brown and Grover Norquist. I don't blame Greg for going after such easy punching bags, particularly after six years of right-of-center misgovernment, but as an indictment of conservatism as whole, rather than its Bush-era failings, I think his brief falls short.
As for my second point - well, like William Niskanen, I have no patience for the notion, which is threaded through Greg's book, that right-wing ideas lack credibility because right-wing think tanks take money from self-interested corporations and (sometimes nutty) rich people. We live in a country where people give money to institutions that support like-minded scholars - so what? Either the ideas in question are good or they're bad; whether AEI takes cash from ExxonMobil shouldn't factor into the equation. (And God knows the rich give far more money to left-leaning foundations than to their right-wing counterparts.) Meanwhile, Greg's dark description of how right-wing ideas find their way into circulation strikes me as plain silly. He accuses conservatives of using fear-mongering to sell their policies, as though liberals don't do exactly the same thing on a host of issues. He objects to the conservative use of “mom and apple-pie” labels - like "education reform" and "equal opportunity" - to describe their small-government agenda. (Because everybody knows that only liberals can be in favor of "reform," or "opportunity," or apple pie.) He gripes that "critical to the right’s success has been the participation of big-name academics, ideally affiliated with Harvard, Stanford, the Brookings Institution, and so forth, who have added credibility to the original lame ideas." (How dare conservatives persuade smart people that they're right? The nerve!) "It’s not a right-wing conspiracy," he writes. "It’s all out in the open for everyone to see." Well, yeah - because it's called American politics.
Okay, I just gotta ask. Why do you think "victory in the Cold War" is attributable to conservative reform?
September 21, 2007 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are conservative successes. Delusional.
Soviet Union collapsed of its own internal contradictions. If any US policy hastened that process it is provoking them to invade Afghanistan -- a Brezezinky policy if I recall.
Deregulation. Yes the conservatives did do a lot of that. California power crisis. A major banking crisis going on now. Go ahead and take credit. The most positive deregulation of the last half century -- openly competitive telephone service -- was started by the liberal Judge Green during a Democratic administration.
The current long expansion of the economy is a recovery from a hyper inflation that has its roots in the Vietnam war spending. Started on Reagan's watch but how much he was responsible is debatable.
War on crime. Some solution. The US now has the largest prison population in the world in absolute terms and a per capita population that is orders of magnitude above other civilized nations. You may call this conservatism but I would call imprisoning such large numbers of ones population closer to fascism.
Now welfare reform has worked to the extent that the government is responsible for the welfare of fewer of its citizens. However, the needs of those people have not declined. What kind of morality do you have to call that a success.
September 21, 2007 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't ever forget that Raygun was brilliant enough to think of just asking Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" and lo and behold, the USSR ended with a whimper. For that he has been dubbed Saint Ronnie the Raygun, with good reason.
Hoppy in Sacramento
September 21, 2007 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could certainly make the case that Rudy Giuliani, John Engler and Tommy Thompson would make harder targets for a liberal critic. In their case, one may disagree with their priorities or judgment, but it's hard to dismiss them as incompetent buffoons. But to the extent that they succeeded in their jobs, it was often because they governed like practical moderates, not ideologically hidebound conservatives. None of them was dogmatic on taxes, social issues or any of the usual things that make modern conservatism so unappealing. They are the exceptions that prove the rule.
But Newt Gingrich? What serious accomplishment can he point to? The guy was the embodiment of all that is wrong with American conservatism. Inflexible. Dogmatic. Bombastic. Messianic. Blindly partisan. Hateful. He arguably had a more corrosive influence on American politics than any single figure in the last 25 years.
And Reagan? Well unlike many liberals, I would not dismiss Reagan as a lightweight. His ideas had great influence on the country. But just as Nixon would be a liberal by today's standards, Reagan would probably be considered a moderate. Sure he cut taxes and got a lot of political mileage out of it. But he also raised them when he realized that was needed. He rattled his sabre at the Soviet Union, and that may have made a marginal difference in hastening its collapse. But he also got lucky in that a new and very different leader was running the Soviet Union after 1985. Fortunately Reagan had the wits to change course after this happened.
So sure, conservatives can point to leaders that weren't miserable failures like George W. Bush. But that's mostly because they governed like moderates, not like today's conservatives.
September 21, 2007 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
September 21, 2007 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I've long maintained that the biggest problem with Reagan is the true believers who've followed and believed the rhetoric rather than the reality of what he actually did on taxes.
On the USSR stuff don't forget that the conservatives we're up in arms about Reagan "selling out to Gorbachev" with the arms deals and so on.
September 21, 2007 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it started on Carter's watch, with the last Fed chairman who was seen as the indispensible man: Paul Volcker, appointed chairman in 1979 -- by a Democrat. Just for the record...
September 21, 2007 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
September 21, 2007 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've been all potty trained at gun point.
September 21, 2007 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
TALKIN' JOHN BIRCH PARANOID BLUES
by Bob Dylan
Well, I was feelin' sad and feelin' blue,
I didn't know what in the world I was gonna do,
Them Communists they wus comin' around,
They wus in the air,
They wus on the ground.
They wouldn't gimme no peace. . .
So I run down most hurriedly
And joined up with the John Birch Society,
I got me a secret membership card
And started off a-walkin' down the road.
Yee-hoo, I'm a real John Bircher now!
Look out you Commies!
Now we all agree with Hitlers' views,
Although he killed six million Jews.
It don't matter too much that he was a Fascist,
At least you can't say he was a Communist!
That's to say like if you got a cold you take a shot of malaria.
Well, I wus lookin' everywhere for them gol-darned Reds.
I got up in the mornin' 'n' looked under my bed,
Looked in the sink, behind the door,
Looked in the glove compartment of my car.
Couldn't find 'em . . .
I wus lookin' high an' low for them Reds everywhere,
I wus lookin' in the sink an' underneath the chair.
I looked way up my chimney hole,
I even looked deep inside my toilet bowl.
They got away . . .
Well, I wus sittin' home alone an' started to sweat,
Figured they wus in my T.V. set.
Peeked behind the picture frame,
Got a shock from my feet, hittin' right up in the brain.
Them Reds caused it!
I know they did . . . them hard-core ones.
Well, I quit my job so I could work alone,
Then I changed my name to Sherlock Holmes.
Followed some clues from my detective bag
And discovered they wus red stripes on the American flag!
That ol' Betty Ross . . .
Well, I investigated all the books in the library,
Ninety percent of 'em gotta be burned away.
I investigated all the people that I knowed,
Ninety-eight percent of them gotta go.
The other two percent are fellow Birchers . . . just like me.
Now Eisenhower, he's a Russian spy,
Lincoln, Jefferson and that Roosevelt guy.
To my knowledge there's just one man
That's really a true American: George Lincoln Rockwell.
I know for a fact he hates Commies cus he picketed the movie Exodus.
Well, I fin'ly started thinkin' straight
When I run outa things to investigate.
Couldn't imagine doin' anything else,
So now I'm sittin' home investigatin' myself!
Hope I don't find out anything . . . hmm, great God!
-----------------------------------------
For some reason this seemed appropriate
Jack
September 21, 2007 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
RD starts by agreeing with Greg's negative evaluation of many central conservative policy initiatives. Why wouldn't this suggest that honest, thinking conservatives themselves understand that movement conservatism is bankrupt?
The subsequent chatter is merely cherry picking.
If RD insists on being inclusive, then I'd like to know his opinions on Schiavo and other eruptions of "social values".
While we are at it, what does RD think of the self-identification of governing conservatives with corporate America? Is it really the case, that what is good for Exxon is good for the country? If so, does this extend to insurance companies, defense companies, pharma? Can policy that is captured by business lobbyists possibly have as its primary goal the welfare of the public as a whole?
Modern American conservatism isn't just intellectually bankrupt, it is exclusive and elitist at its core. This movement spends an inordinate amount of time and money pretending otherwise, because without hoodwinking voters they would lose every single election.
September 22, 2007 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ross:
God may know this, but I certainly don't. What's God's evidence for that claim? Seems like He's on pretty shaky ground to me.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
September 22, 2007 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
They seem out of good ideas at the moment because so many of their ideas are now conventional wisdom.
What ideas are these? That ketchup is a vegetable? That welfare queens drive Cadilacs that they bought with food stamps? That deficits don't matter? That Saddam bought yellowcake from Niger? That we're in grave danger of being overrun by hordes of Mexicans and Muslims?
Methinks that Douthat is confused about the difference between ideas and propaganda, and when confronted, retreats into an ideal world where the lofty ideals of conservatism are somehow being failed by their current standard bearers (who were hailed not too long ago as champions, until the failures started mouting up).
Conservatism is all about a.) maintaining the status quo and b.) elevating elite concerns above the common good. In the past, conservatives have been against human rights for African-Americans, women, minorities, and homosexuals, against universal health care, and for stripping away regulations that protect US citizens from harm and predation by the business class.
Look at the environment to see the difference--Liberals see the common good that comes from protecting the environment and preserving habitat. Conservatives see untapped resources waiting to be plundered. Thank liberal environmentalists for curbs on industrial pollution over the past 40 years that have saved lives, and the health of our citizens (and which conservative elements are busy at this very moment trying to peel back).
Look at mining, and how the Bush administration has pursued the conservative approach, and gutted mine safety regulations.
Look at infrastructure: the 35W bridge in Minneapolis is a great example of ultimate outcomes of conservative ideology, and what happens when tax cut ideology trumps all.
Frankly, I think that lable 'conservative' is a misnomer, since those who wear that label will take radical steps when it suits their immediate needs--such as trashing the Constitution, for example.
I sense a retreat to the castle keep of the conservative think tank--of course it matters where the money comes from! Douthat is suggesting that we 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!' I'm sure that if he cared at all, Rupert Murdoch would echo this sentiment exactly.
Not all think tanks are created equal, and perhaps we are unfairly tarring the conservative ones with the Heritage Institute tag--though frankly, I believe they need to be put under the microscope just as the establishment media has.
otoh, Donald Rumsfeld being named a distinguished fellow at the Hoover Institution, War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University is a joke that practically writes itself, so Douthat may be onto something there...
September 22, 2007 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note also, with regard to
The most positive deregulation of the last half century -- openly competitive telephone service -- was started by the liberal Judge Green during a Democratic administration.
that conservative ideology has been instrumental over the past 6+ years in allowing the increasing re-monopolization of telecoms to undo much of the good that was done by the breakup of Ma Bell. Given that abolishing all regulations is a fantasy in most spheres of business, conservatives have revealed a strong regulatory bias towards established big businesses, and against small businesses, startups, and the consumer.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
September 22, 2007 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, this:
...is ludicrous. Obviously self-interest is one of the markers we use to identify the trustworthiness of an utterance -- the more so when the self-interest is to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. Corporations are inherently untrustworthy speakers; legally bound to pursue nothing but their own self-interest, they are incapable by nature of having an honest opinion. Anyone who accepts money from such an entity for purposes of "research" on public policy calls their own credibility into question.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
September 22, 2007 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
He gripes that "critical to the right’s success has been the participation of big-name academics, ideally affiliated with Harvard, Stanford, the Brookings Institution, and so forth, who have added credibility to the original lame ideas." (How dare conservatives persuade smart people that they're right? The nerve!) "It’s not a right-wing conspiracy," he writes. "It’s all out in the open for everyone to see." Well, yeah - because it's called American politics.
This is the only fact I have ever heard put forth by the Right I can agree with ending in a PC society ending.
Douthat accidentally or unintentionally presented the fact they are a minority and they receive special treatment in "a fair and balanced society" by Political Correctness also.
I am sorry to say the right would not appreciate the irony of this for they want this PC for themselves!
It seems to reinforce my view of the
right's philosophy as:
I deal is Ideal
You deal is no deal!
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
September 23, 2007 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that damn Scaife, Ahmanson, Coors, Olin, Bradley, Koch, etc. confederation of liberal spenders are a real problem.
September 24, 2007 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Douthat's strong argument for conservatism has convinced me. I'm sending a check to James Dobson immediately and pasting a "Go Mitt" bumper sticker on my car today.
September 24, 2007 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you want to pick nits, get your finger nails on this.
Viet Nam & Great Society at the same time was irresponsible, but a fixable problem But then came Nixon, the conservative's conservative, who appointed his aid Arthur Burns to the Fed Chair. Under Nixon's direction, Burns kept the funds rate under what was needed so that the economy would look good for ol' Dick. This ultimately lead to the inflation that was seen during the Carter years.
You need to remember that changes in the major drives of the economy generally take one or two years to have their full effect. The VietNam problem should have been handled in the late Nixon years. His postponement of action lead to the inflation you refer to.
dc
September 24, 2007 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
As the weel turns.....
The next President and, we the Citizens will suffer the slings and arrows of
this " Dismembering Administration’s” actions of ravaging, razing, pillaging,
and plundering of our “Public Interests” and "Our Commons", those assets that used to be found in government, world without end. If She looks after us, we pray! Awoemen!*
"Awomen!'' Jimmy Carter *
*"She" seems to fit better than men as it seems not to be working at present-please stand by.
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
September 24, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink