One of the interesting things about maintaining a blog is that ultimately, it devolves into a conversation with yourself about what you think regarding a variety of subjects. Some liken blogs to “thinking out loud” and that may be true to an extent. But there is a difference between writing and thinking – a very large difference.
I believe, as Sir Francis Bacon did, that “Reading maketh a full man, conference, a ready man, and writing, an exact man.” Writing forces you to condense your thinking, to slough off extraneous concepts not germane to the subject until you are left with the very essence of your thoughts, allowing an examination and ultimately, a judgement regarding their efficacy relating to your own worldview and ideological principles.
In this way, blogs allow both the writer and the reader to trace the growth of ideas and concepts – buttressing some, discarding others, and amending still more while trying to stay true to a coherent set of principles – a set of core beliefs that would require considerably more than atmospheric changes or transient events to alter.
No human mind is capable of being entirely consistent. We are not, after all, machines. Emotions are constantly in play as we wrestle with our consciences while seeking to remain faithful to our own intellectual self-image. Blogs are extremely useful in this regard because they allow the writer to hold up a mirror and examine their reflection over a long period of time. How has our thinking changed? Where have we taken a different road? Are our principles still intact, our beliefs still valid?
I hope you will forgive this rather lengthy digression into esoterica but to me, this is the interesting part of the journey to self-discovery; trying to ascertain how we think as well as discovering what we think is why writing makes us “exact” in our efforts to know ourselves better.
I bring all this up because I have written extensively over the last three years about the nature of modern conservatism and how it is slowly becoming irrelevant to large segments of the American electorate – largely as a result of the unrealistic and indeed, fanciful adherence by conservative politicians, pundits, and even some intellectuals to ideas and principles that have become as outmoded in their own way as Marxism.
Generalizing the problem, many conservatives are mired in a Reaganesque fantasyland where the mantra “small government, low taxes, less regulation, and strong national defense” is repeated ad infinitum as if saying it loud enough and often enough makes it true – despite the fact that except for a strong national defense, the rest of these “principles” are as outdated as central planning and a command economy.
The essence of the problem is that both liberals and conservatives today see government as almost a living thing to be hated or loved depending on one’s point of view. Government is not alive, although it is close to existing as a force of nature so large and nearly uncontrollable it has become. Instead, government should be seen as a utility to be organized as best as can be humanely done so that it becomes a servant of the people and not their master.
Believing that we can roll back the size of government and make it “small” is a pipe dream and, along with the idea that we can demand government do a million things and not raise the taxes to pay for them as well as ask government to protect us from impersonal corporations who seek to destroy competition, exploit workers, endanger our environment, foist their dangerous products on us, and generally wreak havoc on our lives and families without someone looking over their shoulder is absurd.
The idea that the market will fix dangerous working conditions for miners or force companies to end exploitive work rules and policies in service industries is just not tenable in a 21st century industrialized democracy. Neither will the market clean up toxic waste, sensibly protect the environment, establish minimum standards for drinking water and breathable air, or ensure that some of the remaining green places left in the United States can be enjoyed by our grandchildren.
These are not luxuries that we can afford to privatize or do without. They are as vital to our survival as the new Air Force fighter being developed. The question that should occupy conservatives is not whether we should have strict standards for drinking water but rather how do we reconcile conservative principles with the needs of the people in a modern society?
For conservatism to survive and even thrive, a new paradigm must be realized that recognizes we live in a different world than the one inhabited by our ancestors and that many of the old verities we cherished are just no longer relevant to what America has become. For better or worse, the United States is changing – something it has always done and always will do. Without altering most of the core principles of conservatism, it should be possible to change with it, supplying common sense alternatives to liberal panaceas for everything from health care to concerns over climate change.
Obviously, there is no lack of ideas in this regard if you read the policy prescriptions appearing on the pages of Heritage, AEI, Cato, or other places where academics and policy wonks gather to supply these alternatives. But there seems to be a disconnect between the thinkers and the doers – politicians, pundits, and activists. Having read most of the Republican candidates stands on issues, outside of Fred Thompson’s detailed critique of entitlements and his ideas on a muscular kind of federalism, there isn’t much in the way of deep thoughts being generated in this campaign so far. In fact, there appears to be little in the way of original thinking at all; just a rehash or recycling of projects and programs that wouldn’t stand a chance of passage in Congress.
Now I am not saying that conservatives should compromise their principles to gain success in the legislature nor am I saying those principles should be abandoned in order to gain electoral victory. But there is a difference between having a vital conservative movement that shapes and informs government and one that has no relevancy whatsoever to modern America.
This is where my thinking has taken me these last three years – a recognition that conservatism needs to have its best and brightest strike out and find new ways of defining what it means to be a conservative in 21st century America. Obviously, my poor efforts here on this blog amount to little except some relatively unformed, nebulous thoughts on what I see as a need for this change. I make no claim to being an intellectual or even that thoughtful. But where else can you pour your brains out and examine the contents but a blog? That is what I’m doing here and I hope you take it for what it’s worth; the musings of a concerned conservative who is unhappy with the state of the right as it stands now.
Michael Tomasky at the Guardian got me thinking in this direction this morning:
That is, Americans have now experienced a conservative government failing them. But what lesson will they take? That conservatism itself is exhausted and without answers to the problems that confront American and the world today? Or will they conclude that the problem hasn’t been conservatism per se, just Bush, and that a conservatism that is competent and comparatively honest will suit them just fine?Conservatives and the Republican presidential candidates hope and argue that it’s the latter. They largely endorse and in some cases vow to expand on the Bush administration’s policies – Mitt Romney’s infamous promise to “double” the size of the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, notably. Like Bush, they vow that tax cuts, deregulation and smaller government will solve every domestic problem. Where they try to distinguish themselves from Bush is on competence. Romney talks up his corporate success, Rudy Giuliani his prowess as mayor of New York.
Is it the messenger or the message that’s at fault?
Just asking…
1:00 pm
[...] Right Wing Nut House » KILL THE MESSENGER! OR IS THE MESSAGE ALREADY DEAD? [...]
7:58 am
The message needs to be rethought for Conservatives and Liberals alike for sure.
The GOP better at that than the Dems and one just need to look at the diversity of thought in the GOP debates (especially with Paul there) vs the Dems. The GOP hashes out principles for new times; the Dems triangulate the differences.
My money is with the GOP this time.
8:37 am
I recognize the process of blogging from the last couple of years doing Yankeewombat.com. I’ve come to very similar conclusions myself about how much blogs are about our own development and I’ll see if I can do a piece on the media aspects of the effects of blogging on the blogger at my newer blog newmediatheory.net. Ironically I tend to think of conservatism as ahead of liberalism (my background) because it reinvented itself more recently under Thatcher and Reagan. So a conservative calling for new blood and ideas is good news indeed. That is supposed to be the job of the ‘progressive’ side of politics, but of course its everyone’s job. I believe the left have a nascent neo-left in things like the Euston Menefesto but it hasn’t really gelled yet. I think the radical left is as reactionary and empty as a cabal of clerical monarchists. ‘Hey, I like the Christianist iconography of your Che t-shirt dude.’ Or whatever.
If I had to point at one issue where I think a new conservativtism might make a real contribution it’s the debate on national healthcare that is coming up in the US sooner or later. I say that from Australia where we have both a national and private heath care system and after many adjustments to both by both our Labor Party and more conservative Liberal Party we have a very good system worthy of study. It seems to be working well because we have managed to make them complementary in a way that each acts as a safety net for the other and each keeps the other relatively honest.
Put another way the market doesn’t work that well for healthcare, but I think market principles can be utilized if government sets public and private entities up in a way that the players are forced to modify their behavior or lose out to the rival system. If waiting lists get too long, more people buy private health insurance. If private care gets too expensive more people drop their private coverage and rely on the government system. I like the idea of a conservatism that deals with today’s problems and institutions on the basis of hard experience rather than ideology that fixes it gaze on an impossible future in the middle distance.
8:43 am
[...] Rick brings up a subject we should all think about: For conservatism to survive and even thrive, a new paradigm must be realized that recognizes we live in a different world than the one inhabited by our ancestors and that many of the old verities we cherished are just no longer relevant to what America has become. For better or worse, the United States is changing – something it has always done and always will do. Without altering most of the core principles of conservatism, it should be possible to change with it, supplying common sense alternatives to liberal panaceas for everything from health care to concerns over climate change. [...]
9:17 am
Excellent post. The only thing I might suggest requires review is the ‘conservative’ identification with certain type of personal ‘values’.
There is nothing ‘wrong’(well there might be something ‘wrong’ with some of them IMO, but that’s just me) with those values, but there is possibly a great deal wrong with some of the ‘messengers’ and the message format. ‘Social Conservatism’ has distorted the whole movement, and while it has provided short-term gain, I think it will inevitably provide long-term pain as well.
9:22 am
Doug:
Good point about social cons “distorting” the conservative movement.
From what I’ve read, people like Hayek et. al. see conservatism and “values” in a quite a different light than the anti-abortion/anti-gay marriage crowd.
10:00 am
“The idea that the market will fix dangerous working conditions for miners or force companies to end exploitive work rules and policies in service industries is just not tenable in a 21st century industrialized democracy.”
But you are forgetting one of the markets that do fix the kinds of problems you describe. It is called politics wherein what are exchanged are not goods and money, but votes, lobbying, ideas, propaganda, and such for government action.
11:18 am
I think your “poor efforts” have been outstanding. Thanks.
” – a recognition that conservatism needs to have its best and brightest strike out and find new ways of defining what it means to be a conservative in 21st century America”
I can’t imagine how it’s helpful to define what it means to BE something. I’d rather have the best and brightest analyzing jihadi internet traffic. I used BE a “liberal democrat” till I discovered it’s all great society horsepoop. Bush claims to BE a conservative but he’s definitely not an idealogue, otherwise we wouldn’t have ‘no child left behind’, a huge push for amnesty, a tera-buck prescription drug program, Clintonesque deal-making with the Norks, and perhaps a nation-building program in Iraq. [Now John Bolton is a real conservative.] But I like Bush despite all the mistakes because almost anyone else would have caved on Iraq with disastrous results. What I’m saying is, I’ve decided not to BE anything (though the looney left would probably call me a fascist). For example, I could support Guliani because the struggle against the beheaders is paramount. The main thing is to make the main thing the main thing.
I think you comment on the free market fixing miners’ working conditions is exactly right. The free market can take care of most things, but not all. I’d never want to abolish OSHA, but the Dept. of Education is a different matter.
11:57 am
Then do me a favor and start your own damn movement just do not call it conservatism. To believe that the concept of small government is pipe dream is ludicrous. You are off the reservation pal! You make the government small by cutting programs. Conservatives used to do that back in the old days. Now that we have a Bush that calls himself a conservative but has no concept of what that means; suddenly we need to change the conservative movement so it can remain relevant? Give me a break! It is exactly because of lost soul navel contemplating conservatives like yourself that we will spend the next POTUS outside of the white house while we try to “parse†our message or “triangulate†the issues for the modern age when all we need to is be a principled conservative.
12:03 pm
You make the government small by cutting programs. Conservatives used to do that back in the old days.
I rest my case.
2:44 pm
No matter how diligent you are with a Clintonian word parsing, the ‘let’s get real’ conservatism that you seem to favor still boils down to “Socialism Lite”. Socialism, even Socialism Lite, under your new, properly-enlightened conservatism, is doomed to failure.
The end game is the same, no matter which brand of Socialism you choose. Eventually, there are just too damn many parasites and too few achievers to support them, bringing down the entire Socialist house of cards in a momentous implosion.
The only difference between Socialism and Socialism Lite is the time it will take for the Socialist regime to reach critical mass and collapse. If my ultimate destination is the same, no matter which path I choose, why would I opt for your scenic route (enlightened conservatism) when the direct route (voting Demoncrat) puts the American Experiment out of its misery, quickly, mercifully?
You’ll probably call me a political Neanderthal but I happen to believe that the American Experiment can still work. When the dust from the collapse settles and the parasites who gnawed away America’s foundations are condemned to the fate they so richly deserve, those pesky rugged American individuals will emerge to pick up the pieces. They’ll dump your ‘we need to get real’ conservatism into the trash heap and get back to those denigrated American basics: a limited government whose primary function is maximizing inalienable individual liberty.
It’s as simple as, “If at first you don’t succeed…”
5:09 am
Good to see the doors open again here.
Both the parties have lost their way—the right to the paranoid moralists and the left to I-have-no-idea-what. IMHO, it’s not the parties or ideologies that are adrift, its the politicians.
None of them DO anything anymore. Remember when Senate hearing actually had an effect beyond just getting soundbites recorded? When natinal disasters were responded to, rather than photographed in front of? When wars were taken seriously? When politicians had beliefs and fought for them? Now its doing the bare minimum to get re-elected, and God forbid a politician actually try to accomplish a goal. Much easier to just talk about them on the Sunday talk show circuit.
7:57 pm
With grace and elegance W. F. Buckley could shred many a Liberal program or view. What started out as an intellectual movement has become Limbaugh and a bunch of Evangelicals. Drop the liberal bashing, go back to the roots of the movement and start again. True Conservatism, has a lot to offer, and I think a widespread appeal.