Following up the last post — Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog has a good commentary on the same Krugman post. As Steve says, blaming the rise of the Right on racism alone misses a whole lot of other elements of the story.
However, I do think the Right’s phobia of taxes (apparently we’re supposed to pay for government by holding a lot of bake sales) can be traced very directly to a racist backlash against Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs, and taxes are a particular concern for Professor Krugman.
Anyway, with all that in mind, I want to point to an article by a conservative on what’s wrong with conservatism. Unlike most of the conservative articles I point to, this one actually has some decent insight into what went wrong and what conservatives have to do to be politically viable going forward.
Having decided Barack Obama won the election because of his campaign’s smart use of technology — which certainly was a plus — Republicans are putting forward a program to do the same thing on the Right.
They’re [Republican online strategists] proposing an ambitious goal of recruiting 5 million new online activists and insisting on a new openness that better integrates distributed grassroots efforts. …
… I wonder whether there isn’t a broader technofetishism at work here. It’s not that they shouldn’t be thinking about how to do online organizing as well as the Obama team did, but at times the impulse to focus on modernizing tactics and strategy makes me think of the Microsoft execs convinced that the right ad campaign will finally convince people they love Vista.
Conservatism has much bigger problems right now than a paucity of Twitter skills.
In other words, sounding the same old dog whistles with new technology is not going to bring back the Reagan Revolution.
Front and center is that the end of the Cold War and a governing party that made “small government” a punchline has left it very much unclear what, precisely, “conservatism” means. The movement was always a somewhat uneasy coalition of market enthusiasts and social traditionalists, defined at least as much by what (and who) they opposed as by any core common principles. The Palin strategy—recapturing that oppositional unity by rebranding the GOP as the party of cultural ressentiment—is just a recipe for a death spiral. Conservatives don’t need to figure out how to promote conservatism on Facebook; they need to figure out what it is they’re promoting. To the extent that a new media strategy is part of opening up that conversation, great, but it had better not become a substitute for engaging in some of that painful introspection.
The GOP hasn’t “rebranded” themselves as the party of cultural ressentiment, of course. That’s what it has been for a very long time. It’s just that the elements of the Right most enamored of the ressentiment stuff is about the only part making any noise right now.
Julian Sanchez continues with his argument that technology alone will not save the GOP, pointing out that many on the Left most associated with progressive ascendancy (e.g., Eli Pariser, Markos Moulistas) are not techies themselves. Technology is only useful when it is in the hands of people who are politically savvy about using it.
This paragraph I find fascinating:
Finally, and perhaps a bit more contentiously, “openness” is a double-edged sword. There is, frankly, a lot of crazy out there—and a vocal chunk of the rightroots apparently under the illusion that McCain’s big lost opportunity was the failure to make sufficient hay of Bill Ayers and amateur forensic analyses of Barack Obama’s birth certificate. This, again, is a recipe for death spiral. What gets lost in the “bottom-up versus top-down” frame is that the left has managed a more useful symbiosis between their grassroots and their intellectuals. What seems to be playing out on the right of late, by contrast, is a frenzy of mutual demonization. Pace some of my progressive friends, I don’t think the recent flurry of activity in the fever swamps reveals any deep, eternal truths about conservatism per se; it’s just what’s filled the gap created by the paucity of useful leadership from conservative intellectuals. What’s needed right now is less tactical refinement, and more conversation about the agenda tactics are supposed to serve.
Put another way, if there was a right-wing Daily Kos, set up with exactly the same platform, how would it not turn into an upgraded Free Republic?
“What gets lost in the “bottom-up versus top-down” frame is that the left has managed a more useful symbiosis between their grassroots and their intellectuals.” This sentence requires some examination. Who are the grassroots? Who are the intellectuals? On the Left, that line is blurry. What technology enabled is that the grassroots/intellectual part of the Left finally found a way to communicate with each other, and then with the political leaders of the Democratic Party.
Ten years ago, we were nearly entirely shut out of the nation’s political discourse. The only voices one heard in mass media were Right, Far Right, Foaming at the Mouth Right, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and sometimes Al Gore. Al probably was one of us at heart, but in 2000 he didn’t run as himself but as Generic Political Candidate As Determined By Focus Groups because no one knew we were here.
It was, finally, through pioneering websites like Bartcop, Buzzflash, and the late great Media Whores Online (moment of silence to show respect) that we liberal grassroots/intellectual types began to find each other and communicate with each other. And from there, we began to challenge the Democratic Party status quo as well as the Right. So far, the result are mixed, but I do believe we are having an impact.
Yes, the Left has its share of crazies, but for the most part the Left Blogosphere has pushed a progressive agenda within the tradition of the New Deal. In other words, we are about where the mainstream of American thought used to be. Elements of the far Left — Marxists, anarchists, International A.N.S.W.E.R. — show up at protests but have been invisible on the Left Blogosphere. The exception are Truthers, but many of us have banned Truthers from our sites because we don’t want them sucking all the air out of the progressive movement.
The point is, though, that the grassroots/intellectual Left used technology to organize, form messages, and get the attention of Dem Party leaders. Few in the Dem Party were making an effort to cultivate us, except to take our money. We had to organize ourselves and crash the gates.
Now, let’s look at the Right. Is there a mass of moderate conservatives out there in grassland country using technology to talk to each other, organize, and challenge the status quo of the Republican Party? If there is, I haven’t seen it. Much of the push from the Right to make better use of technology is coming from Republican online strategists, not from the grassroots masses. Does the Right even have a “grassroots” that is appreciably different from the people who frequent Free Republic, Little Green Footballs and Power Tools?
Who are the Right’s intellectuals? I mean, the real intellectuals, not the ones like Hannity or Coulter who keep rewriting the book How Liberals Are Godless and Hate America and Want to Eat Your Children. David Brooks? Bill Kristol? Please.
I think Julian Sanchez is absolutely right when he says that conservatives need to stop thinking about tactics and message and instead think honestly about what it is they represent. I suggest they start with some honest thinking about what government is and what it is for. And maybe also what the word “conservatism” means. Maybe out there somewhere there are people who are thinking about how to apply conservative principles to effective governance on a more practical level than “drown it in a bathtub.” If so, that’s where the next conservative wave is likely to originate.
Sanchez ends his essay:
The dangerous temptation right now, especially for a party in the minority, is to seek to recapitulate the Cold War coalition model through oppositional self-definition, when something more robust is called for.
Right now most of the Right is falling back to the attack dog positions they held during the Clinton Administration. That seems to be all they know how to do. Something more robust is called for, indeed. I’m not holding my breath.
(apparently we’re supposed to pay for government by holding a lot of bake sales)
With one exception: if it’s for something that will kill our enemies– real or imagined– by golly, tax away. Well, tax the working classes, anyway.
Well, what about think tanks like the Heritage Foundation? Isn’t this historically what that was for? Position papers and the like? I don’t know this history well enough than to do much more than (politely) point, but was there ever a moment (after vowing to boil all heretics in oil) when this had the potential to produce more than snarky illideological talking heads?
The GOP became a fraternity of wedge issues that none of the power brokers care much about. Abortion, Gun Control, Manipulation of race issues, School Prayer, were the schills that called the rural voters attention away from the true goals of the GOP.
The search is on for a new set of divisive topics, and Mr Sanchez points out they need to look beyond wedge issues. The problem is what they will find if they strip away the hot-button crap and examine core values precious to those folks who have bankrolled the GOP, you will find:
antagonism for a strong federal branch, because a strong governent is the only authority with the power to leash the multinationals.
Antagonism twoards unions.
Antagonism twoards higher taxes and any policies which advocate ‘redistribution of wealth’. The big players in petrol, Rx, insurance & banking know that the shoe can go on the other foot; instead of the big guy getting fat off the little guy, the little guy could put the leash on them – and that scares the piss out of them.
The mantra that a growing economy will cure all ills and provides equal opportunity for all. The problem is that ‘growth’ translates into higher consuption. We add a billion people to the planet every 15 years; at some point we will drown in our own waste. (The Democrats are also remis in addressing this in any comprehensive way but they are not married to a doctrine of consumerism.)
Any Republican trolls out there want to tell us what the Republicans stand for – outside of wedge issues?
The “attack dog” position has been very effective – so please be careful about mocking it.
After almost 8 years of virtual control of the Federal government, the last 2 after dems promised “accountibility” and immediately took it “off the table”, the neocon/repugs/conservatives have shown us what they got.
Given that they control the maintstream media and clearly exploit that for their gain, I would not assume we have seen the last or the worst.
IMHO, it will be much more constructive to talk about where BOTH sides have failed us and continue to push the folk’s that promised us “change” to deliver on what they ran on.
Writing obituaries for criminal cabal behind dur chimpfurher – they have succeeded in looting far more money from the federal treasury than has ever been stolen in world history.
There are absolutely no signs that they will be held accountable, spokespersons for Obama are even proclaiming we need to “move forward” (just like clinton did not hold the Iran/contra folks accountable).
Given that the neocons/repugs got away with a scale of ciminality that the world has never seen, how can anyone proclaim they need to “regroup” or do anything different. After all, they are laughing all the way to the bank.
“Anyway, with all that in mind, I want to point to an article by a conservative on what’s wrong with conservatism. ”
Julian Sanchez isn’t a conservative; he’s a libertarian.
“I think Julian Sanchez is absolutely right when he says that conservatives need to stop thinking about tactics and message and instead think honestly about what it is they represent. ”
But the mass seem to want to insist that The Only Thing Wrong is not adhering to the One True Reagan orthodoxy (which never actually existed, but they’re not big on letting facts get in the way of theory).
This sort of nutbar response is typical of the Palin wing of Republicans, which seems to be much of the “grassroots” of “conservatism.”
“Who are the Right’s intellectuals?”
I’m unclear if they have anyone alive and American who reasonably counts. If you count dead people, I imagine the brighter ones would point to folks like Hayek, Leo Strauss, Russell Kirk, Milton Friedman, and I suppose W. F. Buckley, among others. Mind, I’m a liberal, so I ain’t speaking for conservatives. Lord help them if they point to today’s NRO crowd.
I guess some of them must think William Kristol counts. [giggle] Maybe even Pat Buchanan.
I had a couple of brief observations on Erich Erickson’s post here, btw.
I think the problem with the conservatism is revealed in your remark :
“…that conservatives need to stop thinking about tactics and message and instead think honestly about what it is they represent.”
What they truly represent cannot be revealed that is why there is so much subterfuge. What they represent is a group of very wealthy people, families and institutions that wish to remain obscenely wealthy. Democracy is a thorn in their side and they have been successful at trying to dismantle it little by little, but if they were to reveal to the American people what they truly represented, they would perish, so they try all these different strategies to garner votes, whether its the race card or the fundamentalists. I’m not saying that Republicans aren’t racists but I don’t believe they scorn multi culturalism because of their racism, they scorn it, to get the racist vote. They could give a rat’s ass about the Bible and religious morality. Their god is the almighty dollar.
What I’m saying is that Republicans’ interests are tribal, the survival of their tribe at any cost. Just listen to Rush and Anne. Yes, I know some Republicans are offended by their hate, but only because it makes them look bad, not because they don’t believe the vile coming out of these two wretched souls’ mouths. I think we give Republican, right wing conservatism way too much credit for even thinking they are part of the democratic process. I believe they would love nothing more than to have some sort of dictatorship. They’ve made it quite clear they think the masses are fickle, stupid, uneducated and ill informed. IOW, we threaten their way of life, challenge it within our system of government by demanding decent wages, affordable health care, and to retire comfortably. And they don’t want to have to contribute to our well being like every other citizen does in this country – HOWEVER they want the opportunity to make obscene amounts of money by hook or crook and as we have seen most have made their money dishonestly and they sure as hell want us to contribute to them in order to sustain their lifestyle.
Republicans need to be exposed not debated with.
Given that the neocons/repugs got away with a scale of ciminality that the world has never seen, how can anyone proclaim they need to “regroup†or do anything different. After all, they are laughing all the way to the bank.
You really do have the critical thinking skills of a gnat, you know. You don’t even understand what we’re discussing here.
Be a good boy and just read for a while. You might learn something.
Gary,
Julian Sanchez isn’t a conservative; he’s a libertarian.
He called himself a conservative in his article, so I take him at his word. I don’t believe I’ve heard of him prior to today.
But the mass seem to want to insist that The Only Thing Wrong is not adhering to the One True Reagan orthodoxy (which never actually existed, but they’re not big on letting facts get in the way of theory).
That’s kind of my unstated point. There is no conservative governing philosophy. Unless the Obama Administration massively screws up, I don’t think the GOP can break out of the box its climbed into until it re-invents itself as an entirely different party. That’s going to require going back to basics. What is republicanism? Why is there government? That sort of thing. And, frankly, I don’t think there’s more than half a dozen Republicans in the country who are capable of that.
Just so. The GOP is currently a set of factions each with its own pet peeve around which it organizes, but no coherent, unifying theory. It’s not entirely clear to me how they could turn their mix of resentments into a theory – particularly given the strong thread of know-nothing ‘anti-theory’ anti-intellectualism.
As a Democrat, I’m happy for them to be wandering around clueless and dreaming of Reagan for quite a while, and for them to spend years and dollars on foolish internet endevors, at least for the two or three decades it will take to repair the damage done by the Bush regime.
“He called himself a conservative in his article, ”
He did? I don’t see that sentence. Could you perhaps quote it, please, so I can slap myself for overlooking that? Thanks!
I’ve been reading Julian sporadically since around 2002-3, originally via Jim Henley, and he’s one of the best-know libertarians out there.
Honest.
Truly. He’s done terrific work on stuff like exposing John Lott’s fraud, and on our awful drug laws, and other topics liberals and sane libertarians find agreement upon.
Naturally, since he’s a libertarian, and I’m not, I disagree with him about a fair amount of stuff, but he’s pretty sane (anti-FISA abuses, and other Bush War On “Terror” abuses, etc). And really-truly one of the best-known libertarian writers on the web, as well as at Reason. Not at all a conservative.
“I’ve been reading Julian sporadically since around 2002-3”
Actually, probably not that long, but a few years, anyway.
Wait, I lied, I guess it has been around that long.
If you count dead people, I imagine the brighter ones would point to folks like Hayek, Leo Strauss, Russell Kirk,
Kirk would probably be rejected by movement conservatives because he would take global warming seriously:
“There is nothing more conservative than conservation” – Russell Kirk
SOURCE: The Baltimore Sun, May 4, 1970
I love your blog. You are surely one of the most intelligent writers in the blogosphere and I tune in every day. There is always thought provoking insight that the right wing bloggers, who are always so careful not to step outside the lines, could only wish for.
The commenters, for the most part, are quality, too.Most of the bloggers have full time jobs and somehow manage to read enough to link us up to more and more good stuff. Don’t know how you all manage it.
“However, I do think the Right’s phobia of taxes (apparently we’re supposed to pay for government by holding a lot of bake sales) can be traced very directly to a racist backlash. . .”
Yes, see AMERICAN TAXATION, AMERICAN SLAVERY for the beginning of this story.
Robin Einhorn explains how the slave-owning elite in this country hated democracy, and fought taxation.
Gary — “sane libertarian” is not an oxymoron?
Pat Ashford up thread nails it. Conservatives and Republicans can’t afford to rethink themselves honestly. They don’t have any ideas beyond selfishness and how to packae it and they are incapable of of expanding beyond that. Conservatism isn’t a political philosphy or ideoloy or set of ideas: it’s an instinct, the instinct to hate the Other and to protect one’s lair. Tthat’s it, the whole thing. There ain’t no more.
The entire idea of “taking what I’ve earned by the sweat of my brow and giving it to some lazy worthless person” is bolstered by racism but taps into something more fundamentally inciteful than race and is a super-set of the Southern Strategy. I think Krugman alluded to this. Taxation is always income redistribution but a society cannot function without some ability to address problems where they occur…to move money around to where it is needed most. What were people to think as long as elected leaders told them corporate America would serve their interests better than government. Well, it is much harder to see that pattern of theft when your money is stolen before gross salary is determined…as opposed to that taken back after the money is in your hands.
The badness of income redistribution is flawed but conservatives always have that, however flawed it might be. Progressives have not been able to overcome that framing in much the same way that they have not been able to subsume the frame of the auto bailout being nothing more than “hair of the dog”….more of what got us to this point in the first place.
On the other hand who ever heard talk about what it means to be a modern society that does not stop short or degenerate at the point of asking “how are we going to pay for it?” Tackling the negative connotation of the dreaded “income redistribution” should not be the kind of challenge that it is. Half-hearted efforts notwithstanding, we are swimming in income redistribution which we do not even bat an eye at…starting with insurance. My God! They are taking YOUR MONEY and giving it to people who drive badly!!! How dare they.
I don’t believe conservative “strategy” needs a “Great Society” to be played out. It is at its core a fear tactic. Certainly being able to point at welfare and the existence of those at a lower rung (and whatever emodiment groups of off-white people serve to the fearful) than oneself reinforce it but the basic strategy of pointing out some ongoing or looming personal loss exists without these factors. They will always have something, real or imagined for which they can say “Look at that! grrrrr…” Something inevitably falls in their lap but at times it is something more effective and others something less.
Now circumstances have it that something has fallen into progressives laps…a Katrina, an economic meltdown and more. It would be a big mistake not to use the opportunity to help establish some positive, more hopeful (there’s that word again) memes for future generations that effectively drive stakes through the heart of the ignorant fearful ones we’ve seen for decades. We now need to get inside the heads of simple people with simple explanations that are as readily recognized as the knowledge that touching the hot stove burner will hurt. Maybe this just happens in the course of talking about what has happened without the need for any strategy but on the other hand what gets said and how it is said can have an impact.
Doesn’t it seem to have taken circumstances to reverse the politics of fear? Maybe we are stuck in the present too much to notice what has changed. Were the economy chugging along just fine would we really be talking about the need of conservatives to stand for something? OK, maybe but how many would be starting to listen to alternative explanations and question conservative talking points in that event?
Things change in a democracy, not just because of clashes of ideas being played out by intellectuals but by dragging along the people who could care less about complexities and who need actual physical demonstrations of the most basic things. As has been proven recently that is sometimes only the relatively small group that it takes to get from 49.9% to 50%+1.
Is it really that hard to dispel the romantic myth of the proudly self-sufficient culture warrior willing only to pay for the part of the road connecting to his driveway? This country did not get where it is on that kind of backwards thinking, the entire idea exudes ignorance, and it relies on exaggerated notions of both one’s own moral purity/deservedness and the worthlessness of some generalized other…some demon cobbled together from inflamatory anecdotes that work on a lot of people. But that’s just human nature — add a little hardship and the gears of the cognitively challenged slowly start to turn…seeking explanations for what has happened. Conservatives are out of explanations because of what has happened when what they said would work didn’t.
There are a lot of analogies that might apply to the conservative undoing like the story of the goose that laid the golden egg. I have a conservative friend, a painter/business owner who explained it to an employee who had a prior history of difficulty in finding painting gigs. He said that you sometimes have to slice the bread thin, that you do not charge the little old widow lady the same as the wealthy person…that is, if you want to stay busy, keep them coming back, and come out better yourself, overall.
So maybe, if conservatives had not been so greedy…plundered so lustily they might have maintained even longer.
When you get to the grass roots (not management levels) of either philosophy, conservative or liberal, you are dealing with the perceptions you have about the intent of the opposition. That’s why characters like Limbaugh, Coulter & Malkin are offensive to me. If I am a liberal (I think I am) then those folks are distorting my views totally out of shape. And they are doing it with no regard for facts.
To a lesser degree, we do the same of them, picking the most outrageous statements and amplifying them as examples of ‘conservative’ philosophy. (Just my opinion, folks.)
One wonders how far apart rank & file conservatives would be from rank & file liberals on issues if we stop fighting against the perceived & distorted position of the opposition and worked from the position(s) of what we are actually for.
Doug, I live in a very red state and am surrounded by folks who loudly and proudly ID themselves as “conservative Republicans.” When it comes to labor unions, taxation, the role of government, the Iraq war, gun control, and the causes of the current economic crisis, they really do parrot the outrageous statements and ideas put forth by Limbaugh and Fox News. I hear their grievous misunderstanding and outright racism stated and re-stated, every day.
A common thread among these folks I know appears to be extreme intellectual laziness. Their comments clearly indicate they don’t know what’s in the U.S. Constitution, how federal, state or local government works, who the players (corporate and governmental) are right now on the national and world scene, or how those players interact. They have very strong opinions, but frighteningly little accurate information to support them. These are the rank-and-file conservatives, and for us to agree on anything in the realm of politics, they first need to vastly improve their understanding of what’s going on around them, and how the world actually works. But since they’re disinclined to make the effort, I don’t hold out much hope.
If things start to get a little better in the coming years, a few of them might learn by watching the cleanup of an unprecedented disaster, and then might realize that there are right and wrong (as opposed to Right and Left) ways to govern. I do hold out some hope for that.
Eric Schneiderman in ‘The Nation’ suggests that the conservative tsunami of the last 30 years was accomplished because the conservatives moved the voters closer to them rather than changing their positions or rhetoric to move toward the voters. Calls this transformational politics rather than transactional. God-fearing, law-and-order loving, tax hating, protective, America-first…became Republican and brought the voters into the party by the droves.
If true, doesn’t seem too difficult to simply discredit their ‘positions’ and ‘rhetoric’ forcing them to start practicing transactional politics. Which, by the way reminds me that studies show that most American when parties, politics and ideologies are ignored, are actually politically, socially and economically left of center.
“Gary — “sane libertarian†is not an oxymoron?”
Certainly not. Jim Henley is extremely sane. So is Julian Sanchez, so is Radley Balko, so are at least 6-10 other libertarians I know. (So was Andrew Olmsted.)
Mind, I know, and see, plenty more lunatic libertarians, but that’s not what you asked.
By its very nature, conservatism boxes itself into its ideologies du jour, while liberalism or progressivism is much more open to looking outside of boxes for answers. Conservatism thus winds up being much less pragmatic, making self-redefinition a major challenge. In addition, true conservatism (lean and smart government conservatism) is always most appealing when times are best.
Still, I wouldn’t underestimate the power plutocrats can gain over the intellectually lazy if all their right buttons are pushed. Free thinkers (the ones who constantly monitor their own ability to free think) are in short supply.
#22 I think the repugs can toss out that label they pin on dems of “Tax and Spend”. We can definately say they are the, Spend and Spend and Spend some more and let the big dogs keep the money and the little guy gets to pay for it, party.
Well, looking for non-crazy “conservative intellectuals” can be a time-consuming task, but I’ll toss one name out there: David Frum. He’s got a page on National Review Online at the moment, but apparently will be leaving quite soon to start his own site called NewMajority. He’s worried about the possibility that Palinismis the future of the Republican Party and wants to do exactly the sort of regrouping Sanchez was talking about. As I’m not conservative myself, I very frequently disagree with the man (and he did an absolutely lousy interview with Rachel Maddow), but he’s not crazy and he’s capable of critical thinking. Further, I know from experience he actually reads and responds to email containing opinions contrary to his own, indicating a mind not completely closed.