There is also the philosophical problem. Bush has done real violence to the principle of limited government with all of his talk about how the government has to move when someone is hurting and his aim to leave no child behind. Some of his programs are, I think, easily defended on the merits. But that doesn’t change the fact that as general philosophical issue, Bush has conceded that the government is there to help in a way Reagan never would have. Sure, Reagan made exceptions to his general anti-government position. Sometimes they were pragmatic, sometimes they were legitimate exceptions (conservatives aren’t uniformly opposed to all government interventions), and some times his deviations were hypocritical, at least in the eyes of some. But such hypocrisy was the tribute conservatives must sometimes pay to politics. Bush has conceded much of the fundamental ground to liberals when it comes to the role of government. Now the argument about governmental problem solving is technical – "will it work?" – rather than principled, "is it the government’s job?"
Kevin Drum (channeling Bruce Bartlett’s forthcoming book, Impostor
The charges leveled against the president were familiar: reckless spending increases, out-of-control deficits, relentless pandering to business interests, and a deliberate and willful contempt for policy analysis. The Bush White House, it argued, judges legislation not by whether it’s conservative or liberal, but solely by whether it will gain the Republican Party a couple of percentage points of support among some voting bloc or other. Principle is nothing. Politics is everything.
Unless Goldberg has some beef with his colleague, Bartlett, it seems the proper conservative view should be that conservatives have conceded ALL the fundamental ground to liberals. In exchange for unilateral surrender across the philosophy and policy board they have secured: control of the government. Andrew Sullivan, commenting on Goldberg’s assessment: "My own view is that this will soon become the conservative consensus, if it isn’t already."
What would Goldberg reply? Obviously he would distinguish between Republicans and conservatives. "When the Bush presidency is over, it will be more obvious in hindsight how much he moved the GOP to the left — by making the nanny state bipartisan." But in fact it seems impossible to sustain the view that Bush is a triangulator on domestic policy. As Kevin Drum points out (as has been pointed out, and out, and out, time and again): there is nothing ‘left’ about pay-to-play. Thus, Goldberg gets his argument backwards: "As a conservative, the extent I root for the GOP depends entirely on how successful it is in moving the political climate of the country toward fiscal restraint, limited government, and cultural decency." No. Since the GOP is not an engine for moving in the direction of fiscal restraint, limited government or cultural decency, to the extent that you root for the GOP, you show that you are not a conservative. Kevin Drum’s conclusion:
Like it or not, the pay-to-play machine built by Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff—and enthusiastically supported by George Bush—is the apotheosis of what the Republican Party has always been about, not a betrayal of its principles. There is no primitive conservatism to go back to, and no messiah to lead the Republican Party out of its corporate welfare wilderness.
There is a nigh irresistable rhetorical device for such occasions. You take your opponent aside, adopting tones of mock regret … an almost clinically pure sample from Goldberg’s column: "The point, dear liberals, is that some conservatives who criticize the Democrats or offer them advice do so not solely to salt wounds, but in the hope that someday we will have a real choice on Election Day — and not between the lesser of two evils." It is hard to refute an attitude of condescension, strictly. But in extreme cases you can get close. As Kevin remarks, Bartlett’s basic thesis is rather old hat to liberals. But Bartlett’s book is still interesting – to Democrats and Republicans alike – largely because it will be interesting to find out what effect, if any, it has on Republicans. (You can lead an elephant to water, but can you make him think? The health of the Republic sort of depends on the answer to this question.) Of course, it’s possible that Republicans are likewise genuinely on the edge of their seats with curiosity whether Democrats will realize – for their own good! – that they have a little Hitler moustache drawn on their stupid yellow round face. Seriously. The philosophical corruption scandal is not a bi-partisan scandal.
By the by, there’s an amusing ‘word of the day’ today at NRO: "Which of the following words can be defined as Enlightened and intelligent?" There’s a picture of William F. Buckley’s head, which I guess is supposed to illustrate. I’m going with b. ‘acidulous’.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 38 comments }
Doug 02.20.06 at 4:04 am
On the ‘word of the day’ the choices are labeled A, B and C — and not G, O and P. See how nonpartisan they are? Truly, truly, a wonder to behold.
abb1 02.20.06 at 4:34 am
Most of the Republican functionaries pander to religious and social conservatism (including racism, xenophobia, homophobia and a bunch of other phobias) in order to be able to get elected and serve their corporate masters – it’s that simple. Mr. Drum is quite correct.
Yeah, and a small portion of the public are right-libertarians; they are conditioned to serve their corporate masters without any additional incentives – but they are atypical, an aberration, a mental disease.
Tim Worstall 02.20.06 at 5:01 am
“The Bush White House, it argued, judges legislation not by whether it’s conservative or liberal, but solely by whether it will gain the Republican Party a couple of percentage points of support among some voting bloc or other. Principle is nothing. Politics is everything.”
This differs from any and every other Administration or political party in what manner?
Ginger Yellow 02.20.06 at 5:50 am
Sounds to me like Jonah is jumping on to the bandwagon predicted by Glenn Greenwald – Bush isn’t really a conservative, so his failure’s aren’t conservativism’s failures. Actually, he seems to advanced quite far along, to the “It’s all the fault of liberalism” stage.
derek 02.20.06 at 6:10 am
Tim Worstall writes:
This differs from any and every other Administration or political party in what manner?
Ah, the old “they’re all as bad as each other” ploy. In return for your principled decision not to criticize the Republican party on those grounds, I look forward to your not criticizing, voting against, or advocating that anyone vote against, the Democrats in future. Thank you in advance, that’s one less annoying voice in politics.
derek 02.20.06 at 6:24 am
Kevin Drum writes:
Like it or not, the pay-to-play machine […] is the apotheosis of what the Republican Party has always been about, not a betrayal of its principles.
Call me naive, but I’d like to think the party in Lincoln’s time at least was about something other than getting the keys to the Treasury and looting it, or accepting bribes from businesses in return for government contracts. Granted, the Republican party was never focussed on shrinking and drowning government, the way shrink-and-drown-government fans were, it was just the one of the two parties that was less hostile to the philosophy.
I’d say the Republican party became the creature it is today as recently as its adoption of the Southern Strategy. Overt racism, vicious corruption, and know-nothing christian fundamentalism, all entered the Republican bloodstream with that injection of political power.
Which they ought to have thought about; there’s a reason the Democrats turned their back on that otherwise-irresistable voting bloc. For what does it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Brett Bellmore 02.20.06 at 6:51 am
It’s a bandwagon that was constructed the moment Bush decided to bill himself as a “compassionate” conservative, in contrast to the usual sort. HE knew he wasn’t really a conservative.
By the way, remember this argument you’re making, the next time you insist that a Democrat’s failures aren’t the failures of liberalism. To some extent philosophies may empower the two major parties, but the people who control that power have little use for philosophy.
Carlos 02.20.06 at 7:16 am
Other Doug, in this case the ABC stands for “America Beat Communism”. With Reagan’s bare hands!
A joke: Adam Bellow and Jonah Goldberg walk into a bar. The guy at the door asks if he can see their IDs. B&G chuckle at each other and hand them to the guy. The guy peers at the IDs with a flashlight, glances at their faces. Then he pulls out a big scissors, cuts the IDs into pieces, and says “Can I see your IDs, gentlemen?”
John Emerson 02.20.06 at 8:18 am
From the beginning the GOP has had a big cult-of-personality component. People who say stuff like “I’m not interested in politics, but I look at his face and can tell he’s a Godly man”. People who adore his military beqring in the face of strong doubts about his actual service.
People laugh at Jonah, quite rightly, but clownish as he is, he really is smarter, more responsible, and more thoughtful than the typical Republican. If he were a little more thoughtful, that would scare even him. It terrifies me.
Besides the Armageddon Christians, you have Fourth World Warriors, fratboy political operatives, knee-jerk anti-tax freemarketers, and the Abramoff mob. Besides anti-tax militarism and thinly-veiled racism, the unifying thread is just hatred of liberals, as the books of Jonah and of Ann Coulter show.
A few of the “true conservatives” are getting antsy, but they are no longer needed for anything and can be discarded. Almost none of them realized that in 2004 Kerry was the conservative candidate, the moderate candidate, the liberal candidate, and even the leftist candidate. Still fewer of them are willing to face the implications of their own complicity in the rise of the Mayberry Mafia.
For “conservatives”, anti-liberalism trumps everything else. They’ll whine, but they won’t switch. In a two-party system, if you want to play you support one of the parties. As a very reluctant left Democrat, I know this all too well.
Matt McIrvin 02.20.06 at 8:51 am
It irritates me just a little bit when Democrats jump on this bandwagon, and start complaining that Bush isn’t a real conservative. It’s the kind of argument that comes back to haunt you in 2008 when Bush isn’t the guy any more and there’s some other guy who can be depicted as, finally, the real conservative. And being the real conservative is good, right?
If John McCain can get the nomination (an open question itself), I see nothing preventing him from winning in a walk; no matter how much he kisses up to Bush, McCain somehow retains a reputation as the UnBush.
jet 02.20.06 at 8:59 am
Perhaps you’ve been following the Democrats unwavering support for the Entertainment industry? You know, the Democrat corruption that allowed private companies to issue subpoenas and seriously abuse privacy rights while doing everything it could to stamp out new technology?
And these comments crack me up. Yes, the right is made up of a bunch of lunatic factions united in their hate of liberals. Which is funny, because they say you’re a bunch of crazies united by your hatred of the right.
abb1 02.20.06 at 9:07 am
Yes, the right is made up of a bunch of lunatic factions united in their hate of liberals. Which is funny, because they say you’re a bunch of crazies united by your hatred of the right.
When two groups of people say the same thing about each other, one group may be 100% correct and the other 100% wrong. The appearance of symmetry here is deceptive.
John Holbo 02.20.06 at 9:09 am
So what’s your motivation, Jet?
Barry 02.20.06 at 9:23 am
“This differs from any and every other Administration or political party in what manner?”
Posted by Tim Worstall
The Civil Rights movement and the migration of the Dixiecrats into the GOP has already been referenced. I’ll add the tax increases in the first Clinton administration. Opposition to the Vietnam War cost the Democratic Party quite a lot of power – the draft-dodging chickenhawk chickensh*ts of the GOP are *still* profiting from that.
y81 02.20.06 at 9:33 am
I agree with derek, although obviously the same point could be made in less inflammatory terms: the Bush agenda is primarily the agenda of white working class evangelicals (a much larger, though less talkative, group of voters than left/liberal academics). This agenda includes conservative judges, governmental valorization of Christian religious belief, a relatively strong social safety net, disregard and contempt for international institutions, etc. It isn’t the agenda of libertarians (even the six of them who aren’t university professors), but it suits millions just fine.
John Emerson 02.20.06 at 9:41 am
Jet doesn’t know what he thinks, but he always has something to say.
I’m not making anything up. In day to day life I see as many Christian conservatives as I want. They’re often sweet people face-to-face and within their immediate community, but they’re frighteningly loony and violent when they talk about the big political picture. I also used to meet members of all the other component groups.
Reading the collected sayings of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Pat Robertson, Tom Delay, Richard Perle, Grover Norquist, and Rush Limbaugh can be a frightening experience. All of them are major, influential, mainstream figures the way Ward Churchill is not. And there are surrogates behind the scenes (the CCC, Michael savage, Pat Buchanan) who are even worse.
Michael Dietz 02.20.06 at 9:55 am
Actually, the appearance of symmetry here is even more deceptive than abb1 suggests. The unifying thread on the right isn’t so much hatred of liberals as hatred of the Other—of which liberals are merely one (albeit longstanding) manifestation. But Us will always have a multitude of Thems to detest, as witness the recent flowering of race-hatred against Muslims (who aren’t even a race, not that these things need to be coherent at all).
The Left, such as it is these days, certainly finds a potent organizing principle in anger about the depredations of the Bush regime. But that anger, whether or not you think the facts on the ground justify it, is a product of the facts on the ground: it is by no means a permanent feature of Left politics, which historically has tended to organize (for better or worse) around social identity. On the other hand, what organizing principle does the Right have, or has it had for a generation and more, beyond Other-hating? When has it ever been more nakedly obvious that the Right’s only program is permanent war against Difference itself?
Paul Gottlieb 02.20.06 at 9:59 am
The Bush agenda is definitely NOT that of white working class evangelicals. Every major Bush initiative has been designed to increase the wealth and power of the richest 1% in American while making the the working class poorer and ensuring that one serious illness or other catasrophic event will improvish them forever. From the abolition of the estate tax, through the almost farcically malicious Medicare drug plan, and the vigorous attempt to destroy the Social Security system, the working class has been the target of a sustained and dedicated economic jihad
jet 02.20.06 at 10:06 am
John Holbo, I come here to learn. I’ve learned a lot about politics, Justice (thanks Harry), economics, and what the real core issues are that divide the US.
But when you say that philosophical corruption is not bi-partisan, then either the Democratic party has just cleaned their house and the legacy of Johnson and Byrd has been stamped out, or you’re throwing stones in a glass house. Now don’t take me wrong, credit is do to the GOP for their corruption (where did all that Iraqi money go?). Maybe since the Dems are out of power, it is easier to see your point of view that they are pure ethereal beings of liberalism untouched by the vile hand of corrupt populism, but that doesn’t constitute proof.
des von bladet 02.20.06 at 10:14 am
Jet, “philosophical corruption” doesn’t mean taking back-handers from Plato.
John Holbo 02.20.06 at 10:28 am
I was making a bit of a joke: ‘philosophical corruption scandal’. Sorry that threw you for a loop, Jet. Flattening it out: taking bribes is not quite the same as lacking positive principles, in a political philosophy sense. Obviously taking bribes is rather a bad sign, political principles-wise. But it is quite possible to strive for high ideals while allowing yourself to get greased on the side. (Not that this is a good thing, I hasten to add.) The point was that the Republican party has no political principles at all. It is not the party of small government, nor has it turned big government into a positive principle. It’s just pay-for-play. The Dems could be doing better in that department too, of course. But they surely aren’t as bad off as Republicans.
Russell L. Carter 02.20.06 at 10:32 am
“The Bush agenda is definitely NOT that of white working class evangelicals. …”
Ah, the difference between say, and do.
“John Holbo, I come here to learn. […]”
Well give jet some credit. He started out as a banal iterator of the “Republicans good, silly liberals bad” theme. Now he implicitly admits that it’s possible for Republicans to err. Once we get that little “but the silly Democrats *always* do it too” tic excised, you can shut down the blog.
Ginger Yellow 02.20.06 at 10:33 am
This might work if liberals held up their leaders as near-messianic figures in the way that conservative pundits (especially bloggers) have with Bush. If you recall Kerry, for example, was hardly given that treatment. Even Clinton took plenty of flak at the time from liberals.
Henry 02.20.06 at 11:30 am
This “Rick Perlstein speech”:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-perlstein/i-didnt-like-nixon-_b_11735.html on what’s happened to the Republican party has a bit of the Christ among the moneychangers in the temple about it.
Barry 02.20.06 at 11:36 am
Or if liberal leaders got the chance that Bush did. After 9/11, Bush was golden, and could have done almost anything. He’s had more party support than anybody since – LBJ?
Barry 02.20.06 at 11:36 am
Sorry, adding to Ginger’s comment.
Tim Worstall 02.20.06 at 12:30 pm
#6
Derek,
I do criticise the Republican party. And the Bush administration. I’m not a US citizen so I don’t vote for either the Rs or Ds and I also don’t think it quite my place to advise those who are on how they should vote either.
In the politics of my own country (the UK) I am also an equal opportunities insult slinger. I despise the social authoritarians of the Tory party quite as much as the economic authoritarians of Labour.
As to politics itself, yes, I am sufficiently cynical (or naive if you prefer) to think that all and everyone that goes into it is doing so for entirely selfish reasons, the joy of the power achieved, the opportunity to sup at the trough.
Barry in #15 offers three examples of principled actions by the Democrats. Not a lot for the past 50 years really. And I’d quibble with two of them…the Dixiecrats (Southern Democrats I believe?) were the major constraint on the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War? Until Jan 1969 wasn’t it actually prosecuted by Democrats? The third? If Clinton is to be praised for tax raises, shouldn’t Bush I also be?
paul 02.20.06 at 12:46 pm
derek (#7) writes Call me naive, but I’d like to think the party in Lincoln’s time at least was about something other than getting the keys to the Treasury and looting it, or accepting bribes from businesses in return for government contracts.
Lincoln’s time was quite short, ended in 1865. Within 10 years, by 1875, it’s no exaggeration to say about the GOP that the party … was about … getting the keys to the Treasury and looting it, … accepting bribes from businesses in return for government contracts.
There was even a fair amount of that going on during the Civil War though that was (presumably) not what the party was about at that time. For a few years after Lincoln’s death, the GOP was also about Reconstruction and trying to protect the rights of the freed slaves, but that did not last long.
abb1 02.20.06 at 1:07 pm
Lincoln himself was a corporate lawyer. ’nuff said.
John Emerson 02.20.06 at 1:35 pm
I don’t think that anyone expects much from the Democrats.
Much less looting and cronyism, a minimally rational economic plan, less than total hostility to environmentalist ideas, significantly less entusiasm for WWIV, no more sabotaging government to prove that government never works, no more demogoguery about stem cells, abortion, gay rights, and race — that’s as much as we can reasonably expect, and it adds up to mediocrity. But these days medicrity looks unattainable, like a vision of Heaven.
Barry 02.20.06 at 2:14 pm
“…the Dixiecrats (Southern Democrats I believe?) were the major constraint on the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War? Until Jan 1969 wasn’t it actually prosecuted by Democrats? ”
Tim, the Dixiecrats became, for the most part, Republicans.
John Emerson 02.20.06 at 2:30 pm
The actual Republican and Democratic parties have taken shape since 1965 or 1968. Since then the Republicans have ditched their liberal and moderate wing and replaced their rational conservatives with fanatical partisans. The Democrats have lost most of their Dixiecrat wing and have also become generally weaker and have lost control of Congress. Each party affirms some things in its past, but not all.
The Strom Thurmond of 1948 was not a Republican, but he became one in order to continue to defend Southron values.
Rick Perlstein 02.20.06 at 3:56 pm
The point to understand here is that, historically, conservatives have always believed, or at least claimed to bleieve, that all liberal initiatives are not public-spirited attempts to improve the commonweal but, fundamentally, You see it all the time in Goldwater speeches: the welfare state functions as a giant political machine in which poor people are bribed to vote for Democrats. You see it all the time in the speeches of Strom Thurmond and every Southern segregationist: civil rights legislation functions as a giant political machine in which black people are bribed to vote for Democrats. (That is what they mean by blacks being on the “Democratic plantation.”)
I would imagine that many Republican “conservatives” who have made their peace with Bush’s version of big government only see themselves as playing defense. They have to build their own giant political machines, or else the corrupt Democrats will rule forever, what with all their bribery of the electorate.
Rick Perlstein 02.20.06 at 3:58 pm
The first sentence above should read: “The point to understand here is that, historically, conservatives have always believed, or at least claimed to believe, that all liberal initiatives are not public-spirited attempts to improve the commonweal but, fundamentally,pay-to-play.”
John Holbo 02.20.06 at 8:14 pm
Thanks, Rick. I’m a big admirer of your Goldwater book, so I’m honored to have you as a commenter. You are right, of course. The point being that the following thought cannot be completed: “we need our own giant political machine, or else the corrupt Democrats will rule forever, and we won’t be able to …” what?
agm 02.21.06 at 3:17 am
Let’s try this again.
derek at comment 7:
For what does it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
John Holbo:
control of the government.
abb1 02.21.06 at 4:37 am
…historically, conservatives have always believed, or at least claimed to bleieve, that all liberal initiatives are not public-spirited attempts to improve the commonweal but, fundamentally, You see it all the time in Goldwater speeches: the welfare state functions as a giant political machine in which poor people are bribed to vote for Democrats.
I don’t see a problem with this, except for the phraseology. Representing interests of ‘poor people’ (however defined) among other groups (minorities, women, etc.) is a legitimate role of a political party.
And this can’t really be “pay-to-play” if I understand the term correctly, because the poor people don’t have money to kick back to politicians, they can only vote.
So, how is it “the point to understand”? There seems to be this typical misconception here – underlying assumption that political parties are here to do this “public-spirited attempts to improve the commonweal” thing – they are not. Political parties represent segments of the population – at the expense of other segments. Simply speaking, on the most basic, crude level – either you take from the rich to give to the poor, or you take from the poor to give to the rich – end of story.
For public-spirited attempts to improve the commonweal you need apolitical public organizations.
Functional 02.21.06 at 7:28 pm
Sounds to me like Jonah is jumping on to the bandwagon predicted by Glenn Greenwald – Bush isn’t really a conservative, so his failure’s aren’t conservativism’s failures.
That’s not even in the vicinity of accuracy. 1) Greenwald claimed no such thing. In fact, he really claimed the opposite, i.e., that Bush and conservatism are seen as identical, such that anyone who criticizes Bush in any way is immediately cast out as a “liberal”; 2) Goldberg’s column is one of the thousands of counterexamples to Greenwald’s silly claim; Goldberg has criticized Bush (and not for the first time, by any means), but I’d be extremely surprised if anyone of any repute called Goldberg a “liberal,” any more than people are going around calling Pat Buchanan a “liberal.”
Comments on this entry are closed.