Conservatives on Their Heels

The TypePad service crashed for most of the day, and I lost a good chunk of a post I was preparing this morning. In that piece I want to address the reasons that contemporary GOP-conservatism, which is not real conservatism (see here and here), is an ideology that leads to inevitable social and political disaster. In other words, I want to talk about why it has failed and why it will continue to fail.

I haven't the energy to rewrite it now (I will later), so instead I refer you to a piece by Paul Waldman as a prologue to what I was planning to write about.  Here's his outline for a talking-points strategy about how Democrats can stop playing defense and start performing their role as the robust opposition.  That's the Dems' main role now, to stop the GOP abuses.  Whether they are the ones to lead us into the future remains to be seen; it's not going to happen as they are presently constituted.  So, as I have said before, a vote for the Democrats is the truly conservative vote at this point in our political development. Here's Waldman:

1. Conservatism has failed. The overwhelming majority of the American public now sees the Bush administration as a failure. They failed in Iraq, they failed after Hurricane Katrina, they failed on health care, they failed to deliver rising wages, they failed on the deficit, they failed, they failed, they failed. Why? Liberals need to argue that it wasn’t a product of incompetence, it was a failure of conservative governance. As Alan Wolfe put it in a recent Washington Monthly article, “Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well.” 

Conservatives had their chance: a Republican president, a Republican Congress, Republican-appointed courts—in short, the perfect environment for enacting their vision with little to stand in their way—and they failed. Should we be surprised at the level of corruption? Of course not; they don’t think government is there to serve the people, so why shouldn’t they raid it for whatever they can grab? 

In short, progressives should start talking about the Bush administration’s failures not as those of a president, but of an ideology. 

2. Conservatism is the ideology of the past—a past we don’t want to return to. Liberals need to embrace the culture war, because we’re winning. The story of American history is that of conservative ideas and prejudices falling away as our society grows more progressive and thus more true to our nation’s founding ideals. Conservatives supported slavery, conservatives opposed women’s suffrage, conservatives supported Jim Crow, conservatives opposed the 40-hour work week and the abolishment of child labor, and conservatives supported McCarthyism. In short, all the major advancements of freedom and justice in our history were pushed by liberals and opposed by conservatives, no matter the party they inhabited at the time.   

Conservatism is Bill Bennett lecturing you about self-denial, then rushing off to feed his slot habit at the casino. It’s James Dobson telling you that children need regular beatings to stay in line. It’s a superannuated nun rapping you on the knuckles so you won’t think about your dirty parts. It’s Jerry Falwell watching “Teletubbies” frame by frame to see if Tinky Winky is trying to turn him gay. Conservatism is everyone you never wanted to grow up to be. 

3. Conservatives are cowards, and they hope you are, too. We’re afraid, they shout. We’re so afraid of terrorists, we have to become more like the things we hate. We’re so afraid, we have to let our government sanction torture. We’re so afraid, we have to let the government spy on us. We’re so afraid, we have to give the president dictatorial powers. We’re so afraid, we just want to rush to the arms of politicians who say they’ll protect us. 

Progressives need to frame their rejection of the fear campaign as an act of courage: Al-Qaida does not scare us, and we will not dismantle our democratic system because we are afraid. The America we love does not cower in fear, as the conservatives want it to. 

These are just a few ways progressives can begin to talk about contemporary issues in the context of the larger ideological conflict that shapes our political history. As an added bonus, when we make clear just what it is we are against at its fundamental, philosophical level, we define for the public who we are and what we stand for. 

One of the troubling contradictions in contemporary public opinion is that while on nearly every issue the progressive position is more popular, the number of people willing to tell a pollster they consider themselves “conservative” still far outnumbers the number willing to say they’re “liberal.” It wasn’t always that way, and it doesn’t have to be that way. Winning converts isn’t just about convincing people you’re right on the merits of issues, it’s also about showing them that your side is one they want to join, and the other side is one they want to avoid.

I think the word "liberal" should be retired.  Our political nomenclature has evolved to label political ideologies that have almost nothing to do with what the words mean.  Libertarians are the only true liberals, and for some reason they mostly think of themselves as conservatives.  Whatever.  The label 'Liberalism' only made sense to describe what most Democrats believed when its primary task lay in fighting an entrenched traditionalist establishment to invent something new. They aren't doing that now.  They are the establishment fighting a rear-guard backlash under the banner of Traditionalist/Christianist values and Libertarian leave-me-alone-ism.

Comments

[Mike McG...]

Paul Waldman's grotesque portrayal is both unfair and unhelpful. This isn't to say that there aren't people who fit his conservative profile. It is to say that he is wide of the mark in his understanding of the majority who claim conservative identity.

Self-labling is a more complicated than it seems; the options are severely limited. When *forced* to choose between Waldman's progressives and Rove's conservatives, a wide swath of America prefers the later. Not the best choice, in my estimation, but holding these people in contempt is, well, contemptible.

Millions of American are equally estranged from the cultural sensibilities of the secular left and the religious right. These are the people who decide elections. Our task is to understand alienation from all directions and create a vision that embraces rather than excludes.

Which is why I find afterthefuture hopeful as a rejection of the binary identity choices foisted on people.

[Jack Whelan]

Mike--

I'd be interested to hear what others think. Maybe I'm wrong, but the point here is that GOP conservatism is failed, and people who are honest conservatives don't realize that they have bought a huge package of misrepresentations. I don't know how to get that message across except to call it as it is. There is nothing in Waldman's characterization of GOP conservatism that I think is untrue. What part of it do you find distorting and contemptuous? These guys are really, really bad.Read Alan Wolfe's article here

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.wolfe.html

What part of this don't you agree with?

[Mike McG...]

"Liberals need to embrace the culture war, because we’re winning...
+ "Conservatism is everyone you never wanted to grow up to be...
+ "Conservatives are cowards, and they hope you are, too..."
= hard sell to American voters.

If the cultural landscape is as stark as Waldman describes, then by all means, 'call it as it is.' They bad, we good. Or better, they dumb, we smart.

I found this comment telling: "One of the troubling contradictions in contemporary public opinion is that while on nearly every issue the progressive position is more popular, the number of people willing to tell a pollster they consider themselves “conservative” still far outnumbers the number willing to say they’re “liberal.”

Evidently conservatives aren't clever enough to recognize themselves in Waldman's characterization of them. Or, perhaps, Waldman has something to learn, about both how converts are won and how conservatives have no lock on hypocrisy.

I, too, will be interested in what others think, Jack.

[Jack Whelan]

Mike--

I'll try to address your concerns in the longer piece on this subject that I'm writing which is more in the tone of the Alan Wolfe article. But to address your immediate comments, what I take Waldman to be talking about is the conservative leadership. The problem is that lots of people who self-identify as conservatives are supporting "conservative" leaders who don't represent what they really believe. Why is it wrong for someone to aggressively make that case?

My goal on this blog is always to speak truly and to avoid the cheap shot. And if I've done the latter on occasion, I regret it. But sometimes doing the former requires bloodying a few noses. Sometimes the truth hurts. Sometimes there's no other way.

Do you identify with James Dobson, Tom Delay, Karl Rove, etc.--are they the kind nof people you want your kids to grow up to be? Do you not agree that the administration's repeated appeals to fear are the opposite of a call to courage as I've been talking about it on this site? And wouldn't you agree that courage is the last thing that these leaders want the American people to show? Don't they really want weak, compliant, base which is easy to manipulate? Isn't that what all demagogues want? Isn't that just a backwards way of saying they want cowards for followers?

Maybe Waldman's packaging could be improved, but to me the substance of his remarks are spot on when talking about the GOP leadership that identifies itself as conservative. Maybe you don't think things have gotten that bad, but what fi I do, and what if I others like me are right?

My take on why people with fundamental liberal attitudes don't want to be identified as liberals is because Liberals have been aggressively branded by the right-wing noise machine as wimpy losers. Who would want to identify with them if that's the way they and most of their friends think of them? I know your experience has been different with a certain contemptuous, snarky brand of Liberal, but on the national stage, the liberals have been supine and ineffective--they have allowed themselves to be tramped upon by the much more aggressive stategy of the "conservative" leadership. And if they are to gain respect, they have to show some fight.

The Dems need to go on the offense because the good of the country depends on there being a robust opposition. It's the so-called conservatives that have changed the culture into a war--that's Waldman's point. Fair-minded Liberals are at a disadvantage insofar as they think this is some kind of parlor debate. The conservatives took their gloves off a long time ago. These people are thugs, and they must be vigorously opposed and resisted. I know this isn't true for you, but I think that a lot of people whose values are liberal but who don't identify themselves as such would more readily self-identify as Liberals (or whatever term better describes a robust oppostion to the right), if the Liberals would show a little spine and fight for what they believe. And a part of that means attacking what is ridiculous, subversive of democratic values, and ineffective in conservative governance.

[Mike McG...]

Jack:

I don't believe I misrepresented Waldman's words. He did not sharply distinguish between self-proclaimed conservative leaders and conservatives as a demographic. You do. There is a difference. A huge difference.

I fail to understand how calling progressives on grotesque stereotpyes of conservatives bespeaks identification with Dodson et al. I too am troubled by the conservative leaders mentioned. Apparently, though, I'm not troubled enough to pledge fealty to their progressive mirror images. Where you see differences in positions I see commonalities in style...and in intolerance.

If the progressive message isn't getting through, perhaps the messenger ought to consider reframing it. If conservatives per se aren't the object of their ire, progressives should say so.

Brookings' William Galston at a recent Pew Trust gathering confirms that the message isn't getting though to an important segment of conservatives:

"If you look at the relationship between church attendance — frequency of church attendance, and not party identification but ideological identification — you will see an unbroken linear relationship. The more regularly you attend church, the more likely you are to regard yourself as a conservative; likewise for liberals: the less you attend church regularly, the more likely you are to consider yourself a liberal. And it is about as linear and unbroken a relationship as you will ever find in statistics concerning American politics. Not surprisingly, given the extraordinary alignment of ideology, party identification and voting in 2004, you see that relationship mirrored in the religious divide of the 2004 election. You can see Bush’s numbers go down steadily as the level of church attendance declines. Kerry’s numbers go up steadily as religiosity declines — once again, a perfect inverse relationship, totally linear."

I know these are people progressives love to loathe. If posturing is all that matters, we can just tell them to take a hike. If winning elections matters, we better listen to them.

[Jack Whelan]

Mike--

I think I differ from you insofar as you see an equivalent threat posed by the right and the left at this time. I think (tell me if I'm wrong)that there is a presumption on your part, as with many other moderates that I know like those at Ambivablog and Donklephant, that we have a system where the right and the left are more or less eqaually matched. That might be true of the electorate, but it's not true in the halls of power.

It looks like the right with the failures of the current administration has blown its most recent opportunity, and now the left will shift back into the driver's seat and stay there until sooner or later they blow it, and so the process will see-saw on forever.

But I don't see us in such a balance, and I don't see the right giving up power so long as they have support of of 45% or more of the electorate.

I think our situation is very precarious. We're talking about power, the right has it and the left doesn't, and the way the right abuses power is beyond disturbing--it's downright scary. The social dynamics typical of rightist political movements in a time of social confusion is a far more dangerous threat to our society than any threats posed at this time from the left.

Anyone like you who has been a longtime reader knows that I am not a knee-jerk supporter of Democrat causes. But I want the Dems to perform the job of a robust opposition. Now I don't know how they can do that without getting a lot tougher. The "reasonable" fairminded left loses time and time again because it is continuously outmaneuvered by the bully tactics of the right.

I don't pick up on it the way you do, but let's agree that Waldman's tone is every bit as contemptuous as you say it is, and also agree that adopting such a tone has some tactical liablilities. Nevertheless, from my point of view, it's more important that the Dems show that they have some fight in them and are willing to be a strong voice of resistance. Better that they err in Waldman's direction than continue supine.

The GOP's "conservative" philosophy has led to disaster after disaster and it needs to be exposed for the disaster-prone ideology that it is. And unfortunately that requires that the conservatives who have been conned (Do you not agree that they have been conned?)by the conservative leaders they have supported have to be made aware of this unpleasant fact. Nobody wants to admit that they've been conned. To his credit, people like Andrew Sullivan have admitted it (see near end here: http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/07/suskind_again.html ), and maybe it's only former true believers who can deliver this message. I don't know, but if you are aware of a nice, reasonable way to do this between now and November, let me know of it.

So on the tactics issue, Mike, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Did you read the Alan Wolfe article linked to in my first response to you? Do you find the same offensive tone there?

[Mike McG...]

Jack:

We disagree less than you may think. I have no problem with your tone.

I do not see equivalent political threat from right and left. As you have often noted, the threat from the right is ominous and present, while there is no threat, properly speaking, from a neutered left.

Where we differ is on the relative imporance of politics and culture. While the former is clearly under conservative control, the latter is just as clearly in the progressive domain. My life experience and job (in social work) lead me to accord more emphasis to culture. While I often disagree with the conservative rx on cultural issues, I find their sensibilities more defensible than most of my progressive brethern.

What mystifies me is the tendency of lefties like Waldman to conflate the views of conservative voters with those of conservative politicians. Perhaps they think that mocking/hectoring conservative voters about their passe' worldview will result in their seeing the light. I think it is rather more likely to solidify their conservative allegiances.

I did read Wolfe. His tone is not objectionable to me. His target is clearly the conservative political elite. Any yet, in the passage that follows, I believe he misunderstands most conservative voters. A large chunk of the electorate does *not* wish to embrace individualism *nor* to shed reverence.

"As this litany of lost causes suggests, our conservatives, while representing different regions and economic interests, were united by their irrelevance in the face of history. If the term reactionary is too pejorative, let's call them reactive. In this entrepreneurial, mobile, innovative, and individualistic country, conservatism was constantly on the defensive, aiming to preserve things--deference, reverence, and diffidence, to name three--that most Americans were anxious to shed."

[Jack Whelan]

I think you misread Wolfe--He's saying that conservatives are the ones that wanted to preserve deference, reverence, and diffidence, while other Americans were eager to shed them and embrace individualism.

I don't know that Waldman is conflating--he seems pretty much to be targeting the same people that Wolfe is. But the problem lies in that the real conservatives should be the ones most revolted by what the Gingrich/DeLay mafia are doing in conservatism's name. Some are. But too many are not, and so the question is how to alert them to the fact without insulting them. Any ideas on that part of it?

[Matt Zemek]

Mike and Jack:

First of all, great conversation between you two.

I have to say that I agree more with Mike here. I think that in the prevailing politico-cultural climate, standing up and "calling out" conservatives/Republicans on their failed policies and the inauthentic conservatism of the current administration would only create resentments and inflame tensions that would increase resistance to the Dems and the left in general.

The climate is too polarized, the phraseology and tactics too predictable and cookie-cutter for people to develop new frames of meaning and reference that enable them to see issues and politics in a new light. Conservatives won't have a "come to Jesus moment" (reference to religion unintentional...) if a liberal/Democrat tells them how wayward they've been.

The Democrats do need to be tough, Jack, but they need to be tough in asserting what they themselves stand for, and how they're going to fight for it in a way that respects a religious sensibility and a more mature (less libertine and culturally excessive) lifestyle that both political and cultural conservatives would welcome.

As horrible and harmful as the current powers are in Washington DC, the solution--the avenue for real and positive change--lies in the Democrats rediscovering the voice they had in the mid-1960s during the civil rights movement.

This pathetic spectacle here in Washington State involving Marc Wilson and Maria Cantwell is EXACTLY the kind of soulless, self-interested whoring (Wilson for being bought off by the Cantwell campaign, Cantwell for insisting on supporting the Iraq War and trying to leverage power instead of acting on principle) that, as long as it continues (and we sure see it in Hillary Clinton...), will keep Americans rightfully cynical and, moreover, resistant to any attempts on the part of Dems/liberals to "call out" conservatives on their failures, delusions, etc.

[Jack Whelan]

Matt--

I think the Dems strategy has to have both an offensive and defensive dimension. I think they really have to present themselves as the mature stable force for social democracy, as the party which believes in government and has a track record of making government work to serve needs and solve real problems effectively.

Then their offensive strategy should focus on the things that Wolfe and Waldman focus on--the dismal record of failure during the GOP domination of all three branches of government. I don't see why anybody would call such a strategy as polarizing. It's simply pointing out the obvious truth. What Wolf's article-- http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.wolfe.html --does is more subtle. He shows that this kind of failure follows with an inevitable logic from conservative philosophy and attitudes toward government, and I think he's dead on. This is an argument I plan to pursue and develop on this blog.

I think that Mike and you are both right to be concerned about people being turned off by a polarizing attack. I don't think this will be a problem if the thrust is to attack the leaders and not those who support them. I think Mike's problem with Waldman lies in that he sees his attack focused on conservative supporters of the administration and GOP leaders as one package. It shouldn't be that hard to separate them out and to target the one while appealing to the good sense of the other. There's no point in worrying too much about the 33% or so who are truly extreme right wingers.

It's the 33% in the middle that the Dems have to win over, and I'd agree that the Dems should not adopt a rhetoric that they would find alienating. We might agree or disagree what kind of rhetoric might be going too far, but whether the message is shouted or spoken gently, the bancruptcy of this GOP philosophy of American governance must be exposed and repudiated.

[Matt Zemek]

Jack,

I just took the time to read Wolfe. Goodness, that's brilliant analysis! It does contain the seeds of a great political argument.

But what we must remember is this: a Democrat must establish his/her chops and credentials first. America will be watching the Democrats more keenly than the Republicans in the lead up to 2008. The Democrats are the party many people would like to vote for, but can't endorse unless or until one of their candidates shows notable credibility, courage of conviction, and clarity in articulating goals and plans.

The Wolfian refutation of conservatism as a governing philosophy/mode should be part of the larger package, but it absolutely MUST come secondarily, after the Democratic candidate's establishment of a:

1) clear;
2) credible;
and 3) principled...

...overall vision for the country, a vision articulated with reason, depth, and common sense.

If the Dems don't give people good reason to give them a chance and rehabilitate their image, it won't matter what the Republicans are horribly inept at doing. Rove, or the other Machiavellis/Mark Hannas of the political right, will Swift Boat the Dems; raise frightful amounts of cash; and drive turnout in their base by putting up 10-15 (more) gay marriage ban amendments in battleground states, just like 2004.

Before it's all said and done, a scathing but sober critique must be leveled at the Republicans, but the cornerstone of a shift in power, a losing election for the Republicans, begins and ends with the Democrats waking the heck up and newly establishing themselves as a party people can actually feel good voting for. That MUST be the primary task for Dems; knocking the R's is an inherently secondary objective.

[Jack Whelan]

Matt--

I agree with you that it would be great if the Democrats could present themselves in the way you describe, but the truth is that I don't have great expectations of the Democrats. I see us in more of a holding pattern and the Democrats as they are presently constituted as simply the default choice. They are after all the establishment party under attack, and they should be able to make a case for themselves on the basis of stability and competence alone.

My main concern is the threat from the right, and at the very least neutralizing it, and if possible completely repudiating it.