Is Obamaism the New Conservatism?
George Packer wrote a fascinating article for The New Yorker the other day that picks up on some thoughts on ideology I've been having lately. Now my thoughts on American political ideology are such that I believe modern moderates like Obama and many other Democrats stand for a type of conservatism that is natural to our politics but not acknowledged because of the radicalism that has taken over the movement conservative. Movement conservative, from my perspective, seek to radically change the country through policy driven toward some mythical earlier time when everything was to thier liking. This is radical right wing ideology and not traditional conservatism. On the other hand, Democrats and so called liberals for the most part seek to protect and preserve our uniquely American laws, institutions and programs. Twentieth Century programs like the New Deal and laws like the Civil and Voting rights Acts are defended by the Democrats as part of the American tradition. Individual rights like a woman's right to choose, marriage equality and freedom of speech are championed again by the Democrats. Tried and true institutions like the Department of Education and the United Nations are deemed essential and must be protected. These aren't liberal positions, rather they are conservative principle seeking to protect what already exists. Of course there is some progressivism in the Democratic party and Obama is progressive in some ways yet he is still so elusive when it comes to describing his modus operandi. Maybe Packer has a point.
Advertisement
I think there's definitely something of a "preservationist" trend in the modern Democratic party. Look at it this way -- the only really decisive defeat we handed Bush was when we stopped him from gutting Social Security.
April 11, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understood Packer differently.
He says that despite all signs pointing to Obama's government being very "activist", he acts as a centrist and ignores those liberals who pontificate that free-market society has been discredited. The discord is in the contrast between being "activist" and the fact that Obama is merely patching the existing order and not replacing it with anything else or new. And this is why Packer thinks that Obama could pass for a conservative - he's propping up the system.
Unfortunately, Packer is only using what could be an interesting discussion for the single purpose of trashing Republicans (whom he calls conservative). In the process, he is mixing things up and reveals his complete cluelesness about conservatism as a wide range of political positions.
And I'm afraid that your understanding of conservatism is at a similar level as Packer's - because you repeat his claim that conservatives want to turn back time and move back to some place in history when everything was just to their liking - all in the name of some kind of principle and completely ignoring today's reality.
I'm sorry but this is bullshit. Deliberately misleading and ignorant bullshit.
April 11, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Harsh words but on what basis are they warranted? I was merely pointing out that our terms are outdated in our political lexicon and the GOP's politics are defunct in our time. Given, Packer is a neo-liberal and has his own agenda one could try to discredit my evidence but I think the debate is about the issues not the debaters.
April 11, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, I meant no personal offense.
April 11, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree that Packer is saying that conservatives "just want to turn the clock back." He says:
I think Packer is correct about the rejection of 'reality testing' but that the revolution he refers to was not the installation of a new polity. It was/is more a call to stop doing things deemed ineffectual. It is not a preserving of a system so much as submitting to the limits of what one can do.
Alain Badiou expresses the thought this way:
April 11, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scroll down for discussion on definitions. What Packer is talking about is GOP.
April 11, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm.No reply.
Well I know what to ask the next time this comes up.
April 13, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had read the whole thread before replying to your comment and my intent was to address the matter of definitions. While Packer obviously wants to stick it to the GOP, his definition of "conservative" (that is quoted in my comment) stands by itself as a counterpoint to your statement:
Packer would seem to agree with you on the point that a "set of ideas" was the motivation for "conservative" politics. That he sees the modern offspring abandoning those ideas is the question at hand.
If Packer is fallaciously equating a set of ideas for the agenda of a faction, who are better (or at least different) representatives of authentic conservative thinking that are active today?
April 12, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Despite Lalo's inability to understand this nuanced and subtle argument, I totally agree with the blogger's underlying premise.
Democrats like Obama and Tim Kaine should be able to win a republican primary by combining truly conservative methodologies with policy meant to create more perfect America. This is an interesting point of view and hardly "trashing" republicans or conservatives. It is saying the modern GOP has strayed far from its roots and that is a legitimate argument. It is saying that modern democrats look more like old school republicans than old school democrats of the same era.
Given the history of both parties, I would say that is a legitimate comparison.
Democrats like Obama may have progressive ideals, but their methodology is very deliberate, very conservative. Evolution versus revolution and pisses the Raging Left off to no end. It's not about the "Centrist" fiction or propping up the old order. It's about defining a set of governing principles, setting a path to attain a paradigm that will make those ideals possible and then trying to get as many people behind the effort as possible.
Conservatism was born out Lincoln's pragmatic progressivism and Teddy Roosevelt's stalwart championing of the little guy and our national identity and treasures. That it has gone out of bounds since the last true conservative republican president left office in 1961 is obvious, but that doesn't make this blog somehow misleading or ignorant.
Sorry to see the same unhinged fanatics from the primaries unable to discuss politics civilly today or offer opposing views without being rude and confrontational. Get over yourself already.
April 11, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
All your lofty nuance and sophisticated subtlety falls apart you say something like this:
"Democrats like Obama may have progressive ideals, but their methodology is very deliberate, very conservative"
The fact is that you are unable or unwilling to compare apples to apples. Neither does Packer. And neither does the post.
April 11, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are talking about the entire fruit stand and you want to compare apples to apples? Seems to be part of a continuing need to overly simplify complex societal issues and a shifting political landscape.
April 11, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you could enlighten me further and provide examples of "conservative" methods that Obama is using.
I'm sure the takeover of GM, the bailout of Wall Street, continuation of Bush's state secrets are not going to feature high on your list.
So I'm anxiously awaiting your theory about "Democratic ideals" and "Conservative methods" representing something comparable (as ideas and methods usually are).
April 11, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your world can't be this simple. You are confusing modern "conservatism" with a more traditional sense of the word, which is clearly what I am referring to when I speak of process-oriented thinking. A radical plan would have been to let those institutions fall into bankruptcy to teach them (and us presumably) a valuable lesson. Of course, Obama didn't do that.
Unlike yourself, I didn't expect the new administration to solve every single problem in the first sixty days. I suspect it will take at least a couple years to figure out a way to stabilize the country as well as unravel all the various precedents and laws that have been put into place.
Again, a radical would simply throw out everything and start from scratch. A conservative methodology figures out the most strategic way to make changes.
April 11, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but if you believe conservatism to be a process, then we will never get on the same page.
As for your point about letting them fail, wasn't this the predominant way of dealing with the past crises, excepting just one or two? We can have a debate of past economic policies during crisis, if you like.
I understand conservatism as a set of ideas, that are distinct from political parties and I don't think that Lincoln was a "progressive" in the way that term is understood now. He was the embodiment of conservatism.
April 11, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because freeing the slaves was such a status quo mindset at the time. Sometimes I think you object just to object.
April 12, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have accurately and impressively complimented my original post. It is a wonder to me that this is not common conversation among Democrats and individuals associated with the party. It seems though that most are content with avoiding complicated matters.
April 11, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although I like your post, I have to disagree with some of your definitions. Much to my surprise, I have to disagree with George Packer, too. I think Packer is overthinking the differences between the two parties. I also think it is much too soon to define Obama.
I won't enumerate my disagreements except for one pivotal one: The New Deal, Civil Rights, and Voting Rights legislation were all radical reforms, not preservationist.
April 11, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the point is, that defending them NOW, is preservationist.
I agree with the premise that these modern-day Republican "conservatives" are radical. I can't think of a more radical regime then the one choking the US for the last 8 years, and that includes FDRs.'
They were/are radicals.
April 11, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's hope that Mr. Clemens was only referring to the GOOD ideas.
April 11, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the reason for this confusion is the assumption that conservatism wants to presreve a REGIME. If you understand it in that sense, then yes every president since the Great Society was a preservationist.
April 11, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a regime, lalo. A way of life that does not, nor will ever likely, exist again.
April 11, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which boils down to the same thing, preserving the status quo.
That's not conservatism as I understand it and as many conservatives think.
April 11, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love the quote.
April 11, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did get the point that defending those institutions now is preservationist but I think that's problematic, that's all. By emphasizing "now," we are saying the definitions are fluid in time.
If you think of conservatism as wanting limited government interference, then Obama is radical. If you think of conservatism as radical, then Obama is conservative—see what I mean?
I guess you have to agree with George Packer's definitions to agree with his assessment. I don't entirely agree with Packer's definitions in the first place, so I can't agree with his assessments.
Therefore I think it's too soon to judge. So far Obama is using government in radical ways, not in conservative ways.
One thing we might all agree on is that neocons are radical.
In any case, I still don't understand why liberals are obsessing over defining Republican clowns like Michele Bachmann and Glenn Beck instead of focusing on the changes they want to make while they have the power. It's called taking our eye off the ball.
April 11, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think time makes a difference to definitions. What was new in 1935 isn't new anymore. Does that make the word "new" have a fluid definition? Or is it acknowledging the definition?
As for taking our eye off the ball, I agree the left/right war is a grand distraction. Bread and circuses.
April 11, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes those reforms were radical and progressive in their times, 44 and 75 years ago but have since become pillars of the American Standard. It is no longer progressive or radical to believe in civil rights or social safety nets for retired or disabled workers. These things are simply givens for the average American and it is a preservationist tendency that defends them.
April 11, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
A reform can be radical and insipired by conservative ideas at the same time. Think about emancipation, for instance.
April 11, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know there is no practical way to do it, but I'd like to see the 2 party system go away, have an open election and the 2 biggest "vote getters" have a run off. How's that for radical?
I am sick of the labels. It seems to be such a waste of time to categorize everyone, then prejudge them based on their label. For starters, as is pointed out above, we can't even agree on the definitions, and really the definitions change. For the life of me, I cannot accurately label myself, and I know me pretty well...How can I possibly be accurate in labeling anyone else?
April 11, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, except for whackos, they are pretty easy to label regardless of party affiliation...But, even then, I guess "whacko" is even in the eye of the beholder!
April 11, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alas, it is human seek associations and our great linguistic tradition bears out this propensity with labels. I concur with your point on the 2 party system.
April 11, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a great point and maybe someone will write a post about it.
I thought for a very long time about this and I'm learning that it's not necessarily going to make anything better.
Two-party system creates a binary opposition but it also provides for a more cohesive government. That's why modern day Republicans and Democrats are both parties of big government and their politics are focused on pandering to their largest voting blocks.
But on the other hand, a multi-party system can split the vote, allow minority to rule over majority and have very disruptive waves of policy-making over long term.
There's no winners in either system. It's the weakness of our Constitution that it doesn't really account for factions, because the Founders didn't think factionalism was a good thing.
April 11, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let the experiment continue.
April 11, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The two party system is more the exception than the rule.Off hand it appears that the most common system among parliamentary democracies is
2&1/2 + : two large parties that mostly alternate in power;a third pretty sizeable one that "keeps them honest" by eschewing the majors' flight to the lowest common denominator-and often joins one of the other two to provide the needed majority;and then a smattering of smaller ones , the +
In comparison,qur long, mass- media- dominated electoral process enhances the role of the "heroic" standard bearer automatically diminishing the standing of any minor party.
So it's possible that conservatism-"playing it safe"- is as much a by- product of our electoral mechanics, as of some deeper social trend..
April 12, 2009 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The real confusion comes in conflating conservative or liberal ideologies with politics and party ID. I agree that we really need the labels for political dialogue.
What the parties seem to represent to voters is tied more to platforms with loose planks somewhat codified over time and associated with whose interests are represented and how (i.e. poor, workers, business, minority, religious, etc.). I think both parties manipulate populist morés and values in making emotional appeals to voters.
That's not to say that some good things for the people generally don't come out of the system on occasion. But having the system locked up for such a long period of time seems to have led both parties to have the primary objective of maintaining their power (with a little help from their friends).
In DC, I think "conservative" Republicans are like pornography- I know them...to be whores. But, of course, that makes "liberal" Democrats the whores with hearts of gold.
Too harsh?
April 11, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
There won't be but there should be strict rules in these debates for distinguishing between party policies and the ideologies of particular factions which make their homes in the party.
A faction may capture a party. The Eisenhower-Nixon-Rockefeller faction (which made its peace with the New Deal) ousted the Taft faction and then, was ousted by the Goldwater-Reagan-Gingrich faction.
But it isn't until a party acquires dominant political power -- for example, Congress (1994) combining with the President (2000) -- that the faction's ideology has all that much effect. Until that set of circumstances occurs, the faction which controls the party will be frustrated by good old American-style gridlock.
That's not conservatism; that's molasses in January.
April 11, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The simple answer to your headline question is: No. Obamaism is a shined up version of the same old conservatism.
April 11, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely not. The author confuses the moderate, mainstream, reasonable nature of the current Democratic party with "conservativism"-- a misuse of that word to say the least (I don't think it was even mainstream or moderate, for one!).
Obama's activist, "transformative" agenda is pure anathema to conservatives of any era. He's clearly less bold than FDR was, but that's a high bar. He's as liberal as JFK. If Obama's not liberal enough, it really makes me wonder what standard you are using.
Conservativism has become a total freakshow. Which makes the Dems look reasonable. Also, being weak and out of power for much of three decades has created a very pragmatic party. Even the left wing of the party is very practical and restrained, picking their battles wisely.
If anyone needs reassurance, go check out the pure venom the rightwing is spewing over Obama. Moderates and Dems like him, but the few deadenders in the GOP are going ballistic. (Sometimes literaly).
April 11, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying that Obama is a movement conservative or a closet Republican. I'm arguing that in any true analysis, his tendencies represent a type of conservatism that works well in our times.
April 11, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink