« Bob Herbert: Sharing the Sacrifice or Ending It. | Main | Weblogs 2005 Awards. »
December 08, 2005
David Brooks: Running Out of Steam.
I’m not sure I would agree with David Brook’s’ analysis here. In part, yes, now that the conservative Republicans are in power they are indeed stymied slightly, cannot renew the intellectual juices quite so well.
But I also think that part of the problem is the very fact that it is indeed the conservatives in power. I’d (and on many issues in the US this is true of most Americans as well) rather have the liberals. No, not liberals in the American sense, but good old fashioned Classical Liberals. That’s got nothing to do with the social authoritarianism of parts of the Republican party, nor the protectionist instincts of some (like Buchanan say).
Tag david brooks
Conservatives are in power but out of sorts. Fifty years after the
founding of the modern right, conservatives hold just about every
important government job, yet the conservative agenda has stalled.
Federal spending has surged. Social Security reform is dead. And when
voters are asked which party they trust on key issues, they decisively
reject conservative ideas.
On the economy, Democrats are trusted more, 56 to 34. On education,
it's Democrats 55 to 32. On taxes, Democrats 48 to 38. On health care,
Democrats 54 to 29.
For members of a movement that is supposed to be winning the battle of ideas, conservatives are in a mess.
So what's gone wrong? First, most of the issues that propelled
conservatives to power have been addressed. Modern American
conservatism was formed by people who wanted to defeat the Soviet
Union, reduce crime, reform welfare, cut taxes, deregulate the economy
and reintroduce traditional social values. All those problems are less
salient today.
Second, conservatism has been semi-absorbed into the Republican Party.
When conservatism was in its most creative phase, there was a sharp
distinction between conservatives and Republicans. Conservatives chased
ideas, while Republicans were the corporate hacks who sold out. Now
that conservative Republicans are in power, that distinction is
obliterated.
There are a number of consequences. A lot of the energy that used to go
into ideas is now devoted to defending Republican politicians. Many
former conservative activists have become Republican lobbyists. (When
conservatism was a movement of ideas, it attracted oddballs; now that
it's a movement with power, it attracts sleazeballs.)
Most important, there is greater social pressure to conform to the
party's needs. Even writers and wonks are supposed to stay on message.
In the 1970's, supply-siders mounted an insurgency against the
Republican House leadership and against some sitting G.O.P. senators.
If any group tried that today, it would be crushed by the party
establishment.
Third, conservative media success means intellectual flabbiness.
Conservatives used to live in a media world created by people who
thought differently than they did. Reading certain publications and
watching the evening news was like intellectual calisthenics. Now
conservatives can be just as insular as liberals, retreating to their
own media sources to be told how right they are.
Fourth, conservatives have lost their governing philosophy. In 1994,
the Republicans thought their purpose was to reduce the size of
government. But when the government shutdown failed, they never
developed a new set of guiding principles to clarify which things
government should do and which things it shouldn't. George Bush came up
with a philosophy of compassionate conservatism, but it remains fuzzy
and incomplete.
Fifth, conservative Republicans have lost touch with their base. To
win, Republicans depend on white rural and suburban working-class
voters making $30,000 to $50,000 a year. Conservative Republicans offer
almost no policies that directly benefit these people. Americans at
that income level tend to be financially risk-averse. But the
out-of-touch Republicans offered a Social Security plan that increased
risk.
Sixth, conservatives have not effectively addressed the
second-generation issues. Technological change has really changed the
economy, introducing new stratifications. Inequality is rising. Wage
stagnation is a problem. Social mobility is lagging, and globalization
hurts hard-working people. Global warming is real (conservatives
secretly know this). The health care system is ridiculous. Welfare
reform is unfinished. Conservatives have not addressed these
second-generation issues as effectively as their forebears addressed
the first-generation ones.
The good news is that we are about to enter a political season with no
obvious conservative standard bearer, leaving plenty of room for
innovation. Also, the current conservative crisis has produced some new
thinking. A few weeks ago, two young writers, Ross Douthat and Reihan
Salam (my former assistant), unveiled a fresh conservative agenda in a
Weekly Standard essay called ''The Party of Sam's Club.'' These
writers, 26 and 25 years old, are closer to the future than the party
leaders.
And the final bit of good news for the right is the left. No matter how
serious the conservative crisis is, liberals remain surpassingly
effective at making themselves unelectable.
December 8, 2005 in Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d834642f9853ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference David Brooks: Running Out of Steam.:
Comments
I’d (and on many issues in the US this is true of most Americans as well) rather have the liberals. No, not liberals in the American sense, but good old fashioned Classical Liberals.
Sadly, you greatly overestimate the appeal of Classical Liberalism. For example, both US parties are far less protectionist and anti-immigration than the public. (See some of the papers by Bryan Caplan for some of the evidence.) If the public favors the Democratic Party's solutions on education and health care, then they certainly don't favor classical liberalism either.
Please show me evidence that the majority of American people really favor classical liberalism solutions on lots of issues. I'd love for that to be true, but I don't buy it.
Posted by: John Thacker | Dec 8, 2005 7:28:59 PM