[Vision2020] The Conservative Mind

Art Deco art.deco.studios at gmail.com
Tue Sep 25 03:30:37 PDT 2012


  [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>

<http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=a2404275/25ec968b&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787510c_nyt5&ad=Sessions_120x60_Aug20_NoText_Secure&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fthesessions>

------------------------------
September 24, 2012
The Conservative Mind By DAVID
BROOKS<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/davidbrooks/index.html>

When I joined the staff of National Review as a lowly associate in 1984,
the magazine, and the conservative movement itself, was a fusion of two
different mentalities.

On the one side, there were the economic conservatives. These were people
that anybody following contemporary Republican politics would be familiar
with. They spent a lot of time worrying about the way government intrudes
upon economic liberty. They upheld freedom as their highest political
value. They admired risk-takers. They worried that excessive government
would create a sclerotic nation with a dependent populace.

But there was another sort of conservative, who would be less familiar now.
This was the traditional conservative, intellectual heir to Edmund Burke,
Russell Kirk, Clinton Rossiter and Catholic social teaching. This sort of
conservative didn’t see society as a battleground between government and
the private sector. Instead, the traditionalist wanted to preserve a
society that functioned as a harmonious ecosystem, in which the different
layers were nestled upon each other: individual, family, company,
neighborhood, religion, city government and national government.

Because they were conservative, they tended to believe that power should be
devolved down to the lower levels of this chain. They believed that people
should lead disciplined, orderly lives, but doubted that individuals have
the ability to do this alone, unaided by social custom and by God. So they
were intensely interested in creating the sort of social, economic and
political order that would encourage people to work hard, finish school and
postpone childbearing until marriage.

Recently the blogger Rod Dreher linked to Kirk’s
essay<http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/what-is-a-conservative/>,
“Ten Conservative Principles,” which gives the flavor of this brand of
traditional conservatism. This kind of conservative cherishes custom,
believing that the individual is foolish but the species is wise. It is
usually best to be guided by precedent.

This conservative believes in prudence on the grounds that society is
complicated and it’s generally best to reform it steadily but cautiously.
Providence moves slowly but the devil hurries.

The two conservative tendencies lived in tension. But together they
embodied a truth that was put into words by the child psychologist John
Bowlby, that life is best organized as a series of daring ventures from a
secure base.

The economic conservatives were in charge of the daring ventures that
produced economic growth. The traditionalists were in charge of
establishing the secure base — a society in which families are intact,
self-discipline is the rule, children are secure and government provides a
subtle hand.

Ronald Reagan embodied both sides of this fusion, and George W. Bush tried
to recreate it with his compassionate conservatism. But that effort was
doomed because in the ensuing years, conservatism changed.

In the polarized political conflict with liberalism, shrinking government
has become the organizing conservative principle. Economic conservatives
have the money and the institutions. They have taken control. Traditional
conservatism has gone into eclipse. These days, speakers at Republican
gatherings almost always use the language of market conservatism — getting
government off our backs, enhancing economic freedom. Even Mitt Romney, who
subscribes to a faith that knows a lot about social capital, relies
exclusively on the language of market conservatism.

It’s not so much that today’s Republican politicians reject traditional,
one-nation conservatism. They don’t even know it exists. There are few
people on the conservative side who’d be willing to raise taxes on the
affluent to fund mobility programs for the working class. There are very
few willing to use government to actively intervene in chaotic
neighborhoods, even when 40 percent of American kids are born out of
wedlock. There are very few Republicans who protest against a House
Republican budget proposal that cuts domestic discretionary spending to
absurdly low levels.

The results have been unfortunate. Since they no longer speak in the
language of social order, Republicans have very little to offer the less
educated half of this country. Republicans have very little to say to
Hispanic voters, who often come from cultures that place high value on
communal solidarity.

Republicans repeat formulas — government support equals dependency — that
make sense according to free-market ideology, but oversimplify the real
world. Republicans like Romney often rely on an economic language that
seems corporate and alien to people who do not define themselves in
economic terms. No wonder Romney has trouble relating.

Some people blame bad campaign managers for Romney’s underperforming
campaign, but the problem is deeper. Conservatism has lost the balance
between economic and traditional conservatism. The Republican Party has
abandoned half of its intellectual ammunition. It appeals to people as
potential business owners, but not as parents, neighbors and citizens.




-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120925/669b0d6b/attachment.html>


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list