Crisis in American Conservatism
By
Richard W.
Crockett
ÒKarl sent us a check. IÕm happy to receive advice from Karl
Rove.Ó --John
McCain.
There is a crisis in American
conservatism. It is badly divided
and highly overrated as a method of solving problems. It tends to deny the
existence of problems, and it does this in defense of the status quo, or it
used to. In its
beginning, conservatism was an outlook toward the world, which embraced the
status quo and tradition and accepted change only if that change could be
justified by historical experience. Peter Vierick described this in his book, Conservatism. If we had seen a thing done before, we
might be willing to try it. Prudence and caution were its hallmarks. Liberalism, on the other hand, was a
perspective toward the world that embraced change as the march of progress and
that change could be based upon manÕs capacity for reason, upon a priori
ideas. Liberalism accepted that
man when faced with a problem could figure out what he should do next on any
given occasion, and do so even apart from any reference to historical
experience. During the New Deal of FDR pragmatism was its philosophy and new
ideas were assessed in terms of their consequences when applied. Liberalism in the nineteen thirties was
a kind of reconciliation between moral principal and practical experience. Over time, conservatism became
associated with specific doctrinal issues toward government, rather than the
proper means for addressing historical change or for protecting tradition and
tested institutions. Generally it
revealed a fundamental dislike of government institutions, and it was
successful at persuading the American electorate of this view. Ronald Reagan proclaimed that
government could not be Òpart of the solutionÓ because it was Òpart of the
problem.Ó This was a fundamental
mistake. Government was not the
problem. Large-scale organization
(bureaucracy) in any form, public and private was a problem. Private
bureaucracy was especially responsible for our ills, because it was manifestly
unaccountable, and its growth was allowed, even encouraged by conservative
friends of business in government.
In a series of elections since 1980, we have entrusted the government to
these conservatives, never considering that to do so was like entrusting the
chickens to the care of the fox. Because we not only entrusted government to
them, but we allowed them to steal AmericaÕs future, and they want to do it by
ignoring an important article of their own faith, that of historical experience.
John McCain is having a hard time
selling himself to conservatives as one of them, but that is not the
crisis. The crisis in American
conservatism is that no one in that movement appears conservative. What passes
for conservative is something that used to be called the Radical Right. What
passes for conservatism is the galvanizing of the moral vision of evangelical
America to the secular stinginess and ruthlessness of corporate America. It rejects a society governed by rules
and subscribes to allowing nature to take its course in economic matters. This
hands power to an unaccountable elite.
None of the new conservatives seem
to want to learn from experience.
McCain certainly does not and wants to continue with the policies of
George W. Bush in the war in Iraq. He is ready to stay there for 100 more years
if he has to, so he tells us. He
seems to have learned nothing from our experience in this misguided war, nor
has he learned that wars of aggression are neither prudent nor conservative. The war in Iraq is radical action
promoted by the Òneo-conservativesÓ or Òneo-consÓ as the Radical Right is now
called. Paul Craig Roberts, former editor of the Wall Street Journal and
conservative writer whoÕs column appears in this paper, has called the
Òneo-consÓ, Jacobins. If you check the history of the French Revolution,
you will find that these were not the good guys. Further, McCain acknowledges
that he is not comfortable with his knowledge of the economy, and then he
reinforces this claim to ignorance by criticizing the idea of an economic
stimulus and urges that we cut spending and deal with the deficit to address
the recession. Herbert Hoover
tried that following the crash of the stock market in 1929. It failed and kept the Republicans out
of power until 1952. Again,
the ÒconservativeÓ McCain is not learning from experience.
It is ironic that this is all
coming down in this fashion, since it appears that the election in November is
apt to be about change vs. experience.
If Barak Obama is the standard bearer for the Democrats, which seems a
strong likelihood, today, the election will certainly be about change versus a
defense of the policies of the Bush administration. Now many have observed that change by itself is not an
answer, because change can be for good or ill. True enough, but the reason that this idea has so much power
today is because it has a small amount of consensual content and a great amount
of hope. The consensus on the term
is in its profound rejection of the present state of affairs. The hope
component of the term is in the wish in the voterÕs mind that the New Jerusalem
will look the way that it appears in each of our mindÕs eyes. But I donÕt believe we need to go that
far to find the content of ObamaÕs change. It appears to be nothing less than to restore our government
to respectability and to place it in the service of the American people.
2/21/08