Comments on: Conservatism invented in 1953:NYT

By: nick s

nick s — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 08:47:03 +0000

It seems to me that conservatives view their ‘texts’ in an oddly cultish way, reference to them is a badge of identity. And this ties in with Jonah Goldberg, of all people, insisting that Americans liberals have no similar canon. That said, such a sense of textual tradition is very easily flung out of the window.

By: Geoff R

Geoff R — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 06:06:18 +0000

It is clear that DeParle was referring to the ‘conservative movement’, and this is what requires analysis and explanation (as in McGirr’s book on Orange County). This ‘movement’ seems distinctively American. It seems to me that conservatives view their ‘texts’ in an oddly cultish way, reference to them is a badge of identity. It is like how the revolutionary left groups view their classic texts.

By: josh

josh — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:39:42 +0000

I agree with vance maverick that it’s possible that DeParle was trying to claim that the ‘name’ in question is ‘conservative movement’, rather than conservatism (it’s also possible that he meant to use ‘gave … its name’ figuratively to mean ‘won it recognition’). Another possibility—suggested later in the article—is that Kirk was the one who gathered various diverse right-wing factions together under the umbrella-name of ‘conservatism’, and so helped to create ‘the conservative movement’ by giving it a name (not that he invented the name itself). In any case, it’s poor phrasing (which may be due to an editor, rather than DeParle himself).
But then why entertain such possibilities, when one can snark at DeParle’s expense instead?
Also, isn’t this just as worthy of comment?:
‘Every political movement has its texts. But James W. Ceaser, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia, argues that the conservative focus on core thinkers has no exact parallel among liberals.
“It doesn’t mean they’re not interested in ideas,” Professor Ceaser said. “It means their approach to politics doesn’t rest on theory in the same way.”
Liberalism’s main tenets formed earlier, he said, in the Progressives’ expansion of government, and are conveyed as assumptions rather than matters requiring theoretical debate.’
Surely the good prof. has encountered Rawlsians?

By: Vance Maverick

Vance Maverick — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:30:32 +0000

Reading that sentence literally, I think the claim is that Kirk was the one to baptize this particular movement with the two-word phrase "conservative movement". That other parties, tendencies, etc. were called conservative before doesn't bear on this. (DeParle might also be implying by linguification that Kirk was the one who noticed the movement.)

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:19:03 +0000

It needs to be pointed out that, per his biography, Larkin actually got a LOT of trim.

By: Bill Gardner

Bill Gardner — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:21:15 +0000

In support of Henry @15: We may need a better press corps, but Jason DeParle is not the problem. American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation's Drive to End Welfare is a great book.

By: Henry

Henry — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:55:25 +0000

In fairness, DeParle is a very good journalist and writer (his book on the effects of welfare is excellent). I imagine that this is poor phrasing, not a truth claim about the origins of conservatism.

By: derek

derek — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:55:02 +0000

Since when did young American conservatives (those who read books at all) not read Hayek, Meyer, Friedman, and Buckley? At no time since those authors were first published, I suggest.

That reporter is making no sense at all. I suspect he was in danger of missing a deadline, and met it via the old lazy reporter trick of “pick a phenomenon that isn’t news, and write it up as if it is.” It’s what gave us such gems of reportage as the 1980s “Young people are getting married! Isn’t that amazing!” stories.

By: JK

JK — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:22:01 +0000

Could be that this is actually worth further comment. From the original article note the peculiar use of the term “old”:

“Young people with old books is a common sight on the conservative circuit, and perhaps a growing one. … Along with Kirk, they include such canonical names from the 40’s and 50’s as Friedrich A. Hayek, Frank S. Meyer, Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley Jr.”

Unless the reporter is trying to mess with us, or is an idiot who’s got the wrong end of the stick, it sounds like the conservative summer schools really are promoting this the key formative period.

So is this a case of conservatives disowning their tradition? Or, put the other way, why are they putting so much emphasis on the post-WWII period?

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:00:52 +0000

You wouldn’t trust the NYT to report accurately about the US government, so why on earth would you expect it to report accurately about etymology? That’s what the OED is for:

The word was first used in this sense by J. Wilson Croker in an article published on 1 Jan. 1830; and almost immediately largely took the place of the term Tory (originally reproachful), which had been in use for nearly 150 years. (Measures tending to preserve cherished political conditions had before this been sometimes spoken of as conservatory.) Preference for ‘Conservative’ sometimes implied disavowal of the reactionary tendencies which had sometimes been associated with earlier Toryism, and espousal of the new phase introduced by Sir R. Peel; and the name was not at first received with favour by all Tories, any more than it was admitted to be properly descriptive by their political opponents. Hence many early references ridicule the word.

By: chris y

chris y — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:59:42 +0000

Ralph or John?

By: me

me — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:32:02 +0000

Guess the NYT reporter never read Emerson.

By: rea

rea — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:06:56 +0000

Benjamin Disraeli is spinning in his grave . . .

By: snuh

snuh — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:58:11 +0000

nonsense upon stilts?

By: Tim Worstall

Tim Worstall — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:48:28 +0000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)

” George Canning first used the term ‘Conservative’ in the 1820s and it was suggested as a title for the party by John Wilson Croker in the 1830s, and was later officially adopted under the aegis of Sir Robert Peel.”

But yes, I do get it. This is a Brad Delong “Why Can’t We Have a Better Press Corps” moment.