New Yorker: Conservatism has fallen; can’t get up
A long piece by George Packer about the death of conservatism graces this week’s New Yorker. You can tell it’s hard-hitting because he interviews such movement luminaries as pro-choicer David Frum, NY Times columnist David Brooks, and paleocon dissident Pat Buchanan. Imagine my surprise to learn these fellows didn’t have much nice to say about the way the movement is going.
Conservatives have, of course, been made acutely aware of the differences between the Republican party and conservative principles lately. So a big problem with Packer’s article is that he doesn’t seem to distinguish much between conservative thought and the political machinations of the GOP, at least until the end of the article when he explains how John McCain’s ideological emptiness may be the key to victory:
Most Presidential candidates move to the center once they’ve locked up the nomination; McCain, however, still has to try to win over the suspicious Republican right, and he recently vowed to appoint only judges who “strictly interpret” the Constitution to the bench. But pledges of fealty to his party’s ideological interest groups diminish what’s appealing about McCain. “Feeling fraudulent is very debilitating to him,” Mark Salter said.
When McCain opened the floor for questions, a woman asked about border security. He replied, to general laughter, “This meeting is adjourned.”
Hint: we’re not laughing with you…
Anyway, the article’s long and I’ve just skimmed it, but it’s probably worth your time simply because this is what the liberal New Yorker crowd will be reading to form their ideas about where conservatives are headed.
And once you get done with that (or before, if you want to skip the arugula and go straight to the ice cream) the editors of the New York Sun have already responded to Packer’s article, and they’ve done so quite well. I say that not just because they kindly mention this site, but because they offer the correct and classic response to the perennial complaints that conservatives need a bunch of “fresh ideas”:
What the New Yorker calls a lack of “fresh thinking” may be a surfeit of abiding principles and enduring ideas. The Bible is thousands of years old. The capitalism of Adam Smith is hundreds of years old. Freedom is as universal and God-given a right today as it was when it was set forth in the Declaration of Independence. What matters is less whether the ideas are “fresh” than whether they are correct. And the latest panic of beltway Republicans or New Yorker writers notwithstanding, the view from these columns is that the death of conservatism has been greatly exaggerated.
______________________
{Post by See-Dubya. Michelle’s recent interactions with the New Yorker and their anthropological style of studying conservatives are detailed here.}
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Reviving Conservatism, Part I: What Happened? | The Sundries Shack
- Right Wing Nut House » WHAT AILS CONSERVATISM?
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: GOP, Media Bias
Patterico
» Democrats Attack the CIA
Riehl World View
» Classless Paid Sarah Palin Assassin Mike Murphy (R)Legal Insurrection
» Panetta Testimony Likely Hurts PelosiBig Lizards
» Flash - Palin Damaged Among Anti-Palin Republicans!Weekly Standard
» Obama Admin. Pays $18 Mill for Something That Already ExistsWeekly Standard
» New Haven Fireman Frank Ricci Will Testify at Sotomayor HearingWeekly Standard
» Hope for Republicans?
Conservatism is alive and well in this country; it’s the Republican Party that’s on the ropes.
The news of our death has been greatly exaggerated…..
I do not think Conservatism is dead. I do however feel that it has certainly lost its voice. The vast majority of Mexicans, Guatemalans and people from El Salvador that I knew personally, had traditional Conservative values for the most part. The vast number of Philippinos I know certainly do not share the socialist values of the left.
The vast majority of Americans I know have traditional Conservative values but perhaps that is due to the fact that I cannot tolerate argument as debate.
Still, I think Conservatism is alive and well and just looking for a spokesperson to remind people what it is and not what people perceive it to be. Perhaps giving it an active voice in government would be a good place to start.
the death of conservatism explains the defeat of the amnesty bill?
just…doesn’t…connect
The usual “fresh thinking” libs stuck in their “wishful thinking”.
I have to agree that there is a concerted effort to “kill” conservative thought by both democrats and republicans. However, one trait of conservatives is that we don’t give up, run away, or surrender. Unlike the “fresh thinking” types.
Conservatism is heading toward a slow, powerful crescendo.
How many times have we heard that before?
Strangely enough, when liberals win, it’s often because they mask themselves as Conservatives. During this race, notice Hellary Rotten Clinton and Barack HUSSEIN Obama both have attempted to show Conservative positions on Christainity and Gun Rights. Positions which they really don’t hold, but they are showing so they can try to win.
Tre, that was rich…I’m hijacking that one.
This is exactly where the DNC was in 2002. Don’t freak out. It is a cycle.
Two quick points: One, conservatism will never die as long as I’m lucid enough to cast a ballot; two, isn’t the New Yorker for doctor’s office decoration only? No one actually reads that mind-numbing rag.
The “fresh thinking” that the New Yorker advocates isn’t fresh at all. It’s the same old thinking that leads to tyranny, state control of every aspect of life, and gulags. Government is like fire. Keep it in the fireplace and on the stove, it can sustain life. Left unwatched, however, it can escape it’s designated boundaries and consume everything.
Well, I am not sure if I agree or not. Somebody needs to define what truly “conservative” principles are, I guess. I beleive I am conservative in most respects but not as the media probably defines conservatives. I want small gov’t that stays out of people’s lives, low taxes, few entitlements (SS to retired people only), preservation of traditional American culture, not being world policeman, peace through military strength, and most importantly, end to illegal immigration, and reduced legal immigration which should be based solely on merit (no more low skilled people with cultures diametrically opposed to Western values). I am not a religious right person. However, I am tired of special interest groups and new comers constatnly attacking the fundamental christian values Western society is modeled from (like no x-mas anywhere lest we offend). They should not come here and start demanding change from us. Don’t care about abortion. Don’t care about gay marriage really (other than it is just another special interest group clamoring for special rights).
However, many left of center dems would agree with me on many of these issues. Although I have more in common with the the traditional GOP. The media blieves GW is far right leaning simply b/c of religious values. Nonsense. So, from a pure religious right perspective label of conservatism, I think it is declining. But most other “conservative” values are far from declining. It all depends on how one defines “conservatism”. Letting the media define it and proclaim it’s demise sets up a self fulfilling prophecy. Just my 2 cents.
As a New York registered conservative, I feel very alone and insecure. I’m ready to liquidate my holdings and move out of the state.
We died and no one woke me up and told me, how disappointing.
Fourstringfuror nailed it, first post. Conservatism isn’t dead - the RNC is.
I took a moment this weekend, while mowing the lawn, to consider the post-Reagan RNC offerings for President:
Bush I
Dole
Bush II
McCain
Wow. Maybe it’s just me, but when I laid it out there it really seemed to pop off the page. The term “Republican in Name Only” doesn’t really apply. The truth is, this is what Republicans really are. McCain is the real deal.
It’s we conservatives who are foolish enough to think otherwise.
Remember, the RNC *didn’t like Reagan* until he was too powerful to ignore. His “conservative base” was HIS, and not the RNC’s. The fact is, the RNC has been more the party of Rockefeller than Reagan - pretty much since Ike. The RNC base isn’t conservative; it’s explotative. “Whatever works,” is the base that takes the day, and has for decades.
They front real conservatives only when they have to - not because they are really conservative.
I’m more likely to donate to the ACLU then the RNC ever again, for sure.
Absolutely correct! Lets’ put the shoe on the other foot for a second…the words/deeds/actions of the liberals have not changed since they came together to form a somewhat idealistically challanged group. So, since they can’t seem to come up with logical solutions that benefit more than the elite in their own group, why should the conservative responses to the same old tired thoughts need to change?
As principles become perfected, ideas, new with purpose, change with them. It seems to me that the only “new” ideas the liberals glom onto, are the conservative ones they use every election cycle to get themselves put in to office. They quickly fade once that occurs, then that smell returns…the rancid, festering wound called liberalism, that promises much, but delivers nothing but hatred and demogoguery.
I got up this morning to find an E Mail from Sen. Mitch McConnell. Hes looking for MONEY to fight his new rival for his seat. Some flaming Lefty millionaire endorsed By Chucky Schumer no less. Ol’ Mitch hasn’t shown me much lately, besides, I got 2 useless Senators in Washington (Libs) That I have to pay for. Close the borders and drill new oil wells closer to home Mitch, or your not gettin’ a dime outa me !
Two words: Wishful thinking.
The GOP may be foundering, but traditional conservative values have not - and will not - die. They may be criminalized by the left, but certainly will not go away.
And I guarantee if a GOP candidate espoused those values, he’d win.
The problem is simply that ‘conservatism’ has been redefined by many to mean the Rove coalition, which includes ultra-liberals on spending (like Bush), businessmen and their cronies (like Bush) who are corrupt on amnesty and illegal migration, people too cheap to pay taxes (Bush, Reagan, Reagan Democrats), snake oil salesmen who insist you don’t have to limit spending because growth will pay for anything if only you don’t pay taxes (supply siders), Stalinists who hate the Bill of Rights and want to spy on everybody and get their rocks off on torture(like Bush, Gonzales, Yoo, Rumsfeld), liberal Jews whose loyalty is primarily to Israel (neoconservatives) and like thinking Christian Zionists and Evangelicals, and anti-abortionists whose goal is to pack the Supreme Court with Catholics.
In other words, conservatives are now what we used to call liberals, but with a religious tinge (Zionist or Evangelical), and corrupt; while Democrats are cut from the same mold, but slightly more fiscally conservative and secular.
Since ‘conservatism’ has lost its meaning like a trademark gone generic, we really have to prefix the term with a modifier to make it meaningful, e.g., paleo-conservatism, Goldwater-conservatism, religious conservatism, etc.
Fred Thompson did/does, but no one cared to listen. Just sayin.’
Guess I’m just a bitter Thompson clinger!
This article, sadly, reflects what many Americans believe: that the GOP and conservatives are synonymous.
I think WarTip(#3) brings up excellent points about the possibility of conservatism connecting with (legal) immigrants and minorities who more than likely share the same values.
******
But the GOP has a tough row to hoe when it comes to topping the progressive “free lunch” message. Hey, who wouldn’t want something for nothing? (Even if common sense tells you it’s a lie.)
Free and accessible health care, good jobs, food, cheap energy, best education, cradle-to-grave financial security, national security without bloodshed? And all I have to do is vote for it? Count me in!
All of this talk about responsibility and sacrifice, of living within my means, and saving and planning for the future, of taking the consequences of my smoking and drinking and poor diet, of having to potentially fight or die for my country? That is your message, conservatives? We’re supposed to vote for that over the promises of the progressives?
No wonder conservatives are the political minority.
Someday, when the bill comes due, the people will look for someone to help them out. Then and there, we’ll find a strong conservative to lift us up, if it isn’t too late.
Good point. But - as much as I was behind Fred and hate to say this - we need the young conservatives to step up to the plate. I went to high school with a young man, a staunch Republican and a great budding politician.
He’ll be 35 in 2020…and make a fantastic president.
That’s what we need. And, heck, I should do more to get my values out there…I need to be more politically involved.
Regan understood and gladly accepted that government’s power lie with the people. Few politicians, r or d, are willing to trust the individual with that power.
Far too many who run for office do so with the idea that they can fix some problem, real or imagined. That is why politicians look at voters as groups. It is much easier to convince a group that you have the answer than it is the individual.
It is the rare political bird that can get elected on the principle your self-sufficiency. Freedom has moved from from freedom of will to freedom from worry.
There fixed it.
I agree with a many post here. The party itself is in demise, but rebuild and start a takeover. Don’t worry as much about November as you do in January.
I feel the same way, WEARY CITIZEN, and have all of my life. I’ve just not put a label on my thoughts and beliefs. A few years ago it was just Democrats, Republicans, and Independants.
If my beliefs are called conservatism, then it isn’t dead.
We’re so screwed. And I still won’t vote for Juan McAmnesty.
A counter slogan for this campaign notion that Conservativism is ‘dead’ ought to be
“I REFUSE TO ASSIMILATE”
to the OBorgama.
I say Great! And let’s kill off conservatism anyways, or at least in name form. I say we take back our REAL name and begin to call ourselves liberals. We are the ones that truly believe in liberty as a principle and that is what “conservative” has come to embody, so let’s take it back.
Our biggest problem with “conservative” is that it worked as a party principle. It worked TOO well. Thus, it became the right thing (or cool thing) to be for Republicans to be “conservative” and yet none of them knew what they were talking about (except GOP leaders who saw it as opportunity to claim a label, deceive the people and really just be the same person you were). Every (R) considers himself to be a conservative, just now sometimes they have caveats. Oh, I am fiscally conservative, but socially liberal or moderate. Great! You can be that, but you are NOT a conservative. You may be a republican and ok, but you are not conservative.
I say instead of blurring the lines, we take back liberal. What a profound idea to actually have the principle we have be clarified by having its true definition really describe what and who we are as opposed to looking up the definition of our principle and having it say, “well this is what it means, but this is also what it has come to mean.”
I’ve been noticing that the Democrats are running more and more conservative candidates in Congressional races, frequently managing to run well to “the right” of the Republican in the race. It could be that in a few years we conservatives may be in a position to take back the Democrat Party, and leave the Republican Party to the neo-socialists.
Sometime ago I stopped calling myself a conservative — after a reaming escoriation from a McCaininite.
All I had done was answer his question as to what of my beliefs did I think allowed me to call myself a Conservative. To arrive at what I posted, I took Reagan’s 3-legg’ed stool speech an rephased it — I thought the original was too well known and I’d not get a genuine response.
After a sceenful of screaming he told me I was no conservative, and since my ideas worked diectly against the Bush(Compassionate)/ McCain(OnlyICanStopTerrorism, ExceptByTheUndocumnted) efforts, “Don’t dare!” call myself one.
OK, I’m a Constitutionalist! After all, I don’t really care to conserve to the current status quo. I want, I insist on a government in harmony with the Original Documents of Inception.
When people ask me what a “Conservative” should be, what I believe, I use Reagan’s 3-legg’ed stool speech, since his is the best I’ve ever read at boiling it down.
We conservatives, (if I might call myself so…) have no one but ourselves to blame for this. We “settled”.
My church believes that every man & woman can find someone for marrage that lives the Gospel — we are constantly warned against “settling” for someone convienient, but who doesn’t live up to our ideals. We’ve settled, in politics for whatever warm body the GOP put before us, and so, we have 3 presidential candidates who are interchangable parts.
Well that’s my opinion. Its worth what you’ve paid for it.
- martin.musculus
Ah, yes, I still have fond memories of the last time conservatism was “dead”, right after the 1992 election. And if I’m not mistaken, Pat Buchanan was one of those reading its last rites at the time.
How’d that declaration work out again?
Conservatism isn’t dead, it’s just underrepresented.
Way underrepresented.
Your exactly right…same old story,”i didn’t leave the party, the party left me”. GOP is the old style Country Club RINO’s, like the dems their for themselves.
I was looking at party platforms, ran acrossed the Consitutional Party, what could be more conservative than the constitution? Anyone interested here’s a link to their platform.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
With all these liberal types declaring the death of conservatism lately, methinks that they see something that scares them… could it be the recent elections in Europe???
Wishful thinking…
We conservatives are alive and well. But, gosh, y’all just wanted us to play by your rules. I mean what the heck ya want? Conservatives will rise and with a vengeance and retribution….. compromise my ass.
Good point.
Sorry but it’s political correctness that brought down the liberal democratic party of the 1980s and 1990s. We’re not ass if we don’t have a political vehicle that can deliver.
All of this clamor for ideological purity will reduce us to a sect quicker than you can say Abu Grahib.
Can’t say if conservatism is dead or not, since the GOP abandoned it in 2002, and we haven’t had conservatives in charge for a LONG time. We’ve had pork-barrel incumbents aplenty but few real conservatives like Sen Coburn or Sessions.
As for the primaries? OPEN primaries is what got us McCain. I.e. letting Dems and Libs choose our candidate.
Grahib.
Good point. And, do you believe that those were open was accidental?
A (semi-liberal) friend told me early in the primaries that KosHuf both had diaries were their main people were calling for crossover voting. That was long before Rush & OpChaos.
I am certain, looking at the makeup of the muckety-mucks in the party and were they wanted to wind up, that it was purposeful.
Maybe that makes me tinhat… but I remember all the people who said Al Qida as a threat was tinhat-foolery, too.
Knowing (’cause I’m an old & moldy, I’ve lived through a lot of changes…) how the leadership HATED Reagan, wouldn’t give him the time-of-day — until he grew too popular to ignore, I wouldn’t put it past them to set it up.
When you look at CFR through that lens, keeping in mind how it prevents another Reagan from arising while giving an out-of-balance amount of power to the media… AND GWB signed it — in abrogation of his Oath of Office, even though he said in his own words he thought it unconstitutional… you have to atleast entertain the idea that we have been lead to this point by the CountryClubbers. If so, itwas because we trusted them.
Now they tell us if we don’t assist them in our own expulsion the Obammasiah will be elected & “The World Will End”.
You guys figure this out for me, I’m getting too old for this…
- musculus
It is amazing to me how many people get confused or misunderstand me when I tell them that at least by definition, I am a Classical Liberal. At least now I know I am not the only one LOL Still, in order to prevent confusion, I claim Federalism but even that seems to ring hollow in all too many ears.
Thanks for your support and I do like the idea even though I think the name will remain tainted for some time to come.
Get over it folks, no matter who wins in Nov we are going to give amnesty, citizenship and a ton of our tax money to 20+ million illegal invaders in 2009 - of course we will have to deal with another 10+ million in 2010 …
Historically at least, and given that Amnesty was given in what? 1986 I believe? (One of my few sad notes about Reagan) and the original estimate was one million. Final count was three million or three times what they guessed (Or estimated as they claimed) Now we have 12 million estimated illegal invaders inside our borders. or four times the number who were granted amnesty.
Now granted, there is only a single instance and limited knowledge to go on but by the same math, we will be granting amnesty to roughly 36 million illegal invaders this time. In another decade or two, can we expect the same increase? That would put the number somewhere around 100 million illegal invaders that we have to deal with?
I do not wish to insult our Hostess by bringing up other celebrities on her site but Borders, Language and Culture seems to ring true here. Conservative, Constitutionalist, Federalist, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or Independent, we should focus on these issues first. Otherwise, politics as we know it may become a thing of the past … right alongside the formerly sovereign Independent but United States of America.
Personally, I’m starting to think that Bob Barr may be a pretty good idea
On May 19th, 2008 at 8:12 pm, WarTip said:
It was 1986. Reagan only agreed b/c kennedy and the rest of his ilk promised it was a one time shot and borders would be secured. Worked out real well didn’t it. You are correct about the numbers. The congress estimated 1-1.5M would recieve amnesty. 3M was final tally. A subsequent study of the chain migration effect showed that for every 1 amnestied, 3 more were brought in under chain rules.
We have way more than 12M illegals here. Bear/Sterns (sp?) did an estimate a few years back and figured the # closer to 30M. Others estimated 20M years ago. Gov’t uses 12M so as not panic anyone.
Full amensty will end like this for us. Gov’t will say 12M but will not cap it. At least 25M, probably 30M plus, will be given amnesty. Within 10 years another 90M will come in through chain migration (30M x 3 family members). Giving us a total of 120M new citizens (30+% increase within 1 decade). Then of course, the border will not be secured, ICE will not change anything, we will have shown the world we will never deport them once here, and in 10 years, we will have another 10M that “we can’t deport”, especially since now the new citizen voting block will outnubmer us traditionalists. So another amnesty and basically all semblance of a border will be gone, along with any semblance of the America we all knew and loved growing up. Not to mention, these new citizens are by and large very poor, so they will wnat to take from us . WIth such a large block of voters, they can do it. Socialism will become the norm. Sorry it sounds so dire, but I fully beleive my logic holds up in all areas. If it scares Americans, it should.
“That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” -Friedrich Nietzsche
We did it in 94, we can do it again.
I just don’t know what happened to Newt…
@ “Free and accessible health care, good jobs, food, cheap energy, best education, cradle-to-grave financial security, national security without bloodshed? And all I have to do is vote for it?”
The only problem is that it’s not free. It’s paid for by other people, often against their will.
(I’m not attacking the writer here, as he was voicing the opinion of lefties, not his/her own opinion. And, as a former liberal, I will vouch for the fact that he voiced that opinion accurately.)
If you want to know the truth, liberalism will recieve a very hard hammerstroke this century.