The Top Dozen Insights of Conservatives, 2008
It was a brutal year for the conservative movement, which at long last came crashing down after dominating American politics for nearly 30 years. One small consolation for at least some leading thinkers on the right is that they began to demonstrate perceptiveness that by and large eluded them in preceding years. Here are the top twelve insights of prominent conservatives in 2008:
P.J. O' Rourke, The Weekly Standard
An entire generation has been born, grown up, and had families of its own since Ronald Reagan was elected. And where is the world we promised these children of the Conservative Age? Where is this land of freedom and responsibility, knowledge, opportunity, accomplishment, honor, truth, trust, and one boring hour each week spent in itchy clothes at church, synagogue, or mosque? It lies in ruins at our feet, as well it might, since we ourselves kicked the shining city upon a hill into dust and rubble.
David Brooks, The New York Times
Now it's just a circular firing squad with everybody attacking each other and no coherent belief system, no leaders. You got half the party waiting for Sarah Palin to come rescue them. The other half waiting for Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor, to come rescue them. But no set of beliefs, really a decayed conservative infrastructure. It's just a world of pain.
Matthew Continetti, The Weekly Standard
The GOP is shell-shocked from last month's election results. The gains the party made in the years since the 1994 Republican revolution have been erased. Republicans are without a clear agenda. People say that Republicans don't have any ideas, but that isn't entirely true. They have plenty of ideas--but too many of them are about which part of their coalition is to blame for their current misfortunes.This sort of squabbling is less than useless. It's inward-looking, woolly-headed, and only furthers the perception that the GOP is out of touch. Unfortunately, when Republicans have tried to be in touch, they've been tempted to be irresponsible. In September, more than a few were ready to risk the global banking system's collapse in the hopes that they could ride anti-Wall Street populism to victory.
Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman
I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic
The crisis is at two levels - the dreadful incompetence and incoherence of the Bush-Cheney administration, which has poisoned the Republican brand for more than one generation, and the emergence of inherent flaws in several strains of conservative thought.The banking crisis is so close to us and so unresolved it's hard to see it in context, but I fear that Greenspan is right: it's a huge flaw that cannot be explained away by government. The limits of hard power are, in fact, perfectly in line with conservatism's deeper insights into human affairs, with Bush and Cheney acting more as over-reaching utopians than conservative statesmen. And the social conservatism problem has been a function of Christianism: an inability to shape society as it is because their theological doctrine demands adherence to eternal dogma not development of pragmatic policy. So we have their rigid refusal to countenance any legal abortion or any civil recognition of gay couples.
Grappling with any one of these problems would be serious enough. Untangling all three at once? The GOP had better hope Obama really screws up.
Rod Dreher, Beliefnet
There is a conservative Establishment -- a political establishment, yes, but also a think-tank establishment and an opinion-leader establishment -- that has become ossified in its thinking and, over time, more interested in policing its heretics than in thinking creatively about conservatism and its application to the challenges facing our nation and our culture at this particular time. That establishment is dying.
Ross Douthat, The Atlantic
Conservatism in the United States faces a series of extremely knotty problems at the moment. How do you restrain the welfare state at a time when the entitlements we have are broadly popular, and yet their design puts them on a glide path to insolvency? How do you respond to the socioeconomic trends - wage stagnation, social immobility, rising health care costs, family breakdown, and so forth - that are slowly undermining support for the Reaganite model of low-tax capitalism? How do you sell socially-conservative ideas to a moderate middle that often perceives social conservatism as intolerant? How do you transform an increasingly white party with a history of benefiting from racially-charged issues into a party that can win majorities in an increasingly multiracial America? etc.Watching the McCain campaign, you'd barely even know that these problems exist, let alone that conservatives have any idea what to do about them.
Kathleen Parker, syndicated columnist
The movement created by that superelite, but never elitist, William F. Buckley Jr. was handed over to Joe Six-Pack. Know-nothingness was no longer a stigma, but a badge of honor. The Republican Party's Baghdad Bobism with regard to Palin, a denial so pernicious that party operatives were willing to let her sit a heartbeat away from the presidency in a time of war and financial collapse, revealed what really ails the party. The 'P Factor' isn't a single person but a sickness that will have to be acknowledged and cured--Republicans will be reciting their newly tailored principles only to themselves.
David Frum, American Enterprise Institute
Sarah Palin symbolizes a party that has decided that we just don't care about making the government work anymore.
Colin Powell, former Secretary of State
Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh? Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather that our better instincts?
Rich Lowry, The National Review
Tuesday's Republican debacle was, as the social scientists say, 'over-determined.' It had many causes. Was it brought on by congressional corruption, Bush administration incompetence, intellectual exhaustion or John McCain's failings as a candidate? All of the above -- and then some....One temptation will be to say that if only Republicans had stayed truer to the faith, especially on fiscal discipline, none of this would have happened. Earmarks unquestionably contributed to the culture of corruption that has so bedeviled Republicans in recent years. But fighting them became an overriding obsession of some conservatives and of McCain, as if opposing earmarks alone -- 1 percent of federal spending -- would constitute a winning economic agenda.
William Kristol, The Weekly Standard and The New York Times
I can't help but admire some of my fellow conservatives' loyalty to the small-government cause. It reminds me of the nobility of Tennyson's Light Brigade, as it charges into battle: 'Theirs but to do and die.' Maybe it would be better, though, first to reason why.
















Printed & posted next to my computer screen. Thank you kind sir.
December 19, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Conservativism" is a catchall term that is trotted out to mean whatever the plutocracy is in favor of at the moment.
Many of the real goals have to do with increasing the wealth and power of a small group. Thus we have had the battle over the estate tax, the changes in capital gains and dividend income taxation, etc.
Since such outright self interest isn't appealing this group has sponsored a large number of think tanks whose job it is to provide some intellectual cover for greed. We have seen a continual stream of such "theoretical" justifications: trickle down, Laffer curves, wealthy entrepreneurship, etc.
None of these nostrums has ever been backed up by actual data.
Now this wealthy group is faced with a dilemma. The propaganda has failed and even the most blind follower of their ideology has come to realize that something is wrong. There are two choices:
1. Admit that the philosophical basis was bunk
or
2. Blame individuals as an attempt to preserve the "philosophy"
Obviously the discredited pundits are going for door #2.
When the downturn is over and the American Horatio Alger dream is revived the cycle will start again and the GOP will once again be able to attract those who are motivated by selfishness and anger.
December 19, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree.
"Conservatism" is a decent and well meaning political agenda devoted to the idea of limited government and individual, rather than collective or group, responsibility.
Conservatism was hijacked by plutocrats and their servants in order to further one of their major ends (tax cuts), beginning in about 1980, with some success.
Liberalism, incidentally, has been hijacked by those same persons in order to increase regulation and provide them with more power over the country. Reducing innovation and dynamism is in the interest of those with wealth and power, and there's no better way than regulation by government.
The genius of the successful modern liberals (Clinton, Obama) is the realization that Wall Street and the plutocrats would prefer a heavily regulated marketplace that protects them (at the expense of the little guy) to an unregulated marketplace.
It is no accident that Goldman, Lehman, et al. were much heavier Democratic donors in 2004-2008. Regulation doesn't hurt the regulated entities; it hurts their stockholders (pension funds, mutual funds, etc.), and the public at large.
The problem with the financial crisis was not that banks failed. Banks are supposed to do that every now and again. The system was overleveraged. A system that includes entities too big to fail is a broken system.
What is needed is sensible regulation of the leverage of parties who pose substantial counterparty risk to the financial system. With that, you could dispense with most other regulation entirely.
December 19, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say:
"Conservatism" is a decent and well meaning political agenda devoted to the idea of limited government and individual, rather than collective or group, responsibility."
Suppose you have a bunch of individual actors (colloquially called a "democracy"), in concert behaving ethically and responsibly; does one end up with a thing called "a Republic"?
So, a group of people, expressing a form of groupthink (yes, it actually can be good) by behaving in a responsible manner is...bad?
OTOH, the usual Republican vocabulary is centered around (among others; it is not unidimensional)
an axis of punishment; that's what "collective responsibility" really means in the echo chamber. It's the bitch-slap vocabulary that fleshes out the bitch-slap theories of Grover Norquist, Carl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Dan Savage, and that ilk.
"...well meaning..."? The reply to that is a comic-book cliche: intent and outcome are rarely coincident. Except in this perverse case: the Republicans have obtained exactly what they sought.
Now is when Republicans ramp up to being unapologetic. Just look at the last line A. Sullivan's comment:
"The GOP had better hope Obama really screws up."
Decoding this closing quote is trivial: "How can we trip him up?"
That quote, alone, provides all the window anyone needs.
Note that the honorable Mr. Sullivan did not say:
"The GOP had better try to help Obama succeed; for the good of the group of individually responsible actors."
Or almost anything, similar in content.
December 19, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan Savage? The gay sex columnist who invented an alternative definition for "santorum?" Um, You meant Michael Savage, the crazy radio talker, no?
December 20, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah; clearly, I was in frothing loon mode. I hate it when that happens.
But hey, at least it's better than being apathetic. Sort of, anyway.
December 22, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would describe Dan Savage as having a bitchslap morality, certainly.
Hence "Santorum", in describing one of the most thoughtful and compassionate Republicans in Congress at the time.
December 29, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
good post. . .
the problem with our Big Brother, Nanny State,
Central Government in DC is that it is controlled,
(via our spineless Congress) by the Big Money &
Powerful Special Interest Groups, NOT the voters.
That's why a conservative (not neoCons) favors
small limited gov't. at the state and local level.
Also, if we dismantle the Fed. according to the
Constitution, it will only have about
15-enumerated powers under Section-8.
WaLa, no more Vietnams,
Iraqs or wars for oil.
December 20, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
El Presidente, yours is the rhetoric used to justify the abject greed of the plutocracy (government by the wealthy for those of you who might not understand that term) described by rdf. I bought into this line for decades, much to my embarrassment. Their goal all along has been to buy public law and policy by financing the election of politicians who will give them what they want. They ran our country into the ditch in pursuit of more power and wealth. It is time to end that game and admit, hard to do, that the Europeans have done a far better job of it than we have.
December 21, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right.
Except to the extent that you think parties with money and power care whether the people they bought are liberal or conservative.
Robert Rubin came from Goldman, too.
December 29, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conservatism post-Nixon has been nothing more than a PR slogan used to conceal the Big Government agenda of corporate elites and religious supremacists.
Its proponents never sought nor believed in "limited government" nor "individual liberty." They attempted to police Americans' most intimate private freedoms --who you can have sex with, who you can marry, what you can read, whether you can legally purchase birth control, how children must pray at school, etc.
They set-up massive taxpayer subsidies for agribusiness, petrochemical companies, and extractive businesses like mining. They secured unprecedented increases in taxpayer funding for weapons and military equipment manufacturers.
None of this was designed to "limit" government or "increase individual freedom," it was intended to subsidized corporate cronies and give control over individual liberties to fundamentalists.
December 21, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
They just could not regulate their own greed...it's not in their nature...right up to destroying our economy...which would not really cause these wealthiest leaders any difficulty except that they could not continue to get those protecting their holdings and business elected or reelected and now they see that those they've enpowered (Hannity lost the company millions per first 3 yrs he was on the air but they absorbed the losses just to get their radical wingnut right view out there) Like Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Fox news, Coulter, Savage, the list is huge... to cultivate voters (no matter how ignorant or poisonous or fanatic) to keep them in power so they can continue to ransack America while avoiding Taxes and getting millions in bailout money to make sure they lose nothing in their profiteering...then try to claim they are just part of a decent party who stands against all that...but secretly keep heading toward a fascist corporatocracy disguised as a theocracy. The only true hero of conservatism was Col. Smedley Butler who first exposed their blatant attempt to overthrow our democracy, They no longer seek to do it by force so much as by economics bribe...er a ...donating to campaigns who will side with them and enriching those who will rouse the rabble to vote for them.
What conservatism cannot stand or live with is exposure of their real motivations and their secrets...Bush, Nixon, Reagan...secret governments operating secret unlawful operations all. Exposure keeps them from power...so far...but never forget how destructive these people are to government by and for "the people" who will attempt to privatize the government.
December 19, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry...got carried away...the sentence should have said " they see that those they have empowered and those they cultivated were too ignorant to see the bigger picture and would end up destroying them as well as liberals". They also saw they could not trust each other not to be tooooo greedy causing the economy to collapse.
It's a new version of Frankenstein's Monster as conservative government cannot succeed in reality in today's world...we are too large for small government...too greedy not to be regulated...too diverse to ignore minorities. Only two governments can succeed in America 1) Liberal Democratic Socialism; or 2)a Fascist Theocratic Corporatocracy...As long as we are not invaded by Paliens that is.
December 19, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, bjobotts2. We who are about to suffer from their abject greed salute you!
December 21, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
A brutal year for them? Last I looked, most of these people still held secure jobs pulling down large paychecks.
Let them wither and die in their splendid isolation.
December 19, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well... the best ideas coming from the right are coming from neocons, once again, as they feverishly - desperately - dig up excuses to duck rightful blame for the Republicans' spite-filled irrelevance. It's no surprise this gem comes from the Weekly Standard, which wants to cover its tracks along with the rest of the party's self-esconced "intellectual wing". Yeah, it's all about internecine battles between factions. No, Mr. Continetti, it's about jettisoning one toxic faction for the bowels of the GOP. G'bye!
December 19, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, guess what Douthat--it's low-tax capitalism itself that has undermined support for low-tax capitalism.
December 19, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously none of the people lamenting the sorry state of conservatism American style is among the 15,000 richest families in the land as they have under Bush had their incomes rise from $15 million/year to $30 million.
And that ever-looming threat of rising real median household income didn't happen - in fact it decreased by 1 percent. What's not to like?
And then there are corporte profits which have climbed under Bush/Republican policies from $980 billion to $1,642 billion, a 68 percent increase.
Seems to me that Republican conservatism is quite alive and quite well.
December 19, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conservatism never had any real ideas or intellectualism.
They had camouflage. They had diversions. They had bait and switch. They had outright lying. They had sleight of hand. They had stonewalling and open theft in broad daylight. They had the all the big media, repetition, obstruction, obfuscation, big money, big megaphones, and drowning US out.
They had lawyers. They had the big playas. They had overwhelming waves of derision and scapegoating. They had AM radio all to themselves.
But they never had any ideas or solutions or intellectual underpinnings.
To see them scraping for some golden scraps of sage advice or wisdom amongst the world-wide ash heap they have made....like some forlorn 911 family member looking for signs of life or comfort amongst the twin towers rubble heap... is kind of pitiful. If they weren't so totally wrong and so horrifically responsible, and hadn't profited so handsomely off the wreck they made of our country and humanity....I would feel sorry for them.
Oh, yeah, and they vilified and criminalized and antogonized all the correct-thinking people while they were at it. Nice.
December 19, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're my man, Dick Tater. You go, dude!
December 21, 2008 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 19, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
For thinking people the answer why the GOP failed again remains the same for the last 60 years. They simply believe the ends justifies the means. This results in one truth...Republicans cannot handle power within the limitations of and American democracy and within consititutional rules. Lastly, they create policy that shows a complete disregard for anyone other than the very very rich. All policy is intended to increase the gap between the rich and the poor. They have demonstrated this philosopy for the last 100+ years. If the GOP were in power for the entire last century there would be no minimum wage, no social security, no medicare, no medicaid and no middle class. Only the very wealthy and the poor.
December 19, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got a short essay on "conservatism" where I argue that it is concerned with process not goals.
Typical concerns are:
"smaller government" - smaller than what?
"Lower taxes" - lower than what?
"Less regulation" - less than what?
On the other hand the liberal ideology is easy to state in the form of a goal: to achieve equality of opportunity and to assure a minimal standard of living for all.
Here's a link to the whole thing if you are interested:
http://robertdfeinman.com/society/conservative_process.html
December 19, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've answered your own question, my friend.
Conservatives are for government smaller than liberals define it.
Conservatives are for taxes lower than liberals set it.
Conservatives are for regulation lesser than liberals define it.
Conservatives are for what non-Christians are against.
Conservatives are for what non-whites are against.
Conservatives are for what non-heterosexuals are against.
Conservatives are for what non-Americans are against.
They don't have to define what they really believe. They just have to wait for liberals to say something and they're against it. And if the answer isn't clear enough, the rhetorical geniuses of the conservatives movement will be happy to fill in the blanks.
December 19, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conservatives have failed miserably to pass along their self-defining sense of pride and achievement that comes from inheriting all their wealth to the new generation.
December 19, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is time to shrink the Republican Party small enough to drown it in a bathtub.
December 19, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well done. Now give us another 12. Heck, you could write a book.
December 19, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
El Presidente: You may disagree but you are completely WRONG.
The banking industry lobbied the Bush administration rregulators to prevent the rules that would have stopped this "banking" crisis. Phil Gramm wrote the original bill to deregulate and slipped another bill into the budget bill that helped hide the banking transactions and allow banks to bundle loans and sell them.
Conservatives have argued that deregulation and the free market will bring prosperity and elevate the middle class. In fact, the opposite has happenned. The rich, the bankers, the corporate heads have manipulated the system and taken the cream off the top leaving scum for the rest of us. Trusting the corporations to do what is best and trusting in a free market that doesn't really exist is not just stupid - it is self-destructive. We knew this 100 years ago - Teddy Roosevelt set out to bust the trusts that captured and perverted the free market. This is not something new, but the republicans tried to repackage a failed philosophy and make it sound like all we needed was less regulation and more free market. Those "idealists" were wrong - as Greenspan's quote clearly points out.
"The genius of the successful modern liberals (Clinton, Obama) is the realization that Wall Street and the plutocrats would prefer a heavily regulated marketplace that protects them (at the expense of the little guy) to an unregulated marketplace."
In the context of the facts, your quote here is the stupidest thing I have ever read. Liberals prefer a regulated marketplace to PREVENT the abuses that have caused the worst economic depression since the great depression. It was pricely the LACK of regulation that led to this. Do you think people are STUPID enough to believe the crap you are spinning?
December 19, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
They still don't get it.
And that is a Good Thing.
December 19, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hehe, well, it is kinda funny watching these fools try so ineptly do diagnose their own ills, but none of these people is even close to getting it. Douthat in particular, just no idea what he's talking about.
Well, check it out dude, you don't. Instead, you realize that there is not going to be an American population, anytime in your lifetime, which finds it acceptable for these benefits to erode any further than they already have. People want Medicare and Social Security, and the simple-minded conservative argument of "no we can't" is just unacceptable. There is no letting these benefits die - there is only figuring out how to make them work properly, that's what people want. Right now, there is only 1 party close to playing that game properly, and that's the Democrats. Although they don't deserve that much credit either, because most of them are so easily convinced of the correctness of the Conservatives who oppose them and of the wrongness of their own deeply help beliefs that they can frequently be found repeating already debunked Republican talking points that even the 'Pugs have stopped using! But that's another story. Conservatism never had this 'driving intellectual force' behind it, it was never anything other than it is now - it just hadn't had a chance to fail so massively yet. Now its had its chance, and it has failed. They should start a new party or couple of parties. Personally, I think both parties should split into 2.December 19, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was a time when conservatism represented a more or less coherent set of political beliefs--but most people won't remember it. The "politics of resentment" that we have now is clearly something other than the conservatism of William Buckley, or even of Barry Goldwater. What we now is a code without a core. The Neo-cons could only maintain a semblance of coherence while they held power, and that because power supposed the possibility of indefinitely postponing a reckoning with reality. It don't work that way.
For anyone curious about the distant past:
http://www.ignotus.com/blog/?p=3
December 19, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you transform an increasingly white party with a history of benefiting from racially-charged issues into a party that can win majorities in an increasingly multiracial America?
Easy, By limmiting immigration so that the country stops becomes increasingly multiracial.
Duh.
December 19, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This sure is insightful, but I seem to recall a similar stomping of the conservative movement in 1974 due to the corrupt Nixon administration, and 6 short years later we had 12 years of Reagan and Bush, followed by 12 years of Republican congressional majority.
If we congratulate ourselves too much, this can all change in a very brief period of time.
December 19, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa! Kristol actually said something intelligent? Bush is actually making clear and logical case for why the auto-industry needs help? WTF is going on?
Methingks RobbyLove (above) has a point. Those who talk about a new age of Democratic leadership for a generation or more are counting their chickens before the eggs have even been laid, let alone hatched. There are many Republicans who actually woke up to reality after this election. Not in the way we would like, mind you - they still belive in the same failed policies. But, they now know, without a doubt, that they must retool and rebrand their party. The "soul searching" has begun. Every end is a new beginning, and this is where the Republicans will begin to regroup, new leaders will emerge and plot the comeback strategy. If Democrats, liberals, progressives are too drunk on their recent successes, then a painfully sobering smackdown will be on it's way sooner than we think.
December 19, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the core of the conservative movement is a small group of very rich people who think essentially along these lines: "I am rich and powerful because I am a superior being. I have seen how democracy can threaten my status through actions of government. I enjoy my perquisites and do not intend to lose them. I will even allot a portion of my wealth to preventing such erosion. If any of you out there can aid my cause, get in touch. You will be richly rewarded."
December 20, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman
"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
OMG Ayn Rand must be spinning! :)
December 20, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever you see the words "presuming" and "self-interests" in the same sentence, you can assume that the person has no idea of what they're talking about.
December 22, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink