Conservatism: A Follow-up
By Chris | Tuesday, May 27th, 2008 | Catch-AllA friend points me to this blog post by George Packer following up on his recent article in the New Yorker entitled ”The Fall of Conservatism.” On one hand, I agree that pointing to similar problems among liberals does nothing to address the issues raised. However, Packer’s new comments seem equally off-focus because he appears to put greater stock in the views of bitter and disgruntled conservatives like Andrew Sullivan than in those actively working to revive the cause. In any case, the comments do spur me to belatedly address a related issue.
Norm smartly pointed out that we should be careful to remember that “conservative” and “Republican” are not entirely interchangable. While this is true, and I agree that this fallacy is the central weakness in Packer’s piece, it seems to me that both the conservative movement and the Republican Party are suffering from some of the same ailments. Further, it is my belief that both must be strong in order for either to be successful.
Certainly both can exist apart from the other, but like a car without an engine, neither will do much good on their own. Basically, conservatism and the GOP both lack leadership and direction. Fighting terrorism seems to be uniting them at this moment, but the alliance seems far more tenuous than in years past. The reasons for this are not entirely clear, but I suspect that some of it has to do with both groups having looked to George W. Bush for said leadership and direction and both having been disappointed by the results.
While I don’t intend to pile on the President, it is clear that if conservatives and Republicans are going to break free of this malaise, it must be done with both internal and external changes in both camps. In addition to fresh faces and fresh ideas, change must be accompanied by a fresh understanding of the overlapping and competing interests that define this relationship. In short, a healthy balance of independence and cooperation between the political and philosophical circles is an essential component that seems to have been ignored. Restoring it is key to restoring success.
The question remains, however, as to whether this restoration can be achieved absent a trip into the electoral wilderness?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Chris Obenshain has been involved in Republican politics literally since the womb, when he attended Virginia's famous 1978 Convention in utero. 30 years later he still can't get politics out of his bloodstream. He currently works as a lawyer in southwest Virginia and serves as Chairman of the Roanoke Area Young Republicans chapter. As Old Zach, he helped found the blog Sic Semper Tyrannis in 2004 and has been blogging off and on ever since. He has also proudly served in the United States Army Reserve since 2002.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
3 Responses to "Conservatism: A Follow-up"
Packer’s description and history is a wee bit off. Nixon and Bush have never represented the true conservative wing of the party. To boot, the conservative movement didn’t start in 1966 but far earlier.
Worse, Packer doesn’t understand conservatism. If he did, he would realize that the message of liberty and freedom are tireless.
Alex Castellanos has a fascinating column posted to National Review Online adressing this issue (the GOP/conservative “identity crisis,” as he terms it). In it he rebuts Packer and others, like David Brooks, whose critiques of the movement are well off the mark. Rather than follow their logic to its conclusion (where “Republicans remain faux Democrats, selling lower-calorie versions of liberal failure”) he envisions a re-energized conservatism following on the lessons taught by the successes of high technology in empowering individuals to govern their own lives. Bottom-up, decentralized and self-governed (rather than top-down, standardized and under state control), the internet is the perfect example of the conservative principle that government works best when it is closest to those who it governs. Castellanos believes that, like the Tory party in Britain, American conservatives can recast their purpose and message to feature not the “tired” refrain that big government is bad, but that government is better when it is the natural and direct extension of free choices made by the people…”organic” conservatism, as it were.
For those interested, here’s the link:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=Njg0ZjliNmIyNzdlODBkNDQ3MjFmNGQ1ODExNDBlMzU=
The conservative movement has never been stronger.
The apparent disconnect is within the ranks of Republican Party Establishment.
Our movement is as potent and appealing as ever, it is simply that the Republican Party is attempting to remove from themselves the “curse” of Ronald Reagan, whom they have hated since the day he challenged their guy in 1976.
But the fact is, they cannot win without us, as is evidenced by their electiojn failures of recents days whenthey have begun to treat us as the Dems have treated minority groups in their base for many years.
But we refuse to be used with no return on the investment and I warn the Republican Party, of which I am a member by the way, that this November will make them wish for the election results of ’06 and ’07 again.
They have frittered away one of the best opportunities to advance the cause in generations, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
I hope they will wake up this time…
Leave your response